Media’s selective outrage is disrupting communal harmony and fuelling distrust

 National capital has witnessed another gruesome murder. 25-year old Rinku Sharma was brutally stabbed. The images of a knife sticking out of his back, splashed across social media has explicitly exposed the barbarity of the crime. The grim ordeal of the youth and the brutality which has no parallels to the regular events of crime transcended the borders of regular scuffles.

The imprints of savagery pertaining to the incident imbued a sense of threat to life to the people living in the area. People in the immediate neighbourhood a visibly shaken. An accompanying video in the aftermath of the incident making rounds in the social media has reinforced the same.

Six years ago, when window panes of a church were broken by miscreants in the capital, liberal elite raised alarm. Joining the chorus, legacy media alluded that lives of minorities are under danger. Though investigations revealed that it was clear case of burglary, the panic-mongering has already spread like a wild fire. International media agencies too joined the band wagon and lashed out the government for seeding an environment of fear and insecurity in the country.

Back to the current incident and its roots, Rinku worked as a lab technician in Balaji Hospitals and took active part in donation collection drive for Ayodhya Ram Mandir. Divulging the sequence of events to the media, the family admitted that hostilities surfaced after they organised an event commemorating Ram Mandir Bhoomi Pujan at their home few months ago. Ever since, Rinku and his family were subjected to harassment by the Muslim neighbours.

Even as police ruled out communal intent to the incident, distressed, Rinku’s family insisted that the Muslim mob targeted Rinku for his association with the Ram Mandir drive. They dismissed the claims of a birthday party brawl and business rivalry snow-balling into this stabbing incident. They stated that they don’t own any business.

With the reports of incident becoming viral, the legacy media as usual give their regular spin to the even and tried desperately to undermine the brutality of the event. In an attempt to push it under carpet, they termed it as case of stabbing. In reality, a Muslim mob of 25-30 people barged into the house of the victim, dragged him out his house, pinned Rinku to ground and plunged the knife into his back. The mob included two women, stated a latest report.

A flare up of tempers couldn’t have led to a chilling cold-blooded murder that reminded of Jihadi stabbings in the West. The Hindu community in the area is incensed. Tensions have been brewing for sometime and the scuffle on birthday party as indicated in the Police report could have been the trigger.

But the Police has rejected the claims of the family and VHP. It dismissed the possibility of communal angle. So unlike in the recent case of Navneet Singh, where they discredited the Police investigation, the media immediately lapped up Police version. Media ruled that the attack is not a communal crime.  

Media’s default position of rejecting communal angle when the victim is Hindu and perpetrator is Muslim has become a regular affair now. Irrespective of facts, Indian legacy media has begun summarily postulating Hindu’s preponderance towards hate crime against Muslims. Accordingly, all the crimes that fall in this ambit are automatically escalated.

With time, media’s casual way of downplaying some incidents and amplifying others has now become more predictable. The proclivity of media to grade and classify violent events based on victim’s faith has now become a common place. Selective vilification of Hindu community is an offshoot of this prejudiced bias relentlessly propagated by the media and the liberal ecosystem. Resultantly, Muslim victimhood and Hindu demonisation have become hallmarks of secular India.

The dangerous precedent set by the media is now fuelling a diabolical narrative of majority Hindu harbouring hatred towards the minority Muslims and that the Hindus are pre-disposed to step up minor issues into dangerous communal riots.

The decibel level of outrage pertaining to any violent incident by the so- called saviours of human rights varies from deafening silence to international indignation accompanied by the exhortations of secularism is in peril depending on the faith of victim. No longer is a crime outrightly called out for its brutality. Harsh but true, this is the reality of the liberal media. Welcome to the land of Santana Dharma where Sanatanis are disparaged. 

To drive home this message, legacy media accentuates the crimes where Muslims are victims. The phenomenon of selective outrage and loud clamour for international propaganda support has been the cornerstone of the Delhi riots wherein even vested interest group pitched in eventually to peddle a narrative. Fortunately, Delhi police investigation busted the plot and stymied the sinister agenda of the entire ecosystem.

Throughout the course of the India’s history, it has sheltered people of different faiths who sought refuge and emerged as exemplar of a pluralistic society and revelled in the glory of its syncretic culture. It shone as a beacon of secularism in true sense. India has respected all faiths without any bias, ill-will or malice. But contrary to the value-system of the land, detestable motives are being imputed to the intent of the dominant Hindu majority, the Sanatanis, who are open-minded, accommodative and has been truly liberal in every sense.

Simply put, unlike the nations which sparred at the drop of the hat and invaded foreign lands to forcibly impose their faith, India “eschewed certitude and embraced scepticism” and disallowed the erosion of civilisational strength to be lost in the narrow religious wars. No wonder, while World was bogged down brutal religious wars, India turned into fountain head of innovations, scientific discoveries where art prospered and temples as seat of learning thrived. The land of Sanatana Dharma thus flourished for ages.

Reducing such a legacy and imputing motives to the culture of the land, the liberal media has been trying to sow seeds of disharmony. Unfortunately, the western educated, deracinated Indians fed with distorted history are now sucking up to this malicious agenda perpetuated by the liberal media. But the double standards of liberal media is not lost on the common man who is now defiantly hitting the streets for justice.

By portraying Muslims as the victims and Hindus as perennial aggressors, the media is not only defaming the Hindus but the country as a whole. In the process it is mainstreaming the violence of Muslims.

The deafening silence of liberal ecosystem now and in over 150 cases in the last two years where Muslim mobs wreaked havoc on Hindus has exposed their hypocrisy. People are now calling the bluff of the judgemental posturing of this so-called independent media

The seemingly inexorable vilification and demonisation of Hindus and has now reached an insane level. Common man is now vexed up with this ruthless selective crucification of one community. Instead of breathing life into democracy with unbiased reporting of facts, media has donned the role of a propagandist to peddle a narrative.

By sanitizing, shielding and downplaying the dangerous intent of one community and white-washing the communal angle of a crime, liberal media is now viciously misleading the people. By fuelling distrust and disrupting the communal harmony, media is nefariously fostering the agenda of vested groups.  

@ Copyrights reserved.

Is Myanmar Coup Beijing’s furtive design?

 

Dashing all hopes of peaceful power transition, the hall mark of a thriving democracy, military junta in Myanmar seized power in coup d’etat. During the pre-dawn hours on Feb 1^st, hours before the installation of the new government Myanmar military, known as Tatmadaw detained State Counsellor Aaun San Suu Kyi and President Win Myint along with many legislators. Soon all the communication channels including the media and internet connectivity was temporarily severed across the country. Broadcasts were restricted to military’s Myawaddy TV channel.

To this effect, Military announced one-year State of Emergency and installed Myint Swe as the acting President.  The Commander-in-Chief and mastermind of the coup Min Aung Hlaing was made over-all charge of Legislative, Judicial and executive affairs.

Since last week, Myanmar junta dropped enough hints about an impending coup. Countries like the US, Britain, Australia, New Zealand even warned the military against the seizure of power. Countries saw it coming and hence the news of coup wasn’t a shock.

The latest military action, first since 1988, bearing all the hallmarks of a putsch justified its interference on the grounds of threat to democracy under article 417 of the constitution promulgated in 2008 which allows for declaration of the state of emergency in conditions that threaten to “disintegrate the union or disintegrate national solidarity”.

The Constitution drawn up by the military, reserves a quarter of the seats in both the houses for the military appointees.  To perpetuate its absolute control, military retained even the key portfolios of home affairs, border issues and defence under its ambit. Since 1962, when the civilian government was last deposed and military regime was established, Myanmar despite its preferred position of international isolation depended on military grants from China.

To downsize military dependence and drift to the West, military instituted the charade of semi-democracy setup in Myanmar. Soon they released Suu Kyi, “icon of democracy” from house arrest in 2010 and made Suu Kyi’s NLD (National League of Democracy) a stakeholder. As a part of the reforms process, NLD was allowed to register as political party for by-elections in 2012. Of the 44 seats it contested in Parliamentary by-elections NLD won 43 seats.

Convinced of military endeavors and Myanmar’s transition towards democracy, perceiving it as a useful addition to his strategic “Pivot to Asia” Obama administration ended its pariah status. Lifting arms embargo and sanctions, Obama made first state visit to Myanmar in 2012.

Buoyed by people’s acceptance, NLD registered a historic victory in 2015 elections. Denied the Presidentship for marrying a foreigner, Suu Kyi controlled to wield power as the State Counsellor and revived Myanmar’s engagement with the West. Having emerged as the credible civilian voice, Suu kyi wanted to bring about slew of constitutional reforms to limit military powers.

To slowly bring about complete civilian control, she began to defend human rights abuse of the military. She refused to condemn the atrocities against the Rohingyas and even travelled to International Court of Justice to be on the side of the military. Setting aside the past ill-treatment meted out to her by the Army, she sided with them and defended them at the international platform and undermined the alleged “genocide” of Rohingyas as internal conflict. Her remarks surprised many and shattered her image as the “icon of democracy”. By defending the indefensible and becoming the face of military, she destroyed her credibility whatever was left in the international community.

Suu Kyi kow-towed military anticipating a political favour on institutional reforms. She proposed some constitutional amendments to curb the political powers of military which was were put to vote¹ for the first time in March 2020. All of them were rejected and denounced by the Parliament. Suu Kyi’s gambit failed.

Rohingya crisis has toppled the apple cart of foreign investments into Myanmar. Plagued by the quagmire of poor investment scenario and increasing international censure over the Rohingya issue, Suu Kyi turned to China for financial and diplomatic assistance. COVID has further deepened Myanmar’s dependence on China. To keep economy afloat, Suu Kyi signed a raft of agreements related to China’s BRI. Critically at this juncture, military openly flagged China for arming and funding insurgents in the Northern region. Military eventually grew wary of China.

In November 2020, NLD clinched a landslide in the elections winning 396 of the 476 seats trouncing the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), military’s electoral proxy. USDP bagged 33 seats in the November 8^th elections. Several military leaders lost the elections while NLD made new inroads winning 83% of the contested parliamentary seats.

Suu Kyi’s winning streak has unsettled the military. Her growing popularity among the majority Buddhists was perceived as threat by generals. USDP’s election drubbing frustrated the junta. Perceiving it as an assault on their autonomy, military complained of massive voter fraud. Though Myanmar election commission rejected allegations of “voting malpractice”. Military persisted with their claims.

Owing to Suu Kyi’s burgeoning popularity and electoral consolidation the already frayed relations between the state counsellor and Commander-in-chief hit a rock bottom. As per sources, Suu Kyi hasn’t spoken to Aung Hlaing for over a year. This deepening distress and burgeoning political distance has seeded distrust. Also, Suu Kyi’s political rise presented a roadblock to the political ambitions of Aung Hlaing who dreamed of presidentship. Incidentally Aung Hlaing’s whose term is extended is set to expire by July this year.

Together the widening rift between the civilian administration and military junta has culminated in a coup. Paving way for a dictatorial regime, military crucified the blossoming democracy through the veritable Coup.

Even as real reasons for the coup aren’t clear, it is bound to have implicit domestic repercussions, like- throttling of democratic process in entirety, return to authoritarianism, economic recession and resurgence of insurgent movements besides creating a flutter in chaotic geopolitics arena as well.

The West condemned the coup and the US administration has threatened to re impose sanctions and described the detention of Suu Kyi as “direct assault on country’s transition to democracy and the rule of law” and said “the international community should come together in one voice to press the Burmese military to immediately relinquish the power they seized”².

Expectedly, China’s response to coup is muted. Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin hoped that all parties would preferably handle their “differences and maintain political stability”. Xinhua described coup as “a major cabinet reshuffle”³.

In this context, the visit of Chinese foreign Minister Wang Yi to Myanmar last month to discuss collaboration with Myanmar’s Commander-in-Chief for BRI projects assumes lot of significance.

