Promoting Self-interests mainstay of China's foreign aid policy

Rising global status of China has become topic of growing interest. To catapult its exalted status as an emerging super power, China is now greatly recalibrating its ties with countries across the globe. Over the past few decades, it made rapid strides in refurbishing its position as global financial giant by evolving as a biggest donor to many nations. Recent AidData reports indicate, that China is now closely inching the gap with US, which is reckoned as the largest global donor. Data indicate that official funding of China as $354.4 billion between 2004-14 against US $394.6 billion. An in-depth analysis of the pattern and type of assistance offered suggests that China’s financial assistance was rather opaque and largely guided by its foreign policy.

Globally, financial assistance has been defined by the agreed definition of Official Development Assistance or ODA. ODA which is basically aimed at spurring economic growth comprises of 25% of grants. Initially, China’s assistance patterns largely adhered to this officially agreed patterns and was bereft of the motivation of accessing natural resources. But the data on the past decadal assistance offered by Beijing indicates that it has embarked on a new trajectory drawing interest of various policy makers, journalists, and strategists. China’s aid is now commercially orientated, devoid of grants but majorly includes loans offered at market prices. The projects of interest largely belong to infrastructure, energy, mining, and transport sectors.  The list of the top 10 recipient countries of the Chinese largesse mirrors this new change. Countries which are on the top of the list are- Cuba, Ivory Coast, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Cameroon, Nigeria, Tanzania, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, and Ghana in order. Strategic experts maintain that over 86% of Chinese funds are diverted to African countries that voted with Beijing at the UN.  Resource-rich countries with illiberal regimes received ample amounts of funds. Economic, commercial, and political interests principally motivate Chinese aid. Also, Other Official Flows (OOF) or loans accounted for major portion of the Chinese aid. Spuriously, the aid is thus diverted to projects that can generate more money for China, expand its overseas market and enhance its accessibility to natural resources of recipient countries.

International focus has suddenly shifted to Chinese aid patterns since most of the Dragon’s supposed economic assistance failed to boost economic growth to a tune of 0.4% observed in case of developmental aid provided by Western and OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) Countries. Instead, majority of Beijing’s assistance led to ensnarement of recipient countries into a debt trap with majority of Chinese assisted projects becoming the momentous White Elephant Projects. For all its dubitable infrastructure investments and relentless buttressing of authoritarian regimes, the West began to refer China as a “Rogue Donor”.

With China vying to occupy a larger role in the international arena, Chinese contributions are now under scanner. Moreover, the shrouded aura of opacity incipient of Chinese dealing is raising more doubts about the real intentions of China’ global outreach. Fresh reports indicate that China is now funding over 4300 projects in 150 countries matching the contribution of US. Hence parallels are drawn between the substantial funding patterns of these countries. Interestingly, like the West, China is inclined to aid countries aligned to it politically. Cuba is thus one of the largest recipients of Chinese aid in the past 15 years. Clearly, unlike the West, China largely undermines developing countries record on human rights violations and other criteria set by the Western countries for offering aid. It has thus rewarded rogue regimes with loans and grants denied by the West. Strategists now critically acclaim that China’s disregard for governance credentials is fostering corruption. Its indifference to concerns of environmental degradation might have potential global consequences. Interestingly, China’s global connectivity project OBOR (One Belt One Road) critically emulates similar precincts raising severe concerns about the impact of enhanced China’s global development foot print. It is also now official that, China’s aid is less concessionary and guided by self-interest. Adding heft to this argument, AidData now indicates that in the past 16 years, Russia has emerged as the largest beneficiary of China’s foreign aid. Russian Oil Giant, Rosenaft received $25 billion loan package from China. Clearly, with China aggressively flexing its muscles to fill the vacuum created by America’s retrenchment from the global scenario, understanding its spending patterns and methods of rendering assistance to developing countries become more relevant.

@ Copyrights reserved.

India’s Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era

Collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, drastically altered the World order and the geopolitical scenario. India had close economic, cultural, defence and technological ties with Soviet Union and even signed the treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1971. In fact, Soviet Union had been India’s largest supplier of arms. But the disintegration of erstwhile Soviet Union not only marked the end of Cold War and bipolar system but also significantly changed the contours of the overarching Indian Foreign policy. This development eventually accelerated the pace of globalization. In tune with changing realms and to tide over abysmal economic doldrums, India adopted New Economic Policy (NEP) that ushered the country into the new post-Cold War era. Incidentally, India quickly recalibrated its foreign policy and established diplomatic relations with break-away states of USSR- Russia and other Central Asian countries like Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan.

With disappearance of power blocks, India steadily harnessed ties with United States, with emerged as the lone Super Power. This period was marked by change in leadership in India. Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao who assumed the charge launched “Look East Policy” and quickly coupled the foreign policy with economic aspirations of India. He laid foundation for the foreign economic policy, wherein India began to actively forge ties with nations seeking foreign investments and opened its economy for foreign players. India cultivated strategic partnerships with countries like US, China and EU. This period also witnessed marked reorientation of India’s foreign policy towards China. Setting aside the border disputes, India actively strived to develop strong trade links with China. Indeed, Indian leadership maintained distance with Dalai Lama to avoid any tussles with China. India reached out to ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nation) countries and established strong partnership with Tiger Economies of Asia like Japan and South Korea in 1992. New Delhi which covertly maintained friendly ties with Israel officially established diplomatic relations. By 1993, India made successful overtures to Iran and other Gulf nations. This policy eventually helped India in stalling the resolution introduced by Pakistan regarding the human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir at UNSC. India gradually shifted to multi-alignment and began to realize the importance of regional cooperation and consolidated ties with neighborhood countries. India signed Mahakali Treaty for hydroelectric power generation with Nepal and signed the South Asian Preferential Treaty (SAPTA) with other SAARC nations to boost up trade links. The South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) came into force in 2006. India rigorously pursued Missile Development program and successfully tested, Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBM)s and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM)s. India’s progress irked US. But these pursuits failed to deter American interest in an emerging country like India with huge market potential. Subsequently a US-India Commercial Alliance (USICA) was created and India was declared as a “Big Emerging Market”. Indeed, ever since introduction of economic reforms India began to clock good economic growth, foreign investors began to view as a lucrative investment destination. Steady growth rate, eventually changed World’s perception towards India. 

Ever since disintegration of Soviet Union, there has been a perceptible change in India’s approach towards US. During the Gulf crisis, India remained favorable to US and permitted refueling of US aircrafts at Mumbai port and agreed for joint naval exercises. While there were major differences between both countries regarding NPT and Super 301 (Intellectual Property Rights) both countries steadily invested in building cordial relations. On the other hand, China, eyeing to have a greater say in international arena, showed keen interest in joining hands with India for defending the rights of third world countries at international platforms. But despite this overt developmental cooperation, incongruent border issues tormented bilateral relations. In the meanwhile, the possibility of greater American preponderance led to the integration of European economic system, emergence of South-South cooperation. India cultivated a pragmatic approach towards these developments and began forging bilateral trade relations with countries like Germany and UK. Further, India began to take a lead role in UN peace keeping force to reiterate its commitment towards World order based on peace and tranquility. The Gujaral Doctrine of 1998, postulated that India shouldn’t insist on reciprocity in developing relations with neighboring countries. Proliferating Indo-Chinese trade relations was perhaps, rooted on the basic premise of Gujaral Doctrine.

Indeed, in the early 1990’s India’s foreign policy underwent radical transformation, as it began to shun the anti-western political impulses accumulated during the cold war era. India began to shed political inhibitions and carefully crafted a finely balanced foreign policy of maintaining good relations with US, Russia, China, Japan and West Europe. Despite West’s opposition to India’s nuclear ambitions, with increased threats from Pakistan, India realized the overwhelming need to become a nuclear power. Eventually it conducted a nuclear test in 1998 under the leadership of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. In response, the West imposed sanctions on India. Vajpayee invested great energies for finding political reconciliation with Pakistan but despite best of his efforts the outcome has been negative. Indeed, it reply to India’s Aman ki Asha doctrine and Delhi-Lahore bus service, Pakistan responded back with a stealthy attack on India which soon escalated into Kargil war of 1999. Soon army launched a coup and took over Pakistani civilian government. Committed to establishing normal ties with Pakistan, India invited Pakistan for peace talks. Despite best of efforts, Agra Summit failed to reach any breakthrough.

In the meanwhile, New Delhi withstood international sanctions, isolation and quickly explored diplomatic opportunities for convincing the West by assuring them of legitimate nuclear weapons use. Vajpayee pronounced US as India’s natural ally and made formidable efforts to enhance the strategic friendship between both countries. India adopted adopting no first use (NFU) and pledged to use nuclear technology for civil purposes. The 9/11 attack widened distrust between US and Pakistan eventually promoting America to comprehend the threats posed by burgeoning terrorism. Fighting terrorism has become legitimate aim of these two democratic countries. Within seven years after the sanctions, India headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed civil nuclear treaty with America in 2005 marking the end of 34-year isolation. To export nuclear technology India aspired to enter the nuclear regimes. India gained entry in the 34-member MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime) in 2015. Delhi is making attempts to join the Australian Group, Wassenaar Agreement, and Nuclear Security Group (NSG). As of now, India’s efforts to gain membership into NSG are stonewalled by China.

India was elected for record seventh time as non-member of UNSC in 2010 with a thumping majority and its two-year term commenced in 2011. Notwithstanding, UN proclamation of introducing reforms, India along with Japan, Germany and Brazil formed G-4 for intensifying its campaign of obtaining permanent membership in UNSC. Indian membership to UNSC is openly supported all permanent members except China. In 2005, India launched a neighborhood policy with an emphasis on developing connectivity and people to people network. But absence of synchronized leadership and persistent efforts eventually pushed Indian neighbors into Chinese embrace. India renewed its relations with Africa under the framework of Indo-Africa Forum Summit in 2008 and 2011. Modi government bolstered Indo-African friendship through a massive outreach program in 2015 and extending developmental assistance. For strengthening regional cooperation, India played a lead role in the establishment of Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation (IORA) in 1997 and Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multisectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) in 1998. Modi gave a massive fillip to India’s engagement with Bay of Bengal region countries by extending invitation to BIMSTEC countries to Goa-BRICS summit, 2015. Responding to predictions of 21^st century to be essentially dominated by emerging economies, India joined hands with China, Russia, Brazil and South Africa to form BRICS in 2008. To boost trade and investment, India signed Free Trade Agreement with ASEAN in 2010. India was invited to be part of outreach group of G-8 and was a founder member of G-20 formed in response to global economic crisis of 1998. India is part of the trilateral south-south cooperation, IBSA group (India Brazil South Africa) established in 2003. India’s trilateral and multilateral Malabar Naval Exercises has invariably strengthened its position as a responsible and reliable partner for US and Japan. India recently became member of SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) joining the club instituted by China.

Interestingly, during the decade long UPA regime though India actively aligned with different countries in various organization, its global participation was replete of reluctance. It failed to cobble up support of like-minded countries and shied away from assuming any responsible role. In absence of a steering leadership, India cheaply lost its neighbors to China. In the meanwhile, buoyed by steady economic growth and extensive global trade connections, Middle Kingdom, aggressively promoted itself as an emerging super power. It eventually threatened to override, Indian presence in its sphere of influence, Indian Ocean. At this juncture, Narendra Modi who took over as prime minister in 2014 revitalized India’s relations with neighboring countries with neighborhood first policy, gave fresh impetus to ties with Eastern countries through Act East policy, simultaneously energized links with strategic west under Link West, traveled to Central Asian countries and hosted leaders of Pacific islands through Forum for India-Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC), revamped Indo-African ties. Encumbered by Chinese juggernaut, Modi ably transformed India Foreign Policy and cultivated relations with countries through extensive use of soft power. Declaration of International Yoga Day by UN, aptly exemplifies Modi’s transformative approach in fashioning foreign policy. Amicable settlement of the pending 41-year old Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) with Bangladesh culminating in exchange of enclaves mirrored Modi’s diplomatic skills. Similarly, the Prime Minister productively explored India’s historic religious, trade, cultural and linguistic connections to reach out to different countries. By extolling India’s customs and traditional commitment to conserve environment, he steadfastly pledged to support Paris Climate Accord and even roped in support of 100 odd countries towards establishment of International Solar Alliance (ISA). Modi has been instrumental in deepening India’s strategic ties with Japan, whose investments and long-term alliance might prove invaluable. 

In the past 25 years, India moved away from ‘idealism’, ‘sentimentalism’, embraced globalization and subsequent global interdependence. This realization brought about sea-change in India’s foreign policy. Delhi’s reticence, political inhibitions are now replaced by a pragmatic, extensive global reach. From being a struggling regional power, India is now ready to reclaim its place a responsible global power.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Are Hindus hapless punching bags of judicial overreach?

Yesterday Supreme Court passed a judgement imposing ban on the sale of firecrackers in the NCR region till October 31^st citing concerns of environment pollution. The decision which came just 10 days ahead of Diwali, major festival of Hindus generated a flurry of reactions. The SC was ordained to find a solution for worsening pollution in NCR by the appellants, who in this case are Arjun Gopal and Aarav Bhandari both aged six months and teamed up with 14 months old Zoya Rao Bhasin. In their tryst for justice, they are assisted by their fathers- Gopal Shankarnarayanan, Amit Bhandari and Saurabh Bhasin. Complainants prayed that owing to laggard functioning of State government, they were forced to approach the highest authority for a swift response and prayed that infants and children in particular are worst victims of air pollution.

