Connect with us

South Asia

GST: Another Modi gambling for perpetual economic disorder?

Published

on

Indian PM Modi is in news again with a new economic project called GST.  GST could mean two big things, one: Global State terrorism and two, Goods and Services Tax.  While Indians are still struggling with the impact of demonetization, the Modi government has come out with yet another shock called GST.

Apparently, Modi is still eager to be in the news and he does things only to promote that goal at a heavy cost for the people of India. His foreign tours, being arranged jointly by PMO, foreign ministry and Indian embassies abroad,  are meant to boost Modi’s image as a fast running PM of India. In fact, Mod runs into wanting state plane to take him for foreign tours. He thoroughly enjoys his foreign tours, meeting big leaders and having food with them and “shake hands” photos with them for Indian media lords.

The Modi government keeps trying various economic strategies, even if for fun, that harms the people at large. But neither Modi nor BJP nor RSS is worried about the consequences of their actions. It seems the BJP regime is targeting the people of India for ignoring them for too long to offer it the mandate to rule the nation. PM Modi is also not sure if people would repose their faith in his party or government when the next general poll take place.

The Modi government thus punishes the people of India while Mod himself keeps visiting big nations as his prime hobby along with big entourage of media lords and  government officals. Modi just ignores the sentiments of Indians by going to Israel against  Indian support for the support for the Palestinians whom Israeli  state terrorists keep attacking, killing even the children there for their blood and land for illegal Jewish settlements.   

In order to make his visit to Israel easy without any criticism in India, PM Modi has launched the GST so that people of India and media are busy with the issue while he would enjoy life in Israel. 

Global State terrorism today is the universal policy of fascism and imperialism. The state terror operations perpetrated by the regimes, targeting people of their own nations or people of other countries, like US led NATO terror wars in Arab world and Afghanistan, or perpetual Israeli terror attacks on Palestine for its lands and blood of Palestinians; or say continuous Indian state attacks on Kashmiris in occupied Kashmir (already over 1000,000 Muslims have been slaughter by Indian forces in Kashmir alone), and two, the Goods and Services Tax being introduced by Indian regime aiming at a standard tax system for entire country and in every state and region. Either could destabilize the weak nations and common people and could only promote capitalism and support global imperialism.

Here we are talking about the second problem of new Indian economic law GST, relating to uniform taxes. PM Modi has called it Good and Simple Tax. But common people are puzzled as they care confused about the consequences of GST. After their disastrous experience with demonetization drive, Indians are scared f of any new shock therapies by the Modi government. Certainly, they want to live with fewer problems.

One party, one system, one religion, one tax

Taking the one time victory as the permanent vote  by Indian people, the RSS/BJP government is bent upon one  system, one party and one religion system in India. Every in India is trying for essentially a  fascist-Zionist Hindutva ideology.

A nationwide Goods and Services Tax (GST), came into effect on Saturday from midnight, has faced criticism for its complex design.  GST, being billed as the biggest tax reform since Independence, will subsume all indirect state and central levies, making India a single market. Under GST law, the producer must have to pass the added benefit of tax reduction. Businesses and their consultants have opposed it and said that it’s against the free market concept.

Union finance minister Arun Jaitley has likened the roll out of the GST – whose bill was cleared by both houses of Parliament last month after six years of stormy debate – to a revolution and the “most significant taxation overhaul in India.” PM Narendra Modi said the GST reflects the spirit of “one nation, one aspiration, one determination.” Opposition parties oppose it.

FM Arun Jaitley on June 29 asked opposition parties such as Congress and the Left to reconsider their decision to skip the midnight GST launch tomorrow saying they were all consulted on the indirect tax reform and cannot run away from it. “I hope every political party will reconsider and revisit its decision” on not participating in the launch event to be organised in the Central Hall of Parliament, he said. The government, FM Jaitley said, remains committed to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) as any other reform. “It is single most important taxation reform in 70 years.” All decision on GST, including rules and tax rates, were taken in consultation with states and political parties must display broad shoulder and own up their responsibility, he said.

The leader of Indian opposition Congress decided to keep away from the special midnight June 30 meeting convened by the government on GST implementation. Trinamool Congress has already announced its decision to boycott the event. Left parties also boycott the meeting as they reject the GST. CPI (M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury has already questioned the government on “hurrying” into introducing GST and recalled that the ruling BJP had opposed the system when it was in the opposition.

The Left parties will not take part in the special midnight meeting on June 30 convened by the government to launch the Goods and Services Tax (GST), CPI leader D Raja said today. He said the parties will not take part in the meeting in view of protest by small and medium scale entrepreneurs, traders, weavers and informal sector workers on the way the GST is being implemented. “The Left will not be participating in the midnight GST meeting. People are agitating across the county. ..We cannot be celebrating when people are agitating,” the Rajya Sabha member said.