Against the popular perception of Tatmadaw being red with China for its alleged weapons supply to armed insurgent groups, disturbed by Suu Kyi’s increasing popularity among the Buddhist majority and Chinese administration, to regain absolute control military may have considered clipping the extending tentacles of Suu Kyi.

Though the prospect of seeking Chinese approval for a coup by military junta might be unfounded, China’s knack for capitalising on an opportunity can’t rule out its consent. Myanmar is a strategic alternative to China for the US-controlled Straits of Malacca to ensure uninterrupted supplies of resources.

Certainly, the meeting between Wang and Hlaing may have been a trigger for the coup. Removal of civilian government would warrant imposition of sanctions which in turn can increase Tatmadaw’s dependency on China. Beijing can use this leverage for its geopolitical goal of encircling India. As of now, China has already penetrated Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal. By roping in Bangladesh and Myanmar which share porous border with India, China can accomplish its task of entrapping India.

With the balance of power tilting in favour of a civilian government, prompting a coup, China might have reliably promised to shield the military from international censure at various forums. Even if denied outright assurance by China, military might have banked on Beijing’s ambitions to expand its influence in Asia in the event of a coup.

Indeed, by way of offering diplomatic clout, China can egg on Tatmadaw, instrumental in reining on North East insurgent groups sheltered in Myanmar territory to act at its behest. Lending a tacit support to coup, China could severe Myanmar’s fledging relation with the West and other countries like India, Japan and Singapore. Beijing can even open another front against India through Myanmar.

Some Indian analysts alluded to similar events in 1962, when China waged a war against India after allowing the fall of civilian government in Myanmar. India expressed “deep concern” over the coup. MEA issued a statement saying, “India has always been steadfast in its support to the process of democratic transition in Myanmar. We believe that rule of law and the democratic process must be upheld. We are monitoring the situation closely”⁴.

Last year October, Indian Foreign Minister Harsh Shringla and Army Chief MM Naravane travelled to Myanmar to buttress defence cooperation. India gifted INS Sindhuvir which was commissioned on 73^rd anniversary of Myanmar Navy. With this, Myanmar has become the first country to receive a submarine from India. In 2019, both countries held joint exercises IMNEX in Bay of Bengal. India is currently training Myanmar personnel. Myanmar army has handed over 22 insurgents to India last year. India has resurrected ties with Tatmadaw and fast-tracked infrastructure projects as well.

The current coup is a real tight walk for India. By joining voice with the West in condemning military, India might risk its relationship with the military. But for better or worse, India should bat for restoration of democratic regime, since a popular elected government might stall the Chinese dreams of turning Myanmar into a safe operation zone for China.

Though the apparent cause of Myanmar coup is still a matter of speculation, China’s veto on a joint statement condemning Myanmar coup at UNSC should offer enough clues…!!

@ Copyrights reserved.

Is Jaishankar’s eight principles framework the much-awaited India’s China policy recalibration?

For long the strategists opined that recalibration of India’s China Policy should have been underway. In continuum with the uninterrupted engagement with China to break the over seven- months long Sino-Indian logjam, India’s EAM Jaishankar Subramaniam for the first time enunciated eight principles for India-China ties. He outlined the framework for further engagement. Coming just days after the face-off between India and China troops at Naku La, Jaishankar, speaking at the 13^th All India Conference of China Studies organised by Institute of China Studies, has relayed an important strategic message to Beijing.

The eight propositions include¹

·       “Agreements already reached must be adhered to in their entirety, both in letter and spirit

·       LAC must be strictly observed and respected, any attempt to unilaterally change the status quo is completely unacceptable

·       Peace and tranquillity in the border areas is the basis for development of relations in other domains. If they are disturbed, so inevitably will the rest of the relationship

·       While both nations are committed to a multi-polar world, there should be a recognition that a multi-polar Asia is one of its essential constituents

·       Each State will have its own interests, concerns and priorities; but sensitivity to them cannot be one-sided. At the end of the day, relationships between major states are reciprocal in nature

·       As rising powers, each will have their own set of aspirations and their pursuit too cannot be ignored

·       There will always be divergences and differences but their management is essential to our ties

·       Civilisational states like India and China must always take the long view”.

Since China’s stealthy transgression at the height of the Wuhan virus outbreak and the pre-planned Galwan attacks, the first event since 1975 when blood was spilled and lives were lost, much water has flowed. Through bloody Galwan skirmishes China got taste of valour and bravery of Indian military might. And by occupying the Kailash mountain peaks, India delivered a strategic blow to PLA.

Post- Galwan, shedding its previous complacency, India beefed up troops along the LAC, ramped up battle readiness with rigorous missile tests, expedited defence acquisitions and replenished supplies boosting the indigenous production. Instead of cowering under pressure, India checkmated China’s nefarious attempts to transgress the borders and confronted the Dragon.

India and China thus far, held nine rounds of high-level military official talks to diffuse tensions across the LAC. Despite India’s repeated appeals for status quo ante restoration, Beijing effortlessly passed the buck, pinned the blame on India and anticipated the ties to be immune from provocations at the border.

Continuing with its ongoing strategy of encircling and entrapping India, CCP (Chinese Communist Party) egged on Nepali Prime Minister KP Oli to needle India with cartographic adventurism to abrade bilateral ties and create a new front. India smartly, evaded the Chinese trap and palliated the ties through a slew of developmental projects, pandemic medical assistance and supplies.  

Alongside, India stiffly resisted China’s infiltration attempts to penetrate the IOR (Indian Ocean Region) and influence the South Asian countries. With a Chinese friendly Sri Lankan regime at the helm, Beijing is relentlessly deepening Colombo’s dependency on China. To bolster maritime cooperation and frustrate Beijing’s IOR overtures, India reactivated the India-Sri Lanka- Maldives trilateral dialogue in the presence of observers Bangladesh, Seychelles and Mauritius².

To halt, ambitious China’s overreach to Dhaka, India expedited infrastructure projects at break-neck speed and revitalised bilateral ties. Having pledged assistance and cooperation in capacity building to combat the Wuhan virus outbreak, India trained the medical personnel and delivered medical supplies to all the SAARC nations (baring Pakistan which refused India’s offer).

Notwithstanding the infamy of unleashing the pandemic, China brazenly exported substandard medical supplies to countries when the World was reeling under shortage of resources. This disproportionately tainted China’s global image. As a result, South Asian countries also scrapped Chinese medical exports. Indeed, Bangladesh rejected China’s vaccine trials which came with “strings attached” approach of co-financing³.

In sharp contrast, within four days of launch of COVID vaccination, India generously gifted vaccines to immediate neighbours-Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Maldives, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Afghanistan. Through phased delivery of vaccines to countries like Seychelles, Mauritius, Bahrain, Indo-Pacific nations, CARICOM (Caribbean Community) countries, Nicaragua and Africa, India firmly consolidated its influence in South Asia and IOR through generous humanitarian assistance. As anticipated, offended by India’s aspirational diplomacy, China launched a smear campaign against India.

Since Galwan incident, aside confronting China in the region, India prioritised “Free and Open Indo-Pacific”. Cognizant of Chinese aspirations of supplanting the US as the major power in the Indo-Pacific and its importance in shaping World order, India firmed up its approach. As a first step, instead of referring Indo-Pacific as a vision, New Delhi began strategizing with securitization of Indo-Pacific through joint military exercises and improved interoperability. India’s invite to Australia and outreach to like-minded democratic countries has been part of this exercise.

No longer smitten by the Pakistan obsession, and convinced of the futility of the illusionary Wuhan Spirit and Chennai Connect, India began tackling China in every aspect ranging from trade to regional and global collaborations. By firmly opposing BRI, staying away from RCEP, launching Supply China Resilience Initiative (SCRI) with Japan and Australia, India has firmly stood its ground and confronted China.

In response of China’s Xiaokiang (well-off) villages program⁴, India is now acquiring land along the strategic locations across LAC to counter China’s threats⁵. Though India’s response is too little too low, India’s renitent approach is becoming more evident. Jaishankar’s eight-proposition is certainly an offshoot of India’s renewed recalibration of its China policy.

Underscoring the need for study of China, as “its salience in global order is self-evident” and “as proximate neighbour of India only makes stronger studies a compelling case”, Jaishankar in his address outlined the history of bilateral ties, terming the rebuilding of ties after the 1962 war as “a very painstaking and arduous endeavour”⁶. Claiming that violence at LAC in Eastern Ladakh has “profoundly disturbed the relationship because they not only signalled a disregard for commitments about minimizing troop levels, but also showed a willingness to breach peace and tranquillity”. He pointed out, “we have yet to receive a credible explanation for the change in China’s stance or reasons for massing of troops in the border areas” and acknowledged that important issue is “what the Chinese posture signals, how it evolves, and what implications it may have for the future of our ties”.

Terming that India-China relationship witnessed “duality of cooperation and competition” before 2020, the EAM pointed to the seven divergences-

·       Practice of stapled-visas

·       Reluctance to deal with military commands

·       Opposition to NSG membership and to permanent seat in the UNSC

·       Promises of market access did not meet delivery

·       Blocking UN listing of Pakistani terrorists

·       Violation of Indian sovereignty by the CPEC

·       Border areas saw frictions on some occasions

Needless to say, cumulatively, these differences took a toll on the relationship. In 2017, at Asthana countries have agreed “not allow differences to become disputes”. But the events of 2020 have put the relationship under tension.

In an unequivocal message to China, Jaishankar stated that “three mutuals- mutual respect, mutual sensitivity and mutual interests are determining factors. Any expectation that they can be brushed aside, and that life can carry on undisturbed despite the situation at the border, that is simply not realistic”. In no uncertain terms Jaishankar said that India-China relationship is truly at crossroads and their ability to work together will determine the Asian century.

Besides, expressing India’s readiness for discussions, Jaishankar straight talk categorically divulged India’s exasperation with China’s dismal defiance and violation of the agreements. The timing is truly significant. Coming days after the face-off Naku La which China chose to brush under carpet and coinciding with takeover of Biden administration which is yet to unravel its China policy, Foreign Minister’s pronunciation of India’s redlines is a direct message to China.

In response to Jaishankar’s message, China’s foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said, “EAM Jaishankar’s stress on the significance of China-India relations showcases the importance the India side attaches to its ties with China. We approve of that. Meanwhile, I need to stress that the border issue shall not be delinked with bilateral relations. We hope the Indian side will work with us to properly manage differences, promote practical cooperation, and get bilateral relations back on the right track.”⁷

China insistence on ‘delinking the border’ despite India’s repeated clarification that with frictions at boundary it can’t be business as usual is reflective of Beijing’s hardening position towards India. By extension, tensions are unlikely to ease. Indeed, the violent face-off at Naku La is indicative of ensuing heightened military confrontations across the border.

Jayadev Ranade in his piece titled, “India-China tensions unlikely to ease”⁸ cited two articles by Hu Shisheng, Director of the Institute for South Asian Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) asserting that conflict at Ladakh was inevitable as a result of “high-risk, high-yield” policy followed by Modi regime and attributed, “India’s long-term pursuit of absolute security and dominance in the regional order and Modi government’s ambition to overtake China by taking advantage of India’s favourable external strategic environment” as reasons for the rivalry. To this effect, China has launched publicity blaming India’s aggressive “forward policy” for the stand-off. He contended that border contestations will move from, “reconciliation through dialogues” to “contention for control with real power” and “bottom line for tolerance will become redline lying between border troops of both countries”.

Hu’s second article outrightly accused “India of negative and obstructionist approach”. China’s response to EAM’s proposition is in congruence with Hu’s expositions.

Ranade also refers to an article on PLA website that claimed Indian Army is, “waiting for an opportunity to cause trouble next year” and added, “India must be the one that pays the greater price. India will waste decades on the misjudgement of Modi and Jaishankar’s strategy”. Clearly China is up for a long haul. The relentless negative propaganda by CCP’s propaganda machinery indeed points the same.

Perhaps, Jaishankar’s eight principles framework must have been a riposte to prevailing anti-India narrative perpetuated by Chinese analysts and intelligence agencies.