SC’s judgement in this regard is hailed as landmark judgement as for the first time, the highest judicial authority took cognizance of the damage caused by alarming rise in environmental pollution. Judicial intervention, indeed aptly reflected the ineptness of concerned government authorities. But unfortunately, the SC instead of enforcing scientifically-backed, robust long-term measures to tackle pollution, imposed outright temporary ban on sale of firecrackers during Diwali to do the magic. Incidentally, this decision aside dampening the festive fervor of Diwali, foolishly implied that #sayingnotocrackers can take care of worst air pollution experienced during winter months in NCR. Undoubtedly, while the fume-emanating chemicals in the crackers are a health hazard, a sudden temporary, experimental ban can serve no purpose.  Rather, SC should impose stringent checks on the type of chemicals used in making crackers and necessarily substitute the chemicals releasing toxic gases with milder ones. Further, it can educate the masses on limiting the usage of crackers. 

Arguably, while the ban on sale would reduce air pollution and might offer succor to the region for a few days, what does SC aim to achieve by imposing a temporary ban?  In fact, the knee-jerk reaction besides reiterating SC’s desperation for finding a solution for the burgeoning pollution would serve no long-term purpose. Like the quick-fix odd-even policy rolled out by the state government of Delhi, it will be of no avail.  If the SC is keen on containing the environmental pollution why doesn’t it censure the concerned government for its inaction? For that matter, SC should prevail on the government in developing a longstanding solution for controlling the growing pollution across various metropolitan cities in India. Just like the over-the-counter- medication, which offer a temporary respite, peace-meal strategy like ban on crackers can’t curtail pollution. Alternatively, SC’s attempts to address pollution woes has created more chaos and angst.

Indian tradition of celebrating various festivals has been a community enriching activity. Every Indian festival necessarily nurtures an ecosystem, which thrives on the scale of the celebrations. Diwali celebrations are source of livelihood for thousands of artisans and their families involved in making earthen diyas, wicks, candles, firecrackers etc. Any major glitch or a ban on the celebrations inadvertently inflicts a financial distress in this intricately interconnected ecosystem. SC’s decision has created such pandemonium among traders who obtained licenses to sell crackers in NCR region. The trader union has now come down heavily on SC for imposing sudden ban on sale of crackers and raised concerns of illegal smuggling of crackers. Since sale of crackers is banned but not on bursting crackers.

Before conservationists and other elite bandwagon jump in to lecture about the duties of a responsible citizen towards India, let me underline that environmental concerns can be addressed by continuous systematic readjustment of lifestyle. As a developing economy with immense potential for growth, an awareness should be created among citizens towards environment. Further great emphasis must be laid on adherence to the imposed guidelines. A ban might be counterintuitive.

SC is thus a makeshift arrangement of rescuing Delhi’s weather by imposing ban on sale of crackers. Reports now indicate that other North Indian states like Gwalior and Allahabad are in close second and third position with regards to pollution levels after Delhi. Is SC contemplating similar bans in other polluted cities as well? By this logic, I guess a day may not be far when Hindus across the country might be forced to give up on the tradition of bursting crackers on Diwali, a practice which makes it uniquely popular among children. In fact, crackers make Diwali more endearing!!! For now, SC’s decision has dampened the festive spirits of NCR and coincidentally strengthened the bias Hindus have been subjected to. The judicial overreach and unwarranted intervention of SC in Hindu traditions has already generated a great distrust. This latest judgement has stoked more suspicions. SC in the past has intervened in Hindu festivals and made every attempt to limit Hindu activity. It has ordered a ban on Dahi Handi in Maharastra, Jallikattu in Tamilnadu, Kambala in Karnataka, Kila Raipur Sports in Punjab, Elephant ban in Kerala Temples. A selective onslaught on Hindu traditions are now perceived with lot of suspicion. An egregious attempt to attempt selectively erase cultural practices is now evoking unpalatable reactions among the majority community.

Interestingly, while SC defended its landmark judgement as upholding right to breath/life it conveniently chose to undermine the right to religion of Hindus. Pollution in Delhi is attributed to-vehicular pollution, stubble burning, industrial emissions, construction activity and manual sweeping of roads. Ironically, SC selectively chose to impose ban on crackers. Perhaps, SC is conditioning Indians (especially Hindus) to embrace the new normal of selective judicial overreach and warped secularism.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Merkel’s narrow victory reduced her leeway

Angela Merkel, who emerged victorious in the German Elections held on 24^th September is all set become Chancellor for the fourth time. Merkel will go down the history for being the first female, hailing from East Germany to reach such a milestone. She will now be placed in same league as her mentor, Helmut Kohl and Konrad Adenauer, the founding fathers of Federal Republic of Germany. Though she managed to get sizeable percentage of votes to form coalition government, she will have little room to maneuver. Clearly, the elections were no less than a referendum on Merkel’s refugee policy. Germans strongly disapproved her decision of sheltering 1 million refugees in 2015. The impact of German discontentment is reflected in the elections.

In the elections that witnessed a significant surge in voter turnout (75.9%) German’s two oldest political parties, Centre-right, Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Centre-Left, Socialist Democratic Party (SPD) suffered heavy losses. Merkel’s CDU and her sister Bavarian party Christian Social Union (CSU) literally had a free fall registering a sharp slump from 41.5% in 2013 to 32.9% in 2017. Similarly, SPD vote declined to 20.8% from 25.7% four years ago. Observers maintained that it this was CDU’s worst performance since 1949. In 2013, Merkel formed a coalition government with SPD. But now, soon after the elections, Martin Schulz of SPD announced plans of sitting in opposition. This development has emerged as a challenge for Merkel whose popularity had slid beyond expectations. Merkel who is popular as “Mutti” meaning mommy received an electoral drubbing for opening Germany for immigrants. Instinctively, people have decisively rooted for far-right Alternative for Germany Party (AfD) which sought tough immigration policies and tighter borders. Consequently, for the first time in 60 years, far-right party having received 12.6% will enter Budestag. Germans have in fact, voted for other smaller parties like Free Democratic Party (FDP), Greens and radical left wing De Linke. This indecisive electoral outcome has complicated things for Merkel. With few viable options at disposal, Merkel will now have to forge a coalition with the ideologically diverse conservatives, libertarians and environmentally conscientious parties. Merkel announced that her party will effectively conclude discussions with partners and form government by Christmas. Till then the grand coalition will attend to day to day issues.

Unlike the Grand Coalition of 2013, Merkel’s new coalition with ideologically diverse partners will reduce her leeway.  Even CDU’s sister party CSU threatened to desert. But allaying fears of new elections, Merkel promised a full term.  In all likelihood, Merkel would have to make many compromises. There is a possibility that aspirations of all Germans may not be represented proportionately since East Germany en masse voted for the AfD which will be excluded from coalition. In the meanwhile, CSU is pushing for including AfD in the coalition and called for a cap on the number of refugees, an option Merkel strongly resisted. Christian Linder of FDP expressed his unwillingness to join the coalition. They strongly oppose the European reforms proposed by Emmanuel Macron. While Greens set a precondition to upholding the obligations of Paris treaty and favored European reforms. Analysts even warned of marked polarization in Parliament. Left party has expressed its concern at the prospect of far-right entering the Parliament who are believed to be confrontational. They are often chided as vestiges of the old history and dubbed as being too nationalistic. Despite Schulz’s announcement, reports indicate that Merkel is in talks with SPD for government formation. Speculations are rife that a Jamaican Coalition (similar to colors of its flag) Black-Yellow-Green (CDU-FDP-Greens) might emerge.

German elections are truly unique for they meticulously follow democratic rigor by combining direct and proportionate representation. Germany has 61.5million voters who cast two ballots. One for the local representative and another for a party. Hence, compilation and analysis of election results are more complicated. Half of the Bundestag, German parliament is allocated for local representatives from various districts. Normally referred to first-past-the-post contest. Second vote is allotted to party. Any party getting less than 5% of national vote share doesn’t enter the Parliament. If a party gets 30% of national vote, 30% of seats are allotted to party in Bundestag. Though the number of seats in Bundestag are 598, it can be stretched to 800. Sometimes, when party sends more representative through first vote than they are entitled to, to compensate other parties, Bundestag is expanded. In the current elections, seven parties have crossed the threshold of 5% national vote. Hence, Bundestag must be expanded to accommodate all these parties. Accordingly, 2017 Budestag will have 709 seats- with CDU-246, SPD-153, AfD-94, FDP-80, Left-69 and Greens-67 making it largest Bundestag so far. Current Bundestag has 631 seats. Incidentally, the declining security situation an offshoot of open-door policy for refugees and a rise in terrorist attacks led to a sharp decline in CDU vote share.

Evidently, German elections stoked fresh fears in European countries which were relying on strong leadership of Merkel. Over the past decade, Merkel’s towering leadership anchored the EU (European Union) from weathering. But now her weakened domestic position will certainly diminish her ability to deliver on European stage. Subsequently, hopes of revitalizing the EU might receive a setback. Emmanuel Macron suggested European reforms for deeper European integration. Macron indeed discussed in length about the reforms with Merkel who seemingly signaled her approval. But now, coalition compulsions might force Merkel to slowdown. A subdued Merkel, ahead of crucial Brexit negotiations may not be a prospective for the EU stumbling under the pressure of arguments.

Moreover, growing popularity of Euro-sceptic right-wing parties in various countries like Italy, Netherlands, Belgium and in now Germany may not bode well for harmonious functioning of EU. Rise of AfD symbolized that Germany is not immune to anti-establishment parties.  AfD also capitalized peoples anger of Germany’s participation in eurozone bailouts. Right wing’s nationalistic position might affect Germany’s relations with Turkey and Poland.

Merkel’s open-door refugee policy, accelerated phasing out of nuclear policy post Fukshima nuclear-fall out and stopping military conscription eroded her domestic popularity. Germany spent 20 billion Euros last year to integrate 1 million Euros which was considered as economic burden on taxpayers by many. Burdened by the rising energy bills and wary of poor security analysts argue that people have shifted allegiance from CDU and voted for AfD which pushed for curbs on refugees and laid great emphasis on security. Essentially Merkel must make some important amendments to her policies to earn the confidence of conservative voters who drifted to AfD. Right now, there is a popular perception that anyone can easily enter Germany and seek asylum. She must now install mechanisms to check the identity of migrants and expel those failing to conform to German systems. A new energy policy that can reduce dependence on coal should be promoted. Germany should bolster cybersecurity and allocate 2% of GDP for budget for defence.

Merkel is reckoned as one of the most powerful leaders of the World consistently. Her studied leadership has become beacon of hope as Britain and US embraced protectionism. Her calm and competence amidst burgeoning refugee exodus catapulted her to the status of a decisive leader of the Europe. Her long, illustrious political career has been blemish-free. Even her economic legacy is unrivalled, she skillfully navigated through the worst economic recession of 2008 and contained spiraling unemployment rate to just 4%. German economy is now robust and looks promising. Above all, people still have faith in her leadership. More importantly, unlike other global leaders, she shunned the feminist label. She skillfully rose to higher echelons of power in a strident masculine party with “breathtaking ruthlessness”. People who worked with her disclosed that she never claimed credit for ideas but instead strived hard to build consensus. She handled alpha-males like President Putin with ease and earned the dignity, respect, and honor for what she is. But never claimed or aspired for concessions for being a woman.  Her legacy will forever be hailed for her grit, determination, and steadfast approach.  Moving ahead, Merkel can even seek a fifth term if she can assiduously address issues that can curb domestic angst.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Part 3: Can India shelter Rohingyas armed with religious agenda?

Central Government’s announcement of deportation of illegal Rohingyas citing security concerns elicited a flurry of responses. The decision which came in the wake of massive exodus of Rohingyas in country with huge religious diversity generated an unprecedented brouhaha. Meanwhile, right activists, liberals, politicians jumped in giving the issue a dangerous spin. Further a petition was lodged in Supreme Court challenging deportation of Rohingyas. A battery of a high-profile lawyers- Fali S Nariman, Prashant Bhushan, Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan, Ashwini Kumar and Colin Gonslaves teamed up to defend Rohingyas citing Article-14 (Right to Equality) and Article-21 (Right to Life) of Constitution of India. In response government has filed an affidavit in court stating that Rohingyas has terror links and hence their presence can threaten national security. Indeed

While the plight of innocent Rohingyas is a humanitarian crisis, investigation reports of intelligence agencies prompted Indian government to adopt a stringent approach. Modi’s endorsement of military crackdown during his state visit to Myanmar has rattled rights activists and puzzled Bangladesh battling the refugee crisis. But within days, India adopted a four-pronged approach to allay fears of Sheikh Hasina government and address the charges levelled against India by United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) chief.  Under the new multi-dimensional approach, India dispatched relief material to Bangladesh under “Operation Insaniyat”, offered assistance for development of Rakhine state, promised to support Bangladesh in eviction of illegal migrants and working together with Myanmar security forces in cracking down Rohingya militant organization.

Government’s decision of deporting illegal Rohingyas was based on the crucial inputs provided by Indian intelligence agencies which closely monitored the sectarian rivalries between Rohingyas and Buddhists. Reports indicated that LeT was providing training to Rohingya insurgents in Pakistan. Further, to foster unity among disgruntled Rohingya elements Hafiz Saeed formed an organization, Difa-e-Mussalman Arakan and helped the organization to forge links with other terror outfits in Pakistan and Bangladesh. All major militant outfits of Pakistan opened their branches in Arakan-Harkat-ul-Jihadi Arakan/AMM and Tehrik-e-Jihadi Arakan giving a new filip to Rohingya radicalization process. In 2013, terrorists nabbed in Bangladesh also confirmed assistance of ISI to Rohingyas during investigation. Political advisor to Sheikh Hasina, Hassan Togifque Imam told that ARSA has close links with Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen of Bangladesh and LeT of Pakistan and described ARSA as common enemy of India, Bangladesh and Myanmar. He claimed that Pakistan backed Rohingya secession movement since 1969. During 2012-13, Rohingyas through an organized illegal migration channels, settled in various parts of India. A large network of touts and agents facilitated illegal movement into India via Benapole-Haridaspur (West Bengal), Hilli (WB), and Sonamora (Tripura). What makes the entire process so very ominous is planned settlement of these illegal Rohingyas in sensitive areas like Jammu, Hyderabad, Delhi, West Bengal, and Rajasthan. In all other countries including Bangladesh refugees are settled in camps. But it is appalling that illegal Rohingya migrants who have entered India are settled in the hinterlands. As of now India provides shelter to 40,000 Rohingyas out of which 14,000 are reported to have registered with UNHCR. Of them, as per J &K assembly report, 13,400 are settled in Jammu with an interesting split up: Jammu-5,086; Jammu’s Samba district-634, Ladakh-7,664. Islamist organizations are increasingly pushing for settling Rohingyas in Jammu since it is the only Hindu-majority region of J&K while Buddhists are dominant population in Ladakh. J &K is a sensitive region and grappling with external and internal militancy, settling these illegal migrants would not only change the demographic but might turn region into a tinderbox. The state enjoys special status under Article-370 and permanent settlement of foreign subjects will have dangerous repercussions.

Islamist organizations like Jamaat-e-Islami and Shekhawat Centre are helping Rohingya in obtaining necessary documents for settlement. Already thousands of illegal Bangladeshis settled in border states of India are insidiously changing demography of the localities, a marked increase in crimes (drug trafficking, counterfeit currency exchange, arms &weapons manufacture) was reported. Security forces in October 2015, killed two terrorists in South Kashmir and one of them was identified as, Abdul Rehman al Arkani alias Chotta Burmi is a Rohingya. A couple of days back, Delhi police arrested Al-Qaeda operative Samiun Rahman at Shakarpur, a British national of Bangladeshi origin who was on a mission to radicalize Rohingyas. Delhi, Hyderabad and Mewat regions of Rajasthan are communally sensitive areas and their orchestrated settlement by Islamist organizations is at best indicative of larger sinister plan of destabilizing India.

It is unfortunate that rights activists, Libtards and politically parties having conveniently chosen to undermine recommendations of security agencies are now lashing at government ascribing deportation of illegal migrants as “religious discrimination”. It must be recalled that countries like Malaysia, Indonesia which share the same religious identity as Rohingyas refused to shelter them citing security reasons. Bangladesh too has been voicing similar concerns. Interestingly, unlike Tibetan in 1950s Rohingyas are not asylum seekers and hence activists who cite principle of “non-refoulement” must put their arguments to rest. India can’t be accused of being an illiberal democracy as despite being non-signatory of 1951 UN Refugees Convention or its 1967 Protocol, India with its limited resources hosted millions of refugees. India never sought financial assistance from UN for sheltering refugees.

Moreover, political parties by raking the issue of religious identity, stoked the passions of Muslims across the country. Expressing solidarity to Rohingya Muslims, at a huge rally Shia cleric Shabbir Ali Azad Warsi threatened central government over Rohingya deportation. He warned, “Don’t think that Rohingya Muslims are different from Muslims of India. We all Muslims are brothers. Don’t try to evacuate Muslims from Bengal. This is Bengal, not Assam, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh or Muzzaffarpur.” Curiously, leaders like Mamatha Banerjee in to consolidate their vote banks questioned the intent of government and its humanitarian credentials. Ironically, Banerjee never bothered to offer shelter to Hindus persecuted in Bangladesh. This issue invariably brings us to a valid question as why there is no pandemonium over persecution of either Hindus or Buddhists and their settlement at international platforms while the same institutions are brought to their knees if Muslims are threatened?  Even While the heart-rending tales of deprivation, starvation faced by Rohingya is unacceptable, a country with 1.3 billion population can’t risk the fundamental rights of security, equality of its own citizens for humanitarian causes.

It is pitiable that left-congress ecosystem is ready to give a freepass to national security despite serious security threat posed by Rohingyas. But defiant government politely urged the Supreme Court to desist from making any decisions since there can be no compromises on issues of National security. Further, does Supreme Court have jurisdiction over such issues? Meanwhile, Fali Nariman is urging Court to rope in NHRC for strengthening their humanitarian perspective. As pointed by R Jagannathan, may it is time, Supreme Court have a relook at its judgement of 2005 with respect to deportation of illegal Bangladeshis. Supreme court in unequivocal terms in the “State of Arunachal Pradesh V Khudi Ram Chakma” case alluded that countries which host subjects from countries on its territory reserves the right to either refuse or grant certain rights and even has the right to expel them. While subjects of this category are protected under international law, since Rohingyas entered India illegally, their duration of stay can be solely decided by India.

As of now, opposition parties are outcompeting each other in portraying themselves as saviors and peerless humanitarians turning deaf ear to warnings of security analysts and asserting that consolidation of vote banks is their utmost priority.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Part 2: Terror Links of Rohingyas

Rohingya issue has elicited varied responses from different countries. China which has vital stakes in Myanmar stayed short of criticizing its actions. China along with Russia blocked a resolution at UNSC condemning actions of Myanmar government at earlier occasions. Myanmar is once again rallying both countries to veto any resolution at UNSC. On September 8^th Muslim-majority countries during the World Parliamentary Forum on Sustainable Development adopted Bali Declaration condemning violence in Rakhine state. India stayed away from Bali Declaration. The West came down heavily on the Myanmar urging it to exercise maximum restraint. UN, UNHCR, Amnesty International referred this offensive as “cruel military operation”. UK has suspended training support for the Myanmar military, because of its treatment to Rohingyas.

Rights activists report that Rohingyas are poorly equipped to defend themselves against the scorched-earth policy adopted by the Tatmadaw (Myanmar military). But in reality, Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) unlike other armed insurgents have a different strategy. Unlike resistance armies of other ethnic groups in Myanmar, Rohingyas are not dressed in military outfit pinned with labelled batches. They freely mingle with villagers and after every low-grade attack, they simply retreat into the border regions of Bangladesh. Like Naxals in India, they launch guerilla attacks and mobilize villagers to attacks the security forces. While observers opine that actual number of ARSA fighters may be less, they painstakingly created an extensive propaganda-machinery. In a statement on Sep 14^th, ARSA said that it has no links with Al-Qaeda, ISIS or the Laskhar E Toiba and impressed that it is ready to work with security forces to drive away terrorists from Rakhine. Experts noted that it might be one of diversionary tactics of ARSA, as in its earlier avatar HaY forged nefarious connections with radical Islamic groups.

Indeed, renaming of HaY was an attempt by the Rohingya insurgents to stay away from religious connotations. But the origins and foundation of the group is deeply entrenched in radical Islam. ARSA’s mentor Abdus Qadoos Burmi, a Pakistani descent has strong link with LeT whose ideology is solely rooted in jihad. Qadoos has close links with Hafiz Saeed. ARSA’s hierarchy is replete of Rohingyas of Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent. Young men recruited by ARSA were trained along the Myanmar-Bangladesh border, Aceh in northern Sumatra by older war veterans of Afghan war. Reports indicate that ARSA has foreign fighters which include people from Indonesia, Thailand, Uzbekistan and Malaysia. Observers strongly object to claims of ARSA being a poorly-equipped or ill trained group considering the kind of attacks they launched on Myanmar security officials and local Buddhist monks on August 25^th.  

Other than, ARSA, little known, Rohingya militant group, headed by Abdus Qadoos Burmi, AMM (Aqa Mul Mujahideen) responsible for attacks in October 2016 was found to have strong Pakistan links. AMM is now known to have emerged from the HuJI-A (Harkat-ul-Jihadi Arakan). Its Pakistan links were firmly established with investigation reports finding huge similarity between IED used for attacks on Buthidaung Township May 4^th and Pakistani devices. The hub of AMM’s militant activities is Chittagong area and Mae Sot, Tak province of Thailand and supported by Pakistan deep state. Omar Faruk, who engineered attacks on Bangladesh ANSAR camp extended support to Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO). Pakistan has been instrumental in formation of groups like Jamaat-ul-Arakan and Difa-e-Arakan. Bangladeshi outfit Jamaat-ul-Islam, a branch of Pakistan group passed a resolution in Senate against Myanmar condemning Rohingya genocide. For decades, India has been cautioning world of Pakistan as the “mothership of terrorism”. But the World chose to ignore India’s warnings. Emboldened by West’s silence & China’s support which have varied strategic and economic interests, Pakistan relentlessly pursued its nefarious activities. As a result, the deep state which had uninterrupted flow of finances and weapons at its behest, extensively spread venomous roots in the region. Pakistani terror outfits which continues to threaten the stability and security of countries like Afghanistan and India has a vast terror network in Bangladesh. Irrefutable evidences now indicate that various Rohingya insurgent terror groups receive financial, ideological, and logistical support from Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups.

Four years after the Operation King Dragon, launched by Tatmadaw the local jihadists who have fled to Bangladesh formed the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO) in Cox’s Bazar. RSO received finances from Rohingya Diaspora. It soon established contacts with Al-Qaeda network in Pakistan and Afghanistan for weaponry support to its armed unit, Rohingya National Army (RNA). RNA launched its most successful attacks on Myanmar forces crossing the Naaf river in 1994. Later it simply dissolved and the leaders of RSO soon acquired properties with the funds raised for RNA. With increasing Pakistani influence, Rohingya movement soon acquired dimensions of a typical Jihadi war. Fundamentalist Islamic force became the guiding force of Rohingya insurgent groups.

Condemning violence against Rohingyas Masood Azhar leader of JeM (Jaish-e-Mohammed) in his organization’s weekly magazine Al-Qalam, gave a stirring call to Muslims across the World. He wrote, “It is because of the sacrifices of the Myanmar Muslims that the ummah is waking up and we are seeing new awakening among the Muslims of the world. All the Muslims of the World should unite for this cause. We have to do something. And do it urgently. Myanmar’s soil is earnestly waiting for the thumping sound of the footsteps of the conquerors”. Responding to this call thousands of people took to streets of Pakistan condemning the violence against Rohingya. Azhar brazenly whipped up emotions of Rohingya by lashing out at the Buddhist extremist leader, Ashin Wirathu. The article clearly demonstrates that jihadists are using the Rohingya issue to expand purview of their operations. Expressing their solidarity to Rohingyas, Indonesia’s militant group Islamic Defenders Fund (PFI) urged its volunteers to wage jihadi war alongside Rohingyas. Soon, Shakyh Abu Ibrahim al-Hanif, leaders of a IS offshoot in Bangladesh expressed their willingness to assist and support Rohingya insurgents. Ironically, Muslim scholars from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bangladesh, and India supported the opinions of most of these outfits. Interestingly, while the militant groups were successful in mobilizing relief supplies from various countries to Rohingya refugee camps, Muslim countries with business interests in Myanmar offered a little condemnation to Rohingya crisis.

The 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation, (OIC) of Muslim countries convened an urgent session to discuss Rohingya issue last week. OIC expressed “grave concern” over exodus of Rohingya but didn’t pressurize Myanmar to take tougher action immediately. Saudi Arabia is now competing with Russia to export oil to China. The crucial oil pipeline which carries Arab countries oil to landlocked province of Yunnan runs through the Rakhine state. Saudi Arabia needs support of Myanmar in protecting the oil line. Myanmar is potential trade partner of Indonesia. Similarly, Iran, Azerbaijan which has vital trade interests with Myanmar refrained from issuing a strong condemnation. While Pakistan militant outfits are reaching out to Muslims across the World to join Rohingya, Islamabad adopted a soft stance since Myanmar is about to purchase 16 JF-17 Thunder aircrafts co-developed by Pakistan and China. To claim moral-high ground, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Iran, Azerbaijan have pledged aid to Rohingya refugees.

The plight of Rohingya has now become a classic example of brutal military crackdown of the Myanmar army and the rampant penetration of Wahhabi ideology into this part of the region.  Arakan is slowly but certainly turning into a breeding ground for Islamic radicalization. The clandestine jihadi ideology has till now wreaked havoc in South Asia is now entering the South East Asian region. Philippines is battling to eliminate militant outfits who swore allegiance to ISIS since May. Reports of growing religious intolerance and glorification of radical ideology are emanating from Indonesia. Radicalized youth who fought along IS cadres are now slowly returning to Malaysia. Sporadic bomb blasts are raising concerns over presence of active militant groups in Thailand. ISIS having suffered worst losses is now eyeing South East Asia.  Together, escalation of militant activities can have threatening consequences on the region. This might have dangerous repercussion on the security of North-East and in the Bay of Bengal region. Global community must redress the situation at once, else the region might become a potential hub for Islamic insurgency. Evidently, unless nations collectively crackdown on the large jihadi network, Rohingya issue would tend to escalate periodically.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Part 1: Brewing Rohingya Crisis

After a deep lull of five years, Rohingya crisis reemerged as issue of intense global consternation. The current crisis, triggered by a fresh bout of violence launched by ARSA (Arakhan Rohingya Salvation Army) on August 25^th led to massive exodus of Rohingya refugees into Bangladesh. According to reports, 1000 Rohingya insurgents from 50 villages launched attacks on 24 police stations and a military base in Rakhine killing 32 security personnel. Subsequent, Myanmarese military crackdown led to unabated influx of Rohingyas into Bangladesh with UN estimates pegging the number to over 4,00,000. Bangladesh launched protested Myanmar government for failing to deescalate the situation and expressed concerns over reports of Myanmar military planting landmines across border. Soon this humanitarian disaster sparked international condemnation. Agencies like Amnesty International lashed out at Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi and Myanmar government for the ethnic cleansing of Muslim minority in Rohingya province.

Breaking weeks of silence amidst growing international censure, Suu Kyi, State counsellor who gave Ministerial Session at UNGA a miss, in her first public speech to nation reiterated that Myanmar is committed to restore peace and follow rule of law. Refusing to be subdued by international pressure, she welcomed the refugees for talks and promised to allow the entry verified refugees back into Myanmar. She asserted that “it is not the intention of Myanmar government to apportion blame or abnegate responsibility. We condemn all human rights violations and unlawful violations”. She refuted claims of violence against Rohingyas. Suu Kyi’s carefully worded speech which avoided making specific references to Rohingyas failed to instill confidence in world leaders, who criticized her for siding with military junta.  Suu Kyi for long had been darling of the West, who hailed her as champion of human rights. West felt reassured of restoration of peace in Myanmar, cowed down by decades of military dictatorship after Suu Kyi’s victory in the first ever democratic elections. Though Suu Kyi’s National League of Democracy emerged as forerunner in elections, she was denied presidential position. Instead she was installed in a specially created position of State Counsellor with reduced powers. Military retained three portfolios-defence, home and Border Affairs. Even Secretary General Antonio Guterres at the inauguration ceremony of UNGA sessions apprehended that, “We are all shocked by dramatic escalation of sectarian tensions in Myanmar’s Rakhine state.” Angered over her inability to stand up to military junta, several petitions are raised calling for stripping of her Nobel Peace Prize. While this in fact is a huge blow to her reputation, the Rohingya crisis, which is several centuries old is mired by controversies.

While UN claims of ethnic cleansing of Rohingya in Myanmar is heating up the global media, the issue began to created ripples in Indian discourse with Prime Minister announcing deportation of illegal Rohingya migrants back to Myanmar. The announcement which came weeks ahead of eruption of violence in Rakhine state, inflamed political and legal debates in Indian realm. Incidentally, Modi on his visit to Myanmar hasn’t raised the issue of deportation but towed its line and condemned Rohingya insurgent attacks on the security personnel and offered development aid to Rakhine province. India shares over 4000km long border with Myanmar. Any political, social, or ethnic disturbances in its immediate boundary has great implications on India’s fragile Northeast region. Myanmar in fact shares crucial intelligence reports of militant hideouts with India. Indeed, in February, India forewarned Myanmar of Rohingya insurgents of receiving support from Pakistan intelligence agencies and radical outfits. India apprised Myanmar’s NSA of Rohingya involvement in the Mahabhodi Temple blasts in July 2013. Besides, India’s economic and strategic interests are critically linked with Myanmar. Further to counteract an overriding influential Chinese presence and penetration in its immediate neighborhood, Modi maintained silence and refrained from rebuking Myanmar during his state visit.

Rohingya crisis which is believed to have stemmed out of Myanmar’s refusal to confer citizenship according to the 1982 Myanmar Nationality Law, has a long history. But the history and origins of the Rohingyas is presented to World in two different perspectives and unfortunately there is no credible authority to verify the authenticity of these contrasting historical versions. While Myanmar government maintains that Rohingyas are illegal migrants from Bangladesh and hence not a national race, Rohingya groups demand right to self-determination asserting Arakan as their home province.  Some say, Rohingyas were referred to as “Chittagonians” during Colonial times, and were termed as Bengalis till 1990. This ethnic group was referred to by different names -Rohingya Muslims, Muslim Arakanese and Burmese Muslims. Myanmar’s democratic Prime Minister U Nu (1948-62) used the term Rohingya. By 2014, Myanmar government stopped using the term Rohingya and persisted on terming them as Bengali.

By and large studies by different historians and anthropologists confirmed that this ethnic group had close links with undivided Bengal. During the colonial regime, British encouraged migration of Bengalis from Chittagong region to Arakan to work in the Paddy fields. Several historians confirmed that locals resented the relentless migration of not only Bengalis but Indians to Burma. Indeed, thousands of Muslims settled in the prosperous Arakan province which had leading Rice port Akyab. Soon the Muslim numbers swelled in the region and were elected as members of Legislative councils. The rift between native Arakanese and Muslims widened during the World War-II when Muslims sided with British and natives supported the Japanese. Polarization along the ethnic lines became more acute, inter-communal clashes intensified. Soon Muslims fled to northern region of Arakan dominated by British while Japan controlled the Buddhist majority region. Hostilities and intercommunal clashes soon spread to all provinces of Burma leading to fleeing of Muslims, Burmese Indians, Anglo-Burmese and British to Bengal (present day Bangladesh). During 1940’s Rohingya Muslims started separatist Pakistan Movement and wanted to merge Arakan into East Pakistan. To reward the unwavering loyalty British authorities considered helping Rohingya Muslims to secede from Burma and join Pakistan. Indeed, the North Arakan Muslim League has approached Jinnah, seeking his assistance in joining East Pakistan. But somehow, the proposal never materialized. After Burma’s independence in 1948, the community was recognized as ethnic nationality of Burma. When the military junta took control in 1962, Rohingya community were systemically deprived of political rights.

After Jinnah’s refusal, Rohingya’s supported Jihadi movement and founded Mujahid party with an aim of forming an autonomous Muslim state in Arakan. Initially during the democratic regime Mujahid party had free run. In 1978, the military government headed by General Ne Win launched Operation King Dragon to flush out insurgent Rohingyas who were fighting for independent Islamic State which eventually led to fleeing of over 2,50,000 Muslims into the neighboring Bangladesh. In the meanwhile, pro-democracy uprising began to gain ground by 1988. Overwhelmed by the popularity of non-violent democratic movement led by Suu Kyi, military junta placed her under house arrest in 1989. By 1990s Rohingyas suspended armed rebellion and began to develop a special narrative about Rohingya origins. Denying the Bengali origins, Rohingya scholars began to network extensively with international community claiming their origins to Arab seafarers. Ever since, Rohingya insurgents began to develop strong links with Wahhabi fundamental outfits. Subsequently, a dominant streak of Wahhabism began to slowly percolate into Rakhine state. Many Rohingyas are now Islamic fundamentalists. For the first time, in 1992, Burma reached a bilateral agreement with Bangladesh wherein 2,30,000 Rohingyas were repatriated between mid-1992 and 1997 from the refugees camp in Cox’s bazar.

In the meanwhile, Myanmar military junta to bolster Burmese nationalism highly favored and sided with Theravada Buddhists and began to discriminate other minorities. US even alleged that military rule has even provoked the Buddhists against minorities leading to riots. In 2012, a series of riots erupted into a pogrom leading to displacement of 1,40,000 people who were confined to camps in Myanmar. The outbreak of violence led to formation of armed group Harakah al-Yaqin (HaY) or movement of faith by Ataullah abu Ammar Junjuni, born in Karachi to an immigrant Rohingya who later migrated to Mecca. Ethnic rivalries began to deteriorate and in 2015, Rohingya refugees termed as “boat people”, began to flee to Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and Bangladesh along Straits of Malacca and Andaman Sea. All countries barring Bangladesh turned these stateless people deeming them as threat to national security. In October 2016, Rohingya insurgents attacked Burmese border posts along the Bangladesh border triggering fresh cycle of violence and military crackdown.

Burdened by the unending cycles of refugee influx, Bangladesh in 2016 initiated a plan of relocating Rohingya to an island Thengar Char. But this proposal was meted with substantial opposition. Human rights activists raised concerns about the living conditions of the place since it was water logged and prone to pirate attacks.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Cassini’s dead dive into the planet Saturn

The most spectacular, ambitious space mission Cassini waved final goodbye, plunging into Saturn’s atmosphere on September 15^th, 2017. The orbiter commissioned to study Saturn system began its journey on October 15^th, 1997 with Titan IVB/Centaur carrying the orbiter and European Space Agency’s (ESA) Huygens Probe lifting off from the Cape Canaveral. The mission a cooperative effort of NASA, ESA and Italian Space Agency performed 127 close flybys of Saturn’s moon-Titan in the past 20 years has provided valuable information about the sixth planet of the Solar System.

The spacecraft had two elements- Cassini Orbiter and Huygens probe that reached Saturn in July 2004. The probe-orbiter duo was designed to carry out 27 investigations. Orbiter has 12 instruments which included spectrometers, imaging systems, dust analyzer, radio, radar, both optical and microwave sensing instruments for receiving, analyzing data, making precise distance measurements, measuring quantity and composition of dust particles, strength of plasma and radio waves. Three Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTG)s power the Orbiter and instruments on board.

Huygens Probe designed by ESA was a hard shellfish like structure with two modules: Entry Assembly Module and Descent Module. Probe descended on the surface of Titan on January 15^th, 2005 in two hours twenty-seven minutes. While Entry Assembly Module contained all equipment needed to control Huygens after its separation from Cassini. Descent Module had all the instruments and three parachutes. Huygens had six probes to measure thermal properties of atmosphere, wind speed, flow of radiation, chemical composition of Titan, collect aerosols and an acoustic sounder.

During the long momentous journey, Cassini orbited Saturn 293 times with its trajectories corrected hundreds of times. A major portion of the propellant was expended in lifting off the spacecraft from the Earth. By the time, Cassini reached Saturn, it had less than 1/30^th of the propellant needed for trajectory changes. With a fraction of fuel left to carry out the assignments of the mission, navigation team used Saturn’s moon Titan for lifting and swinging the spacecraft up and down. A single flyby of Titan at an altitude of 1000 kilometers gave it a velocity of 800 meters per second, equal to velocity provided by one third of the Cassini’s total propellant making “Titan the engine of the tour”. Thus, by the end of the mission, Cassini achieved a change in velocity of 90,000 meters per second from Titan flybys, equal to 37 times the velocity provided by the propellant. The gravitational force of Titan helped in making sharp turn whenever Cassini flew closer to it and acted as pivot point for Cassini. Propellant was judiciously used to make small corrections or for bringing back spacecraft to tread along the intended trajectory. Each Titan flyby provided the necessary speed and directionality to orbit Saturn that lasted for several months. While Titan played a crucial role in changing the trajectories of Cassini, its exact position is still a mystery. Besides, space navigation team also encountered difficulties in tracking location of Cassini. By calculating the time taken by the signal sent from Earth to Cassini and received from the spacecraft, navigation team would calculate the relative distance of spacecraft from Earth.

Prior to Cassini mission, earliest observations of Titan and its imaging were done by Voyager-1 and 2 in 1980 and 1981. Cassini is the first spacecraft that orbited Saturn and has been explored the planet for the past 13 years. One Saturn year is equal to Earth’s 29 years. Cassini meandered through 60 moons of Saturn and provided vital details of its two moons-Titan and Enceladus which caught the attention of scientists. The fierce jets emanating from the ridges in the Southern Hemisphere of Enceladus, moon of Saturn fascinated astronomers. The plumes referred to as “Tiger Stripes”, upon analysis were found to contain molecular Hydrogen, traces of methane, ammonia, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, salts and simple organic molecules, indicating probable existence of simple life forms. Cassini’s images revealed existence of a frozen ocean on Enceladus. While images of the seas, lakes, rivers and clouds filled with liquid methane and ethane on Titan’s surface provided by Huygens Probe changed the perspectives of scientists towards the gas giant Saturn’s planet system. Titan and Enceladus were in fact found to contain ingredients for supporting life. Titan is the only place on Solar System other than the Earth where liquid streams of methane and ethane are found, not water. Scientists therefore decided to plunge Cassini into Saturn’s atmosphere as they believed that a wandering orbiter upon collision with either of these potential habitable planets might contaminate their nascent ecosystem. Further spacecraft can collect crucial data as it moved much closer before eventually getting lost in the Saturn’s atmosphere. This might help scientists to unravel mysteries pertaining to the iconic rings of Saturn. This death dive is expected to yield cryptic clues about the evolution and formation of this giant gas planet as all instruments on board are still working.

Cassini orbiter has provided wonderful images of storms on Saturn with clouds reaching speeds of 150 meters per second and probed the earth-sized jet streams at both poles of Saturn that exist in all seasons but change colors. It studied Saturn’s moon Daphnis, 8 kilometers across, but gravitational pull strong enough to create ripples in Saturn’s rings. Cassini captured beautiful images of Saturn rings, which are “flattest structures known to man”, family portrait of Saturn’s moons-Janus, Pandora, Enceladus, Mimas and Rhea lined up together. Cassini spotted Southern lights on Saturn. The mission found that the haze-shrouded moon of Saturn, Titan is a repertoire of organic chemicals, the precursors of prebiotic chemistry. It investigated cycling of liquid methane through the complex web of clouds enveloping skies of Titan and the great seas on its surface. By unraveling depths of Titan seas, it opened new realms in the era of extra-terrestrial oceanography and reinforced possibility of occurrence of complex chemical process different temperatures and atmospheric conditions. This mission provided invaluable clues to scientists laying foundation for future missions which can collect signs of biology across other giant planets and their moons. Scientists are keen on using the trick of using moon’s gravitation to nudge spacecraft in the Clipper Mission, designed to explore Jupiter’s Moon, Europa. Clipper Mission is scheduled to be launched in 2020.

In its two-decadal momentous journey, Cassini travelled 7.9 billion kilometers, collected 635 GB data that can keep scientists busy for decades. Amount spent on construction, development and maintenance of this mission for 20 years was $3.9 billion. On September 11^th, Cassini using the gravitational push of Titan propelled itself into a collision course with Saturn’s atmosphere. In the early morning hours of September 15^th Cassini will dive into the planet. Like the illustrious Rosetta Spacecraft of ESA launched in 2004 which plunged into 67P/ Churyumov-Gerasimenko Comet, ending the mission on September 30^th, 2016, Cassini will meet its end. 

@ Copyrights reserved.