The Modi government wants smooth rollout of the GST the 30 June in the parliament. A war room will monitor and take immediate action on a complaint. Government officials have specially alerted to thwart any attempt of cartelization or disruption in the new tax regime. The government said it will use the circular-shaped Central Hall to launch the new taxation system that is set to dramatically re-shape the over USD 2 trillion economy. A gong will be sounded at midnight to usher in the GST. Prime Minister Modi will be the key speaker at the function. President Pranab Mukherjee, who is enjoying finals days at Presidential palace with Mogul Garden, , is also likely to attend the function, where former Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and H D Deve Gowda have been invited too. Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) chief said that “The finance ministry has set up a GST feedback and action room specifically for government officials to approach it with any urgent queries related to problems of GST in any area”.

The PMO and Indian government officials have specially alerted to thwart any attempt of cartelization or disruption in the new tax regime. The government has created a ‘war room’ to monitor GST (Goods and Service Tax) implementation process, a new indirect tax system which will roll out on Saturday. In North Block, the office building of Finance ministry has allotted a space named as ‘GST Feedback and Action Room’. Former Chairman of CBEC said that “The government wants these benefits to reach the consumers through these Anti- Profiteering Rules. On the other hand, its rampant application will create chaos and serious disruptions in business”.

Equipped with multiple phone lines and computer systems and manned by tech-savvy youngsters, a “mini war room” has been set up in the Finance Ministry to deal with crises related to the implementation of GST or goods and services tax. War room is also ready for prompt action from tax evasion to technical confusion on rates to transportation related issues. War room responsibility is more crucial as the anti-profiteering body is still in the process of being.

GST- one tax and several problems

GST is not as simple as Modi and Arun want us believe. It is highly complicated at different levels. BJP, a party of  finical lords,  cannot devise any policy to multiage the poor or common people.

The GST, a worldwide accepted tax system, was first introduced by France in 1954.  Presently, around 160 countries follow the GST or VAT in some form or the other. In some countries, analysts say, VAT is the substitute for a GST, but conceptually it is a destination-based tax levied on consumption of goods and services. However, only Canada has a dual GST model, akin to what India intends doing.

Indian government wants to replace it with a more streamlined nationwide Goods & Services Tax (GST) that is hailed by many as the country’s most pathbreaking tax reform and deplored by others who fear it will turn the economy down. The new system will eliminate India’s notorious complex layers of taxation including purchase, entertainment, excise, luxury and sales taxes (VAT) and others. Analysts predict that the GST, if properly implemented, will likely bolster the country’s GDP by 2 percent.

One of the major objectives of GST is to make the tax incidence on consumers less by reducing compliance costs, removing cascading of taxes, increasing the tax base, reducing logistics costs and reducing the effective rates of taxes from the present level. Other country experiences suggest that GST led inflationary pressures in an economy because producers have refused to pass added profit to consumers.

GST law said, “Any reduction in rate of tax on any supply of goods or services or the benefit of input tax credit shall be passed on to the recipient by way of commensurate reduction in prices”. Revenue secretary Dr Hasmukh Adhia had said that “We expect companies to cooperate. We hope we don’t have to use the weapon.”

A unified tax system is likely to remove a slew of indirect taxes as well as the cascading effect of taxes. Manufacturing costs will be reduced; hence prices of consumer goods – cars, phones, FMCG goods – will also likely plummet. A unified tax regime will also be a deterrent to corruption which will benefit the common man.Other benefits include simpler administration which will ensure an easier collection of revenues, widening of the tax net and plugging of leakages and multiple taxations which will boost the government’s revenue stream and efficiency. For the consumer/tax-paying citizens, the GST would mean more transparency, proportionate taxation, relief in overall tax burdens, slightly cheaper goods and services.

India’s gold industry is optimistic that the gold supply chain will be more transparent and efficient. The GST, some hope, will also provide an edge to the travel and tourism industry by reducing costs for customers, streamlining taxes and thus promoting overall growth. Under the GST, rates finalized for air travel, flying economy will attract a 5 percent tax.

India currently has one of the worst tax-to-GDP ratios among major economies at 16.6 percent, less the half the 34 percent average for the members of the OECD and also below many emerging economies. Improved tax compliance should shore up public finances, augmenting resources for welfare and development spending and giving a lift to the $2 trillion economy.

While there is no official estimate of the potential fiscal gain, some tax experts say the measure, after the initial teething trouble, would lift the tax-to-GDP ratio by as much as 4 percentage points as the number of tax filers is estimated to more than treble to 30 million. In future, compliance is going to be extremely crucial

True, not many are interested in paying taxes and as corruption, being religiously promoted by the regime and politicians, has badly affected the tax officials as well, most pay taxes not properly.

The unorganized sector of India’s economy is vast, employing an estimated nine out of 10 workers. While staying outside the GST regime risks losing business, joining it will necessitate an overhaul of firms’ accounting systems and an investment in technology.

