This paper is part one of a three-part series. The overall paper describes how it might be possible to improve relations between both states (at least in theory). Part one begins by discussing the primary issue between both countries i.e. Kashmir – after which the paper highlights1 out of a total of 3“Opportunities” that both countries can leverage to achieve rapprochement. Part 2 of the paper discusses the remaining 2 “Opportunities” and then describes the pre-requisites of the proposed roadmap to peace. Part 3 outlines and details the roadmap to peace itself.
Pakistan and India gained their independence in 1947 as British India came to its culmination. Since independence, the two neighbours have been all but neighbourly towards each other. Their relationship has been defined by political turbulence in the least and all-out war at the most – both countries have fought three full and one limited war.
This rivalry stemming from the disputed territory of Kashmir has resulted not only in a massive trust deficit but has converted the region into a global flashpoint due to both countries’ nuclear arsenal and their engrossment in an arms race for supremacy. Although there have been many negotiations, peace initiatives, and CBMs (Confidence Building Measures) since independence, major success stories have been negligible.
The countries have been ensnared in an enduring deadlock that continues to the present day. This paper endeavours on providing a solution to improve the stagnating relations between both countries. It does this by initially highlighting what the Kashmir issue is and then deliberating upon the opportunities (to mollify relations) before delineating a roadmap for peace.
The roadmap suggests that rather than bickering on the territorial aspect of Kashmir, the status quo should be maintained for at least a decade. Instead of discussing whom Kashmir belongs to, both countries should rather focus on improving their economic relations. After some kind of economic interdependence has been established, political and cultural gaps should be addressed via political, socio-cultural, and even military CBMs.
Once the trust schism is filled to an extent after a decade or so, Kashmir should be discussed with a rational head rather than the prevailing emotions and distrust. Although the final section of the paper has some “ifs and buts” and hypotheticals, it attempts to stay within the realm of reality as not to paint an idealized or fictional scenario. The paper ends by concluding that a viable friendship can and should be achieved if both countries (and the international community) play their cards right.
An “outside the box” mentality and “people of Kashmir first” policy must be applied to bring peace into the region; if not, the stagnation will continue – such is the dilemma of Kashmir. A huge caveat that the paper must state before delving deeper is that as things stand currently, there is more chance of war between Pakistan and India than any chance of complete peace.
There are a plethora of reasons for this but the main include India’s revocation of Jammu & Kashmir’s (J&K) special status which angered Kashmir, Pakistan, and China; India’s humanitarian abuses in J&K under Modi; China and India’s recent border skirmishes, and the Indian Ocean tensions; and Pakistan’s Air Force downing two Indian fighter jets when tensions were high post-Pulwama.
In the present scenario, especially when India changed the status of J&K by abrogating two constitutional articles, neither Pakistan nor India wants to do anything to do with the other. However, if things were not as bad as they are today, this paper opines that the path to peace presented could be feasible.
Kashmir is the root cause of Pakistan and India loathing each other. Subsequent to the 1947 war over Kashmir between both states, UN resolution 47 was passed in 1948 that asserted that the issue must be resolved through a plebiscite. The Indian government promised that a plebiscite would be conducted, but this never transpired making UN resolution 47 one of the oldest resolutions in the UN.
Historically when it comes to peace talks, Pakistan has always proclaimed a Kashmir first policy and maintained that Indian transgression against Kashmiris was the main problem, while India states that cross-border terrorism from Pakistan into J&K is the primary issue. The facts are simple: both Pakistan and India have exacerbated the Kashmir situation since its inception.
Without going into too much history, the Kashmiri people in J&K never felt integrated with India despite the state being given semi-autonomy. Due to Delhi’s manoeuvring around the plebiscite issue, its meddling in J&K elections, and Kashmir becoming a mock-democracy, the people had enough. In 1987, things escalated – the Kashmiris came out to protest against India, and soon after an insurgency began.
This insurgency was a product of both Indian miscalculations and Pakistan’s support to Kashmiri (and foreign) militants. Eventually, Indian counter-terrorism and slipups by Pakistan caused the movement to simmer down (the Kashmiri grievances were still present but violence faltered). In 2004, President Musharraf ended support to the militants due to international pressure after 9/11.
The modern-day Kashmiri struggle is primarily a product of India. India’s human rights record in Kashmir has always been ghastly – 100,000 Kashmiris killed since 1990 – but since BJP has begun its Hindutva agenda, things have begun worsening yet again. Draconian laws such as the Armed Forces (special protection) Act (AFSPA) are still enforced in the region despite there being a plethora of international calls for its elimination.
The AFSPA gives widespread powers to military personnel and police such as shoot to kill, right to arrest without a warrant, right to raid houses, and it also grants security forces impunity from civilian prosecution. Modi’s intentions seemed clear when he nominated a controversial far-right politician to become an M.P. – Dr.Swamy has made his disdain for Muslims very transparent – in 2017 he tweeted that Kashmir should be “depopulated” of its Muslims who should be sent to south India as refugees. In July 2016, mass protests erupted due to the killing of a popular militant commander, Burhan Wani, by Indian forces. In response to the protests, the Indian security forces killed over 90 Kashmiris and put Kashmir into one of the longest curfews in its history.
Analysts like Joanna Slater highlight that today the militancy in Kashmir is “smaller and less deadly than at the insurgency’s peak in the late 1990s and early 2000s.” Scholars like Simple Mohanty caution that if the Indian government continues its political-military status quo, the current Kashmiri protests have a real danger of escalating into an armed militancy.
Adding fuel to the fire, the BJP government abrogated Article 370 and 35a of the Indian constitution that gave a degree of autonomy to J&K. Modi has also shut off internet services intermittently so that civilians cannot communicate to the rest of the world. In fact, right after the abrogation, India enforced a curfew that has been ongoing for 400 plus days.
India’s steely response has driven away even moderate Kashmiris – soldiers barge into homes, cut off roads, use live ammunition when protests erupt, kill or blind innocents including children. In 2018, the United Nations accused the Indian government of using excessive force in Kashmir since 2016 and called for an international inquiry into human rights violations. Kashmiri women, too, are a major casualty of the conflict in the valley – they have to face harassment almost every day and are often the victims of rape at the hands of the Indian security personnel.
Many human rights groups have also lambasted the Indian government for not giving them permission to investigate the human rights violations being conducted. India continues to blame Pakistan for its involvement but international commentators agree that Pakistan’s military support has dropped down significantly – Pakistan has increased its diplomatic support, however, under Imran Khan.
Jeffery Gettleman, the South Asia bureau chief for the New York Times notes that where once, years ago, Pakistan supported militancy in J&K, “Now, the resistance is overwhelmingly homegrown,”. “Homegrown,” he clarifies, means that the Kashmiri conflict is today shaped by “internal Indian politics, which have increasingly taken an anti-Muslim direction,” rather than by geopolitics.
There have been several vicissitudes to the Kashmiri freedom movement, but the one today is characterized by stone-pelting Kashmiri youths than by armed men – however, things could be headed to militancy again due to unabated Indian transgressions.
There is no love lost between both countries and more oft than not there appear to be attempts from one side to malign the other – for example, quite recently the EU DisinfoLab uncovered a massive Indian disinformation campaign against Pakistan titled “Indian Chronicles”. However, there exist opportunities that can be leveraged to improve bilateral relations
Most of these opportunities are economy centric as economic interdependence initially between both countries can eventually lead to amicable cultural and political ties. Pakistan and India are strong regional powers, but currently, in terms of economic development and strength, there is a huge mismatch.
Pakistan’s economy is the 23rd largest in the world in terms of purchasing power parity but citing the untapped potential (human resources and otherwise), it should be much sturdier than this. Due to mismanagement of funds, corruption, and political and security instability, the true potential of the economy has not nearly been achieved.
The dollar, at the time of writing this paper, is placed at 161 rupees. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan had pledged to solve the economic crisis of the country but things could be much better. According to the Asian Development Bank, Pakistan’s GDP is expected to contract by 0.4% in 2020 and grow by 2.0% in 2021. Since Imran Khan’s arrival and the coronavirus crisis, inflation has risen to 9%.
Pakistan needs to initiate economic reforms, exploit the abundance of natural resources and industrialize its economy among other things to improve its economy and tackle unemployment. Since, the country is in an economic crisis, economically collaborating with neighbour and rival India should be considered as a viable option.
Conversely, India had been much better economically than Pakistan and was one of the fastest-growing economies globally until some bad economic policies and the coronavirus ravaged the country in 2020. India is the third-largest economy by purchasing power parity and the sixth-largest in terms of nominal gross domestic product.
One of the primary reasons Modi was elected was due to his promise of economic development and job creation for India specifically its youth. The ABD forecasts that the economy will contract by a whopping 9% in 2020 and will grow by 8% in 2021.India’s annual consumer price inflation in September 2020 was 7.34%.
Both countries have suffered due to the coronavirus but India has deeper wounds due to it having the second-highest number of cases after America. Since both countries require an economic uplift more than ever, working together economically (in the very least) is necessary. However, again to reiterate, the paper does not see any kind of cooperation to take place.
The paper opines that trade could be of utmost significance for both nations’ rapprochement. Unfortunately, in August of 2019, trade was formally suspended by Pakistan when India revoked Article 370 and 35a. Even prior to this, the potential for trade was never realized. Although improvements in recent years had been made, much more can be achieved in today’s age of globalization.
Unfortunately, even when trade was ongoing, high tariff and non-tariff barriers owing to political chasms severely hindered it. Two primary reasons why trade has suffered is due to Pakistan’s refusal to grant India most favoured nation (MFN) status and India’s denial to eliminate non-tariff barriers on Pakistani goods.
Granting MFN status to a country means that the grantor country promises the grantee country lower tariffs or high import quotas – all for the sake of better trade. Although free trade initiatives like the South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) exist under the aegis of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), tradecan hardly be defined as “free and fair”.
The chief reason for the inefficacious implementation of SAFTA and other trade agreements is owed to the distraught relations between the antagonistic neighbours. According to the 2016-2017Annual Report of the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Pakistan and India’s total trade was around $2.61 billion in 2015-2016. This figure has burgeoned lavishly since 2003-04 when it was an inadequate $345 million.
The trade balance between both countries has been predominantly in India’s favour, with its exports to Pakistan totalling $2.17 billion while Indian imports from Pakistan only valuing $441 million in 2015-2016. However, according to the former governor State Bank of Pakistan, Ishrat Hussain, this trade deficit should not hamper the trading relations between Pakistan and India, as it is a win-win situation.
Pakistan and Indian trade occurs on an official (now suspended), indirect, and illegal level. Trade through authentic channels is official trade. Trade that takes place through other countries such as UAE, Singapore, Iran, etcetera is referred to as indirect and amounts to around $2 billion. Both countries should seek to minimize indirect trade and endeavour to achieve cost-effectiveness by trading directly with each other.
Illegal trade, lastly, consists of the goods smuggled through mostly the land border. Trade has also historically fallen victim to both countries’ use of positive, negative, and sensitive lists which dictates what can and cannot be traded. The trade potential of both countries is somewhere around $10.9 billion with export potential being $7.9 billion while the potential of imports accounts for $3 billion.
Others suggest even larger figures –Ajay Bisaria, former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan, mentioned that through the stabilising of relations, elimination of non-tariff barriers, and liberalisation o fthe visa regime,trade can rise to a massive $30 billion. The negative list of Pakistan is made up of 1,209 items predominantly from the electrical machinery, automobile, pharmaceuticals, steel, and textiles sector.
Pakistan’s negative list aims to shield its auto-component and automobile industry from Indian imports (Taneja et al, 2013). Scholars retort Pakistan’s apprehensions by highlighting that the country can benefit from inexpensive automobile imports from India – a more cost-effective alternative juxtaposed to the pricier imports Pakistan receives from Japan and Thailand. India on the other hand endeavours to protect its textile and clothing industry. India places high tariffs and duties on ready-made goods to protect its domestic industry.
While India is trepidatious that Pakistan’s strong yarn and fabric manufacturing industry will undermine its small to medium scale sector, in reality, imports from Pakistan are more likely to contend with the mill sector rather than the power loom sector in India – therefore there is no justification to guard the larger companies against imports.
The positive list approach is muddled with misgivings, lacks transparency for traders, and not to mention leads to high transaction costs. The authors also note that minimizing NTBs and granting MFN status will boost market access for both countries. Trade liberalization of other items would also be beneficial for both countries.
India exports numerous goods that Pakistan exports from countries further off such as tea, electrical generating sets, sugar, petroleum products, etcetera, hence Pakistan can reduce transportation costs and save money if it begins importing these goods from India. Likewise, Pakistan can export surgical instruments, cement, wheat, sports goods etcetera to India which the latter relies on other countries for – this would be more inexpensive for India to import and a boon for Pakistan’s exports.
Pakistan-India trade is also massively inhibited by subpar transport and infrastructure facilities. Due to the political environment of Pakistan and India, rail and air travel has always been subject to disparities while roads are not only limited but underdeveloped. Although new facilities were added for cross-border road transport, the land infrastructure leaves much to be desired.
The Attari-Wagah border in Punjab is the only operational land route between both countries (not including Kashmir) used for trade and tourism. The facilities at Attari-Wagah are underwhelming vis-à-vis the storage, handling, and clearing of goods, especially perishable ones. Due to manual security checks, it is tedious and time-intensive to load and unload goods.
Despite launching an Integrated Checkpost (ICP) in 2012 at Attari-Wagah, which included parking space, CCTV cameras, a separate trade gate for cargo trucks, and dedicated cargo storage, the trade facilities still remained relatively manual and time-consuming. A lot of the trade is also time-consuming due to security concerns on both sides of the border. Both countries, especially due to their egregious history, remain fearful of narcotics, weapons, ammunition etcetera entering from the other side.
Security agencies in Pakistan and India are therefore cynical of opening the border completely for trading and tourism. For years, businessmen from Pakistan and India alike have pressured their respective administrations to expand trading relations and reduce border disruptions that range from harassment by security forces to bureaucratic inhibitions. In the aftermath of 9/11, the debate on balancing security and trade became prominent.
Innovative mechanisms were adopted to not only maintain security but also keep a steady trade flow going. Despite being an arduous challenge, this has been undertaken by various nations commendably. Pakistan and India should learn from the international community and set up a more automated and effective border system that balances trade with security. For example, despite being strong trading partners, America has been weary of narcotics coming in from Mexico.
The delays in clearing freight-carrying trucks across the U.S-Mexico border cost both countries around 51,000 jobs and around $6 billion in 2005. In response to this, both the American and Mexican governments initiated the Unified Cargo Processing (UCP) program. The UCPprogram has proven successful in different parts of the America-Mexico border as waiting times have contracted as much as 85%.
The UCP program ensures that both American and Mexican staff jointly inspect cargo – therefore dual checks on each side of the border are removed. Furthermore, automation mechanisms such as gamma-ray truck scanners, weighbridges, X-ray scanners, surveillance systems, and the latest computers are of the utmost importance. The Ugandan government purchased cargo scanners valued at around 1.5 billion Ugandan Shillings to negate manual checking at the border.
Companies such as Cotecna have worked with many governments to supply, finance, install, operate, and even maintain an integrated border system based on cargo scanning technologies. Security dilemmas stretching from threats to genuine attacks in Pakistan and India have ignominiously dented the trading partnership.
Both countries should take inspiration from the aforementioned trading innovations as well as others and augment trade while not compromising upon security. India, in 2018,decided to add full-body truck scanners to the Attari ICP and replace vintage cameras with advanced CCTV ones. This was a great endeavour; however, a coordinated effort into improving both sides of the Attari-Wagah border would be more advantageous.
Pakistan and India should mutually decide on border requirements and implement these in a coordinated fashion – similar to how both countries incepted the ICP in 2012. Both countries should also enforce strict fines on smuggling and other illegal activities on the border. Lastly, Kashmir, both Azad Kashmir in Pakistan and Jammu & Kashmir in India, must not feel eclipsed.
Unfortunately, currently, intra-LOC trade is closed due to political tensions and the coronavirus.In 2008, both countries agreed to one of the biggest CBMs i.e. the inception of the intra-LoC trade through the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad and Poonch-Rawalakot routes.There are only 21 permissible items that can be traded. There are trade facilitation centres (TFCs) on both sides with trade officers present for regulation purposes.
The intra-LoC trade has remained resilient for the most part despite border escalations; however, trade at times is interjected due to a myriad of ceasefire violations on the Poonch-Rawalakot route. Agricultural products, shawls, spices, and so on are primarily traded. The intra-LoC trade is a great endeavour as it aids the economy and development of the Kashmir region – not to mention has led to greater people-to-people contact across the border.
It is projected that around $211 million has been traded from October 2008 until December 2011 across the LoC. Intra-LoC trade follows a barter system and has zero tariffs applied to them. Despite the promising start of intra-LoC trade, there is much room for improvement; if certain inhibitions were removed, it would advantage the Kashmiri people and region noticeably.
Traders have incessantly cited some severe qualms regarding intra-LoC trade and have threatened to stop trading if these concerns were not alleviated. Firstly, communication links between traders on both sides must be started – currently, they cannot call each other. Due to security concerns, India has disallowed the international direct dialling system from J&K to any part of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir. It is also not possible for the traders to meet their counterparts across the LoC.
Secondly, akin to the inadequate trading services on the Attari-Wagah border, the TFCs on both sides of the LoC suffer the same fate. Manual systems and massive security checks waste the time of traders and undermine trading flows. The use of X-ray cargo (truck) scanners has been suggested by traders. Furthermore, cold storage and generally improved storage for goods need to be provided since most of the goods are perishable such as vegetables and fruits.
Thirdly, traders have also desired more items to be allowed to be traded. The annual potential trade volume across the LoC is estimated to be around $974 million – unfortunately, trading volumes in the past do not even come close to this figure. Fourthly, establishing banking and financial channels and discounting the barter system is necessary to improve trade.
Currently, no banking system has been provided and no decision has been made regarding the currency to be used for trade. Traders cited this issue as one of the direst in need of resolution.
The paper will continue in part 2 and part 3.
Modi’s Illiberal Majoritarian Democracy: a Question Mark on the Future of Indian Minorities
The word majoritarian is an adjective which relates to or constitutes a majority, majoritarian politics, or majoritarian democracy. It can be defined as a traditional political idea, philosophy or a practice according to which any decision whether political, social, or economic of an organized society should be made by a numerical majority of that society or it can be defined as a traditional political philosophy that stresses that a majority usually branded by religious, language, social class that also includes other recognizing factors of individuals in a society are subject to a level of superiority in a society because of which they have a say in every affair of a society. The concept of majoritarian dispensation in India under Narendra Modi has deep links with four other political philosophies i.e. Populism, Nationalism, Authoritarianism, and Sultanism. Before exploring Narendra Modi’s majoritarian policy of governance in India and its effects on the future of Indian minorities, I will first uncover the link of majoritarianism to political philosophies as mentioned.
A majoritarian leader is actually a populist leader who works hard for the concerns of people that who thinks are being ignored by the established elite groups in a society, and who always present himself as a new man mostly of a modest and plebeian background against old political establishment, in spite of the fact that who is a seasoned political figure, but usually not centre stage. This is exactly what Narendra Modi is, because in his 2014 election campaign, he presented himself as a new man against the Ghandi’s family’s old political system despite the fact he was CM Gujrat at that time. He also presented himself as someone who belongs to a very plebeian background that he had to work in his father’s tea shop when he was a child. Whereas, nationalism is a political idea or a philosophy that promotes and protects the interests of a particular nation, nationalism is the bedrock of most of the populists and NarendraModi is no exception. NarendraModi is a majoritarian national-populist leader who since his childhood has been the member of RSS, and now is a full time pracharak of RSS ideology that stresses that Hindu are the true and only sons of this Indian soil.
Majoritarian national- populist leaders like Narendra Modi are basically authoritarian leaders who reject political pluralism, and this is exactly what Modi is doing in India.Modi and the BJP has made it clear that no other party should compete with it, or is even needed, as indicative from its slogan of a ‘Congress Mukt Bharat’ (a Congress-free India).Whereas, Sultanism is a form of authoritarian government and according to Max Weber NarendraModi is a new sultan of India who is pushing India towards illiberal democracy by rejecting all kind of civil liberties particularly of Indian Muslim minority.
Modi’s majoritarian policy of governance in India is basically the promotion of majoritarian democracy that asserts Hindus a special and superior status in India because they constitute 80.5% of total Indian population and that this majoritarian policy protests Hindutva ideology that stresses that Hindus are the only sons of this soil and that strengthen the Hindu community. This majoritarian democracy is a big question mark on India as the world biggest liberal democracy because continuous violence, rejection of civil liberties, and crimes against the minorities that are Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians have been on the increase. About 1.8 million people who are minority communities are tortured in police custody every year. The word murder of minorities has been replaced by the term encounter killings. Torture have increased to such a huge extent that it questions the credibility of the rule of law and criminal justice. Hindu nationalists are revolting all around India especially against Muslims because they are the largest minority in India constituting 13.4% of total population and because Hindus have resentment toward their religion, Christians and Sikhs are no exception to their violence because they too constitute 2.3% and 1.9% of total Indian population.
Unfortunately, India under Narendra Modi is crawling from the world’s biggest liberal democracy to illiberal majoritarian democracy which is promoting and safeguarding only Hindu’s civil rights and liberties and that which is negating minority’s civil liberties and civil rights especially rights and liberties of Muslims of India. One such example of this is the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB).Under the act, for the first time in India, religion is a basis for granting citizenship. According to some this citizenship amendment bill by BJP is an intentional act in order to marginalize Muslims from mainstream politics. In addition to this, Muslims are not only being tortured at their religious places for their religious affiliations, but they are also being tortured at their educational institutions which is evident from a video of 15 December 2020, where Delhi police brutally tortured Muslims students of Jamia Millia Islamia university.
Keeping in mind Narendra Modi’s illiberal majoritarian democracy, the future of liberal democracy or pluralistic India appears to be gloomy, where the future of Indian minorities especially Muslims is a big question mark.
CoVID-19 Control: Can Pakistan Learn From China?
It has been over a year since the first case of CoVID-19 was confirmed in Pakistan. The tally has reached 721,018 confirmed cases, 15,443 have died and 4,143 critical cases by 11thApril2021. Across many countries, since January 2020, a massive surge of research into CoVID-19 had enabled the scientific and medical community to better understand how to manage and eliminate the virus through public health interventions. Today, we have learned, CoVID-19 causes acute symptoms and death. We have learned, immunity lasts at least eight months and we also have five licensed vaccines. We have learned, the long-term effects of CoVID-19 and the morbidity attached to having this virus. We have learned, virus transmission occurs through droplets and aerosols spread through coughing, sneezing, breathing and speaking. We also have learned, stopping the spread of CoVID-19 requires people to avoid mixing though restrictions on social life. We have learned, the virus can mutate into various strains that can be more transmissible – and we also have understand cat-and-mouse game between vaccine and variants.
To alleviate the destructive effects of CoVID-19 on the economy, Pakistan has sought debt relief of slightly around $2 billion from its G20 creditors. In addition to the G20 countries, China was the largest bilateral creditor with $9 billion, followed by Japan with $5 billion. By early April 2020, when there were just about 2,000 CoVID-19 positive cases in Pakistan, the World Bank approved $200 million package to help Pakistan. Likewise, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had approved the payout of $1.386 billion as financial support to Pakistan to meet its urgent balance of payment needs halting from the CoVID-19 outbreak. Further, to support Pakistan’s public health response to the CoVID-19 and allow to meet the basic needs of the vulnerable and poor segment of society, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved $500 million emergency assistance loan to Pakistan. Similarly, The Islamic Development Bank (IDB) also provided a $650 million financial package to support Pakistan in its efforts against the CoVID-19. All these grants were provided to Government of Pakistan to assist in effective and timely action in response to the spread of the CoVID-19. The objective was to strengthen Pakistan’s public health infrastructure and to alleviate socioeconomic disruptions due to the pandemic. Despite huge grants and substantial endowments, Pakistan’s response to the CoVID-19 has been unsatisfactory. Lack of basic healthcare infrastructure, disease surveillance and management system, and inconsistent implementation of policies and SOPs resulted in the rapid and incessant spread of third-wave of CoVID-19 throughout the county.
China’s extraordinary organized and preventive risk management approach, established on coalition between government officials, virologists, epidemiologists and public health experts, has demonstrated to be successful in containing and controlling CoVID-19.The experience in China emphasized the significance of listening to science and public health experts during pandemic event. Firstly, China’s response demonstrates the value of national research and public health capability. Huge investment in research and development rendered China much better prepared for CoVID-19. China’s experience indicates the value of investing in national health and research scheme to boost laboratory capacity along with workforce. They are essential to a rapid and effective national response to health emergencies and to national health security. Secondly, a strong foundation of research and development cannot ensure effective control without powerful top-level political dedication to use science to confront the outbreak. Government and leaders must respect science, understand its significance, and act on science-based advice in a way that is best for society. Thirdly, attaining speedy and successful implementation of control measures for CoVID-19 requires extensive community engagement. Public solidarity during the CoVID-19 outbreak in China had been unprecedented. Control measures that could sacrifice personal freedom were accepted readily by the nation.
To be brief, cricket is to South Asia and football is to Europe. In fighting CoVID-19, everyone is equal. Everyone has the identical liability and shares the equal threat. The effective implementation of prevention and control measures in China is a model for Pakistan other parts of world to follow. From the beginning, a science-based, risk-informed and phased approach was taken, with a clear appreciation and enthusiasm. Today, China has restarted its economy, reopened and almost returned to normality. The key of success story is to make everybody responsible, get every single division involved and held executives accountable. These are the most prominent lessons Pakistan could learn from China at national and local levels. After the failure of “Smart-Lockdown” strategy, Pakistan needs to choose a strict strategy, should follow the example of China and continue the lockdown until the number of CoVID-19 infections is brought close to zero; the strategy should then be to maintain infection rates at very low level until vaccination is done. China’s epidemic management provides an important experience from which countries such as Pakistan can learn. This applies in particular to Pakistan, which would risk to lose many of its achievements in case of a severe third wave of the epidemic. Government of Pakistan should involve not only public health experts, virologists and epidemiologists, but also scientist and respect science advice when making any decision that is required to keep the epidemic under control. The rest of the world can also learn from China’s success in bringing outbreak under control.
United States snubs India for its excessive maritime claim
On April7, 2021, a 9,000-ton guided-missile destroyer, USS John Paul Jones (US 7th Fleet), waded (not strayed as it was deliberate) into the vicinity of India’s Lakshadweep Islands. The ship was 131 nautical miles away from India’s coast (12 nautical miles territory) but well within its exclusive economic zone (200 nautical miles, 370.4 kilometre).
The trespass by the US destroyer triggered indignation through all walks of life. It conjured up memories of the arrival of the 7th fleet during the Indo-Pak war of 1971. The fleet gave a message, loud and clear, to India that it should not dare finish West Pakistan, its long cherished desire. Even Nehru, an ostensibly liberal leader, regarded the creation of Pakistan a blunder. His rancour against Pakistan reaches a crescendo in his remarks: “I shall not have that carbuncle on my back.” (D. H. Bhutani, The Future of Pakistan, page 14). During 1971, Pakistan was a US ally. Now India is in the anti-China US-backed basket.
Yet, the `destroyer’ conjured up memory in India’s mind of `bitter’ American intervention. Congress leaders voiced surprise at the U.S. move. In a tweet, Manish Tewari said, “This never happened in the 10 years of UPA [Congress-led rule] or perhaps even before that as far as I can recall. The last time I remember it being so rather in your face was 1971 – Task Force 74 – 7th Fleet. What then happened is History. Hope the NDA/BJP shows some Oomph?” Echoing the surprise, former Union Minister Jairam Ramesh, said, “And this happened when the former U.S. Secretary of State and Climate Envoy, John Kerry, was meeting Ministers in New Delhi.”
The euphoria created by US gung-ho support for Quad, and Pakistan’s exclusion from the climate conference petered out.
India’s foreign office tried to play down the event by stating that it was not a “military manoeuvre”. So, the USA was not bound to inform India about it. But, to India’s chagrin, the U.S. The Navy announced that its ship the USS John Paul Jones had carried out Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) in the Indian EEZ, adding that its operations had “challenged” what the U.S. called India’s “excessive maritime claims.” The U.S. defends its actions saying they were in compliance with international laws. Even Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby justified what India calls “intransigence’ by announcing the US Navy’s move was in compliance with international law. He told reporters, “I can tell you that the USS John Paul Jones, a Navy destroyer, asserted navigational rights and freedoms in the vicinity of the Republic of the Maldives by conducting innocent passage through its territorial sea in normal operations within its exclusive economic zone without requesting prior permission. We conduct routine and regular FONOPs, as we have done in the past and will continue to in the future. FONOPs are not about one country, nor are they about making political statements’.
India compelled to protest
As a face-saving gesture, India was forced to protest the U.S. decision to conduct a patrol in the Indian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the western Indian Ocean, rejecting the U.S.’s claim that its domestic maritime law was in violation of international law. India’s external-affairs ministry retorted, ‘The Government of India’s stated position on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is that the Convention does not authorise other States to carry out in the EEZ and on the continental shelf, military exercises or man oeuvres, in particular those involving the use of weapons or explosives, without the consent of the coastal state.’ The ministry insisted that the USS John Paul Jones was “continuously monitored” transiting from the Persian Gulf towards the Malacca Straits.
The incident is a rare falling out between the two partners in the Quadrilateral Grouping that had recently committed to upholding freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific together.
Bone of contention
The USA shrugged off India’s ennui. According to the annual FONOP reports released by the U.S. Department of Defence for each fiscal year, the U.S. had been regularly conducting FONOPs in Indian EEZ. The FONOPs were carried out in several c continental shelves of several countries including its allies and partners. The USA regarded Indian maritime claim as “excessive” and in violation of International Law. From 2007 onwards till 2017, the U.S. carried out multiple FONOPs every year challenging “excessive” Indian maritime claims. No FONOP was carried out in 2018 and 2020 and one FONOP in 2019.
Difference of opinion is due to the fact that the USA has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of Seas. India and China have ratified it with some reservations. But, the USA does not care a fig about provisos attached by China and India.
Ashamed of USA’s crass rebuttal, India is coining excuses to mitigate its embarrassment. To relieve pressure on Indian government, former Navy Chief Admiral Arun Prakash interpreted the US “trespass” as if it were a message to China that the USA has unfettered “freedom of navigation”. Prakash Tweeted
“While India ratified UNCLOS in 1995, the U.S. has failed to do it so far. For the 7th Fleet to carry out FoNOPs missions in Indian EEZ in violation of our domestic law is bad enough. But publicising it? USN please switch on IFF (Identification, friend or foe)! Prakash added FONOPs by U.S. Navy ships, “ineffective as they may be,” in South China Sea, are meant to “convey a message to China that the putative EEZ” around the artificial SCS islands is an “excessive maritime claim.” “But what is the 7th Fleet message for India?” he asked.
Might is Right
Obviously, the USA is acting upon might-is-right policy. India itself acted upon this policy to devour princely states, and annex Nepalese territory. Junagadh and Kashmir disputes are still unresolved on UN agenda. Indian Union is an artificial sally.
In its entire history India had never been a single nation, or one country, until united at gun point by the British. The artificial nature of modern India created by the British colonialists and adopted by post-colonial India generated insurgencies and separatist movements.
At the time of partition, India was in grip of virulent insurgencies and separatist movements (Dravidian South, Khalistan, Seven Sisters in the North East, so on). Wikipedia lists 68 major organizations as terrorist groups. Of them, nine are in the northeast (seven sisters states), four in the center and the east (Maoist/Naxalites), seventeen in the west (Sikh separatist groups), and thirty eight in the northwest (Kashmir). India kept afloat as a union only at the barrel of gun. The Indian army chief paid a five-day visit to Bangladesh as a prelude to conducting a massive operation against the Naxalbari militants.
UK and USA’s Diego Garcia headache
International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Chagos Islands has catapulted Indian Ocean into limelight. The ICJ `advisory’ is a blow to UK’s forcible occupation of Chagos Islands, including the strategic US airbase of Diego Garcia atoll (leased out to the USA by the UK).
The ICJ President Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf observed, `The UK has an obligation to bring to an end its administration of Chagos archipelago as rapidly as possible’. The court ruled that separation of Chagos Islands from Mauritius during decolonisation in the 1960s constituted an “unlawful detachment” and was a “wrongful act”.
In 1966, the U.S. signed a secret agreement with Great Britain allowing the Pentagon to use the Indian Ocean territory as an airbase in exchange for a big discount on Polaris nuclear missiles. Three years later, hundreds of Navy Seabees arrived by ship and began pouring out two 12,000-foot runway that would become a bulwark of American Cold War strategy in the region, and a key launching pad for the first and second Gulf wars, the 1998 bombing of Iraq and invasion and carpet-bombing of Afghanistan.
The base can house more than 2,000 troops and 30 warships at a time. It has two bomber runways, a satellite spy station and facilities enabling the use of nuclear-armed submarines. It served as a CIA black site (like Guantanamo Bay) to interrogate and torture terror suspects including those from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Indonesia.
The base holds key to America’s Afghan exit plan, by year 2024, to avoid a rout at the hands of Taliban.
To India’s chagrin, the USA wants to exert its authority on Indian Ocean also. Forty seven countries have the Indian Ocean on their shores. The Indian Ocean is the third largest body of water in the world. It occupies 20 percent of the world’s ocean surface – it is nearly 10,000 kilometers wide at the southern tips of Africa and Australia and its area is 68.556 million square kilometers, about 5.5 times the size of the United States. India’s motto is ‘whoever controls the Indian Ocean dominates Asia’. Admiral Alfred T. Mahan (1840-1914) of the United States Navy highlighted the strategic importance of the Indian Ocean in these words: “whoever attains maritime supremacy in the Indian Ocean would be a prominent player on the international scene. The Indian peninsula (i.e. the Deccan and below) juts 1,240 miles into the Indian Ocean. 50 per cent of the Indian Ocean basin lies within a 1,000 mile radius of India, a reality that has strategic implications. Under the law of the sea, it has an exclusive economic zone of 772,000 square miles. Chennai is a mere 3,400 miles away from Perth in Australia, slightly more than the distance between New York and Los Angeles.
To dominate Straits of Malacca (bordering Indonesia and Malaysia), India established its Far Eastern Marine Command at Port Blair in the Andamans. It has developed Port Blair as a strategic international trade center and built an oil terminal and trans-shipment port in Campal Bay in the Nicobar Islands.
In diplomacy, there are no permanent friends or foes, only permanent interests. Afghan exit plan requires the USA continues to retain Diego Garcia.
The Man Who Warned Us First About Climate Change
Among the first to warn us of global warming, he used the term greenhouse gas to describe the increasing levels...
Sino-Serbian relations under the “microscope”: China’s footprint In Serbia
Over the years, the Sino-Serbian foreign relations have straightened to a very high level, with China establishing itself as a...
Modi’s Illiberal Majoritarian Democracy: a Question Mark on the Future of Indian Minorities
The word majoritarian is an adjective which relates to or constitutes a majority, majoritarian politics, or majoritarian democracy. It can...
Sino-US rivalry and the myth of Thucydides Trap
The writer of the view that are an outcome of complex phenomena. One can’t understand them through the lens of...
New Leadership Takes Charge in Vietnam: Challenges and Prospects
On 05 April Vietnam’s National Assembly officially elected Mr. Pham Minh Chinh, member of the Politburo as the Prime Minister...
Connectivity now. Boosting flows of people, information, energy, goods and services
On April 8, St Petersburg hosted the 12th Northern Dimension Forum. This forum, established in 2007, is a major annual...
North Macedonia’s Journey to the EU
Prime Minister Zoran Zaev’s new cabinet is confronted with a number of economic challenges, exacerbated by the economic hit to...
East Asia3 days ago
Xinjiang: The New Ideological Battleground between the US and China
South Asia3 days ago
CoVID-19 Control: Can Pakistan Learn From China?
Middle East2 days ago
The 25-year China-Iran agreement
International Law3 days ago
Seeking Power Over Death: Lethal Mainspring Of World Politics
Europe3 days ago
President of Malta at the Vienna Process: No Europe without its Neighborhood
Economy2 days ago
Future of Work: Next Election Agenda 2022
Environment3 days ago
Norwegian scientists finally find good news from Norilsk Nickel
Economy2 days ago
Bringing cultural and creative industries back in the game