Times have changed, so should we - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Opinion

Times have changed, so should we

Joyeeta Basu

Published

on

Times have changed, so should we
Times have changed, so should we

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to meet the Chief Ministers of different states on Monday to get their views on what next in India’s fight against the coronavirus pandemic. Some states, stretched as they are to their limits, will no
doubt suggest that the lockdown should continue for another three weeks, that is at least until the end of May.

Some may even want the lockdown to continue well into June, especially states such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Delhi, West Bengal and even Telangana, all of whom are dealing with a serious crisis. The question is, can the country afford to go from one lockdown to another, with all economic activities nearly stalled? The answer is no.

The country’s economic health was not in top shape even before the coronavirus outbreak happened and now it is tottering on the brink and may come crashing down if the wheels of commercial and industrial activity do not start rolling soon.

The Central government knows this. Accordingly, indications are that the Centre is gearing up to open up different sectors of the economy in a staggered manner, including aviation and hospitality—two areas that have been hit the hardest because of the outbreak. Reports are that some industrial activity, including the manufacturing of automobiles, is likely to start as soon as this week. There is also
talk that even Railways will start passenger train services, although in a limited manner.

In this context, let us not forget the very significant statement made by the joint secretary in the health ministry, Lav Agarwal, on Friday, that the country will have “to learn to live with the virus”, while taking adequate precautions. With no vaccine insight in the near future—and even if a vaccine is developed it is unlikely to be available to the public for months, if not more than a year—what option do we have but to learn to live with the virus? But are we, as citizens of this country, ready for such an eventuality?

Last week’s melee in front of liquor shops would have filled any sensible person’s heart with distress and dread. What was on display was uncivilized behaviour, which within minutes defeated the whole purpose of social distancing and lockdown in these terrible times.

While all the governments, both Central and state, are trying their utmost to protect the citizens, the citizens too have some duty towards their country, which can be fulfilled only by following the rules. Good behaviour is the need of the hour. Lest we forget, the times have changed.

At least for the near future, if we want the country to get back on track, if we want to protect our own well-being, we have to keep our unruly side under check. It may sound an impossibility for us Indians. But if this is not done, the virus will keep returning to haunt us—in wave after wave. In short, we don’t have a choice but to fall in line.

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.

Opinion

BIDEN’S SUMMIT FOR DEMOCRACY RILES CHINA

Joyeeta Basu

Published

on

President Joe Biden’s two-day “Summit for Democracy” on 9-10 December 2021 has riled China to no end, maybe because an invitation never went to it in spite of it having the world’s best form of democracy, which it calls the “whole process democracy”. An angry Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said last week, during a conversation with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, “The US seeks to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries under the banner of democracy and abuse democratic values to create divides.” As reported by the Chinese media, Wang Yi asserted that socialist democracy with Chinese characteristics was whole-process people’s democracy, which had proved to be very popular among the Chinese people. He dismissed American democracy as beset with problems and said that it would be hypocrisy if the US claimed that it was a defender of democracy. Wang asked the international community to perform two tests, the first one being how many countries considered Washington the model of democracy. He said the results would be awkward for the US. And the second test would be to measure people’s satisfaction toward their governments, and a “certain country would be put on the spot” in this case too. China has flooded social media with posts singing paeans to Chinese-style “democracy”. Given the angst on display, it is obvious that China is extremely sensitive on this issue, making clear that “procedure”—obviously elections—does not make a country a democracy. This is in the realm of alternate, in fact spurious reality and in keeping with the Chinese habit of trying to rewrite history and now language. The shrillness of the tone is understandable, especially at a time when reports suggest that the Chinese economy is under pressure, the gap between the haves and have nots is increasing, Xi Jinping is asking his country to return to a past of austerity for the sake of “common prosperity” and is single-handedly wrecking the private sector. When there is a downslide, no wonder it’s time to repackage authoritarianism as Chinese-style democracy to a people who were given prosperity as a functioning alternative to people’s power. It also shows how badly China takes to a loss of face.

China’s reaction to Taiwan’s inclusion in the summit has been near apoplectic. The inclusion came on the heels of Xi Jinping issuing a threat to Joe Biden during their virtual meet that whoever tries “to use Taiwan to contain China” “will get burnt”. That interaction would have hardened President Biden’s resolve to invite Taiwan to the Summit and he should be commended for his action. However, in this context, it is difficult to understand the rationale behind inviting Pakistan to the Summit—a country that is ruled by the military. Also, terrorist state Pakistan is beholden to “iron brother” China, has one of the worst human rights records in the world, has led the US up the garden path in Afghanistan and has installed by force a Taliban government in Kabul. A crime should not have been rewarded by an invitation to the Summit. And then to have Pakistan reject the invitation!

Mention also must be made about India, the world’s most populous democracy, which will be present at the Biden summit and rightly so, notwithstanding the fake narrative being created by the Pak-Chinese axis about India becoming an “electoral autocracy”. However, when it comes to China, India’s silence on the way Beijing muzzled democracy in Hong Kong was baffling—for that matter even on Chinese threats to a dynamic democracy such as Taiwan. Whenever it comes to China, India’s caution can be unsettling—be it on human rights violations by China is Tibet and Xinjiang, or about China’s role in spreading the pandemic across the world. For that matter, it is surprising that India put its stamp on the statement issued by the RIC (Russia-India-China) meeting, promising participation in the Winter Olympics in Beijing. Even though India’s participation in Winter Olympics is negligible, a statement could have been made by at least announcing a diplomatic boycott of the Games, as both the US and Australia have done. Quietly turning a blind eye to China’s atrocities, or at the most make an oblique statement, does not behoove the world’s largest democracy. It’s time to stand up for India’s democratic values.