@ Copyrights reserved.

The Red Fort siege blew the mask of disguise off the farmers protests into smithereens

Red Fort was under siege; armed protestors marched in and hoisted Sikh flag from the very mast used by   Prime Ministers to unfurls Tiranga on the eve of every Independence Day. Desecration of the national flag on a day as sacrosanct as the Republic Day has left the nation aghast. While violent mobs unleashed mayhem, anarchy at the historic national monument, people of the country watched helplessly.

Even before the nation could savour the much-awaited Republic Day parade that included a display of the cache of indigenous weaponry, march by the Bangladeshi contingent, the Rafale flyby and the cultural extravaganza, reports of the planned tractor rally going amok began to pour in. In violation of the 36 points which were in principle agreed upon by the farmers organisations, tractors began to break the barricades. The protestors deviated from the original plan and resorted to unprecedented violence. Around 200 artists who performed at the Republic Day were holed up in the Red Fort listlessly witnessed the rampage before police could rescue them from the mobsters.

Brandishing arms, vandalising public property and police stations, the protestors have brazenly unleashed anarchy. At several places, police were outnumbered by the protestors and tractors were deliberately run into them. The chaotic scenes and fierce stone pelting removed every iota of doubt about the legitimate intentions of the protestors. But the Police exercised extreme restraint as use of force by the state would have provided the so- called protestors the much-needed political mileage to advance their movement.

Orgy of the violence which has descended on the national capital reminded the entire country of the February 2020, North- East Delhi riots. Eventually, the common harbinger of the two events that ravaged the capital city have been the ‘so called peaceful protests’. In less than a year, two peaceful protests that held the capital to ransom have snowballed into riots causing grave threat to safety and security of the people. Incidentally, with the stalwarts and the protagonists of these protests being the same, dissent in the form of peaceful protests is now being viewed with suspicion.

People are now questioning the naivete of authorities in granting permission to a tractor rally on a Republic Day and the prudence of the Supreme Court, in overruling the genuine concerns of the Attorney General pertaining to infiltration of the protests by anti-social elements. Like the much-touted peaceful protest, Shaheen Bagh, which has become a front for the extremists, radical groups and the secessionists, the current episode of peaceful protests also brought the capital to its knees. The farmers protests brought economic activity to grinding halt resulting in losses of Rs 3500 crore per day received the needed propaganda support from the dishonest media which amplified the fake news.

Alleging the government to be majoritarian and accusing it to be resolute, farmers organisations levelled untenable charges against the government despite government numerous outreach efforts and eleven rounds of meetings.  In response to the legitimate concerns raised by the farmers, government made relevant amendments. Government even accepted Supreme Court’s verdict of staying the implementation of the farm laws until further order and agreed to the proposal of constituting a team of four experts to break the dead-lock. Bending over backwards, government offered to suspend the laws for eighteen months. But Farmers organisations rejected the expert committee proposal, suspension of laws and refused to budge for anything less than the total repeal of the farm laws.

Bargaining from a maximalist position, farmers indeed remained adamant and blatantly rejected a middle path. Under the guise of the protest, farmers vandalised the telecom infrastructure across the state of Punjab. State Government’s pliant approach and dearth of stringent punishment emboldened them. Touted as game changer, akin to second green revolution, despite the firm endorsement from economists, farmers organisations, firmly rejected the new laws.

India’s opposition when in power, supported them, fearing backlash failed to legislate the new farm laws. But now, unable to trounce the ruling party electorally, inundated by ‘un-electables’, co-opted these protests to extract political revenge. Debased by repeated electoral drubbing, rudderless political parties began using these protestors as tools to create unrest in the country to advance their agenda. Though Expert committee reports indicated that mere 6% of farmers are beneficiaries of MSPs labelling the agriculture laws as anti-farmers, opposition parties ran a massive subversive campaign. Political desperation was written all over the colossal U-turn of major opposition parties.

Enamoured by this overwhelming support, protestors dug in their heels in the capital. Ironically, despite the reports and concerns raised by the intelligence agencies, farmers were allowed to hold the tractor rally. Red Fort was breached.

The template and course of action of peaceful protests is becoming more predictable now. Given the precarious state of law & order situation, it is expected that government learns from the past experiences. Previously, by giving long rope to protestors and precluding use of force, intelligence agencies uncovered external financial sources and extricated the intricate web of the protestors and subsequently exposed the malevolent intentions of the protestors. The government has come clean.

Acting at the behest of the vested interests, as expected, protestors in the past and now have brazened it out and unravelled themselves completely. With this the hypocrisy, double-speak of the cabal, the hand maiden of the break India forces has been completely shattered. In this long winding process the government has put law and order machinery under extreme rigour. Outnumbered and over powered, forced to exercise restraint, Police and common man are finding themselves at the receiving end.

Peaceful protests by nature are derailing the local governance machinery and consequently people are enduring a gruelling ordeal. They are disenchanted by the repeated episodes of trials and tribulations and growing weary of government’s apathy and inaction.

It is no secret that civil societies, break-India forces, radicals are taking cover of protestors to disrupt the country and derail government programs. At this juncture, faced with the daunting challenge of resurrecting the COVID-hit economy, can government afford to reinvent the wheel and adopt a ham-handed approach towards repeat protest episodes which is in contravention to its development agenda?

With a reputation of inflicting a devastating blow to enemies that crossed redlines, government’s dilly-dallying approach to deal internal enemies is rather intriguing. Government’s complacency towards the inimical peaceful protests can be counterproductive to its developmental agenda and eventually dent its trust factor among people (NCR residents).

By hoisting a flag above the Tiranga, protestors breached the dignity and decorum and the founding principles of constitution of India. To begin with, the protests were never about farmers, the unprecedented anarchy manifested by tumultuous tractor has divested protests of any iota of credibility. Political parties distanced themselves and farmers organisations abdicated responsibility after tractor rally went haywire suggesting that they were no one’s protests. Disruption has been the agenda. It is time government stops treating these anti-nationals with kids gloves.

“there is nothing wrong with making mistakes, but one should always make new ones. Repeating mistakes is hallmark of dull consciousness”- Dave Simon.

#saynotopeacefulprotests.

@ Copyrights reserved

 

 

How Jai Shri Ram Slogan has turned into an object of political contestation?

 

The Ministry of Culture had organised an event at the Victoria Memorial, Kolkata on the eve of 125^th Jayanti of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. The event was attended by Prime Minister Modi and Governor Jagdeep Dhankar. By refusing to deliver her address as a mark of protest to the Jai Shri Ram slogans raised at the event, Chief Minister of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee has stoked a needless controversy just months ahead of upcoming assembly elections.

Controversy and confrontation aren’t new to mercurial Didi. Greeted with slogans of Jai Shri Ram, a visibly irked Didi refused to speak at the illustrious event celebrated to pay homage to the legendary freedom fighter, whose Jayanti has been declared as Parakram Diwas. A section of political analysts even defended her action concurring that it isn’t a political event to have such slogans. Her intolerance towards the slogan, which is widely used across India and especially more popular in Hindi belt as a greeting, has for the first time earned the ire of the majority community. It is unfortunate that chants of Jai Shri Ram are now identified with a political party. Similarly, anything related to Hindu culture and civilisation are now reduced to one colour- saffron, which in turn is attributed to one party that never openly stood up for the Hindu welfare or causes.

With time while the slogan undoubtedly has accrued larger political connotations and became identified with BJP, among the political circles, it still has a deeper religious significance to it. Most religious events and especially those related to Bhagwan Shri Ram are incomplete without chants of Jai Shri Ram. These chants have been integral to the religious solidarity and harmony.

Didi’s lividity towards the Jai Shri Ram chants is not new. Even in the past Didi lost her cool and she stepped out her vehicle angrily to confront people who chanted Jai Shri Ram, as her motorcade passed through North 24 Parganas district. Reportedly, seven people were detained for chanting the slogans¹ in May 2019.

While her indignation towards the chants of Jai Shri Ram was attributed to her political desperation due to perceived surge of BJP’s presence in the state, her current irate reaction and the illogical dissent at Netaji’s event is an insult to the iconic freedom fighter. Clearly, at a time, when the Centre is often rebuked as being intolerant, the display of gross of intolerance towards mere chants is an unequivocal self-goal by the Bengal CM.

In India, politics and religious have never been clearly delineated. It is no secret that leaders cultivate certain communities and openly pander to them to win elections.  Faith based slogans have become very common at political rallies.

While Jai Shri Ram slogans are a misfit at an event conducted to commemorate Netaji’s Jayanti, given the kind of political ruckus which is becoming more of a pattern in the state, being a confrontationalist, Didi should have held BJP responsible for turning a commemoration event into a political one. However, in what can be considered as a political meltdown, Didi allowed her anger to overpower her which in turn gave an opportunity to political adversaries to expose her ham-handed approach towards the Hindus in the state.

Since 2016, West Bengal administration has become increasingly hostile towards Hindus denying them permissions to celebrate Rama Navami, curtailing Durga Puja celebrations at places and even curtailing the traditional Saraswati pooja celebrations in schools. Local administration which inveterately bends over backwards to serve the administration and under the pressure from the local Muslim communities has been denying permission to organise Durga Puja in some places. On the contrary, religious events of Muslims never encountered any such restrictions.

Didi’s high-handedness and blatant appeasement presented perfect occasion for BJP to make political gains. BJP started organising Ram Navami celebrations across the state. But the state administration began obstructing these processions and objected to carrying of religious symbols like tridents. This often led to scuffles and clashes in the state. In the process, the chants of Jai Shri Ram have become very popular among the people. Eventually in this competitive political appeasement, Bhagwan Ram and Jai Shri Ram are now identified with a certain political party.

Slowly but steadily, these chants now represent growing dissent and unhappiness with the ruling party in the state, and started acquiring political overtone. Increasingly, the chants have now become a war cry of people against the authoritarian administration of the state.

Gauging the ever-growing popularity of the Ram Navami across the state, even the TMC leaders began organising peaceful processions. But that was too late. TMC failed to make any gains with its new approach. Subsequently, Didi began to hit back at BJP saying, “People here have been worshipping Lord Shiva, Goddess Durga and Kali for ages. Here is a party that wants us to worship a particular God” ² in an oblique reference to BJP’s state wide Ram Navami celebrations.

Meanwhile, with the remarks dubbing “Jai Shri Ram” slogan as alien to people of Bengal, the slogan and even the Ram Navami celebrations have unfortunately become an appeasement handle. In its political anxiety, political dispensation in the state deemed the worshippers of Bhagwan Ram and the slogan as an “outside influence”.

The escalating identity politics, together with unabated exodus of TMC leaders has unsettled Didi. Certainly, while the Jai Shri Ram slogans are clearly out of place and context, Didi’s furious reaction at a pan-Indian event underscored her intolerance towards the chant and her irreverence towards the PM. By reducing the event to a political slugfest between BJP vs TMC, Didi has taken the sheen out the well-intentioned tribute to Netaji.

Now, the million-dollar question is- what would have been Didi’s reaction to other faith-based chants?

 

@ Copyrights reserved.

Capitol Hill Protests: America’s worst nightmare comes back haunting

 Unprecedented scenes of chaos, confusion at the Capitol Hill tore apart the carefully nurtured reputation of the United States of America as an epitome of democracy. ‘Brazen anarchy’, as some media agencies described was witnessed at a time when Congress was conducting the certification of electoral process. Gunshots, violence and evacuations at the Capitol Hill and the emergent pandemonium reminded people of 9/11, alluded the police.

Protestors were seen occupying the Office of the Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Police had to be rushed in to evacuate the legislators. Even Vice President Mike Pence who eventually broke up with President Trump was placed in lockdown. Incidents of panic and disruption has irrevocably tarnished the oldest democracy of the World.  While strict curfew has been imposed with immediate effect and 52 people were detained, the incident at the time of writing this article led to four deaths. American lawmakers termed this as insurrection and called it a black day. World leaders expressed shock over storming of Capitol Hill and urged for peaceful transfer of power.

Political analysts contend that Capitol Hill protests are a consequence of Trump’s address to his supporters, where he egged on the crowd, “you will never take back our country with weakness”. Liz Cheney, Republican from Wyoming, told Fox News, “The President incited the mob. The President addressed the mob. He lit the fire”¹. Agencies even reported that after disparaging Mike Pence, Trump watched the unfoldment of the ugly protests at the Capitol Hill.

Unequivocally, while the glaring security lapses despite numerous hints of a looming mutiny is the outright culprit for situation slipping out of control. The unending trail of challenges, petition in court for the audit of election results in the disputed states have raised doubts about the veracity and credibility of the election process in America. Every Presidential election in America ends with claims and counter claims of massive election frauds.  This is not new. In 2016, the election results were greeted with “Not My President” protests. But it is unfortunate that being the most technologically advanced nation, America has failed to evolve a fool proof and authentic election process that can annihilate distrust among the public.

Peaceful transition of power has been the hallmark of a vibrant democracy. More so, after a deeply divided, abusive and highly contested elections, it becomes indispensable. Being the oldest democracy, America has set template for other democracies to emulate. Foisting itself on a moral high ground for eons, America has lectured the World on democracy. Pertinently, all the actions of the oldest democracy have become matter of great interest.

Capitol Hill protests have totally unravelled the façade of American democracy. The unfathomable hypocrisy which is coming back to America and hitting it very hard. In summer, the Left liberals remained silent when the BLM protestors indulged in episodes of violence, arson, ransacking and unabated loot. They have endorsed the violence and rioting to overthrow Trump. Incidentally, the Liberal Lefts occupied Capitol Hill in Seattle Neighbourhood in Summer and prevented the entry of Police calling it an autonomous zone. This event led to death of one person and the perpetrators got away with the murder. Now, replicating the same template and taking it one step further the far-right now laid siege to Capitol Hill. Leftists supported the disruption with their favourite cliché of “respect for dissent”.

Under the cloak of protecting democracy this entitled class lent support to such movements across the World. Their inalienable approval to any and every protest against the establishment made the slogans, “Gandhians with Guns; Dissent is safety valve of democracy”, progressive buzz words in India. Authorizing violence as be all and end all of all the problems, the Liberals have encouraged mobocracy.

Ironically, by lending credence to even to the illogical theories of “good terrorist and bad terrorist”, they have eventually rolled out the new paradigm of “good anarchy and bad anarchy” as well. Hence, when the exemplars of such ideology cringe about the Capitol Hill protests their unfathomable hypocrisy stands exposed.

Interestingly, even the media narrative of justifying the brazen loot under the banner of BLM as dissenters to labelling the Capitol Hill protestors as “domestic terrorists”, the entire liberal cabal has revealed its double standards. Hypocrisy of the Leftists and Antifa has no parallels this time with their own logic coming back to hit them hard.

For decades, India has been favourite whipping boy of Progressive Americans. Even now, while they outrightly denounce and condemn the protestors siege of Capitol Hill which indeed, is the most despicable act, they are standing shoulder to shoulder with Farmers protesting in India’s capital city. By approving the acts of dissent that are now emboldening the disruptive forces, whose acts are tantamount to treason.

Similar to Capitol Hill, New Delhi is the seat of power and any security lapse with protestors laying siege can be a serious threat national security. Notwithstanding, these consequences, the Progressives in the past supported the Shaheen Bagh attack and by extension, replicated similar move during the Farmers Protest in India’s Capital City.

Capitol Hill protest should thus be a wakeup call to the Left Liberals who have dubious agenda and buoy up selective outrage. Instructively, for all the infamy heaped on India, democratic functioning and more so the electoral process is robust, elections are largely violence-free and is characterised by a peaceful transition of power (barring 1975 emergency).

Reflecting on the protests, President-Elect Joe Biden said, “Let me be very clear, the scenes of chaos at the Capitol do not reflect the true America. This is not dissent, its disorder, it’s chaos and it borders on sedition and it must end now”. Clearly, the great legacy of the US can’t be reduced to or representative of this episodic violence. Similarly, the disparaging remarks on India based on few unfortunate incidents is untenable. By extension, even the farmers protest in India’s capital too border on sedition and incoming US administration is best advised to reconsider its support to all and sundry protests.

Joe Biden has a big task ahead, the first and foremost being healing the wounds of political hostilities, bringing people together and leading them as single unit. Fresh reports at the time of writing this article indicate that Congress has officially certified Biden’s victory and that Trump has pledged a peaceful transition.

In the meanwhile, while America is wrangling with what qualifies to be a political coup, Emperor Xi is advancing Pax-Sinica. Lastly, Capitol Hill protests underscore the quintessential need for building robust institutions to nurture the democratic ethos.

@ Copyrights reserved.

 

1.

@

EU gifts a strategic victory to China with Comprehensive Investment Agreement (CIA)

Even as countries are reeling under the double whammy of recurrent resurgent cycles of pandemic outbreak and surging economic recession, the EU on December 30^th has announced in principle reaching a Comprehensive Investment Agreement (CIA) with China. The European countries are the ones worst hit by the pandemic and the announcement on the CIA coming on the day when Germany registered record number of infections and mortality has raised many eyebrows.

A year after the World was plagued up by the Chinese Wuhan virus, China seems to have emerged much stronger. After sealing the RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), the largest trade agreement in October 2020, an investment treaty with the EU has not only powered Beijing’s economic ambitions but also gave wings to the Middle Kingdom’s geopolitical ambitions. Notwithstanding the mayhem unleashed by the Wuhan pandemic, instead of seeking retributions for its complicity in handling the virus outbreak, the EU has handed over a strategic diplomatic victory to Beijing.

Welcoming the agreement, which concluded after seven years of talks and 35 rounds of negotiations, The Global Times, the mouth piece of CCP hailed the development with its characteristic cliché- “win-win cooperation” and termed it as “New Year Gift from China and the EU to the whole World”¹.

Throttling the growing chorus of the decoupling trade and investment from Middle Kingdom known for weaponizing them, the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and President of the European Council, Charles Michel declared, “this agreement is of major economic significance and also binds parties into value-based investment relationship grounded in sustainable development principles”².  Ursula von der tweeted that the agreement will, “uphold our interests” and “promotes core values”³.

In reality, the agreement undermines the virtues of value-based investments and barely comprehends with the principles of sustainable development. It is no secret that foreign companies running business in China are forced to transfer technology and compete against highly subsidised Middle Kingdom’s State-Owned Enterprises of (SOE) in global markets. Disregarding rules of law, disrespecting the intellectual property rights, China has been practising discriminatory, distortive business disgorgement practices and dominating the World trade.

Since its accession to the WTO in 2000, China has scuppered all the agreements of principled economic investments and continued to lunge ahead by restricting market access to countries. Devoid of transparency and reciprocity, China’s monopolistic predatory trade practices have become security threat.  As per China’s National Intelligence Law, Chinese companies are obligated to double up as intelligence gatherers. In 21^st century, data is the new gold and a free access to Chinese entities will have potential security implications.

Given the burgeoning no-trust factor and the bullying tactics nations are trying to limit interdependence with China. Beijing is facing harsher criticism for its impetuous bullying actions against Australia and Norway, aggressive standoff with India, Vietnam, intimidatory expansionism in South China Sea and repeated incursions across the Taiwan Straits and Senkaku islands. EU’s decision of concluding the CIA at this juncture thus raised valid doubts about its intentions.

The timing of the deal has raised many hackles. In September 2020, Germany unveiled new guidelines of its Indo-Pacific Policy and underscored the need to protect the seas through the legally binding Code of Conduct enunciated by ASEAN countries. Even France and the Netherlands evinced strong interest in making Indo-Pacific, a part of their foreign policy. These nations heaped criticism on China for serious human rights abuse of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang and objected to slave labour.

Amid this scenario, the EU’s sudden turn around and announcement just a day before expiry of Germany’s six-month tenure as EU president brought back to focus Angela Merkel’s growing disenchantment with the US. Merkel no longer considers the US as a reliable ally. Her disastrous encounters with President Trump at NATO and G-7 summit have only reinforced her views. In her speeches at Munich Security Conference in 2019 and America Academy 2020, she spoke at length about the geopolitical vulnerabilities of Germany and said, “If you look at what we Europeans have on our doorstep, it looks quite challenging. We have Russia and right after that China. China and Russia are moving closer”⁴. Receiving American prize at Berlin she added, “but I plead for us not to fall into a new bipolarity, but rather that we try, with the results and experiences we have, to include a country like China in multilateralism and treat it at least equally”⁵.

While anxiety about European vulnerabilities is understandable, Merkel stand on China has been clear. Geopolitics and fear of bipolar World scenario aside, Merkel’s China pull is inextricably linked to the economic interests of German automakers whose dependency on China has increased immensely. Despite the episodes of forced technology transfer and calls for decoupling the global supplies, German Automakers who have invested heavily in China are in no mood to pull back. Resisting the pushback from the Trump administration, a week before conclusion of CIS Germany opened door for China’s Huawei to build 5G network⁶.  With no let down in threat of US sanctions over the Airbus-Boeing tiff, France is also miffed with the US.

Germany’s stand towards China has been clear. Though it joined other European countries in condemning China’s threats following Czech delegation visit to Taiwan⁷ and crackdown on Hongkong Pro-democracy activists, imposition of National Security Law, Beijing annexation threats to Taiwan, concerns over China’s acquisition of strategic industries, Germany’s economic interests has trumped its ideological positioning.

Representing EU presidency, Merkel gave final push to negotiations and invited President Macron on board for the videoconference that announced the conclusion of EU-China investment agreement. For singularly steering the deal ignoring the consent of the countries, Spain, Poland, Italy are now publicly voicing their opposition to the agreement. Feeling slighted, these small European nations are now coming down heavily on Germany for failing to bring trans-Atlantic partners on board. Terming it premature, countries lashed out at Franco-German push for ignoring legitimate concerns about the deal.

EU-China irrevocably ripped apart Europe’s image of Paragon of human rights and democratic values and drove a wedge between US and Europe. CIA has unsettled Europe’s ties with the US and opened fissures between EU countries. The investment deal is a major setback to the incoming Biden administration, which hasn’t rolled out a concrete China policy as yet. Notorious for weaponing trade, the aggressive authoritarian regime at the helm in China will inexorably leverage the deal to realise its geopolitical ambitions. China’s punishing sanctions on Australia despite the Free Trade Agreement is a case in point.

Unfortunately, Europe’s deepening economic dependence with an authoritarian China all set to dominant the World, will have consequences for all democratic countries.

 At a time when the new Wuhan virus variant has forced the European countries into a second lockdown, EU’s CIA agreement is perceived as a royal snub to US President Elect Biden who has promised to revive ties with Europe and all its allies. US is EU’s largest diplomatic partner and this investment agreement is bound to complicate matters for the US’s incoming administration.

Even as EU’s contends that it could force China to ratify International Conventions on Labour organisations. Given China’s record of vituperative violations of treaties, EU must surely be living in a wonderland to believe that CAI would bestow it a handle to change Beijing’s ways. Believing China’s integration would lead to its democratization, West welcomed China into WTO. On the contrary, two decades to its WTO membership, the authoritarian China has excelled the art of exploiting the democratic systems and multilateralism to serve its interests.

In the process of asserting its ‘strategic autonomy’, Europe rushed the investment deal and left incoming Biden administration in lurch. Though trans-Atlantic rapprochement is on cards, the deal is bound to create a divide and alter the geopolitical paradigm. In the meanwhile, China will continue to leverage EU-US disagreements and sabotage the China’s threat narrative.

It is a crying shame that despite its grandstanding, Europe, the epicentre of pandemic, failed to hold China accountable for unleashing the Wuhan virus. Instead, it allowed China to walk away with a diplomatic victory and economic gains by sealing a comprehensive investment agreement.  

 

@ Copyrights reserved.

 

 

1.