Now that the disengagement process of Indian and Chinese “frontline” soldiers in certain areas of Ladakh has started, the question that arises is if India should rest on its “laurels”. Especially when experts are raising several questions about what India achieved in actual terms in the icy terrain of Galwan Valley and the adjoining areas. In this context, the two statements issued by the two sides, India’s Ministry of External Affairs and China’s foreign ministry on the disengagement, make for interesting reading. Apart from the mutual assertion that “differences should not become disputes“, the tone and tenor of the statements couldn’t be more different. India talks about the need to maintain status quo and insists on “restoration of peace and tranquillity”. While the Chinese statement couldn’t be clearer about who the offender is: “The right and wrong of what recently happened at the Galwan Valley in the western sector of the China-India boundary is very clear. China will continue firmly safeguarding our territorial sovereignty as well as peace and tranquility in the border areas.” But of course, in spite of the bluster, the answer to the question, “did the Chinese blink?” is “yes”. Else there would not be a disengagement. But there is a contrarian view that the Chinese blinked not so much out of their wish to ensure that “differences do not become disputes”, but because they knew they would be unable to hold ground because the Galwan river was in spate as the monsoons had arrived. As for the question, if the disengagement means restoration of status quo ante— the way things were in April this year—there is no clear answer to it as yet. Questions are also being raised about the creation of a temporary buffer zone—on the Indian side of the LAC—between the two frontline troops. As this essentially means that Indian soldiers, for the next few weeks, will not be able to patrol the areas they were patrolling all these years, and that there is a possibility that China will make this the “new normal” and push its claim line deep inside Indian territory.
In short, it’s not yet time to uncork the champagne bottle. In 1962, it was three months after the disengagement at the Galwan valley that the India-China war started. Even without drawing lessons from history, it can be safely assumed that at the most this disengagement is a pause, a blip in China’s grand imperial plan to resurrect the Middle Kingdom. Lack of war does not mean peace, definitely not when the enemy is China. A border mechanism was put in place so that India and China could sort out their “differences” at the level of the commanders posted along the LAC, but this time that mechanism failed spectacularly and intervention was needed at the level of the NSA and Foreign Minister to agree on a mere 1-2 km pullback. This proves that China is more than eager to ratchet up the tension and will not climb down easily—in fact not at all—from its stated positions. So this is the time to not only be vigilant but also to keep hurting Chinese business interests. The app ban should not be revoked. India should not hand on a platter its metadata to China by allowing Huawei to roll out 5G. This is also the time to clearly speak out against China’s overreach in Hong Kong, Xinjian, Tibet. Now that India has shown some spine in taking on China, that spine should not get buried, as India once again tries to manage its differences with China and keep it happy. We may admit it or may not, but the differences between the two countries have long been disputes.
Lord Ram is about inclusion
The Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust should be commended for sending the first invitation to the Ram temple shilanyas ceremony by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Iqbal Ansari, one of the main litigants in the Ayodhya case. It is a magnanimous gesture and a fitting tribute to what Lord Ram stands for—the Supreme Being, who is not just about Sanatan Dharma, but is above and beyond religion. He is an ideal that human beings aspire for. He is at the core of what is known as the Indic civilization, and is an intrinsic part of lives cutting across barriers of language, caste, creed and even international boundaries. It will be wrong to say, as the so-called left-liberal section claims, that Lord Ram is a North Indian phenomenon, with his influence not extending south of the Vindhyas, or even to the east in places like Bengal. This is ironic, considering several versions of the Ramayana have existed in different southern languages and the word “Ram” is among the most commonly used in South Indian names, including place names. As for Bengal, not too long ago, a Nobel Laureate had proudly claimed that Ram did not have any place in Bengali culture as this eastern part of the country worshipped the Mother Goddess. It was an uneducated claim, and coming from a Nobel Laureate, sad. After all, the biggest festival in the east, Durga Puja has its roots in the belief that it was started by Lord Ram in autumn, the reason why it coincides with Ram Navami celebrated in the rest of the country. In fact, almost all the languages of this country have had Ramayana handed down from generation to generation, sometimes as an oral tradition or as written in their respective tongues over the centuries. In fact, Ramayana is not just an epic, it is one of the finest examples of what is known as “racial memory” or “genetic memory”. What else will explain the spread of Lord Ram’s legend in South East Asia and beyond? Some of these countries are now Islamic but have proudly made the Prince/King of Ayodhya their own.
Even in Buddhist Sri Lanka, the isle of Ravan, whom Lord Ram vanquished, till date there is a much revered and visited Seetha Amman temple in Nuwara Eliya, where legend has it, Ravan had held Sita captive. All this is proof, if proof was needed that Lord Ram is about inclusion. He is a cultural and civilizational phenomenon. Hence, it is good that voices rising from the fringe of the majority community about barring the minority community from the shilanyas have been ignored. In fact, the temple trust has shown tremendous sagacity by inviting Iqbal Ansari, who too has risen to the occasion by saying “I believe it was Lord Ram’s wish that I receive the first invitation. I accept it.” The invite is a gesture of peace and amity to the minority community, aimed at ameliorating their hurt. It is hoped that laying the foundation stone of the Ram temple on Wednesday will be a major step towards upholding communal amity in the country as this single piece of stone will correct centuries of wrong done to the majority community, who were not allowed access to the birthplace of their most revered Lord—a discrimination unheard of in any other major world religion. Wednesday’s shilanyas marks the beginning of the end of the feeling of victimhood among the majority community, and will go a long way in removing a certain distrust that has crept into inter-community relations. It is also important to find a solution to the two other sites of Mathura and Kashi, as the trinity of Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi is at the centre of Sanatan Dharma and must be restored to their glory. This is needed to repair the breaches in India’s society.
The fantastic global saga of the Amritraj tennis dynasty
The dream, dedication and determination of parents Maggie and Robert Amritraj created an incredible world-beating family of champions in Anand, Vijay and Ashok Amritraj.
On 29 July 1973, six thousand spectators crowded the stands at the Mount Washington Resort in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in the US, to watch the finals of the Volvo International tennis tournament. The eyes of the sports scribes were glued on the thrilling contest between the local favourite Jimmy Connors and Vijay Amritraj, a 19-year-old national tennis champion from distant India. During the game, the American cocked his fist at the Indian player numerous times. Vijay with a maturity far beyond his years responded each time with his best smile that lit up the court. The graciously gifted Indian player who had earlier defeated top seed Rod Lever to reach the final exhibited deeply angled serves, penetrating first volleys and admired his rival’s best shots. Finally, the six-foot-four inches tall and lanky teenager won the game, set and match. Besides the trophy and the cash prize of $5,000, Vijay was also handed the keys to a brand new light blue Volvo sedan worth more than $7,000.
That day Vijay Amritraj made a name for himself and India. Overnight a global Indian sports superstar was born. With the first major win of his career as a tennis pro, he entered the top ranks of the global tennis fraternity. Bud Collins of NBC famously bracketed him among the ABC of Tennis — Amritraj, Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors. Impressed with Vijay’s courtly demeanour and artistic performance Geoffrey Green of the London Times described him “A Ranjitsinhji with a racket”. In India, his sensational triumph made it to the front page of the newspapers. In an unprecedented move, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi waived off the prohibitive import duty (160% of the cost) on the Volvo as it was a prize and not purchased. Eventually, the imported car with the 5555 registration number became a great curiosity in India.
For Vijay besides the natural talent, it was his selfbelief, family’s ambition, his father’s encouragement, and his mother’s can-do attitude that got him there.
Back in the 1950s Margaret Amritraj, popularly known as Maggie, the wife of Robert Amritraj, a senior official in Indian Railways in Chennai, introduced their three sons, Anand, Vijay, and Ashok to the game of tennis at a very young age. Every day from dawn till late night she made sure that the three boys were dedicated to the game of tennis. Under the watchful eyes of their parents, the three brothers from a middle-class Roman Catholic family became the first three siblings to dominate the game in India as topclass tennis players. The eldest Anand Amritraj held India’s junior title from 1965 to 1967, Vijay continued the family tradition from 1968 to 1970 and the youngest Ashok too became the top junior. The three Amritraj brothers displayed an overpowering array of serves, played precision tennis, and literally called the shots. They were hailed as the next best thing to happen to Indian tennis since the days of Ramanathan Krishnan, Jaideep Mukherjea and Premjit Lal.
Maggie Amritraj remained the moving force and the tough coach who instilled in her sons a hawklike focus where everything but the tennis ball was obliterated from the world. In the summer of 1974, the three Amritraj brothers made tennis history as they participated in the same edition of Wimbledon, the most prestigious tournament in the world, and played on the Centre Court. Vijay, in his autobiography, acknowledged the role of his mother and wrote: “How many families with all the right connections, facilities and geographical advantages try — and fail — to get one son or daughter through the gates of the All England Club with a competitor’s pass tied to their lapel? What kind of absurd vision did it take for one woman to believe that she could do it with three? I suppose you have to know my mother to have some idea; even then, knowing her as well as I do, I am not sure I can fully explain it.”
