Attack on Chinese Consulate at Karachi raises fresh doubts China’s strategic investments

Rapid political developments and swift changes of regimes in Asian countries so far have highlighted the vagaries of the Chinese investments. Notwithstanding burgeoning global concerns Beijing has been assiduously expanding its global foot print. At a time when Maldivian new foreign minister is expected to travel to Beijing to take a stock of Chinese investments in the Archipelago, reports of attacks of Chinese consulate in posh South Karachi generated a new buzz. The timely intervention of Pakistan security forces thwarted attempts of the militants to enter the consulate. In the cross fire that lasted for an hour, seven people including the three-armed militants lost their lives. Sindh Police successfully rescued all the 21 in the consulate and shifted them to save place.

Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) soon claimed responsibility for the attacks. Pakistan launched military operation against Baloch insurgents which led to death of separatist leader Nawab Akbar Bhugti in 2005. Soon various separatist groups regrouped and intensified armed struggle against Pakistani establishment since 2006. Baluchistan, the resource-rich south west province of Pakistan is gateway to the Gwadar deep port, the jewel in the crown on the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). China and Pakistan signed $50 billion CPEC touted as corner stone of BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) in 2014. Within few years, both countries ambitiously revised the CPEC and the worth of projects under the ambit of CPEC currently is $62 billion. The pivotal objective of CPEC has been developing an unparalleled connectivity between the restive Xinjiang province of China and the Gwadar port which opens into Arabian Sea.  Accordingly, CPEC included- a slew of infrastructure development projects- motorways, roadways, railways, oil pipelines, hydroelectric projects, cyber connectivity. To initiate dozens of projects, a vast majority of Chinese companies working for CPEC began to descend on Pakistan. Unlike other countries, China employs its own citizens for projects.

Baluchistan province which is the hub of CPEC became preferred home for thousands of Chinese workers engaged in the construction projects. Steady infiltration of Chinese into Baloch province exacerbated the angst of Balochis who have been fighting the surreptitious invasion of Pakistan in 1948. Baluchistan the largest and least populated province of Pakistan despite its rich mineral deposits is the least under-developed province. Unlike the richer Punjab province in its immediate neighbourhood, nearly 45% of Balochis lived in absolute poverty. Balochis felt exploited.  After the ratification of CPEC project, Pakistani establishment apprised Balochis of its crucial role in poverty alleviation of the region. But China imported men and material vanquishing all hopes of any economic gains to the local economy. Young Balochis were even denied of gainful employment. With the province slowly infiltrated by Chinese men, Baloch feared that they might soon become a minority in the province. As per conservative estimates around 30,000 Chinese people are believed to be living in Baluchistan reiterating their fears of turning into a colony. They began vehemently opposing Chinese investments and escalated liberation struggle.

Earlier in August Baloch separatist forces attacked a bus carrying Chinese engineers in the Baluchistan province. Since 2014 at least 44 Chinese nationals were killed in Pakistan working for the CPEC. Two Chinese tutors were kidnapped and killed by Pakistani IS. For decades, Baloch separatist forces have been carrying out armed struggle against Pakistan forces for unfairly exploiting the resources of the province. The region has been a tinderbox. To ensure completion of CPEC, Pakistan has raised a 15,000 strong force to protect Chinese investments. Decades of oppression, forcible Islamisation of the secular province, attempts to annihilate the ethnic identities have exacerbated the worst fears of Balochis.

Given the opaque nature of Chinese negotiations the larger perspective and strategic objectives of Beijing to be pursued under CPEC have by and large remained a closely guarded secret. As per Pakistani media reports of 2017, Top International Engineering Corporation (TIEC) under the first phase of the CPEC project announced plans to build houses for 500,000 Chinese professionals in Baluchistan by 2023. The Mega Chinese community centre in Gwadar called China Pak Hills was earlier known as International Port City with the Gwadar Development Authority.

Lawrence Sollins, a retired Colonel of US Army Reserve through a series of articles uncovered the details of the CPEC, which he calls it as China Pakistan Military Corridor. Terming the economic cooperation is just a façade, the key aspect of CPEC is hard power cooperation. Under the flagship of BRI, through CPEC, China aims to expand connectivity to Central, South and West Asia. It intends to dominate and control the Persian Gulf, sea lines of communication and choke points of Indian Ocean. In the process Beijing intends to monitor activities of US in the Persian Gulf and outflank the US naval base of Diego Garcia. China’s quest for gaining access to Arabian Sea began in 2001 with the signing of an agreement for development of Gwadar port, 180 nautical miles from Strait of Hormuz. Construction began in 2002 and the port became operational by 2008. By 2013 China obtained operational rights of Gwadar port.

Simultaneously, in 2008 Pakistan Navy acquired 2500 acres of land in Gwadar district for implementation of new security arrangement for Pakistan’s coast called the Regional Maritime Security Patrol. Subsequently Pakistan Navy intensified efforts to acquire land along the Gwadar coast line. It raised Coastal Security and Harbour Defence Force with surveillance equipment stationed at the Jiwani port and prepared enough ground for developing a satellite of naval bases (Pasni, Ormara) along the Makran coast line. With the launch of CPEC all these military operations are projected as economic activities aimed to give a massive fillip to the socio-economic development of Baluchistan. Under the banner of CPEC, Pakistan military relentlessly carried out the task of acquiring several thousands of acres of land as part of Gwadar Development Agency to be handed over to China for further development. Hundred miles from Gwadar, Pakistan opened new naval base Turbat. In February when talks of China acquiring port Jiwani for military purpose gained traction, a Chinese submarine visited the region.