Continue Reading

Opinion

A lethal touch to the ‘Preamble’ of India’s Constitution

The politics of our country is on a test drive of majoritarianism being ferociously provoked as a cause for achieving national unity. In consequence and eventually, everyone starts feeling insecure and the state appropriates a role for wartime preparedness against the heightened environment of insecurity.

Amita Singh

Published

on

Can people in top public spaces be excused of their deadly contributions to aggravating turbulence in national governance? Most recently, such a disproportionate use of their right to ‘freedom of expression’ in firing illogical and perilous cannons against modern India’s security heritage, the Constitution is disturbing if not shocking. The Chief Justice of a High Court of the country’s most sensitive state and a seasoned bureaucrat turned politician lead the chorus against the ‘Preamble’. It is doubtless that the current government’s rise to power was on a radical Hindu card and for that reason lashing the snaky wand of ‘Hindu Rashtra’ to divert people from looking into many of its other ethical and legal lapses in the Parliament, appears to be part of a larger strategic design. The Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir High Court Justice Pankaj Mithal who wants Preamble to rewrite ‘Secular India’ as a “Spiritual Republic of India” followed by an experienced bureaucrat turned BJP politician K.J. Alphons, who introduced a private members’ Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2021 to substitute ‘socialism’ to ‘equitable’. 

In both cases, demands are made to confuse state authorities from more concrete and clearer tools of governance to a fuzzy and mystic garden of free atoms. An insight into an epistemological history of either ‘spiritualism’ or of ‘equity (equitable)’ suggests that despite massive intellectual debates, court battles and wars, these two words or metaphors have never reached any definitional agreement. Moreover, these suggested changes in the ‘Preamble’ is not an end of a benignly appearing demand but a grinding wheel of anarchy that this nation would be left to suffer as even on a minimal scale it would need massive and far-reaching changes in all other Chapters from Citizenship, Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, Fundamental Duties, Union and State relations, Parliament, Local Governance, Election and Representation laws, Chapter XII of Finance, Property, Contracts and Suits and Chapter XX of Amendment Procedure given in the Constitution. Are people ready to take this fatal dive into a surreptitious sea of self-destruction that our neighbours are entangled in and struggling with?

The Preamble is the life and blood of our Constitution and constitutes its basic structure as explained comprehensively in the 42nd Amendment Act. It is the opening statement of the Constitution but was the last to be brought together in the Constituent Assembly as a gist or a spirit of how the Republic would be governed. There are many instances when members of the Constituent Assembly rose up to express, what came in news as ‘poetic heights’ such as Pundit Thakur Das Bhargav’s unambiguous utterance in the Assembly that, ‘the Preamble is the most precious part of the Constitution. It is the soul of the Constitution….It is a key to the Constitution. It is a jewel set in the Constitution.’ Yet, despite mammoth support, Nehru and Ambedkar could not insert secularism in the Preamble. Three decades later it was left to Indira Gandhi to complete that task which had become indispensable for a nation that also carried with it religious brigades and personal laws which consistently challenged the state to resolve religious inconsistencies. It became important that the state remain distanced and separated from the sphere of religion.

Secularism keeps belief systems of the state separated from the belief systems of private and personal or of the faith practised by communities. The public school systems should not be driven by religion and should take to religious teaching in books and in classrooms, the coexistence of all faiths and belief systems. As Sardar Patel had expressed in one of his speeches on 5 June 1949 that “…a healthy secular outlook is the foundation of true democracy.” Nehru had, however, expressed to Andre Malaurx during the freedom struggle that his biggest challenge is to “.. to create a secular state in a religious society”. Everyone knows the circumstances in which the Union of India was created through the stupendous diplomacy of Sardar Patel and timely action by Indian forces. Many compromises were made to win freedom from the British and the biggest was to accept the idea of Jinnah’s Pakistan and accommodate 566 Princely states. Yet while this was being done Patel was also taking stringent action against the banned RSS outfit led by Golwalker to accept in writing his allegiance to the national flag and the Constitution of India which he was not ready to give. The most obvious expression to keep religious brigades at bay or out of the governance of the country was to accept ‘secularism’ as a basic feature of our country.

