Connect with us

South Asia

Outfoxing Signal From SCO for India: Russia Turned Strategic to Strange Partner

Avatar photo

Published

on

Since its inception, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has been as a Eurasian political, economic, and military organization. Initially, it has five members -China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, known the ‘Shanghai Pact.’ Having strategic interests in the Eurasian region; it becomes imperative for India to institutionalize its engagements with the Eurasian region.

Russia has been encouraging and endorsing India’s full-time membership of the SCO, realizing it is an important potential strategic partner. Realist thinker like Hans Morgenthau had already been put the nations on alert that there is no permanent friends/foes in the arena of international relations. For the given strong strategic partnership between India and Russia, the recent picture of bilateral ties has not been moving in the same direction. In this backdrop, the analysis will be made to know the dynamics, why Russia has been giving the strategic signal for India to be at choppy sea in the SCO?

Genesis of SCO

Out of the ongoing regionalization trends since the 1970s, the SCO, a Eurasian geopolitical organization, originally established as ‘Shanghai Five’ on 26 April 1996, out of the ‘Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions in Shanghai.’ After the inclusion of Uzbekistan in 2001, it was rechristened as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Initially, it was aimed at ensuring the liberal democracy to grow in the Central Asian countries. However, it has been argued by a political scientist Thomas Ambrosio, that the SCO has been failed to enthuse the member countries to do the same. During their meeting in Saint Petersburg (Russia), the members signed the SCO Charter in June 2002, in which they determined its purposes, principles, and structures. The SCO has covered wide-ranging of areas of cooperation such as security, trade, investment, connectivity, energy, and culture. Despite its slothful performance, the strategic salience of the SCO cannot be undervalued for the given of membership of two nuclear powers and possessing of the 60% of the land mass of Eurasia and quarter population of the world.

Geopolitical Expansion of the SCO

It has been accepted that the Indo-Pacific geopolitics in the 21st century, going to be determined by the two Asian giants –China and India. Having its geopolitical and geostrategic interests in the Eurasian region, India has been seeking to get into the SCO, which has been lingering on due to the obduracy of China. In the backdrop of regional geopolitical dynamics, India has been encouraged by Russia to join SCO as a full-time member because the latter has considered that the former could be a vital strategic partner to counter China in the Eurasian region. India applied for the membership in September 2014. The SCO approved it in July 2015. To join as a full member, India has signed a memorandum of obligations on 24 June 2016 at Tashkent. Now, it is expected that India will be a full member of the organization by 2017. However, to counter India in the SCO, China has pressed Russia for the entry of Pakistan in the same. Along with India, Pakistan is also joining the SCO in 2017.

SAARCIZATION of the SCO?

Now, India and Pakistan are going to be the member of the SCO in 2017. What will be the geopolitical meaning of this for the SCO? To decode the meaning of hostile relation of India and Pakistan for SCO, it is worth to mention here the performance of the SAARC in this context.

The performance of SAARC in terms of trade and foreign direct investment has been remained at the lost ebb comparable to the other regional organizations such as ASEAN and the EU etc. The SAARC Summit of 2016, has been canceled due to the ongoing tension on the Line of Control (LoC) between both the countries. No substantial cooperation have been achieved in counter terror, energy, connectivity, refugees problems etc. Despite the counter-terror strategy of SAARC in place, numerous terrorist attacks have been taking place in both the countries. Seeing the performance of SAARC during the last 30 years, it is very easily to argue that the SAARC has been failed due to the given hostile relations of India and Pakistan. When these two countries join the SCO, how it will perform, will remain interesting to see the same. It seems that the side effects of the hostility between both the countries will drastically impact the performance of the SCO. Moreover, India will have a pariah status in the SCO, given the changing geopolitical equations. Russia, China and Pakistan has been emerging a new strategic triumvirate.

Russia’s Strategic Signal for India

India and Russia have remained active strategic partners throughout the Cold War. Russia has helped India in various sectors such as military, science and technology, industrialization, and nuclear technology. Russia has remained the largest exporter of weapons to India. With the end of the Cold War and disintegration of the USSR, the geopolitical equations have changed. Russia has come more close to Pakistan despite the given hostile background of relation during the former’s intervention in Afghanistan (1979-89) and now signed defense agreement in 2014.

