Tensions arising out of a growing sense of entitlement of religious places in the country have been eased a bit by the recent remarks of two influential ideologues—RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat and president of Jamait-ulema-Hind Maulana Mehmood Madani. What they have said will certainly not quick fix bonding of the communities, but their assertions have certainly brought in a sense of reasoning in the ongoing debates on religious entitlements. The catharsis perhaps may pave the way for some convergence and meeting of minds in the near future. The conflict is arising due to victimhood claims of both Hindus and Muslims.
RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s remarks have come at a time when the Indian Muslim community is restless. A large section of Indian Muslims believe that their religious identity is under attack and, therefore, there is a churning within the community.
In his Nagpur address, Bhagwat said that present day Hindus and Muslims cannot be held responsible for actions of the past by foreign invaders, who engaged in abominable acts of violence to further their political interests. The RSS chief’s statement helps take off the monkey from the back; people actually had no control over actions of the past 800 years. Therefore, they cannot and should not be asked to own up the acts. Nor should anyone be shamed for what happened even before they were born.
His remarks have released the tension of a direct confrontation. His words bring some relief among the Indians, a majority of whom don’t approve of divisiveness on the religious grounds. As a way forward, Bhagwat also suggested that disputes such as Gyanvapi Mosque, Mathura Eidgah and others could be resolved with out of court settlement; if that doesn’t work out then legal recourse is available. He also said that disputing the ownership of all mosques in the country doesn’t make any sense.
The RSS had mobilized people for reclaiming Ram Mandir in Ayodhya and that objective has been achieved and there are no further such plans, he had said. Interestingly, on the other hand, Jamait-ulema-Hind leader Maulana Mehmood, in his Deoband address to the community made some very interesting points. In a highly emotional speech, he said Muslims will not leave India and will not let any other country defame India.
Read between the lines, these statements suggest that he meant to say that Indian Muslims have the patience to resolve the issues even if there are challenges, but their attachment towards the nation cannot be challenged at any cost. Indian Muslims are emotionally connected to the great nation, which they call their home.
It is not surprising that Maulana Mehmood Madani’s speech was criticized by some Muslim political leaders, who said he projected Muslims as a weak community. Though Madani made a strong point that sense of entitlement of Indian Muslims is as good as anybody else’s. Several Muslim clerics welcomed RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s statement. They said what he said makes sense provided such statements rein in the Hindu fringe groups. In the past, they have complained this has not happened. And that the fringe elements should not be allowed to have their way. This is a fair point.
The fact that Bhagwat’s statement has had resonance and was welcomed by a majority of Muslim scholars and religious leaders is indeed quite significant in the prevailing tense situation. Hindus want to reclaim what they believe were their religious places of worship and were desecrated in the past by Muslim invaders.
On the other hand, a series of events which have played out over the last four years has given Muslims reasons to worry; therefore, they like to cling on to their religious identity, though their identity as Indian Muslims is very different from the Muslims in other countries of the world.
These two contrarian points of view are widening the gap, creating a rift, especially in the absence of any conciliatory statement from the politicians in power. Some Muslim political leaders, who don’t even represent the entire Muslim community, are making things worse by giving statements which have inverse reaction from the majority community. Such leaders are doing more damage than any good for the community.
Therefore, RSS chief Bhagwat and Jamait President Maulana Madani’s remarks appear to be an oasis in the desert and not a political mirage. Through their speeches, they built narratives which could be taken forward for meaningful dialogues.
Historical accounts suggest religious places were desecrated by the foreign Islamic rulers. These events were not unique to India; as per historical records, such events have happened in other parts of the world as well such as Umayyad mosque in Damascus. Ayasofia mosque in Istanbul, which was a Christian church, was converted into a mosque with remodeling and additions such as minarets and areas for ritual ablutions. Good sense prevailed some time back and now it has been converted into a museum.
In other instances, Arab leaders drew up plans for the first mosque at the center of a military camp. Historically, many Islamic dynasties have constructed immense monumental mosques to mark their authority, for example the Abbasids’ Great Mosque of Samarra, or more recently, the Hassan II Mosque in Casablanca.
It was perhaps more of a political compulsion for the Muslim rulers for domination as religion and politics in Islam are closely related. Whatever has been the reason, centuries down the line, their acts are seen with grave contempt. However, such destructive acts are not limited to the Muslim kings only. According Richard H. David, a Professor of Religion & Asian Studies, Bard College, in his essay states Jain and Buddhist shrines were destroyed by Hindu kings. Buddhist statues, stupas and viharas were demolished in India in the name of revival of Hinduism. Both literary and archaeological records speak volumes of the violent acts against Buddhism. A number of Buddhist viharas were usurped and converted into Hindu temples.
Historian Romila Thapar, which we have grown up reading in our school history books, has stated that Hindu ruler Pushyamitra Sunga demolished thousands of Buddhist stupas which had been built by Ashoka the Great. Similarly, several English authors from the British Raj period such as Murray T. Titus and Cunningham have given detailed accounts about desecration of the religious places by Muslim invaders who came into India from various parts of the world.
Indian author Prafull Goradia, in his book Hindu Masjids, has done in-depth research and has even drawn a clear distinction between a mandir converted into a masjid, in contrast to a mosque built with the rubble of a demolished temple. His book was published in 2002 and interestingly in the beginning of his book, he writes: “Friendship between the Hindus and the Muslims is essential if India is to catch up on its lost centuries.” He took the pains of personally visiting each and every disputed religious structure before he wrote his book. But he says his intention was not to humiliate fellow Indians who happen to be Muslims or to arouse anger which may lead to bloodshed. The author’s intentions, he says, were to unite the Indians.
Indian Muslims have rightly disputed that all mosques built in the past were made by demolishing temples or on the debris of Hindu religious places. In the present circumstances and conflicts, if such matters cannot be settled amicably outside the courts, best bet would be to enhance the capabilities of the scientists and the archeologists, their assessments would be most crucial in finding the truth behind the entitlement of the disputed religious structures. Aided by good investigation, Indian judiciary will certainly deliver justice.
Whatever may be the outcome, there are wonderful examples in the world to inspire religious co-existence. Indonesia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population, has beautifully preserved the temples in Bali. Its citizens take pride in their multi-culture religion.
Until the disputes on the religious structures are settled in India, the state governments will have to ensure law and order is under control before and after the judicial processes are completed. Fringe groups from both the communities will have to be reined in. Politicians with extreme views, irrespective of their political parties, will have to hold their horses. We must not forget that whatever we do today will become history tomorrow, our future generations should not suffer for the actions we take today.
The fact that Bhagwat’s statement has had resonance and was welcomed by a majority of Muslim scholars and religious leaders is indeed quite significant in the prevailing tense situation. Hindus want to reclaim what they believe were their religious places of worship and were desecrated in the past by Muslim invaders. On the other hand, a series of events which have played out over the last four years has given Muslims reasons to worry; therefore, they like to cling on to their religious identity.
The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.
For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.
DROUPADI MURMU POISED TO BE THE PRESIDENT AFTER BJP CHOOSES HER
It is virtually certain that Droupadi Murmu, former Jharkhand Governor and Odissha’s Ex-Minister is going to be the next President of India after she became the unanimous choice of the NDA constituents as also some regional parties such as Biju Janata Dal and YSR Congress. The lady would also be the first tribal and the second woman to be the Head of the State and thus the country’s first citizen. Although the Opposition parties have fielded former Finance Minister and veteran politician Yashwant Sinha for the coveted post, it is most unlikely that the highly competent member of the Atal Behari Vajpayee’s Cabinet stands a chance given that it is all about the numbers game and they are heavily stacked against him. There is no doubt that Sinha would have been a very capable President but in choosing Droupadi Murmu, the BJP has made sure that the message of the Saffron Brigade’s commitment towards the tribals and economically depressed sections was reiterated. The tribals in large parts of the country have been voting for the BJP but under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the party has learnt the art of consolidating its support base. It would have been an ideal situation if the next President had been chosen through a consensus instead of a symbolic fight that would ensue. Yashwant Sinha has been a part of the BJP and may have many admirers in his previous party. However, it is not expected that any of his erstwhile colleagues would vote in his favour and even his son and former Union Minister, Jayant Sinha, the sitting MP from Hazaribagh, has made it clear that he would be voting as a member of his party and not in any other capacity. Droupadi Murmu would no doubt be the next President in the current scenario but she will have to face enormous challenges which could be very new to her. The President is the supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and is also a part of the Parliament in our system. She would have a large set of advisers to see her through difficult times, but in the end, it would be her own discretion and understanding of the entire system that shall stand by her at all junctures. Many Opposition leaders are apprehensive about her capacity to deliver and are unfairly undermining her choice. However, they must understand that in a democratic set up like ours, everyone has the right to aspire and occupy the highest office of the land. She is not being foisted but shall be duly elected by members of the legislatures and Parliament. Therefore, her rise to the esteemed position would be completely legitimate and it would be totally unnecessary to find any kind of fault in her. In fact, once she gets elected, the entire Nation should solidly back her and wish her well for a promising tenure. It would have been unthinkable many years ago that a tribal would ever be the President but if the BJP and its allies are making it possible, it is a tribute to their vision and acceptance of the need to promote economically depressed and socially deprived sections of our society.
The endemic of gun violence: An American tragedy
The Senate passed a bill on Thursday aiming at overhauling the existing laws on firearms.
The debate over the unimaginable carnage due to gun violence and privation of stricter gun control laws in the United States has grown and faded over the years and gets stirred frequently by incidents of gun violence. Last month the mass shootings at the Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, again reignited the fierce debate over gun control legislation in the country. Amidst the political divisions over how to address gun violence, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday to strike down a New York Law limiting gun-carrying rights of American citizens has expanded the existing gun rights in the United States. President Joe Biden was extremely disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision, as it “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should trouble us all”.
Guns have been woven into the fabric of American culture and politics since the Second Amendment (1791) to the U.S. Constitution affirmed that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. Gun legislations in the United States are built on the judicial interpretations of the Constitution and it was on the grounds of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments (1868) that in the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court, in its landmark decision, declared the ban on handguns as unconstitutional, therefore, reaffirming the individual right to possess firearms and use them for self-defence.
According to the National Firearms Survey of 2021, more than 81.4 million Americans above the age of 18 years own firearms, which makes up for almost 32 per cent of the adult American population. But the actual numbers are believed to be much higher as the prerequisite for a permit or registration to purchase guns is not a necessary requirement in all American states. America’s problem with gun violence is not limited to mass shootings, although the use of firearms is disproportionately higher in incidents of mass shootings compared to other forms of shootings, they are still relatively rare. In 2021, mass shootings accounted for less than 2 per cent of the nearly 40,000 fatalities resulting from gun violence in cases of homicides, police shooting, domestic violence, accidents and suicides which make up the highest number of gun-related deaths in the country.
Over the years, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), the US gun rights advocacy group has played a big role in pushing forward the idea that guns are necessary for self-defence. They believe that owning a gun is a basic right similar to their right to free speech, and gun control legislation is an effort to deprive law-abiding American citizens of their fundamental right to protect themselves. The NRA continues to oppose any effort to implement gun control policies and initiatives that override constitutional due process protections. It has shifted the narrative of gun politics where gun ownership is paralleled to patriotism and has become a political identity. Gun violence has taken more lives than any other public crisis in the US. Compared to other western countries, the US does not have an overall crime problem, but it certainly does have more lethal violence attributable to the prevalence of guns.
Over the years, the subject of gun rights has become an intensely partisan issue, with the Republicans voting in favor of protecting the gun rights and the Democrats voting against them and placing more importance on gun regulations. There are federal gun laws that apply uniformly across the whole United States, which ban convicted felons, people with mental illness and kids under the age of 18 years from buying guns. But the gun laws are not uniform across all states as there are state laws, and each state law has its own leeway to enforce their own regulations that are wildly at variance with one another. For instance, in Massachusetts which is a strong Democratic state, police permit and a background check to buy a gun is a legal requirement, whereas in Texas with a strong Republican state, there are laws that permit citizens to carry concealed hand guns without any permit. There are more than 20 states that do not require any permit for purchasing firearms. These differences reflect the underlying partisan divide which has grown wider in the last three decades and is the greatest political and ideological split between the Republicans and the Democrats compared to any other issue in the American political life.
The US Congress has repeatedly failed to pass tougher gun laws and legislative reforms even as public opinion strongly pushes for it, but the issue of gun control is a political battle than it is a public opinion battle. According to a Gallup poll conducted in 2021, only 52 per cent of the Americans believed in making stricter gun laws, a drop from 67 per cent in 2018. The United States is vastly divided on political partisan lines and gun ownership and these two divisions have created barriers making it difficult to move forward and overcome policy change at a national level.
President Biden considers gun violence as a public health epidemic and his plans to tackle gun control include investing in evidence-based community violence interventions to address the root causes of gun violence. After the mass shootings in Uvalde, the Biden Administration wants to toughen guns laws and make sure the ones that already exist are actually applied including zero tolerance policy for gun dealers who flout the rules. He also called for stricter laws to be imposed on ghost guns as these weapons are sold in parts and without a serial number so they cannot be traced. These are easily available kits which can be purchased online without a background check and can be turned into a fully functional firearm. Biden also wants to bring back the ban on assault weapons, mostly used in mass shootings. He himself authored the assault-weapons ban, which was in place for a decade until 2004.
Given the political climate and a divided Senate, President Biden has few realistic avenues to pursue gun control legislation without congressional action. The Democratic push for more gun control and regulation is often met with voters and politicians in Congress who believe that guns are not the problem and perceive it as an attack on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. There is always a promising consensus on potential legislation, but usually the prospects of a bipartisan action on gun control fades within weeks of mass shootings. The Senate on Thursday (23 June) passed a Bipartisan Gun Control Bill in a 65–33 vote, which will next have to clear through the House of Representatives before going to President Biden’s for his signature. The bill is considered to be an important legislation as it revises the measures such as expanding background checks for gun buyers under the age of 21 years and offering funding to states that have emergency programmes in place to seize guns from people deemed dangerous by a judge. But as the Senate worked towards this gun safety legislation, the Supreme Court overturned a handgun restriction.
Through the influences of culture and politics, the United States has a very powerful gun-centric movement where both gun rights and gun regulations have been respected, but at the moment gun violence is a public health issue. Gun homicides are number one cause of deaths for all youth in America, the No. 1 cause of deaths for Black men and the highest rate of firearms deaths among the world’s wealthy nations. Mass shootings in other western countries like New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada and UK have prompted these nations to enact gun reforms by imposing measures such as bans on semiautomatic firearms, stricter background checks and national registry requirement. To tackle the tragedy of America’s accelerating epidemic of gun violence there is need to address the divide on gun control regulation and find a common ground between Democrats and Republicans for a bipartisan outcome, which respects the Second Amendment, makes a significant headway into preventing gun crimes, ensures public safety and earns a wide support in the Senate.
The author is a doctoral candidate at the centre of Canadian, US and Latin American Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Reforms needed to overcome ills of representative democracy
The first basic question is how many of us understand the difference between representative democracy and participatory/direct democracy? For the record, we are a representative democracy where selected representatives are expected to debate, provide inputs from their constituencies and enable passing of legislations that push India into the next century.
The question that repeatedly haunts us is what is wrong with India when there is so much The question that repeatedly haunts us is what is wrong with India when there is so much right happening around us. Why are path breaking reforms that were pending for decades, resisted after they are legislated? The back lash to the most recent much needed Military reforms, preceded by farmers bill, labour reforms etc. are perhaps symptoms of a disease that is yet to be fully understood.Its contours are obliquely discussed in debates both in print and social media.
The first basic question is how many of us understand the difference between representative democracy and participatory /direct democracy? For the record, we are a representative democracy where the elected representatives are expected to debate, provide inputs from their constituencies and enable passing of legislations that push India into the next century. That the Parliament does not function and that all political parties play to the gallery are there for all to see. But there is no angst, peaceful marches or even vandalism to show our rejection of petty politics on display. But repeatedly one hears seasoned journalists, academics and the educated commentators state that not enough consultations with the people have been done and hence the backlash. Really? On a variety of complex social, economic, industrial, military legislations or executive decisions, can we have open consultations with a billion people-largely uninformed due to literacy/education related constraints? No.
That is why we have a representational form of democracy. Here lies the next challenge. Due to the very nature of politics right from independence, sane, educated, well meaning and knowledgeable citizens do not wish to be in the money-muscle power driven elections. Even the most talented, patriotic, and affluent citizen cannot hope to win an election. Criminals and those who impress the poor with material or political promises of freebies will ensure that outstanding technocrats never succeed.Hence the preferred route of Rajya Sabha for the truly deserving.
Now, coming to “we the people.”Those of us who are educated, comfortable and well-endowed while participating incessantly on the social media and rarely in print, do not bother to vote, The only means to eliminate criminals and frauds from being elected is to participate with the EC to stem the tide of self-serving, corrupt or even dynastic politicians.Holding the political party accountable for noncompliance with manifestos and rejecting freebies with severe fiscal and financial liabilities on much needed public funds are essential features for reforms at the people’s end. We have a responsibility that we have will fully shunned, as we the people do not necessarily wish to participate in the process of finding the right people to represent us. The media does not believe in exposing our politicians to well informed debates.
The latest reform concerning the Military are being debated with elected representatives who neither know the ranks and structure of the Military nor even the difference between recruitment of soldiers and the selection process of officers. Just recently an educated politician referred to the former Army Chief Gen JJ Singh as Major. But he vaxed eloquent on the reforms per se.
Veterans who participate in debates are guilty of indirectly accusing the present military Veterans who participate in debates are guilty of indirectly accusing the present military leadership (who are the only accountable people for operations), of the most elementary consequences of such reforms: as if the knowledge resides only in them. By so doing in public, they are casting aspersions on the competence of the serving community. For the record they all begin their argument with how timely such a bold reform is. But……and this is precisely the first red flag for creating confusion that could affect the morale of the serving community, when the serving Chiefs have repeatedly assured that they will plug loop holes as they progress.
That the Parliament does not function and that all political parties play to the gallery are there for all to see. But there is no angst, peaceful marches or even vandalism to show our rejection of petty politics on display. But repeatedly, one hears seasoned journalists, academics and the educated commentators state that not enough consultations with the people have been done and hence the backlash. Really? On a variety of complex social, economic, industrial, military legislations or executive decisions, can we have open consultations with a billion people-largely uninformed due to literacy/education related constraints? No.
Perhaps such senior veterans were too busy in their careers and forgot to mentor and train their subordinates who now occupy decision making positions. You reap as you sow.
The most important lesson is that, when a decision is taken, after consultations with stake holders and the details are not available with the veterans, the best way is to communicate with the current military leadership directly. That would be of immense value than debating with an anchor on a TRP hunt and a panel of bumbling politicians.
Mr K Subramanyam, the doyen of the strategic community till the 1990s and the Chairman of the Kargil Review Committee, once said, “ the politician enjoys power without responsibility. The bureaucrat wields power without accountability and the Military assumes responsibility without direction.”
The recommendations of the Arun Singh committee report were to specifically address this lacuna by integrating the services with the MOD and creating a single point adviser to the RM/PM on matters military through CDS. It took 18 years to begin the process and create structures. We must learn to be patient with this new born set up. The new CDS is likely to assume duty soon. We are moving along the right path.
But India needs major reforms in administration, police and judicial sectors, along with labour, land and agriculture to to take her to the next level of eminence in international politics. There are enough lessons learnt to attempt all of these, if there a will.
Vice Admiral SCS Bangara, PVSM, AVSM (Retd.)
CORRECTING PAST WRONGS A DUBIOUS ENTERPRISE
Mohan Bhagwat, the RSS Sarsanghchalak, on 3 June took the entire nation by surprise when he famously said, “Everyday, we tend to raise new issues, we shouldn’t do that. Why should we pick up more quarrels? Gyanvapi is a matter of faith for us as part of our tradition. What we have been doing is all right. But why should we go about looking for a Shivalinga in every mosque.” The supremo of the RSS, the ideological fountainhead of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), was referring to the Gyanvapi controversy, though older than the Ayodhya Babari–Ram Janmabhoomi dispute, which was revived after a local court in Varanasi ordered a survey of the mosque complex which Hindus claim was built on the rubble of a Hindu temple raged by Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb. It is interesting to note that the RSS ideologue further observed that the RSS was not interested to launch any agitation for the liberation of Gyanvapi as it has achieved what it set out to achieve on the Ayodhya dispute with Supreme Court verdict favouring a Ram Temple there.
Bhagwat’s remarks can be interpreted in two ways, however.
Anybody who has some sense of history would not disagree that upturning the historical wrongs is a dubious enterprise. Not so long ago a study by IIT Gandhinagar and Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) had revealed a three-storey structure and a Buddhist cave under the Somnath Temple in Gujarat. When the digging was in full swing for the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, Buddhist artefacts and other remains were found. Two PILs were filed in the Supreme Court to seek protection and preservation of the India’s non-Hindu ancient heritage. Justice Arun Mishra not only trashed the PILs but also imposed a fine on the petitioners. His opinion was not different from the six-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi which simply did not consider the Buddhist claim on the site while delivering verdict in favour of a Ram temple. It is a well-known fact that Ayodhya was historically a Buddhist pilgrim centre.
Neo-Buddhists and Dalits have been quite vocal about how ancient Buddhists shrines were usurped or destroyed and Hindu temples were built over their rubble. Amid the raging Gyanvapi controversy, Ratan Lal, a Delhi University professor was arrested by Delhi Police on May 20 over a social media post on Shivlinga. A week or so before, a Lucknow University professor was manhandled and beaten up by ABVP goons for his not-so-favourable views on Gyanvapi issue. Both these professors are Dalits.
At a time when the RSS is going an extra mile to bring Dalits and Adivasis into the larger Hindu fold, such incidents may play spoil sport. It is no surprise then if this factor weighed on Bhagwat’s mind when he made his famous remarks.
Bhagwat chose to put things straight amid another fierce controversy that Nupur Sharma’s intemperate remarks, which she had made against Prophet Muhammad during a TV debate, had created. Sharma had been sacked by the BJP top brass so had been Naveen Jindal a day before, and the backlash from the Gulf and other Muslim countries had taken India aback.
Over 15 Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Iran, had denounced the remarks. Many of them had summoned Indian ambassadors. Sharma’s had made those ill-informed and intemperate remarks when Vice President Vankaiah Naidu was in Qatar heading a Indian business delegation there. The Grand Mufti of Oman Sheikh Al-Khalili had called for boycott of Indian goods so did some other Gulf counties.
The controversy had not only dented India’s image among Muslim countries, as National Security Advisor Ajit Doval now candidly admits, but had put the spanner in the works of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has been so assiduously building bridges with Gulf countries. He was the first prime minister to visit UAE in 2015 after more than three decades. India’s foreign policy since then has put building trade ties with Gulf nations on top priority, which is not misplaced by any yardstick as it is essential for countries energy security. According to an estimate, 4 million Indians work in the Gulf, making remittances of over $80 billion every year.
Barely three days before Bhagwat spoke, the US State Department had in a report slammed India for attacks on members of minority communities. The government had to pull all stops to control the damage the controversy was doing to the country globally. It was left to Bhagwat to rein in on elements whose acts were frittering all the gains that Modi had made all these years.
The lesson: seeking upturning of injustices of the past committed by Muslim rulers is one thing, but building bridges with Muslim countries is an entirely different ball game. Both cannot go hand-in-hand.
Chinese belligerence on Taiwan: Rhetoric or substance?
The larger geopolitical context of the duel by Beijing and Washington over Taiwan needs interpretation and analysis with reference to the size of the Chinese economy, its increasing military prowess and belligerent diplomatic behaviour in its neighbourhood.
During the recently concluded Shangri-la Dialogue in Singapore, the Chinese Defence Minister Wei Fenghe declared that “China will not hesitate to start a war” to stop Taiwan from declaring independence. Perhaps, a reaction to US President Joe Biden’s reiteration of the US commitment to defend Taiwan last month on the sidelines of the announcement of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF). The message from Minister Fenghe, however, was loud and clear: Taiwan is integral to the Chinese geopolitical imagination. President Biden, since the inauguration of his presidency in January 2021 has been critical of Chinese military activities over and around Taiwan and has expressed strong support for Taiwan. China, on the other hand, with increasing frequency and number of fighter aircraft involved, has violated the Taiwanese Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ). It has also made several naval incursions and forays into the Exclusive Economic Zone of Taiwan.
The larger geopolitical context of this duel by Beijing and Washington over Taiwan, however, needs interpretation and analysis with reference to the size of the Chinese economy, its increasing military prowess and belligerent diplomatic behavior in its neighbourhood. That Chinese attitude and actions have caused apprehensions and disturbed peace in Western Pacific is now an established reality. For the US, this translates into erosion of its pre-eminence in international affairs and geopolitical dominance, acquired after disintegration of the Soviet Union. Its reputation as the sole superpower is at stake in the international system in general and in East Asia in particular. Furthermore, its strategic bases in the region stand threatened and their utility questioned, if it remains an onlooker in the event of such provocations. The US efforts, therefore, are directed towards restricting Chinese influence through diplomatic rhetoric, multilateral forums and deep-rooted historical alliances in the region. US counter-measures to deter China at various levels can be identified in the region, though the official line is to refrain from the terminology of containment.
Economically, as a bulwark against the strength of Chinese trade and business in the region, the US announced the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) last month. A geo-economic bloc, created to rival the China led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the IPEF excludes China along with Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos. IPEF focuses on four themes: Fair and Resilient Trade; Supply Chain Resilience; Infrastructure, Clean Energy and Decarbonization; and Tax and Anti-Corruption. These themes are reflective of the response to the disruptions of the supply chain caused by the Covid-19 pandemic; an oblique reference to the issues generated by Chinese debt-trap diplomacy; and the Sustainable Development Goals set up by the United Nations. Initial and substantial economic thrust to kickstart the venture may have to be borne by the US. Critical, however, to the success of the IPEF will be traditional US allies (Japan, South Korea) and India’s capacity to create alternative mechanisms to replace established Chinese raw-material acquisition and manufacturing networks.
With strong economic performance spanning three decades, China’s military expenditure has increased manifold. A substantial proportion of the expenditure is directed towards investment in defence technologies and innovations. Recently, the Peoples Liberation Army’s (PLA) twitter handles, in a show of strength, claimed that China has the best fighter aircraft in the world and the scientist at the PLA Rocket Force disclosed testing of hypersonic missiles. In both the instances, they tended to undermine US military capabilities. Combined with such rhetoric, frequent violations of Taiwan’s ADIZ, threatening US reconnaissance aircraft and accosting US aircraft carriers in the region, China’s actions disregard military conventions and established norms. To US’s credit, its armed forces stationed in the region, have responded firmly and have not been discouraged, especially with respect to Taiwan. Diplomatically, the US insists on China’s adherence to and respect for the “rules-based international order”.
US emphasis on the “rules-based international order” may sound hypocritical because its record in ratification and upholding of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea III is not enviable. The United Nations Association of Australia defines the “rules-based international order” as a “shared commitment by all countries to conduct their activities in accordance with agreed rules that evolve over time, such as international law, regional security arrangements, trade agreements, immigration protocols, and cultural arrangements” (UNAA 2016). China violates the UNCLOS III with impunity and regularity in the South China Sea and has been constructing military bases on islands whose sovereignty is disputed with states like Philippines and Vietnam. Adherence to rules, conventions and norms which China disregards has value in maintaining peace in the international order and functions even in most difficult situations.
Geopolitically, US efforts to remain a prominent and meaningful actor in the region have led to the creation of the Quadrilateral (Quad) dialogue with Japan, Australia and India and the AUKUS with Australia and the United Kingdom. Both these groups (especially Quad) have been vociferous in their demands to uphold the “rules-based international order” and the members have frequently mentioned China. Whether these statements impact Chinese behaviour remains to be seen, but responses from Beijing over the years have been aggressive in tone and tenor.
The US, through the Quad, AUKUS and the IPEF, has caused frustration in Beijing as these forums involve major regional actors. Taiwan and its independence, however, clearly and visibly is the most sensitive issue for China which generates immediate responses from China. Warmongering over the issue at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore is sensational and may signal the intent and emotions of the Chinese Communist Party-led government. Will these words translate into action? It remains to be seen. The US, with its rhetoric on the defence of Taiwan and accusations of destabilizing the region, has maintained its long-standing stance of One-China policy as evident through the Pentagon statement in Singapore. Chinese statement also focused on military cooperation, strategic cooperation and mutual trust and not turning conflicts and differences into conflicts and confrontations. In essence, the current rhetoric is intended to test the other side’s resolve on difficult issues, but serves its purpose as a deterrent vis-à-vis current events in Europe.
The author is Associate Professor of Political Geography and Geopolitics at the Centre for International Politics, Organization and Disarmament, JNU.
With strong economic performance spanning three decades, China’s military expenditure has increased manifold. A substantial proportion of the expenditure is directed towards investment in defence technologies and innovation. Taiwan and its independence clearly and visibly is the most sensitive issue for China which generates immediate responses from China. Warmongering over the issue at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore is sensational and may signal the intent and emotions of the Chinese Communist Party-led government.
China is involved in various disputes with its neighbours—including India, Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam—but none approach the degree of danger faced by Taiwan. China increases its military’s amphibious lift as China militarily threatens Taiwan through means such as ballistic missiles or amphibious invasion, in Hong Kong on 27 July 2021. ANI file photo.
THE FIRE IN AGNIPATH
The Agnipath scheme is off to a fiery start given the protests across the country, especially in Telangana, Bihar and the national capital. The Congress led a delegation to the Rashtrapati Bhavan complaining that no one was consulted before the announcement, the scheme was not presented before the Parliament Standing Committee, and at the very least, should have first been implemented via a pilot project. There have also been concerns about jobs for the 24 year old Agniveers who will not be absorbed in the army. Some opposition leaders have also pointed out that as with most of the Modi government schemes, this too was announced in haste without thinking the on ground implementation through.
All valid arguments, though there are equally valid arguments on the other side, the dominant one being that there is a need for a leaner, younger army. As Manish Tewari, Congress Lok Sabha MP and a former Union Minister, told NewsX that armies across the world are going in for a lighter footprint, and what one saves from the pension budget can be spent on modernizing the armed forces. He also pointed out that the idea was not as sudden as it seems, for way back in 1999, the Kargil Review Committee had recommended the same, that we should go in for younger and a learner armed forces. Tewari also wondered as to the opposition against Agnipath when there was no opposition against the Short Service Commission (introduced about two decades ago).
Perhaps as a reaction to some of the protests, the government has come up with assurances that some of the Agniveers would be absorbed in the state and central police forces. In addition, in an obviously choreographed manner, some industrialists have also made statements of job offers. Again, this is a criticism that could have easily been avoided if the scheme had been announced with a mandatory transition arrangement.
The one criticism that the Modi government cannot avoid—even by those praising the scheme—which is the way it was announced and implemented. There was no security risk here as we were told the government explained as to why the abrogation of Article 370 was done in such a furtive and swift manner. This was no surgical strike against black money where secrecy was essential as with demonetisation. This is taking away the dreams of hundreds of youths who spent their lives growing up, training to join the army. Those who had given or studied for entrance exams pre-Covid but their recruitment was put on hold due to the pandemic. Yes the government has addressed some of these fears with a one-time relaxation of the admission age, but again, it’s a step that could have been thought of earlier. And if the opposition had been taken along during the consultation process, they would have lost some of their moral right to protest. So we come back to the same old charge of a non-inclusive government. Though given the mandate PM Modi has, it’s a charge he is not going to take too seriously, despite the opposition crying hoarse, time and again.
Opinion2 years ago
South Block’s mistakes will now be corrected by Army
Sports2 years ago
When a bodybuilder breaks Shoaib’s record
News2 years ago
PM Modi must take governance back from babus
Spiritually Speaking2 years ago
Spiritual beings having a human experience
News2 years ago
Chinese general ordered attack on Indian troops: US intel report
Legally Speaking2 years ago
Law relating to grant, rejection and cancellation of bail
Royally Speaking2 years ago
The young royal dedicated to the heritage of Jaipur
Sports2 years ago
West Indies avoid follow-on, England increase lead to 219