In April 2017, Pakistan signed an agreement handing over the operations of Gwadar port for 40 years to Chinese Overseas port Holding company. Islamabad announced commencement of joint Sino-Pakistan patrols in Indian Ocean. By December both countries agreed to set up weapons testing range at Sonmiani, seat of Pakistani Space research  in Baluchistan province. According to some reports, China is planning to build a long tunnel at Sonmiani similar to one at Yulin province for storage and maintenance of nuclear subs for ease of access to the Arabian Sea. Countries have launched plans to develop island of Astola located between naval bases Ormara and Pasni and adjacent to vital sea lines. Exploiting the geographical and strategic significance of Baluchistan province, China made the region the corner stone of its ties bolstering its global ambitions all under the seemingly innocuous soft diplomacy.

Considering the depth of the burgeoning Sino-Pakistan military cooperation under the ruse of CPEC, despite the attacks on Chinese consulate, both sides agreed that they should be vigilant against those forces which attempt to drive a wedge in Beijing-Islamabad cooperation. Imran Khan said, “The attack was intended to scare Chinese investors and undermine CPEC”.

Given the scale of extensive build-up of military infrastructure in the region, separatist elements who realised the vacuity of socio-economic development progress in the region, miffed by Pakistan falsities began targeting Chinese investments. The latest attack on the consulate is indeed an attempt to draw international attention towards dubious concept of Win-win scenario of BRI. A video footage released by the BLA subsequently unequivocally refers to the exploitative nature of Chinese investments. Unlike other attacks in Pakistan, this was devoid of Islamist elements and the perpetrators voiced out their concerns regarding CPEC in English.

Countries with working democracies have overwhelmingly turned down Chinese investments through popular verdict where people voted pro-China leaders in Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Maldives out of power. But in a name-sake democracy like Pakistan, affected groups are now expressing their strongest disapproval by attacking Chinese consulates/ properties and Chinese citizens. This is not just one of the incidents, in 2016, Chinese consulate was attacked at Bishkek by the disgruntled elements.

Countries are now calling the bluff of China’s newest form of imperialism. Increasingly smaller countries are approaching IMF with debt issues. Even IMF beset with debt troubles of Pakistan, Angola and Zambia is growing wary of Chinese investments. As of 2014 around 1/6^th of small nations are mired in debts presently 45% of low-income countries are engulfed by this crisis. Most of these countries are part of the China’s flagship BRI. The report even indicates that China has chosen 78% of countries labelled as Ba2 category of non-investment or junk level as participants of BRI. Together these developments are raising serious concerns about China’s serious lack of due diligence. Djibouti, Zambia and Kenya are now at the verge of ceding ports, energy installations and broadcasting corporations to China as part of debt servicing plans.

China’s envisioned model of global financing for infrastructure development exposed the glaring connectivity deficit in the emerging nations and sheer magnitude of funding shortage. In absence of reliable financial institutions, countries keen on lifting the nations from economic throes are becoming victims of Chinese generosity which comes with strings. This scenario presents an excellent opportunity for nations or a consortium of nations willing to assist, finance and share technological know-how to developing/third world countries in building extensive connectivity networks. China’s tall claims of reshaping the global trade, financial, infrastructure, investment through flagship connectivity projects as of now failed to live up to its expectations. Touted as Marshall Plan equivalent, China’s ambitious initiatives are proving to be much riskier and less reliable.

@ Copyrights reserved.

India making up for lost ground in Maldives

The political turmoil in Maldives which has been brewing since February came to an end after the Presidential elections in September. But even after Mohammed Solih’s surprise victory in the elections, the situation in Maldives remained turbulent as President Yameen refused to concede defeat claiming rigged elections. After congratulatory messages began to pour in for Solih and under international duress perhaps, Yameen reluctantly agreed to step down. Since September people who closely follow Maldives believed that Yameen may not give-up power rather easily. But despite some anxious moments, Solih has sworn in as seventh president of Maldives on November 17^th in an event attended by representatives from 46 countries. Prime Minister Narendra Modi who was invited to the swearing in ceremony accepted the invitation and attended the event. His presence not only reinforced India’s interest in resetting ties with Maldives but also ensured smooth transition of power.

Lying along Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC) in the Indian Ocean, 500 nautical miles from shores of India, a stable Maldives is extremely pivotal for India’s security. China having adopted aggressive power projection mode aside asserting dominance in the South China Sea (SCS) region turned its attention to Indian Ocean. Dragon ventured into the region under the guise of participating in anti-piracy operations gave wings to its encirclement policy of India. China’s economic development is dependent on the energy imports from the middle east and for its safe and unrestricted passage through the seas, it unveiled “String of Pearls”. Accordingly, it started establishing naval bases closer to the SLOCs and choke points. In the process, it fostered close economic and trade links with India’s immediate neighbours in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).

Maldives comprising a chain of 26 atolls and spread in the expanse of the Indian Ocean and located in Arabian Sea garnered Chinese attention. In 2011 during President Nasheed’s regime China established embassy in Male ever since Chinese investments through infrastructure projects began to flood the island.  Bilateral ties rapidly gained momentum under President Yameen who came to power in 2013. The engagement reached such dizzying heights that Yameen cancelled Male airport expansion project allotted to Indian conglomerate GMR and awarded it to a Chinese company, Beijing Urban Construction Group Company. To curry favour China, Yameen promulgated constitutional amendment to allow foreigners with investment of more than $1 billion to own land in Maldives. Upon completion of the project at least 70% of the land must be reclaimed from ocean. Known for its reclamation prowess, China was tipped to be a major beneficiary.