Russia is one of the dominating players in the Eurasian region. India has interests in the Eurasian region such as political, economic, and security. For the given historical background of bilateral between Russia and India, it is anticipated that the former will remain helpful in protecting the Indian’s interest. But seeing some moves of Russia, it seems that now, Russia has been drifting away from India.

The terrorism, separatism, and extremism have remained the pressing security threats for the SCO member countries and to fight against these threats, is remained the top priority of the SCO since its inception. In this context, Afghanistan case will be taken into account. Afghanistan is a dialogue partner of the SCO, moreover being strategically located, it has been sharing borders with Pakistan, China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and Iran. Due to the resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan, there is a possibility of shifting of terrorism to Russia and China via the Central Asia. It has created panic for these two countries. Against this background, Moscow is going to host a meeting with China and Pakistan on Afghanistan. India is an acceded member of the SCO, and moreover, it has strategic interests in Afghanistan. Therefore, India also should be a partner of this meeting. However, India has not been made a partner of the same.

The second case was also far-reaching impacts for India. Soon after Uri terrorist attack, India has urged Russia not to take part in the joint military exercise ‘Friendship’ with Pakistan. Ignoring the Indian request, Russia has participated in the same exercise. In the ‘Heart of Asia-Istanbul Process’ (3-4 December 2016), Russia has openly sided with Pakistan on the terrorism issue. Rather, it advised India not to use such fora for the bilateral problems. Russian ambassador to Pakistan, Alexey Y. Dedov does not only supported the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) rather expressed Russia’s interest to join it. Since it is passing through the disputed territory, hence it means, it is weakening the claim of India regarding disputed area. India has been outfoxed/outmaneuvered in the strategic and energy projects from the Central Asian countries by Russia and China. Tanchum (2013), has argued that central Asia is critical for India’s security, trade and energy needs, but it has been outfoxed from the region, and it raises a serious question about India’s ability to be a partner of the regional arrangement. At last, it is concluded that Russia has turned from strategic partner to a strange partner of India. Therefore, Russia is not only a challenge in the Eurasian region and SCO rather it is going to hurt the Indian interests in the South Asia as well. In the changing geopolitical equations, the protection of Indian interests in the Eurasian region would depend on India’s astute diplomacy as well as balance between the major powers.

Dr. Bawa Singh is teaching in the Centre for South and Central Asian Studies, School of Global Relations, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda, India-151001. bawasingh73[at]gmail.com

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

A long way of solidarity: a voice for the voiceless Kashmiris

Avatar photo

Published

on

Friday prayers in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir. © John Isaac

Every year on February 5 Pakistan observes Kashmir Solidarity Day. It aims to demonstrate Pakistan’s support and solidarity with the people of Indian-occupied Kashmir, and their continuing liberation struggle, and to honor Kashmiri martyrs who sacrificed their lives fighting for Kashmir’s independence.

Every year, on Kashmir Solidarity Day, Pakistan expresses its political, moral, and diplomatic support for the righteous fight of our Kashmiri brothers and becomes its voice in the international forums.

Kashmir’s discord carries historical as well as contemporary events that hinder its political future.

Historical account of the humiliation of Kashmir’s people

The history of conflict dates back to 1947. In the June 3 plan, the princely state offered a choice between India and Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh deceived Pakistan and ceded Kashmir to India through a standstill agreement, which sparked an uprising of Pashtun tribesmen and the Hindu nationalists and RSS to organize a program against Muslims, killing between 20,000 and 100,000 Muslims. On October 27, 1947, Indian troops landed in Kashmir to fight against the Pashtuns and the local armies; this led to the first India-Pakistan war. During the war, India’s prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, promised a referendum: “The fate of Jammu and Kashmir is ultimately decided by the people; the pledge we have given is not only to the people of Kashmir but also to the world.” “We will not and cannot back out of it.”

India referred the dispute to the United Nations a little more than two months later. A resolution passed on August 13, 1948, asking both nations to withdraw their forces; once that happened, a referendum was to be held, allowing the people of Kashmir to decide their political future. But the Indian troops were never withdrawn, and the referendum never happened. On January 1, 1949, the ceasefire was agreed upon, and Kashmir became a disputed territory. Over the next 70 years, India and Pakistan fought three wars over Kashmir.

