EAM Jaishankar’s Indian Ocean outreach to counter Chinese influence

 

Straddling the fastest growing economies and serving as conduit for significant global trade, Indian Ocean region encompassing three strategic choke points- Bab-el-Mandeb, Straits of Hormuz and Malacca Straits, the region has become arena of geopolitical contestations.  Dubbed as next theatre of “Great Game”, major players are vying to increase their presence in the region.

In the jostle for global supremacy, America and rising hegemon are trying to dominate the region. Traditionally the region has been the backyard of India and India has been the net security provider for the IOR. With around 80% of energy supplies, 43% of raw materials and 53% of exports transiting this region, aspiring economic super power China is keen on securing its life-line from the geopolitical tussles has quietly evolving an agenda¹.

Instructively, aside the traditional- Near Seas Defense, regional approach focussed on ensuring territorial sovereignty, maritime rights encompassing defensive operations in the First Island Chain- Yellow Sea, SCS and ECS, China launched Far Seas Defense. China publicly outlined this strategy in Defense White Paper 2015 and later reiterated the same in 2019. Given the changing geopolitical currents and America’s rebalancing and deployment of air and Naval forces to Asia, Chinese strategists believed that Near Seas Deployment is inadequate. As this has the potential to leave China vulnerable to being cut off to strategic choke points and SLOCs.

To fully protect the economic interests, China envisioned Far Seas Defense complementing the Near Seas Defense; devoid of limiting boundaries, with plans for a “global Navy”. Echoing the ideas of Alfred Thayer Mahan who believed that strong nations require powerful navy to protect its overseas commercial interests and the SLOCs connecting those interests. China turned the concept of active defense the guiding principle of PLA.

Steadily China increased its presence in North Indian Ocean and West Pacific Ocean region. As part of “diversified military tasks” or “non-military operations”, PLA commenced counter-piracy operations in Gulf of Aden in 2008 which is continuing till date.

In 2015, Xi abandoned the “traditional mentality that land outweighs the sea” and gave big push to securing “strategic SLOCs and overseas interests”. Under the stated objective of protecting China’s economic interests, overseas citizens and maritime trade China included the element of “go global” approach. Foreign partnerships and cooperation are pivotal for success of the Far Seas Protection.

In the pursuit of overseas basing and port access agreements, to seek the willingness of the foreign partners, China is offering various economic incentives like infrastructure development, investments, diplomatic and military engagements ². By creating a string of pearls under the Maritime Silk Road Initiative, China secured Kyuakyphyu in Myanmar, Hambantota in Sri Lanka and Djibouti in Horn of Africa.

In response to China’s resurgent maritime dominance approach, though little late, India began consolidating its foot print in IOR through port of Sittwe in Myanmar, muscular presence in Andaman & Nicobar Islands and sought access to Duqm in Oman and Assumption Island in Seychelles. China with its deep pockets is seeking to offset India as fulcrum state and net security provider of the region.

Beijing has been courting the small Island nations in IOR like the Maldives, Mauritius, Seychelles, Sri Lanka for port access across the SLOCs. Among these countries, China has special interest in Mauritius for its strategic geographic location and for fostering its trade policies. Strategically China has always relied on “Small Country First Approach”.

China made a big head way into the Western economy by signing a FTA with New Zealand, small country with high income economy in 2008. Indeed, New Zealand was the first OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) country to enter FTA with China. Interestingly, New Zealand supported China’s accession to WTO and became the first country to conclude its accession negotiations with China³. Coming to the present story, like New Zealand, Mauritius is a small country-high income economy and by concluding FTA with Mauritius China is planning to use it as a gateway to Africa.

To realise the desired goal of breaking into Europe, China entered into FTA with a non-EU, NATO country Iceland in 2013. Subsequently it signed FTA with Switzerland and now EU and China have announced a Comprehensive FTA with EU in the last week of December 2019⁴.

China and Mauritius signed FTA in October 17^th 2019 at Beijing and it has become into force on January 1^st 2021.  With an eye on larger China-Africa economic cooperation, China entered into FTA with Mauritius- the first ever African country. This has coincided with the launch of African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). AfCFTA is signed by 54 of the 55 African countries and ratified by 31 countries. Unlike New Zealand and Iceland, Mauritius is keen on positioning itself as the middle man between Asia and Africa.

For years Mauritius has been an important investment entrepot for the continent. Capitalising on its financial record, the Sino-Mauritian FTA agreed to promote, “the development of Renminbi clearing and settlement facility in the territory of Mauritius” and also “to share expertise in fintech to promote innovation in financial services”⁵.

It is no ones guess as who is going to benefit from the FTA. Mauritius is $14 billion economy with 1.3 million population and managed to export goods worth 1.1billion rupees and imported goods 31.8 billion rupees⁶(2019). Previous year the trade stood at 21:1 and this year it worsened to 30:1 (in favour of China). Intent on diversifying trade and investments, Mauritius is believed to have entered into an FTA with China.  Currently China is Mauritius largest import market closely followed by India and South Africa. Through robust economic engagement and investment in infrastructure projects China is planning to expand its foot print in IOR dominated by India.

Meanwhile, China’s increased naval presence and frequent intrusions in the Western Indian region is posing immediate security challenge to India’s maritime interests and territorial sovereignty. In response to China’s ambitious maritime strategy, Prime Minister Modi envisioned SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region) and revitalised ties with Indian Ocean Region maritime neighbours. In 2015, he pronounced SAGAR vision in his address to the Mauritius Parliament and elevated the IOR islands to the status of key priority partners.

Under the SAGAR initiative, India besides supplied 23 tonnes of essential medicines, half a million tablets of hydroxy chloroquine, a special consignment of Ayurvedic medicines and 14-member Medical Assistance team. After a week of launch of vaccination drive in the country, India has shipped 100,000 doses of COVID vaccine to Mauritius and additional EAM during his visit handed over 100,000 doses.

India recently, conducted a COVID-19 Management: Experience, Good Practices and Way Forward” and invited 10 neighbourhood countries which included the IOR islands- the Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles.

Doubling its efforts to make forays into IOR, in a major outreach, External Affairs Minister Jaishankar visited the Maldives and Mauritius from Feb 20^th to 23^rd.  The Maldives and Mauritius, are India’s key maritime IOR neighbours and pivotal partners in Prime Minister’s SAGAR. During his visit EAM reviewed the entire gamut of the bilateral ties and the ongoing infrastructure projects in both countries.

Unlike the Maldivian President Abdulla Yameen who bypassed the quorum of legislators and obtained the Parliament committee approval to sign the 1000 pages FTA document with China in 10 minutes, President Solih has stalled Male’s China’s levitation. Solih took recourse in ‘India First Policy” and New Delhi affirmatively responded with Neighbourhood First Policy and extended much needed financial assistance for various infrastructure initiatives with “no strings attached”.

True to its pronouncements, India has accorded highest priority to the Maldives. Within 96 hours of roll out of India’s vaccination drive, Indian-made COVID vaccines landed in Male. Additionally, Jaishankar gifted 100,000 doses of COVISHIELD to the Maldives and signed $50 million defence line of credit to facilitate capability building in maritime domain. To help the Maldivian tourism-based economy, India launched special Air Bubble travel for Indian tourists. India has also signed a deal to develop, support and maintain a Maldivian National Defence Force Coast Guard harbour at Sifvaru (Uthuru Thilafarvu) to boost maritime surveillance capabilities of Maldivian EEZ. India also reiterated support to Maldives candidature for the Presidency of 76^th session of UNGA ⁷. India welcomed Maldives joining of IORA and re-joining of Common Wealth.

Making up for the characteristic dilly-dallying, woken up China’s FTA, India has entered into Comprehensive Economic Cooperation and Partnership Agreement (CECPA) with Mauritius. This is India’s first such agreement with an African country. The FTA will bestow preferential access for export of 40,000 tonnes of sugar and 7.5-million-piece Mauritian apparel. Countries have agreed to negotiate an Automatic Trigger Safeguard Mechanism for limited number of highly sensitive products within two years of CECPA.

India is largest development cooperation partner of Mauritius. With FTA in place, Mauritius can double up as a launch pad for expansion of business and economic opportunities into continental Africa for Indian investors and pave way for revival of post-COVID economies.

 

India has extended $100 million defence credit line to Mauritius to facilitate procurement of India defence assets⁸. To shore up the patrolling capabilities India has decided to provide Dornier Aircraft and Advanced Light Helicopter Dhruv on gratis basis for two years.

True to its credentials of being a security provider of IOR, Jaishankar on his visit ramped up defence cooperation with the IOR maritime neighbours. Invoking the history connect and building on the robust people to people ties, India is now steadily building its IOR strategy. Indian origin people constitute 70% of Mauritius population.

EAM Jaishankar called on Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth and President Prithviraj sing Roopun, both Indian-origin leaders. He handed over additional 100,000 doses of COVID vaccine. Unlike China whose IOR strategy is part of its larger global ambitions, Indian Ocean, is India’s strategic backyard. Security in Indian Ocean is paramount for its territorial sovereignty and economic progress.

Above all nations are awakening to the 19^th century paradigm of preponderance of great maritime power to become a global super power. Rise of the US in the contemporary times and the unparalleled dominance of Island nation, Britain earlier signalled the same. Resonating with the Sir Walter Raleigh who theorised, “whoever holds the sea holds the trade of the world; whoever holds the trade holds the wealth; whoever holds the wealth of the World owns the World itself”⁹. China which had insignificant Navy till 1980s is the second biggest Naval power now. In quest for its global ambitions, Middle Kingdom is encroaching India’s traditional area of influence.

To counter China’s influence, India has swiftly bolstered its soft power bonds and cementing defence cooperation to buttress the maritime dimension. The role of maritime power began to dawn on India and New Delhi though late is bolstering its defenses. Jaishankar’s excellent IOR outreach will go a long way in asserting India’s regional influence in IOR.

British divided Sikhs and Hindus; anti-India elements are reupping the same agenda through Farmers Protests

The unrelenting farmers protests, the infamous insurrection attempt, hoisting of Kesari flag at Red Fort, subsequent leak of the toolkit has inadvertently exposed the dark underbelly of the global conspiracy to defame India. Inexorably Police investigations are now leading to explicit Khalistani links to the entire doom of conundrum that has descended on the national capital. Toolkit probe has inexorably exposed the sinister motives of the seemingly innocuous farmers protests.

Unfortunately, decades after Independence, India struggled to rein in on the two “K Movements” that threatened her territorial integrity and sovereignty. With the abrogation of Article 370, Indian leadership has successfully scuttled the attempts of the belligerent Western neighbour to keep the cauldron burning. Through masterful diplomacy, India garnered international support and have downsized the “K Movement” to an internal issue.

Refusing to mend ways, humiliated western neighbour, whose very purpose of existence is destruction of India began reigniting another “K Movement” with Kartarpur Corridor bait. Stoking latent secessionist sentiments, Pakistan has deviously touched a raw nerve. Now the vicious turn of events leading to desecration of Indian flag have exposed the resurrection of the dreaded K-movement.

Under the garb of dissent, opportunistically the old hostilities are now stoked. Before the animosities blow out of proportions, it is advisable to understand and assess the genesis of the enmity and the crisis faced by Punjab during 80s when political dispensation allowed the situation slip into chaos.

Ravaged by Muslim invasions, Marathas in the South and Gurus in Punjab created a religious and political awakening leading to Hindu Renaissance. To achieve these twin purposes Guru Govind Singh founded two sects (Panths)-Khalsa (warriors) and Nirmale (upholders of Dharma). Dharma in this context was Hinduism. Special attribute of Hinduism is the acceptance of existence of several Panths depending on the needs of the time as different paths leading to the Divine. Creation of Panths by Guru Govind Singh is based on this Liberal aspect of Hinduism.

The Khalsa Panth of warriors emerged as power fighting force against Mughal Empire and even liberated some areas from them. Intimidated by the valour of the Khalsa, Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali announced special cash rewards to kill them and perpetrated a genocide. But didn’t waver their loyalty to protect the Dharma.

To overcome the thwarting efforts of Mughals Sikhs eventually organised themselves similar to Marathas after the death of Sambaji Rao into small bands or Jhattas and took on the Mughals. Later they re-organised into 11 Misls with independent flag and a leader. Each Misls administered their own provinces. Whenever they had information of a foreign attack, they would attach them together. Ultimately Maharaja Ranjit Singh brought these Misls together and established a Khalsa Empire in 1799. He ruled impartially and appointed people from various religious denominations, Sikhs, non-Sikhs, Rajput Muslims to high government posts. Held Brahmins in high regard, banned cow slaughter and patronised temples.

Under his regime, Hindu families would hold Pahul ceremony or a baptisation ceremony of the elder son of the family who would become Keshadhari (one with uncut hair) and praticeed wearing all the five K’s- (Kesh, Kangha, Kaccha, Kada and Kripan). Because of this special identity, they assumed the names of Sikhs. The others were termed as Sahajdharis. Hence there wasn’t any distinction between Sikh and Hindu under Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s rule from 1799 to 1839.

Indeed, English Officer GF Macmunn wrote, “It is an important factor to remember that no man is born a Sikh, and that he must be baptized to the faith. The baptismal ceremony, termed taking the Pahul is usually performed on attaining, or just before attaining, man-hood. A man who does not take the Pahul is automatically a Hindu”. The 1855 census has only Hindus and Muslim denominations.

British found the Hindu resistance especially from the Khalsa sect (Amritdhari Sikhs who are recipients of Amrit) as formidable. Anticipating danger from this Warrior class, Lord Dalhousie after annexation of Punjab in 1855 disbanded them from the Army. Chief Commissioner of Punjab, John Lawrence instigated the dismissed soldiers against the soldiers from UP and Bihar as the people who has destroyed the kingdom of Ranjit Singh and sowed seeds of suspicion between Hindus and Sikhs.

Later, Britishers twisted the predictions of Guru Teg Bahadur and Guru Govind Singh out of context to imply that Sikhs should align with British to destroy the Islamic rule. By viciously circulating these prophecies British attempted to earn the loyalty of Sikhs. Alarmed by the concerted uprising against the British by both Hindus and Muslims together, British tried every trick in the book to alienate both communities. Perceiving the Hindu consolidation as another resistance to their authority, they sought to create dissensions between Hindus and Sikhs. They adopted a divide and rule policy to alienate Sikhs from Hindus.

Accordingly, they praised the valour of Sikhs and goaded them to adhere to Sikh traditions to protect themselves from the contagion of idolatry. British began to treat Sikhs as a separate entity and encouraged them to consider themselves as distinct and separate nation. They began the practice of saluting the Guru Granth Saheb in specially constituted Sikh regiments and preferred recruiting the Keshadharis.

Gradually Britishers cultivated the feeling of separateness from Hindus in Army camps, educational, administrative and religious levels. Through the Priests of Gurudwaras, the British used to exercise power and influence the masses. The degeneration of the Priest class, their complicity towards the British and erosion of high ideals of Gurus created a feeling of despair. To bring about self-improvement and inculcate patriotism, Ram Singh who served in Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s army began Kuka Agitation in 1872. With the clarion call for Swadharma, Swadeshi and Swaraj, this agitation quickly spread like a wild fire across Punjab. But the Britishers who have already wooed the Landlords and Priest class, used them to crush the agitation.

As a token of appreciation, British allowed the formation of Sikh Sabhas which eventually called for loyalty towards the Crown and even doubled up as recruitment platforms to the British Army. Khalsa Diwan set up in Lahore and Amritsar excluded Sahajdharis supported the policies of the British. By this time, British conducted special census in Punjab and enumerated Sikhs separately. Indeed, people who claimed that, “We are Hindus as well as Sikhs” were persuaded to register themselves as Sikhs.

To further the divisions between Hindus and Sikhs, Assistant Commissioner Robert Nidhamcust suggested that Guru Granth Saheb be translated into English and other European languages. They assigned this task to Ernest Trumpp, a German Priest. Trumpp who couldn’t translate the copy descended in Lahore and engaged with Sikh Granthis. But the Granthis who were into war-like training lost their learning and could be of little help. Eventually he turned to Pt Shraddha Ram Phillor for intellectual help under the pretext that Sikhism is besot with distortions and ritualism. Under his influence, Shraddha Ram and other scholars began to critically analyse the evil practices in Sikhism. This became a contentious issue and sowed seeds to mistrust between Hindus and Sikhs.

Though Trumpp finally underscored, “Sikhs are only a part of Hindu Society and have strayed on a separate path only after the Gurus, this troubled the Sikh scholars who began to ask, “Is Sikhism a separate religion and when did it separate from mainstream Hinduism?’’.

This eventually divided Sikhs into two groups- one who believed Sikhs are one special variety of Hindus who followed the Hindu ways and laws, another group under the influence of the British tactics declared that they are not Hindus.

At this juncture, European Scholar Macauliffe who supported the separate identity of Sikhs and volunteered to translate Guru Granth Saheb. He criticised Trumpp and stated that

1.     Sikh religion didn’t originate from Hinduism but evolved on its own as an independent religion and that Hindus were trying to devour it

2.     Basic Sikh philosophy was chivalry and unflinching loyalty for the master

3.     Hindu religion is biggest enemy of Sikh religion and protection of Sikh religion is possible only with the British and hence they should be loyal to the British.

With this, the British successfully sowed seeds of disaffection between Hindus and Sikhs. To deeply instill the feeling of separateness, the British recognised Punjabi as the official language in Punjab under the ruse of preserving the Sikh religion.

Keenly understanding the religious practices of these communities, the British believed that at social level, Sikhism rejected the caste which is central to Hinduism. To create hostilities British even employed the handle of caste to deepen the divided between Hindus and Sikhs. They exhorted the educated Sikhs that the Khalsa clearly doesn’t respect the Hindu Pantheon or observe Hindu rites and even contended that Sikh Gurus never practiced the Vedic Philosophy nor did they practice Brahmanical rituals.

As against these dubious contentions of British propagated by scholars- Lepen Henry Greiffen, Gorden, Binglay and Payne, Guru Govind Singh sent five of his disciples- Karam Singh, Ganda Singh, Veer Singh, Sena Singh and Ram Singh to Varanasi to learn Vedas, Puranas, Shastras and Sanskrit language. They were allowed to remain celibate and trusted with the responsibility of propagating religious learning.

Subsequently, Arya Samaj founded by Swami Dayanand further accentuated the fissures by stating that Sikhism is movement evolved to rid Hindu society of idol worship, casteism and hypocrisy of priests. Following a criticism of Guru Nanak by Swami Dayanand, Arya Samaj over a period of time had a sweet and sour relationship with Sikhs.

At society level, while lives of Hindus and Sikhs varied interpretations by the British and Arya Samaj led to proliferation of conflicting literature- Bhai Jagta Singh’s “Risala Satyaprakash” concluded that Sikh sect is an old form of Arya Samaj. Lala Thakurdas and Baba Narain Singh released a pamphlet titled-Sikh Hindu Hain.

On the contrary influenced by Macauliffe’s interpretations, Sardar Kahan Singh propounded a Sikh Alienation theory in his book, “Hum Hindu Nahin”. In a bid to earn the loyalty of Sikhs whom British considered as vital to stall the Russian invasions, created this confusion and dilemma and weaned them away from the concept of Indian nationalism.

Indeed, the Sikh loyalists under the influence of General Dyer, who carried out Jalianwala Bagh massacre removed all the idols of Hindu deities and dismissed the Brahmins from Hari Mandir in Amritsar. Simultaneously, Arya Samaj which is trying to find a new identity as a rational Hindu organisation tried to destroyed the bonds between Sikhs and Hindus.

While removal of idols marked the beginning of religious alienation, G W Leitner through an organisation Anjuman-e-Punjab created a perception that Sikhs were a separate community and had their own religion different from Hindus and introduced Gurumukhi script. He set up a Gurumukhi school.

Motivated by the British initiative Sikh intellectuals mooted the idea of establishing a Khalsa College to preserve Sikh identity. The underlying objective was to prevent future generations of Sikhs from getting lost in the multi-faceted Hindu religion. To obtain government aid, the Khalsa Diwan keen of having Sikh Schools submitted a representation to Viceroy Dufferin in 1888 indicating that, “they no longer confounded with Hindus but treated in all respects as separate community”.

By inculcating a deep urge among Sikhs for separate identity and constantly praising them for their valour, they recruited thousands of Sikhs soldiers to fight for them during the World War I. At the same thing, reminding them of rejection of idol worship and casteism they alienated them from Hindus.

Despite these iniquitous attempts, prominent Sikh leaders like Baba Gurubaksha Singh always professed that Sikhs and Hindus were one and the same and that Sikhs were merely a section of the Hindu nation. In 1907, Sikhs who have migrated to Western countries especially to America provided leadership and support to revolutionary Gadar Movement. By and large Sikhs remained loyal to the British till 1919.

In 1920 Sikhs formed the Gurudwara Prabhandak Committee to regain control of Gurudwaras from Mahants and manage them through an elected body. Since 1925, the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) has been under the control of Akalis. Aside the religious authority, Akalis who wanted to wield political influence called for territorialisation of Sikhs and passed a resolution to this effect in 1946.

To assert themselves as saviours of Sikhs, Master Tara Singh mischievously incited, …“the British have left but we have yet to be free. For us, this so-called freedom means a change of masters, the white masters have been replaced by black ones. Our freedom and our religion are being suppressed in the name of secularism.” Interestingly, he once said, “Hindus and Sikhs are in no way different from each other; it is Hindu blood which is flowing in my veins”.

For political mileage, Akalis pressed for a Khalistan, rejecting another religious based partition after the unprecedented blood shed in 1947, Congress party approved the creation of state of Punjab in 1966. But dissatisfaction lingered over sharing of Chandigarh and river waters. After the creation of Punjab, Akali Dal’s ambition of retaining the mantle of sole representative of Sikhs remained a pipe dream as it no longer remained the sole representative of Sikhs. Some supported Congress. After losing the electoral battle in 1973 Akalis passed Anandpur Sahib Resolution for creation of political conditions to ensure the supremacy of the Sikh community. It indirectly hinted at the stated objective of developing a deep consciousness of a separate and independent identity and sowed the seeds of Khalistan.

To counter this strategy Congress propped up Bhindranwale, who spurred Khalistan Movement and instigated Sikhs to kill Hindus and augured the emergence of militant Sikh cult. At around same time, waiting for an opportunity to avenge the creation of Bangladesh, Pakistan extended supported to staunch Khalistani advocates like Jagjit Singh Chauhan who started Khalistan National Council and raised Khalistan Flag in Birmingham.

By 1980s both Bhindranmwale and Harancharan Singh Longowal President of Akalis called for Dharmayudh and set up respective camps in the Hari Mandir Saheb. For the fear of being labelled as separatist group while Akalis decamped from the Golden Temple. Bhindranwale turned the holy shrine into fortress prompting the launch of Operation Blue Star to crush the secessionist movement. The ensuing events as we all know has deepened the divide between Hindus and Sikhs.

Interestingly, rebel Sikh elements were accorded shelter, support and aid by Pakistan, Canada, US, UK. Pakistan’s ISI trained Sikh extremists in guerrilla warfare and has been instrumental in creation of International Sikh Youth Foundation (ISYF) and Babbar Khalsa International (BKI). Irked by India’s Friendship Treaty with Russia, US, Canada, UK turned a blind eye to the secessionist movements mushrooming in their territories.

While India managed to snuff out extremist elements from its territories back in 1980s, over the years the deep sectarian, religious and linguistic alienation attempts have seeded mistrust. These disgruntled elements over the years have been trying to regroup under the banner of Khalistan movement.

Unable to break the stiff resistance, Britishers adopted Divide and Rule and created a wedge between Hindus and Sikhs and after independence political parties instead of assuaging these creeping disaffections widened them for their own political objectives.

Right now, country is staring at the resurgence of Khalistan monster backed by Pakistan and other foreign elements. While it is essential to strike at the roots of these malignancy with concerted efforts it is important to remove the venom of distrust. This can be essentially achieved by getting back to the sacred books to delve into the ideological similarities between Hindus and Sikhs which are the Vedas. Creating much needed awareness about the teachings of Gurus can ameliorate the poison of alienation. Besides, castigating the entire Sikh community for few anti-national elements it is important that citizens of country unite in one voice to frustrate the attempts of the Khalistani elements and anti-India Brigade grouping under the veil of farmers protests.

For nearly two centuries vested groups have been trying to earn the loyalty of Sikhs known for their martial prowess as pawns. It is time they realise the higher objective of Indian nationalism postulated by their Gurus and seek recourse in Guru Granth Saheb.

@ Copyrights reserved.

The Strategic Import of Turkey-Pakistan Alliance

 Strategic discussions in the sub-continent are currently cornered around the Biden administration’s proposal to hold first meeting of Quad leaders and the much awaited dis-engagement of Indian and Chinese troops across the LAC. At this juncture, another strategic alliance with immense geopolitical impact on the South Asia and Middle East is slowly shaping up.

This week Special Forces of Turkey and Pakistan have commenced joint military exercises- Ataturk XI-2021 close to Afghanistan border in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province with a focus on counter-terrorist operations¹. Turkey and Pakistan, former allies and part of the US axis during Cold war are now intensifying bilateral cooperation across different sectors have many things in common including their geopolitical journeys.

Favoured for their strategic geographical location in Middle East and South Asia respectively, US turned both of them into strategic assets. In the recent past, both countries have fallen out the good books of the Washington and they are in search of new and alternative alliances. The middle-sized Sunni nations with Islamist outlook are intensified bilateral cooperation spanning many sectors.

Intertwining their religious, cultural and geopolitical goals and interests both countries have been taking the relationship to the next level. Spurned by Saudi Arabia for its Kashmir obsession, Pakistan moved closer to Turkey which is keen on clinching the Islamic World leadership from the Arab nation. At a time, when Saudi Arabia and UAE have intensified strategic partnership with India, Pakistan rallied behind Turkey, Iran and Malaysia and laid foundation for an alternative mini-Muslim alliance.

As a toast to this friendly minted strategic partnership, Turkey President Erdogan raised Kashmir issue at the UNGA in 2019 undermining several bilateral agreements signed with India in the past acknowledging the fact that Kashmir is a bilateral issue which should be resolved as per Shimla agreement. Welcoming Turkey’s support, Prime Minister Imran Khan began to profess Turkic origins of Pakistan.

Last year February, Erdogan reiterated that Kashmir was as important to Turkey as it is to Pakistan. Drawing semblance to events of Turkish independence movement, he said, “And now we feel the same about Kashmir today. It was Canakkale yesterday and Kashmir today, there is no difference between the two”.

Vitiating all the possibilities of a second ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagarno-Karabakh region, Turkey and Pakistan jumped into fray in support of Azerbaijan. According to reports, along side Turkish forces, Pakistan has sent Islamist Jihadis to fight with the Azerbaijan forces². Though Pakistan dismissed the reports as ‘speculative and baseless’, Armenian Prime Minister in an interview confirmed Pakistani troops involvement in the war³. Till date, Pakistan doesn’t recognise Armenia for its hostilities with Azerbaijan and Turkey as a mark of solidarity. Some Turkish news agencies have hailed the diplomatic and military cooperation between these three countries.

Consolidating the friendship, three countries launched trilateral cooperation in 2017. In the second trilateral meeting of foreign ministers at Islamabad in January 13^th, countries issued a Joint Declaration. It expressed concerns over India’s attempts to “change the demographic structure of Jammu and Kashmir” and called for “a just sustainable, realistic and mutually acceptable settlement of  the Cyprus issue as well as the issues in the Aegan and the East Mediterranean”. They assured each other support on core issues.

Turkey is deepening military ties with both Azerbaijan and Pakistan. Indeed, Turkish made drones-Bayrakhtar won the war for Azerbaijan and positioned Turkey as the drone super power of the World. Pakistan-Azerbaijan joint exercises is on cards.

Pakistan and Turkey signed a defence agreement worth $1.5 billion in 2018 for four MILGEM-class war ships. Turkey has agreed to provide upgrades to Pakistan’s five French-origin Agosta-90B submarines for $350 million. Islamabad has agreed to buy 30 T129 ATAK helicopters from Ankara⁴. Facing sanctions from the West, Pakistan is diversifying its defence acquisitions and turning to China and Turkey. Pakistan makes 70% of defence imports from China. In 2017, Turkey purchased 52 Mushshak training aircrafts from Pakistan.

Another dimension to the burgeoning synergy between Turkey and Pakistan is Erdogan’s intent to acquire nuclear weapons.  In 2019, Erdogan stated, “Some countries have missiles with nuclear war heads, and not just one or two. I, however, am not supposed to have missiles with nuclear heads. I do not accept this.”⁵ Pakistan is lone nuclear Muslim country and Turkey has four Russian built nuclear reactors for use managed by Turkish Atomic Energy Authority. It has rich Uranium deposits. Though there aren’t any conclusive reports of Pakistan aiding Turkey is developing nuclear weapons, the high-profile activity between two countries is really a suspect.

In December 2020, Turkish-Pakistan High Level Military Dialogue Group are reported to have discussed the main agenda of nuclear delivery technology and systems. The delegation headed by Pakistan’s Defence Secretary has met top Turkish Army officials and defence companies. Another aspect that featured the meeting were transfer of military technology and UAV.

A report by International Institute for Strategic Studies underscored Turkey’s history of serving as hub for Pakistan’s clandestine nuclear activities wherein Turkish companies facilitated AQ Khan to import of nuclear material and centrifuge parts from Europe⁵. The report indicated that Turkey could be possessing required centrifuges for Uranium enrichment.

In the aftermath of 2016 failed coup attempt, Turkey has reportedly ramped up military ties with Pakistan in terms of training mercenary pilots to fly F-16s. Turkey’s role in funding the radical organisations and its attempts to lure Indian Muslims with the help of surrendered ISIS to these indoctrination centres is already well-documented⁶.

Turkey-Pakistan’s rapidly growing strategic alliance is bound to have strategic repercussions in the South Asia and Middle East. With US pulling away from Middle East, Turkey is becoming an active player forging new opportunistic alliances. By meddling in Syrian war, counter revolutions in Egypt, stationing troops in Libya and competing for gas resources in the East Mediterranean. Turkey’s aggressive posturing has threatened peace and security in the Middle East.

With perennial cross-border terrorism, Pakistan is disrupting regional peace in South Asia. Spurned by the US, Turkey and China are now allying with China. Cognisant of Turkey’s geographical location as important transit hub, China is making infrastructure investments. Beijing has invested heavily in Pakistan under CPEC to foster its global connectivity ambitions.

Interestingly, despite their overpowering ambitions for Political Islam, both Turkey and Pakistan have consciously toned down their rhetoric and remained silent towards China’s excesses towards Uighurs. Indeed, they are roping in China to construct the railway corridor ITI (Istanbul, Tehran, Islamabad) extending from China to Istanbul.

Strengthening the alliance further Turkey is all set to bail out Pakistan from FATF next week. In a World strained by massive overhaul of geopolitical alliances, the emerging Turkey-Pakistan axis is bound to complicate it further.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Media’s selective outrage is disrupting communal harmony and fuelling distrust

 National capital has witnessed another gruesome murder. 25-year old Rinku Sharma was brutally stabbed. The images of a knife sticking out of his back, splashed across social media has explicitly exposed the barbarity of the crime. The grim ordeal of the youth and the brutality which has no parallels to the regular events of crime transcended the borders of regular scuffles.

The imprints of savagery pertaining to the incident imbued a sense of threat to life to the people living in the area. People in the immediate neighbourhood a visibly shaken. An accompanying video in the aftermath of the incident making rounds in the social media has reinforced the same.

Six years ago, when window panes of a church were broken by miscreants in the capital, liberal elite raised alarm. Joining the chorus, legacy media alluded that lives of minorities are under danger. Though investigations revealed that it was clear case of burglary, the panic-mongering has already spread like a wild fire. International media agencies too joined the band wagon and lashed out the government for seeding an environment of fear and insecurity in the country.

Back to the current incident and its roots, Rinku worked as a lab technician in Balaji Hospitals and took active part in donation collection drive for Ayodhya Ram Mandir. Divulging the sequence of events to the media, the family admitted that hostilities surfaced after they organised an event commemorating Ram Mandir Bhoomi Pujan at their home few months ago. Ever since, Rinku and his family were subjected to harassment by the Muslim neighbours.

Even as police ruled out communal intent to the incident, distressed, Rinku’s family insisted that the Muslim mob targeted Rinku for his association with the Ram Mandir drive. They dismissed the claims of a birthday party brawl and business rivalry snow-balling into this stabbing incident. They stated that they don’t own any business.

With the reports of incident becoming viral, the legacy media as usual give their regular spin to the even and tried desperately to undermine the brutality of the event. In an attempt to push it under carpet, they termed it as case of stabbing. In reality, a Muslim mob of 25-30 people barged into the house of the victim, dragged him out his house, pinned Rinku to ground and plunged the knife into his back. The mob included two women, stated a latest report.

A flare up of tempers couldn’t have led to a chilling cold-blooded murder that reminded of Jihadi stabbings in the West. The Hindu community in the area is incensed. Tensions have been brewing for sometime and the scuffle on birthday party as indicated in the Police report could have been the trigger.

But the Police has rejected the claims of the family and VHP. It dismissed the possibility of communal angle. So unlike in the recent case of Navneet Singh, where they discredited the Police investigation, the media immediately lapped up Police version. Media ruled that the attack is not a communal crime.  

Media’s default position of rejecting communal angle when the victim is Hindu and perpetrator is Muslim has become a regular affair now. Irrespective of facts, Indian legacy media has begun summarily postulating Hindu’s preponderance towards hate crime against Muslims. Accordingly, all the crimes that fall in this ambit are automatically escalated.

With time, media’s casual way of downplaying some incidents and amplifying others has now become more predictable. The proclivity of media to grade and classify violent events based on victim’s faith has now become a common place. Selective vilification of Hindu community is an offshoot of this prejudiced bias relentlessly propagated by the media and the liberal ecosystem. Resultantly, Muslim victimhood and Hindu demonisation have become hallmarks of secular India.

The dangerous precedent set by the media is now fuelling a diabolical narrative of majority Hindu harbouring hatred towards the minority Muslims and that the Hindus are pre-disposed to step up minor issues into dangerous communal riots.

The decibel level of outrage pertaining to any violent incident by the so- called saviours of human rights varies from deafening silence to international indignation accompanied by the exhortations of secularism is in peril depending on the faith of victim. No longer is a crime outrightly called out for its brutality. Harsh but true, this is the reality of the liberal media. Welcome to the land of Santana Dharma where Sanatanis are disparaged. 

To drive home this message, legacy media accentuates the crimes where Muslims are victims. The phenomenon of selective outrage and loud clamour for international propaganda support has been the cornerstone of the Delhi riots wherein even vested interest group pitched in eventually to peddle a narrative. Fortunately, Delhi police investigation busted the plot and stymied the sinister agenda of the entire ecosystem.

Throughout the course of the India’s history, it has sheltered people of different faiths who sought refuge and emerged as exemplar of a pluralistic society and revelled in the glory of its syncretic culture. It shone as a beacon of secularism in true sense. India has respected all faiths without any bias, ill-will or malice. But contrary to the value-system of the land, detestable motives are being imputed to the intent of the dominant Hindu majority, the Sanatanis, who are open-minded, accommodative and has been truly liberal in every sense.

Simply put, unlike the nations which sparred at the drop of the hat and invaded foreign lands to forcibly impose their faith, India “eschewed certitude and embraced scepticism” and disallowed the erosion of civilisational strength to be lost in the narrow religious wars. No wonder, while World was bogged down brutal religious wars, India turned into fountain head of innovations, scientific discoveries where art prospered and temples as seat of learning thrived. The land of Sanatana Dharma thus flourished for ages.

Reducing such a legacy and imputing motives to the culture of the land, the liberal media has been trying to sow seeds of disharmony. Unfortunately, the western educated, deracinated Indians fed with distorted history are now sucking up to this malicious agenda perpetuated by the liberal media. But the double standards of liberal media is not lost on the common man who is now defiantly hitting the streets for justice.

By portraying Muslims as the victims and Hindus as perennial aggressors, the media is not only defaming the Hindus but the country as a whole. In the process it is mainstreaming the violence of Muslims.

The deafening silence of liberal ecosystem now and in over 150 cases in the last two years where Muslim mobs wreaked havoc on Hindus has exposed their hypocrisy. People are now calling the bluff of the judgemental posturing of this so-called independent media

The seemingly inexorable vilification and demonisation of Hindus and has now reached an insane level. Common man is now vexed up with this ruthless selective crucification of one community. Instead of breathing life into democracy with unbiased reporting of facts, media has donned the role of a propagandist to peddle a narrative.

By sanitizing, shielding and downplaying the dangerous intent of one community and white-washing the communal angle of a crime, liberal media is now viciously misleading the people. By fuelling distrust and disrupting the communal harmony, media is nefariously fostering the agenda of vested groups.  

@ Copyrights reserved.

Is Myanmar Coup Beijing’s furtive design?

 

Dashing all hopes of peaceful power transition, the hall mark of a thriving democracy, military junta in Myanmar seized power in coup d’etat. During the pre-dawn hours on Feb 1^st, hours before the installation of the new government Myanmar military, known as Tatmadaw detained State Counsellor Aaun San Suu Kyi and President Win Myint along with many legislators. Soon all the communication channels including the media and internet connectivity was temporarily severed across the country. Broadcasts were restricted to military’s Myawaddy TV channel.

To this effect, Military announced one-year State of Emergency and installed Myint Swe as the acting President.  The Commander-in-Chief and mastermind of the coup Min Aung Hlaing was made over-all charge of Legislative, Judicial and executive affairs.

Since last week, Myanmar junta dropped enough hints about an impending coup. Countries like the US, Britain, Australia, New Zealand even warned the military against the seizure of power. Countries saw it coming and hence the news of coup wasn’t a shock.

The latest military action, first since 1988, bearing all the hallmarks of a putsch justified its interference on the grounds of threat to democracy under article 417 of the constitution promulgated in 2008 which allows for declaration of the state of emergency in conditions that threaten to “disintegrate the union or disintegrate national solidarity”.

The Constitution drawn up by the military, reserves a quarter of the seats in both the houses for the military appointees.  To perpetuate its absolute control, military retained even the key portfolios of home affairs, border issues and defence under its ambit. Since 1962, when the civilian government was last deposed and military regime was established, Myanmar despite its preferred position of international isolation depended on military grants from China.

To downsize military dependence and drift to the West, military instituted the charade of semi-democracy setup in Myanmar. Soon they released Suu Kyi, “icon of democracy” from house arrest in 2010 and made Suu Kyi’s NLD (National League of Democracy) a stakeholder. As a part of the reforms process, NLD was allowed to register as political party for by-elections in 2012. Of the 44 seats it contested in Parliamentary by-elections NLD won 43 seats.

Convinced of military endeavors and Myanmar’s transition towards democracy, perceiving it as a useful addition to his strategic “Pivot to Asia” Obama administration ended its pariah status. Lifting arms embargo and sanctions, Obama made first state visit to Myanmar in 2012.

Buoyed by people’s acceptance, NLD registered a historic victory in 2015 elections. Denied the Presidentship for marrying a foreigner, Suu Kyi controlled to wield power as the State Counsellor and revived Myanmar’s engagement with the West. Having emerged as the credible civilian voice, Suu kyi wanted to bring about slew of constitutional reforms to limit military powers.

To slowly bring about complete civilian control, she began to defend human rights abuse of the military. She refused to condemn the atrocities against the Rohingyas and even travelled to International Court of Justice to be on the side of the military. Setting aside the past ill-treatment meted out to her by the Army, she sided with them and defended them at the international platform and undermined the alleged “genocide” of Rohingyas as internal conflict. Her remarks surprised many and shattered her image as the “icon of democracy”. By defending the indefensible and becoming the face of military, she destroyed her credibility whatever was left in the international community.

Suu Kyi kow-towed military anticipating a political favour on institutional reforms. She proposed some constitutional amendments to curb the political powers of military which was were put to vote¹ for the first time in March 2020. All of them were rejected and denounced by the Parliament. Suu Kyi’s gambit failed.

Rohingya crisis has toppled the apple cart of foreign investments into Myanmar. Plagued by the quagmire of poor investment scenario and increasing international censure over the Rohingya issue, Suu Kyi turned to China for financial and diplomatic assistance. COVID has further deepened Myanmar’s dependence on China. To keep economy afloat, Suu Kyi signed a raft of agreements related to China’s BRI. Critically at this juncture, military openly flagged China for arming and funding insurgents in the Northern region. Military eventually grew wary of China.

In November 2020, NLD clinched a landslide in the elections winning 396 of the 476 seats trouncing the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), military’s electoral proxy. USDP bagged 33 seats in the November 8^th elections. Several military leaders lost the elections while NLD made new inroads winning 83% of the contested parliamentary seats.

Suu Kyi’s winning streak has unsettled the military. Her growing popularity among the majority Buddhists was perceived as threat by generals. USDP’s election drubbing frustrated the junta. Perceiving it as an assault on their autonomy, military complained of massive voter fraud. Though Myanmar election commission rejected allegations of “voting malpractice”. Military persisted with their claims.

Owing to Suu Kyi’s burgeoning popularity and electoral consolidation the already frayed relations between the state counsellor and Commander-in-chief hit a rock bottom. As per sources, Suu Kyi hasn’t spoken to Aung Hlaing for over a year. This deepening distress and burgeoning political distance has seeded distrust. Also, Suu Kyi’s political rise presented a roadblock to the political ambitions of Aung Hlaing who dreamed of presidentship. Incidentally Aung Hlaing’s whose term is extended is set to expire by July this year.

Together the widening rift between the civilian administration and military junta has culminated in a coup. Paving way for a dictatorial regime, military crucified the blossoming democracy through the veritable Coup.

Even as real reasons for the coup aren’t clear, it is bound to have implicit domestic repercussions, like- throttling of democratic process in entirety, return to authoritarianism, economic recession and resurgence of insurgent movements besides creating a flutter in chaotic geopolitics arena as well.

The West condemned the coup and the US administration has threatened to re impose sanctions and described the detention of Suu Kyi as “direct assault on country’s transition to democracy and the rule of law” and said “the international community should come together in one voice to press the Burmese military to immediately relinquish the power they seized”².

Expectedly, China’s response to coup is muted. Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin hoped that all parties would preferably handle their “differences and maintain political stability”. Xinhua described coup as “a major cabinet reshuffle”³.

In this context, the visit of Chinese foreign Minister Wang Yi to Myanmar last month to discuss collaboration with Myanmar’s Commander-in-Chief for BRI projects assumes lot of significance.

Against the popular perception of Tatmadaw being red with China for its alleged weapons supply to armed insurgent groups, disturbed by Suu Kyi’s increasing popularity among the Buddhist majority and Chinese administration, to regain absolute control military may have considered clipping the extending tentacles of Suu Kyi.

Though the prospect of seeking Chinese approval for a coup by military junta might be unfounded, China’s knack for capitalising on an opportunity can’t rule out its consent. Myanmar is a strategic alternative to China for the US-controlled Straits of Malacca to ensure uninterrupted supplies of resources.

Certainly, the meeting between Wang and Hlaing may have been a trigger for the coup. Removal of civilian government would warrant imposition of sanctions which in turn can increase Tatmadaw’s dependency on China. Beijing can use this leverage for its geopolitical goal of encircling India. As of now, China has already penetrated Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal. By roping in Bangladesh and Myanmar which share porous border with India, China can accomplish its task of entrapping India.

With the balance of power tilting in favour of a civilian government, prompting a coup, China might have reliably promised to shield the military from international censure at various forums. Even if denied outright assurance by China, military might have banked on Beijing’s ambitions to expand its influence in Asia in the event of a coup.

Indeed, by way of offering diplomatic clout, China can egg on Tatmadaw, instrumental in reining on North East insurgent groups sheltered in Myanmar territory to act at its behest. Lending a tacit support to coup, China could severe Myanmar’s fledging relation with the West and other countries like India, Japan and Singapore. Beijing can even open another front against India through Myanmar.

Some Indian analysts alluded to similar events in 1962, when China waged a war against India after allowing the fall of civilian government in Myanmar. India expressed “deep concern” over the coup. MEA issued a statement saying, “India has always been steadfast in its support to the process of democratic transition in Myanmar. We believe that rule of law and the democratic process must be upheld. We are monitoring the situation closely”⁴.

Last year October, Indian Foreign Minister Harsh Shringla and Army Chief MM Naravane travelled to Myanmar to buttress defence cooperation. India gifted INS Sindhuvir which was commissioned on 73^rd anniversary of Myanmar Navy. With this, Myanmar has become the first country to receive a submarine from India. In 2019, both countries held joint exercises IMNEX in Bay of Bengal. India is currently training Myanmar personnel. Myanmar army has handed over 22 insurgents to India last year. India has resurrected ties with Tatmadaw and fast-tracked infrastructure projects as well.

The current coup is a real tight walk for India. By joining voice with the West in condemning military, India might risk its relationship with the military. But for better or worse, India should bat for restoration of democratic regime, since a popular elected government might stall the Chinese dreams of turning Myanmar into a safe operation zone for China.

Though the apparent cause of Myanmar coup is still a matter of speculation, China’s veto on a joint statement condemning Myanmar coup at UNSC should offer enough clues…!!

@ Copyrights reserved.

Is Jaishankar’s eight principles framework the much-awaited India’s China policy recalibration?

For long the strategists opined that recalibration of India’s China Policy should have been underway. In continuum with the uninterrupted engagement with China to break the over seven- months long Sino-Indian logjam, India’s EAM Jaishankar Subramaniam for the first time enunciated eight principles for India-China ties. He outlined the framework for further engagement. Coming just days after the face-off between India and China troops at Naku La, Jaishankar, speaking at the 13^th All India Conference of China Studies organised by Institute of China Studies, has relayed an important strategic message to Beijing.

The eight propositions include¹

·       “Agreements already reached must be adhered to in their entirety, both in letter and spirit

·       LAC must be strictly observed and respected, any attempt to unilaterally change the status quo is completely unacceptable

·       Peace and tranquillity in the border areas is the basis for development of relations in other domains. If they are disturbed, so inevitably will the rest of the relationship

·       While both nations are committed to a multi-polar world, there should be a recognition that a multi-polar Asia is one of its essential constituents

·       Each State will have its own interests, concerns and priorities; but sensitivity to them cannot be one-sided. At the end of the day, relationships between major states are reciprocal in nature

·       As rising powers, each will have their own set of aspirations and their pursuit too cannot be ignored

·       There will always be divergences and differences but their management is essential to our ties

·       Civilisational states like India and China must always take the long view”.

Since China’s stealthy transgression at the height of the Wuhan virus outbreak and the pre-planned Galwan attacks, the first event since 1975 when blood was spilled and lives were lost, much water has flowed. Through bloody Galwan skirmishes China got taste of valour and bravery of Indian military might. And by occupying the Kailash mountain peaks, India delivered a strategic blow to PLA.

Post- Galwan, shedding its previous complacency, India beefed up troops along the LAC, ramped up battle readiness with rigorous missile tests, expedited defence acquisitions and replenished supplies boosting the indigenous production. Instead of cowering under pressure, India checkmated China’s nefarious attempts to transgress the borders and confronted the Dragon.

India and China thus far, held nine rounds of high-level military official talks to diffuse tensions across the LAC. Despite India’s repeated appeals for status quo ante restoration, Beijing effortlessly passed the buck, pinned the blame on India and anticipated the ties to be immune from provocations at the border.

Continuing with its ongoing strategy of encircling and entrapping India, CCP (Chinese Communist Party) egged on Nepali Prime Minister KP Oli to needle India with cartographic adventurism to abrade bilateral ties and create a new front. India smartly, evaded the Chinese trap and palliated the ties through a slew of developmental projects, pandemic medical assistance and supplies.  

Alongside, India stiffly resisted China’s infiltration attempts to penetrate the IOR (Indian Ocean Region) and influence the South Asian countries. With a Chinese friendly Sri Lankan regime at the helm, Beijing is relentlessly deepening Colombo’s dependency on China. To bolster maritime cooperation and frustrate Beijing’s IOR overtures, India reactivated the India-Sri Lanka- Maldives trilateral dialogue in the presence of observers Bangladesh, Seychelles and Mauritius².

To halt, ambitious China’s overreach to Dhaka, India expedited infrastructure projects at break-neck speed and revitalised bilateral ties. Having pledged assistance and cooperation in capacity building to combat the Wuhan virus outbreak, India trained the medical personnel and delivered medical supplies to all the SAARC nations (baring Pakistan which refused India’s offer).

Notwithstanding the infamy of unleashing the pandemic, China brazenly exported substandard medical supplies to countries when the World was reeling under shortage of resources. This disproportionately tainted China’s global image. As a result, South Asian countries also scrapped Chinese medical exports. Indeed, Bangladesh rejected China’s vaccine trials which came with “strings attached” approach of co-financing³.

In sharp contrast, within four days of launch of COVID vaccination, India generously gifted vaccines to immediate neighbours-Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Maldives, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Afghanistan. Through phased delivery of vaccines to countries like Seychelles, Mauritius, Bahrain, Indo-Pacific nations, CARICOM (Caribbean Community) countries, Nicaragua and Africa, India firmly consolidated its influence in South Asia and IOR through generous humanitarian assistance. As anticipated, offended by India’s aspirational diplomacy, China launched a smear campaign against India.

Since Galwan incident, aside confronting China in the region, India prioritised “Free and Open Indo-Pacific”. Cognizant of Chinese aspirations of supplanting the US as the major power in the Indo-Pacific and its importance in shaping World order, India firmed up its approach. As a first step, instead of referring Indo-Pacific as a vision, New Delhi began strategizing with securitization of Indo-Pacific through joint military exercises and improved interoperability. India’s invite to Australia and outreach to like-minded democratic countries has been part of this exercise.

No longer smitten by the Pakistan obsession, and convinced of the futility of the illusionary Wuhan Spirit and Chennai Connect, India began tackling China in every aspect ranging from trade to regional and global collaborations. By firmly opposing BRI, staying away from RCEP, launching Supply China Resilience Initiative (SCRI) with Japan and Australia, India has firmly stood its ground and confronted China.

In response of China’s Xiaokiang (well-off) villages program⁴, India is now acquiring land along the strategic locations across LAC to counter China’s threats⁵. Though India’s response is too little too low, India’s renitent approach is becoming more evident. Jaishankar’s eight-proposition is certainly an offshoot of India’s renewed recalibration of its China policy.

Underscoring the need for study of China, as “its salience in global order is self-evident” and “as proximate neighbour of India only makes stronger studies a compelling case”, Jaishankar in his address outlined the history of bilateral ties, terming the rebuilding of ties after the 1962 war as “a very painstaking and arduous endeavour”⁶. Claiming that violence at LAC in Eastern Ladakh has “profoundly disturbed the relationship because they not only signalled a disregard for commitments about minimizing troop levels, but also showed a willingness to breach peace and tranquillity”. He pointed out, “we have yet to receive a credible explanation for the change in China’s stance or reasons for massing of troops in the border areas” and acknowledged that important issue is “what the Chinese posture signals, how it evolves, and what implications it may have for the future of our ties”.

Terming that India-China relationship witnessed “duality of cooperation and competition” before 2020, the EAM pointed to the seven divergences-

·       Practice of stapled-visas

·       Reluctance to deal with military commands

·       Opposition to NSG membership and to permanent seat in the UNSC

·       Promises of market access did not meet delivery

·       Blocking UN listing of Pakistani terrorists

·       Violation of Indian sovereignty by the CPEC

·       Border areas saw frictions on some occasions

Needless to say, cumulatively, these differences took a toll on the relationship. In 2017, at Asthana countries have agreed “not allow differences to become disputes”. But the events of 2020 have put the relationship under tension.

In an unequivocal message to China, Jaishankar stated that “three mutuals- mutual respect, mutual sensitivity and mutual interests are determining factors. Any expectation that they can be brushed aside, and that life can carry on undisturbed despite the situation at the border, that is simply not realistic”. In no uncertain terms Jaishankar said that India-China relationship is truly at crossroads and their ability to work together will determine the Asian century.

Besides, expressing India’s readiness for discussions, Jaishankar straight talk categorically divulged India’s exasperation with China’s dismal defiance and violation of the agreements. The timing is truly significant. Coming days after the face-off Naku La which China chose to brush under carpet and coinciding with takeover of Biden administration which is yet to unravel its China policy, Foreign Minister’s pronunciation of India’s redlines is a direct message to China.

In response to Jaishankar’s message, China’s foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said, “EAM Jaishankar’s stress on the significance of China-India relations showcases the importance the India side attaches to its ties with China. We approve of that. Meanwhile, I need to stress that the border issue shall not be delinked with bilateral relations. We hope the Indian side will work with us to properly manage differences, promote practical cooperation, and get bilateral relations back on the right track.”⁷

China insistence on ‘delinking the border’ despite India’s repeated clarification that with frictions at boundary it can’t be business as usual is reflective of Beijing’s hardening position towards India. By extension, tensions are unlikely to ease. Indeed, the violent face-off at Naku La is indicative of ensuing heightened military confrontations across the border.

Jayadev Ranade in his piece titled, “India-China tensions unlikely to ease”⁸ cited two articles by Hu Shisheng, Director of the Institute for South Asian Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) asserting that conflict at Ladakh was inevitable as a result of “high-risk, high-yield” policy followed by Modi regime and attributed, “India’s long-term pursuit of absolute security and dominance in the regional order and Modi government’s ambition to overtake China by taking advantage of India’s favourable external strategic environment” as reasons for the rivalry. To this effect, China has launched publicity blaming India’s aggressive “forward policy” for the stand-off. He contended that border contestations will move from, “reconciliation through dialogues” to “contention for control with real power” and “bottom line for tolerance will become redline lying between border troops of both countries”.

Hu’s second article outrightly accused “India of negative and obstructionist approach”. China’s response to EAM’s proposition is in congruence with Hu’s expositions.

Ranade also refers to an article on PLA website that claimed Indian Army is, “waiting for an opportunity to cause trouble next year” and added, “India must be the one that pays the greater price. India will waste decades on the misjudgement of Modi and Jaishankar’s strategy”. Clearly China is up for a long haul. The relentless negative propaganda by CCP’s propaganda machinery indeed points the same.

Perhaps, Jaishankar’s eight principles framework must have been a riposte to prevailing anti-India narrative perpetuated by Chinese analysts and intelligence agencies.

@ Copyrights reserved.