The new tax system requires three filing a month plus an annual return – a total of 37 filings – for each of India’s 29 states in which a firm operates. For smaller companies operating on wafer thin margins, hiring accountants and technical staff could substantially dent their bottom line. A head of portfolio management services at financial firm in Mumbai says all consumer-facing industries will be big beneficiaries of the GST

Most of those who argue for GST are also the supporters of BJP government. Only time will let the peole know the real move of GST as India has long ago under the corrupt Congress misrule mortgaged its economic policy to IMF and World Bank and increasingly work to promote American economic interests in order to gain some favors from Washington. The Hindutva fanatics are too eager to promote those “structured” relations with USA.

Of the eight million existing tax payers, 6.6 million tax assesses have already enrolled for GST. And about 1.7 lakh new applications for GST have come in. However, the silence inside the headquarters of Goods and Services Tax Network or GSTN, housed on the fourth floor of an imposing glass building aptly named World Mark I right next to Delhi’s international airport, is misleading. Behind white and blue cubicles, professionals with expertise in IT and taxation are putting in extra hours to ensure that the switch over to GST is a smooth affair. The biggest task for GSTN – a not-for-profit company set up to manage and collect indirect taxes – is to help traders and businessmen migrate to the GST platform.

Indian GST Network has developed a tool where you can work offline and upload when there is connectivity. It will take seconds to upload your returns. As the officials test and retest their programs and applications, our question “when was your last off day” made everyone burst out. “We will have to check our records,” said a former banker who’s “measuring end user results of the GST software.” “This is our national service.”

However, some chief ministers of Indian states have already expressed their dissent. How is one-nation-one-tax good politics for all 29 states and several Union territories and the center given the fact they all have diverse economic strengths and weaknesses?

Observation

GST interferes with federal arrangement and imposes its will on the states and thereby encroaches upon state rights and privileges. In other words, federal government tries to control entire nation and state resources.

One tax indeed means big problems for the people of India.  Conscious people in India feel if India has been purchased by international frauds that play with the psyche of Indians who want to see their nation a super power as soon as possible to challenge both USA and Russia while making China a non-issue. 

GST is likely to harm the common masses. GST is exorbitant. Tax is likely to increase on a massive scale. Traders are not going to reduce the prices.

Who will benefit? Any reform or policy is supposed to help the people of the nation. Corporate lords will have more profits under GST.

Once lauded as path-breaking, which is now causing rancor in the European Union.  Lesser-developed economies like Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain have had to adopt extreme austerity measures that have sent unemployment soaring all over southern Europe. This has led many of the anti-EU states to consider a referendum on exiting the union a la Brexit.

In India too, there is a strong chance that the GST, the country’s boldest and riskiest tax reform yet, may give the ruling political establishment a greater headache than it may have bargained for.

The country’s biggest tax reform since independence is promising to bring millions of firms into the tax net, boosting government revenues and India’s sovereign credit profile. Until now, all rundown premises and small scale operation has kept the business below the radar of India’s tax officials. Since July 1, however, the party will be over. The new tax will require firms to upload their invoices every month to a portal that will match them with those of their suppliers or vendors. Because a tax number is needed for a firm to claim a credit on the cost of its inputs, many companies are refusing to buy from unregistered businesses. Those who don’t sign up risk losing any customer who has.

The nation is waiting for the real problems of GST to come to fore.

There are serious apprehensions in the minds of people over GST’s implementation. Unfortunately, India is under the grip of international frauds like the BJP MP and IPL boss Mallya. Unless corruption is contained and done away with, a new tax system won’t be fruitful. If the regime let its supporters to loot the nation’s resources and evade taxes, nothing good or positive is going to come of the envisaged tax reforms.

The GST is in fact a regressive tax, which will consume a higher proportion of poor people’s income, compared to those earning large incomes.  Many feel that imposition will also result in a surge in prices of services like telecoms, banking and airlines. If the actual tax benefit is not passed to consumers, and sellers increase their profit margin, the prices of goods will go up instead of down. Even assuming the GST delivers on the revenue front after an initial lag, one has to realize that it goes counter to the long-term trend of devolving greater powers to states.  It centralizes in the GST Council the powers of indirect taxation, and could thus be a constant source of friction between center and states, or between states if some gain or lose more than the others.

One also suspects if the governments of Congress and BJP are trying to eliminate the poor and have-nots from the Indian economic system by GST and other such measures as the IMF and World Bank, committed to capitalism and colonialism, are pressing the third world to do away all subsidies to the poor. .

The BJP government that worships cow and Israel as real gods, has been searching new ideas to boost the image of the Modi led RSS government which is shattered by false promises to the people and issues like black money and demonetization. GST therefore is crucial for the BJP government which has lost the blackmoney issue as part of gigantic demonetization drive that spelt disastrous for the common people for months and the impact is not completely worn out.

Uncertainty cannot be the foundation of any government because people suffer not knowing how to deal with new threats to their ordinary lives.