In Indian-administrated Kashmir, India maintains around 600,000 troops in Kashmir, who have committed human rights violations like rape, torture, and enforced disappearances that continue today. The number of people killed in Kashmir is estimated to be between 50,000 and 100,000, which shows the ruthlessness of the so-called largest democracy in the world.

Situation after the abolishment of articles 370 and 35A

On August 5, 2019, the Indian government abrogated Article 370 and Article 35A of the Indian Constitution, which granted Jammu and Kashmir a special status and autonomy. The Indian government enforced a curfew, disrupted communication connections, arrested political leaders, and deployed extra soldiers in the area, generating widespread resentment and demonstrations.

Since the abolition of Articles 370 and 35A, human rights abuses and violations in Kashmir have increased significantly, with claims of widespread mass arrests, torture, and extrajudicial executions by Indian security personnel. The Indian government has also restricted freedom of speech, assembly, and the press, making it impossible for citizens to openly express their thoughts and report on the state of the area.

In addition, the Indian government has been accused of fostering demographic changes in the area through the settlement of Hindu migrants, which has resulted in a fall in the percentage of the Muslim population and degradation of the Kashmiri people’s distinctive cultural and religious identity.

International human rights groups have shown concern about the situation in Kashmir and demanded an independent investigation into the reported human rights breaches and abuses. About 87 civilians have been killed by the Indian forces since the abrogation of Article 370. The international community has also advocated for a peaceful settlement to the issue that takes the Kashmiri people’s rights and interests into consideration.

The situation in Kashmir remains severe, and the continuous violence and human rights violations continue to provide the international community with a formidable task. The region’s political future is still unknown, and a sustainable resolution to the war has not yet been found.

Pakistan’s Advocacy for Kashmir

Pakistan has made several attempts to resolve the ongoing conflict in Kashmir and has sought international backing for its stance on the matter. Pakistan has repeatedly discussed the Kashmir issue at the United Nations and other international forums, stressing the need for a peaceful settlement of the conflict based on the self-determination principle and the right of the Kashmiri people to choose their destiny. Pakistan has also made diplomatic attempts to garner international support for its viewpoint, notably via the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Non-Aligned Movement.

Pakistan has also endeavored to provide political, diplomatic, and moral assistance for the Kashmiri resistance movement. India has accused Pakistan of financing terrorism in the area based on information that Pakistan supports separatist organizations in the region. Pakistan has denied these allegations and advocated for a peaceful settlement according to UN Resolution 47 (1948), which calls for a ceasefire, and UN Resolution 51 (1948), which calls for a plebiscite to be held in the region to determine the will of the Kashmiri people.

Despite these attempts, the situation in Kashmir remains unresolved, and a permanent resolution to the conflict has not yet been reached. The issue remains a significant source of conflict between India and Pakistan and a problem for the international community.

Conclusion:

Kashmir’s political future remains uncertain and is the subject of ongoing discussion and negotiation between India and Pakistan, as well as international engagement.

Currently, the territory is split between India and Pakistan, with India administering the greater part and Pakistan the smaller. The Line of Control (LoC), which divides the two managed territories, has often been the scene of tension and bloodshed.

There have been appeals for a peaceful conclusion that takes the rights and interests of the Kashmiri people into consideration. Some have suggested the concept of “self-determination,” in which the people of Kashmir would have the right to choose their destiny through a referendum or a negotiated solution between India and Pakistan.

Kashmir’s political future is unpredictable and vulnerable to the continuous dynamics of the war as well as the shifting political and strategic objectives of the major regional countries. The international community still has a big part to play in finding a solution, and India, Pakistan, and the other countries in the area are likely to have to be involved and support any lasting solution.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Sri Lankans deserve a clean break from the past

Avatar photo

Published

on

The decision of former president Maithripala Sirisena to run for president pits two unpopular, establishment candidates against one another. With both Sirisena and Ranil Wickremesinghe involved in past political turmoil and the current economic crisis, Sri Lankans deserve a clean break.

While a presidential election cannot be held until 2024, the Sri Lankan Electoral Commission recently announced local elections for February. With no popular mandate and as the only member of his party, President Wickremesinghe is expected to face an embarrassing defeat in the poll, but it is unlikely to bring down the government.