In contrast to this enduring ideal of ‘secularism’, the CJ Mithal suggests a precarious idea of its replacement by ‘spirituality’. Ironically, the judge seems to be ignorant about the vast cross-cultural analytical literature on the subject. There is no single, widely agreed-upon definition of spirituality. A wide-ranging field of definitions emerges from the oldest scripture Vedas to Mesopotamian, Judaism, Islamic and Catholic definitions of spirituality. The word is open-ended and becomes more obscure when attempts are made to define it within a particular faith but it rarely gets attention outside any faith. This word glows up every faithful and connects them to their universal ideal and raises the individual from gross worldly existence to ‘beyond body experiences’.An interesting historical review of ‘Spirituality’ by Walter Principe in his 1983 work, ‘Toward Defining Spirituality’ found the term portentously undefinable. As he expressed that even after accumulating more than 100 definitions one is probably further away from its true meaning. However, the suggested ‘Spiritual Republic’ by the Judge would have to choose a historical context, a religious ideal to connect to the Supreme in a realm of the spirit or the transcendent. This comes into play even though spirituality differs from religion because human spirituality is composed of relationships, values and life purposes that religious doctrines inscribe in human brains from birth. Spirituality is truly practised by saints who can renounce the world and look down on worldly pleasures while giving away whatever they possess. There are many saints in every religion and to say that spirituality can still become a unifying bond practised by the state will only bring back the pre-renaissance or pre-Bhakti Yuga period of persecution of innocent citizens at the altar of Churches, Mosques or Temples. God forbid if that’s the future some people are imagining for a progressively advancing free Indian nation.

Similarly, ‘equitable’ is again fraught with many undefinable questions. Interestingly, the language of the law is more meaningful than a legal document itself. ‘Equitable’ is a word within which is embedded a notion of goodness, fairness, justice, equality and a life of dignity but all these embedded notions are further defined in their own ways which make enforcement of ‘equitable’ impossible. Socialism promotes equitable distribution in the context of a society that has a definable database for distribution. Why are such unnecessary terminological conflicts being created without proper homework on legal semantics? In legal language, the semantic domain provides a most appropriate meaning to issues in law as these abstract words by their very nature are not static and can never be defined the way they are being suggested for the Preamble. Alphons missed the point! 

The Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 1973 unambiguously explains that the ‘Constitution is not a document for fastidious dialectics but the means of ordering the life of people’ and its core values are various facets of the spirit that pervades our Constitution in different scenarios. Justice Holmes in Abrams v United States (250 US 616) made an apt comment on such controversies, ‘A Constitution is an experiment as all life is an experiment.’ In Nakara v. Union of India, the Supreme Court settled the fact that the basic framework of Socialism is to provide a decent standard of life to the working people and especially provide security from cradle to grave. This primarily envisages economic equality and equitable distribution of income. So where is the perceived need for replacement of ‘socialism’ by ‘equitable’?

The politics of our country is on a test drive of majoritarianism being ferociously provoked as a cause for achieving national unity. In consequence and eventually, everyone starts feeling insecure and the state appropriates a role for wartime preparedness against the heightened environment of insecurity. Much can be read in the words of Felix Frankfurter in his tribute to Justice Holmes, “Whether the Constitution is treated primarily as a text for interpretation or as an instrument of Government may make all the difference in the word”. The private member’s Amendment Bill is explainable as a distracting design from more important matters which need our attention but CJ Mithal is merely playing a good host.

The writer is president of Network Asia Pacific Disaster Research Group (NDRG), Senior Fellow at the Institute of Social Sciences (ISS), and former Professor of Administrative Reforms and Emergency Governance at JNU. The views expressed are personal.

Can people in top public spaces be excused of their deadly contributions to aggravating turbulence in national governance? Most recently, such a disproportionate use of their right to ‘freedom of expression’ in firing illogical and perilous cannons against modern India’s security heritage, the Constitution is disturbing if not shocking. The Chief Justice of a High Court of the country’s most sensitive state and a seasoned bureaucrat turned politician lead the chorus against the ‘Preamble’. It is doubtless that the current government’s rise to power was on a radical Hindu card and for that reason lashing the snaky wand of ‘Hindu Rashtra’ to divert people from looking into many of its other ethical and legal lapses in the Parliament, appears to be part of a larger strategic design. The Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir High Court Justice Pankaj Mithal who wants Preamble to rewrite ‘Secular India’ as a “Spiritual Republic of India” followed by an experienced bureaucrat turned BJP politician K.J. Alphons, who introduced a private members’ Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2021 to substitute ‘socialism’ to ‘equitable’. 

In both cases, demands are made to confuse state authorities from more concrete and clearer tools of governance to a fuzzy and mystic garden of free atoms. An insight into an epistemological history of either ‘spiritualism’ or of ‘equity (equitable)’ suggests that despite massive intellectual debates, court battles and wars, these two words or metaphors have never reached any definitional agreement. Moreover, these suggested changes in the ‘Preamble’ is not an end of a benignly appearing demand but a grinding wheel of anarchy that this nation would be left to suffer as even on a minimal scale it would need massive and far-reaching changes in all other Chapters from Citizenship, Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, Fundamental Duties, Union and State relations, Parliament, Local Governance, Election and Representation laws, Chapter XII of Finance, Property, Contracts and Suits and Chapter XX of Amendment Procedure given in the Constitution. Are people ready to take this fatal dive into a surreptitious sea of self-destruction that our neighbours are entangled in and struggling with?

The Preamble is the life and blood of our Constitution and constitutes its basic structure as explained comprehensively in the 42nd Amendment Act. It is the opening statement of the Constitution but was the last to be brought together in the Constituent Assembly as a gist or a spirit of how the Republic would be governed. There are many instances when members of the Constituent Assembly rose up to express, what came in news as ‘poetic heights’ such as Pundit Thakur Das Bhargav’s unambiguous utterance in the Assembly that, ‘the Preamble is the most precious part of the Constitution. It is the soul of the Constitution….It is a key to the Constitution. It is a jewel set in the Constitution.’ Yet, despite mammoth support, Nehru and Ambedkar could not insert secularism in the Preamble. Three decades later it was left to Indira Gandhi to complete that task which had become indispensable for a nation that also carried with it religious brigades and personal laws which consistently challenged the state to resolve religious inconsistencies. It became important that the state remain distanced and separated from the sphere of religion.

Secularism keeps belief systems of the state separated from the belief systems of private and personal or of the faith practised by communities. The public school systems should not be driven by religion and should take to religious teaching in books and in classrooms, the coexistence of all faiths and belief systems. As Sardar Patel had expressed in one of his speeches on 5 June 1949 that “…a healthy secular outlook is the foundation of true democracy.” Nehru had, however, expressed to Andre Malaurx during the freedom struggle that his biggest challenge is to “.. to create a secular state in a religious society”. Everyone knows the circumstances in which the Union of India was created through the stupendous diplomacy of Sardar Patel and timely action by Indian forces. Many compromises were made to win freedom from the British and the biggest was to accept the idea of Jinnah’s Pakistan and accommodate 566 Princely states. Yet while this was being done Patel was also taking stringent action against the banned RSS outfit led by Golwalker to accept in writing his allegiance to the national flag and the Constitution of India which he was not ready to give. The most obvious expression to keep religious brigades at bay or out of the governance of the country was to accept ‘secularism’ as a basic feature of our country.

In contrast to this enduring ideal of ‘secularism’, the CJ Mithal suggests a precarious idea of its replacement by ‘spirituality’. Ironically, the judge seems to be ignorant about the vast cross-cultural analytical literature on the subject. There is no single, widely agreed-upon definition of spirituality. A wide-ranging field of definitions emerges from the oldest scripture Vedas to Mesopotamian, Judaism, Islamic and Catholic definitions of spirituality. The word is open-ended and becomes more obscure when attempts are made to define it within a particular faith but it rarely gets attention outside any faith. This word glows up every faithful and connects them to their universal ideal and raises the individual from gross worldly existence to ‘beyond body experiences’.An interesting historical review of ‘Spirituality’ by Walter Principe in his 1983 work, ‘Toward Defining Spirituality’ found the term portentously undefinable. As he expressed that even after accumulating more than 100 definitions one is probably further away from its true meaning. However, the suggested ‘Spiritual Republic’ by the Judge would have to choose a historical context, a religious ideal to connect to the Supreme in a realm of the spirit or the transcendent. This comes into play even though spirituality differs from religion because human spirituality is composed of relationships, values and life purposes that religious doctrines inscribe in human brains from birth. Spirituality is truly practised by saints who can renounce the world and look down on worldly pleasures while giving away whatever they possess. There are many saints in every religion and to say that spirituality can still become a unifying bond practised by the state will only bring back the pre-renaissance or pre-Bhakti Yuga period of persecution of innocent citizens at the altar of Churches, Mosques or Temples. God forbid if that’s the future some people are imagining for a progressively advancing free Indian nation.

Similarly, ‘equitable’ is again fraught with many undefinable questions. Interestingly, the language of the law is more meaningful than a legal document itself. ‘Equitable’ is a word within which is embedded a notion of goodness, fairness, justice, equality and a life of dignity but all these embedded notions are further defined in their own ways which make enforcement of ‘equitable’ impossible. Socialism promotes equitable distribution in the context of a society that has a definable database for distribution. Why are such unnecessary terminological conflicts being created without proper homework on legal semantics? In legal language, the semantic domain provides a most appropriate meaning to issues in law as these abstract words by their very nature are not static and can never be defined the way they are being suggested for the Preamble. Alphons missed the point! 

The Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 1973 unambiguously explains that the ‘Constitution is not a document for fastidious dialectics but the means of ordering the life of people’ and its core values are various facets of the spirit that pervades our Constitution in different scenarios. Justice Holmes in Abrams v United States (250 US 616) made an apt comment on such controversies, ‘A Constitution is an experiment as all life is an experiment.’ In Nakara v. Union of India, the Supreme Court settled the fact that the basic framework of Socialism is to provide a decent standard of life to the working people and especially provide security from cradle to grave. This primarily envisages economic equality and equitable distribution of income. So where is the perceived need for replacement of ‘socialism’ by ‘equitable’?

The politics of our country is on a test drive of majoritarianism being ferociously provoked as a cause for achieving national unity. In consequence and eventually, everyone starts feeling insecure and the state appropriates a role for wartime preparedness against the heightened environment of insecurity. Much can be read in the words of Felix Frankfurter in his tribute to Justice Holmes, “Whether the Constitution is treated primarily as a text for interpretation or as an instrument of Government may make all the difference in the word”. The private member’s Amendment Bill is explainable as a distracting design from more important matters which need our attention but CJ Mithal is merely playing a good host.

The writer is president of Network Asia Pacific Disaster Research Group (NDRG), Senior Fellow at the Institute of Social Sciences (ISS), and former Professor of Administrative Reforms and Emergency Governance at JNU. The views expressed are personal.

Continue Reading

Opinion

MASKS, VACCINATIONS WILL TACKLE SPREAD OF THE NEW COVID-19 VARIANT

Priya Sahgal

Published

on

Even if the new variant of the Covid-19 virus is yet to spread in India at the scale it has spread in Europe and South Africa, all the trappings that accompany a new variant are there on the ground at Delhi’s T3— the fear, panic, and the chaos. With international flights ready to resume from December 15, the airport had groomed itself to resume activities and the focus was on flights taking off. But once Omicron was detected and global alert bells rang, India too put in its new norms which included testing of those passengers arriving from the list of ‘At-Risk’ countries. These include the United Kingdom, all 44 countries in Europe, South Africa, Brazil, Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Mauritius, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Israel. The testing centers which were earlier there at the airport during the Delta variant had since reduced their staff. Now suddenly in the blink of an eye, they were told to begin screening the arrivals yet again. Almost overnight, they had to not just ramp up the testing but also set up the supporting infrastructure.

Those passengers who were landing from other countries were not at risk of getting caught up in the rush and simply added to the already crowded airport. The site of the tests is between the aerobridge and the immigration counters. But here is the catch: the said corridor is not designed to be a holding area but a transit one. Now suddenly with as many as three to four flights landing at the same time you had passengers crowding this confined space waiting for the test results that took anything from two to eight hours. If you signed online for the RT-PCR test before boarding the flight the fee is Rs 500 and you have to wait eight hours. Most passengers (at least those who could afford it) on landing opted for the Rapid PCR test that cost Rs 3900 and took two hours for the result. In the meanwhile, the only option for the passengers was to wait and have coffee from the vending machine that was installed as recently as December 2nd, the very next day after the new rules came into being.

Crossing immigration is another nightmare with long queues even at the counters earmarked for those needing special assistance or those with a diplomatic passport. This takes anything from two hours to beyond. And don’t think you are in the clear yet because the baggage belt brings its own chaos. Because so many passengers are still stranded at the testing sites, their luggage has been taken off the belt and is lying around. So, all the best for identifying your bag amidst all those that have been offloaded from the belt. The civil aviation minister Jyotiraditya Scindia has been monitoring the situation and has held several high-level meetings to figure out a solution to ease this mess, so let’s watch this space.

So far India has recorded 21 cases of Omicron in Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Delhi. The testing at the airport will only tell you if you have Covid or not. But to figure out which variant, one will have to send the results for genome sequencing, a process that takes anything from five to seven days. In the meantime, there has been enough exposure at the airport testing center to spread the virus if a passenger tests positive. And the one thing we know about Omicron is that it is highly contagious.

The other thing that we suspect— though it will take further two weeks to establish this as a certainty— is that the virus is not as lethal as the Delta variant. As we have learnt from the Delta variant, closing our borders does not stop the spread of the virus. What stops it is masks and vaccinations. While vaccine hesitancy still looms large in our villages, most of those who have taken the two doses are now ready for their third. Especially the health care workers and the elderly. The government is mulling a third dose but does it have the requisite funds for it? In the meantime, unused vaccinations are lying with private hospitals as most are opting for the government centers offering a free dose, especially now that the rush has eased. The government needs to find a solution to balance the two.

And in the end, if indeed the new variant isn’t as lethal as the Delta one (even if it’s more contagious) we may be moving towards the scenario where covid gets flu-like status. Which honestly is the best-case scenario that everyone is hoping for.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Reset of India-Russia relationship a necessity

The changed world order and their alliances with each other’s rivals have necessitated a reset of the Indo-Russia relationship.

Semu Bhatt

Published

on

Russian President Vladimir Putin was in India for the 21st India-Russia Annual Summit. This was the first in-person meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Putin since their meeting in November 2019 on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit in Brazil. The visit was short but significant as this was only the second time that thae Russian President travelled abroad during the pandemic, after his trip to Geneva this summer for a meeting with US President Joe Biden. 

This year marks 50 years of the signing of the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation between India and the Soviet Union, a treaty that sent a strong signal both to Washington and Beijing back in 1971. The shifted sands of geopolitics have put India and Russia on different trajectories in the 21st Century that has brought them to a situation quite opposite to the one in 1971—the US has inched towards India, while Russia has taken to China and some extent to Pakistan. The Indo-US or the Sino-Russia ties are not time-tested like the Indo-Russian ties but have evolved due to convergence of interest between the partner nations against a common threat—China, in the case of India and the US, and the US in the case of Russia and China. The changed world order and their alliances with each other’s rivals have necessitated a reset of the Indo-Russia relationship. By choosing to visit India, that too at a time when India-China tensions are running high, Putin is giving a clear message that Kremlin’s foreign policy will not be dictated by Beijing, and that New Delhi remains an important partner of Moscow. India, on its part, is signalling its strategic autonomy by holding the inaugural “2+2” foreign and defence ministers’ dialogue with Russia, like the arrangement that India has with the Quad group countries—the US, Japan, and Australia. India has also gone ahead with the arms deal with Russia even when it comes with a risk of potential sanctions by the US.

Defence trade forms the bedrock of India-Russia relations. Although the arms procurement from Russia has witnessed a steady decline under the Narendra Modi government, Russia remains the biggest defence supplier to India amounting to 58% of India’s imports in the period of 2014-18. A large base of Russian equipment, weapons and platforms are currently in military use in India—missiles, aircraft carrier and nuclear submarine included. India is and will remain dependent on Russia for the maintenance and upgrades of the systems already in use and for the ones in the pipeline. India’s diversification of defence purchase, and its ambition to create a robust domestic defence manufacturing base, means the imports from Russia will continue to drop. However, Russia will remain a critical partner given its willingness to transfer sensitive defence technologies and joint developments.

India aims to expand its non-defence trade with Russia, especially in the energy sector, but the set target is far less than the current Russia-China trade. As of now, defence is the sector where New Delhi is more valuable to Moscow not only because it is the biggest buyer of the Russian military-industrial complex but also because, unlike China, India does not indulge in intellectual property thefts or reverse engineering and does not pose a threat to the Russian arms market with own exports. India is the second-largest defence importer in the world and Russia’s top defence trade partner. It can use its position to negotiate best deals with defence suppliers (Russia and others) as well as to ensure that Kremlin pays heed to Indian sensitivities regarding weapons deals and military alliances with China and Pakistan.

India needs a dependable P5 nation that would stand by India’s national interests, especially as the veto-wielding China turns increasingly hostile and as Pakistan turns into a Chinese colony. Russia may speak the harsh language at times or turn an occasional blind eye to Chinese attempts against India, but it has never voted against Indian interests at the UNSC. Irrespective of Russia’s uneasiness over the Quad grouping and the Russian foreign minister referring to Indo-Pacific as Asia-Pacific, Russia is supplying advanced systems like S-400 to India despite Chinese objections. Its ties with the “iron brothers” notwithstanding, Russia was the first P5 nation to formally state that abrogation of Article 370 is an internal matter for India. India and Russia also have no bilateral disputes or rivalries and have adopted silence over, if not supported, each other’s sensitive issues, be it Kashmir or Crimea.

Russia is a key player in Afghanistan with access to every other player, including the Taliban. Indian and Russian interests align over drug trafficking and Islamist terrorism that is certain to emanate from Taliban-led Afghanistan. Russia has snubbed India by excluding it from the extended Troika and has sided with China and Pakistan concerning the Taliban, but it also created a permanent consultation channel for talks on Afghanistan between President Putin and PM Modi. Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of the Russian Security Council, has been to New Delhi twice after the fall of Kabul. Russia is concerned that the Taliban, or for that matter Pakistan, cannot be trusted to stop the flow of terrorism or drugs into Central Asia. The situation in Afghanistan is very fluid and it is hard to predict what may happen, but a Russia-India, and possibly Iran, overt or covert cooperation to safeguard individual interests and influence cannot be ruled out.

While the risk to reward ratio works for Russia with respect to its ties with China, it is an asymmetric relationship between a former superpower and the next superpower. Russia is worried not just about being relegated as the junior partner of Beijing but also losing out in its historical sphere of influence in Central Asia. Russia has been doing its counterbalancing act vis-à-vis China and India, which, not surprisingly, is vital to that act—seeking investments from India (and Japan) in its Far East, the Chennai-Vladivostok Maritime Corridor that passes through the South China Sea, supplying sensitive defence systems to India, an impetus to the negotiations on a free trade agreement between India and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), cooperation in the Arctic and the joint venture on BrahMos missiles that will be exported to third countries including to some Southeast Asian nations. India will not be able to pull Russia away from China or become the third side of the dream triangle as envisaged by Russia, but from Indian, as well as the Western perspective, it makes no sense to let Russia-China embrace get any tighter by leaving Moscow with no other option. 

A strong relationship with the superpower US based on mutual respect and benefit is a desirable prospect for India. However, a neighbourhood driven by hostility from/towards the US is India’s current reality, which makes continued close ties with Russia particularly important. The fact that Russia enjoys good relations with China and India, and India enjoys good relations with both Russia and the US, put the two old partners in a unique position to leverage the ties. If the communication channels are open, if the expectations are realistic, if the focus is on the convergence of interests rather than divergence, and if the red lines are marked clearly, the “special and privileged strategic partnership” shared by the two nations will not only withstand the pressures of geopolitics but will thrive and may even bring some stability to the region.

Defence trade forms the bedrock of India-Russia relations. Although the arms procurement from Russia has witnessed a steady decline under the Narendra Modi government, Russia remains the biggest defence supplier to India amounting to 58% of India’s imports in the period of 2014-18.

Continue Reading

Opinion

DON’T LET RUSSIA IMPACT INDIA’S RISE

Joyeeta Basu

Published

on

The near-complete lack of media interest in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to India should be indicative of the loss in importance of India’s Russia ties. Compared to a US President’s visit to India, or the Chinese President’s visit, there were hardly any ripples over Putin’s visit, except in diplomatic and related circles. As for the people of this country, it was just another routine visit by a foreign head of state. And all this in the 50th year of the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation. But then in a post Cold War world, it is but natural that a has-been power, a rump of the former Soviet Russia—which not only lost the Cold War but also faced the humiliation of dismemberment—would not evoke much interest. Whatever be the history of so-called people-to-people relations with Russia, the common Indian has always chosen the capitalist West over a socialist and now an oligarchic Russia—a brief study of migration trends will make this even more apparent. In spite of this, it is Russia that our policymakers have chosen over the West, while sending their own children to the United States and other such countries to build a life. Worse, many of these policymakers continue to be in “love” with Russia, more often than not impacting policy. The Russian lobby in New Delhi is among the most entrenched, but losing some sheen lately, courtesy the warming up of ties between India and US and India’s forays into the Indo-Pacific through the Quad.

India-Russia relations have always hinged on defence, where historically we have put nearly all our eggs in the Russian basket. One argument offered to justify this closeness is “transfer of technology”. That the West did not give us technology, which Russia did; that the West has always been suspicious of India that it will pass on technology to either Russia or China. There is logic in such an argument, but also a refusal to see the reality. Why would the West transfer technology to a country that for decades stayed firmly aligned with Soviet Russia—the West’s bugbear—in the name of nonalignment? In fact, in spite of the current bonhomie with the US, a degree of suspicion about India persists among a section of US policymakers, as became apparent in a piece written by John Bolton in the Hill last month on India’s purchase of the S-400 and the possibility of sanctioning India under CAATSA (India’s S-400 missile system problem, 10 November 2021). Bolton, President Donald Trump’s one-time NSA, complained of India “sending contradictory signals” and wondered if India was “playing” Washington. As this writer has been arguing for a long time, what may appear as “strategic autonomy” to India, may appear as “strategic confusion” or sitting on the fence to the rest of the world at best, and devious game-playing at its worst.

With the rise of a malign force such as China the whole geopolitical terrain has changed. While we agree that it’s now a multilateral world, but there is no denying, that multilateralism functions within the broader contours of a bilateral world, where it is US vs China. And Russia is firmly aligned with China because of its own compulsions, including because it is battered by sanctions imposed by the West. Will hanging on to Russia’s coattails for the sake of the past help India against China? A simple question in this context is: In case of an India-China kinetic conflict, which side will Russia support? If the answer is Russia will “stay neutral”, then of what value are “time-tested” India-Russia relations?

There is no place for emotions in geopolitics. What matters is a country’s self-interest. Any loyalty to the past, if it is not serving the present, is a misplaced sense of loyalty. Also, it is time to diversify our sourcing of materiel at a faster pace, either through purchases or through making them at home. Even now 60-70% of our materiel is Russian. This component must be brought down. While non-strategic purchases like assault rifles are fine, the problem arises with systems such as the S-400 that directly impact US interests and have also been sold to China. As analysts have been pointing out, even if India somehow manages to evade sanctions in the S-400 deal by arguing that it was signed before CAATSA came into existence, what happens if Vladimir Putin now tries to sell the S-500 to India? In fact, as one analyst told this writer that there is a strong possibility that the reason why Putin is here is not to sell a few rifles but to try and convince the Indian government to buy the next generation S-500. How will India evade US sanctions if it decides to go for that deal? India will be playing straight into China’s hands as that will throttle India’s economy and big power ambitions.

Also, what is the world’s largest democracy’s opinion about Putin flexing muscles on Ukraine’s borders, threatening to invade that country? Turning a blind eye is not good enough. Replace Ukraine with India and Russia with China, and you will know why.

In short, talk Afghanistan, terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime, vaccines, investments, space technology, dance, music, films, literature, friendship, buy rifles, but lessen dependence on Russia in the military and tactical spheres; don’t try to bring Russia out of China’s clutches, for that is not in Russia’s interest; don’t try to make Russia understand the value of Quad, for that is not in the interest of either Russia or China. Most importantly, don’t let Russia impact India’s policies in a way that it impacts India’s rise.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Mamata Banerjee cannot beat PM Modi in a New India

The biggest challenge to any party or alliance today is to get the support of people. You can get leaders but not masses and unless you get people to back your efforts, these leaders would be paper tigers only.

Published

on

Mamata Banerjee’s desperate attempt to form an anti-Modi front is likely to be damp squib like many other efforts made before her by various other leaders. Her assertion that there is no UPA (United Progressive Alliance) is correct but to assume that this would mean a readymade ground for the formation of an alternative front reflects the fallacy of her political understanding.

Her meeting with Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar in Mumbai is good optics in search of her political relevance at the national level after she has managed some good sound-bites in Goa and Meghalaya and also at the national level by making some eminent leaders join her party. But to make others accept her as a leader need many factors. A mere glue of anti-Modi-ism won’t work.

The Trinamul Congress (TMC) is trying to play a prominent role at the national level to increase Mamata Banerjee’s acceptability as a leader among various other political parties which are currently with the Congress namely the NCP and the Shiv Sena—this is true that the Congress does not have many allies. But for both the NCP and the Shiv Sena, the TMC does not add any might to their political existence. No one does charity in politics and what she would bring to the table would decide her fate.

There are two options left for her. One is to make every other splinter group of the Congress join the parent body and get the Gandhi family to order a democratic election and Mamata Banerjee wins the election to the party president. This is fraught with difficulties since the Gandhi family would not oblige so easily. They can trust a loyalist but not a rival.