In a span of five years, China initiated dozens of infrastructure projects and became leading investment partner of Maldives. Despite domestic opposition, Yameen leased Feydhoo Finolhu an uninhabited island close to Male airport for 50 years at a throw away price of $ 4 million. He signed both OBOR (One Belt one Road) and AIIB (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank). The sheer number of the projects and absence of transparency in Chinese projects awarded without open bidding at inflated prices raised fears of massive corruption. Maldivians worse fears came true when days before his swearing ceremony Solih met Chinese ambassador who apprised him of outstanding debt to China as $3 billion (twice the Maldives yearly revenues) against official estimate of $1.5 billion. Staggering debt amounts has skewed the precarious debt-revenue balance tourism dependent Maldivian economy. Maldives is joined the club of countries ensnared by debt-trap diplomacy of China. Panic signals in Maldives conforms to the fact that China’s touted as “win-win” development is a big hog-wash. Viewed through a geopolitical prism, crisis in Maldives was thus far dubbed as fall out of great power rivalry between India and China. But now it turns out that China’s debt trap diplomacy has been instrumental in pushing the island to an edge. Under the pretext of guarding its investments China is interfering in political, economic affairs of independent countries paving way for “neo imperialism”.

Chinese interference into affairs of its partner nations has become so prominent that its investments have been major electoral issue in Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Maldives. Prime Minister Mahathir Muhammed who swept polls in Malaysia aside initiating corruption probe against the pliant ousted leader Najib Razak has even cancelled infrastructure projects worth $22.5 billion, Pakistan revised $62 billion worth CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor), Myanmar scaled back the Kyuakphu port development project to $1.3 billion from $ 9 billion and several African countries are mulling cancellation of Chinese investments to avoid debt trap. With a seemingly pro-India regime in charge in Maldives, India is believed to have checkmated the dubious agenda of China. Maldives perilous economic situation vindicates India’s reservations towards BRI. Despite unprecedented Chinese efforts to have India on board in its infrastructure initiative BRI (Belt Road Initiative), New Delhi refused to fall for China’s charm offensive and held its ground. Reinstatement of Solih government is thus a of double delight for India as it busted the China’s “win-win” proclamation regarding BRI.

To turn the uninhabited islands into tourist destinations, Yameen leased them out to private companies against government laws. Chinese companies leased over seven islands through closed bidding. To have its way in Maldives, China supported Yameen’s authoritarian regime. When political crisis erupted following the proroguing of Parliament in Maldives, several countries called for restoration of democracy in the island. But China despite stating non-interference in domestic affairs of other countries rushed a fleet of 11 frigates towards Indian Ocean signalling its support to despotic Yameen regime. December last year, Yameen has rushed the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with China even as opposition staged a boycott questioning the fast-tracking of the process without legitimate scrutiny. This raised serious doubts about Yameen’s intentions who in 2014 had diverted tens of millions of tourism revenue to his personal accounts. Three months later it emerged that Yameen obtained the approval of Parliament for the Protocol for Establishment of Joint Ocean Observation Station between Maldives and China during the ratification of FTA. As per the agreement China can establish an observatory on Makunudhoo atoll along the one the most important shipping route in Indian Ocean which is close to Indian waters. This intensified India’s fears of China’s strategic plans of establishing a permanent military base in its backyard.  Maldivian saga has even exposed China’s grave disregard for democracy, human rights violation, rule of law and its callous indifference in carrying out business with despotic leaders.

Maldives has always advocated India First Policy. But Yameen singularly drifted the island nation into Chinese orbit. He even steered country away from cosmopolitan disposition towards dogmatic Islam ideology. In the past five years, the archipelago has turned into a hot bed for radical extremism with Yameen deepening ties with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Giving massive fillip to strained Indo-Maldivian relations under Yameen. Ending Maldivian isolation under previous regime, India convinced IORA (Indian Ocean Rim Association) members to admit Maldives into the club. On November 2^nd Maldives officially became member of IORA. At a time when strategists were writing down Modi’s “Neighbourhood First Policy”, with his extensive outreach to Maldives, he silenced critics as of now. Four and half years into his term, Maldives is the only country Modi hasn’t visited in the immediate neighbourhood. In a bid to make up for the lost ground in Maldives under Yameen, before departing for oath-taking ceremony, in a facebook post Modi wrote “I will convey to the new Maldivian government …. The desire of my government to work closely for realisation of developmental priorities, especially in the areas of infrastructure, health care, connectivity and human resource development”. 

Modi was the only highest ranked official to attend the inauguration ceremony. Both leaders held bilateral talks after the ceremony and released a joint statement. It states, “During the meeting, both leaders agreed on the importance of maintaining peace and security in the Indian Ocean and being mindful of each other’s concerns and aspirations for the stability of the region”. They expressed immense confidence in “renewal of close bonds of friendship and cooperation”. India has been traditional partner and security provider in the Indian Ocean region and maintains close relations with its neighbours. But Yameen’s embrace of China has created rifts in the historic relationship. Solih promised an “India First Policy” for Maldives and a day after Modi’s return, Maldives indicated that it would keep helicopters gifted by India. In June Yameen has issued notice to India to remove the helicopters and even refused to renew visas of Indian Navy personnel stationed in Maldives for the maintenance of the choppers. Infusing fresh energy in bilateral ties Modi assured Solih of “India’s firm commitment in assisting the Maldives to achieve sustainable social and economic development”. Solih sought help from India and US to pull out economy from a mountain of debt and in tracking billions of Rufiyaa missing from the state coffers due to corruption and embezzlement.

Though Solih avoided making any mention of China and debt trap in his inaugural address, critics in Maldives minced no words that China led investment project boom has plunged country in debts. They expressed concerns over the lopsided trade under FTA with China. While Maldives imported goods worth $342 million, exports to China between January to August accounted for mere $265,270. Former President Nasheed currently the adviser of Maldives Democratic Party termed the FTA as “one-sided treaty”. Soon a senior law maker announced that Maldives will pull out of FTA. While China expressed faith that Maldives will make “right choice” on FTA, the ongoing China’s trade war with US and American allegations of China’s corrupt practices now stand vindicated. Maldives announcement comes a day after China was snubbed by Nauru and earlier by Papua New Guinea.  In a marked drift from the China’s orbit Maldives is all set to re-join Common Wealth Group.

India has to be very cautious of China’s fierce geostrategic ambitions and its justification of encroaching territories in India’s maritime vicinity. Having imbibed the strategies of European colonists, China is using similar nefarious tactics of bribing and rescuing pliant leaders from international scrutiny and sanctions. Dismantling of democracy and chaos in Sri Lanka serve as a classic example to China’s debt imperialism. Unfortunately, despite the fears of entrapment, Maldives can’t risk cancelling Chinese investments. But India can earn the trust and faith of neighbours through a benign rise and by acting promptly on its promises.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Sita Ram Goel's Hindu Temples: What Happened to them? Book Review

Supreme Court, the highest judicial authority of India has yet again postponed hearing the Ramajanmabhoomi Mandir (RJM) issue. The case has been languishing under the ambit of the SC for more than seven years now. This time again, citing, “we have our own priorities” and calling for instituting an appropriate bench for daily hearings of the issue postponed it to January 2019.  A section of society echoed SC’s views and questioned the urgency of resolving nearly 500-year old dispute. Others believed that RJM issue would cede undue political mileage to parties’ adept in milking the religious and cultural sentiments of people before crucial assembly elections in five states. But invariably, SC’s postponement tactics appeared to be in line with the arguments of Kapil Sibal, advocate of Sunni Wakf Board who vociferously argued scheduling the hearing the RJM case to after 2019 elections.  

While the momentum of the temple issue began to gain ground, to educate myself about Hindu temples, I laid my hands on the highly recommended two-volume series on Hindu Temples by Indian Historian Sita Ram Goel. Vol-1:  Hindu Temples What Happened to them: A Preliminary Survey and Vol-2: Hindu Temples What happened to them: The Islamic Evidence. These books are considered as the most authoritative compilation of Hindu temples in the Indian sub-continent.

The first volume is compendium of articles written by various scholars- Ram Swarup, Harsh Narain, Abhas Kumar Chatterjee, BB Lal, Rizwan Salim, Koenraad Elst, Arun Shourie, and Alexander Cunningham. It contains a list of over 2000 Muslim monuments built over razed temples with the materials from Hindu temples. The second volume has an exhaustive list of foreign Muslim invasions, their relentless temple plunder, destruction and eventual demolition of temples.  Comprising of extensive references from over 80 different treatises written by Muslim historians the second volume contains an authentic record of ruthless destruction of Hindu temples across India by various Muslim invaders.

Instead of succumbing to shallow intellectualism of issuing blanket statements based on random and select works, the author painstakingly collates available Persian sources to make authoritative and unbiased claims. Wavering from the tradition of seeking refuge in the pleasantries of appeasing the Muslim community in India Goel makes sharp observations pertaining to Islam theology. He trounces Islam apologetics for reinforcing that Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace and tears into the iconoclastic zeal of the Muslim invaders. For long the Marxists historians invented theories to portray Muslim rulers as benevolent messiahs and presented them as native rulers. But Goel unapologetically hits back at the leftist historians by questioning their intentions in deliberately falsifying, distorting and diligently omitting instances that oozed the fervent Islamic iconoclasm. In a bid to glorify Muslim invaders they gave clean chit to the Muslim theology. Though concocted theories, Indians were made to believe that Muslim rulers plundered temples out of greed and lust for treasure. Stating that temples repositories of precious metals, gems, jewellery, semi-precious stones became targets for plunder and loot. They argued that Muslim rulers attacked temples to maintain their armies and for administrative purposes. Further they justified all such destructions claiming that temples being cultural and religious hubs of Hindus also acted as centres of rebellion. It became inevitable for the rulers to destroy such places to quell insurgencies. But never mentioned that mosques, idgahs, dargahs, mazaras, maqbaras, madrasas and monuments were built over the rubbles of destroyed temples. Baring the Jama Masjids majority of the Muslim structures were built over bulldozed Hindu temples. The remnants of destroyed temples are often laid at the footsteps of Jami Masjids so that “believer” could trample over Kafirs idols to ascertain their supremacy.  These Masjids are built from the remains of Hindu temples.

Exonerating Muslim rulers of iconoclasm, historians meticulously asserted that historical mosques replaced the pre-existing Hindu temples without bothering to mention how such a sudden transition occurred. Top-notch Indian historians churned out stories of Hindu temples that subject years of neglect suffered damage and Muslim rulers eventually erected Muslim structures in their place. As a matter of fact, Hindu kings patronised temples and personally looked after the upkeep and maintenance of temples. They assigned vast acres of land for the purpose of smooth running of temples. For decades, none of the recklessly churned out specious theories of Marxist historians who dominated the academia remained unchallenged. Perhaps Sita Ram Goel’s books provide detailed account of epigraphic and historical evidence corroborating iconoclastic zeal of Muslims.

First volume contains a detailed account of the Hindu Temples converted or whose debris was used to build Muslim shrines/monuments across India since first Islamic invasion in 650 ACE till 18^th century. Though the list is exhaustive, it is not complete and is first of its kind. The author believes that it is just tip of iceberg and appeals young historians to compile a record of Muslim iconoclasm. Fresh excavations from Archaeological Survey of India of some of the historical sites, seats of Muslim occupation are now uncovering new details. But none of the reputed Indian historians ever questioned the foundations of mass plunder of Hindu temples and the Islamic theology which inspired the swordsmen to kill thousands of people, capture the booty, raze temples, convert people enmasse into Islam and sell Hindus as slaves. While the Muslim histories took pride in the iconoclastic zeal of Muslims invaders and frequently cited the Quran and Sunnah to support despicable violence unleashed on Hindus, Indian historians refrained from speaking Muslim theology.

The book contains the iconic exchange of letters between Syed Shahabuddin pioneer of All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) who challenged intellectuals to contest Muslims claim over the Ramajanmabhoomi. In response to the pamphlets issued by JNU and other historians, Dr Harsh Narain and Abhas Kumar Chatterjee, a civil servant published rebuttals in Indian Express. The lively debate through letters is worth a read since it exposes the nexus between the Islamic imperialists who employed leftist historians to peddle lies. Interestingly when the government called both parties, AIBMAC and VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad) to resolve the issue peacefully, AIBMAC in their defence produced a pile of newspaper references and vast literature of polemics. Their arguments were devoid of logic nor backed by hard facts.  But the cabal managed to create pernicious doubts in the minds of Hindus through vicious propaganda on Hindu claims over the supremely important site. Above all it includes an article of Prof BB Lal who called the bluff of leftist historians who debunked archaeological evidences that indicated a 11^th century Hindu temple beneath the Babri Mosque. Despite religious, historical, archaeological, mythological evidences establishing Ayodhya as birth place of Lord Rama, leftists continued to demand more evidence. An in depth understanding of Ramajanmabhoomi issue is pivotal for Hindus to reclaim temples. Besides, it reinforces the fact that leftist historians known for their hostility towards Hinduism will continue to defend the indefensible through fallacious and specious arguments. By changing goal posts, they will try to buy time and drag on the issue for eternity. 

Volume-I

The scale of plunder, loot and destruction suffered by the Hindu temples especially those of great religious significance and prominence is just indescribable. Perhaps, this might be the reason why it is difficult to Indian references in old texts of this unspeakable trauma and brutality. While Persian historians paid rich tributes to the rulers who ordered such large-scale demolitions and hailing them as dearest one to Allah. Muslim histories have generous recordings of temple demolitions.

From among the 80 different sources quoted by Goel in Volume:2, the following is an account of the brutal attack on Somnath recorded in “Tarikhul-I-Hind” written by Abu Rihan Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Biruni al Khwarizmi who spent forty years in India. Documenting the expeditions of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (997-1030) to Somnath, he wrote “The linga he raised was the stone of Somnath, for soma means the moon and natha means master, so that the whole word means master of the moon. The image was destroyed by Prince Mahmud, may God be merciful to him! AH-416. He ordered the upper part to be broken and the remainder to be transported to his residence, Ghaznin, with all its coverings and trappings of gold, jewels and embroidered garments. Parts of it has been thrown into the hippodrome of the town, together with the Cakrasvamin, an idol of bronze, that had been brought from Taneshar. Another part of the idol from Somnath lies before the door of the mosque of Ghaznin, on which people rub their feet to clean them from dirt and wet”. Indeed, the second volume is replete of such iconoclastic expeditions of Muslim rulers. Forsaking the tradition of asking inconvenient questions, Goel at the end of the book encloses a questionnaire to Marxist historians to take up the challenge of contesting the contents of the book with evidence-based facts. Till now, historians deflected the tough questions posed to them by citing random instances of Hindu rulers destroying Buddhist and Jain monuments. Goel rebutted this orchestrated propaganda of drawing parity between the Islam rulers and the Shaivite Hindu rulers with solid evidences towards the end of the book. Designated special chapters to address various aspects of monotheistic religions, Goel provides evidences of how Islam wiped away the pagan culture of Arabs by destroying their idols and places of worship. The book talks about the Islamic theology of iconoclasm in depth and supports the narrative with literary evidences.

In volume 2 Goel launches unsparing attacks on the Leftist casuistry which is devoid of rigorous logic. He implores Hindus to understand the foundation of the Islam theology, an ideological guide for global Islamist movements. India bore the brunt of iconoclastic zealotry for thirteen centuries. Revivalist Islamist Movement paved way for partition of the country. After partition, Hindus have been living on the edge in Pakistan who were reduced from 25% of the population to barely 2-3% currently. Hindus in Bangladesh are facing similar threats. Decades after independence, Hindus were driven out of the Kashmir valley which has now turned into fertile breeding ground of radical Islam. Thriving Islamist movements are a formidable threat to security and sovereignty of India.  After independence, despite suffering centuries of Muslim, European and Communist imperialism India failed to realise importance of unaltered history with fidelity of facts. It has allowed the communists masquerading as intellectuals to write Indian history. They imposed upon India a distorted, falsified and contorted version of history leading to deracination of Hindus. Educated urban elite divested of the basic understanding of Indic civilisation now hardly bother about the Hindu temples. No wonder this elite class of Hindus are the forefront gloating over the need for reclaiming centuries old Ramajanmasthan. 

Volume-II

Dramatic twists and turns of Sri Lankan Constitutional Crisis

Bedlam in Sri Lanka having eerie similarities to the Maldivian crisis intensifies further. Ever since the appointment of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister on October 26^th and proroguing of Parliament, there seems to be no respite to the political drama in the Indian Ocean island. The domestic unrest which began with Rajapaksa loyalists forcibly entering the office of Rupavahini channel and stalling transmission has slowly spilled onto the streets. In the aftermath of Rajapaksa’s appointment protests erupted leading to the death of an innocent civilian.

Installation of arch-rival Rajapaksa as prime minister by Sirisena surprised Sri Lankans and international community as well. But former president on his visit to India in an interview to The Hindu, aside criticising the coalition government’s poor economic performance dropped enough hints on his keen interest in working with Sirisena. Responding to a question on the possibility of joining hands with Sirisena, he said, “Unfortunately he is not prepared to work with me. We have a new party (Sri Lanka Podujana Perumna) and our president is G.L. Peiris. He must reach out to us since we have 45% of the vote in the three-cornered race”.

A series of events- a strong worded Wickremesinghe’s statement during his visit to India holding President responsible for the delay in the projects, assassination conspiracy theory, central bank bond scam, and SLPP’s trade union taking control of the state-owned newspapers culminated in the fall of the Unity government. President Sirisena ousted Wickremesinghe, sacked his secretary and deferred the Parliament session till November 16^th. Despite his ouster, Wickremesinghe who survived a no-confidence motion in April refused to quit his position. He held on to his office at Temple Greens and official residence and met delegates from US, Canada, EU and UK. Terming the decision as unconstitutional, put up a brave front attempted to garner support of various political parties.  

On the other hand, the opportunistic Sirisena-Rajapaksa alliance began to earn ire of people. Being a seasoned politician Rajapaksa who led the no-confidence motion led by Joint Opposition earlier this year deeply relied on gaining the support of minorities. Initially, Tamil National Alliance (TNA) despite their aversion to Rajapaksa agreed to offer conditional support provided the government pledges to draft new constitution and accept the UNHRC resolutions for justice. Rajapaksa even counted on the support of Muslim parliamentarians. But they left for a pilgrimage to Saudi watering down ambitious plans. Being a old master of political game, Rajapaksa resorted to large-scale horse trading and reports of offering Chinese money made it to the news. To keep his flock together and lure the fence-sitters, lending credence to his decision, Sirisena went ahead with swearing of 12 cabinet ministers.

Wickremesinghe in the meanwhile demanded a floor test since he had the requisite numbers. Speaker Karu Jayasuriya objected to unconstitutional prorogation of Parliament. He strongly advocated summoning of Parliament to allay fears of constitutional crisis. Amidst growing international pressure and domestic tensions Sirisena addressed the nation justifying his decision saying “Politicians like us who are committed to serve the people, should always look at what is right for the people and will usher prosperity instead of political affiliations”. Sirisena’s blatant abuse of political power aggravated fragile economic conditions, rupee plummeted, tourism dropped, foreign investments fled from the markets.

Citing Section 42 (4) of constitution which enables President to appoint a Prime Minister but don’t permit his/her arbitrary sacking or replacement, Wickremesinghe urged speaker to reconvene Parliament. He even submitted document with signatures of 125 parliamentarians. To restrain authoritative tendencies of the President 19^th amendment of Constitution made provisions to consolidate Prime Minister’s position. It enunciates that the office of Prime Minister can never fall vacant, baring three instances- death, constitutional crisis and loss of support in the parliament. Accordingly, the ouster of Wickremesinghe who enjoys the confidence of the house is untenable and unconstitutional. Firmly rooting on the constitutional provisions, Wickremesinghe insisted on proving majority on the floor of the house. At the same time, in an interview, he expressed willingness to work with President Sirisena to end this political crisis saying, “the constitution doesn’t make provision for personal prejudices”.

As voices of Sirisena’s unconstitutional approach began to gain ground, he initially agreed to convene parliament on November 5^th. But he swiftly overturned the decision after failing to cobble the required numbers for majority in Parliament. On Nov 9^th Sirisena dismissed 225-member Parliament and issued Gazette notice for snap polls on January 5^th, 2019. Soon Sirisena loyalists began to seek the refuge of Article 33 (2) (C) that enumerated the powers of President to justify his decision.  The article explicitly states, “in addition to powers, duties, and functions expressly conferred or imposed on or assigned to the President by the constitution or other written law, the President shall have the power to summon, prorogue, and dissolve parliament”. But Election Commission expressed its inability and sought the opinion of Supreme Court for fresh elections saying, “there was no vacancy in the Parliament”. Meanwhile, Constitutional Expert, Asanga Welikala, pointed that after final enactment of Amendment 33, it was decided that “Parliament can’t be dissolved by the President in the first four and half year of its term, unless Parliament itself requests dissolution by a resolution passed by two-thirds majority”. Even lawyers citing Amendment 19A challenged the authority of President. Aggrieved UNP decided to legally challenge President’s decision and simultaneously launched efforts to impeach President.

Sirisena’s decision of dissolving the Parliament earned him international ire. Speaker issued orders to public servants not to execute President’s orders triggering a crisis in general administration and governance. Orders of snap polls created a panic in general public who feared Sri Lanka’s return to authoritarianism. Collectively, all the opposition parties and one of the election commissioners who challenged the Gazette order to conduct “illegal election” moved Supreme Court against dissolution of Parliament.

Three bench Supreme Court which received petitions on 11 fundamental rights petitions stating Sirisena’s decision as unconstitutional. Court stayed the dissolution of Parliament until December 7^th and cancelled Gazette order for fresh elections. SC clarified that President can’t use Article 33 (2) independent of Article 70 (1) which sets limits on Presidential powers. SC cautioned, “you can’t cherry pick the provisions, the constitution has to be read whole”. SC’s decision offered much needed respite to the brewing political crisis. The next day, Parliament reconvened.

To strengthen his winnability in elections, Rajapaksa who is popular among Sinhala majority ends association with Sirisena’s Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) joined the Sri Lanka People’s Party (SLPP) created by his supporters. Along with him several of his loyalists also joined the new party weakening Sirisena’s political clout.

On November 14^th amidst disruptions in the voice vote conducted by Speaker, 122 members supported no-confidence motion (NCM) against Rajapaksa invalidating his installation. But President alleging speaker ignored constitutional traditions, standing orders and Parliamentary procedures rejected the NCM document. As expected, Rajapaksa camp rejected the NCM terming it illegal. NCM inflicted death blow to Rajapaksa’s appointment. Undermining the sanctity of NCM, Rajapaksa occupied Prime Minister’s bench and addressed the house next day. When Speaker announced that house doesn’t recognise him as Prime Minister any longer, incensed by speaker’s reference to him as just a member of Parliament, SLPP party members created ruckus. They attacked speaker and in the subsequent brawl, a MP who was injured was hospitalised.

Miffed by President’s defiance Wickremesinghe’s UNP (United National Party) supporters took to streets. Overwhelmed by public anger that threatened to engulf peace and stability of the country, Sirisena held meetings with Speaker and other political parties. As per latest reports, President has softened his stance, promised to resolve the crisis in two-three days. But he expressed reservations over the first resolution of the NCM. As an act of reconciliation, speaker agreed to conduct a fresh round of note confidence motion on 16^th November. In all likelihood, with Sirisena obliging to abide by constitutional provisions, show of strength by Wickremesinghe might bring some respite to unwarranted political crisis racked up by Sirisena. Startling political twists and turns highlighted loopholes of liberal democracy which can be trumped by political opportunism.

To usher Sri Lanka into realms of prosperity and economic progress in 2015 Unity Coalition ascended power. Moving away from the traditional political arrangement of like-minded parties coming together ideologically divergent, centre-left SLFP and Centre-Right UNP joined hands to form government epitomising the attributes of a thriving democracy.

Since 2008 nations there has been perceptible rise in authoritarian populist regimes. Ever since the fanatic waves of authoritarianism began to engulf poor nations.  Even Sri Lankan shores were stuck by such waves. The timely judicial intervention and mature democratic institutions as of now averted the crisis. Essentially, democracy is not impervious to the strong undercurrents of authoritarianism. Hence nations must perpetually make efforts to strengthen institutions to bolster and preserve democratic credentials.  

@ Copyrights reserved.

India-Japan win-win partnership

India holds annual summit meets with two countries-Russia and Japan while India is the only country with which Japan has such an arrangement. Before embarking for Japan, Prime Minister Modi described India and Japan as “winning combination”. Calling Prime Minister Modi his most dependable friend, in his message to India, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said, “We share big win-win potential in all areas and Japan remains committed to supporting India’s economic growth and Prime Minister’s Make in India initiative through high-speed rail, subways and other infrastructure, mobilising Japan’s leading technologies. The day when Shinkansen bullet trains starts running between Mumbai and Ahmedabad through cooperation will mark a shining symbol of Japan-India friendship in the future”.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi travelled to Japan on Oct 28^th to attend 13^th Annual Summit. India and Japan the largest and the Asia’s richest democracies, devoid of baggage of historical hostilities forged a relationship of trust and friendship based on complementary interests in the region. Chinese belligerence and eventual aggressive rise paved way for deepening of Indo-Japanese bilateral ties. The synergistic congruence between India’s “Act East Policy” and Japan’s “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” heralded a new era of extensive cooperation in fields of security, information technology, infrastructure, skilling, health, information technology and tourism between the countries. The term “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” was first coined by Abe in 2007 who unequivocally underscored the importance and the crucial of role India in the region. In 2014, bilateral ties are upgraded to “Special Strategic and Global Partnership”. Besides, a vast realm of cooperation in various areas, the focus of the current summit is to explore mechanisms for enhancing bilateral defence and security cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region.

During his two-day long visit, both leaders spent the first day together at Abe’s holiday home at Yamanashi prefecture near Mount Fuji, a privilege that was never extended to any other foreign leader underscoring their close personal chemistry. The genial pictures of both Prime Minister by the fire place aptly summarized the warmth of Indo-Japanese relationship. But what makes Modi’s current visit to Japan so unusual is the timing. It comes close on heels after Shinzo Abe’s unprecedented three-day state visit to China-for the first time in seven years. Japan-China relations touched a new low in 2012 over the territorial disputes in the East China sea and the disputed Senkaku islands. This culminated in China declaring Air Defence Identification Zone over East China Sea subsequently. Ever since the relations remained frosty. But the optics of Abe’s recent visit to China present a completely different picture. It is no secret that despite historical animosities China is Japan’s largest trading partner amounting to $300 billion. China’s owes its rise to Japanese aid and technology and U.S. assistance. For long China has been largest recipient of Japan’s ODA (official Development Assistance). Japan stopped its assistance after China over took Japan as a largest economy in Asia.

Grappling under the economic sanctions and protectionist policies of Trump China has softened its stance and reached out to Japan and India.  An informal Wuhan summit between President Xi and Modi, a slew of high-level exchanges between China and Japan and Abe’s official visit reflected Beijing’s recalibration of ties. Abe signed a $30 billion currency swap agreement, extended support to BRI and third-party cooperation. But India shouldn’t be worried about these developments since Indo-Japanese partnership is driven by strategic interests and resonating complementarities. Despite efforts by China and Japan for fruitful engagement, territorial disputes running in the background will remain a major irritant.

At the same time the dynamic of geopolitical equations is undergoing rapid transformations. The winds of change stoked by President Trump who at the helm of the affairs is assiduously hinting at a major revamp of America’s security obligations towards traditional partners. Uncertainty of America’s security umbrella had exacerbated Japan’s concerns of China’s brazen display of power and provocative intrusions, North Korea’s aggressive nuclear pursuits and South Korea’s intransigent approach. For long Abe was pushing for amending the Article 9 of Japan’s 1947 Pacifist Constitution that restrains the Japanese Self Defence Forces from operating beyond the Japanese shores. Another burgeoning challenge for Abe is to bring economy out of deflation. Interestingly, revitalising ties with China offers a plausible solution to address these challenges. While Abe has required two-third majority, to amend constitution, he requires support of opposition and public. Curiously, the principle opposition party Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ) is left-leaning. To rejuvenate economy, Japan must make extensive investments and Japanese businessman still find China more conducive.

Under Abe legal and constitutional restraints are relatively eased. The need for fortifying security architecture is being recognised.  Aside focussing on the territorial defence, Abe is contemplating on allowing Japan’s self defense forces operations in regions away from Japanese shores. To this end, Japan is looking forward to intensifying maritime cooperation with India. As agreed in 2017, India and Japan began negotiations on Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) a logistical support accord whereby Indian Navy can access Japan’s Djibouti base while Japan Self Defense Forces can use port at Andaman and Nicobar Islands near the Malacca Straits for refuelling and servicing. This can enhance strategic depth of defence cooperation. Since 2015 Japan has become part of the Malabar exercises started by India and Japan in 1992. Countries will now commence joint exercises of the trilateral forces.  India has similar logistical support agreements with US, France and Singapore.

While the bilateral trade accounts for mere $15 billion to enhance economic and financial cooperation, both countries concluded Bilateral Swap Agreement (BSA) for $75 billion (this was limited to $10 billion previously). This will ease India’s financial crisis at a time when global uncertainties and surging oil prices are taking a toll on its economy. Reaffirming faith in furthering defence and security cooperation, countries expressed desire to start the 2+2 dialogue in addition to the existing mechanisms. This would certainly add more depth and weight to bilateral strategic partnership.

Leaders stressed the need for multi-lateral trading systems, free, fair and open trade for sustainable development and global prosperity. In an obvious reference to China’s growing assertiveness, both leaders stated vision for Indo-Pacific, “based on a rules-based order that respects sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations, ensures freedom of navigation and overflight as well as unimpeded lawful commerce, and seeks peaceful resolution  of disputes with full respect for legal and diplomatic processes in accordance with the universally recognised principles of international law, including those reflected in the UNCLOS without resorting to threat or use of force”. Welcoming the discussions for establishment of, “Platform for Japan-India Business Cooperation in Asia- Africa Region”, envisaged uder Asia Africa Growth Corridor initiative, both countries agreed to working on collaborative projects- housing, education and electrification projects in Myanmar, LNG-related infrastructure in Sri Lanka, road-bridge-rail projects in Bangladesh and business development and health initiatives in Kenya. They underscored the importance of complete, verifiable and irreversible nuclear disarmament of North Korea and condemned terrorism in strongest terms.

Speaking at joint press conference Abe said, “A strong Japan benefits India and a strong India benefits Japan”. Modi responded, “Without India-Japan cooperation, there will be no development in Asia into the next century”. They oversaw the signing of second phase of Indo-Japan high speed rail project. Japan has pledged low-interest loans worth $2.8 billion for infrastructure projects which includes $150 million towards bullet train project. This arrangement conclusively demolished falsities of Congress that Japan cancelled loans to high speed rail project.

One of the top priorities of Act East Policy of India is development of North East which can act as spring board for India’s engagement with South East Asian region as well. Japan has the unique distinction of being part of India’s infrastructure development projects in the North East and the sensitive disputed border regions. To give major fillip to North East connectivity and disaster management project, countries have constituted India-Japan Act East Forum in 2017. In the second meeting held in October countries identified key infrastructure, capacity development, forest management and biodiversity projects. To promote people to people interaction, Japanese learning program are started in North East universities.

Addressing Indian Diaspora at Tokyo, Modi appreciated their contributions towards furthering Indo-Japan relations and suggested a 3C mantra-Contribute, Co-exist to Conquer Hearts. He attended Business Symposium on “Make in India, Digital Partnership and India-Japan Partnership in Africa.” Modi invited Japanese business leaders to avail opportunities offered by India. Both leaders travelled to Tokyo from Yamanashi prefecture by bullet train and throughout the duration of the visit, the effusive warmth on display was unmissable.

In sync with changing world order, countries are recalibrating their strategies to advance their national interests. To this end, countries are forging new tactical alliances and deepening cooperation with longstanding allies with converging mutual interests. Owing to China’s steady economic rise, the fulcrum has shifted to the east and centred around the Indo-Pacific region. Though America have envisaged this shift and launched “pivot to Asia” it failed to pursue this policy with enthusiasm and vigour. With American influence gradually receding in the strategic Indo-Pacific region, countries like India and Japan keen on maintaining peace and stability in the region have intensified cooperation. They are exploring new mechanism to deepen cooperation to counter the aggressive China. While Trump’s uncertain policies have certainly forced Japan to recalibrate its ties with China, India’s economic growth potential, lucrative markets, envious demographic dividend and geographical positioning offers an immense scope for strengthening special strategic and global partnership.

@ Copyrights reserved.