The announcement that Sirisena would run as president comes at a pivotal time for Sri Lankans.

Wickremesinghe warned this week that the Sri Lankan economy could contract by up to 4% this year, after shrinking 11% last year.

Last year, the island nation descended into turmoil, with an economic collapse leading to its worst crisis in years. Foreign currency shortages, runaway inflation and a recession left the government unable to make debt repayments and left Sri Lankans desperately short of food and fuel.

This led to unprecedented unrest, particularly in the capital Colombo, resulting in the deaths of protesters and police, with hundreds more injured or detained. The protests culminated in the storming and occupation of the presidential palace, forcing Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country, with Wickremesinghe replacing him as president.

Sirisena has a chequered history in Sri Lankan politics.

Sirisena was part of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s cabinet before defecting to the opposition and winning a surprise election victory against Rajapaksa in 2015.

As President, Sirisena formed a close partnership with Wickremsinghe, appointing him Prime Minister, before the two spectacularly fell out. This culminated in the sacking of Wickremesinghe in 2018, replacing him with Mahinda Rajapaksa. At the time, Wickremesinghe claimed that the move was “unconstitutional”.

This led to a constitutional crisis and power struggle between Wickremesinghe, Rajapaksa and Sirisena, with the former President dissolving parliament and calling snap elections. Sirisena then decided to not seek re-election, leaving office in early 2019. He was replaced as president by Mahinda’s brother, Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

Recently, the Sri Lankan supreme court ordered Sirisena and several other top government, police and intelligence officials to pay millions of rupees in compensation to the victims of the 2019 Easter bombings in Colombo. The court found that Sirisena, as former president, ignored multiple warnings about an imminent terrorist attack weeks before the deadly event took place.

But Wickremesinghe is also no saint.

Wickremesinghe, a six-time prime minister, won a parliamentary vote with the backing of the Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna party to replace Gotabaya Rajapaksa in July 2022. For this reason, he is accused of owing his position to the family.

Upon gaining the presidency, Wickremesinghe immediately cracked down on protesters, condemning the protests as “against the law” and calling protesters “fascists”. Under his watch, more than 140 protesters have been arrested and its leaders driven into hiding.

In August 2022, the United Nations condemned his government’s crackdown on protesters. The UN also criticised the repeated use of emergency measures, such as curfews, calling them a “misuse of emergency measures”.

The president has also been accused of delaying this poll, claiming the economically crippled country cannot afford to spend 10 billion rupees on a local election. However, the election commission decided to proceed despite the president’s request. Nonetheless, this raises doubts about Wickremesinghe’s respect for the democratic process.

What Sri Lankans desperately need is political stability and good economic management so the country can dig its way out of its worst crisis since independence.

Sirisena and Wickremesinghe offer neither. The former is struggling to finalise a bailout deal with the International Monetary Fund and both are notorious for poor political decision making and unpopular with a public desperate for change.

Therefore, Sri Lankans are faced with two establishment candidates who only offer more of the same.

The solution, at least for the time being, is for Wickremesinghe to call a presidential election so the next president has a clear mandate by the people. This will assist in forming a stable government and in bailout negotiations with the IMF.

Power also needs to be decentralised through ambitious political reforms that allow for wider participation and decision making in parliament. While, admittedly, this would be difficult under both Sirisena and Wickremesinghe, it is the first step in dealing with corruption and nepotism in Sri Lankan politics.

Presidential candidates serious about solving the countries problems also need to focus on key issues, such as rebuilding the economy, accountability for human rights and rebuilding political integrity and public trust.

Only once this is achieved, and Sri Lanka has shed itself of its dysfunctional political past, will it be able to recover.

Continue Reading

South Asia

A Hybrid Political System for Pakistan: A Proposal

Avatar photo

Published

on

The political system of Pakistan is an amalgamation of Islamic, British, and Indian influences, shaped by a multifaceted array of religious, ethnic, and regional factors, making it a culturally rich and ever-changing landscape. Pakistan is renowned for its powerful military establishment, which has traditionally wielded significant influence in determining its political direction. The nation’s political history is characterized by cycles of military rule, punctuated by several coups, followed by phases of democratic rule, though the military has continued to exert a significant degree of influence in the country’s politics. Furthermore, Pakistan has had to contend with the pernicious threat of extremism, with various militant groups operating within its borders and perpetrating terrorist attacks, which have destabilized the nation’s political, social, and economic stability.

