Can BJP’s exit from PDP-alliance lay a new foundation for its Kashmir policy?

BJP General Secretary, Ram Madhav, the principal negotiator of PDP-BJP alliance in Jammu and Kashmir yesterday announced, “It has untenable for the BJP to continue in the alliance government in the state” triggering two immediate reactions. The decision which was welcomed by a vast majority as better late than never, was rued as a desperate attempt of BJP to foster its national ambitions by critics. With general elections, 11 months away, people drew parallels to time tested Indira’s tactic of creating a war like situation to win elections. Against these deliberations, the unmissable fact remains that security situation in Kashmir has steadily deteriorated.

Suspension of operations by Indian Army during the month-long Ramzan has tipped the balance in favour of terrorists.  Much against the wishes of security personnel, the PDP leader Mehbooba garnering support from the regional political parties and Congress, prevailed on the central leadership to give in to the peace initiative of unilateral ceasefire during Ramzan and Amarnath Yatra. Apprehensive of losing support of the dominant separatist forces, from the beginning, Mehbooba pandered to them in the valley and strongly rejected muscular approach. She constantly batted for bilateral talks and restoration of trade ties with Pakistan. Despite reservations from security officials who opined that ceasefire might be conceived as “weakness” referencing the Non-Initiation of Combat Operations (NICO), announced by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 2000 which led to a massive attack on Srinagar airport. But central government, meekly accepted Mehbooba’s plea for creating a conducive atmosphere in the valley. Interestingly, while centre has conceded Mehbooba’s demand, Laskhar-E-Toiba, Hizbul Mujahideen and Jaish-E-Mohammed rejected ceasefire and pledged to step up operations. Essentially, Mehabooba tied down hands of Indian Security personnel by extracting a pledge of condoning operations.

For three long years, despite incorrigible ideological differences, BJP continued to be in alliance with the dominant partner PDP to be part of the state government to reset the Kashmir issue. But the last straw in the form of cold-blooded murder of editor of Rising Kashmir, Shujaat Bhukhari, a peacenik, who supported track-II diplomacy and brutal killing of army personnel, Aurangzeb, prompted BJP to pull the plug from the alliance. Aurangzeb, a rifleman who was abducted from Pulwama on Thursday was part of Major Rohit Shukla’s team that neutralised Hizbul Mujahadeen terrorist Samir Tiger. Terrorists intercepted the private vehicle, in which Aurangzeb was travelling home for Eid and killed him. His bullet ridden body has created a massive uproar. In his emotional appeal Hanief, father of Aurangzeb, ex-army personnel questioned why Pakistani flags are waved in valley. His message of “I give PM Modi 72 hours to avenge my son’s death or else we are ready to take revenge on our own. Kashmir is ours. We must not let Kashmir burn. Instead we must eliminate the goons who are destroying the valley” went viral. Similarly, killing of journalist in broad day in the high security area of Srinagar, has created fear in civilians. Aside, these two incidents a day before Eid, terrorists inflicted major losses to Indian Army by indiscriminately attacking security personnel and hurling grenades. Over three dozen people which includes army personnel were killed during the month long unilateral ceasefire. Pakistan violated the LoC at will and over 1,00,000 people in the bordering villages were displaced. Twice during the Ramzan ceasefire, Pakistan DGMO pledged to uphold 2003 ceasefire agreement. But Pakistan reneged its assurance leading to death of BSF personnel. Reports suggested that cessation of operations against terrorists gave them time to regroup and consolidate their position triggering the joining of over 40 Kashmiri youth  in militant ranks.

Reiterating its commitment to root out terrorism from the valley, the day after Eid, on Sunday, government announced end of ceasefire operations. After reports of alleged coercion of police force and security lapse began to surface, central government held talks with NSA, Ajit Doval following which BJP Chief Amit Shah, after meeting with leaders from Kashmir formally decided to walk out PDP alliance. To utter surprise of political pundits who predicted that PDP would leave the alliance, forcing BJP ministers to resign, though late, BJP smartly pulled out the plug and forced Mehbooba to tender resignation. The PDP which admitted that it was unaware of BJP’s sudden decision was left to lick its wounds. Politicians across the board termed it as a betrayal and blamed BJP for the current situation. Though the fall of an incompatible coalition was imminent, the sudden turn of events and BJP’s checkmate startled PDP.

In 2017, after a gap of 15 years, Indian Army has launched an offensive, revived- Cordon and Search Operations (CASO)s following the killing of Ummer Fayaz in Shopian by terrorists. Involving 4000 personnel, Army intensified its retaliation in South Kashmir and the terrorist fatalities touched all time high by May. Pro-separatist and pro-Pakistani Mehbooba’s demand of ceasefire has axed Indian Army’s combat operations which has made significant gains.

The Ramzan ceasefire not only miserably failed in generating conciliatory approach in separatists but also pilfered the significant gains made by Indian Army against terrorists. Consequently, BJP which is at helm of affairs both at centre and state had to bear the heat. Moreover, India’s soft approach towards Pakistan-sponsored terrorism at behest of Mehbooba, gave room for China to brook about a trilateral dialogue between India-Pakistan and China under the aegis of SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation).

In the 2014, Jammu and Kashmir assembly threw a fractured mandate with PDP bagging maximum seats and BJP emerged as the second largest party. Seizing the opportunity, despite ideological differences, BJP came forward to form a government with PDP. Defending its decision, BJP conceded that it is open to form a coalition government with PDP to uphold democratic process. It maintained that it intends to honour electoral mandate bestowed by two regions of Kashmir-Jammu and Ladakh. From the beginning, people predicted that it would an incompatible alliance with political parties terming it as "Himalayan Blunder". Notwithstanding these criticisms, BJP entered an alliance with PDP after torturous two-month negotiations forging an "Agenda of alliance". In the process, BJP gave up its demands of abolition of article 370 and abandonment on article 35A that allows state government to decide who are permanent residents paving way for eventual Kashmir’s integration with country. In return, BJP had a big slap on face with Mufti Mohammed on his swearing-in ceremony in March 2015, thanking Pakistan for the smooth conduct of elections and seeking release of hard core separatist, Masrat Alam. The shaky alliance suffered a massive jolt with the death of Mufti Mohammed in January 2016. After three-months of hard bargaining, Mehbooba agreed to be Chief Minister reluctantly. Soon, crisis erupted in the Valley with killing of Burhan Wani in July during which Pakistan pumped money to orchestrate protests that lasted for three months severely crippling the economic activity of the region. In response to treacherous Uri attack, government launched surgical strikes, in September, which boosted morale of security personnel and elevated BJP’s image. Baring a brief respite during the demonetisation, relentless terror attacks began to torment the valley.

Unabated ceasefire violations and infiltrations which registered whopping increase demanded a hard-line approach. PDP’s inherent soft-separatist approach severally constrained BJP’s Zero tolerance towards terrorism.  Further, PDP’s amnesty policy towards stone pelters, belittling heroic acts of Major Leetul Gogoi and Major Aditya and several other issues elicited doubts about BJP’s hard-line approach. Mehbooba’s overt Pro-Pakistani stance undermining India’s interest and BJP’s meek submission under perceived coalition compulsion sent mixed signals. BJP's flexible approach as opposed to its hard stance towards terrorism has dented its image among the two regions of the state, Jammu and Ladakh. Further BJP’s unfulfilled promise or mere tokenism towards Kashmiri Pandits irked the Hindu minority. On the other hand, even extremism and jihad continue to escalate. As a junior partner in the coalition BJP’s promises remained as mere lip homage. People from Indic religions are growing restless with reports of 800 times increase in Wahabbi mosques.

Clearly, both the parties, with different vote banks had pinned hopes on their leaders to deliver. Mehabooba who courts hard line Islamists posed impediments for the central government in adopting a muscular approach. Overt appeasement of separatists has clearly emboldened terrorists who began to wreak havoc in the valley. Instinctively, with terrorism reaching a tipping point, BJP walked out the coalition citing growing terror and discrimination towards Jammu and Ladakh regions.

After the cessation of unilateral ceasefire, Indian Army has gunned down three JeM terrorists. With the fall of doomed alliance and imposition of government’s rule army will have a free hand now. Currently NC, is batting for early elections. But taking stock of the ground situation, BJP has recommended governor’s rule. Elections around the corner, Pakistan has increased firing along the international border. In the past four years, Modi government extended a hand of friendship to Pakistan, invited Islamabad for swearing-in ceremony and Modi made an impromptu visit to Lahore. But Pakistan reciprocated by escalating terror attacks. In a vain effort to restore peace and harmony in the valley, BJP entered alliance with a pro-separatist party, PDP. By now Modi government, should realise that appeasement of a pernicious enemy and a pathological India hater is futile. India must fight Pakistan from position of strength to find a plausible solution for seven-decade long Kashmir issue.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Modi lays foundation for a stable maritime order with Indonesia

Indonesia, the largest archipelago, comprising of over 17,000 islands, straddling both Indian and Pacific Ocean, busy in nation building hardly evinced great interest in formulating a long term maritime policy till 2014. China’s contentious maritime forays, its relentless reclamation of geographical features in South China Sea (SCS), aggressive territorial contestations with fictitious nine-dash line and inauguration of Maritime Silk Route (MSR) prompted ASEAN countries to buttress their maritime autonomy. In response to Dragon’s aggressive assertions, Indonesian President Joko Widodo, unveiled a maritime policy, Global Maritime Fulcrum (GMF) at East Asia Summit, Nay Pyi Daw in 2014. GMF, a balancer to OBOR (One Belt One Road) besides enhancing the interconnectivity between islands envisions to protect maritime resources, strengthen maritime security, turning Indonesia into a formidable regional maritime power.

Days ahead of Prime Minister Modi’s visit to India, the visiting Indonesian delegation headed by coordinating minister for Maritime Affairs, Luhut Pandjaitan, prepared ground for strong bilateral maritime cooperation between two countries. Reiterating Indonesian resolve to bolster maritime diplomacy, he announced Jakarta is granting India, economic and military access to strategic Sabang port in Aceh province. Responding to Indonesian outreach, highlighting maritime closeness, Prime Minister Modi was supposed to travel to Sabang port by ship to inaugurate a hospital and port development facilities. But the plans were dropped due to poor weather. Sabang also known as Weh Island, located at northern tip of Sumatra, 80 nautical miles away from Andaman Islands is less than 500 km from strategic choke point, Malacca Strait through which 40% of India’s trade passes. Sabang, a group of islands having rudimentary port facilities is capable of hosting submarines with its water reaching a depth of 40 mts. With Sabang joining India’s illustrious list of ports with granted military access, Indian Coast line will now extend form Seychelles to Indonesia.

Earlier in 2016, on Widodo’s state visit to India, both countries agreed to enhance maritime cooperation and laid ground for deepening of ties. Subsequently, India and Indonesia held joint naval exercises in 2017.  Indeed, in the joint statement released in 2016, both leaders took cognisance of burgeoning Chinese posturing the region and stressed on the need for resolving the disputes peacefully in accordance to universally accepted principles of international law like UNCLOS. Though both countries are not party to the disputes, China’s reluctance to abide by rules-based order, its penetrative expansionism coupled with waning American influence as security provider in the region has prompted India and Indonesia, closet maritime neighbours to resurrect neglected ties.

Complementing the vision of GMF, Prime Minister Modi who is diligently buttressing Indian maritime presence, embarked on a two-day visit on May 29^th to Indonesia boosting India’s Act East Policy. India and Indonesia share long standing cultural and trade relations of two millennia old. Historical evidences indicate that Indian traders set foot on Indonesia in 1^st Century and subsequently, Hinduism and Buddhism travelled to Indonesia from shores of India and thrived there. Indonesia finds a mention in Ramayana referred to as Yadawadwipa. Significant chunk of population in Bali and Sulawesi island even now follow Hindu culture. Bordudur and Parambanan temples gloriously reflect the Hindu-Buddhist influences that exist in Archipelago. With the advent of Arabian travellers to Indonesia in 9^th century, Islam became the most popular religion by 13^th century. Interestingly, while Indonesia is majorly a Muslim country, it jealously guarded Indic influences rooted in Ramayana and Mahabharata.  Showcasing the strong civilizational connect between the two countries, both Prime Ministers participated, and inaugurated Kite Exhibition themed on Ramayana and Mahabharata at Jakarta’s national monument. Indonesia indeed, had Bhagvan Ganesh, who is considered God of education on its currency earlier. It being holy month of Ramzan, both leaders paid visit to Istiqlal Mosque, national Mosque of Indonesia and Arjuna Vijaya Chariot Statue.

India and Indonesia which had similar colonial history, post-independence goals of sovereignty, economic development, self-sufficiency maintained cordial relations in the modern times. The legendary political camaraderie of Jawaharlal Nehru and Sukarno laid the foundation for the Non-Aligned Movement and the Asia-Africa Bandung conference of 1955, which extended vocal support to African national movement. While these leaders dreamed of a maritime cooperation in Indian Ocean, it hasn’t turned into a reality. President Sukarno graced India’s first Republic Day celebrations and both countries signed friendship treaty in 1951. In 1958, New Delhi and Jakarta signed an agreement for training and attachment of Naval officers. In 1974, countries signed a maritime boundary agreement demarcating Nicobar and Sumatra islands. After a period of lull, in bilateral ties, upon drastic recalibration of Indian foreign policy in 1990s and launch of Look East Policy, India opened doors for extensive engagement with ASEAN countries. Indonesian participation in the multilateral biennial MILAN exercise since 1995 marked a significant renewal of India’s maritime contacts with Jakarta. Both countries began to conduct coordinated naval patrolling (CORPAT) in Andaman Sea since 2002. By 2005, both countries established strategic partnership and charted a Vision 2025 statement in 2011. Now, Modi’s Act East Policy with a renewed focus of rebuilding ties with ASEAN has broadened the paradigm of maritime cooperation.

Upgrading bilateral ties to Comprehensive strategic Partnership, both countries signed “Shared Vision on Maritime Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific between India and Indonesia”. The document first with any ASEAN country, attested growing significance of the term Indo-Pacific instead of Asia-Pacific in geopolitical narrative and underscored similar perspectives of both nations towards evolving stable regional maritime order. It outlined importance of combined maritime region of both countries with huge coastlines and vast exclusive economic zone that has immense potentialities for global maritime trade and commerce. It called for adherence to 1982 UN Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) and 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in South East Asia (TAC).

In a direct reference to China’s refusal to abide by international rules and its opaque global connectivity initiative that has ensnared nations into a debt-trap, the vision document reiterated the importance of “free, open, transparent, rules-based, peaceful, prosperous and inclusive Indo-Pacific region, where sovereignty, territorial integrity, international law and in particular UNCLOS, freedom of navigation and overflight, sustainable development and an open, free, fair and mutually beneficial trade and investment system are respected”. It also stressed on importance of maritime safety, security for sustainable economic growth and development in the Indo-Pacific region. Recognising the importance of blue economy, both countries agreed to deepen convergences and complementarities under India’s SAGAR (Security for Growth for all in the region) and Indonesia’s GMF.

Like India, pluralistic society of Indonesia is facing threats of Islamic radicalisation. A fortnight back, Indonesia was rocked by a wave of Church bombings that killed 13 people and left several injured on Ramzan eve. As against majoritarian belief of Ramzan as period of charity and reflection, radical extremists consider attacks committed during the month as holy. Investigations confirmed that perpetrators were former IS associates and recent returnees from Syria. Indonesia, like India which calls for Zero-tolerance on terror acts, appealed for enhanced cooperation in counter terrorism and sharing of intelligence. Both leaders called for expeditious finalization of Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT). To eradicate radicalism and promote pluralism both countries are going to organise interfaith dialogue starting with Indonesia in October 2018. Leaders agreed on working towards disruption of terror networks, fraudulent finance conduits, and cross-border movement of terrorists.

Under the new comprehensive strategic partnership, leaders called for exploring the potentialities of deepening cooperation in defence, including joint defence manufacturing, training of cadets, trade, commerce, investments, pharmaceutical manufacture, space, science, technology.  Both countries signed 15 MoU’s in above mentioned fields. In a massive fillip to strengthening people to people contact and tourism, Letters of Intent are signed on Sister Province between Bali and Uttarakhand and commenced World Heritage Twinning Program of Candi Prambanan and Taj Mahal.

Indonesia is India’s largest trade partner in ASEAN. India is second largest buyer of Palm oil and Coal from Indonesia. Both India and Indonesia are now fastest growing economies and a greater economic cooperation between both countries would be highly beneficial. Bilateral trade volume as of 2016-17 is $17 billion and efforts are on to double bilateral trade by 2025. In a big boost to trade and tourism, countries are planning to enhance connectivity between Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Provinces in Sumatra. Modi in his address to Indian Diaspora announced 30-day free visa for Indonesians and highlighted the style of functioning of his government as “corruption-free, citizen centric, development friendly”.

While much anticipated, plausible trilateral maritime cooperation between India, Indonesia and Vietnam, another ASEAN country vocal about Chinese expansion is not mooted, leaders welcomed the first trilateral senior officials strategic dialogue between India-Indonesia and Australia in November 2018. Hailing this idea, Professor Medcalf said, “This development shows that India and Indonesia are beginning to creatively use their geography to position themselves at the core of the new regional structures that Australia can link with, that Australia can play into”. Coming together of like-minded democracies and middle power regions definitely offers an alternative to Chinese hegemony and America’s retraction from global platform.

Indonesia like other ASEAN countries is wary of China’s militarisation of maritime domain.  Though Indonesia is not part of China’s SCS dispute, the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of its Natuna Islands overlaps with the Nine-dash line. Asserting its legal claims over the region, Indonesia in July 2017 renamed the waters northeast of Natuna Islands as North Natuna Sea. Though this moved irked China, Indonesia softly balanced its relations by inking infrastructure development projects. Since 2016 trespassing of Chinese ships into Indonesian EEZ have become more frequent. Indonesian Navy has even arrested some of the trawlers and beefed up patrolling in the region. As a message to China, Widodo travelled to the military base at Ranai on Nutuna Islands. Given, China’ s history of violating international laws, Indonesia began reaching out to countries like Japan, India and the US. Like the ASEAN countries, Indonesia started realising the strategic benefits of forging closer ties with India. To counter aggressive China, Indonesia has now turned to India to revamp long ignored maritime ties.  This newfound resurgence among resident nations of Indian Ocean Region, according to C. Raja Mohan, Strategist, will eventually pave way for “an extraordinary power shift in Asia”. Clearly, Modi on his first state visit to Indonesia laid a firm foundation for a new maritime order amidst “great power contestations” in Asia.

@ Copyrights reserved.

48 months of Modi Government

On the eve of completion of Modi government’s four years in office, it is a good idea to analyse what are the hits and misses of the NDA regime, which stormed into power with absolute majority. Firstly, the regime deserves immense accolades for being corruption free. They have overcome the policy paralysis and decisive decision has become hall of the regime. Despite the poor economic legacy, Modi government strived hard to stabilise the economy by reducing the fiscal deficit, cutting on subsidies and partly through direct cash transfers. Though Modi regime is discredited for just renaming the policies of the UPA and not making bringing about any significant structural changes, it must be understood that by increasing the efficiency of the same decrepit initiatives Modi regime has improved deliverance. Undermining the risks of angering its loyal vote banks, Modi regime introduced disruptive economic reforms-Demonetisation and GST which has now not increased the tax compliance and tax base but increased the revenues. Forex reserves touched all time high, Foreign investments have increased.

Pet Initiatives like Make in India, Mudra Loans, Skill India, Standup India, Swacch Bharat, Ujjwala Yojana, Jan Dhan Yojana, Prime Minister Jeevan Bhima Yojana are slowly catching up with people and are bringing substantial change in the lives of disadvantaged sections. For the first time in seven decades, all villages in India are electrified. Efforts are on to make them achieve the target of open defecation free (ODF) villages. On the health front, government has introduced Sowbhagya scheme to take care of pregnant women, an initiative towards reducing the infant mortality rate. Government has rolled out the Modi care health which is estimated to benefit five crore families. Infrastructure development initiatives, defence procurements, Railways, power and petrol sector received maximum investments registered marked progress proportionate results weren’t obtained in Ganga rejuvenation projects.  India is now gaining more global prominence thanks to the Modi’s personalised diplomacy and unique chemistry with various world leaders. By and large Modi government has done a good job on various fronts.

Of all the prime ministers independent India had perhaps Modi has been the most popular and abused leader. Being victim of vicious campaign orchestrated to malign strong leaders and the Hindu community now Indian populace is dominated by two categories of people-Modi haters, Modi supporters and fence sitters. Major sections of the media, academia, intellectual brigade in India by far subsumed by Modi hatred has created a narrative that grossly undermined the efforts made by his government and perversely deepened existing fissures in Indian society. This influential chunk with global connections by far made every effort to tarnish image of India and projected a sloppy picture of India’s growth story. Unfortunately, this negative campaigning is now picked up by the fence sitters and outsiders who are largely divested of the ground realities. Interestingly, even among the formidable Modi supporters who strongly rallied for him in 2014 general elections is now slowly withering away with some Hindu nationalists expressing frustration over Modi’s failure in delivering certain promises made to Hindu society.  As of now, while Modi and his committed team of ministers are giving their best, people who are disillusioned by negative propaganda and overwhelmed by the frustration of Hindus being at the receiving end are casting doubts on the progress made by Modi government in four years.

With elections less than a year away it is time, people take stock of the situation with open mind. Instead of falling prey to the malicious campaign run by the break India forces, who are keen on clinching power by any means to plunder and rampage the nation, people should make right choices. India needs a strong, decisive, committed leader who keeps country above everything. Desperate, unemployed political leaders and staunch political rivals are now brazenly joining hands to stall Modi juggernaut. In a democratic country like India, onus of choosing a strong leader is thrust on people. Hence, people should make discrete and appropriate choices to usher the country into realm of progress and development.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Trump's flip-flop on Singapore Summit

Confounding worst fears, President Trump with a proclivity of reneging deals has called off much awaited talks with North Korean Supremo Kim Jong Un scheduled for June 12^th. On May 24^th, he tweeted, “I have decided to terminate the planned summit in Singapore on June 12^th. While many things can happen, and great opportunity lies ahead potentially, I believe that this is a tremendous set back for North Korea and indeed a setback for the World”. In consonance with his reputation of pulling out from various agreements, Trump’s latest volte-face though very serious was along expected lines. Trump’s decision which comes days after his wilful pulling of America from historic Iran deal has had eventually decimated all hopes of US striking a deal with North Korea. Trump’s preposterous scrapping of Iran deal might have strengthened genuine suspicions North Korea held towards the US. Given, America’s hostile approach towards Libya and Iraq, Kim has been quite apprehensive of Trump’s conciliatory acceptance for a summit meet. Within 24hrs of the announcing the cancellation of the summit, Trump invigorated new hopes of bringing peace to Korean peninsula by saying that America is not averse to reconsidering the decision of calling off talks. This flip-flop, besides, conforming the Trump’s characteristic uncertainty is now potentially creating confusion, eroding the reputation of decision-making abilities of America’s presidential office.

Till now strategic experts viewed that Kim and Trump are perfect match for being so mercurial and tough negotiators. But North Korea’s rather circumspect response to Trump letter reneging on Singapore Summit, has reinforced Kim’s fervent commitment towards denuclearisation of Korean peninsula. In his letter to Kim, Trump said, “sadly based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your recent statements, I feel it is in appropriate at this time to have this long-planned meeting. You talk of nuclear capabilities, but ours are so massive and powerful that I pray to God that they will never have to be used”. In reply to this intimidating American response,  DPRK’s first vice-president of foreign affairs, Kim Kye Gwan, said, “As far as the historic DPRK-US summit is concerned, we have inwardly highly appreciated President Trump for having made a bold decision, which any other US presidents dared not, and made efforts for such a crucial event as the summit. His sudden and unilateral announcement to cancel the summit is something unexpected to us and we cannot but feel great regret for it”….. and added “But we remain unchanged in our goal and will do everything we could for peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula and the mankind, and we are broad-minded and open all the time, have the willingness to offer the US side time and opportunity”. With these remarks, DPRK shifted onus on Trump to take a final call and hasn’t shied away from saying that America is still not confident about DPRK’s commitment towards peace.

While US and DPRK openly divulged their reactions, the country which expended diplomatic energies, South Korea was deeply disappointed. Trump’s sudden decision of cancelling the summit left South Korean leader Moon Jae-in flabbergasted who travelled to Washington just days before his announcement parleying for the meet. For all his efforts in resuscitating the summit, Moon wasn’t informed of Trump’s decision in advance, leaving him perplexed and South Korea felt snubbed. Terming the decision as “very regrettable and unfortunate” Moon hoped that both countries would resolve their differences “through more direct and close dialogue between the leaders”.

DPRK’s unusually conciliatory approach Kim Kye-Gwan’s unrestrained response of “the first meeting wouldn’t solve all, but solving even one at a time in a phased way would make the relations get better rather than making worse” has struck right cords with American allies-Japan and South Korea. Ever since cancellation, it is believed that a flurry of diplomatic rallying carried out by South Korea lead to an apparent U-turn. On May 26^th Trump took to twitter again stating, “We are having very productive talks with North Korea about reinstating the summit which, if it doesn’t happen, will likely remain in Singapore on the same date, June 12^th, and if necessary will be extended beyond that date”.

Unperturbed by Trump rescinding the summit, Kim held two-hour impromptu talks in the demilitarized zone of North Korean Panmunjom village. As per Presidential Blue Palace news report from Seoul, both leaders discussed ways to implement Panmunjom Declaration, for deepening inter-Korean ties and to ensure a successful DPRK-US summit. Clearly playing hard diplomacy Kim not only convinced South Korea of its firm commitment but forced Trump to relinquish his “temper tantrums”.

In run up to the summit, as a confidence building measure, DPRK released three American citizens. In the following week, DPRK announced that the regime is no longer interested in building nuclear weapons and invited international journalists to watch dismantling or closing ceremony of lone nuclear site Punggye-ri. Some strategists dismissed Kim’s diplomatic gesture as mere symbolism while others were sceptical whether he would ever agree to relinquish nuclear weapons. Amidst this symbolism, staunch supporters of Trump nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize and Trump administration released a commemorative coin featuring Trump and Kim against the background of their respective national flags.  Intriguingly, South Korea and US hasn’t scaled down the annual aerial exercises Max Thunder which included a nuclear strategic bomber provoking DPRK on May 16^th. Irked Kim, cancelled his upcoming talks with South Korea.

But what emerged as the sore point was American enthusiasm of thrusting down DPRK’s throat the doctrine of CIVD-Comprehensive Irreversible Verifiable Disarmament. America insisted on elimination of all nuclear weapons upfront along its Libyan Model. Unlike Libya which wasn’t even close to making nuclear weapons, North Korea has developed massive nuclear infrastructure. Since 2003 it has conducted dozens of missiles and nuclear tests, developed a thermonuclear bomb and successfully tested an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile capable of reaching mainland America. Having built significant nuclear arsenal and assured of strategic nuclear deterrent, Kim announced a moratorium on nuclear weapons. He made extensive diplomatic forays to bring nation from decades of isolation and sanctions regime. Kim reiterating his stance towards denuclearisation stitched close diplomatic relations with South Korea and even met President Xi twice. But during his outreach, Kim has always stressed on denuclearisation of entire Korean peninsula, implying that America should pull out forces and assets from South Korea. Besides, he desired for a synchronized and phased approach with America making some concessions to address the security concerns of Kim. Cognizant of the brutal ending of the Libyan Supremo Muhammar Gadhafi, in 2011 when he assumed reigns, Kim believed that relinquishing nuclear weapons in exchange for American guarantees for investment and security assurances was just a trap.

To utter dismay of Kim, who had concerns regarding national security and continuance of his regime in power, hawkish National Security Advisor’s references to “Libya Model” for negotiations with DPRK stoked fresh suspicions. Talking about North Korea, Trump ascertained that if DPRK agrees to denuclearise, “he will get protections that would be very strong” else grave situations will entail. He warned, “that model (Libya Model) would take place if we don’t make a deal. The Libyan Model isn’t the model we have at all. In Libya we decimated that country. There was no deal to keep Gadhafi”. While secretary of state, Mike Pompeo adopted a diplomatic route to deal with Pyongyang, overriding his gestures, Bolton adopted a fiery rhetoric. Terming Bolton’s references as “highly sinister” Vice-President Kim Kye-Gwan said, “The World knows too well that our country is neither Iraq nor Libya, which have miserable fates. It is absolutely absurd to compare nuclear weapons state DPRK to Libya which has been at the initial stage of nuclear development. If the US is trying to drive us into a corner to force our unilateral nuclear abandonment, we no longer be interested in such a dialogue and cannot but reconsider our proceeding to DPRK-US summit”. In the meanwhile, even Vice-President in his interview of Fox Channel said that DPRK might end up like Libya if deal is not struck. Angered by Pence’s comments, DPRK’s vice foreign affairs minister Choe said, “As a person involved in US affairs, I cannot suppress my surprise at such ignorant remarks from the mouth of US vice-president. In case US offends us against our good will and clings to unlawful and outrageous acts, I will forward a suggestion to our supreme leadership for reconsidering the DPRK-US summit”. The inclement narrative set by America’s hawkish officials, weeks before the summit has clearly touched raw nerves of DPRK making them more suspicious of America. Together these imprudent remarks escalated the tension between both countries setting the stage for calling off the summit.

Mike Pompeo’s Korean diplomacy has raised new doubts in American allies- South Korea and Japan who were believed to understand that US is interested in annihilation of long range missiles leaving them in a lurch. Trump’s dubious approach of ignoring concerns of allies is withering their trust and faith in America, prompting them to forge strong ties with proactive power centres like China and Russia. Trump’s flip-flop clearly indicates that America is not having a concrete agenda for negotiations as indicated by sources. With Singapore summit back on track, Japanese Prime Minister Abe who is concerned about the DPRK’s short-range missiles will meet Trump before the summit. South Korean President Moon is likely to join the summit, raising the hopes of a possible trilateral summit. Moon’s effort to resurrect the negotiations is testimony to his supreme efforts to bring peace to Korean peninsula enduring the shadow of hostilities since 1953. Despite Moon’s massive diplomatic efforts, Strategists believe that Trump may not sign the Korean peace treaty before DPRK’s denuclearisation deal.

The dream of restoring peaceful regime in Korean peninsula need concerted efforts of not only both Koreas but all other stakeholders in the region. As a precondition for peninsular peace, America might be forced to pull its personnel from South Korea. This move might trigger Japan to follow a similar script. Together, this might necessarily reduce American foot print in Asia-Pacific. Clearly this can embolden China which is rapidly expanding its presence in the region. Trump’s off-cuff policies, fleeting approaches with regards to denuclearisation of DPRK needs a serious rethinking supported by a robust policy.

As of now, US delegation has reached Pyongyang to prepare for the summit.  While DPRK seems to be wanting America to make similar concessions it made to India, which is rather too much to ask. Trump’s distorted diplomatic approach will invariably turn DPRK into another Pakistan.

Further while Trump is keen on dismantling nuclear paraphernalia of DPRK, a report released by experts suggests that this whole process might take at least 10 years. Hence instead of an intrusive inspections and punitive economic sanctions, a phased approach synchronised with reciprocal concessions may be the best alternative. Report adds that mere assurances on paper may not suffice and perhaps “substantial period of coexistence and interdependence” might lead to logical denuclearisation.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Lok Sabha bypolls 2018- The writing on the wall for BJP

Cumulative setbacks in the Lok Sabha bypolls have reduced BJP numbers from 282 in 2014 elections to less than 272, short of the magic majority in Lok Sabha currently. In the just concluded bypolls, BJP and alliance managed to win two out of the four seats. While bypolls may not be a true reflection of larger electoral picture but BJP must read the writing on the wall. Unlike 2014 elections, where BJP romped home victory under the spell of a massive Modi wave, 2019 is going to be very difficult. Decade long UPA regime has left Indian electorate frustrated, disappointed and the aspiring class found a saviour in Modi and rewarded him with absolute majority. But things have changed ever since.

Psephologists always advocate that electoral memory is poor and unfortunately, in the past four years, Indians seems to have largely forgotten the ruthless plunder of Congress. With Judiciary progressively delaying outstanding corruption cases against Congress leaders, the devious record of large scale loot through various scams was effectively wiped out from public memory.

The humongous efforts made by the Modi government to revive the huge fiscal deficit are now largely underappreciated with economy back on track now. Hence, the issues of development and progress are not part of electoral debates any longer. Just like elections in the last decade, voting is now along religious, caste lines. With opposition regrouping themselves and joining hands with the sole intent of defeating BJP, BJP must now resort to masterly social engineering tactics to win elections in 2019.

Congress which is steadily eroding its electoral base is now resorting to all mean tactics. It always had the covert support of Muslims and Christians. In the recent times, Church and Masjid are openly defending their stances of issuing public fatwas against BJP. In the upcoming elections, religion and caste alone will sole agendas of the parties. While it is so regressive and absurd to even think of having elections being fought on these paltry communal grounds, unfortunately, this is the reality of elections in India now.

Against these oddities, Hindus on the other hand are largely divided and they no longer believe that BJP can address their issues. There is a palpable discontentment among Hindus, especially among Hindus of Cultural Right. The battle for the throne is going to be much more brutal, punitive, and brazen. Despite no allegations of corruption, the surge in global oil prices has exacerbated the dissatisfaction among the middle class towards BJP. In the past 48 months Modi and his team with their unstinted commitment made rapid strides in several areas. But sadly, Indian electorate under the spell of malicious campaigning refuse to endorse the achievements of Modi government.

Clearly getting requisite numbers in 2019 is going to be an uphill task for Modi and BJP cadres

@ Copyrights reserved.

Unravelling Sochi Summit

Asian realm is going through a season of informal talks. Since April, leaders in this part of the World have been engaging in direct, informal, agenda-less talks to foster friendship and understanding. This new trend of personalised diplomacy, spearheaded by leaders in recent times laid ground for friendly rapprochement between both Koreas, thaw in Indo-Chinese relations and recalibrating legitimate concerns of denuclearisation of Korean peninsula. Carrying forward this paradigm shift in global diplomacy, in less than a month after his informal summit with President Xi at Wuhan Prime Minister Narendra Modi headed to Sochi for a mini-informal summit with President Vladimir Putin. Putin who has taken charge as President for a record fourth time fortnight ago invited Modi for a meeting at the picturesque resort Sochi. Currently, informal summits have become mainstay of global diplomacy.

India and Soviet Union established diplomatic relations in 1947.  Despite, initial hiccups, geopolitical compulsions pushed both countries into a deep embrace. Subsequently, bolstering bilateral ties, India and Soviet Union signed friendship treaty in 1971 and both countries continued to maintain strong ties during Cold war era. But left in a lurch after Soviet Union’s collapse, India infused momentum into the Indo-US relations which began with a joint statement in 1978. Subsequent leaderships energised Indo-US ties by vigorously expanding areas of cooperation. Unlike the Indo-US ties, the mainstay of Indo-Russian bilateral ties is defence cooperation and Russian supplies accounted for over 70% of Indian defence purchases.  But owing to poor on-time deliverance, excessive reliance on Russia for weapons refurbishment and serviceability, India began to slowly diversify its purchases. Though Russia continues to be largest supplier of military equipment, its hardware now constitutes to 62% as compared to 79% in 2008-2012. US has emerged as the second largest defence supplier clinching over $15billion worth deals over the last decade. Consequently, US elevated India to major defence partner status on par with its NATO allies and both countries signed foundational agreements deepening bilateral ties. As a testimony to elevated strategic partnership, US agreed to sell advanced weaponised surveillance drones. Aggressive penetrative expansion of China and its overbearing hegemonistic aspirations forced America to strengthen ties with India as a counterweight to China. Soon, India became part of the Quad comprising of America, Japan and Australia keen on protecting the interests of Indo-Pacific region. India’s growing closeness with American left Russia disenchanted.

By the turn of century, reaffirming interest in renewing ties, India and Russia signed, “Declaration of India-Russia Strategic Partnership” in 2000, fortified friendship with annual summits. In 2010, countries elevated strategic partnership to “Special and Privileged Partnership”. Crippling economic sanctions on Russia post Crimean annexation in 2014 pushed Moscow into Chinese orbit. Throttled by slumping oil prices and economic downturn, Russia began to look for lucrative defence markets and zeroed in on Pakistan, arch enemy of India. Russia removed arms embargo on Islamabad in 2014 and steadily warmed up to Pakistan with plans for setting up Joint military commission in offing.  On the other hand, with America calling Pakistan’s bluff, disillusioned by growing Indo-US defence-oriented friendship, Islamabad found its calling in Russia which had similar concerns with regards to Taliban and geopolitical changes in the subcontinent. In December, Pakistan National Assembly hosted a six-nation conference which included Afghanistan, Russia, Turkey, China and Iran to discuss challenges of connectivity and counter terrorism. The joint declaration signed by all these nations underscored that, “for ensuring global and regional peace and stability, the issue of Jammu and Kashmir needs peaceful resolution by Pakistan and India in accordance with UNSC resolutions”. Since independence, Russia vetoed resolutions against Kashmir in UNSC. But Russia’s current posturing and sudden change of stance to favour China has irked India. Upping its pro-Chinese rants, Russian envoy Sergei Lavrov opined that India should be part of the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) notwithstanding its objections towards CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor). Though Moscow would find it hard to let go India’s defence ties in lieu of its newfound warmth with Pakistan, Delhi is disconcerted by Russia’s overtures. A creeping misunderstanding began to seep into long standing Indo-Russian ties.

Intensifying its campaign Russia for alleged involvement in Syrian civil war and meddling in America’s presidential elections, US wanted to punish Russia and countries purchasing weapons from Moscow. On August 2^nd, President Trump signed into law, “Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act” CAATSA, which included North Korea and Iran as well. CAATSA is now posing impediments in India’s path of acquiring five S-400 Triumf surface to air missile systems critical for buttressing its ability to counter stealthy ballistic missiles from its adversaries across the two borders. The $5.5 billion deal inked in 2016, close to fruition after 54 weeks of long negotiations has come under American scanner. India has sought American waiver and yet to receive to any response despite Jim Mattis appeal that waiver can severely impact America’s relations with India. Sandwiched between two belligerent nuclear states, national interest, defence robustness will outweigh US good will for India.

Besides, Trump’s disruptive decision of reneging historic Iran nuclear deal which saw light of the day after fourteen years of diplomatic negotiations has exacerbated India’s troubles. Aside European allies- Germany, France, UK; China and Russia severely condemned Trump’s decision. Like India, Russia has strategic and connectivity interests with respect to Iran. India has heavily invested in development of Chabahar port, which is a vital connectivity link for Afghanistan and instrumental for seamless connectivity through International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) from Mumbai to St. Petersburg. Having announced imposition of pre-2015 sanctions on Iran, India is now deeply worried. Further Trump’s protectionist approach culminating in unleashing of trade tariff wars between US and China will have a grave impact on global economy. Sochi summit comes at a juncture when world order is witnessing turbulence. Honouring Putin’s invitation Modi made a one-day visit to Russia like his rendezvous with President Xi.  

Overwhelming American unilateralism nixed with protectionism has upset its staunch European allies who are now keen on reviving the Iran deal. Reposing renewed interest in stitching up a deal without America, Putin recently held informal summit meets with heads of state of France and Germany. Underpinning centrality of Indo-Russian relations, Putin has thus extended invitation to Modi on similar lines to carry out heart-to heart chat on contentious issues. Precisely, in his 9-hour long stay, Modi held talks with Putin at his residence in Sochi, visited Moya Russia-Ethno culture centre, addressed students at Sirius educational centre and took a yacht ride on Black Sea with Putin.

President Putin received Modi at Bocharev Creek. After exchange of warm handshakes and signature bear hug of Modi both leaders held in depth discussions on international issues. Besides, agreeing to work together through various multilateral organisations like UN, BRICS, G20, SCO, RIC (Russia India China), leaders expressed concerns over growing terrorism and radicalisation and stressed the need for a multipolar world. Both leaders stressed the need for restoring peace and stability in Afghanistan and agreed to institute strategic economic dialogue between NITI Aayog and Ministry of Economic Development of Russian Federation. They reiterated the need for strengthening economic ties to reach set target of $30billion bilateral trade and $25billion mutual investment by 2025. Sources indicate that India expressed interest in holding substantive talks for joining custom-free Eurasian Economic Union Zone and official talks will be initiated within few months. Leaders welcomed the arrival of first consignment of LNG of under the long-term agreement between Gazprom and GAIL next month. They reiterated the need for strengthening cooperation in military, security and nuclear cooperation. Consolidating Indo-Russian ties, countries agreed to work towards developing nuclear power plant at Roppar Bangladesh.

Economic sanctions, allegations of Russian interference in various elections across Europe has pushed Russia towards Beijing. When European countries literally alienated Russia by returning their envoys, India refused to take sides and maintained strategic silence.

Despite Russia’s growing closeness with China, it is reluctant to accept Beijing’s brinkmanship in the region and sceptical of its expansionism in its sphere of influence, Central Asian Countries. To counter its growing influence, Russia strongly supported India’s membership to SCO.  Russia, keen on expanding its foot print is now seeking to connect Indo-Pacific region with Eurasian region. It now emerges that Modi and Putin have agreed to bring out a strong proposal to fight terrorism in the upcoming SCO meet at Qingdao. Despite the growing misunderstandings in Indo-Russian bilateral trade, oil exports from Russia increased 10 times in 2017.

Wrapping up the summit meet, Modi took to twitter saying “extremely productive discussions with President Putin. We reviewed complete range of Indo-Russian relations as well as other global subjects. Friendship between India and Russia stood test of time. Our ties continue to scale newer heights in the coming days”. Finally, in a major departure from official protocol, Putin personally bid farewell to Modi at the airport. This bonhomie might be yet another new beginning for the time-tested Indo-Russian bilateral ties.

While the allegations of nerve gas attack on double agent Sergei Kripal and his daughter in UK severely dented Russian relations with European countries, Trump’s fickle-minded America First approach and disruptive policies are fostering a new understanding between Russia and European countries. Besides Trump’s inexplicable and illogical volte-face in contrast to Russian sturdy approach towards Syrian issue is finding new takers. Treaty allies of America and other countries which are affected by American sanctions are now hedging bets on Russia. This new dynamic global development resonates with India’s doctrine of multipolar World and Sochi summit has certainly laid a firm foundation for such a promising development. Quite unsurprisingly, Shinzo Abe, ally of US is next in line for an informal summit with Putin.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Spate of Indian Economy

People had high expectations from NDA regime which stormed into power with record high electoral majority in past three decades. Now, with elections just a year away, the performance of NDA government headed by Modi is critically analysed along various fronts with a key focus on economic arena. While four years is short period to expect some major breakthroughs, NDA government made fervent efforts to revive, resurrect and reinvigorate Indian economy which was reduced to shambles under the decade long UPA government. Unfortunately, the NDA government, instead of producing a white paper on economy effectively disclosing the massive discrepancies in Indian economy, took a deep plunge to reform the economy. It introduced a series of economic reforms like Demonetization, GST, Insolvency and Bankruptcy code (IBC) and re-capitalisation of state-owned lenders have made a positive impact on the economy.  Of them, demonetization hugely impacted the growth rate and even slowed it. All the people who believed that economy would scale heights under Modi widely criticised government for this poorly executed disruptive move. Much to the anguish of the people, barely a year after the move, GST and demonetization together have infused fresh momentum into economy. Together these moves have increased tax base and tax compliance and now there is a surge in revenue collections.  Experts are now batting that labour reforms in conjunction to these above measures can substantially boost economy. But in a run up to elections, government which is focussed on agrarian stress have promised to increase Minimum Support Price (MSP) to alleviate farm distress.

Similarly, government’s initiatives like Jan Dhan Yojana, Ujjwala scheme, Direct Bank transfers, interbank transactions, Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bheema Yojana (PMJJBY), Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bhima Yojana (PMSBY) and others are making meaningful impact on the lives of the weaker sections of the country. Clearly, while media is quite disapproving of the desirable impact of these initiatives, making a difference in rural household, the beneficiaries would by and large will go with BJP in the next elections.  Performance of NDA government in four years is not bad at all. This is just a beginning and government should continue to redouble its efforts.

@ Copyrights reserved.