Soon the three very tall Indian boys accompanied by Maggie and Robert Amritraj became familiar figures in and around tennis courts around the world. It is no secret that the father invested all his life’s earnings on tennis for his sons. When not traveling, Robert Amritraj always dressed immaculately in white called on the newspaper offices in Chennai for the results of overseas tournaments played by the brothers. The boys did not let their parents down and won major international championships. The consistent victories and prize money led to a significant financial windfall. In addition, fans besieged the handsome brothers from India for autographs and photographs at the end of the matches.
In 1974, the chance to win the Davis Cup for the first time for India rested on the shoulders of Anand and Vijay Amritraj. The doubles victory in the zonal final against Australia 17-15, 6-8, 6-3, 16-18, 6-4, turned the two Amritraj brothers into national heroes overnight. It still stands as the longest tie in Davis Cup history. Following day after trouncing Australian Bob Giltinan in Kolkata, Vijay was swept off his feet by fans and carried him off the court. At the next stage of India’s Davis Cup campaign, Anand, clutching to the little medal with the Virgin Mary’s picture given to him by his mother, successfully routed Teimuraz Kakulia of the USSR in the five-set thriller in Pune to reach the Davis Cup finals. Now India’s hopes rested on the Amritraj brothers to beat South Africa and win the Davis Cup for India. South Africa with its official policy of apartheid insisted that Indian crowds at Ellis Park in Johannesburg would be segregated for the matches. The Government of India opposed to the racist apartheid laws of South Africa elected to boycott the finals. Though it was a lost opportunity for Indian tennis, the diplomatic move by India was appreciated globally.
Beyond the Davis Cup anticlimax, Vijay alongside Anand formed a formidable doubles pair. Together, they went on to win eight titles and played the semifinals of Wimbledon in 1976. Though the Wimbledon crown surprisingly eluded them, the Amritraj brothers came close quite a few times. Vijay reached the quarter-finals (the last eight) in the men’s singles, the men’s doubles (with elder brother Anand), and the mixed doubles (with Britain’s Virginia Wade) at the game’s greatest tournament.
Then in the summer of 1987, yet another diplomatic situation occurred that threatened to affect India’s survival in the Davis Cup. India won its firstround over Argentina and was to play with Israel in the quarterfinals. But since India had no diplomatic relations with Israel in those years the tournament was unlikely to take place. Demonstrating his diplomatic skills Vijay singlehandedly made sure politics did not interfere with India’s Davis Cup aspirations. Largely due to his interventions at the highest political level in a significant development the first Israeli sporting team arrived to play on Indian soil in two decades. On the court in New Delhi, Vijay and Anand brushed aside the Israeli challenge without dropping a set and won 4-0. Eventually, India ended as runners up to Sweden in the 1987 final.
Vijay was the best player among the three Amritraj brothers and the one who touched the stars. He had amazing durability — first professional matches in 1970, last in 1993 — 16 titles in singles, quarterfinals at Wimbledon and the US Open. In 1988, the global sports icon carried the Olympic torch at the Seoul Games. He was the top tennis player in Asia for 14 straight years and also enjoyed global popularity among the tennis fans and expatriate Indians. At the end of his matches, Indian immigrants would often come on the court and thank Vijay for being the inspirational figure for Indians worldwide. In 1983, Albert Broccoli, the producer of James Bond spy thrillers, approached Vijay to play an MI6 agent alongside Roger Moore in the thirteenth installment Octopussy. The Indian tennis champ who had no movie experience ended up playing at Wimbledon during the day and shooting for the Bond film in the evening.
Today the three Indian tennis players from Chennai have long retired from the court and the eldest of the three — Anand Amritraj — after being the non-playing captain of the Indian team for Davis Cup for years is a tennis prodigy-turned-businessman in California and married to Helen. Vijay has embarked on a career as a television sports commentator and businessman. Over the years Vijay has presented a TV show called Dimensions, interviewing celebrities including Donald Trump. Settled in Los Angeles with his wife Shyamala, he is now the brand ambassador for Aston Martin (the 007 car). The former United Nations messenger of peace has created the Vijay Amritraj Foundation, an international charity serving the deprived in India. The next generation of the Amritraj family, Anand’s son Stephen and Vijay’s son Prakash played tennis at the professional level. Now both Vijay and Prakash are popular onscreen TV commentators at Wimbledon and tennis tournaments globally while Vijay’s younger son Vikram is an attorney.