This article aims to shed light on the challenges faced by the political system in Pakistan, specifically concerning the current political turmoil the country is experiencing. It also suggests a potential solution to stabilize the system and bring about a revolution in the way politics is conducted in Pakistan

The challenges faced by Pakistan’s democracy are compounded by the elite classes’ actions. The country is currently facing significant upheaval, which can be attributed to several factors. The lack of solid democratic institutions, frequent military takeovers, and the involvement of powerful military and civilian elites are among the underlying causes of the country’s political instability. Additionally, ethnic and regional conflicts, poverty, and economic growth issues further exacerbated political instability. The ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, as well as political unrest in neighboring countries, have also had an impact on the country. Furthermore, Pakistan’s history of military control, political corruption, and a lack of a deeply ingrained democratic culture have all contributed to the volatility in its political system.

The current political quagmire that plagues Pakistan is multifaceted, primarily stemming from a dearth of political acumen and a paucity of commitment on the part of leaders to prioritize the exigencies of the populace over their own personal and factional interests. This has led to a diminution of public confidence in the political system and government officials. Furthermore, the military’s prolonged political intervention and sway history has exacerbated a lack of democratic stability and accountability. Another critical conundrum that has impeded the country’s political evolution is the preponderance of corruption and nepotism in every government agency, rendering it difficult for citizens to repose trust in government officials. As a result, there is a burgeoning loss of faith in institutions of all varieties, with people losing trust in the government, corporations, and political leaders.

Furthermore, the failure of successive governments to address the issue of corruption has further undermined public trust in the political system. The permeation of corrupt practices in every government institution has made it difficult for citizens to have faith in government officials, leading to a general disillusionment with the political system. Additionally, the lack of transparency and accountability in government operations has enabled corrupt officials to operate with impunity, further eroding the public’s trust in the political system. The aforementioned issues have resulted in a political climate marked by a lack of stability and continuity, hindering the country’s economic and social development. It is imperative that the political class and other stakeholders work towards addressing these issues to ensure that the political system can effectively serve the people’s needs and promote the country’s long-term stability and prosperity.

Proposing A New Way to get stability in Political System?

A hybrid political system combines characteristics of many political systems, such as democracy and autocracy. Two examples are a semi-presidential system, which combines a prime minister and a president, and a federal system, which combines a central government with regional administrations. Hybrid systems can also include components of other kinds of democracy, such as a parliamentary system combined with a robust presidential system. These systems are frequently viewed as a compromise between competing political ideologies or as a means of balancing the strengths and shortcomings of various systems

If the official replaces the current political system with a hybrid one, it could be very beneficial. One of the main advantages of a hybrid system is that it allows for a balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of government. In a presidential system, the executive branch is separate from the legislative branch, with the president having a lot of power. In a parliamentary system, however, the executive branch is accountable to the legislative branch. In a hybrid system, the executive branch has some independence from the legislative branch but is still responsible for it. This helps to prevent too much power from being concentrated in one person or group and also helps to protect citizens’ rights and to avoid abuse of power.

An additional benefit of implementing a hybrid system is that it may facilitate more efficient decision-making by leveraging the strengths of both presidential and parliamentary systems. In a presidential system, the separation of powers can result in stalemates and prolonged indecision, while in a parliamentary system, the government can swiftly collapse if it loses the legislature’s support. A hybrid system, on the other hand, can offer a balance of stability and agility, allowing for more prompt decision-making while maintaining the accountability of the executive branch. Furthermore, considering Pakistan’s history of military involvement in politics, a hybrid system can provide a mechanism to hold the military accountable to the civilian administration and reduce the likelihood of military intervention.

It is imperative to acknowledge that a hybrid system may not be the ultimate remedy for all of Pakistan’s issues, and its successful operation would require meticulous planning and execution. Nevertheless, this system could potentially provide a glimpse of sustained stability in Pakistan’s political landscape, and it is incumbent upon the authorities to consider this system as a viable option to circumvent further obstacles.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending