Time to unravel Covid Origins mystery Part-2

China’s Influence over Science Ecosystem

Ian Birrell’s “Beijing’s Useful Idiots” ¹² opens a pandora box and exposes the economic influence of China on science journals. He states that according to an estimate, 49 sponsorship agreements were inked between Springer nature and Chinese authorities. China is biggest national sponsor of open access journals published by Springer Nature and Elsevier, owner of the Lancet. This arrangement can be traced back to 2016 when China asked western scientific journals to block access of Chinese citizens to academic articles that have references to sensitive issues like Tibet, Hongkong and Taiwan.

Debt laden German Springer Nature, Elsevier for the fear of losing access to viewership and outright ban complied. Nature blocked thousand articles that mentioned subjects sensitive to China and defended that less than 1% of the library was affected¹⁹. Elsevier opened its office in Beijing and launched several strategic initiatives¹⁹.

China’s proposal created a divide between the journals, Cambridge acceded initially but later retracted. Sage publishers were open to negotiations. Oxford University Press, Harvard University Press and MIT press refused to comply. With its economic power and influence China began to slowly exercise its control over the content of the academic journals.

Aside the science ecosystem China has cast its influence on the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB) which is joint arm of WHO and World Bank that monitors the preparedness towards emerging lethal pathogens. The 15-member GPMB includes members of diverse expertise and has Fauci of NIAID and President of Wellcome Trust Jeremy Farrar who toe Chinese line on the board.

Farrar has been at the forefront in stifling debate on the origins of the virus and went on to suggest that “lab leak” is a conspiracy. With his influence he insisted that evidence suggest that virus has spread naturally from animals²¹.  Clearly, Farrar’s stance isn’t any different from Fauci, who in the face of mounting enquiries, opined, that there is ‘too much of conjecture and theory without data or evidence’ with no evidence to support the lab-leak theory.

Wielding tremendous influence over the entire ecosystem and on all the prominent actors involved in active Corona research, funding and science journals, China has escaped the scrutiny despite the colossal death and devastation caused by the pandemic that originated in Wuhan.

Mounting evidence for lab-origins

Scientific interest in Corona virus research can be traced to a 2013 Kunming Medical University thesis titled, “The analysis of six patients with severe pneumonia caused by unknown viruses”. The symptoms were believed to be caused by SARS like corona virus from horse shoe bat of Yunnan caves.  After the death three miners in the cave in 2012, it was sealed. But Shi reportedly continued to travel to these caves several times to collect the bat guano for her research. SARS-CoV-2 has eight close relatives collected from the cave.

SARS belongs to Beta corona virus that infect Chinese horse bats found in the Yunnan caves of Hubei province which is 1500 kilometers away from Wuhan where the pandemic first broke out.

Though scientists overwhelmingly insisted on natural origins of the SARS-CoV-2 and that the bat population has caused the pandemic, the tyranny of distance invalidates the proposition. Even after testing over 80,000 samples from various animals, no trace of zoonotic transmission or the involvement of an intermediate host could be determined.

The infection trend of SARS-CoV-1 indicated that the virus has to travel through several intermediate hosts to gain a potential mutation capable of infecting the human. The spike protein must continuously evolve and adapt before its transforms from a mild infection into an epidemic. SARS-CoV-1 underwent 14 such changes to become an epidemic. But no such proof has been produced with respect to SARS-CoV-2 and whatever is reported to have caused pandemic appears to be well adapted for humans.

Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 genome lacked diversity seen in natural viruses. It is relatively uniform with no trace of or any hint of any intermediary. Also, the presence of the furin cleavage site with the signature sequence PRRA (Proline-Arginine-Arginine-Alanine) at the S1/S2 junction of the SARS-2 spike protein is really intriguing.

Human furin protein precisely identifies this sequence to cleave a protein. Presence of all the four amino acids in the right order at right place is possible only through manipulation or gain of function. This signature sequence could be naturally acquired either through mutation or recombination. But none of the beta corona viruses have a furin cleavage sites because they don’t need one. Shi published papers wherein 11 GOF experiments are conducted to make SARS-CoV-2 more infective to humans by adding furin cleavage site²¹.

China insisted that the wet market in the Wuhan is the source of the pandemic. But then to cause a pandemic, a large scale of bat population must be present in proximity with intermediate host which in turn can cause infection in humans. But kind of scenario is impossible in Wuhan.

Lab leaks are common and two major lab leaks of dangerous virus were reported from China. Shi has admitted in some interviews that they carried research in BSL-2 lab conditions with minimum precautions, the highest level of safety is BSL-4. Though Wuhan lab is BSL-4 certified, several scientists expressed concerns over the design in 2018.

More so, three people working at WIV became sick within a week of each other and were hospitalised with severe symptoms in November 2019. Though China strongly refutes, scientific evidence strongly favour a lab-leak.

Regime Change in America

More than year to the pandemic, international spot-light is now on lab-leak theory. Amid growing calls for a transparent investigation an appeal in the Science by a group of 18 scientists ²² added a new momentum to the changing paradigm. Suddenly censorship on lab-leak disappeared, dissent voices aren’t throttled and shunted out the social media.

Lab-leak of viruses isn’t uncommon but what made things worse is the flip-flops of scientists who debunked the possibility of an engineered virus causing the devastation. Despite mounting scientific evidence of WIV’s forays into the research of making the microorganisms more dangerous.

Science always enjoyed an unrivalled status in the modern World for giving wings to dreams and innovation and deeming “impossible” a misnomer. Evidently, the scientists with illustrious accomplishments are highly celebrated and respected. Impugning the trust, the scientists disowned the responsibility of changing the truth. Got caught in the political cesspool, turned into purveyors of misinformation.

At this juncture, taking up the cudgels, a group of two dozens of anonymous correspondents, science enthusiasts burned midnight oil worked independently and pieced together the available information. They connected the missing links to unravel the saga of the Corona virus research. Calling themselves DRASTIC- Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Team Investigating COVID-19, they broke the biggest story of the 21^st Century²³.

Months ahead of the pandemic, on September 12^th, 2019 WIV has pulled down the website. But DRASTIC travelled the dark alleys of internet and joined together the disparate pieces of data to give a framework to the sequence of events. Sealing off all the information and denying access to WIV, China which offered nothing but the genomic sequence of Virus to the World has annihilated all traces of virus outbreak and silenced whistle blowers.

 Amid growing international pressure, China allowed the investigations by WHO team which wasn’t independent and didn’t have necessary access. If China has nothing to hide, why doesn’t it grant accent to a new probe.

Whether or not the probe really offers any leads, it is essential to have thorough investigation and public scrutiny of a lab investigating dangerous organisms to avert any accidental leakage and to have prudent checks and balances. China has set a dangerous precedent. The World is now forced to seriously rethink about the dangerous of creating super spreader viruses.  

Interestingly, even as the whimper about Covid origins not being natural always played in the background a change of leadership in the US added a new impetus to the hypothesis underscoring the importance of a narrative and detrimental nature of political polarisation. Despite subverting rational scientific investigation and stifling open international discussion, Daszak and Anderson were awarded funds under the $82million grants to Centres for Research in Epidemiological Infectious Diseases (CREID) by NIAID²⁴.

The World has lost valuable time in getting its act together. This delay aided China’s cover-up of virus origins. Much of the incriminating evidence is already lost. The only hope is the intelligence gathered by a network of sleuths. In absence of conclusive evidence, China can be exonerated of all its crimes. Interestingly, even before the World put a collective front, China has launched a counter propaganda.

China’s foreign origin counter narrative

China started labelling the growing clamour for investigation as anti-Asia sentiments. The Global Times has put forth a counter-narrative in place suggesting that pandemic exploded after the October 2019 Military World Games and that foreign military personnel have frequented the Wuhan wet markets. The frozen food carried by them had the contagion. It is already readying the alibi of French agency reports of military personnel returning home with SARS like symptoms²⁵. In support of its claims, it pushed the testimonies of the retailers of the wet market and airport officials about the frozen food brought by them.

China has mastered the art of frantically churning out narrative without scientific evidence. With its no holds barred approach, Beijing would outshout the international media. It would deploy wolf warrior diplomats and the state-sponsored global media network to peddle lies. Relying on a lie told hundred times might be truth, China will defend itself.

But the World owes the humanity answers to the Origins of the pandemic that tore their lives apart. Is it something too much to ask for the psychological trauma and personal losses suffered?

@ Copyrights reserved.

Time to unravel Covid Origins mystery Part-1

Someone rightly pointed that the timeline henceforth depicting BC and AC would now be recalled as Before Corona and After Corona. Rightly so, given the scale of devastation, death, despair, gloom and misery Corona virus pandemic, World will be never the same again. More than 18 months to the pandemic, in this era of fourth generation of industrial revolution, people are still awaiting answers to the origins of the Corona Virus that literally shook the ground beneath their feet. The pandemic has thus far, claimed more than 3.5 million lives, displaced millions of people, caused loss of livelihoods and shattered developing economies.

For all the colossal devastation heaped the humanity deserves to know the origins of pandemic. Instead of a collective, sober and unbiased analysis, misplaced political interests and priorities have scuttled all the effort to investigate the origins.

The timeline of events since the public declaration of the viral outbreak has been replete of missteps, abdication, complicity and a reclusive approach. First, the World Health Organisation, the international body which leads the global responses to health calamity shocked the World with its complacency. As the casualty figures began to mount and the scale of infection spread manifold, the scientific community tasked with job of investigating the outbreak with an open-mind delivered a judgement on the virus on Feb 18^th, 2020 ahead of WHO’s declaration of COVID-19 as pandemic on March 11^th 2020.

Scientists support natural Origins of Covid-19

Foreclosing any debate to alternative theories pertaining to Covid-19, a group of 27 scientists in their letter to the Lancet, titled, “Statement in support of the scientists, public health professionals, and medical professionals of China combatting COVID-19” stated, “the rapid, open and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn all the conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 doesn’t have a natural origin”¹.  Ironically, by dismissing all the alternate voices as rumours and misinformation in one fell swoop, the group of public health scientists have blockaded any debate on the origins of the pandemic.

Soon this group which suggested a natural origin for Covid-19 hinged on a March 17^th paper in Nature Medicine, “The Proximal Origins of SARS-CoV-2” by Kristian Andersen². From here matters get really interesting as we look a close at the people behind this endorsement and research. Kristian Andersen’s paper has been in dock for being self-contradictory as it first says that “SARS-CoV-2 is not laboratory construct”, but in the discussion, it subtly changes the track stating that this is not manipulated from related SARS-CoV virus.

Indeed, ensnared by his flip-flops Andersen deleted his own tweets. In an interview Dr Fauci, the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of NIH (National Institute of Health) disclosed that at a teleconference of the scientists on Feb 1^st, just two days after WHO has raised the alert of Corona virus, Andersen first by phone and later by e-mail indicated that the genetic structure of the virus suggested that it was engineered. This view was backed by Australian scientist Edward Holmes, who reportedly said, “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary biology”³.

The teleconference was attended by NIH Director Francis Collins, Wellcome Trust Director Jeremy Farrar. In fact, a huge tranche of emails of Fauci made public under Freedom for Information Act by NIH shed more light on the details.  Fauci indicated that Farrar was in touch with WHO’s Tedros and was supposed to “give head’s up”. Three days after the conference, Andersen expressed doubts over the engineering of virus and termed all the suggestions pointing to it as “fringe” and “crackpot theories”. Hence forth, scientists strongly argued in favour of natural origins based on the Andersen and Holmes paper and dismissed all alternate voices as “conspiracy theories”.

Given the glaring inconsistencies, staring in face, it is important now to look at the Letter by experts group in the Lancet closely which has set the “narrative”. Setting narratives is common in politics. Science is known to be fair, rigorous and open encouraging debate and diverse thoughts. But the unwillingness of the scientists to admit any alternative perspective on the origins of the virus has set alarm bells ringing.

Grant Details and Scientists involved in Corona Virus Research

Interestingly, the Lancet’s solidarity letter and the Nature publication are spear-headed by scientists who had vested interests in the Corona virus research. The NIH through the NIAID headed by Fauci, awarded $ 3.4 million grant to the project titled – “Understanding the Risk of Bat Corona Emergence” in 2014 and 2015. The grants were assigned to Peter Daszak⁴, the head of the EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) of New York who subcontracted the them to Shi Zhengh Li, the expert Virologist at Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) famous now as “Bat woman”.

Shi teamed with Ralph Baric of University of North Carolina, an ace expert on gain-of-function (GOF) research and created a novel virus with the backbone of SARS-CoV1 and replaced its spike protein with that of a bat in 2015. Around the same time, a moratorium was imposed on GOF research in America following the incidents of lab accidents involving anthrax and H5 N1 bird flu virus.  Subsequently authorities called for a “pause” on GOF research on virus related to Influenza, MERS, SARS.

The moratorium had a clause which permitted the continuation of “such experiments which are urgent and necessary to protect public health or national security”⁵. Since the funds continued to flow uninterruptedly to Shi, the director of NIAID and NIH Francis Collins may have invoked the exemption.

GOF refers to increasing the transmissibility, virulence and immunogenicity of microorganisms through serial passaging. Baric taught Shi a method for engineering bat corona viruses to attack other species. They used human cells grown in culture (for invitro tests) and humanised mice (in vivo experiments) to assess the infectivity. Soon she began constructing the chimeric viruses.

Interestingly, Daszak just before the public disclosure of the corona outbreak informed about the 100 Chimeric SARS viruses engineered in WIV. In an interview on December 19^th, 2019, he even conceded that Corona viruses can be easily manipulated in the lab⁶. He concluded by saying that the spike protein sequences of the chimeric viruses can be used to make vaccines against the viral outbreak.

Daszak had first-hand account of the Corona virus research at WIV. Instead of aiding in mitigation efforts, he chose to defend the research and outrightly expressed solidarity to Chinese scientists even as countries were grappling with virus outbreak.

For over 20 years EHA has been funding the research on Virus which makes them potentially dangerous than what they exist in nature. On the premise that they can get ahead of the nature and be well prepared to handle any natural spill overs through zoonotic transmission, they defended engineering of virus. Hence, any theory substantially firming up the argument of lab leak would be a devastating blow to EHA.

Connecting the Dots

Instead of declaring conflicting interests before advocating the natural origins of Covid-19, Daszak worked behind the scenes. He marshalled expert scientists to condemn all theories suggesting Covid-19 doesn’t have a natural origin as conspiracy theory.

Signatories of The Lancet letter included Daszak and 26 public health experts. Of them, two scientists are from EHA, two associated with Daszak as part of leadership of the Global Virome Project, four collaborators of Ralph Baric, an editor of ProMED which receives operational support from Wellcome group⁷. In all, baring three people who are not in active research most of them as of now have reversed or modified their position.

For the fear of staking their own reputation the bigwigs of science community created a perception that questioning or doubting their natural origins theory of Covid-19 a taboo. Months into Covid outbreak due to politically charged atmosphere in Trump regime, any discussion on the lab-leak theory was construed as racist.

By April 2020, Trump called out China for the “Wuhan Outbreak” and even halted funds to WHO “for failing in its duty”. Coming under intense criticism over pandemic management, Trump cancelled funds to EHA for funding the Corona virus research at WIV. In response to Trump’s decision, the scientists intensely rallied the lab-leak as conspiracy, brought immense pressure on the Trump administration to revoke the decision. 77 Nobel Laureates, 33 scientific societies penned an open letter to Trump to reconsider the decision⁸.

For the fear of being associated the Trump, who first advocated a Wuhan lab leak, scientists refrained from discussing the lab leak theory. Labelling lab-leak as conspiracy theory, media actively churned several videos in support of natural origins. As elections neared discussions any contradictory opinions to natural origins of Covid were deemed blasphemous.

As of now, three hypotheses are in vogue- first, virus has evolved naturally and entered humans through animals; second, virus evolved naturally, but employee in the lab who might have contracted the virus has spilled it to society; third, scientists at lab are manipulating the virus and that it accidentally or intentionally spilled out.

Shortly, after NIH’s revocation of funds to EHA, Daszak in an interview to Nature lamented that NIH’s funding couldn’t be reinstated until seven demands are met. He recounting that EHA was asked to obtain a sample vial of SARS-CoV-2 from WIV for genome analysis and to arrange an inspection of WIV for federal officials. Terming NIH’s conditions as heinous and that his research was caught in cross-hairs. He stubbornly ruled out any other possibility and construed any dissenting voice as conspiracy theory⁹. Shi Zhengli voiced similar concerns and called NIH’s conditions as outrageous. Since 2013, EHA is reported to have received $39 million and as of now the amount that ended up in Wuhan is not clear. Additionally, EHA received $123 million between 2017 and 2020 from the government with Department of Defense (DoD) being one of the biggest funders¹⁰.

Being an election year, Covid has become a political agenda. Unfortunately, scientific temper was abjectly surrendered at the political altar. While domestic politics of America inflicted a fatal blow to the unflinching scientific efforts to gain greater clarity, an objective dissection of scientific pursuits to unravel the truth laid out bare the menacing perfidy of scientists and academic journals.

Indeed, the left-leaning mainstream media, lent credence to theory of natural origins of Corona virus. Social media censored and ruthlessly pulled down any references to lab-leak. Newspapers too followed similar suit for over one year. The political polarisation cast a huge shadow on the scientific discussions. The “deep state” which drives the narratives actually made it difficult even for the secretary of the State Mike Pompeo to get the real intelligence reports on the Covid origins. However, the tide turned to change the moment President Biden hinted at an alternate hypothesis and ordered an investigation.

Systematic gaslighting of Covid origins

As the pandemic continued to rage, some scientists daringly admitted that the remarkable infectivity rate of the virus points to some manipulation. They haven’t ruled out lab-leak. One of the earliest papers by the Indian scientists who claimed a similarity between the sequences of SARS-2 spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and gag protein was forced to retract¹¹. Similarly, scientists who alluded to genetic manipulation of the virus were either rejected or their reviews were inadvertently delayed.

Social media was abounded with several such stories and harrowing experiences of the scientists who had to wait for an inordinately long time to get a response. On the contrary papers which promoted the Chinese perspective were published in a span of just 9 nine days¹². Interestingly, this trend reversed after the political dispensation began to embrace and give a chance to the “lab-leak” hypothesis.

At the centre of this entire scandalous approach have been the science journals. By scuttling the debate, shutting the alternate voices and stalling an open discussion the elixir of science, the journals have invariably demonstrated their comprised credentials. In lieu of their inextricable political leanings, outright rejection of the lab-leak hypothesis by science journals raised concerns about the erosion of genuine scientific temper. Clearly, science should have been delineated from politics to have an unbiased, rational and objective investigation.

The Lancet, considered a gold standard of medical journalism, gearing up to celebrate its 200^th anniversary emerged as the centre of the Covid origins scandal. By denying platform to dissenting voices, it has formidably upheld the views that are favourable to China. Mirroring its shifting priorities and political allegiances, The Lancet expressed serious concerns over the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) manufactured in India for Covid treatment forcing the WHO to suspend its usage. Now latest studies suggest that HCQ reduced Covid mortality.

Large-scale clinical trials in Singapore reported of the effectiveness of HCQ in reducing Covid spread¹³. India has been at the receiving end of The Lancet’s implicit bias, which became evident when its editorial lashed out at New Delhi for abrogation of Article 370 and castigated the Modi government of Covid handling. Clearly, both the issues, the internal affairs of India are beyond the realm of a medical journal. But have an undeclared China connect to them.

The Lancet’s connections with China are so inextricable that it picked up Peter Daszak, director of EHA to be part of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission 12-member taskforce constituted to investigate the origins of the SARS-CoV-2. Along the expected lines, the team assessed a zoonotic spill over from an intermediate host as “likely to very likely” and a laboratory incident as “extremely unlikely”¹⁴

It is interesting to note that The Lancet is part of the Rockefeller foundation funded “Planetary Health Alliance” which includes EHA, Wellcome Trust, Harvard T. H Chan School of Public Health, Project Drawdown and Stockholm Institute¹⁵. In short, the journal is hand-in-glove with the agency that has funded the Corona research and by consequence shields China from any criticism.

In January, the editor of The Lancet rejected letter of The Paris group, a group of 14 experts that called for an open investigation on the origins of the Covid-19. In May 2020, in defence of China, Horton in an interview to CCTV said, “it wasn’t scientific” and “not helpful” to seek the details of the patient zero and such efforts could be “highly stigmatizing” and “discriminatory”. It is very important to understand the origin of this virus and to study those origins scientifically and not allow such conspiracy theories to contaminate our thinking” but these would only “end risk destabilising our response to the virus”¹⁶.

In Guardian Horton wrote, “but to blame China of the pandemic is to rewrite history of Covid-19 and to marginalise the failings of the Western nations”¹⁷. The job of science is to chase the truth and make inferences based on the data and verifiable evidence. Horton’s stance and eventual free pass prompted Daszak to sneer at MI6 Head Sir Richard Dearlove for suggesting that covid escaped from the lab.

Journals Nature and Science also refused to carry critical articles of dissenting scientists. Nature indeed, published paper submitted by Shi and two others on the same day of submission. This paper didn’t cite the virus RaTG13 that caused the death of three miners in the Yunnan caves to the SARS-CoV-2. The absence of the critical missing link created a confusion. Despite several requests, Nature published the addendum only after 10 months in November. Nature also published a series of papers which created a false trail of the Pangolin present in the Wuhan wet market as intermediary in infection. But when a scientist pointed that all the four papers used samples from same batch of pangolins, Nature rejected the submission.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Despite divergent views G7 adopts an aggressive posture against China

 The 47^th G7 summit meeting held at Cornwall in UK from June 11-13^th after two years exuded new energy. With renewed focus on international cooperation, the members in principle agreed on five big agenda items. Being the first major get-together of the World leaders since the world was hit by Wuhan virus, the major talking point has been investigations into the origins of the pandemic.

Themed, “Built Back Better”, G7 presidency, UK outlined four priority areas- leading global recovery from corona virus and strengthening resilience against future pandemics; championing free and fair trade; climate change and preserving earth’s biodiversity and championing shared values and open societies.

The above-mentioned priorities laid the framework for a multilateral cooperation. Interestingly, baring the climate change proposition, the underlining common factor has been an aggressive China. As an originator of the pandemic, China holds crucial answers to pandemic related investigations. Similarly, Beijing’s mercantilism and predatory trade practices have marooned several small countries in debt traps and its authoritarian and opaque style of functioning is posing threat to shared values.

After the subtle messaging at Quad Leaders meet and instituting investigation into Wuhan virus origin, in continuum with predecessor Trump, President Biden, called for collective countering of aggressive China. Invoking the guiding principles of G-7 of commitment to multilateralism, through a collective and consultative approach countries agreed on aspects which are the enduring ideals of free, open societies and democracies and the very principles which authoritarian China infringes.

Though an absolute unanimity between the G7 nations has been absent given their deep financial linkages with China, members affirmed their support to the final draft. Reiterating support to the global fight against pandemic, G7 pledged 1 billion vaccine doses to poorer nations. The support which is critiqued as too little too late by many activists, certainly made up for good optics of rich countries towards the developing world.

Announcement of 1 billion vaccine doses which included 500 million doses of Pfizer and Moderna and 100 million doses each by the UK and Canada grabbed international attention. Interestingly, the US doses will be purchased from the second tranche of $2billion pledged as assistance and routed to poor countries through COVAX¹.  Devoid of the vaccine infrastructure to administer doses even as World Bank has extended credit to the tune of $12 billion, loomed by concerns of increasing debt profile, critics argued that vaccine inequality is bound widen.

Seeking transparency and accountability, G7 called for expert-led investigation into origins of Wuhan virus pandemic. G7 joint statement pledged to support establishment of international pathogen surveillance network, a global pandemic radar; strengthen frameworks in terms of increasing global warning capacities, improve early warning systems and shorten the cycle of development of effective treatment, vaccines and tests from 300 to 100 days to prevent future pandemics².

Calling the bluff of China’s “non-market policies and practices”, G7 reiterated the responsibility of “large economies in upholding the rules-based international system and international law”. In the same breath, G7 expressed concerns over the human rights practices of China. Terming Beijing’s treatment of Uyghurs as “genocide” US and EU imposed sanctions on the CCP officials. China responded with retaliatory sanctions. Miffed by Chinese actions, EU parliament refused to debate and vote on the Comprehensive Investment Agreement (CIA) and led to temporary freeze of its ratification.

Taking serious objection to forced labour and shrinking human rights, G7 affirmed, “we will promote our values, including by calling on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, in relation to Xinjiang and those rights, freedoms and high degree of autonomy for Hongkong enshrined in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law”.

Indo-Pacific has emerged as a region of major geopolitical contestations. Not be left behind, G7 countries- France, Germany, UK, (EU) recently announced their respective policies for the region. Reiterating importance of maintaining free and open Indo-Pacific based on rule of law, G7 took cognizance of growing instability across Taiwan Strait and indicated that “(G7) encourages the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues. We remain seriously concerned about the situation in the East and South China Seas and strongly oppose any unilateral attempts to change the status quo and increase tensions”. With this statement, G7 has seemingly overstepped on China’s so-called red line disputing the “One China policy”.

Ramping up the plans to counter China, the G7 led by the US announced a $40 Trillion Build Back Better World (B3W) infrastructure partnerships as an alternative to BRI (Belt and Road Initiative). Without naming China, stating that Wuhan virus pandemic has exacerbated infrastructure needs of low and middle-income countries, G7 declared its development vision which read thus- “we believe that infrastructure development, implementation and maintenance- carried out in a transparent and financially, environmentally, and socially sustainable manner-will lead to beneficial outcomes for recipient countries and communities”.

 Alongside, G7 appealed Russia “to stop its destabilizing behaviour, malign activities, including its interference in other countries democratic systems and to fulfil its international human rights obligations and commitments”.

By implication, G7 affirmed support to the Normandy process and implementation of Minsk Agreements in support of Ukraine and expressed concerns over heavy handedness of Belarusian authorities. G7 called for denuclearization of DPRK, condemned Myanmar coup, appealed for reduction of violence in Afghanistan, pledged to never allow Iran develop a nuclear weapon and welcomed the discussion to facilitate return of the US and Iran to JCPoA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).

Also, in lieu of upcoming COP-26 convention, G7 renewed commitment to Paris Agreement and noted the need for making relevant changes in energy, transport, industrial & innovation, agriculture, forestry and land use sectors to meet net-zero commitments.

In line with the traditional grandstanding, G7, countries reiterated their commitment towards embracing values and promoting equality, especially gender equality, supporting girl child education, protecting the planet, reinvigorating economies, securing future prosperity, value driven digital ecosystem, fostering innovation, employing new technology for tackling global challenges, space and cyber cooperation.

G7, a club of rich democratic countries comprising of Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, United Kingdom and United States extended invitation to India, Australia, South Korea and South Africa as Guest countries for the Summit. Prime Minister Modi participated in two outreach sessions- Build Back Stronger Health where he appreciated the help of G7 countries during the pandemic and sought support for the TRIPS waiver proposal at WTO initiated with South Africa. As a lead speaker in the session- “Build Back Together-Open Societies and Economies” and “Building Back Greener Climate and Nature” recalled democracy and freedom as part of India’s civilizational ethos and expressed shared concerns of the vulnerability of Open Societies to disinformation and cyberattacks. India along with other outreach countries and G7 members signed a Joint Statement on “Open Societies”³.

Prime Minister Modi in one of the outreach sessions gave “One Earth-One Health” mantra and called for a whole society approach. He advocated for “next phase studies (WHO-convened) to reach “robust conclusions” hinting at a China and emphasized on the special responsibility of the democratic and open societies to prevent future pandemic⁴.

Modi first attended the G-7 Biarritz summit at France as Good Will Partner in 2019. In 2020, President Trump extended invite to the summit proposed to be held at Camp Davis. But it was cancelled due to Wuhan virus. Due to surging Wuhan virus second wave, Modi couldn’t physically attend the Cornwall G7 summit.

Ahead of his Europe trip, Biden wrote, “this trip is about realizing America’s renewed commitment to our allies and partners, and demonstrating the capacity of democracies to both meet the challenges and deter the threats of this new age”⁵. In line with the stated objective, by reiterating America’s unflinching support to democratic values, Biden made a rallying call to like-minded nations. G7 Summit brought together major democratic countries. Concluding the outreach sessions, Prime Minister Boris Johnson termed the Cornwall G7 as Democracies-11 including the four guest countries seeding the idea of a democratic axis.

Aside the shared values of democracy, liberty and equality, the D-11 is an agglomeration of disparate nations with conflicting economic, trading, developmental interests and objectives. Majority of them have strong economic ties with China, making economic isolation of Dragon difficult. Determined to go for the jugular, notwithstanding the weak links, President Biden used the G7 to build a strong counter-force against China.

Pandemic has changed the World view of China. Beijing’s complicity in pandemic outbreak, weaponization of covid supplies, wolf-warrior diplomacy, aggressive expansionism in South China Sea, incursions across Cross Straits, East China Sea, stand-off at LAC under the pandemic cover, trade sanctions in response to call for independent investigation into pandemic origins and suppression of freedom in Hongkong, Xinjiang have blown off the mask of China’s peaceful rise. Nations are wary of Chinese aggression and hostility. China’s popularity across the World slumped to its lowest now.

Countering China and its audacity to institute an opaque governance system has become a priority. Posturing of a united front by democracies is thus an attempt to build a post-pandemic international order which is rules-based and fair.

Even as the impact of G7 summit is widely debated, India reposed interest in B3W which is congruent with its vision. Since its launch, India has strongly objected to BRI that passed through the legitimate territory of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and has been instrumental in Beijing’s deep entrenchment in its neighbourhood.

In response to G7’s unified position, China cautioned that “days when small groups of countries decided the fate of the World were long gone”⁶. The Chinese embassy in London accused G7 of “lies, rumours and baseless accusations” and added, “G7 takes advantage of Xinjiang-related issues to engage in political manipulation and interfere in China’s internal affairs which we firmly oppose”⁷. A miffed China made largest numbers of incursions into Taiwanese airspace on Tuesday. Reportedly 28 Chinese aircrafts entered Taiwan’s ADIZ (Air Defence Identification Zone) asserting reunification under “One Country, two systems”⁸.

Swiping the G7 and its allies, a cartoon, “the Last G7” a parody of Leonardo Da vinci’s “The Last Supper” published by artist ‘Bantonglaoatang’ on Weibo became viral. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) mouth piece republished it⁹.

Image credit: The Global Times

Countries depicted from L to R: Germany, Australia, Japan, Italy, USA, Britain, Canada, France and India

Frogs below the table are Taiwan and Hongkong.

Picture is worth thousand words, with its official endorsement Beijing revealed its narrow-mindedness and prejudice.

@ Copyrights reserved.

How the opposition led by the Congress is indulging in shameful politics over vaccines

Indian Political narratives are falling way short of the logic. The series of the flip-flops and shifting of the goal posts by the opposition allude to the same. The over enthusiasm of the opposition to make the Prime Minister the fall guy, exposed their Modi “derangement syndrome”.

Crisis in any country brings people together. Rightly so, every nation’s history is etched with instances of self-less leadership striving to turn crisis into an opportunity. Wuhan virus pandemic, a “once-in-a-century” crisis has thrown up many challenges. India’s scientific community took up this challenge in stride and produced a reliable and efficacious vaccine, a feat accomplished by a handful of nations in the World. Known as the “World’s pharmacy”, India became home for production of two vaccines- Covishield and Covaxin. Prodded by the government of the day, India revelled in the stellar scientific accomplishment. On the contrary, opposition parties with their ignominious political labelling cast aspersions on the indigenous vaccine and inadvertently stoked “vaccine hesitancy”.

Opposition which is rather quick in drawing parallels with other democratic countries to pick on the government for the glaring inadequacies and ill-preparedness in anticipation of next wave of pandemic, have failed to emulate the culture of being responsible leaders during a health emergency. Undeniably, government has floundered on many accounts and the plight of Indians in terms of loss of lives of near and dear ones is testament to these woes.

But unlike in other countries, opposition in India made a spectacle out of the pandemic. Despite a head start, determined to upstage the centre, notwithstanding the enormity of the pandemic, opposition used the occasion for narrative setting and settling political scores.

Alas!!! Even India’s arch-enemies could have behaved with empathy. The leakage of the Congress tool kit, whose origins are yet to be established has only offered a bird’s eye view of the larger conundrum planned by the opposition.  With all postulates propounded in the toolkit already in place, the toolkit couldn’t be dismissed as a frivolous political mischief. The accompanying colossal disinformation campaign comprising of a deluge of tweets seeking help and mounting complaints of unavailability of the beds, medicines, oxygen supplies and vaccines had exacerbated the fears of common man. This orchestrated attempt of breeding ill-will indeed, fuelled dissent and sparked disaffection towards the ruling dispensation.

The panic mongering pertaining to the scarcity of covid resources has been one part of the story with the cornerstone of this toolkit being derailment of the vaccine policy.

At a time when countries have been actively, rolling out and motivating people to make the vaccine drive highly successfully to combat the pandemic, Indian opposition threw spanner in country’s vaccination program. Even as countries, vied with each other to pre-order vaccines, grappling with the hesitancy and lack of acceptance, Indian government cautiously tread this path and rolled out a vaccine program recommended by NEGVAC (National Expert Group of Vaccine Administration for Covid-19).

Accordingly, a three- phase vaccination drive was unveiled for prioritised population groups initially which included– Health care workers in the first phase, frontline workers, elders and people above 45 in the order of priority. To start with, vaccination drive was sequential owing to limited supply of jabs with plans to slowly extend it. Vaccination for all the above three groups was free in all government hospitals.

As per the slated policy, requisite quantities of the vaccines were dispatched to states and UTs. But States like Chhattisgarh rejected jabs sent by centre during the initial stages. Audit reports now indicate that the vaccine wastage has been dismally high in some of the opposition ruled states.

Despite the concerted attempts to frustrate the drive, vaccination process gained much steam by April when the second wave of pandemic hit the country. The ferocity and the lethality of the pandemic unsettled the country.

Suddenly, vaccine sceptics and anti-vaxxers lambasted the government for the slow pace of the vaccination. Hauled it over coals for the Vaccine Maitri and for failing to pre-order sufficient supplies. Overnight, vaccines were pronounced as the magic bullet to keep the pandemic at bay by the opposition. Indeed, with the deluge of pandemic, snuffing out young lives, opposition censured the government for failing to predict the intensity and spread of the pandemic and rooted for vaccination for all. Relenting to growing calls for mass inoculation, Central government in charge of the Vaccination policy, made the necessary amends.

In contravention to the National Vaccination Policy of 2011 legislated by the UPA government, where Centre is mandated to acquire vaccines, relenting to the appeals of state chief ministers, Prime Minister allowed them to manage the vaccination process. Starting May 1^st, fourth phase of vaccination was launched by the states to inoculate 18-44 age group. Decentralising the whole process, the supply basket was divided into two - 50 percent for centre and 50 percent for open markets. States were allowed to procure vaccines from the manufacturers directly.

Reminding the centre of the federal spirit and denouncing it for being obstinate and arrogant, states demanded decentralisation of vaccine process. Regional leaders pledged to put vaccination process back on track by taking full charge of the situation. Accusing centre for failing to ensure the smooth supply of vaccine leading to shortages, states have set out for global tendering. But the Pharma companies insisted on dealing with central government alone.

In the fourth phase, majority of states announced free vaccines for above 18 age group obtained jabs from centre based on the extent of infection and speed of vaccination. They were free to negotiate with the manufactures to buy needed vaccines. While the centre’s free vaccination drive continued, differential pricing of vaccines for states and private hospitals and other issues cropped up. States vaccinated for free, but private players charged different amounts for the jabs.

Needling the centre’s original vaccine policy, the overzealous state leaders who wanted to leverage the jabs for political gains have messed up the whole situation. Launching a tirade against the centre amid a pandemic, opposition posed hurdles to the vaccination even as government expedited the process of acquiring more jabs from foreign players.

Russia’s Sputnik V sale began by last week of May. To cope up with increasing vaccine demand, centre facilitated entry of six vaccines, which are slated to enter Indian markets from August. By the end of 2021, two billion doses will be made available.

Centre’s Vaccine policy, which has been maintaining steady progress till May started facing hiccups thanks to the lackadaisical appeals of the states.

Interestingly, the fourth phase has been a witness to mediocre vaccine agenda of states wherein Bengal replaced the picture of Prime Minister Modi with CM Mamata’s photo on vaccine certificate, Delhi announced “Jahan vote wahan vaccination”, Punjab government was caught selling the jabs obtained from Centre’s quota to private hospitals and Rajasthan’s vaccine wastage racket emerged. Under the garb of Vaccine drive, states began to pursue their political agendas.  Not satisfied with trading vaccines and wasting the precious resources, they have turned the vaccination process into a veritable electoral campaign.

The colossal mess of confusion an outcome of states vaccine decentralisation appeals, prompted the SC to pull up the central government for its arbitrary vaccine policy. Connivingly, the Congress party, having framed the National Vaccine Policy, cognizant of Central government’s centrality for the vaccination process, egged on the regional leaders to create this commotion. The unfoldment of vaccination melodrama at the height of the pandemic has laid bare the hypocrisies and brazen politicking of the opposition.

For all the ruckus and the slanderous pandemic propaganda on inadequate vaccine supplies, major pharma players overwhelmed by pre-orders expressed their inability to supply vaccines till 2022. Majority of the countries are still pursuing a phased vaccination drive. For an emerging country like India which can’t afford frequent lockdowns, mass inoculation is a necessity. But vaccination making is not a two-minute noodle making job.

Putting things in perspective, Prime Minister Modi’s in his address to the nation yesterday, demolished the fallacious propaganda of the opposition on India’s vaccine policy. Setting things straight, PM questioned the vaccine hesitancy fuelled by opposition and apprised them of previous vaccination drives by different governments till now.

Facing the ire of opposition, government has agreed to decentralise the vaccine policy. But with states expressing inability to continue the mass inoculation, revoked the decentralisation and enunciated a new plan which will be in place from June 21^st. As per the revised policy, centre has announced free vaccination to all, continuation of free ration till Diwali and a centralised vaccine procurement as well.

Data doesn’t lie and vaccination numbers clearly puts India among select few countries with respectable inoculation rates. Given the huge population, the numbers as in percentage of population inoculated may not be encouraging, but absolute numbers reflect the robustness of the logistics of delivery mechanisms of India. To cope up with vast demand government has expedited grant approval to vaccine manufacturers and removed all roadblocks for scaling up vaccination production. But vested interests in cahoots with political leaders and media are endlessly running a dishonest campaign. To this end, Modi’s address did a great service in repelling the pessimistic portrayal.

Essentially, a modicum of earnestness and solemnity by various stakeholders will go a long way in combatting the devastating pandemic. Intriguingly, despite the flexible approach of the government, the opposition still refuses to acknowledge government’s efforts. Steeped in a hatred, government is blamed for everything, “damned you do and damned if you don’t”. Given their approach, opposition perpetual accusation of political arrogance attributed to ruling dispensation suits them better.

Politics is integral to a thriving democracy with multi-party systems. But issues related to national security, health emergencies, natural disasters must be exempted from this ruthless politicking. Demonstrating their double standards, the opposition which is keen on apportioning the entire blame of the COVID pandemic on Modi despite health being a state subject refuses to appreciate him for the policy which they have been advocating.

 

@ Copyrights reserved.

Modi Doctrine 2.0 creates an enabling framework for India’s resurgence

Prime Minister Modi’s seventh anniversary into power has been a low-key affair. Plagued by a treacherous Wuhan virus wave, the leadership has asked the Chief Ministers of BJP ruled states to announce Covid schemes for orphaned children commemorating the event.

Outshining his predecessors, Prime Minister Modi has leveraged India’s soft power to elevate India’s global stature. Riding on the twin horses of galvanising the Indian Diaspora and capitalising on India’s cultural and religious connect, Modi gave a new direction and vision to the India’s foreign policy. Exemplary outreach has been his forte. By stitching an extraordinary personal chemistry with the World leaders across the aisle, Modi diversified India’s engagement with comity of nations. As the Modi regime reaches the significant milestone of completing seven successful years, it is time to reflect on the hits and misses of the NDA-2 with a special focus on the foreign policy.

Foreign policy should be guided by national interests and PM Modi has unequivocally reinforced this aspect many a times. It is a doctrine which should be insular to political nit-pickings. But inadvertently, two pivotal domestic legislations- stripping of special status to Jammu and Kashmir and bestowing Indian citizenship to non-Muslims facing persecution threats has cast a shadow on India’s ties with immediate neighbours. Marshalling diplomatic resources just months into second term, Modi had successfully defended India’s uncompromising stance on these aspects.

In continuum to the approach of standing up to the hostility of Pakistan and China with the Balakot air strikes and Doklam stand-off, India refused to be cowed down by threats or cowered by the intimidated. Battling a threatening pandemic, India checkmated China’s stealthy intrusions. Donning an aggressive avatar, India repulsed China with the Galwan incident. Demolishing China’s make-believe frame of reference of India of 1962, India sent a stern message by occupying the strategic Kaliash ranges and deploying 50,000 troops through the harsh winter. Backing words with actions that boundary issue can’t be separated from bilateral relationship, India banned over 200 Chinese apps, stalled Chinese investment projects and disallowed Huawei from 5G trials.

Looking into the Dragon’s eye, with an unshaken resolve, India proved that it can be no longer be muscled out. As a defiant bulwark, India stratified its centrality to the Indo-Pacific region. Extending invite to Australia, India added fresh impetus to the Quad 2.0. A paradigm shift from Pakistan-centric strategic calculus to a pragmatic realisation of China as the formidable enemy has significantly changed India’s approach towards geopolitics.

Compelled by a crippling economic recession, Pakistan stepped the orbit of ‘geo-economics’ and in tune with this new development, prodded by the UAE, India and Pakistan agreed to observe ceasefire since March 2021. Predisposed to subterfuge and deceit, India’s hasn’t let down its guard. Though Kashmir valley is relatively peaceful, targeting killing of the mainstream politicians and attacks on Kashmiri pandits by Pakistan sponsored terrorists indicate that it is not over until it is over.

Adeptly defending the territorial borders, Modi government simultaneously invested energy and resources to buttress India’s maritime security and influence. Over the past seven years, India sealed military logistics agreement with Russia, Singapore and South Korea, LEMOA with the US, MLSA with France and Australia, ACSA with Japan, white water shipping pact with Israel. Deepening cooperation, India began 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue with the Quad members. India obtained access to Indonesia’s Sabang port and Duqm port in Oman. To spread Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA), India started India Information Fusion Centre (IIFC) for Indian Ocean Region building linkages with 18 countries and 15 multinational/ maritime centres. Modi proposed Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI) for safe, secure and stable maritime domain, which is in line with India’s vision for the region at the 14^th EAS (East Asia Summit).

India’s relationship with the Gulf countries have reached a zenith under Modi regime providing the much needed diplomatic capital and heft in the aftermath of abrogation of Article 370. Teeming strategic partnership, infrastructure investments, bilateral trade and energy collaboration further solidified these ties with the region. Modi doctrine managed the tight rope walk of maintaining friendly relationship with regional rivals- Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine at the same time.

Making up a decade of lethargy and indecision of UPA, Modi government prioritised relations with immediate neighbours. Unveiling the second term with an invite to BIMSTEC leaders, Modi bolstered sub-regional cooperation. Continuing the tradition of according highest priority to Bhutan made his first visit to Himalayan country. Later when the Pandemic struck the sub-continent, making SAARC countries, stakeholders in collective covid combat, India trained personnel, shared best practices, shipped medical supplies. Indeed, India's neighbours have been the major beneficiaries of India’s generous Vaccine Maitri. While nations looked inwards during the unprecedented health emergency, India rose to the occasion, supplied crucial medical supplies and actively engaged in health diplomacy during the early stages of the pandemic. Scaling up the domestic production of Hydroxychloroquine, India gifted it to over 50 countries. Weeks after rolling out domestic vaccination program, India exported and donated nearly 67 million vaccines to over 70 countries.

Hit by a devastating second wave of Wuhan virus, when India faced resource crunch, countries across the World mobilised financial assistance and shipped covid supplies. While critics questioned the prudence of Vaccine Maitri, as a token of reciprocity and spurred by the enormity of the Covid surge, an outpouring solidarity hit the India shores. Over 50 countries offered assistance in various forms to New Delhi. India gracefully accepted the foreign assistance as a part of “mutual assistance framework”.

Indeed, driven by the cardinal rule of nobody is safe until everybody is safe in the pandemic ravaged interconnected World, in absence of any leadership, India partnered with South Africa to stand up for the third World countries to realise the goal of Universal vaccination and proposed temporary patent waiver at WTO. Lobbied by Big Pharma, while Western countries opposed the waiver, Low- and Middle-Income countries (LMIC)s backed the proposal. Owing to India’s unrelenting pursuits, US lent support and even Members of European Parliament (MEP) approved the proposal while the European leaders are still reluctant.

Taking up global leadership mantle, India also initiated a Joint Political Declaration on Equitable Global Access to COVID-19 vaccines and garnered support of 180 UN members. In response to the global challenges, India initiated International Solar Alliance, Disaster Relief Infrastructure Coalition and proposed One World One Sun One Grid, which experts believe is an answer to China’s BRI (Belt and Road Initiative).

Unruffled by the encumbering Wuhan virus pandemic, Modi government swiftly transitioned to virtual diplomacy and seamlessly engaged in multilateral engagements- like invitation to G7 meetings, G 20 summit, SCO and BRICS. True to it defining attributes of strategic autonomy, India is actively forging bilateral ties with multiple partners. Having pulled out from RCEP, redoubling efforts to expand economic partnership, India signed an enhanced trade partnership agreement with the UK and laid out a 10 -year framework for Indo-UK ties through “Roadmap 2030”. Along way, India resumed trade negotiations over the Free Trade Agreement stalled in 2013 with the historic virtual Indo-EU summit that witnessed participation of 27 leaders of Europe and European Commission. Courting EU post Sino-EU faceoff, Modi has rightly posited India as a lucrative global market, an emerging economy and an investment destination.

By projecting India as an assertive power, capable of partaking leadership roles to address global challenges, Modi has attempted to change global perception of India. In contravention to popular portrayal of India as a diffident nation, by standing its ground in the face of hostilities from its formidable adversaries, India refused to be muscled out. This defiance has infused a new confidence in India’s resurgence as a responsible power. This primal change in global outlook has made it a coveted partner in strategic relationships.

But India’s gains on ground are rather ambivalent with countries in the sub-continent using the bilateral ties with India for domestic politicking. Slippage of Nepal and Sri Lanka into Beijing’s orbit with their uncanny ability to play India's card against China and viceversa mirror the inadequacies of Indian diplomacy. Straddling of Chinese troops across certain areas in Eastern Ladakh by forgoing tactical advantage during the stand-off has been frustrating.

The major part of Modi Doctrine 2.0, thus far, has been consumed in managing the pandemic, which reared its ugly head. Devastating second wave has undone the gains which India has accumulated during the earlier cycle. Creaky medical infrastructure and incompetency of the authorities further exacerbated the crisis which has weakened India’s economic recovery. Critics. lost no time in writing-off India’s growth story.

Amid the prediction of gloom, India’s global partnerships and engagements played a major role in tiding the domestic crisis. A global outpouring of help when India’s chips are down aside demolishing absurd claims of India is looking inward by critics exemplified New Delhi's pragmatic foreign policy.

Though there are several frontiers where India must invest diplomatic capital to nurture its aspirations, Modi’s foreign policy has been instrumental in creating an enabling framework for India’s resurgence.

@ Copyrights reserved.

External Affairs Minister Jaishankar’s Crucial visit to the US

After India’s close proximity with Trump administration, critics conjectured if Modi government can pull off the same magic with President Biden. Over the years, Indo-US bilateral relations progressed irrespective of the leadership change at the White House. Defying the sceptics, without losing the focus, India swiftly reacted to Biden’s Presidentship and steered the strategic partnership trail.

Overcoming the initial hesitation, Biden administration, in a huge leap of faith bolstered the Indo-Pacific policy buttressed by President Trump and convened the first ever virtual summit of the Quad leaders. Building on this momentum within the first 100 days of Biden’s regime, Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and Climate Envoy John Kerry visited India highlighting the key focus arenas of cooperation between the two countries.

Ravaging Wuhan virus posed a formidable hurdle for physical meetings. With situation on ground stabilising, to renew engagement, External Affairs Minister Jaishankar embarked on a five-day visit to America to touch on all the high-points of Indo-US Strategic cooperation. The visit which is the first visit at the highest echelons from India side after Joe Biden’s elections assumes great significance. Coming in the pandemic times, while health cooperation and vaccine diplomacy are the high points of the visit, America’s announcement of complete withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan also figured in the discussions pertaining to the security of the region.

Owing to America’s tardy response to India’s appeal for help with the export of vaccine raw material, curious doubts have been raised about the veracity of the partnership. But overcoming the initial dilly-dallying, America mobilised help and extended covid assistance to the tune of half a billion. The bipartisan ground swell of support for India has been remarkable.  Ahead of Jaishankar’s visit, House Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously passed a resolution by Congressman Bill Sherman and Steve Chabot, which had 33 co-sponsors and all four Indian American members that urged for private, in-kind medical supplies donations to India and assistance in the form of oxygen concentrators, critical medicines and raw materials for Covishield, vaccine production. This came shortly after America decided to donate 80 million vaccines on the basis of the need.

Taking the health cooperation to global level, US has backed the proposal by India and South Africa for TRIPS waiver at WTO, a major hurdle for large scale covid vaccine production. Health agenda even figured in the Quad summit, where leaders sought to expand global vaccination capacity to produce 1 billion doses at India’s Biological E with American and Japanese funds and Australian logistics.

With Indian government moving heaven and earth to mobilise Covid supplies and pledged to ensure to smooth supply of vaccines, cognizant of attempts by Pfizer and Moderna to enter Indian markets, EAM held wide ranging conversations with US Global Task Force on Pandemic Relief and US India Business Council (UIBC). The discussions focussed on strengthening critical supply chains and collaboration for production of vaccines and therapeutics. UIBC comprising of American CEOs drawn from diverse business sectors has been at the forefront of advancing India-US trade, investment and technology partnership.

America’s timely support in India’s Covid combat added an element of trust and reinforced good will in the strategic partnership. In sharp contrast, the bad press of America media has substantially undermined the genuine bipartisan support towards India. In his conversation with former NSA H R McMaster in Battlegrounds session titled, “India: Opportunities and Challenges for a Strategic Cooperation” EAM defended the government policies amid growing criticism of “Hindutva policies”.

In response to concerns of “Hindutva policies that could be undermining the secular nature of Indian democracy”, EAM clarified, “we define secularism as equal respect for all faiths. Secularism doesn’t mean that you are in denial of your own faith or anybody else’s faith.” Hinting that current government has departed from the vote bank politics, he cited the governance policies where free food is given to 800 million people during the first wave of the pandemic and money is directly transferred to 400 million people to the deserving without any discrimination.

Notwithstanding these governance policies, he added, the present government is judged “politically, harshly and it is often used to create a narrative”. “When you come down to real governance judgements, you find that there is a difference between the political imagery that has been concocted”. “Real politics (is) at play” and “I would certainly see that very much as part of political effort to depict our current government in a certain way”¹.

Stating that Indians are “extremely confident about our democracy” and nobody would trade democracy for any other form of governance, EAM eloquently underscored the plurality of the Indian society and apprised about the current trend of “deepening democracy, a much broader representation in politics and in leadership positions and in civil society of people who are much more confident about their culture, language and beliefs”.

Besides effectively articulating India’s stance pertaining to Indo-Pacific region, the need for a decentralised globalisation with different centres of production, global challenges like climate change, terrorism and pandemics which are not limited by any boundaries. He took an indirect dig at the mendacity of the disinformation propaganda purveyed by the Western media under the pandemic cover. Plummeting to new lows, the Western media resorted to a vulture journalism and made spectacle of India’s tragedy. Western media shapes international perception. With his straight talk and candid response, EAM debunked the false narrative and set things straight.

Strategizing the trajectory of Indo-US partnership, Jaishankar expounded- India and America have fundamental convergences- pluralistic societies, political democracies and market economies. Evincing India’s interest in deepening the partnership he proposed that countries must now translate “convergences into actionable policies”.

Aside, health cooperation, EAM who first landed in New York held a comprehensive meeting with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres running for a second term. India extended support for Guterres candidature, discussed New Delhi’s priorities for its Presidency of UNSC in August, its commitments to Paris Accord and regional challenges in the neighbourhood.

Having set the ground and explicitly envisaging the expectations from this partnership through his conversation, Jaishankar, engaged with the higher echelon of the Biden administration.  Accelerated troop pullback from Afghanistan without unresolved issues has provoked major concerns in the region. Aside the power vacuum created by America’s withdrawal, Pakistan-Taliban tangle in the region and its spill over effects are bound to have direct effects on India.

Besides, last week meeting between NSA’s of Pakistan and America- Moeed Yusuf and Jake Sullivan at Geneva triggered a speculation of a US setting up a base at Shamsie in Balochistan or Jacobobad in Sindh and review of suspended security assistance. Talks of return to old relationship with Pakistan made rounds in the diplomatic circles. Further the reports of movement of lone air craft carrier USS Ronald Regan based in Yokosuka, Japan to Middle East to provide additional air support during the evacuation of troops² has fuelled alarm.

Amid these major geopolitical reconfigurations, Jaishankar exchanged views on a range of regional security challenges with Defense Secretary Llyod Austin and discussed opportunities for deepening cooperation. He conveyed his appreciation of the “US military role in responding to the covid situation”. The issues pertaining to common challenges in Indo-Pacific region, Free, open Indo-Pacific, pandemic cooperation, climate change, featured in Jaishankar’s meeting with NSA Jake Sullivan³.

Along with Covid, another C, China issue covertly crept into Jaishankar’s talks with the Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines. US has been providing intelligence support to India and given China’s military activity despite the pandemic, this meeting is a signal to China of deepening Indo-US cooperation. Recognising the role of the bipartisan covid support to India, Jaishankar spoke to Chairman Foreign Affairs committee, Gregory Meeks and Ranking Member Mc Caul. Welcoming US’s positive stance of TRIPS waiver and support for efficient and robust supply chains Jaishankar reviewed Trade, technology and investment ties which are at the core of the Indo-US strategic with US Trade representative Catherine Tai.

In his much-awaited meeting with US secretary Anthony Blinken, Jaishankar thanked US for the support and solidarity at the height of the pandemic and focussed on expanding the Indo-US vaccine partnership aimed at expanding the access and ensuring the supply. Obligated to fulfil domestic vaccine needs, India has temporarily halted supplies to all countries. Capitalising on the rising vaccine demand, China is stepping up stings attached vaccine diplomacy in South Asia. Short on any choice, countries are embracing the questionable efficacy of Chinese vaccine. India is planning to partner with US to help these nations.

Both leaders discussed about Indo-Pacific cooperation, the Quad grouping, Afghanistan, Myanmar coup and Indo-China border issues⁴. Evidently, Indo-US partnership is currently three dimensional- bilateral, regional and global. Given vast expanse of cooperation, Indo-US partnership is bound to shape geopolitical contours. By expressing India’s continued commitment to contribute for global good in his interactions with officials and diplomats, Jaishankar has laid firm foundation for India’s engagement with Biden administration.

@Copyrights reserved.