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

What, in fact, is India’s stand on Kashmir?

Published

on

Women walking past Indian security forces in Srinagar, summer capital of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Nimisha Jaiswal/IRIN

At the UNGA, India’s first secretary Sneha Dubey said the entire Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh “were, are and will always be an integral and inalienable part of India. She added, “Pakistan’s attempts to internationalise the Kashmir issue have gained no traction from the international community and the Member States, who maintain that Kashmir is a bilateral matter between the two countries (Pakistan is ‘arsonist’ disguising itself as ‘fire-fighter’: India at UNGA, the Hindu September 25, 2021).

It is difficult to make head or tail of India’s stand on Kashmir. India considers the whole of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir as its integral part. Yet, at the same time, admits it to be a bilateral matter still to be resolved between India and Pakistan.

What bars Pakistan from agitating the Kashmir dispute at international forums?

India presumes that the Simla accord debars Pakistan from “internationalizing” the Kashmir dispute. That’s not so. Avtar Singh Bhasin (India and Pakistan: Neighbours at Odd) is of the view that though Pakistan lost the war in East Pakistan, it won at Simla.

Bhasin says, `At the end, Bhutto the “dramatist” carried the day at Simla. The Agreement signed in Simla did no more than call for `respecting the Line of Control emerging from the ceasefire of 17 December 1971. As the Foreign Secretary TN Kaul [of India] said at briefing of the heads of foreign mission in New Delhi on 4 July 1972, the recognition of the new ceasefire line ended the United Nations’ Military Observers’ Group on India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) role in Kashmir, created specifically  for the supervision of the UN sponsored ceasefire line of 1949, since that line existed no more. Having said that India once again faltered for not asking the UN to withdraw its team from Kashmir, or withdrawing its own recognition to it and its privileges (Document No. 0712 in Bhasin’s India-Pakistan Relations 1947-207).

Following Simla Accord (1972), India, in frustration, stopped reporting ceasefire skirmishes to the UN. But, Pakistan has been consistently reporting all such violations to the UN. India feigns it does not recognise the UNMOGIP. But, then it provides logistic support to the UMOGIP on its side of the LOC.

India keeps harassing the UNMOGIP vehicles occasionally. Not long ago, three members of the UNMOGIP had a close call along the LoC in Azad Jammu and Kashmir after Indian troops shot at and injured two locals who were briefing them on the situation after ceasefire violations.

India even asked UNMOGIP to vacate 1/AB, Purina Lila Road, Connaught Place, from where it has been functioning since 1949.

Bhasin says (p.257-259), `The Pakistan Radio broadcasts and…commentators took special pains to highlight …the fact: (i) That India have accepted Kashmir to be a disputed territory and Pakistan a party to the dispute. (ii) That the UNSC resolutions had not been nullified and contrarily (iii) Kashmir remained the core issue between the two countries and that there could not be permanent peace without a just solution based on the principle of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. And Pakistan was right in its assessment. It lost the war won the peace. At the end India was left askance at its own wisdom’.

Obviously, if the UNSC resolutions are intact, then Pakistan has the right to raise the Kashmir dispute at international forums.

India’s shifting stands on Kashmir

At heart, the wily Jawaharlal Lal Nehru never cared a fig for the disputed state’s constituent assembly, Indian parliament or the UN. This truth is interspersed in Avtar Singh Basin’s 10-volume documentary study (2012) of India-Pakistan Relations 1947-2007.  It contains 3649 official documents, accessed from archives of India’s external-affairs ministry.  These papers gave new perspectives on Nehru’s vacillating state of perfidious mind concerning the Kashmir dispute. In his 2018 book (published after six years of his earlier work), India, Pakistan: Neighbours at Odds (Bloomsbury India, New Delhi, 2018), Bhasin discusses Nehru’s perfidy on Kashmir in Chapter 5 titled Kashmir, India’s Constitution and Nehru’s Vacillation (pages 51-64). The book is based on Selected Works of Jawaharlal (SWJ) Nehru and author’s own compendium of documents on India-Pak relations. Let us lay bare a few of Nehru’s somersaults

Nehru disowns Kashmir assembly’s “accession”, owns Security Council resolutions

Initially, Nehru banked on so-called Instrument of Accession and its authentication by `Constituent Assembly. Yet, in a volte-face he reiterated in New Delhi on November3, 1951 that `we have made it perfectly clear before the Security Council that the Kashmir Constituent Assembly does not [insofar] as we are concerned come in the way of a decision by the Security Council, or the United Nations’(SWJ: Volume 4: page 292, Bhasin p.228). Again, at a press conference on June 11, 1951, he was asked `if the proposed constituent assembly of Kashmir “decides in favour of acceding to Pakistan, what will be the position?”’ he reiterated,  `We have made it perfectly clear that the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir was not meant to decide finally any such question , and it is not in the way of any decision which may ultimate flow from the Security Council proceedings’ (SWJ: Volume 15:, Part II, page 394. Bhasin page 56). He re-emphasised his view once again at a press conference in New Delhi On November 3, 1951.