The second option is to set up an all-India-based parallel organisation of her party- something that was done by the Janata Dal or other such parties. But this needs a lot of resources and a steely determination. And what would be the ideology guiding this party? Anti-Modi-ism won’t do. She is incapable to devise an ideology of her own.

The biggest challenge to any party or alliance today is to get the support of people. You can get leaders but not masses and unless you get people to back your efforts, these leaders would be paper tigers only. Many leaders in the BJP got intoxicated by public support and they decided to chart out a separate course. But they failed desperately and had to suffer the ignominy of rejoining the parent party and accepting a lesser status.

One caste-based party or issue-based regional parties have limitations. They cannot play a larger role at the national level. For that, the party’s ideology and its leaders will have to have a comprehensive vision for the country that would be acceptable to one and all. People must trust that you would be able to steer the country as per their expectations.

This is here where Prime Minister Narendra Modi fits the bill. He understands the aspirations of the country that has 65 per cent youths. This section of the population has often demonstrated the capabilities to rise above narrow considerations of caste and religion and to vote for development and faster development. The youths want transparency and accountability and a system that would guarantee them the dignity of being a citizen of this country.

Narendra Modi has earned this image through long and arduous struggle. When he was the chief minister of Gujarat, he worked hard to change the face of the State. Over a period of time, he became the choice of the country for the post of Prime Minister. It is not that the BJP wanted to project him. The party was forced to act as per the aspirations of the country to see Modi as the Prime Minister.

Without being jealous of Modi, Mamata Banerjee can work towards becoming a role model. Can she use the opportunity people have given to her to transform West Bengal on the developmental roadmap? Can she come out of minority appeasement politics and deliver justice to every section of society? Can she work to strengthen the nation’s security since West Bengal’s boundary has issues of illegal infiltration that are changing the population dynamics of the state? Once she had spoken so loudly in parliament on infiltration from Bangladesh.

The image of Mamata Banerjee is still of a rabble-rouser and a street fighter. She has failed to acquire the image of a matured leader who understands the issues the country is facing. Or, maybe she understands the issues but her politics does not allow her to publicly articulate these. When you are on the hot seat every move of yours is being watched.

If tomorrow, she begins a no-nonsense approach and implements good governance at every level of administration, she might acquire national prominence. It needs just flipping through pages of success stories of the Gujarat model which other States have tried to implement but in piecemeal. She would fit well into the development vision of Modi and would get faster development for her State.

Mamata Banerjee also must be acutely aware that nobody is permanent in politics and the position cannot be taken for granted. The BJP has emerged as a formidable force and is in main opposition in West Bengal and would do everything to unseat her from power next time. Her time is ticking. A magical formula has to be evolved or she would fade out like many others before her.

Mamata Banerjee and other leaders who dream to challenge Narendra Modi must understand that he has redefined the country’s politics. The issues of caste, religion, etc are there but these have been overpowered by the larger vision of a strong and developed country. Members of all social or religious groups need opportunities for better lifestyles and they find Modi to be their best bet.

The eyes of poor people glitter with hope at the mention of Modi. They get assurance their lives would change for the better. Opposition parties think that by taking away this hope they can defeat Modi, they are living in La-La land. It takes years of measured responses to be taken seriously as an opposition party. If a party decides to oppose whatever the Government is doing this would not go well with people.

Defence indigenisation has saved precious Dollars that used to be spent on buying crucial arms and ammunition. This has also put a check on corruption in defence deals. The purchase of crucial fighter aircrafts has secured the borders at a time when the country is facing a stand-off with China on the Eastern borders. How many of these opposition parties have lauded the efforts of the Prime Minister? They have on the contrary done everything to undermine the efforts of the government.

In such a situation who is going to support these parties? The youths of the country are today more empowered than ever before due to proliferation of the social media. Traditional media is forced to follow the agenda in social media unless they are not bothered about their image.

Across the globe, there has been an assertion of nationalist forces. What is good for the country and what is not is being openly debated on various platforms? The forces of radicalisation are facing stiff challenges everywhere. Leaders and parties are forced to take a stand on issues of terrorism and national security. No party leader in any country can dare to call its army chief “gali ka goonda” and still survive politically.

At a time when the country is bleeding and losing the lives of its army personnel and civilians from cross-border terrorism, no party would dare to be soft with Pakistan. If India gets beaten by Sri Lanka in cricket and there is clapping for a better display of skills, people would not mind. But if crackers are burnt on Pakistan’s victory over India in cricket by a section of the minority community, this would not be appreciated. Whatever rationalisation one may give reminding of the Tebbit test of the United Kingdom, the fact remains that the nationalist sentiment gets hurt at such naked celebration over defeat.

Mamata Banerjee has to decide which side of the fence she would like to stand. Whether she wants the support of some sections of society or all sections based on the interests she represents? The country needs many people aligned to the vision of bringing back the past glory of India – a country that preached love and brotherhood and had achieved prosperity few could imagine. Neither Islamic invaders nor the British came to India to do charity. They came to exploit the rich resources and those who settled here did so in search of better lives. India is rediscovering its energy to reclaim its glory and rightful place in the comity of nations.

The writer is the author of ‘Narendra Modi: the GameChanger’. A former journalist, he is a member of BJP’s media relations department and represents the party as spokesperson while participating in television debates. The views expressed are personal.

Continue Reading

Trending