Pakistan’s capitulation to TLP marks its systemic failure to stem religious extremism

The silent patch up, closed door conversations with an organisation dubbed, declared and banned as terrorist organisation, clearly sums up the vivid portrayal of Naya Pakistan, projected and erected by its selected Prime Minister. Erstwhile banned outfit TLP (Tehreek-e-Labbaik), which has brought the country to its knees, has called off the stir after the government has acceded to its demand. Left with no choice, Pakistan kow-towed to an extremist Islamist radical organisation and pledged to introduce a legislation to expel the French Ambassador.

TLP which roughly translates into ‘Iam Present Pakistan’ is a far-right extremist organisation that seeks to upholds blasphemy laws, demands the establishment of Sharia law, was founded by members of Barelvi School of thought. The relatively obscure organisation shot into prominence with the hanging of Mumtaz Qadri, who shot down Punjab Governor Salman Taseer in 2011 for criticizing country’s blasphemy laws. Founded in 2015 by Allama Khadim Hussain Rizvi in 2015 as a political outfit for which even the Election commission had granted a symbol of Crane to contest elections.

Though it failed to win any seats, TLP emerged as the fifth largest party securing 2.2 million votes in 2018 election. Currently it has three representatives in Sindh Assembly and is the third largest party in Punjab. Khadim Hussain Rizvi stuck chord with the poor people challenging the Deobandi religious right of Pakistan and became extremely popular among the masses.

Advocating blasphemy, in November 2017, TLP held large sit-in protests at Faizabad interchange demanding the resignation of the then Law Minister for amending the language of election bill, in which word oath is changed to declaration. Popular as Khatm-e-Nabuwat controversy, the protests subsequently spread to other parts of the country. The three-week long protests ended with the resignation of the Minister. Protestors blocked all the roads leading to the capital. Back then, PML(N) was in power. The protests believed to be supported by the ISI (Inter-Service Intelligence) brought life in Rawalpindi and Faizabad to a halt. The military which was keen on destabilising PML(N)’s Abbasi’s regime refused to step in and evict the protestors asked the government to amicably resolve the issue.  The army brokered six-point accord extracting a guarantee that the group wouldn’t issue a fatwa against the law minister. Government agreed to change the language, release all the detainees, drop all the charges and TLP agreed to end the protests¹. Later, DG Rangers distributing cash envelopes to the protestors went viral.

In 2018, following the Supreme Court’s verdict overturning death case to Asia Bibi over alleged blasphemy, TLP resorted to sit-in-protests. This time, Imran Khan’s Pakistan-Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) entered into a five-point agreement where in government agreed to initiate a process to keep Asia on ECI (Exit Control List) and refrain from objecting to review of court judgement to stop the protests. Government was forced to release majority of the protestors and in return TLP only tendered a mere apology for the inconvenience caused due to three-day protests².

In September 2018 TLP mounted pressure on the new PTI government to remove economist Atif R Mian, an Ahmadi from Khan’s Economic Advisory Council (EAC). Government soon retracked the nomination of Mian to council. Minister of Information Fawad Chaudhary even defended the decision in two tweets, “The government wants to move forward alongside scholars and all social groups, and it is inappropriate if a single nomination creates an impression to the contrary” and “Khatm-i-Nabuwwat (belief in the finality of the prophethood), is a part of our faith and the recent success achieved by the government in the matter of blasphemous sketches is reflective of the same connection”³.

The above instances are reflective of the fact that TLP has been leveraging massive popular support commanded by it hold country to ransom. Threatening a people’s uprising, the radical organisation under the ruse of peaceful protestors, TLP is mounting pressure on political dispensation.

In January 2020, following a huge uproar from TLP, Pakistan government deferred the release of movie, Zindagi Tamasha, that won Award at Busan International Film Festival over misuse of blasphemy law⁴.

The recently ended TLP’s protests in Pakistan which are again extension of its agenda of upholding the blasphemy is linked to yet another instance of deviation of a glory of Prophet (PBUH). In response to French President Emmanuel Macron’s unstinted support to Freedom of expression and right to publish Prophet’s cartoons, TLP organised anti-France huge rally in Islamabad at the behest of founder Khadim Rizvi to express their strong objection. After police tried to use tear gas to disperse the grounds, protestors resorted to rioting and blocked the roads in Islamabad.

Though some Muslim countries criticised Macron for publishing Prophet’s caricatures, massive protests stalling public life wasn’t witnessed. Amid unabated protests in Pakistan, in November the interior minister Ejaz Shah and Religion Minister issued a written assurance to expel French Ambassador within three months and not to station Pakistan Ambassador in France. Subsequently, Khadim Rizvi succumbed to COVID, his son Saad Hussain Rizvi was anointed as the leader.

In January, TLP reminded the government of the promise. Five days before the deadline government negotiated with TLP to introduce a legislation for expelling France ambassador in National Assembly by April 20^th.

On April 10^th as a pre-emptive measure, police took Saad Rizvi into custody. Soon protests broke out leading to rioting, clashes in Rawalpindi and Lahore resulting in killing of four policemen and 800 injured. With the violence threatening to engulf other parts, designating TLP as terrorist organisation banned it on April 15^th. 

Notwithstanding the ban, TLP cadres unleashed mayhem, stalled the nation for three days and abducted 11 police men. With situation slipping out of control, in a major volte-face, government entered into negotiations with out-lawed TLP to buy peace for the country. While this kind of pandering would be rebuked by the populace anywhere, it has been a norm in Pakistan. This traditional which is a closely guarded till decades ago has become a reality now. Protests by TLP protests paralysed the economic activity and brought to fore the deep entrenchment of radical Islam in the society.

Religious violence culminating in protests has exposed the dark side or the real fall out of state-sponsored patronage and Pakistan’s steady drift into an abyss of fanaticism. The killing of police personnel, abduction of police, their subsequent release after their demands were met has vividly portrayed the descent of the state into suicidal mode where religion has become the guiding and motivating force for the entire populace.

TLP has put forth four demands- expulsion of French Ambassador, release of Saad Rizvi and revocation of ban on the party and release of arrested activists. In the grand bargain during negotiations, government secured the release of abducted police personnel, released party chief and a PTI legislator has introduced a private bill in the Parliament and initiated the discussions.

As of now, there is no clarity regarding the ban on TLP. This is not first time that a political outfit is banned in Pakistan. In 1960 for the first time, Jamaat-i-Islam was banned but the decision was overturned by court as it tantamount to violation of right to freedom of association. Later in 1970 Zulfikar Bhutto declared National Awami Party as unlawful citing a threat to integrity and sovereignty. The party perished later on. Third such ban was imposed on TLP invoking Anti-Terrorism Act⁵.

Bans have lost its relevance in Pakistan and political dispensations have been using this quick-fix solution for temporary reprieve. Over decades, several religious, political and terrorist organisations with nefarious agenda were banned only to reappear in a different name. Slapping a ban has been a convenient political and diplomatic handle to convince the World that Pakistan is intent on getting rid of Islamist extremism. In its eagerness to exit the FATF grey list, Pakistan has liberally exercised this toothless option.

Absence of serious intent has always been evident. Speaking the language as TLP, in a televised address, Khan made no secret of his inexorable support to religious groups. After pledging to run a campaign against Islamophobia with the support of Muslim nations, he said, “I assure you that the purpose of the TLP for which they’re bringing people out, that is my purpose as well and that of my government” and he added, “only our methods are different”.

Notably, instead of denouncing religious violence and the mayhem unleashed, government has chosen to speak the words of TLP lending more credence to their intolerance. Hitting the streets, till TLP has won every time and forced the government to tow its line. On the pretext of making “defamation of religion” an internationally recognised crime⁶, Khan’s Naya Pakistan is inadvertently resisting any reformation and mainstreaming religious fanaticism.

Validation of blasphemy begets radicalism, under their cloak, unspeakable crimes and atrocities can be committed. By weaponizing blasphemy, TLP is seeking to legalise the orthodox interpretations of Sharia.

Political parties in Pakistan have always pandered to ultra-conservative groups to leverage their influence. Religious leaders create the narratives and play a larger role in influencing people. State institutions have been in cahoots with religious groups- regressive, intolerant, orthodox. Religion and politics are intertwined in Pakistan. The problem is complicated by the fact that religious institutions and initiatives are sponsored by the state. When the religious institutions tend to overgrown the state, the state uses all measures at its disposal to clip its wings.

But incumbent government’s failed to rein on the Barelvi militancy and succumbed to TLP under fear. On the contrary, regularly extracting concessions, TLP has amassed its popularity and influence. TLP is now dictating terms with respect to foreign policy and domestic legislation and posing a threat to politico-military establishment. Barelvi as opposed to Deobandi which is close to Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabism subsumed South Asian Sufi traditions are deemed to be peaceful. With its inconsiderate ideology and national wide blockades, TLP has dispelled the notion that Barelvi’s are inherently peaceful.

The radical TLP has brought Pakistan onto a precarious slope, wherein expulsion of French Ambassador is bound to derail its diplomatic ties with other western countries. Pandering to ultra-conservative groups, political parties have handed over the key to governance to the extremist groups. Religious extremism is rearing its ugly head in Pakistan and the country has itself to blame for it.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Vaccine nationalism of developed countries and China versus the Vaccine Maitri of India

The threatening surge in the COVID cases is gripping the world forcing the countries to opt for the economically inimical lockdown as a panacea to break the infection chain. India which displayed all attributes of bucking this trend till two months ago is witnessing an unprecedented and unabated increase in COVID infections. The second wave, which has become omniscient literally touching doorsteps of every Indian family is engendering new fears about livelihoods and is shattering the prognosis of a viable economic recovery. While the collective complacency of the government agencies and the general public is now believed to be at the root of second COVID wave in India, vaccines are now projected as the magic bullets to battle the Wuhan virus.

Till the entry of vaccines into fray, interestingly both local and state governments have emphasised on the strict enforcement of COVID-specific protocols, mandatory masking and social distancing to avert a lockdown. Testing, tracing, tracking and quarantining of the contacts has remained the focus of the health authorities to contain the infection. But with a major drop in infection rates perhaps, every agency appears to have thrown the caution to the wind. Vaccines are now regarded as be all and end of all of this consuming menace. Curiously, even the vaccine sceptics and anti-vaxxers who debated and doubted the efficacy of Indian vaccines and its approval process having shifting their stance are coming down heavily on the government for slack vaccination program.

Accusing the government of vaccine shortages and the generous vaccine maitri, the ecosystem is now pitching for Universal Vaccination against Wuhan virus. Undeniably while vaccines are widely believed to be best weapons to tackle the pandemic, mass vaccination was never expected to provide 100% protection against COVID-19. In this context, countries by and large aspired to attain herd immunity as a best strategy, relied on vaccinating the vulnerable population first to curb the death rates.

But by and large, owing to the promise of flattening the virus curve substantially, nations have kickstarted vaccination programs. After China shared the genome sequence on Jan 10^th, 2020, researchers started the vaccine designing. By March 2020 first clinical trials in humans were initiated by Moderna in US and China’s Sinovac.  Countries like Russia, UK have launched mass vaccination programs invariably triggering the vaccine wars.

As of April 15^th, 13 vaccines were authorised for use with 60 potential candidates in various stages of clinical trials^1. To accelerate the development, manufacturing and production of vaccines, four vaccine initiatives were instituted-

·        OWS (Operation Warp Seed), a collaboration between various US government agencies;

·        ACTIV- a part of OWS, US’s NHS (National Health Service) partnered with 18 biopharmaceutical companies;

·        COVPN (COVID-19 Prevention Trails Network)-coordinates clinical trial networks;

·        COVAX is part of WHO’s Access to COVID Tools (ACT) Accelerator, spearheaded by Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI), GAVI, the vaccine alliance and WHO, whose goal is to offer low cost COVID vaccines to countries.

Needless to say, while the motive behind four vaccine initiatives has been to ensure universal access to vaccines, this objective is now defeated by burgeoning vaccine nationalism. Instead of cooperating and coordinating the vaccine related research and their manufacture, production and accessibility, developed nations are brazenly indulging in vaccine hoarding and pre-booking denying the precious doses to third world countries. Nearly 190 countries joined the COVAX initiative but of them wealthy countries have directly negotiated deals with vaccine manufacturers.

According to a report, rich countries which account for 16% of World population has already secured more than 50% of World’s vaccine production². Extrapolating these figures, experts project that at this rate, low-income countries might attain a decent vaccination level by 2024. In the meanwhile, several mutant variants will keep pushing back the fight against pandemic. Already Astra Zeneca vaccine is reported to be ineffective against South African mutant strains. An inordinate delay will not only lead to loss of lives but would lead to massive economic downturn. World-wide vaccination is essential to keep the pandemic at bay.

To boost production and access to poorer countries, India and South Africa has called for temporary waiver of intellectual property rights at the WTO Council Meeting in November. Many Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMIC)s supported the proposal submitted to WTO’s Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Citing the instances of big pharma companies blockading the development of alternate vaccines in the past, South Africa urged WTO to temporarily waive the patents barriers. TRIPS indeed have a clause that approves exemption for public health needs.

At the WTO Council meeting on November 20^th, India stated, “on one hand, these countries are buying up as much of the limited supply as they can, leaving no vaccines in the pie for developing and least-developed countries. On the other hand, and very strangely, these are the same countries who are arguing against the need for waiver that can help increase the global manufacturing and supply to achieve not just equitable, but also timely and affordable access to such vaccines for all countries”^3. Indeed, unlike other countries, walking the talk, India has generously offered vaccines to over 70 countries at a time when HIC (High Income Countries) has started securing dose several times more than their population.

At the WTO, influential Western Pharmaceutical lobby and HIC intensely opposed the proposal. Arguing that any failure to protect the patent rights might hamper the American innovative and creative industries and more than 45 million jobs, PhRMA (Pharmaceutical and Research Manufacturers of America) in its special report 301 has urged Biden administration to act on countries that posed challenges to their IPR (Intellectual Property Rights). In line with PhRMA reports, previous Obama administrations has imposed tariff sanctions on Thailand and Indonesia, countries referred to in Special Report 301.

Significantly, PhRMA wrote a letter to Biden administration March 5^th calling the India-South Africa proposal as, “significant escalation in anti-global activism and will further polarize legitimate conversations on countries engagement to combat the pandemic”⁴.

On March 10^th for the eight time, the HICs and big pharma blocked the India-South Africa proposal supported by Doctors without Borders (MSF) and WHO chief Tedros. Proposals need consensus of 168 members to pass the resolution. The next meet is slated for June 8^th.

Contending the Big Pharma, public health advocates pointed that vaccine technology is largely financed by public sector not by private capital and hence pharmaceutical companies can’t get monopoly.

Achal Prabhala, coordinator for AccessIBSA project noted that the Pfizer vaccine developed in partnership with European firm BioNTech, received $445 million from German government. While Moderna obtained a research grant of $1billion from US government, Johnson &Johnson received over $1.45 billion from Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, a division of US Department of Health and Human Services^5.

Beside the patent related bottle necks, the big pharma which is already minting profits, is bullying hapless Latin American countries reeling under pandemic. Reportedly, Pfizer aside demanding additional indemnity against civil law suits filed by citizens who suffer adverse vaccine side effects from the governments of Argentina and Brazil asked them to put up sovereign assets like military bases and federal bank reserves as collaterals for potential legal costs. It has even sought immunity against cases brought due to Pfizer’s own fraud, mismanagement or negligence⁶.

While Western pharma agencies are leaving no stone unturned to extract their pound of flesh, China the originator of the virus brought out mandatory Chinese vaccine inoculation for obtaining Chinese visa for 19 countries⁷.The list included-India, Australia, Greece, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan and South Korea.

Notwithstanding the perfidy of complicity in the spread of pandemic, China under ambit of “Health Silk Route” launched the Vaccine Diplomacy along the lines of Mask diplomacy. To bypass the crucial authorisation exercise in recipient countries, Beijing began offering vaccines to countries in its immediate vicinity and slowly extended it to its periphery. Even as its own citizens expressed doubts over its efficacy, China began using these tools to bolster “soft power” and to successfully bully countries that recognised Taiwan. Offering vaccine bait, China forced Paraguay to severe ties with Taiwan.

India’s vaccine shipment to Paraguay has dented Chinese pursuits.  Currently, vaccines are doubling up as China’s political weapons to salvage its reputation and burnish credentials. Like Bangladesh which rejected China’s co-funding clause for vaccine trials, Prime Minister Hun Sen lashed out at China over COVID vaccine trials saying, “Cambodia is not a dustbin”⁸. Sen took Astrazeneca’s vaccine in 2020. But much water has flown from then. After Cambodia registered a record surge in infections in 2021, with no low-cost vaccines on offer, it accepted China’s free sample vaccines initially and later placed orders for more vaccines. Inundated with vaccines, against the wishes of people who are wary of Sinovac vaccines, which has poor reputation and not reviewed by WHO, Cambodia made vaccination mandatory for civil society workers. China’s trick is at play now and its vaccine diplomacy is yielding some results⁹.

Significantly, while the major Superpower and emerging superpower are vying with each other to exploit the pandemic to advance their geopolitical and economic interests, advocating “sarvebhavanthu sukhinah” (may all be happy) India is benevolently gifted vaccines just days after rolling out its own vaccine program.

On April 14^th 46-member group of Least Developed Countries (LDC) backed the India-South Africa proposal calling for IPR abeyance of vaccines till the pandemic is vanquished. But the resolution is unlikely to be passed. As per reports of health group Patients over Pharma, the Big Pharma has spent $50 billion on lobbying since the commencement of vaccine trials¹⁰. While the Western lobby is busy minting profits, India on March 26^th initiated a Joint Political Declaration on Equitable Global Access to COVID-19 vaccines that garnered support of 180 UN members.

Clearly, the health systems across the World and the supply chains are controlled by the big corporates and it is appalling that developed countries are acting at their behest.

Since the outbreak of pandemic, the World has suffered abject lack of a decisive leadership and vision to tide over the devastating trail of devastation and death. Embracing a protectionist approach, America stalled the export of essential medical supplies but threatened India of consequences if it failed to ship Hydroxychloroquine. Repudiating “America First” President Biden subsequently promised vaccine for every American adult and invoked 1950’s Defense Production Act (DPA) to ramp up production of syringes and medical supplies. Americans cheered and welcomed the move not understanding the flip side of this emergency law.

The law ordains America to control supplies and compel companies to prioritise certain orders over others. With an absolute power to sanction loans, US government can facilitate expansion of infrastructure and manufacturing capacities of companies and eventually stock-pile the products. America has set a target of producing 600 million doses by May, double the actual requirement. DPA allows the government to direct suppliers to vaccine companies to make additional doses. To meet the superfluous domestic requirement, America has stalled the raw material supplies to India. Since the pandemic, American Presidents have invoked DPA 18 times¹¹. Besides vaccines, America has accelerated the production lines of COVID test kits, surgical gloves, N95 masks, alcohol swabs and other medical supplies. Needless to say, while this indiscriminate excess production is bound to cause unwanted ramifications, the tremors of this emergency law are more pronounced on India.

India which has earned the reputation of World’s pharmacy is reeling under the raw material crunch and facing difficulties in importing products like cell culture media, single-use tubing assemblies, filters and other chemicals.

In what can be termed as mother of ironies, Americans who lambasted Trump’s protectionism are now hailing Biden’s triumphalism that caters to domestic needs by excluding other countries. Prioritising domestic interests is duty of every leader but America’s behaviour of hoarding all the essential ingredients for vaccine making clearly illustrates its comportment. In terms of numbers America has delivered 24 jabs for every 100 Americans as compared to China’s 3.7, Russia’s 2.7 and India’s 1.1 for every 100 of its residents^12.

While Biden has revoked majority of Trump’s decisions, his order, ban on vaccine exports is still in vogue. America’s global reputation is already on a decline. Hoarding of vaccines, blockading a proposal on waiver of IPR, withholding crucial raw material imports is bound to accelerate the erosion of its remnant good will.

America’s vaccine nationalism is now threatening vaccine production in India. Reliant on raw material supplies from the US, India’s major vaccine manufacturers Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech have expressed difficulty to continue or alternatively ramp up production to meet the growing vaccine needs of 16% of World population.

@ Copyrights reserved.

US Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) in Indian waters creates ripples

Social media was abuzz with the news of the US 7^th Fleet, USS John Paul releasing a statement on FONOP in India’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) close to Lakshadweep Islands. The Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer Fleet stated, “carried out Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) approximately 130 nautical miles west of the Lakshadweep Islands, inside India’s EEZ, without requesting India’s prior consent, consistent with international law”. It added, “India requires prior consent for military exercises or manoeuvres in its EEZ or continental shelf, a claim inconsistent with international law. This FONOP upheld the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea recognised in international law by challenging India’s excessive maritime claims”.

While this is not the first time, the US Fleet has entered Indian waters to assert its navigational rights, the timing of the event and the strong-worded statement has created ripples to say the least. Though the release states that the operations are not about making political statements, it continued “We conduct routine and regular FONOPs as we have done in the past and will continue in future”. Rightly so, Annual Freedom of Navigation (FON) reports of US Defense Department has meticulously chronicled these events. But it is rare that such precise statement of violation of Indian rights hasn’t been issued.

The operation coming less that a month after the first virtual Quad Summit with maritime cooperation as the mainstay followed by US Defense Secretary Austin Llyod visit last month who called India, “an increasingly important partner” and a week later, reflecting growing congruence in military and defence cooperation, India and US conducted two-day PASSEX from March 28-29 in Bay of Bengal. India deployed warship Shivalik and for the time it was joined by Indian Airforce to practice along side USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group during these exercises. Interestingly, at a time US conducted FONOP close to Lakshadweep Island, Indian Navy Ships INS Satpura, INS Kiltan along with P8 I maritime patrol aircraft participated in the La Perouse Naval Drills held by France from April 5-7 along with Quad members in the Eastern Indian Ocean.

Viewing the five-country exercise with suspicion, Chinese spokesperson stated, “we always believe that military cooperation between countries should be conducive to regional peace and stability”. Clearly, maritime cooperation, has been underlying feature of these new strategic partnerships and more so to the burgeoning Indo-US strategic partnership.

Amidst this strategic congruence, the notification by US Navy of FON and the provocative statement which is totally avoidable has inadvertently created some discordant notes and gave US-sceptics an opportunity to raise hackles over this issue which as per the Rules Based International Order (RBIO) is accepted.

But here comes the important twist to tale, the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) signed by India, China and others in 1982 has an interpretation different from international law or the Rules Based International Order (RBIO) cited by the US. The issue is complicated by the fact that US is not signatory of UNCLOS and US regularly conducts FONOPS in contentious South China Sea and other regions in the Indian Ocean region to challenge its claims of countries.

Global commons are governed by various rules and this is further complicated by the domestic laws legislated by individual countries. UNCLOS imposes no restrictions on the passage of foreign vessels through EEZ which is 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which breadth of the territorial sea is measured. Area up to 12 nautical miles from baseline is termed as territorial seas, and area extending further from the outer edge of territorial seas to 24 nautical miles is contiguous zone and it is part of EEZ. But India’s 1976 Maritime Zones Act (MZA) mandates prior notification from foreign vessels when passing through its territorial waters and even when undertaking innocent passage. In the recent past, India has successfully chased away Chinese vessels that tried to enter India’s EEZ by navy and coast guard.

Though India has ratified UNCLOS it has declared that it will never authorise foreign countries to carry out any exercises or manoeuvres or use of weapons in its EEZ. This indicates that there is no universally accepted golden rules and any contravention to the norms of coastal country can be deemed as a violation. Accordingly, US’s FONOP can be construed as muscle-flexing and unilateral persuasion.

There is another major point of contention between UNCLOS and India’s MZA is the right of Indian government to establish, “fairways, traffic separation schemes, or any other mode of ensuring FON that is not prejudicial to the interests of India”¹. This provision has been widely criticized by the US and Western countries terming it as a thinly veiled attempt to restrict FON.

In lieu of perceived threats from Pakistan and China, India has legislated stringent maritime laws. Expressing its unease over these acts, the US has been conducting FONOPs. Indeed, in 2007, India issued a strong diplomatic note to US against US Navy Ship Mary Sears conducting marine scientific research (MSR) in its EEZ².

USN’s audacious statement is contesting this domestic law. It is in this context that an expert noted, “a coastal country’s right to stop foreign ships from conducting military activities in its EEZ is not accepted by the US and other countries. A more charitable view could be that the US is conveying to China that we consider friend and foe alike when it comes to freedom of navigation in global common”. Indeed, if US intends to send a strong message to China by conducting FONOP’s and widely publicising it then it is undeniably a strategic miscommunication of huge proportions.

While US, widely hyphenates India and China with respect to their interpretations regarding principles of maritime order, it must be noted that China adopts an increasingly assertive territorial policy in South China and East China Sea. On the contrary, despite its wariness to negotiating its sovereignty and reluctance to seek international arbitration for settling maritime territorial disputes, India in 2014, has accepted an UN verdict which was largely in favour of Bangladesh that tripled Dhaka’s EEZ by three times in Bay of Bengal.

On the contrary, China has refused to accept the binding 2016 PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration) verdict which dismissed Beijing’s historical nine-dash line. Also, Beijing has reclaimed various territorial features in the SCS, nebulously incorporated the nine-dash line concept and cartographically altered and expanded its claims in maritime commons. To consolidate its claims Beijing aggressively reclaimed the islands within the stated nine-dash line which is nearly 90% of SCS, installed military hardware on these islands, declaring new government began administering reclaimed islands as new provinces and turned SCS into a China lake. It even established Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea.

In fact, unlike the India’s MZA, China not only demands prior notification of foreign vessels engaging in innocent passage but also authorization. As of now, China has passed three maritime laws with each law, China has stratified its authority over its alleged territorial waters and the intricate layering replete of ambiguity has become amenable tool for Beijing’s selective and warped interpretation.

US FONOPs and its patronising justification has also exposed its abject lack of understanding of strategic behaviours of India and China. China is mired in maritime disputes with five other countries- Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan, Brunei and Malaysia in the region and has an abysmal record of maritime hostilities, dangerous brinkmanship, coercive intrusions and harassment. On the contrary, India never occupied or made any illegal claims and has been defender of law of the sea.

Irked by the kind of the language used for a Quad partner, India has expressed its displeasure stating- “the government of India’s stated position in the UNCLOS is that the conventions doesn’t authorise other states to carry out in the EEZ and on the continental shelf, military exercises or manoeuvres, in particular those involving the use of weapons or explosives, without the consent of the coastal state”. Also, “the USS John Paul was continuously monitored transiting from the Persian Guld towards the Malacca Straits. We have conveyed out concerns regarding this passage through our EEZ to government of USA through diplomatic channels”³.

It has been a common refrain that US’s FONOP are part of intelligence and survey missions. But in these fraught times when Quad nations have come together to counter assertive China, the deliberate (recurrent) violation of India’s domestic law and concomitant assertion of the same through public statement is bound to create valid doubts in India.

For all its tall claims of conducting FONOPs against all countries, Australia and Canada never featured in its list despite their excessive claims. Rachel Esplin Odell in her paper hypothesized that “US used FONOPs as part of a strategic effort to shape international maritime norms in ways that sustain its command of the sea by legitimating its naval access to key straits and littorals”⁴. Clearly, if that has been the driving motive behind the FONOPs US will be better served to first invest in building its naval power as China has now emerged as the largest naval power fledging its tentacles across the globe. Unlike in 1990s the time since US started releasing annual records of its FONOPs when it has been the dominant super power, Washington’s dominance is now challenged militarily, scientifically, economically and technologically by China.

Due to its protectionist policies and evident retrenchment policies from geopolitics, America’s influence in the Indo-Pacific has declined. By resurrecting Quad, US is trying to revitalise its ties with the region. At this juncture, taking on a Quad member and an emerging power in Indo-Pacific region advocating FOIP is going to be counterproductive.

@Copyrights reserved.

China opens yet another front in South China Sea, Philippines raises fresh concerns

Months into power, while the Biden administration is clamouring to revive engagements with trans-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific partners, amid ugly diplomatic sparing between American and Chinese diplomats at Anchorage, Philippines Foreign Minister raised concerns of Chinese incursions. Instructively, the silver lining of Biden administration’s interactions with various strategic partners has been a promise of countering Chinese assertiveness.

On March 21^st, Philippines Defence Minister demanding the withdrawal of blue-hulled Chinese vessels, said, “we call on the Chinese to stop this incursion and immediately recall these boats violating our maritime rights and encroaching into our sovereign territory”.  The statement was in response to the Philippines Coast Guard reports of about 220 Chinese vessels marooning the Whitsun Reef since March 7^th1.

Expectedly, Chinese remained defiant and defended that Chinese vessels were sheltering against the inclement weather. Chinese Embassy in Manila warned against, “any speculation in such helps nothing but causes unnecessary irritation” and “hoped that the situation could be handled in an objective and rational manner”².

Whitsun Reef is boom-rang shaped obscure shallow reef in South China Sea (SCS) claimed by Philippines as Julian Felipe Reef and Vietnam as Da Ba Dau. China calls it Niu’e Jiao or Oxbrow Reef. Strategically located along the busy shipping lanes, ideally suited as operational and monitoring base, China and Vietnam have been making claims on this reef for some time. Vietnam is indeed operating near this reef at the Sin Cowe Island. Claims aside, the shallow reef is 175 nautical miles away from Philippines Western Province Palawan and falls well within the range of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Philippines.

Despite the Corona pandemic, around the same period last year, Chinese vessels traversed these regions in SCS and AMTI (Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative) tracked their movements. Around 30 Chinese Maritime Militia ships were spotted in this region which left the region shortly³. This year, in a brazen display of assertiveness and power, China has swarmed the region with hundreds of vessels. On March23rd Philippines Air Force reported presence of 183 CMM vessels.

The timing of these incursions has accentuated burgeoning animosity towards the Middle Kingdom which has opened several fronts since last year. With a partial disengagement of troops across the LAC, while Beijing has partially nullified the tactical advantage of India still several areas in Eastern Ladakh region are yet to be vacated by the Chinese troops. Beijing has intensified its ante against Taiwan, incursed into Japanese waters record number of times and also rolled out a new legislation enabling Coastal Guards to fire at any foreign vessel entering its perceived territorial region. With China laying claims to over 80% of SCS under the Nine Dash Line which is thoroughly contested, the legislation has invariably escalated the tensions.

Struggling to garner the trust of SCS stakeholders, in response to Philippines concerns, US declared, “We stand with the Philippines, our oldest treaty ally in Asia”. But unfortunately, America’s statement failed short of reposing confidence in Manila as the Biden administrations newly released interim National Security Strategic Guidance⁴ failed to mention Philippines as a strategic ally, unlike the previous regimes.

This prevarication is attributed to President Duterte’s dubious Chinese foreign policy, who upon ascension to power in 2016 shelfed the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s verdict and refrained from consolidating Manila’s maritime assertiveness.

Unlike former President Aquino III who initiated an international arbitration case against China under UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of Seas) and deepened security cooperation with US in response stand-off with China and occupation of Manila’s Scarborough Shoal in 2012, Duterte warmed up to China. Adopted a meek and humble approach, acquiesced to China, welcomed Beijing’s investments.

Emboldened by Duterte’s approach, China not only militarised the rapidly reclaimed territorial features in the SCS but also carved out two municipal districts- Xinsha and Nansha from the newly developed islands Paracels and Spartly groups as separate administrative units⁵. Beijing began deploying sophisticated military hardware to these newly reclaimed regions and increased reliance on on the strategy of grey zone tactics to bolster its claims.

In 2019, China sunk a Philippines fishing boat and last year, as a vast swarm of ships surrounded the Thitu Island claimed by Philippines last year. The ship was allegedly rammed and sunk by Chinese Maritime Militia (CMM) in the Reed Bank area. But Duterte chose to dismiss this as minor event. On the contrary, he notified US administration of the termination of 22-year old, the 1998 Visiting Forces Agreement even as US expressed its commitment to the relationship⁵. Duterte’s overt kow-towing has been a strategic victory for China.

Though Duterte rescinded his decision, his rhetoric pertaining to lack of strategic payments from America and absence of offer of COVID vaccines has weakened the alliance. China aspired to eventually grab this strategic opportunity. But its overzealous approach and incremental adventurism has exposed its diabolical expansionist strategy.

China’s unrelenting incursions has worsened Manila’s maritime concerns. The continuing presence of an armada of Chinese maritime vessels operating under the garb of fishing vessels is now eliciting strong response from Duterte’s Cabinet.

Philippines Foreign Minister registered a formal protest, Defence Minister demanded withdrawal of the vessels. Undersecretary Analiza Rebuelta Teh announced Manila’s plans to seek compensation for destroying the marine resources in EEZ from China as part of 2016 Hague ruling. The documentation is likely to include- ecological damage caused by harmful harvesting of endangered species, island building activities, construction of installations and artificial islands at Mischief Reef without the approval of the Philippines⁷.

While the matters stay thus, the most important facet of this entire episode is the strategic deployment of CMM and their intimidatory tactics. Till now, US refused to consider CMM as a formidable force. Pegged them at paltry 84^8, US grossly underestimated Chinese forces operating in the Seas. Now the Philippines Airforce declared the presence of 183 CMM “blue hulls” in their EEZ.

Chinese observers have been warning of CMM, which operates along with the regular force-PLAN and Coast Guards. Known as People’s Armed Forces Maritime Militia (PAFMM), they play a vital role in Gray Zone Pressure tactics.

During the early days of communist regime, commercial vessels were used to augment regular naval units. The Naval existed as “Brown Water” force was dedicated to protection of inland waterways and coastal areas. CMM owes its origins to Chinese fishing industry, the largest in the World. Initially when the military orientation was mostly continental, the regime never bothered about bolstering maritime resources.

After the end of the Cold War, China increased its focus on maritime strategy by co-opting the terms like First Chain of Islands, Nine Dash lines. While its Naval force was too thin to spread across the vast oceanic regions, CMM comprising the fishing boats of vast fishing fleet, started organising into company sized elements in 1985 for the first time at Sansa City. Basic training was organised by city level People’s Armed forces Department.

By 2010 the training was coordinated with Chinese Maritime Law Enforcement Agencies like Chinese Coast Guard and Fisheries Law Enforcement Command. They were soon part of reconnaissance missions, and formed the advanced guard of island construction of China in SCS.

The Maritime Militia also trains for some independent missions, including anti-air missile defense, light weapons use and sabotage operations. Reconnaissance and surveillance are strongly emphasized, to make up for potential gaps in China’s intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) coverage⁹. CMM essentially gathers information about foreign vessels, harass them, offer logistic support and aid in reclamation activities.

These fishing vessels are equipped with Beidou Communication System. They are now modernised to become part of the NCW (Network Centric Warfare) which relies on C4I (Command, Control, Communication, Computers and Intelligence). PLA is blending its own NCW tactics with those learned from Soviet Union and the US Doctrine (Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan).

As indicted by Andrew Ericksson and Micheal Chase in their book- “The Chinese Navy: Expanding capabilities, Evolving Roles” the long and short goal of the regime in cultivating CMM is to develop a networked fleet to mount low cost but area denial mission in SCS and ECS.

China’s maritime strategy indeed has borrowed the ancient Athenians “Swarm Techniques” that trounced Persians. This method in the recent times is believed to have been successfully adopted by Nazis in the World War II. The tactics essentially involves use of small, fast, stealthy and lightly manned interconnected (networked) vessels operating in tandem from in different directions and attack the enemy. Clearly, CMM appears to have emulated all these principles and operating in Swarms to operate in SCS. Strategists Arquilla and Ronfeldt contend that CMM aptly fits the definition and functioning of Swarm.

With a precedent of using similar Swarm land techniques against UN forces on land in Korean War, analysts now believe “Naval Swarm Tactics” have been at the root of the Chinese incremental expansionism in the SCS.

Since 2014, the encounters between China’s so called fishing fleet and the foreign navies in the EEZ and Nine Dash Line have increased several folds with reports of Chinese fleets sinking vessels of the claimants-Vietnam, Philippines, Brunei, Taiwan, Malaysia. Ever since, media is replete of incidents of hostile actions of Chinese fishing vessels. These events weren’t restricted to SCS alone even Latin American countries reported sighting these fleets.

As of now, Philippines has beefed up naval presence in SCS to conduct sovereignty patrols and sending fighter aircrafts over SCS. However, the Chinese embassy still maintains that fishing vessels are taking refuge at Whitsun Reefs and that there were no militia on board ¹⁰.

China’s belligerence and the unabated salami slicing have roots in its diligent military strategies. It is time to unravel and understand the implications of these stealthily honed approaches to stem and counter China’s nefarious tactics. Clearly through collectivization, modernisation and use of sophisticated technology China has evolved a robust low-cost force to defend and realise its territorial aspirations. Inexorably this is a force to reckon with. Hence it is incumbent on the stakeholders of the region to constantly monitor the activities of Chinese sinister fishing boats which are part of CMM and work together to safeguard their mutual interests.

@ Copyrights reserved.

The rise of Quad provided ballast for the geopolitical construct of Indo-Pacific

There has been subdued reluctance to accept the geopolitical strategic construct Indo-Pacific, extensively used and championed by President Trump. The idea of Indo-Pacific with an underpinning of India’s growing eminence has been resisted for long. Instructively, while the Indo in the Indo-Pacific construct refers to Indian Ocean, China and later Russia under duress firmly subscribed to the usage to term Asia-Pacific with reference to maritime region abutting the Asian underbelly to undermine India’s inexorable strategic importance in the region.

An inadequate and ambiguous Asia-Pacific construct, never incorporated India’s interests in the region. With the economic activity and the concomitant strategic interests shifting to the East, the region which was confluence of two Oceans- Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean soon turned out be hub of geopolitical activity. The narrow Asia-Pacific construct, which is more continental in its approach failed to accommodate the overarching maritime interests of the dominant players of the region. Besides the overreliance on energy sources from the Middle East and Africa to the growing economies in the East Asia invariably increased the thrust on the maritime security along the SLOCs (Sea Lines of Communication).

Besides, China’s rise powered by global ambitions and the adventurous expansionism spurred anxieties among the nations in the region. Beijing’s assertiveness changed the strategic equations in the regions prompting a change in the nomenclature suitable for the region to address these issues. Strategists coined “Indo-Asia Pacific”¹ to accommodate the relevance of India’s traditional role as the net security provider of the region. Soon enough, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo-Abe in 2007, for the first time enunciated his vision for, “Confluence of Indian and Pacific Oceans” addressing the Indian Parliament. Later President Trump, has shortened the term to Indo-Pacific and lent more credence to this new geopolitical concept.

Dr Gurupreet Khurana, Executive Director of National Maritime Foundation was first credited with the usage of the term Indo-Pacific in contemporary times. But in reality, this concept is not new. The concept was first used by German geopolitician Karl Haushofer in 1920s. He predicted the rise of “Indo-Pacific” or “Asiatic Monsoon countries” and urged German leaders to ally with Indo-Pacific countries- India, China and Japan. Strategists popularly quote from his 1939 article, “If an empire could arise with Japan’s soul in China’s body, that would be a power which would put even empires of Russia and the United States in the shade”². This scenario seems more relevant now than ever.

The basic premise of the Indo-Pacific concept is to increase the naval capabilities of the countries in the region. But the two-pronged objective of the US has been to retain its regional influence against the challenger China and to tone down the aggressiveness of Beijing by propping up India’s influence over strategic chokepoints and alleviate Japanese presence in the Indian Ocean.

Besides, the security dimension another major trigger for coming together of the four democracies has been the devastating 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. The navies which worked together during the disaster soon formed a loose coalition of Quad or the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and for the first time held joint Malabar exercises in 2007. Leadership change in Australia and Japan, has diluted the spirit subsequently. After a decade, in response to China’s unabated politico-military adventurism, the Quad was reborn in 2017 with motto of “Free and Open Indo-Pacific”.

Clearly the trigger and the motivation behind this new geopolitical recalibration and revival has been a hegemonistic and aggressive China. On March 12^th Quad received a major fillip with President Biden convening the first ever virtual meeting of the Quad leaders. Biden who evinced interest but hesitatingly tottered to roll out a strong Indo-Pacific policy and preferred referring to this as “secure and prosperous Indo-Pacific” on Nov 20^th, 2020³ finally believed in the indispensability of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific bolstered by his predecessor.

This historic Quad meet of the leaders was preceded by Foreign Ministers meet on Feb 18^th where Biden administration officials praised the group for its role “in advancing US interests and strategy in the Indo-Pacific region”.

Maiden Quad summit coming just a month after Sino-Indian logjam disengagement in Eastern Ladakh and pending further pull back of troops along the LAC witnessed, India’s abdication of traditional reluctance. For long, cognizant of Chinese sensitivities, India shied away from Quad deemed as anti-China grouping. But the series of Beijing’s brazen escalation-Taiwan annexation attempts, ripping the democratic fabric of Hong Kong with National Security Law, punitive trade sanctions on Australian imports, insidious maritime incursions, new law authorising the coast guards to shoot foreign vessels, troops build up and bloodshed in the Eastern Ladakh have triggered the countries to come together. This hostility towards China has been the potent glue

Giving Quad much needed strategic direction and without directly referring to the elephant in the room, the leaders of four countries-the US, India, Japan and Australia for the first time published an op-Ed⁴ and even issued a joint statement, a departure from separate statements from all countries thus far.

While this shift from the tradition and meeting of the highest authorities have definitely underscored the commitment of Quad nations, the vision which hardly made any mention of any kind of strategic military alliance generated new interest. To take on the malevolent, Chinese propaganda machinery, nations resisted the temptation to call out China openly. Instead, they blunted China’s abetment of fears regarding the Quad censored as “Asian-NATO” with a smart joint statement which rested on the pillar of diplomatic cooperation.

Shunning a hard-nosed approach, leaders reaffirmed commitment “to promote a free, open rules-based order, rooted in international law to advance security and prosperity of Indo-Pacific region and beyond” and be “united in shared vision for free and open Indo-Pacific” and “strive for a region that is free, open, inclusive, healthy, anchored by democratic values, and unconstrained by coercion”. They pledged to “support the rule of law, freedom of navigation and overflight, peaceful resolution of disputes, democratic values and territorial integrity”⁵.

They recognised the centrality of ASEAN and reaffirmed support for ASEAN unity. Shifting focus to global challenges and specifically to the issues more relevant to the region like the health and economic impact of COVID-19, climate change. In addition, Quad agreed to address shared challenges in cyberspace, critical technologies, counter terrorism, quality infrastructure investment and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief as well as maritime domains.

With a focus on the developmental challenges, Quad positioned itself as a benign grouping. By inviting countries like Vietnam, New Zealand and South Korea to earlier meetings last year, during COVID-19 outbreak, Quad demonstrated its openness for Quad plus arrangements.

To advance meaningful cooperation and collaboration, Quad constituted- three working groups on vaccine partnership, climate change and critical technologies⁶. Quad came into existence to address an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in the Indian Ocean in 2004. Born out of crisis, in response to the pandemic devastation, Quad pledged accessibility to vaccines for the Indo-Pacific region.

As of part of this ambitious effort, Quad nations have resolved to integrate the scientific ingenuity with peerless production capabilities and stellar logistics to help end COVID-19 in the region. Accordingly, US and Japan will finance the vaccine production of the American vaccine in India with Australia stepping forward to extend logistics support. Working together with WHO and COVAX alliance, Quad intends to ensure delivery of vaccines for a healthy and prosperous Indo-Pacific.

In what can be a massive boost to Atmanirbhar Bharat, India’s Biological E headed by Mahima Datla will partner with Johnson &Johnson of US to produce 1 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines by 2022⁷. On climate change, India has already positioned itself as a proactive leader. International Solar Alliance and One World One Sun One Grid (OWOSOG), India has demonstrated its commitment towards renewable energy production. India’s objective as in line with collective objectives of Quad. New Delhi’s partnership will thus be an invaluable asset for realisation of the climate change goal for the region.

Finally, the working group on critical technologies resonates with India’s larger vision for an indigenous 5G, larger scheme for expansion of the semi-conductor FAB plants and National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (NSAI). By nurturing Quad under the new framework of cooperation instead of overt confrontation, Quad Summit has lent a new directionality to their Indo-Pacific policy.

Infusing a fresh momentum to Quad, American leadership has rightly attempted to reclaim its leadership in the region. Most importantly, with a renewed focus on Indo-Pacific, indispensability of India to this geographical construct has been accentuated.

India learnt valuable lessons post 2004 Tsunami and honed its skills in humanitarian skills and disaster management and fondly acclaimed the reputation of the First responder in the region. To a world overwhelmed by pandemic health impact, with its formidable vaccine production capabilities and Vaccine Maitri has emerged as the most responsible global player.

While China continues to gloat over India’s growing closeness to the US, warns of “losing its strategic autonomy” and castigates New Delhi as “negative asset of BRICS and SCO”, the writing on the wall is clear. China’s belligerent rise has catalysed the revival of the Quad. Disconcerted by Chinese expansionism, France, Germany and the UK are also recalibrating their Indo-Pacific policy. A construct, which hardly found a mention in strategic annals a decade ago.

@ Copyrights reserved.

 

 

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.