Nehru does not label Pakistan an aggressor at the UN

And then labels it so in Parliament

He never labeled Pakistan an aggressor at the UN. Yet, he told parliament on March 1, 1954 `that “aggression” took place in Kashmir six and a half years ago with dire consequences. Nevertheless the United States have thus far not condemned it and we are asked not to press this point in the interest of peace (Bhasin pp. 55-56).

Nehru disowns the Security Council as just a non-binding mediator

On July 24 1952, Nehru said, `Unless the Security Council functioned under some other Sections of the Charter, it cannot take a decision which is binding upon us unless we agree to it. They are functioning as mediators and a mediator means getting people to agree (SWJ, Volume 19, page 241. Bhasin page 56).

Security Council re-owned

Bhasin points out (page 57 op. cit.) `At the same press conference on 24 July, 1952 when asked what the necessity of plebiscite was now that he had got the Constituent Assembly [approval], he replied “Maybe theoretically you may be right. But we have given them [UN] an assurance and we stand by it (SWJ: Volume 19, pp. 240-241. Bhasin, p. 57, Bhasin pages 256-257).

Concluding remarks

Pakistan’s recourse to the UN is India’s Achilles Heel. So it is as India’s stand on disputed Kashmir is a rigmarole of inconsistent myths.

To avoid internationalization of the Kashmir issue, India’s own former foreign secretary Jagat Singh Mehta offered proposals (rebranded by Pervez Musharraf’s) to soften the LOC in exchange for non-internationalisation of the Kashmir dispute for 10 years. Mehta presented his ideas in an article, ‘Resolving Kashmir in the International Context of the 1990s’.

India had no consistent stand on Kashmir. There was a time when Sardar Patel presented Kashmir to Pakistan in exchange for Hyderabad and Junagadh. Reportedly, the offer was declined as Pakistan’s prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan thought it could retain not only Kashmir but also Junagadh and Hyderabad. Jawaharlal Nehru approached the United Nations’ for mediation. He kept harping his commitment to the plebiscite.

It is eerie that the whole architecture of India’s stand on Kashmir is erected on the mythical `instrument of accession’ and its endorsement by the disputed state’s assembly, Accession documents are un-registered with the UN. The Simla Accord text makes crystal clear reference to the UN charter.

Let India know that a state that flouts international treaties is a rogue state: pacta sunt servanda, treaties are to be observed and are binding on parties. Self-determination is not only a political but also a legal right in disputed lands. Sans talks with Pakistan, and UN or third-party mediation, what else is India’s recipe for imprisoned Kashmiris? A nuclear Armageddon or divine intervention?

Continue Reading

South Asia

Afghanistan may face famine because of anti-Taliban sanctions

Published

on

Food and blankets are handed out to people in need in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, by © WFP/Arete

Afghanistan may face a food crisis under the Taliban (outlawed in Russia) rule because this movement is under sanctions of both individual states and the United Nations, Andrei Kortunov, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council, told TASS on Monday.

“A food crisis and famine in Afghanistan are not ruled out. Indeed, Afghanistan is now on life support, with assistance mostly coming from international development institutes, as well as from the United Nations, the European Union, and the United States, i.e. from Western sources and institutes close to the West,” he said. “The Taliban is under international sanctions, not only unilateral US and EU sanctions, but also under UN sanctions. That is why, in formal terms, the Taliban coming to power may mean that these sanctions could be expanded to the entire country, and it will entail serious food problems. Food deliveries from the World Food Program and other international organizations may be at risk.”

According to the expert, statistics from recent years show that annual assistance to Afghanistan amounts to about five billion US dollars, but this sum is not enough to satisfy the needs of the country’s population. “It is believed that a minimal sum needed by Afghanistan to maintain basic social institutions to avoid hunger in certain regions stands at one billion US dollars a month, i.e. 12 billion a year,” Kortunov noted. “Some say that twice as much is needed, taking into account that population growth in Afghanistan is among the world’s highest and life expectancy is among the lowest. And around half of Afghan children under five are undernourished.”

He noted that despite the fact that the issue of further food supplies to Afghanistan is not settled, some countries, for instance, China, continue to help Afghanistan but a consolidated position of the international community is needed to prevent a food and humanitarian crisis. “A common position of the international community is needed and it should be committed to paper in corresponding resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, which should provide for reservations concerning food assistance in any case,” he added.

However, in his words, the key question is who will control the distribution of humanitarian and food assistance inside the country. “There were such precedents when countries and regimes under sanctions were granted reservations and received food assistance. But a logical question arises about who will control the distribution of this assistance. This has always been a stumbling block for programs of assistance to Syria, as the West claimed that if everything is left to Damascus’ discretion, assistance will be distributed in the interests of [President Bashar] Assad and his inner circle rather than in the interests of the Syrian people. It is not ruled out that the same position will be taken in respect of the Taliban,” Kortunov went on to say. “It means that the international community will be ready to provide food assistance but on condition that unimpeded access will be granted to the areas in need and everything will not be handed over to the Taliban who will decide about whom to help.”

