Marked Upswing in Indo-Japanese Ties

Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s fourth visit to India during the NDA regime for the 12^th bilateral annual summit meet infused new optimism, vigor, and energy to Indo-Japanese ties. The visit which hit the right notes for the impressive dynamics and profuse display of synergy had several firsts to its name. For the first time, bilateral talks were held at Gandhinagar and consequently, visiting state head gave National capital amiss. Reinforcing cooperative federalism, Modi government held bilateral talks at state capital setting a new precedent. Indeed, Prime Minister Modi left no stone unturned to reach out to his counterpart. Defying official protocol, Modi received Abe at the airport, extended a warm welcome. The two leaders, along with Japan’s first lady, traveled from airport to Sabarmati Ashram in an open jeep.  The 8km long roadshow, first ever by a foreign leader in India, drew unprecedented media attention over depth of the fledging Indo-Japanese relations to a mere specter. The cacophonous media rhetoric mindlessly underplayed key take-aways of bilateral summit portraying it as a mere ground-breaking ceremony of the Highspeed Bullet Train.

Resurgence of Indo-Japanese ties is an outcome of inclement geopolitical churnings and dawn of new realization on India’s side on the need for cultivating and strengthening friendly ties with like-minded countries. Further the threatening and provocative rise of China and doubts over America’s position as global security provider prompted India and Japan to move closer. Moreover, incessant bickering between President Trump and the establishment is making Asian countries, especially, Japan more skeptical. America’s incongruent Korean policy and the relentless missile testing of North Korea is unsettling Japan. In addition, Japan is facing bearing brunt of China’s aggressive posturing in East China Sea. While India continues to face security threats along Western and Northern front from Pakistan and China respectively. It must be recalled that Japan was the only country which extended unequivocal support to India on Doklam issue. Tokyo’s gesture infused new trust, transforming the dynamics of bilateral ties. Above all, symbolizing its single-minded resolve in strengthening partnership Japan signed civil nuclear treaty with India. The agreement was unthinkable, since Japan was hit by a nuclear weapon and suffered Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear fallout. Also, India is not a signatory of NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) making it doubly tough to persuade the Japanese bureaucracy to work towards conclusion of nuclear treaty. Convinced of India’s track record and assurances, Japan has decided to ratchet up nuclear cooperation with India. America’s retrenchment from the geopolitical scenario and China’s effusive belligerence is altering the stability in the Asia forcing nations to shed their strategic inertia.

Indo-Japan bilateral ties received a major boost with both countries agreeing to upgrade the global and strategic partnerships with a provision for annual visits in 2006. Ever since, successive Indian and Japanese leaderships continued to strengthen bilateral ties. Prime Minister Modi on his first bilateral visit to Japan, engaged proactively giving renewed thrust on strategic dimensions. To give a major fillip to bilateral relations, both countries agreed to expand areas of cooperation. Mumbai to Ahmedabad High Speed Rail (MAHSR) bullet train proposal thus was a great move in that direction since Japan was a pioneer in high speed rail technology. Its Shinkansen bullet train has acclaimed international reputation for its speed, punctuality, and safety, becoming symbol of advanced rail technology. The 500-kilometer Japanese funded rail project will manufacture parts under “Make in India” project using Shinkansen technology. The 1,10,000-crore project will be supported by 88,000-Crore loan funded by the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) at a nominal interest rate of 0.1%. The project payable in 50 years has a moratorium of 15 years. The MAHSR project will provide ample employment opportunities, transfer advanced technology, train personnel in operation, maintenance and running of bullet train. Since sophisticated circuitry and other electronic machinery will be manufactured in India, all allied industrial units associated with the project will stand to benefit. This huge developmental project can help in creating a new ecosystem for Railways.

Shinzo Abe on the second day of his visit, laid foundation stone for India’s first bullet train project, MAHSR whose completion is advanced to 2022, which marks 75^th anniversary of India’s independence. Japan’s MAHSR investment, is by far the largest in independent India. Japan is now third largest investor India. Cumulative Japanese investment from 2000-2017 is $25.67 billion which is 8% of total FDI received during that period. Drawing parallels to Japan’s investment in small car manufacturing technology back in 1984, highspeed rail is expected to revolutionize functioning of Indian Railways, the formidable lifeline of India. While bullet train project is one of the cornerstones of evolving Indo-Japanese strategic cooperation, critics were hell bent on portraying it as the be-all and end-all of Abe’s crucial visit.

Arguably, while majority failed to appreciate the heights of congruence reached by both countries, the Joint Statement aptly summarized and laid future guidelines for a robust Indo-Japanese partnership. Abe believed, “a strong India is in best interest of Japan, and a strong Japan is in best interest of India” and envisioned a great role for India in reshaping changing geopolitical equilibrium of Asia. He indeed popularized the term, Indo-Pacific to reinforce prominence of India.  The 12^th bilateral annual summit aptly pondered on the same and reaffirmed goal of working towards free, open and prosperous Indo-Pacific.

Indian policies find great convergence with Japanese policies. India’s Act East Policy syncs with the Japan’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy that envisages need for strengthening maritime security and defence cooperation. Both countries have resolved to strengthen trilateral cooperation frameworks with the United States, Australia, and other countries. This commitment strikes cord with the Security Diamond Policy articulated by Abe in 2012, wherein he conceptualized a greater cooperation between democratic nations Australia, India, Japan and Hawaiian state of US to jointly safeguard Indo-Pacific maritime front. The renewed resolve of India and Japan in calling democratic nations for join hands miffed China. Further, both countries stressed the need for strengthening rule-based order. To deepen special strategic security partnership, both leaders agreed on institutionalized engagement through annual Defence Ministerial Dialogue, National Security Advisors dialogue,2+2 dialogue, Defence policy dialogue and Service to service staff talks. Rattled by the growing congruence between the countries, China responded that “We advocate that regional countries should stand for dialogue without confrontation and work for a partnership instead of alliance”. China’s apprehensions over growing closeness between India and Japan is along expected lines.  Incidentally Japan is in alliance with the US while India fervently abides by the doctrine of non-alignment. Though US may not be averse to an alliance between India and Japan, any alliance between these two-countries can’t potentially overtake or contain China. Hence fictitious plausibility of an alliance will be meaningless. Instead both countries can actively collaborate and work together in areas of convergence and offer succor to the region destabilized by the confrontational approach of China.

Taking an indirect dig at OBOR, for lacking transparency and structured rule-frame work, India and Japan stressed the need for developing an infrastructure connectivity which is open, transparent, rooted through responsible debt financing practices, respects sovereignty and ensures territorial integrity, rule of law and environment. India and Japan last year, envisioned a $40 billion India-Japan Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC), to develop industrial corridors in Africa. Tipped as alternative to China’s OBOR, observers believed that this summit meet will flag off this ambitious project. But instead, both countries, speed tracked infrastructure development projects in India’s Northeast Region (NER) as “concrete symbol of developing synergies”. Responding to this development, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said, “You must be very clear that boundary of the India-China border area has not been totally delimited and we have disputes in the eastern section of the boundary. We are now trying to seek a solution through negotiation that is acceptable to both sides”.

Both leaders strongly endorsed ASEAN unity, stressed importance of freedom of navigation and overflight. This particularly refers to one upmanship of China which frequently objects to freedom of navigation in the South China Sea (SCS) and has unilaterally declared an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea which includes the Senkaku Islands claimed by Japan in 2013. Regarding global and regional challenges, both leaders denounced the reckless nuclear development program of North Korea and condemned its provocative actions in strongest terms. Similarly, they condemned cross-border terrorism and violent extremism and called for disruption of the terrorist networks and their financial channels.

Japan made phenomenal contribution towards infrastructure development projects in India both in terms of financial and technical assistance. India is largest beneficiary of Japan ODA (Official Developmental Assistance). Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Kolkata Metro, Mumbai-Trans Harbor Link Project and introduction of Intelligence Transport System along the eastern peripheral Highway of Delhi stand testimony to Indo-Japan cooperation.  India and Japan signed 11 agreements on defence and research projects.

While the joint statement has covered significant ground, and outlined prospective future course of action to deepen partnership, observers contend that two areas- bilateral trade and people to people contacts need serious attention. Bilateral trade which was hovering around $15 billion is quarter of Indo-China trade volume. Over years, number of students traveling to either countries through exchange programs have significantly decreased. Sceptics now argue that despite the bonhomie, in absence of an agreement on the sale of Japan’s U-2 ShinMaywa amphibious aircraft, talk of robust relationship between both countries is meaningless. They expressed dissatisfaction over failure in operationalizing the ratified civil nuclear treaty. Even they expressed concerns over the steadiness of Indo-Japan ties with Abe’s political fortunes subdued by corruption charges and India staring at fast approaching general elections in 2019.

Japan played a preeminent role in India’s progress and development. Other than the brief period of disruption of bilateral ties following India’s nuclear tests in 1998, both countries had close friendly ties. Baring Russia, India held maximum annual summits with Japan. Abe’s visit to India has come at a time when India and China just managed to defuse a prolonged confrontation at Doklam. But security threat from Beijing continues to loom large over India with reports indicating that armed troops of both countries are just 150ft away from the Doklam region. Tensions escalated in Japan, with North Korea blasting off yet another missile that flew over Japan during Abe’s state visit to India. Like India, Japan is facing threats from China and the nuclear armed North Korea. Threats from an ascendant China is bringing both countries closer. But invariably, the astuteness and dogged persistence of leaderships of both countries culminated in emergence one of the robust partnerships in Asia.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Modi’s visit to Myanmar amid Rohingya Crisis

Amid growing international condemnation towards simmering Rohingya crisis, Prime Minister Modi made a three-day long bilateral state visit to Myanmar from Sept 5^th-7^th. Earlier Modi visited Myanmar in November 2014 to attend the ASEAN summit and East Asia Summit at Nay Pyi Taw.  Long overdue, Modi’s recently concluded visit is his first bilateral state visit. In fact, this is third such visit by an Indian Prime Minister in the last 25 years. Manmohan Singh visited Myanmar in 2012. Myanmar is the gateway to Southeast Asia and hence heart of India’s earlier “Look East” and now “Act East” Policy. Though India envisioned importance of vital ties with Myanmar, successive Indian leaderships failed to scale up bilateral ties and counter growing Chinese influence.

Even Myanmar observers contend that while India revitalized relations in the region under “Neighborhood First Policy”, its engagement with Myanmar has been inadequate. They observe that while Modi invited all neighboring countries for his swearing-in ceremony, Myanmar was missed out. India shares over 1600km long territorial boundary and maritime boundary of Bay of Bengal with Myanmar and hence has serious implications on security scenario of India’s North East.

Currently Myanmar is grappling sudden surge of violence like the one that erupted in 2012 which resulted in displacement of over 100,000 Rohingyas. With number of Rohingya’s fleeing the country having doubled, Myanmar government and Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi are facing global condemnation for inept handling of the situation. Chorus has been growing against the harsh treatment meted out to Rohingya’s by Myanmar security forces that led to death of civilians and forced migration. Breaking her silence, Suu Kyi, State Councillor and foreign minister blamed “terrorists” and termed crisis as “a huge iceberg of misinformation”. An independent commission headed by former UN secretary general Kofi Annan was constituted to make recommendations to Myanmar government to ease the ethnic unrest in Rakhine state. Suu Kyi, welcomed the observations of the commission but conceded that it will be difficult to solve the issue that has been there since pre-colonial times in 18 months.

Modi’s visit to Myanmar comes at a time when Suu Kyi, is facing strong criticisms from several corners especially Muslim dominated countries. Almost at the same time, Indian Home Ministry has ordered expeditious deportation of 40,000 illegal Rohingya Muslims based on reports of intelligence agencies proclaiming them as posing grave threat to India’s security. Domestically, Muslim groups and NHRC has been mounting pressure on Indian government and challenged its decision in Supreme Court. But Modi, during bilateral talks, didn’t directly engage with Myanmar on Rohingya issue but expressed concern at various “incidents of terrorism and extremist-inspired violence”. Myanmar condemned terror attacks on Amarnath yatris and other terror attacks perpetrated across borders while India condemned terrorist attacks in northern Rakhine state wherein several security persons have lost their life. Both countries agreed that “terrorism violated human rights and there should, therefore be no glorification of terrorists as martyrs”. In a terse message, both countries called on “the international community to end selective and partial approaches to combatting terror” and stressed need for expeditious finalization of Comprehensive Convention of International Terrorism (CCIT) by the UN.

Interestingly, incriminating evidences to Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) that spearheads attacks against the security forces and Buddhists in Rakhine state have been receiving financial support and training from extremist groups including ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence). Reports of Indian intelligence agencies suggested the involvement of illegal Rohingyas in Bodh-Gaya blasts and Kashmir insurgency. In fact, while earlier regimes dismissed the massive guided settlement of illegal Rohingyas in Kashmir as conspiracy theories, ground reports now confirmed that Lashkar-e- Toiba has been using them to carry out terror operations in Kashmir.

Reciprocating Modi’s approach, Suu Kyi equated Rohingya issue in Rakhine state with India’s Kashmir insurgency. She said, “We have to think about how to differentiate between terrorists and innocent people. You in India are well-versed with this, because India has a large Muslim community and in place like Kashmir, where you face terrorism, the trouble of sorting out the terrorists from the innocent citizens and all those who are not involved in the terrorist movement at all, comes up”.  She thanked Modi for his strong stand on terror and assured that “terror would not be allowed to take roots in her country”. Unlike in past, India refrained from joining chorus of Muslim countries and stayed away from criticizing Myanmar government. Ratcheting up engagement with Myanmar is extremely important for India for better border management. In 2015, Indian troops crossed the border to hunt down militants harboring in Myanmar. Further, Myanmar is negotiating with China and Russia to block any UNSC sanctions. India’s criticism would have pushed Myanmar into Chinese orbit.  Incidentally, hours after Modi ended bilateral visit, India rejected the decision of the World Parliamentary Forum in Indonesia, the Bali Declaration that expressed concern over violence in Rakhine state.

India has substantially revved up its engagement with Myanmar through Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). This momentum was sustained by high-profile official visits of President U Htin Kyaw, State Counsellor Suu Kyi and Commander-in-Chief of defence forces Min Aung Hlaing. As of now, India’s commitment to Myanmar’s development stands at over $2 billion much higher assistance offered by other countries. India is now expediting the construction of much delayed Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport project and India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway. Both countries have now agreed to deepen defence and maritime cooperation, focus on humanitarian assistance, disaster management. Unlike China, India has offered assistance to Myanmar for setting centers for industrial training, enhancement of skills, capacity building, entrepreneurship development, agriculture research, English language training and planetarium. Both countries believed that the socio-economic development can alleviate situation of the Rakhine state and India offered assistance for its inclusive development. Myanmar government invited Indian companies to participate in exploration and production of petrol and petroleum products.

Bilateral trade currently stands at $2.2 billion with huge potential to grow. Countries now called for removing trade barriers to boost up trade. To improve people to people relations, a connectivity agreement was concluded to start a bus service from Imphal to Mandalay. India and Myanmar signed 11 agreements which includes MoU between election commissions of India and Myanmar, cultural exchange program, cooperation between press councils, establishment of MIIT (Myanmar Institute of Information Technology), medical products regulation, upgradation of women’s police training centers. India agreed to give national gratis visa in all categories except e-visa. As a friendly gesture India granted special pardon to 40 Myanmar nationals and negotiated land border agreement.

Besides, official engagements, Modi visited places of historical, religious and cultural significance at Bagan and Yangon. Believed to be built around 1105 by King Kyanzittha, Modi paid visit to one the oldest temples of Myanmar, Ananda temple. It is an iconic symbol of amalgamation of Mon and Indian architecture. After the temple suffered damages due to earthquakes of 1975 and 2015, India allocated $3 million to a project undertaken by Archeological Survey of India for restoration and repair. Later Modi addressed Indian diaspora at packed Thuwunna stadium in Yangon. Greeting Indian origin people in Burmese and Tamil, he hailed the contributions of the Burmese towards India’s independence movement, recalled Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose’s Azad Hind Fauz at Burma and apprised them of the latest developments in India. Modi paid homage to General Aung San at Martyrs Mausoleum and visited Bogyoke Aung San Museum accompanied by Suu Kyi. He performed puja at Kalibari temple at Yangon maintained, controlled, and built by Tamil migrants in 1871. Modi also visited the dargah of Bahudur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal Emperor who was exiled to Rangoon after the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. Prime Minister wrapped up his bilateral state trip with a visit to the most sacred Buddhist shrine, Shwedagon Pagoda.

Plans of reinvigorating ties with Myanmar has been on cards, boosting credence to this ambitious project, Yogi Adityanath, chief minister of Uttar Pradesh made his first foreign visit to Myanmar. Speaking at the conference on International Peace and Environmental Protection, he referred to Myanmar as “Brahmadesh” and reiterated that “both countries are united in mind and spirit by a common approach to religion”. He divulged India’s plans of developing a Buddhist circuit.

Making up for the years of neglect, Modi invoked all exemplar paradigms at his behest to strengthen strategic ties with Myanmar.  By cherishing, reiterating centuries old historical and cultural connect between India and Myanmar Modi vivacious soft diplomacy reignited regional bonding. Instead of getting carried away by the western narrative of violation of human rights, Modi skirted Rohingya issue, offered developmental assistance, pledged to expand and expedite infrastructure projects and above all offered firm support in fight against terrorism. Through diligent recalibration of India’s Myanmar policy, Modi meticulously balanced India’s geopolitical, security concerns and prevented Myanmar from slipping into Chinese orbit.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Post Doklam standoff India-China mend ties at Xiamen BRICS Summit

9^th BRICS summit themed on “Stronger Partnership for a brighter future” held at Xiamen in Fujian province of China concluded successfully yesterday. Xiamen Summit can be reckoned as the most impactful of all BRICS meets for being instrumental in forcing China for mutual disengagement of troops locked in the prolonged 73-day Doklam standoff.

Genesis of BRICS

Acronym BRICS stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa that have come together a decade ago with an objective of promoting the idea of “multipolar world”. But genesis of BRICS, relevance and functioning are critiqued since its inception. In 2001 Chief economist of Goldman Sachs Jim O Neil, in a research publication opined that 21^st century global economy will be dominated by fast growing developing economies and coined the term BRIC. Taking a cue, in 2006, foreign ministers of these countries met along the sidelines of UN General Assembly sessions at New York and realized the prospect of BRIC grouping. Accordingly, in 2009, heads of BRIC countries met for a summit meeting in Russia.  In 2011, South Africa joined the group giving the alliance its present name BRICS. Since 2009 BRIC summits were held annually. Over years, BRICS alliance began to gain greater prominence due to growing economic muscle (global share increased from 11% to 24% from 1990-2014) now it is regarded as competitor to G-7. But the west has been skeptical of BRICS objectives since all other BRICS nations other than India are headed by authoritarian leaders. Some believe that India’s democratic credentials lends credence to this grouping.

Despite criticisms and praises, international community can hardly afford to ignore BRICS, home to 48% of global population. BRICS nations having realized the need for greater economic cooperation, collectively developed robust financial structures for mutual benefit- New Development Bank (NDB) and The BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA). Obliterating criticisms of commentators, the multilateral Shanghai-based NDB started in 2015, began issuing loans for renewable energy development from 2016. Ahead of the Xiamen summit, NDB approved loans worth of $1.4 billion for sustainable development projects in China, Russia and India. While robust functioning of NDB, silenced critics, China’s aggressive posturing and hijacking of agenda is becoming too obvious to discount.

China’s attempts to hijack BRICS Agenda

Aside prospects of gainful economic cooperation, wary of US dominated unipolar world, India heavily rallied for BRICS. While China and Russia pitched hard for BRICS to challenge the Western hegemony. Rapid economic rise of China and slowing of Russian economy eventually changed the delicate balance of BRICS. Soon, China began to dominate BRICS realm. Burgeoning Chinese hegemony and its eventually heckling of BRICS agenda became more evident with Beijing warning India days ahead of Xiamen summit against raising Pakistan’s role in perpetrating terrorism. Beijing’s precondition countermanded objectives of BRICS of enhancing cooperation amongst five nations in the fight against terrorism. Undeterred by Chinese objections, during negotiations, Indian officials insisted on naming and shaming Pakistan for orchestrating cross border terrorism.

Eventually, unlike the Goa declaration, that failed to name the Pakistani based terror outfits in the joint declaration, Indian persistence, forced China to include terror groups patronized by Pakistan in Xiamen declaration. The declaration not only condemned terror attacks on BRICS countries but added that “We, in this regard, express, concern on the security situation in the region and violence caused by the Taliban, ISIL/ DAESH, Al-Qaeda and its affiliates including East Turkestan Islamic Movement, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Haqqani Network, Laskhar-e-Toiba, Jaish e Mohammed, TTP and Hizb ut Tarir”.  The inclusion of Pakistani groups was considered as diplomatic victory by some considering China belligerent stand towards India till a week ahead of Xiamen summit. China’s shift in position is a significant improvement from last year BRICS summit in Goa where Beijing forthrightly snubbed India for calling Pakistan the “mothership” of terrorism. Experts quickly pointed that China and Pakistan signed Heart of Asia’s Amritsar declaration where Pakistani terror groups were named.  Hence, it might be premature to rejoice over China’s amenable stance and anticipate any change of position with respect to a resolution demanding ban on Masood Azhar at UN. Above all, by including Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) along with JeM, China weakened BRICS nations resolution to fight against terrorism and indirectly defended Pakistan’s narrative. The declaration affirmed that “those responsible for committing, organizing o supporting terrorist acts must be held accountable” and called for expeditious finalization and adoption of Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) by the UN. Despite China’s loud proclamations, its position has always been duplicitous.

Though BRICS is an energetic alliance with significant economic clout, China’s hegemonic aspirations are casting a dark shadow. Over the past three decades, China has considerably expanded its economic and military outreach. Buoyed by success in establishing AIIB (Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank), NDB, unveiling OBOR and Renminbi becoming third largest currency, China is making incremental advances to challenge the World economic order. Beijing has also initiated harmonization of financial institutions of Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Shanghai pact which envisaged a “Eurasian political, economic and military organization”, was the forerunner of SCO, through which China fostered cooperation with Central Asian countries and Russia. At Astana Summit, India and Pakistan joined SCO as full members boosting China’s global heft. While China and Russia joined hands to strengthen SCO to balance western hegemony, China is now making every effort to dominate BRICS.

China’s BRICS-Plus Approach

To advance its global ambitions Beijing is intent on using BRICS platform to expand its sphere of influence. In March, China floated “BRICS plus” approach. Beijing even explored modalities of expanding the group. Though China didn’t make any official announcement of expansion plans, the term “BRICS plus” was mentioned in joint statement.  Xi said “We should promote the BRICS plus cooperation approach and build an open and diversified network of development partnerships to get more emerging markets and developing countries (EMDC) involved in our concerted efforts for cooperation and mutual benefits”. China even invited five pro-China countries, critical players for OBOR as guests for Xiamen Summit. These included- Mexico, Guinea, Kenya, Egypt and Tajikistan (as representatives of EMDCs). Further Xi rebuked Trump’s protectionist approach and seized this opportunity to project China as epitome of “Open World Economy”. He announced plans of investing 500 million yuan to start an economic and technology cooperation program in BRICS countries, pledged $500 million assistance for South-South Cooperation and made additional investment of $4 million in NDB. China made its intentions of expanding BRICS clear by extending invitation to select countries. India must be wary of Chinese ambitions. India swayed by ideological posturing regarded BRICS as an “extension of non-alignment” and failed to gauge Chinese hypocrisy. Unlike earlier regimes, sentimentalism or ideological moorings no longer drive India’s foreign policy. India foreign policy is now making every effort to assess consequences of any partnership on Indian interests.

Just as Xi held a dialogue with BIMSTEC group at the Goa BRICS summit, Modi addressed EMDCs at Xiamen. He apprised them of India’s tradition of collaborating with fellow developing countries for mutually beneficial cooperation and common development. He called for coordinated action and cooperation in areas such as counter terrorism, cyber security and disaster management.  

Xi-Modi Meet

Modi held bilateral talks with heads of states of Russia, Brazil and South Africa. But post Doklam standoff, Modi-Xi bilateral drew international attention. Disclosing the outcomes of an hour-long bilateral between both leaders, Foreign Secretary Jaishankar summarized that “President Xi and Prime Minister Modi laid out a positive view of where our ties could go and there were some detailed discussions about the mechanisms, which could help both the countries go forward in that direction with the help of inter-governmental groups like strategic institutions, and that can be used to build that relationship. There was a constructive sense of the relationship to keep the ties on an upward trajectory.”  Clearly, in an amazing turn around, bellicose China seemed to have softened its stance. Incidentally China reiterated its interest to reengage with India and stressed on the Panchsheel directives of co-existence for “healthy, stable bilateral relations”. While it might be tempting to state that China’s conciliatory approach and positive tone, can infuse new trust into the Indo-China bilateral relationship. China’s measured approach must be carefully assessed. Currently, China’s global ambitions have taken a hit with OBOR slowly turning into a formidable debt trap for countries that signed it. India’s firm no to BRI has forced European nations to reconsider their interests in the global connectivity project. Moreover, North Korea’s nuclear test, hours before President Xi’s keynote address at Xiamen Summit, demolished the myth that China can save the World from Pyongyang’s nuclear combativeness. In 2016, causing a major embarrassment to China, DPRK tested three medium range ballistic missiles on the inaugural day of G-20 Huangzhou summit. DPRK’s war rhetoric directed against China goes on to show that all is not well between China and DPRK. China’s deteriorating relations with neighbors on long term may not augur well for its global ambitions. Perhaps, mending ties with India which is advantageous for its trade could have been its best bet. While India expertly brought back balance to its bilateral ties at Xiamen Summit, India must exercise extreme caution in treading along the road of friendship to Beijing. 

@ Copyrights reserved.

Cabinet Reshuffle: Modi rewards Performance and Probity

Prime Minister Modi, known for his ability of bowling political bouncers yet again stumped the Indian media with the elevation of Minister of State, Commerce Nirmala Sitharaman. While the media channels initially vied for the top honors for getting right the names of the new additions to the cabinet, they were gob smacked by allotment of portfolios. The Modi-Shah, duo continuing the spree of surprising the media and public with groundbreaking decisions, announced the elevation of Ms. Sitharaman by making her full-time Minister for Defence. Defence for long was considered a male bastion. With this new elevation, Sitharaman has become the first woman defence minister of independent India after Indira Gandhi, who held this ministry as an additional charge from Dec 1^st to 21^st 1975 and again January 14^th 1980 to January 15^th 1982.

Talks about the cabinet reshuffle, 18 months away from general elections 2019, began to gain more dust with resignation of ministers like Rajeev Pratap Rudy, Sanjiv Balyan, Bhandaru Dattatreya, Mahendra Nath Pandey, Uma Bharati, Kalraj Mishra, Faggan Singh Kaluste. Spate of resignations has raised curious speculations. Political observers opined that poorly performing ministers were asked to step down to make way for allies especially JD (U) in the cabinet.  But the list of inductees into the cabinet has startled the media and political parties. None of the allies were accommodated. On the other hand, former bureaucrats and young leaders found a place in cabinet. Sending out a stern message that efficiency and performance will be rewarded, NDA government battling the criticisms of failing to deliver on Skills, employment and revving up tourism potential have roped in technocrats to rebuild a new team of proactive leaders. Besides, Modi rewarded dedicated and committed leaders.  With BJP commanding absolute majority instead of succumbing to appeasement of allies, took the liberty of placing the candidates of its choice. While critics attributed marginalization of allies to BJP’s arrogance, undeterred Modi with an eye on upcoming state assembly and general elections went ahead with cabinet rejig. This political overhauling, in fact, is a subtle message to leaders that “performance” and “probity” alone stands rewarded.

Of all the decisions and the political messaging, elevation of Nirmala Sitharaman as the defence minister is intensely discussed. The phenomenal rise of a person from small town to becoming head of the third largest military defence force of the World with 1.4 million personnel has now become case of curious study. Sitharaman, who was an independent MoS for commerce is now promoted to Cabinet rank. She is now part of the powerful five-member Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) and will be seated in the South Block. She will now become member of the most powerful sisterhood of 16 female defence ministers. Currently, two nuclear armed countries- India and Italy are headed by women defence ministers. This new elevation aside symbolizing women’s empowerment will continue to inspire millions of aspiring young women in India to break the glass ceilings and reach to the stars. Till now, Indian politics were dominated by dynasts, families with high connections, power brokers, sycophants and was largely bereft of people from humble origins at the highest positions. Political ascendancy of individuals hailing from ordinary working class besides, changing perceptions of youth towards politics will power their aspirations. For long, libtards and western-educated intellectuals tersely ridiculed BJP for being regressive. But, most unflatteringly, it was BJP, breaking the norms, of assigning women and child development portfolio to women, assigned key ministries like Foreign Affairs, Textiles, Information and Broadcasting, Food Processing, Ganga rejuvenation and now the much acclaimed defence ministry to women. Now six key ministries are held by women in current cabinet.

The political trajectory of Sitharaman has been slow and steady. Rising from the position of a surprise inductee into the NDA cabinet in 2014, she earned the new promotion for being a non-nonsense leader and by earning accolades for her tough negotiating skills with EU and Australia for trade agreements with regards to Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and at WTO. As minister of commerce and industry, she monitored Prime Minister’s pet initiatives, Make in India, Start Up India, Digital India, Stand Up India.  More recently, amid Doklam standoff, Sitharaman sent an unequivocal message to China to bring about semblance in trade imbalances. Aside, the symbolism of women commanding the battle-hardened generals, Sitharaman’s elevation will be politically rewarding. Born in Tamilnadu, married to an Andhraite, living in Telangana and representing Karnataka, her rise will be propitiously viewed by South Indians. Rising to an eclectic position by the weight of credentials in absence of political Godfather in a country beleaguered by dynasticism is truly iconoclastic. Though people might be predisposed to draw parallels with Indira Gandhi, elevation of Sitharaman is truly unique.

With India, increasingly at odds with China and Pakistan, temerity and audacity of defence would be put to testing times. Hence, Sitharaman should brace for toughest challenges to make India war ready for a two and a half war front. While the path is not clearly laid out, with great power comes great responsibility and the minister should be make every effort to have a way with military officers, defence scientists, bureaucrats and oversee functioning on the DRDO labs, ordnance factories and ship yards. Strategic experts, questioned the intent of government in turning the office of high authority into a “place-for-on-job training” for inducting an inexperienced person. Critics ridiculed that Sitharaman’s promotion can hardly be acknowledged as Woman’s empowerment as it fails to have direct impact on Indian woman’s life. But unarguably, her political mettle and marvelous journey can continue to motivate youngsters to aspire high.

Yet again, Indian journalists are befuddled by Modi’s master stroke with their speculations of portfolio allocation off the mark.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Doklam Standoff Episode: A new milestone in Indian Diplomacy

The Doklam standoff which began on June 16^th with Indian troops stopping the road construction of PLA troops successfully ended.  10 weeks of sustained negotiations through diplomatic channels led to mutual disengagement of troops from the Doklam region. Unlike previous border incursions, China escalated the border issue and remained defiant. Playing the victim card, Beijing adeptly distorted historical facts. Infringing mutually agreed terms of maintaining status quo in the region, Chinese troops intruded into the disputed trijunction Doklam. China adopted ‘maximalist approach’ and demanded unilateral withdrawal of Indian troops. The border standoff could have inadvertently flared up into an armed conflict as China espoused hostility. Simultaneously, China through its state sponsored launched unabated propaganda (psychological war) against India threatening it into pulling out troops without firing a single shot. But India remained unruffled by the raucous, war-mongering narrative of China. In sharp contrast, India’s approach was measured, matured and responsible and continued to engage with Chinese counterparts diplomatically.

Emboldened by its tact of bullying smaller neighbors into submission, China believed that penetrating the trijunction under the pretext of road construction in the strategically important Doklam region might be a cake walk. Acting upon Bhutan’s request, Indian troops held the ground and prevented PLA troops from extending the road towards the Jhamperi Bridge. Surprised by India’s unanticipated resistance, China portrayed India as an “intruder”, unilaterally changed the status quo and alleged that New Delhi violated its sovereignty. Hawkish sections of Communist Party, soon persisted that China shouldn’t agree for nothing less than complete evacuation of Indian troops from the region. Despite the Chinese belligerence, Indian troops stood its ground and Indian government achieved a significant breakthrough through backroom negotiations. The announcement of mutual disengagement of troops on 28^th August by both sides came just a week ahead of the Annual BRICS summit to be held in China.  But the rabble-rousing hawkish sections and jingoistic propaganda channels of Chinese media hours after the announcement maintained that it was a massive diplomatic victory for China. Giving a unilateral spin claimed that India troops were forced to leave Doklam. With international media giving credence to Chinese propaganda, Indian MEA officials issued another clarification in the evening reiterating that withdrawal of forces which was mutual has commenced and is under verification.

Aside seriously rallying for peaceful negotiations, Modi government strengthened India’s position through extensive global outreach, bilateral engagements and thwarted Chinese attempts to overrun India by commissioning probes on Chinese investments.

International community closely watched the Doklam impasse because of its spiraling effect on the geopolitics and quantum of destruction in the event of a collision course between nuclear states. China’s contemptuous defiance of international laws and its expansive maritime actions in the South and East China Sea raised doubts about its peace rise ever since. Reiterating Chinese peaceful development policy, Liu Xiaoming, Chinese ambassador to UK, stated that “China has deterrence and wisdom to win without fighting. But if needed, China has the courage and capacity to win fighting. This is the essence of the Art of War and the soul of China’s military strategy today”.  The Art of War of Sun Tzu has been corner stone of China’s foreign policy and source of soft power diplomacy. Emulating the crux of Sun Tzu’s philosophy, China not only occupied over 38,000 sq kilometers of Indian territory but steadily established its control over various territorial features in South China Sea without fighting a war. Modi government having fortified Doklam region with armed contingent, prevailed on China to agree for mutual disengagement since, use of force by China, can inadvertently set a precedent that Beijing would use force to grab land. Essentially, Modi too without fighting a war, humbled the Middle Kingdom.

Overwhelmed by raising spiraling trade deficit, amid Doklam standoff India tightened its scrutiny against Chinese investments. India initiated 12 investigations against Chinese products including photovoltaic cells manufactured in China. New Delhi blocked $1.3 billion Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical Group acquisition of India’s Gland pharma. In the first week of August, India sought to invoke the principle of reciprocity in awarding projects to foreign companies. With threats of Cyberattacks becoming imminent, India ordered 21 Chinese telecom companies, commanding over 50% of domestic market to furnish details of safety and security practices.

In a bid to force India to withdraw its troops, China made several insidious remarks and even threatened to enter India through disputed territories. Days before Chinese envoy visit to Kathmandu, Weng Wenli, Deputy Director General of the Border and Ocean Affairs stated, “The Indian side has also many tri-junctions. What if we use the same excuse and enter the Kalapani region between China, India and Nepal or even into Kashmir region between India and Pakistan”. China aspired to be super power of Asia. But was wary of India’s rise and influence in South Asia.  Beijing swiftly cultivated bilateral ties with India’s neighbors and wooed them with low interest loans, aid and infrastructure investment. China infused more energy into its ties with Nepal, when it briefly fell apart with India following Madhesi agitation (that crippled movement of all supplies across borders). With its economic clout Beijing not only stoked anti-Indian sentiments but also aimed to turn Nepal away from India. A fortnight ago, Sushma Swaraj’s on visited Kathmandu for attending the meeting of foreign ministers of BIMSTEC. Nepal mindful of India’s concerns asserted that “Nepal does not want to be dragged into the boundary dispute between India and China. Both of our big neighbors should maintain cordial relations through peaceful diplomacy and dialogue”. Reiterating preeminence of Indo-Nepal ties, Prime Minister of Nepal Sher Bahadur Deuba made his first foreign visit to India. To counter China in its immediate neighborhood, India has offered to pump in $250 million to take over 70% share Sri Lanka’s emptiest airport, Mattala International Airport for 40 years. The airport dubbed as White Elephant for incurring losses to a tune of $112 million is just half an hour drive form the Hambantota port sold to China for 99 years.

 China intentionally escalated Doklam issue and incessantly referred to Bhutan as “protectorate of India” to drive wedge between India and Bhutan, the only country other than India who didn’t join OBOR. China offered $10 billion worth aid, low interest loans and direct investments to Bhutan amid border impasse to soften its stance.

European countries adopted a “wait and watch” approach towards Doklam support, US and UK supported India’s position of resolving the issue diplomatically, Japan whole-heartedly extended full support to India. It also warned Beijing shouldn’t make any attempts to unilaterally change the status quo in Doklam. While China made every possible attempt to stall India’s elevation on global arena, Modi through diplomatic outreach cobbled support of US and Israel during the Doklam standoff. In fact, India’s defence acquisitions received big boost with US clearing sale of predatory drones to India. Domestically, China’s tirade of raucous propaganda invigorated the nationalistic tendencies. President Xi commemorating 90^th Anniversary of PLA, gave exhorted forces “to stand up to all enemies who offend China”. In contrast, Prime Minister Modi refrained from referring to Doklam issue both at the monthly Mann Ki Baat or on the eve of Independence Day. 

India’s peaceful resolution of 72-day Doklam saga, not only neutralized China’s raw power and intimidation but encouraged small countries to resist China’s belligerence. End of Doklam saga exemplifies strategic brilliance of Modi’s resolute yet amicable foreign policy. India’s clear-minded, flawless approach towards the Doklam issue now heralds a new beginning to India diplomacy beleaguered by absence of strategy and commitment. Critically acclaimed as being reactive, India’s matured response to Chinese jingoism positioned it as a responsible power.

End of Doklam standoff through mutual disengagement of troops is undoubtedly a momentous diplomatic victory for India. For the past seven decades, despite lofty intentions, India paid heavy price for its botched up diplomatic stratagems. Further a lack of contiguous long standing foreign policy ruined Indian efforts of garnering support and solidarity of comity of nations. Humbling a revisionist China consumed by maritime and territorial expansion from position of strength is no mean effort. By coming to the rescue of smaller neighbor, India upheld agreement of friendship and invariably earned the trust of allies and neighbors. This may force Sri Lanka and Bangladesh to recalibrate their Chinese policy. India’s defiance to buckle down despite China’s belligerent rhetoric can instill new hope in smaller countries harassed by Beijing. While current political dispensation deserves all the praise for collective commendable efforts, China like Pakistan is a repeat offender. India must never let down its guard.

Alternatively, China’s climbdown must be analyzed through the prism of Xi’s political aspirations. Last week, there were speculations that Prime Minister Modi might skip BRICS meeting to be held at Xiamen, China. Though Modi may have other reasons, reports have linked this to prolonged Doklam standoff. China is very particular about public relations and to possibly any embarrassment, Beijing might have agreed to temporary withdrawal. Moreover, Xi, keen on consolidating his position as President for the next five years at the upcoming Communist Congress may hardly afford any armed conflict in the immediate neighborhood. Any irresponsible decision like eruption of war might have ruined his chances. Hence, some strategists argue that it might be too premature to rejoice the outcome of India’s meticulously charted Doklam diplomatic mission.  Also, China hasn’t officially assured that it will steer clear of Doklam. In less than 24 hrs of announcement of mutual disengagement, Chinese spokeswomen briefed that “We will make an overall assessment of the weather conditions and all related factors, and according to actual circumstances complete construction plans”.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Is China ensnared by President Xi Jinping’s unabashed power display? Part-2

Unlike Hu’s regime, Xi’s tenure is marked by slowing growth and brewing geopolitical tensions. The impact of slow economic growth, crippling restrictions on internet and free speech are making people restive. Xi strategically diverted public attention from economic slowdown by setting out a new vision of “resurrecting” and “reinvigorating” Chinese power under the neologism of “Chinese dream”. Months after assuming charge, Xi stressed on the need for patriotic education and establishment of think tanks to strengthen Chinese narrative with a renewed emphasis on Chinese victimization. Armed with twin strategies of instilling the paradigm of “without party there will be no New China” and reinforcing tighter controls on internet, Xi has adopted an assertive foreign policy. Setting the tone for his foreign policy, in his inaugural address stated that “no country should expect us to make a deal on our core interests and no country should expect us to swallow the bitter fruit that undermines our sovereignty, security and developmental interests”.

Gradually through provocative intimidation, challenging the status quo of the Asia-Pacific region and anomalous island building in the South China Sea, China brazenly contravened “Peaceful rise” strategy developed in 2003 by Zheng Bijian, a policy advisor. Hu, reframed the policy as “peace development” to reassure other countries of China’s ascendance. In a marked departure from “hiding one’s capabilities and biding time” (taoguang yuanghui) China is employing strategic and economic clout to advance its interests in the region. Xi powered this new approach by unveiling One Belt One Road (OBOR) and engaged with over 65 countries under the banner of promoting interconnectivity through infrastructure development. To challenge the Western hegemony and power his global ambitions, China established alternative multilateral financial institutes- Silk Road Infrastructure Fund, AIIB (Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank) and NDB (New Development Bank). With a promise of accelerating economic development through extended connectivity networks, China reached out to authoritarian regimes, strategically located, resource-rich small economies to promote OBOR. Through OBOR, believed to be several times America’s Marshall Plan (for rebuilding Europe after World War II), Xi aspired to replace America in the international order. As of now, OBOR, earned dubious acclaim as harbinger of “Debt trap diplomacy” claiming its first victim Sri Lanka. Colombo si reeling under debts for investing in economically unviable infrastructure projects. 

Xi accelerated pace of military modernization. He emphasized that China’s peaceful development will help in reclaiming its legitimate place and restrain regional countries from violating China’s interests in SCS. Under the umbrage of this perception, Xi began to encroach territorial features through land reclamation in SCS aggressively. Later Xi, subjectively changed the narrative of peaceful development with a precondition that “not only should China adhere to peaceful development road; but other countries must also commit themselves to peaceful development road”. Soon Beijing adopted an uncompromising stance on territorial disputes and established East China Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ). Proactive Xi, unlike his predecessors took an initiative to define bilateral relationship with America under the ‘new type of great power relationship’. Xi followed the ‘community under common destination’ approach advocated by Hu and fostered relations with Asian countries. Beneath the façade of the attractive slogans, overpowered by dream of Chinese rejuvenation, Beijing turned intensely belligerent. Xi refused to respect international rules and ruthlessly dismissed the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PAC) verdict with respect to Chinese claims in SCS. China began to intrude into the territorial waters of Japan, intimidate Vietnam, threaten Filipino men from fishing in their territorial waters. Through trade sanctions it punished South Korea for installing THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Air Defence), imposed high tariffs on Mongolia and stalled plans of mega loan offer for hosting the Dalai Lama. Post Crimean annexation, when Russian economy crippled under the burden of West’s economic sanctions, China inked a $400 billion energy agreement and became its largest trade partner. As of now, China and Russia overriding historical rifts are trying to build solidarity through frequent high-level visits, joint military drills and collaborating on Afghan issue. Though trade agreement hasn’t cemented the relations which are by far more complicated to analyze, Russia and China are jointly challenging the retreating Western hegemony. 

Xi’s superfluous, dubious investments in South East Asian countries symptomatic of its coercive diplomacy is having a devastating effect on the solidarity of ASEAN, which emerged as a economic bulwark to stand up to China. Philippines which dragged China for laying claims to its Scarborough Island in 2012, has now changed its stance. President Duterte, has now meekly surrendered to China and even downplaying reports of creeping invasion of Sandy Cay (feature) close to Thitu Island. Simultaneously Xi is arming Taiwan, pressuring Latin American countries to severe their ties with Taipei. China rewarded Panama and reciprocated with trade agreement and investments for disengaging with Taiwan. Xi adamantly reneged on the promise of “One Country two systems” and crushed pro-democratic protests with iron hand in Hongkong. Now Xi had embarked on the mission of rewriting Korean history insisting that Korea was part of China. The overarching global ambitions of Xi might sooner than later can backfire on China.

In the meanwhile, Xi is capitalizing on the years of cumulative American neglect towards South East Asia dating back to fag end of President Obama tenure till now. The retreating American power has emboldened Xi whose coercive diplomacy is disrupting regional stability. Trump’s indifference has forced South East Asian nations to increasingly turn to China. Having coerced other neighbors into abject silence, Xi has is now threatening India which refused to tow in line with Middle Kingdom. China has effectively brought all South Asian neighbors of India except Bhutan into its orbit. India with is huge demographic appeal, rising middle class and huge market potential is now a potential competitor for China. Beijing perceives Indian rise inimical to China’s Asian Dream. Over the years, unresolved border disputes strained Indo-Chinese ties. China’s refusal perpetuated to accept the Mac Mohan line, its claims to Arunachal Pradesh and India providing asylum to the Dalai Lama & thousands of his followers post Tibetan annexation perpetuated the hostilities. After 1962 Indo-China war, in 1979, India re-commenced bilateral relations with China and initiated talks on border disputes in 1981, the regular leadership dialogue which began in 1988 has been a turning point. Since 1962 Chinese troops continued to transgress into Indian territories but with initiation of contacts in 1992 transgressions were peacefully managed.  Though India and China jointly defended interests of emerging economies at various multilateral fora, dissonances and negativities continued to escalate. Despite continually benefitting from expanding trade imbalances with India, China continues to back Pakistan on terrorism and bolsters it nuclear capabilities. Xi has been stalling India’s entry into nuclear regime NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group), providing safe havens to militants from north east, controlling water flows into India and vetoed Indian efforts at UN for imposing sanctions on Masood Azhar. Above all, Xi frenetically intensified encircling of India by expediting development of Strings of Pearls in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).

China’s renewed enmity towards India currently stems from India’s refusal to be part of the BRI (Belt Road Initiative), Delhi’s growing closeness with US and for allowing the Dalai Lama to visit Arunachal Pradesh. Xi always had tough stance towards Tibet and Dalai Lama. As a presidential candidate in waiting, in 2011, speaking at Lhasa’s Potala Palace, on the eve of 60 years of Tibet’s peaceful liberation, Xi stated “we should thoroughly fight against separatist activities by the Dalai clique by firmly relying on all ethnic groups and completely smash any plot to destroy stability in Tibet and jeopardize national unity”. Irked by India’s defiance, despite Beijing’s appeals to cancel the Dalai Lama’s trip, China began to punish India, by stonewalling India’s NSG membership, extending veto on Azhar at UN, blocking a tributary of Brahmaputra flowing into India, inking pact with Pakistan to build six dams across Indus river in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK). Beijing has also stopped sharing hydrological data since May 15^th despite two bilateral agreements (2013 and 2014) though India already paid for the data.  Now overflowing Brahmaputra waters flooded states of Assam, Bihar killing over 120 and inundated several hectares of standing crops.

BRI summit was held between 14-16 May and Indian absence triggered backlash from China. Now China set a precondition that it will refrain from sharing river water data until India withdraws troops from Doklam. Going by the sequence of events, it can be comprehende that entering Doklam under the pretext of road construction by Chinese troops has been a planned intrusion. Xi energetically fostered bilateral ties with India’s south Asian neighbors baring Bhutan. Now with prolonged stand-off at Doklam, a region claimed by Bhutan and strategically important for India, China is attempting to drive a wedge between India and Bhutan. China’s nefarious intentions gains more credence with its offer of $10 billion which includes low interest loans, grant and direct investment to Bhutan amidst Doklam stand-off. With BRICS summit just a fortnight away, China is making renewed efforts to woo Bhutan. Speculations are rife whether Prime Minister will attend BRICS Summit at Xiamen with deepening of mistrust between India and China. India is irked by China’s indifference towards resolving prolonged military standoff through peace negotiations and denial of river water data.

Interestingly, Doklam impasse has brought into fore shrouded facets of China into fore. With Xi’s characteristic coercive diplomacy failing to threaten India to withdraw its troops, China’s state-sponsored media unleashed a psychological war on India with a barrage of contemptuous and fallacious propaganda. In the meanwhile, North Korea’s unabated nuclear ambitions and its threats of targeting Guam island have caused intense consternation among American allies who called upon China to rein in on Pyongyang. Manifesting his contradictory standards, Xi called for a peaceful dialogue for negotiating North Korean issue while refused to settle Doklam issue similarly. President Xi Jinping’s impervious stance on issues ranging from international affairs, internal security, military stratagem, domestic affairs and censoring invariably exemplify his authoritarianism. Now, China mandated foreign companies to create special provisions for accommodating party members on board to overlook the governance in joint ventures. MNCs are even forced to allow Chinese investors to access their technology or risk losing market access. About 70% of 1.86 million Chinese private companies are affiliated to Communist Party. This implies that activities, operations, data of over 70% of Chinese investments abroad are controlled/monitored by the CPC (Communist Party of China) directly. Countries, especially India must be wary of growing Chinese investments with bilateral ties going south. Latest slew of constricting reforms might have deleterious effect on investments in China.

Conclusion

China is clambering for glory, prestige and power and seeking to occupy a pivotal place in the world order. By dispensing decades-old collective leadership, Xi strengthened his position as the Commander-in-Chief of China. He emerged as a powerful leader by consolidating his position within the party and over military. Diligently emulating Maoist ideals, and Marxist principles he has become “redder than red”. By characteristically exterminating opposition with strict anti-corruption campaign and overriding all limitations, he accumulated power by invoking nationalism. Sieging the vacuum created by American reluctance to engage with the World, Xi is steadily making claims to the top slot.

Amidst these far-reaching aspirations of Xi, factional feuds within Communist party of China are reaching a feverish pitch. Speculations abound that the high-handed censoring, internal fighting within the party, labor unrest, crackdown on opposition, widening rich and poor divide might eventually cause sudden disintegration like Soviet Union. Though strategists strongly contest such an ordeal for China but it might be exceedingly impossible for Xi to preserve total dominance of party over all aspects of governance and steer China as a forward state. Even China’s ugly meddling of geopolitics might have dangerous repercussions on long run. China’s over ambitious attempts to project power, mercantilist approach, efforts to sanitize history to bolster party rule, intransigent stance of its leaders might eventually force nations to join hands against China. China has been recklessly needling India, Japan and other South East Asian nations. America is haranguing China for its inaction in tackling North Korea and losing patience. With trade deficits snow-balling, China is emerging as a bigger threat to Trump administration forcing it to pull back investments and clamp imports from China. Hubris often led to tumbling of great empires. China might be no exception to this rule. Its time Xi must peg back its zealous global ambitious.

Is China ensnared by President Xi Jinping’s unabashed power display? Part-1

Rare genre of strong assertive, nationalist leaders is dominating contemporary World order. Despite dubitable reputation an unparalleled public support commanded by these leaders has now become a curious case of study for experts. Of them, President Xi Jinping, the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, Chairman of Central Military Commission, and President of Peoples Republic of China is widely reckoned for his formidable authority. Last week, China’s topnotch training school for communist cadres released a book titled, “Xi Jinping’s Seven Years as an educated youth” and made it an “essential” reading for all the communist party cadres. The book dwells on the seven years of arduous struggle of Xi, who was ordained to embrace an impoverished life during the cultural-revolution imposed by Mao Zedong. The book is a collection of interviews of villagers who worked with Xi when he was at Liangjiahe village of Shaanxi Province from 1969 to 75. Indian newspaper Times of India, reported that this book is now distributed to young people to enlighten and impress upon them Xi’s “unshaken pursuit of ideals”. Xi’s latest self-promotion campaign ahead of the key 19^th Communist Congress meeting in November is an attempt by the President to cement his authority over the party cadre.

Similarly, Xi accelerated elevation of his loyal generals to highest positions in PLA (Peoples Liberation Army) to have an over-arching control over the party. Further, Xi has given new postings to all regional commanders in the PLA to prevent collusion between the army generals and political opponents, before the 19^th party Congress. Twenty-Six new commanders and thirteen group armies are shifted enmasse and posted in regions away from their command areas. This massive overhauling of military had a deeper political message. But Chinese experts attributed Xi’s latest move to Mao Zedong’s “mountaintopism” or Shantou zhuyi, a dogma of restraining army commanders from developing their personal army. They argued that military factionalism led to fall of Qing Dynasty and defeat of Chiang Kai-Shek and Mao’s mechanism can reduce threats from regional commanders. Aside curtailing politicking efforts of PLA commanders, this new development has wider connotations. In his address at Beijing’s Great Hall of People on the 90^th Anniversary of founding of PLA, Xi commanded PLA to “carry forward and implement the Party’s absolute leadership. As comrade Mao Zedong once pointed out, our principle is to have the party command the military and not the military command the party”. Xi’s military rejig is an attempt to reiterate party’s supremacy over military and government.

To this end, since April 2016, Chinese media has been unwaveringly referring to President Xi as “Commander in Chief” of the country to re-emphasize the Maoist norm established at the 1929 Gutian Conference.  At Gutian, in Fujian Province, Mao in 1929 pioneered combining barrel of gun, trained armed peasantries and imbibed Marxism to develop the proletarian Army, PLA. He stated that “political work is by means an auxiliary to, but the life line of the Red Army”. Xi who has become “Paramount Leader” (Paramount Leader is considered extremely powerful and the title is bestowed upon leaders capable of leading the emerging super power with largest growing military force to newer heights) by becoming the General Secretary of CCP in November 2012, was crowned as “Core Leader” at the sixth plenum in October 2016. The designation of core leaders has greater significance in Chinese politics. Deng Xiaoping who declared Mao as first Core leader underlined that “any leadership must have a core, a leadership without a core is unreliable”. Deng was second generation core leader; Jiang Zemin was third. Hu who was considered a weak leader wasn’t conferred the title whereas Xi was declared a core leader. But unlike his predecessors, Xi hasn’t nominated potential successors raising lingering doubts about his intentions of continuing beyond the usual two-term tenure. Ahead of Congress Meet, Xi successfully ousted tentative presidential candidate Sun Zhengcai provincial head of Chongqing by levelling charges of political indiscipline and replaced with Xi loyalist Chen Miner. China has laid out a system wherein successor for President or Premier would be anointed five years ahead of leadership transition to avoid internecine power struggles. This ruthless defenestration of a potential presidential candidate is sparking speculations about Xi’s unwillingness to cede political space to any person.

Xi has been extremely authoritarian unlike his predecessor Hu Jintao, who believed in “collective responsibility dictum”. Xi tried to assert his position much before taking up the reigns with most of his policies and ideas reminding China of authoritarian Mao. Xi firmly believes that strong authoritarian leadership is corner stone of China’s model of “core socialist value system” and aspires to provide an alternative to core Western values. At the third plenum of 18^th Communist Congress, in April 2013, Xi warned China of the impending dangers of infiltration of ideas that can threaten their single party rule and urged party cadres to be vigilant. In fact, an internal party communique was circulated among the cadres enumerating threat posed by democratic values to communist ideology of China. The paper, famously referred as Document 9, (being the ninth paper released in that year) identified seven threats. These include- promoting western constitutional democracy that has multiparty systems, general elections, independent judiciary and national armies; promoting universal values; promoting civil society; neo-liberalism or unrestrained liberalization; freedom of press; reassessing history (historical nihilism) and questioning reform and opening (campaigning for transparency). To sum up, Xi attested, Communist party is an unquestionable authoritarian, sacrosanct and supreme.  To insulate the Chinese society from the influences of external world, he censored internet, imposed restrictions on freedom of press and finally enacted law ensuring strict punishments for bloggers and writers who questioned the political authority. The notorious Great Firewall of China is an outcome of these ill-gotten fears. Ironically, while China ordered its leading telecommunication companies to crack down on the tools that can circumvent its firewall, it actively promoted penetration of its companies to access sensitive information of other countries. In 2015, China enacted National Security Law to control and secure the internet and information systems. Xi thus, steadily expanded his control over every aspect of governance. Xi who was commander-in-chief consolidated his control over internal security by establishing National Security Commission in November 2013. He oversaw implementation of reforms by heading the Central Leading Group for Comprehensively Deepening Reforms like one constituted by Deng. 

Xi who rose to power as clean politician adopted an implacable stance against corruption. He announced an eight-point rule guide to fight corruption which became rampant after Deng’s economic reforms propelled country into high economic growth. Xi strategically turned anti-graft operation into a tool for bullying his political opponents. Imprisonment of Bo Xilai contender for top most leadership position under a corruption scandal exemplifies notoriety of Xi’s corruption campaign. Xi has gone from strength to strength becoming “Chairman of everything” emulating the most dominant leader Mao. To the annoyance of senior party members, Xi reduced the number of places in the politburo standing committee from nine to seven. To the worst nightmare of Xi’s political opponents, his veritable political ambitions may upset smooth transition of power.  

As President Xi’s, larger than life image looms over the World, it might be worth capitulating his steady ascent. Xi, son of Xi Zhongxun, a first-generation revolutionary was vice-chairman of National People’s Congress. When Xi was 15, his father was jailed and purged during cultural revolution. For the next seven years, Xi worked in the country side and later joined the Communist Party. From 1982 to 2002 he served the party at various positions in different coastal provinces. In 2002, he became full member of 16^th Central Committee. Li Keqiang backed by Hu Jintao and Xi were appointed to nine-member politburo standing committee in 2007. Xi was appointed as Vice-Chairman of Central Military commission as Li failed to get backing of the old guard. Xi emerged as consensus choice for Hu and Jiang Zemin group. Somehow, Xi was initially perceived to be a person who could be easily manipulated by Jiang and his deputy Zeng Quinghong. Moreover, Xi’s toughness in reining in on the corrupt officials close to Jiang in Shanghai province earned him a great repute. Further, his decision of not using official villa and announcing his intention of converting the same into a home for veteran comrades played to his advantage. He thus scored quick brownie points over Li Keqiang who had two post-graduate degrees in economics and law from Peking University but came from non-revolutionary background.

Xi’s dual qualification as member of Communist Party and victim of cultural revolution outcast put him in good stead. The hard work rendered during the country side is believed to have made him much bolder and abiding toward the ideology. It is believed that Xi said that period of “eating bitterness” increased his loyalty towards Communist party. Though he criticized cultural revolution, he embraced the party. He extensively networked with party cadres and especially in his province he downsized opposition.

Li and Xi ascended party ladder in different ways. Li was Communist Party Youth League leader and was immensely popular. While Xi represented “Princelings” and worked for economically endowed group. Most believe that Chinese leaders unlike their western counterparts could make to the top by not meddling with the special interests of vested groups in party cadres. Hence, they may not be ideally clever and capable but adept in dealing people. Interestingly. Xi served in many provinces but throughout his tenure he hasn’t done anything phenomenal or ground-breaking working. He worked in many departments but never ended up in a collision course with the cadre. By and large he had safe career ascent. He enviously guarded his true intentions and garnered support from different departments. But none had any inkling about his real thoughts and beliefs. As in charge the Summer Olympics 2008, Xi won laurels of party cadres and foreign leaders. Hailing his organizational abilities, Xi was made in charge of 60^th Anniversary celebrations of founding of Peoples Republic of China. This event was of immense significance for China as it marked the 50^th anniversary of Tibetan uprising, 20^th Anniversary of pro-democratic Tiananmen protests and 10^th Anniversary of persecution of Falun Gong. This program which was referred ad 6521 project provided Xi with a unique opportunity of identifying the potential threats to absolutism of Communist Party and reviving party cadres. This experience helped him to develop strong links with party workers and in identified the domestic threats.

Even before taking up reigns, Xi at 2011 CCP meeting urged party members to “resolutely combat the wrong tendency to distort and smear party’s history” and asked them to stop using empty words and political jargon from their speeches. While he avoided talking about his father vice-chairman Xi Zhongxun who fell out with Mao after he intensified the call for class struggle. Xi’s appeals of not smearing party’s history eventually paved way for rehabilitating senior Xi’s shrouded reputation. Xi maintained strong connect with princelings in PLA and had a hawkish foreign policy. Xi, the fifth-generation leader an ardent believer of Mao dictums, strongly urged party cadres to “pay attention to Marxist cannon” and “focus on salient points and concentrate on studying the quintessence-particularly important works of Mao Zedong”.  Having emulated Maoist ideals, Xi eventually emerged as an absolute authoritarian and as powerful as Mao.

@ Copyrights reserved.

China’s despicable racism

Last week Charlottesville racial attacks created a buzz across the World. White Supremacists marched with torches chanting Nazi slogans down the lanes of University of Virginia. The next day morning representatives of Klu-Klux-Klan joined the protests ostentatiously displaying of racists symbols swastika and confederate flags. Soon counter racist groups too assembled. The protests turned violent when a white supremacy supporter mowed car into pedestrians, killing a woman and injuring 19 others. The attacks for once, brought to fore the dangers of outbreak of racism, that once triggered a World War. Even as debates of sudden outburst of racist protests began to dominate the western world, Middle Kingdom released a flagrantly racist video demeaning India.

Ever since the Doklam stand-off, Chinese saber-rattling has unsettled the delicate bilateral relations between the two countries. Through impetuous jingoistic remarks, the hyperventilating Chinese media has stirred up psychological warfare. Days before India’s 70 years of Independence Day celebrations, Chinese media Xinhua unleashed an unceremonious propaganda against India through a despicable racist video. The 3 min 20 sec video titled as “seven sins of India” vilified India showing a man wearing turban and a fake beard, mocking at the Indian Sikh community. The video available on the social media network has yet again exposed the ugly side of China. With India firmly committed to diplomatic peace negotiations as the plausible solution for the impasse, restive China began intimidating India with contemptible attacks. The detestable portrayal of India and the unrelenting media attacks instead of frustrating India has inadvertently exposed the darker side of China which was oft discussed in the intellectual and media circles. Strict media censoring of authoritarian Chinese regime had ensured that World was oblivious of its dictatorial overbearing towards the non-Han minorities in China. Though China claims to be a pluralistic society and that minorities never suffered discrimination, the real picture is strikingly different.

Interestingly, while China assiduously climbed the ladder of economic stability achieving two-digit growth for three decades, it recklessly failed to invest energies in building a harmonious society. Chronic social divide and rampant racial prejudices have been integral to Chinese society. Han ethnicity constitute 92% of China and the remaining eight percentage or roughly 120 million include the ethnic minorities like Tibetans, Uighurs, Kazakhs, Koreans, Mongols. Tibetans and Uighurs are the dominant community in Tibetan Autonomous Region and Xinjiang Autonomous Region which form nearly half of the Chinese land mass. Sadly, these two ethnic minorities have been the targets of Chinese oppression and racial discrimination.

Traditionally China wasn’t overtly racist but took immense pride in its Han ethnicity who were termed as “the yellow race”. By the end of 19^th century and beginning of 20^th Century, thousands of Chinese intellectuals educated in Japan, aside emulating certain western values were deeply impressed by their concept of “minzokushugi” which meant “racism” and “expressed nationalist vision of race”. Indeed, this was the first principle of the “The Three Principles of People” advocated by Sun Yat-Sen, the father of modern China who heralded the modern revolution in 1911. The equivalent of the Japanese term in Chinese “minzu zhuyi” is used to describe nationalism. By 1920, Sun started believing that “If Manchus, Mongols, Uighurs, Tibetans and Chinese Muslims were to be ‘races’ with moral and cultural destinies distinct from that of Chinese, it would be inevitable for them to seek homelands distinct from China”.  Overpowered by the predicaments of separate identities might hinder the goal of transforming China into a modern state, he thought “We must facilitate the dying out of all names of individual peoples inhabiting China, i.e Manchus, Tibetans etc”. This idea gained much ground and dramatically changed the perceptions of architects of modern China. Though China’s constitution has promised equality, it has failed to put proper mechanisms in place to enforce the vision which believed in “satisfying the demands and requirements of all races”.

As of now, Tibetans who constitute 5% of the total population are regarded as second-class citizens and are deprived of basic rights. China which is supposed to protect the rights of minorities ruthlessly suppressed them. China has even discouraged the use of Tibetan language and made learning of Chinese language mandatory from the High School Level. Tibet, a knowledge repository of the ancient Buddhist tradition and culture is now battling to protect its heritage from the Chinese onslaught. The Communist party which established its rule in 1949 in China annexed Tibet which had self-rule. China forced Tibet to sign the “17-point agreement for peaceful liberation of Tibet” in 1951 under duress. Ever since, the oppressions of Communist regime of China continued to wreak havoc in lives of Tibetans. Tibet accredited as an autonomous region was never allowed to function independently. In 1959 Dalai Lama sought Indian asylum and repudiated the agreement. But China evicted Tibetans from leadership positions and incarcerated leaders under the charges of stoking “local nationalism”. Most of the prisoners were tortured, deprived of medical treatment, proper diet and were forced to do hard labor. The deplorable conditions and inhuman treatment meted to Tibetans drew international attention. Amnesty International reports highlighted human-rights violations in Tibet. UN General Assembly passed several resolutions condemning China’s invasion of Tibet and human rights violations. But there was change in situation on ground. Since Tibetans had no access to good educational facilities Chinese Hans occupied high-profile jobs. Thus, even income disparities too widened. Tibetans were systemically discriminated. Soon Chinese moved to Tibetan regions altering the demography of the region. As per reports, by 1999, Tibet had 7 million Chinese migrants as opposed to 6 million Tibetans, making them a minority in their own country.

In 2008, series of immolations fueled massive protests across the plateau. To curtail brewing unrest, China fast-tracked development and intensified urbanization in the regions where China faced stiff resistance. But the benefits accrued by Tibetans through massive infrastructure projects in the plateau have been negligible. Simultaneously, China began racial profiling, intensified vigilance and surveillance in sensitive areas, imposed restrictions on the movements of people and confiscated their valid travel documents.

Aside Tibetans, China’s human rights abuses against Uighurs in the Xinjiang Autonomous Province found a critical mention in the Amnesty International. China occupied the erstwhile East Turkestan, home to one million Muslim Uighur of Turkic ethnicity in 1949 and renamed it as Xinjiang (meaning new province). Like Tibet, Xinjiang has been theatre for Chinese suppression wherein Uighurs face discrimination in employment, housing, education and suffer political marginalization. Even their religious freedom is curtailed, children in schools are forced fed during Ramadan. Due to severe restrictions on the religious, cultural and commercial activities of Uighurs, separatist movement began to gain momentum. In 2009, Uighurs launched massive attacks against government, the Urumqi riots lead to death of 200 people. Ever since, China began to treat Uighurs as a tribe of Taliban and forced countries to extradite Uighurs. Subsequently, Communist regime encouraged mass migration of ethnic Hans to the Xinjiang leading to reduction of native population to 45% from 90%. It began to crush the Uighur resistance with iron-hand. But again in 2012 Uighur groups launched attacks killing 24 people. Since then China adopted grid-style policing followed in Tibet. Convenience police stations were set up for monitoring activities of citizens within a radius of 300-400mts for 24-hour patrol. High definition security cameras were installed, community policing was encouraged and high-tech voice and face recognition software were used to track suspects. Unsurprisingly, China’s obsessive monitoring of the autonomous region skyrocketed the total internal budget for Xinjiang to over $25 billion in 2015. The scale of expenditure exemplifies China’s insecurities towards its minorities. To make matters worse, China has even banned Islamic names in Xinjiang province as a part of crackdown on alleged extremism. It is believed that China spends more on domestic security than national defense. The amounts spent on Tibetan and Xinjiang autonomous provinces is three times the national average (1). Intense racial profiling amplified mistrust between the minorities and the ethnic Han population.  But impudent China continues to justify its actions as “Han Chauvinism”.

Even now, China is indifferent to concerns of minorities with most of them living on the fringes of the society in poorest provinces. The authoritarian communist regime continues to censor and dictate the narratives. It blocks discussions on minorities in academic institutions, research centers, media or press. China never made any attempts to assimilate the minorities nor ameliorate their mistrusts.  Despite the strong undercurrents of racism, China choses to ignore it. While economic development has elevated China’s status in international community, its contemptuous racial discrimination may not portend well for its aspirations of replacing America. Above all, does it behoove a regional economic bulwark to coerce India into subjugation with a detestable racial video to pullout troops? With this mocking video China has not only touched a new low but invariably dismantled industriously built façade of soft diplomacy. This mendacious propaganda has given enough reason for India and others to delve the China’s ugly racism.

@ Copyrights reserved.