And the youngest of the three brothers, Ashok Amritraj after a promising Wimbledon final in juniors in 1974 and four professional victories swapped the tennis arenas for the film studios and went off to produce films in Hollywood. The most successful Indian export to Hollywood, Ashok is on top of his game after producing over 110 Hollywood movies that have grossed over $2 billion and won acclaim at Golden Globes and Cannes. Part of the Hollywood royalty, he now lives the glamorous life of a movie mogul in Bel Air with his wife Chitranjli and daughter Priya and son Milan. Recently he was conferred with the prestigious Chevalier, the French distinction of Order National du Merite awarded by the President of the French Republic.
Seen from a distance of half a century it is clear that the visionary parents of the Amritraj brothers were instrumental in shaping these glittering careers and founding the Amritraj tennis dynasty. Margaret Amritraj, the supermom of the world-famous Amritraj brothers, breathed her last on 20 April 2019, after a prolonged illness. Her husband, Robert Amritraj, had passed away in 2012 at the age of 91. Vijay in an interview recalled, “The idea that a Catholic family of India with no previous record of achievement in international sports could produce one son, let alone three, would have seemed absurd to any less determined couple than my parents.”
The Amritraj dynasty’s saga of fabulous fame and fantastic fortune continues.
Bhuvan Lall is the author of ‘The Man India Missed The Most Subhas Chandra Bose’ and ‘The Great Indian Genius Har Dayal’. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Non-personal data: Tread wisely in the new gold rush
India’s effort to regulate the non-personal data space stirs up various questions, whose answers will determine the course of business, economy, citizen rights and national sovereignty.
There is a distinction between rival and non-rival goods. Material goods cannot be used by multiple people at the same time, making them rival goods. On the other hand, information, ideas and data are non-rival which means they can be used by multiple people at the same time without reduction in their value or utility. Exclusive property rights which apply to material rival goods are inherently unsuitable to the non-rival domain. Reuse of the same set of data and information for multiple purposes is also not an issue. If one has it, do not exclude others from having it too. This reduced excludability has created the root cause for property rights problems in digital information technology such as: (a) piracy of copyright protected digital products, (b) privacy issues in personal data, and (c) private ownership of data.
The case of non-personal data coming out of sensor readings, or aggregated data which has been anonymised, is different, as it is not produced with a creative human effort. Hence the intellectual property associated with such data is not at par with a design or a formulation or a trade secret.
The Government of India recently received a report from the ‘committee of experts’ working under the chairmanship of Kris Gopalakrishnan. This expert committee was set up to deliberate a ‘Non-Personal Data Governance Framework’ with the following terms of reference:
1. To study various issues relating to Non-Personal Data.
2. To make specific suggestions for consideration of the Central Government on the regulation of Non-Personal Data.
While aspects of personal data protection, individual privacy and liabilities of various stakeholders are well covered under the (proposed Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, the current report opens a Pandora’s box in terms of ownership, economic utility, ethics and governance framework for non-personal and aggregated data.
Today’s economy is fast turning into a data economy, and market forces have created giant monopolies which hoard personal and non-personal data from various interactions and sensor readings. These data points streaming out of personal devices, cameras, measuring meters, QR code scans, administrative data from smart cities can lead to enormous gains in understanding about public health, security, economy and governance measures.
Adam Thierer in his book, Permission less Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom, asks a fundamental question: “Should the creators of new technologies seek the blessing of public officials before they develop and deploy their innovations?”
The answer to this question is polemical. The rise of tech giants which thrive on user generated data has created data monopolies and data barons. These behemoths not only create ‘big data’ every moment, but they have deployed huge compute and complex architectures which are beyond the reach of any innovator or new entrant to collect, access or process, let alone derive value from it. They also shape the environment in which businesses operate to create huge entry barriers utilizing a first mover advantage. It is time that public data is considered as a species of commons and not the sole property of the business or organisation which generates it during the course of its transactions or commerce. While data as a commodity is being monetised through data brokers, it is not available to researchers, governments, startups and the public at large.
Unlocking of big data from the confinements of proprietary ownership will need to have standards, interoperability and norms of sharing in place before we reap its benefits. Apart from the commercial value of the data, there is a great potential to improve dimensions of human life like: (a) public health; (b) personal safety and (c) violence against the person. And with benefits comes the potential for misuse as the dramatic reduction in the cost of conversion, copying and transmission of digital content between carriers significantly reduces the natural excludability barriers conferred on information by its material carrier and technology becomes more ubiquitous.
Data has a net asset value, and despite the rapidly growing volume and economic importance of data in the digital economy, legal aspects surrounding data are somewhat ambiguous because there is no well-established property right regime for data. Ambiguity on aspects of data ownership, access and trade, and De facto data ownership dominates and often leads to fragmentation or anti-commons problems in data. Similarly, there are multiple areas of law or different legislative regimes that surround or cover data but none of them covers the whole field of data related issues. For actors within the data economy, this scattered legislation presents significant challenges. This is especially true regarding non-personal data, since the rules under the Information Technology Act and pending Personal Data Protection Bill provide lex generalis for personal data while the free flow of non-personal data regulation only regulates specific issues. Some issues are regulated whilst some are not.
Data trustees and stewardship
In order to ensure that data sharing processes are transparent, privacy is safeguarded and individual control over data is enabled, the data stewardship models will play an important role. This can be implemented effectively if principles of independent governance, transparency and purpose limitation are adhered to.
The defining qualities of stewards: (a) to be able to exercise independent governance and (b) act as impartial and neutral actors with no conflicting interests or desire to commodify data, can be put in action by instating a trustee board that provides oversight and checks for compliance of the steward.
In order to increase transparency, information about key decisions or actions taken by the steward that may have implications for the sharing of stakeholder data must be made available to concerned parties. Purpose limitation requires that the steward restrict data processing for anything outside the scope of consent that was negotiated with beneficiaries. The possible routes to achieve this are via consultations to secure consent and build data use policies and form data sharing agreements.
The world will generate about 90 zettabytes (approximately a billion terabytes) of data in 2020. By 2025, worldwide data is expected to grow to 175 zettabytes. Digital Information has replaced oil as the world’s most valuable commodity. In order to become a digital economy, India needs to develop a new architecture for systematic data collection and grading, data access and sharing, and data analytics among a wide variety of organisations.
Data value chains that cut across organisations currently do not exist. The risks and uncertainties associated with data sharing between organisations, even between divisions or branches in the same organisation, are inhibiting data sharing and therefore the need for foundational standards to bring clarity to intended users across new data value chains, establish common parameters, allow for interoperability, and set verifiable data governance rules to establish and maintain trust between participants and with regulators.
India’s effort to regulate the non-personal data space stirs up various questions, whose answers will determine the course of business, economy, citizen rights and national sovereignty. A fresh approach to non-personal data should lead to greater digital transparency, removal of entry barriers for smaller players, improve choice and efficiency, improve competition and create a level playing field for all.
Brijesh Singh is Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra, and Khushbu Jain is a practising advocate in the Supreme Court. Views expressed are personal.
Mohammad Rafi: The eternal voice of India
Forty years have passed since Mohammad Rafi, arguably India’s greatest playback singer, passed away, yet his songs continue to enthrall billions of people the world over. Rafi’s sudden death had left the entire film industry in a shock, and actor Shammi Kapoor, for whom the singer sang some of his most memorable songs, confessed that on 31 July 1980, he had actually lost his voice. Life for him, like innumerable Rafi fans, was never the same again. When his body was being laid to rest in the Juhu graveyard, it poured non-stop. It was evident that even the Gods were crying and the heavy rain did not prevent his admirers from paying their homage.
The singer’s versatility was unmatched by any of his contemporaries, and he provided perfect playback for actors as diverse in talent as Dilip Kumar, Raj Kapoor and Dev Anand, besides comedians like Johnny Walker and Mehmood. There was hardly an artiste who did not sync his lips with Rafi’s voice. Kishore Kumar, another doyen of the times, held him in very high esteem and once when attempts were made to run Rafi down, wrote a letter to the Filmfare, that even he was a great Rafi fan. Not many people know that the phenomenal singer also lent his voice to Kishore Kumar, not once but on at least four occasions. Although people found it odd to believe that a gifted artiste like Kishore would have needed someone to sing for him, the fact is that both in Ragini where Rafi crooned “Man Mora Banwara” to O.P. Nayyar’s music or Shararat when Shankar Jaikishen composed “Ajab hai dastan teri hai zindagi”, it was Rafi who sang for Kishore.
The hallmark of the notable singer was that he had great humane values as well. When Laxmikant Pyarelal embarked on their musical journey, Rafi just accepted Re 1 as token money for his first rendition under their baton, while wishing them a bright and musical future. Many of his philanthropic activities came to light post his demise as some of the beneficiaries went to his home to pay their respect. Every singer has clones but no one could ever imitate him completely. The Anwars, Shabbir Kumars and Jaspal Singhs, all tried to sing the way the thespian sang, but always fell short of his high exacting standards. Even at the peak of his glory, he always rehearsed before going to the recording room. There was a time when Rafi and Lata Mangeshkar had differences over the royalty issue, sending the entire industry into a panic mode. Shankar Jaikshen, the top most composers of the time, who also provided music for innumerable Lata hits, chose to side with Rafi when it came to recording duets. Lata was replaced by either Suman Kalyanpur or Mubarak Begum. But to everyone’s relief, the dispute was short-lived.
Rafi was the King of melody and along with Manna Dey, Mukesh, Talat Mehmood, Kishore Kumar and Mahindra Kapoor will always be remembered.
Opposition must speak carefully on diplomacy, national security
In the book, Why We’re Polarized, Vox’s Ezra Klein quotes Princeton political scientist Markus Prior on the nature of political coverage transforming over the years. According to him, the critical factor is not access to political information, but interest in the said political information. Prior says, “The digital revolution offered access to unimaginably vast vistas of information, but, just as important, it offered access to unimaginably more choice. And that explosion of choice widened that interested/ uninterested divide. Greater choices let the devotees learn more, and the uninterested know less.” This is one of the reasons Republicans and Democrats live in “nearly inverse news media environments”.
Since the current-day media presents us with a dichotomous picture, issues of electoral importance lose their balance on the scale. This interest in political information has given a choice to the voter to strengthen a narrative that he/she thinks is relevant. Digital penetration has skyrocketed in the last five years. Smartphones and cheap data have summoned democracy at their fingertips. This perception, amplified by the media, sometimes transforms into a concrete political agenda that parties rally on, like in the case of the “India Against Corruption” movement.
Charting new territory
Matters such as national security have made a foray, electorally, for the first time. Other primetime debates of the past in the likes of corruption, unemployment, and inflation have found their abode in the distant pavilion. An outward look at issues such as national security is in continuation with the narrative the BJP was building for the voters in 2014. If the 2014 campaign ran on the plank of development, 2019 was about a projection that said that the development could come only if there’s a certain sense of security. It seems logically linear to bring these issues up.
But like never before, national security has started negating electoral prospects for a party or a candidate, if the voters choose to act upon it. A certain degree of novelty exists in this discourse of laying importance on regional geopolitics. A lot of the criticism for the government came majorly from internal issues, and this effectively deflected them all. The Opposition remained divided. There was no single platform/issue on which the previous elections were held. The Opposition was not equipped with a response when these outward-looking issues spiralled during the election campaign. From a slightly more dynamic perspective, issues of national security are a relatively strong point for the BJP during the polls. Campaigning on national security was not just a useful talking point, but also a “masterstroke”.
In more ways than one, national security became a major electoral issue in the 2019 elections. Historically, it has been different. In 1965, immediately a year after the passing away of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, India waged war against Pakistan and secured a decisive victory. Despite these two significant factors coming into play, the Congress’ vote and seat share reduced, though they managed to form the government. In 1999, soon after the Kargil war with Pakistan, Atal Bihari Vajpayee won the general elections but couldn’t sustain it till the next Lok Sabha polls in 2004. After 26/11, one of the biggest attacks by a terror outfit on Indian soil, the UPA managed to bounce back in 2009. Before the previous general elections, there was a section of political pundits and election observers who said that issues of national security might not necessarily be taken seriously by all the voters. Without further ado, they were proven wrong. While unemployment, farmer distress, and jobs were the main concern for many, the Balakot airstrikes seemed to turn the fortunes for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
The political spectrum in India has been chasmic, to say the least in recent years. The political differences are not layered anymore, unfortunately. These binaries have ensured that the political debates on any subject remain black and white. Centralising the blame on the Prime Minister for all matters, big and small, has earned the Opposition a reputation of being “compulsive contrarians” (as Arun Jaitley used to call them). The BJP may not have offered anything new on the platter, but the recent developments most certainly come with political baggage of the past for the Opposition.
For instance, a little more than a decade ago, Nepal faced a triangular power contest. India was responsible for brokering a deal between the rebel Maoists and the political parties. As soon as the Maoists dropped arms and decided to contest elections, they were voted to power in less than three years. The then PM Pushpa Kamala Prachanda visited India, created a buzz in South Block, hugged Dr Manmohan Singh, attended a special lunch hosted by Sharad Yadav and even spoke at business chamber meetings. Since then, there has been no looking back for the comrades in Nepal. This has put India on a very sticky wicket since then. Professing about what changes need to be made to Nepal’s policy seems packed with chicanery at this juncture, after everything that’s happened.
The memory-span of voters may be short-lived, but the Opposition needs to exercise precaution while flagging any criticism on matters of national security. Matters of national security and integration are a special, restricted plane of debate. It is not wrong to raise the right questions, but the approach has to be careful since these issues are subject to heavy public scrutiny. Stand by the government in times of crisis. Show some statesmanship. Offer better alternatives in terms of policies and leadership. Just being critical will not paint an image of offering a credible alternative to the BJP. National interests must be kept in mind, regardless of who is in power and who isn’t.
Focus on dual technology to strengthen defence capability
While India has fared well in the past with visionary legends like A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, it further needs to enhance indigenous defence capability with dual-use technology.
Earlier this week two Sukhois escorted five Rafale fighter jets in the Indian skies. It was a spectacular moment, which brought joy and filled every Indian’s heart with pride. Even the media newsrooms were abuzz and excited about the arrival of the new generation air power.
The touchdown of the first instalment of the new-generation fighter aircraft brought about a much-needed feelgood factor in the backdrop of Chinese tension at Ladakh. The magnificent aircraft, which are now part of the Indian Air Force arsenal, are known for their deadly ability to strike air-to-air targets from up to 150 km. They bring with them a sense of security.
They can safely hit land targets 300 km within enemy territory. The French aircraft are the first major air defence acquisition in 23 years after Sukhoi jets were imported from Russia. While China kept quiet when this event played out, Pakistan’s response was predictable.
Anything which makes India powerful is a thorn in Pakistan’s flesh. A spooked Pakistan Foreign Ministry reacted by urging the world community to take note of “India’s efforts to amass military capabilities beyond its genuine security requirements.” Clearly, Pakistan is rattled with the development especially in the backdrop of the beating it got in Balakot.
The late President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Kalam’s reply to a student he once gave is a betting reply to Pakistan. When a student asked him why a peace-loving person like him tasked his country’s scientists and engineers to build missiles, he replied: “In the 3,000-year history of India, barring 600 years, the country has been ruled by others. If you need development, the country should witness peace, and peace is ensured by strength. Missiles were developed to strengthen the country.” Historically India has never overemphasised its defence needs over the development. It has only acquired what was required.
It is ironical though that India has to repeatedly remind the world community that it is a peace-loving country. But when push comes to shove India knows how to defend itself. There was a time when India did not get support from the world to enhance its weapon capability. Yet under the leadership of Kalam India developed missile, submarine and nuclear weapons technology.
The multi-billion Rafale purchase for the country’s self-defence is much required and gives an edge over the inimical neighbours. But this need also brings an understanding of the need for indigenisation of defence technology. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had given a major push in direction under the Make in India plan after he took over in the first term.
The concern is while India is importing new-generation fighter aircraft from France, China is making aircraft of matching caliber in its own country. This has been possible due China’s shrewd use of dual-use technology it has acquired from the US over the decades. India needs to harness this aspect.
As we know dual technology could be used for both peaceful purposes and development of weapons, for example nanotechnology. While over the decades the US became majorly dependent on China for outsourcing manufacturing it had no option but to transfer the technology. China not only used the technology transfer to enhance its manufacturing sector but also to build a robust defence capability. China over the decades has been discreetly using the US knowhow to develop offensive warfare technologies. It is another thing that their technology has not been war tested for a long time.
India had made several strides in the acquisition of dual use technology from the US and other countries since the 1980s. Over the years it has developed knowhow to develop advanced systems and technologies such as nanotechnology, information technology, communications satellites, artificial intelligence, robotics, and unmanned systems along with nanoweapons.
When India carried out nuclear tests in 1998, the world woke up to the country’s capabilities both in terms of its scientists and use of technology. It raised several eyebrows. Following the tests India faced a tough time of the US sanctions which continued until President George W. Bush after 9/11 terrorist attacks decided to waive off the sanctions. It was though a tactical move but following this decision India also got its share of dual-use technology transfer from the US.
US Undersecretary of Commerce Kennith Juster and Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal met to establish the US-India High Technology Cooperation Group, which sought to stimulate bilateral hightechnology commerce and strengthen the relations between the two countries.
In this understanding the two countries understood the importance of enhancing trade in ‘dual-use’ items, including controlled ‘dualuse’ goods and technologies while protecting the national security and foreign policy interests of both the countries.
In spite of India having a good track record in this regard when Kanwal Sibal travelled to Washington he was asked about critical remarks coming out of the US Congress regarding nuclear, high-tech, and space technology transfers between US and India. He gave a befitting reply. He said in the US policies are not simply made by the administration; they are also made by Congress. So there is tension within the US system.
He added, India is not a member of Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and it does not subscribe to Missile Technology Control Regime. Yet, there is to be nuclear and space cooperation. Since India is not a party to the instruments that exist to deal with non-proliferation or missile technology, there is a conundrum. He had said; “Our answer is we are what we are.”
While India has been under close scrutiny of usage of dual-use technology, China has had its way all along. A report in 2003 stated that China ranked third in the world in the number of patent application cases concerning nanotechnology, only behind the US and Japan. But one year later China owned 12 per cent of the world’s total nanotechnology patents.
When the developments of China’s military programme became known, the US Defence Department in its annual report said Beijing has and will continue to enhance its satellite tracking and identification network — the first step in establishing a credible anti-satellite weapon capability. China could only destroy or disable satellites only by launching a ballistic missile or space launch vehicle armed with a nuclear weapon. However, there are many risks associated with this method. On the basis of interest China showed in this field, DIA had a strong sense that Beijing was eventually capable of developing a laser weapon capable of damaging or destroying satellites.
This realisation had also prompted India to take up dual-use technology more aggressively. Realising its mistake of unbridled dualuse technology transfer to China, the US became inclined to aid India in the use of transfer of dual technology as a balancing act. However, India has not been able to benefit from the transfer of technology as much as China did.
While in the short term there is a need to strengthen defence capability through necessary imports like Rafale, in the long run India must indigenise its capabilities in the sector. In his inaugural speech at Defexpo 2020, PM Modi announced formulation of a long-term integrated plan for 15 years. If such a programme were to succeed, then it is essential to take industry on the same page well in advance about armed forces requirements with specifications and timelines.
The PM also emphasised that the government is working earnestly to promote defence manufacturing in the private sector. He informed of a slew of measures which have been initiated to make it easier for the private industry to have a stake in defence manufacturing including the decision to open up DRDO patents free of cost to Indian private manufacturers.
During the Defexpo unprecedented 1,000 exhibitors and 15 lakh visitors visited the exhibition of live demonstrations of military capability in mock operation settings. Defence Ministers from 30 countries also participated.
India has increased its defence budget from Rs 3,40,921 crore in 2017-18 to Rs 4,71,378 crore for 2020- 21. This increase becomes important among the competing demands of modernisation and sustenance. India faces multiple threats and needs to be prepared for full-spectrum war.
In order to achieve this goal India must make best use of available dual-use technology. Simultaneously, it must also develop indigenous capability. This could happen by bringing on board able scientists. There is a need to make extra effort to retain capable Indian scientists in the country by giving them adequate incentives. Otherwise, a sizable population of Indian scientists land in the US and Europe to develop dual-use technology, which would eventually take decades to reach India.
The defence sector must also promote private partnerships by removing the bureaucratic hurdles. The relationship should have a clearly demarcated expectations and delivery mechanism.
India needs to enhance its road and infrastructure in forward areas on priority basis. A lot of work has already begun in this direction but it needs to be expanded all along the borders. The country also needs to upgrade its missile systems and further upgrade space technology, especially with regard to surveillance satellites. Last but not the least, cyber warfare is one area where the country has good capability but it needs more push for getting an edge in this area as well. Imagine if arrival of Rafale aircraft brings so much happiness to Indians, the joy will multiply several times when the country makes its own similar aircraft.
Sports2 weeks ago
When a bodybuilder breaks Shoaib’s record
News3 months ago
PM Modi must take governance back from babus
News1 month ago
Chinese general ordered attack on Indian troops: US intel report
Sports2 weeks ago
West Indies avoid follow-on, England increase lead to 219
News7 days ago
Things don’t add up in Sushant’s suicide: Swamy
Defence1 month ago
GALWAN: CHINA’S INFORMATION WAR
News3 weeks ago
Sachin revolted after fearing sexual misconduct framing
Sports2 weeks ago
I could have played more for Team India, says Kaif