After the US announced the end of its operation in Afghanistan and the beginning of its troop withdrawal, the Taliban launched an offensive against Afghan government forces. On August 15, Taliban militants swept into Kabul without encountering any resistance, establishing full control over the country’s capital within a few hours. Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani said he had stepped down to prevent any bloodshed and subsequently fled the country. US troops left Afghanistan on August 31.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

South Asia

The failure of the great games in Afghanistan from the 19th century to the present day

Published

on

Whenever great powers have tried to make Afghanistan a colony, they have always been defeated. British imperialism and its “civilising mission” towards backward (and therefore terrorist) populations – a mission equal to that of the time when Great Britain established itself as the first drug pusher to the Chinese Empire with the two opium wars of 1839-1842; 1856-1860: an action that was terrorist at the best.

The Russian Empire and its exporting the orthodox faith and the values of the Tsar towards the barbaric (and therefore terrorist) Afghans. The Soviet Union and its attempt to impose secularisation on Muslim (and therefore terrorist) Afghans in the period 1979-1991. The United States of America that thought it could create parties, democracy, Coke, miniskirts, as well as gambling and pleasure houses by bombing the Afghan terrorists tout-court.

In this article I will try to explain why Afghanistan won 4-0, and in 1919 – thanks to its rulers’ wise skills – was one of the only six actual independent Asian States (Japan, Nepal, Thailand and Yemen), so that at least the barroom experts – who, by their nature, believe that History is just a fairy tale like that of Cinderella and stepmother with evil sisters – reflect on the nonsense we read and hear every day in the press and in the media.

In his book I luoghi della Storia (Rizzoli, Milan 2000), former Ambassador Sergio Romano wrote on page 196: “The Afghans spent a good part of the nineteenth century playing a diplomatic and military game with the great powers – the so-called “Great Game” – the main rule of which was to use the Russians against the Brits and the Brits against the Russians”.

In the days when geopolitics was a forbidden subject and the word was forbidden, in the history textbooks of secondary schools it seemed that the United States of America and the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had fallen from the sky as large as they were on the atlases. I still remember that in the dialogues between professors and high school students, it was stated that the two powers could not be called colonial, since they had something messianic and redeeming in themselves (therefore anti-terrorist).

It was only thanks to western movies that the young people of the time understood how the thirteen Lutheran colonies had extended westwards into lands that we were led to believe had been inhabited by savage villains to be exterminated (hence terrorists) and by uncivilised Spaniards, as Catholics, to be defeated. Moreover, we did not dare to study Russia’s expansion eastwards and southwards, at the risk that the high school students – unprepared, pure and enthusiastic – would understand that the homeland of socialism had no different assumptions from all other imperialisms.

Sometimes the students heard about the great game or, in Russian, the tournament of shadows (turniry teney). What was the great game? Today it is mostly remembered as the epic of freedom of the unconquered Afghans, but in reality its solution meant the alliance between Russia and Great Britain, which lasted at least until the eve of the Cold War. A key position that is sometimes too overlooked, and not only in scientific and classical textbooks, but also in many essays by self-proclaimed experts.

British aversion to the Russian Empire – apart from the “necessary” anti-Napoleonic alliances in the Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Coalitions – dated back to the 17th century and worsened considerably in the 19th century. Although Russian exports of grain, natural fibres and other agricultural crops were made to Great Britain – because the Russian landowners were well disposed to good relations with the Brits in order to better market those products abroad – there were no political improvements. The opposition came more from Great Britain than from Russia.

Tsar Nicholas I (1796-1825-55) – in the late 1830s, during his trip to Great Britain in 1842, and later in 1850-52, i.e. just before the Crimean War (1853-56) – often tried to bring about normalisation, but due to British suspicions and doubts (the Russians were considered to be terrorists) this did not occur.

What worried the Foreign Office – created in March 1782 – was Russia’s fast march eastwards, southwards and south-westwards. Great Britain could feel Russian breath on it from the three sides of India. The Russian goals with regard to Turkey, the successes in Trancaucasia and the Persian goals, not to mention the colonisation of Central Asia, initiated by the aforementioned Tsar Nicholas I, and conducted vigorously by his successor Alexander II (1818-1855-81), were – for Her Britannic Majesty’s diplomats and generals – a blatant and threatening intimidation of India’s “pearl”.

In the north-west of the Indian subcontinent the British possessions bordered on the Thar desert and on Sindh (the Indus River delta) which constituted a Muslim State under leaders residing at Haidarābād, conquered by the Brits in 1843. To the north-east of Sindh, the Punjab region had been amalgamated into a strong State by Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji (1780-1801-39) who, as a simple Governor of Lahore (Lâhau) on behalf of the Afghan Emir, Zaman Shah Durrani (1770-93-1800-†44), had succeeded not only in becoming independent, but also in extending his power over Kashmir and Pīshāwar, creating the Sikh Empire in 1801, which was overthrown by Great Britain during the I (1845-46) and II (1848-49) Anglo-Sikh wars; the region became what is known as the Pakistani Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (the North-West Frontier Province).

Given the British expansion into the neighbouring States of Afghanistan and Persia, Russia’s influence was trying to creep in; hence the Brits were paying close attention to what was happening on the border of the great Northern “neighbour”.

Russia had long been aiming to make its way to India through Western Turkestan, but that steppe region was inhabited by the Kyrgyz in the north-east and the Turks (Turkmen) in the south-west.

After unsuccessful attempts at peaceful penetration, the Russian Governor of Orenburg, Gen. Vasilij Alekseevič Perovskij (1794-1857), prepared an expedition against Chiva: it involved crossing about a thousand kilometres of desert and was thought to be easier to make during the winter. The expedition left from Orenburg in November 1839, but the cold killed so many men and camels that the Commander had to give up the venture and turn back (spring 1840). For a long time, the Russians did not attempt any more military infiltrations there.

In Persia, instead, Russian influence was strongly felt: Tsar Alexander II pushed the Shah, Naser al-Din Qajar (1831-48-96), to undertake an enterprise against the city of Herāt (which dominated the passage from Persia and Western Turkestan into India): it had detached itself from Afghanistan and had been a separate State since 1824. The Persian expedition began in the autumn of 1837: Herāt resisted strenuously, so much so that in the summer of 1838 the Shah had to renounce the siege and accept Britain’s mediation for peace with the sovereign of that city. That diplomatic move was therefore also detrimental to the influence of St. Petersburg. Even the first relations established by Russia with the Emir of Afghanistan did not lead to any result.

In those years, Russia was busy quelling the insurrections of the mountain populations in the Caucasus, where the exploits of the alleged Italian sheikh, Mansur Ushurma (Giambattista Boetti, 1743-98), in the service of the Chechen cause, still echoed.

Through two treaties concluded with Persia (1828) and Turkey (1829), Russia had become the master of the region; however, it found an obstinate resistance from the local populations that still persists today.

The First Anglo-Afghan War (1839-42) was one of the most important military conflicts of the great game and one of the worst British defeats in the region. The Brits had started an expedition to Afghanistan to overthrow Emir Dost Mohammad (1793-1826-39, 42-63), the first of the Barakzai dynasty, and replace him with the last of the Durrani dynasty, Ayub Shah (17??-1819-23, †37), who had been dethroned in 1823, but he renounced. Not wanting to cross the Sikh country in order not to arouse mistrust among the Sikhs, the British entered Baluchistan, occupied the capital (Qalat), then penetrated into Afghanistan and advanced without encountering serious resistance as far as Kabul, where on August 7, 1839 they installed their own puppet, Shuja Shah (1785-1842), formerly Emir from 1803 to 1809.

Dost Mohammad was caught and sent to Calcutta. A the beginning of 1841, however, one of his sons – Sher Ali – aroused the Afghans’ rebellion. The military commander, Gen. William George Keith Elphinstone (b. 1782), got permission to leave with 4,500 soldiers and 12,000 non-combatants to return to India. In the mountain passes near Kabul, however, the expedition was taken by surprise and annihilated (January 1842). The commander died as prisoner of the Afghans (on April 23).

The Brits obviously wanted revenge: they sent other troops that, in September of the same year, reconquered Kabul: this time the Brits – intimidated – did not deem it advisable to remain there. Convinced they had reaffirmed a certain prestige, they withdrew and, since the Emir they protected had died on April 5, 1842, they agreed – helplessly – to Dost Mohammad’s return to the throne. He conquered Herāt forever for Afghanistan.

Russia did not just stand by and watch and asserted its power in the Far East. In the years 1854-58 – despite its engagement in the Crimean war: the first real act of the great game, as Britain had to defend the Ottoman Empire from Sarmatian aspirations of conquest – it had established, with a series of expeditions, its jurisdiction over the province of Amur, through the Treaty of Aigun – labelled as the unequal treaty as it was imposed on China – on May 28, 1858. Shortly afterwards the fleet arrived at Tien-Tsin (Tianjin), forced China into another treaty on June 26-27, thus obtaining the opening of ports for trade, and the permanence of a Russian embassy in Peking. Moreover, in Central Asia, Russia renewed its attempts to advance against the khanates of Buchara and Kokand (Qo’qon), and had once again led the Shah of Persia, Mozaffar ad-Din Qajar (1853-96-1907), to try again the enterprise of Herāt (1856), which had caused again the British intervention (Anglo-Persian War, 1856-57) that ended with Persia’s recognition of the independence of the aforementioned city. The Anglo-Russian rivalry thus continued to be one of the essential problems of Central Asia, for the additional reason that Russia gradually expanded into West Turkestan, Buchara and Chiva between 1867 and 1873.

After the Russian conquests in West Turkestan, Dost Mohammad’ son and successor, Sher Ali (1825-63-66, 68-79), came under the influence of the neighbouring power, which was trying to penetrate the area to the detriment of Britain. On July 22, 1878 St Petersburg sent a mission. The Emir repelled a similar British mission at the Khyber Pass in September 1878, thus triggering the start of the war. The Brits soon opened hostilities, invading the country with 40,000 soldiers

 from three different points.

The Emir went into exile in Mazār-i-Sharīf, leaving his son Mohammad Yaqub (1849-79-80, †1914) as heir. He signed the Treaty of Gandamak on May 26, 1879 to prevent a British invasion of the rest of the country.

Once the British First Resident, the Italian Pierre Louis Napoleon Cavagnari (b. 1841) went to Kabul, he was assassinated there on September 3, 1879. British troops organised a second expedition and occupied the capital. They did not trust the Emir and raised a nephew of Dost Mohammed, Abdur Rahman (1840/44-80-1901), to power on May 31, 1880. He pledged to have no political relations except with Britain.

The former Emir, Mohammad Yaqub, took up arms and severely defeated the Brits at Maiwand on July 27, 1880, with the help of the Afghan heroine Malalai Anaa (1861-80), who rallied the Pashtun troops against the attackers. On September 1 of the same year Mohammad Yaqub was defeated and put to flight by Gen. Frederick Roberts (1832-1914) in the Battle of Kandahâr, which ended the Second Anglo-Afghan War.

This brought Afghanistan permanently under British influence, which was secured by the construction of a railway from the Indus River to the Afghan city of Kandahâr. Since the railway passed through Beluchistan, it was definitively annexed to British India. In 1880, Russia began the construction of the Transcaspian Railway, which alarmed the Brits who extended the section of their “railroad” to Herāt.

It was only with the accession to the throne of Imānullāh (1892-1919-29, †60), on February 28, 1919 (Shah from 1926), that Afghanistan took its foreign policy away from Great Britain through the Third Anglo-Afghan War (6 May-8 August 1919), by which the Afghans finally threw the Brits out of the picture (Treaty of Râwalpindî of August 8, 1919, amended on November 22, 1921).

As early as 1907, the Russian government had declared it considered Afghanistan to be outside its sphere of influence, and pledged not to send any agents there, as well as to consult the British government about its relations with that country.

Indeed, Britain soon gave up direct control of the country, given the fierce fighting spirit of its people, who had humiliated it many times, and contented itself with guarding and keeping the north-west Indian border under control.

In reality, the great game has never ended. As Spartacus Alfredo Puttini stated (La Russia di Putin sulla scacchiera, in “Eurasia”, A. IX, No. 1, January-March 2012, pp. 129-147), upon his coming to power Vladimir Putin found himself grappling with a difficult legacy. Gorbachev’s policy of katastroika had dealt a lethal blow to the Soviet and later Russian colossus.

Within a few years, Russia had embarked on a unilateral disarmament that led, at first, to its withdrawal from Afghanistan and then from Central and Eastern Europe. While the State was heading for collapse and the economy was being disrupted, it was the very periphery of the Soviet Union that was catching fire due to separatist movements promptly subsidised by those who – in the great game – replaced the Brits. Massive US aid to the heroic anti-Soviet patriots, who were later branded as terrorists.

In a short time the real collapse occurred and the ‘new’ Russia found itself geopolitically shrunken and morally and materially prostrated by the great looting made by the pro-Western oligarchs in the shadow of the Yeltsin Presidency.

To the west, the country had returned to the borders of the 17th century; to the south, it had lost Southern Caucasus and valuable Central Asia, where the new great game was soon to begin. In other words, the process of disruption would not stop, and would infect the Russian Federation itself: Chechnya had engaged in a furious war of secession that threatened to spread like wildfire to the whole of Northern Caucasus and, in the long run, called into question the very survival of the Russian State divided into autonomous entities.

This was followed by the phenomenon of “orangism” in 2003-2005 (Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan): the various caricatures of oxymoronic “liberal” revolutions aimed at moving certain governments away from Russia’s influence.

Ultimately, the central power had been undermined on all sides by the policy of Yeltsin and his clan, aimed at granting extensive autonomy to the regions of the Federation. Public property, the glue of State authority and the instrument of its concrete activity to guide and orient the nation, had been sold off. Over time, Putin put things right, and the rest is condensed into the restoration choices of the plebiscitary vote in his favour.

In the end Afghanistan also saw the US failure, which I have examined in previous articles.

The Asian sense of freedom is summed up in the expulsion of foreign aggressors from their own homelands and territories. Someone should start to understand this.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending