Ignore Chinese media’s nervously boastful hoots ( Sunday Guardian)

 

Given the lack of combat experience of the PLA, it is difficult to judge the level of proficiency of soldiers in the PLA when faced with actual combat. What has been seen in recent Himalayan combat is not flattering to them.

There was a movie, possibly Indiana Jones, where a martial arts warrior entered to do battle with the cowboy. After watching him prance around and utter threatening shouts, Jones took out his revolver and very calmly shot the martial arts practitioner dead before the latter had time to land a blow. Or consider the Maori war dance, when fighters shout out fearsome chants in order to overawe their opponents. In the case of New Zealand and its European settlers, the guns that they used with deadly effect on the Maoris did not seem disconcerted in the slightest by the war chants that they witnessed before battle was joined. Instead, the weapons pumped fire on the Maoris and over the course of the campaign, overcame their courageous but futile defence. Some of the writings in PRC media, including English-language publications meant for international audiences, resemble the prancing of the martial arts practitioner and the cries of Maori warriors seeking to stun their opponents into inaction. Since General Secretary Xi Jinping took office in 2012 at the helm of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), state media have been in overdrive seeking to do what some US publications together with Hollywood have sought to accomplish over the decades, which is to give an impression of invincibility concerning the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA). Especially striking were the lengthy programs in state media of General Secretary Xi reviewing troops on parade somewhere in Inner Mongolia. Xi would utter a short, sharp command to each formation, all of whom would respond back with equal fervour. In PRC movies and on television, PLA soldiers are either pretty (if female) or handsome (when male). It would appear that they have been recruited less for their fighting abilities than for their looks, given that some of the best soldiers in history were not great lookers, quite the reverse, in fact. The building of myths is standard in the polity of numerous countries, especially those ruled by “strong” leaders. The problem comes when the myth gets believed by the mythmaker, or when reality intrudes into the idyll and real life supersedes reel life. The CCP leadership may believe that the trillions of RMB that have been lavished on the PLA will ensure success in battle. They need to look at the historical record, including the failed campaigns against the Taliban by NATO in Afghanistan or against Bashar Assad in Syria. Now President Donald Trump has got signed what is essentially a surrender document to the Taliban, throwing to those wolves the credulous moderates in Afghanistan who believed in US promises. As for Syria and other wars conducted by NATO, what took place as a consequence has been a flood of migrants into Europe that will make the domestic situation in some of the countries there deeply problematic before long.

There is a difference, and this is not small, between battle exercises and actual combat. Given the lack of combat experience of the PLA (excepting recent moves against the Indian Army across the Line of Actual Control), it is difficult to judge the level of proficiency of soldiers in the PLA when faced with actual combat. What has been seen in recent Himalayan combat is not flattering to them. It is obvious that what the Central Military Commission (CMC) in Beijing is worried about is not that Delhi and Washington are too close to each other, for they are not anywhere near a level as would ensure operational certainty and viability. The fear in Beijing is that India and the US may in the near future become as close as what they are alleged by Beijing to be. Preventing that is among the top priorities of the trio of Moscow, Rawalpindi and Beijing and their dupes in Washington and Delhi. Despite its advantages in materiel, the PLA has reason to worry about the capabilities of the armed forces of India in actual combat. If not constrained by timid civilians and if assisted through focused diplomacy and accurate policy priorities, the military in India is a tested weapon of war. The armed forces of the world’s most populous democracy have faced conflict with courage and fortitude, and will have no hesitation doing so again against the PLA, should such an eventuality arise in future. They are unlikely to take seriously the war cries and martial arts movements of the media warriors of the PRC. They know their mettle and are unafraid of battle. Modi 2.0 needs to throw off the self-imposed shackles of the bureaucracy and embark on a phased program of giving training to 40 million young persons in the arts and techniques of war. This would be an NCC-plus program and would include field visits to the best trainees. These trips would be designed to showcase the unique qualities of the civilisation of India. Such a program of training the youth in military and para-military service would be far preferable to leaving this vast pool of potential heroes and heroines to their own devices, thereby risking their getting involved in caste or religious or other conflict. The risk of such misdirection is particularly acute in a situation where the policies followed thus far by North Block and the RBI have kept growth rates low and indeed sharply negative in recent times.

What is equally needed during Modi 2.0 is to establish an Indo-Pacific alliance structure designed to ensure a steady flow of equipment and intelligence such as would deter and where necessary overcome any effort to grab more territory. Rather than merely seek to defend the Line of Actual Control as defined (and constantly expanded) by the PRC, what is called for is an expansion of potential soldier strength added to allies providing backup and logistics.This would enable India to take control of a new Line of Actual Control that would better meet the security and other needs of this country’s 1.3 billion people than the present LAC, which anyway is constantly being shifted against India by the PLA. Whether it be the giving away of military gains at Tashkent in 1965 (or the refusal of the COAS at the time to surround Lahore and Sialkot during the brief war or Prime Minister Shastri’s unwillingness to hold on at Tashkent to the ground positions held by the Army in the conflict), it has been a constant in the history of free India that gains or existing advantages have been surrendered by the civilian establishment at the negotiating table, including at Shimla in 1972 and in other instances too numerous to mention. This is a form of masochism by the politico-administrative elite that needs to be ended not just in words but in deed. This will not be the case unless history books reflect the truth about past mistakes rather than pretend that every decision taken in the past (beginning with the blind support to the obscurantist Ali brothers by the trustful Mahatma during 1917-20) was correct and that the results were spectacular. Freedom of speech and freedom to think must be protected by the courts, should the government of the day refuse to actualise this essentiality of a democracy. The lessons of history rescued from colonial untruth need to be disseminated to the young during Modi 2.0. The young in India have to be taught their history in hues reflecting the national motto “Satyameva Jayate” rather than falsehoods peddled as facts presented in “Cover Up” mode.

What counts in battle is not just the mathematics of equipment and resources but the chemistry of combat. What ensures victory is the will and determination of the soldier in battle, and the confidence and courage of the political establishment in backing rather than constraining the military. Nervous hoots from the PRC state media will not affect either of these harbingers of victory.

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/ignore-chinese-medias-nervously-boastful-hoots

The LAC situation appears to be 1962 playing all over again, says M D Nalapat ( PGurus)

Even as the External Affairs Minister returns after a meeting with his Chinese counterpart, the fact remains that China is staying put. What are India's options moving forward, what does it need to do with QUAD and in particular why should the US come to India's help is discussed in great detail by Prof. M D Nalapat. A must watch!

 https://www.pgurus.com/the-lac-situation-appears-to-be-1962-playing-all-over-again-says-m-d-nalapat-but-india-can-win-if/

Modi can repeat 1971 and ensure a 1962 in reverse (Sunday Guardian)

 

In absence of a clear understanding between India and US about mutual security, the Himalayan massif seems to be the option offering a higher chance of a Chinese success in 2021 than clearing South China Sea of foreign navies or an attempted takeover of Taiwan.

New Delhi: The difference an alliance makes to outcomes is clear from a readout of the 1962 conflict with China and the 1971 ending of the Pakistan army genocide in Bangladesh. From 1947 onwards, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru focused obsessively on foreign policy, moulding it to his liking. India becoming the leader of the non-aligned movement was regarded by Nehru as a historic achievement. Fifteen years later, Marshal Lin Biao got the nod from Chairman Mao and ordered PLA soldiers to pour across the Tibetan border with India. There was no “non-aligned” country willing to come out in support of India and against China during the conflict. Even countries that had been courted avidly by the Prime Minister, such as Yugoslavia, Egypt and Sri Lanka, avoided giving offence to the People’s Republic of China. As for the US and the USSR, the only countries that could have made a difference in a conflict involving China, the first intervened too late and too insubstantially to alter the outcome, while Moscow adopted the same stance as is being taken by that capital now, which was to avoid taking sides while giving signals of friendship separately to both sides. Not just Congress, but BJP governments have protected the mistakes made in the past from entering the public domain, and even secretive Beijing has released more documents about past policies than has New Delhi. There has, therefore, been little discussion of the frantic cries for help from the leader of the non-aligned movement to the US once Chinese troops began crossing across the border in multiple points and in strength. General P.N. Thapar and Lt Gen B.M. Kaul had fashioned their military strategies on the border on the basis that anything other than dribbles and feints by the PLA was out of the question. Prime Minister Nehru and Defence Minister Krishna Menon took that assumption as an article of faith, exactly as Marshal Stalin had in 1941 when reports began to pour in that the German army was about to launch a blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union. At the precise moment when Hitler’s troops crossed into the USSR in force at 3 am on 22 June 1941, they came across a train loaded with grain from the USSR that was making its way on a bridge across the Bug river. The train was chugging on its way to Germany even as troops from that country had launched an invasion of the USSR. Fast forward to October 1962 and the refusal of key policymakers to understand what was soon coming India’s way across the border with China, despite more than a decade of incessant intrusions, and since the 1959 relocation of the Dalai Lama to India, increasingly bad-tempered commentary on the world’s most populous democracy from the world’s most populous authoritarian state. As in those days, in 2020 as well voices abound who believe that the next summit meeting, the next telephone call, the next expertly-drafted statement, will result in the Sino-Indian border situation moving away from the shadow of impending conflict.

WEAK INDIA IS CHINA’S AIM

Not that accurate information has been lacking, and not merely to those in the inner recesses of the Government of India but to those much lower down the food chain, including private citizens. On 13 April 2020, even this analyst got to know of PLA troops concentrating across the Line of Actual Control. Subsequently, information reached that the number of soldiers had increased sharply, and had reached the levels needed for a major offensive. On 5 May this analyst was informed by sources of established credibility in a distant location that PLA troops massed across the boundary line had entered Indian territory and were moving at speed across terrain that was being guarded not by the military but by paramilitary formations. What ought to have happened on 13 April took place on 13 May, which was the entry into the theatre of the military, and a consequent halt to the onward progress of the other side. Subsequently, multiple conversations (including at the elevated level of the Special Representatives of the two countries) took place, and it seems to have been assumed by some policymakers in India that the Chinese side had decided to call it a day as a consequence of such conversations. Soon after this comforting thought, the Galwan clashes took place. Now the Moscow talks between the Chinese and Indian Foreign and Defence Ministers have been taken as an indication that the situation has at last been defused. This is unlikely. From the start of his taking over as Chinese Communist Party General Secretary in 2012, Xi Jinping has been taking an assertive stance on PRC claims, adding new ones to the many already enumerated in the past. It is not possible to believe that the movement of PLA forces into Ladakh that began on 4-5 May took place without a nod from the Central Military Commission, the unchallenged head of which is President Xi. Or that the move was not part of a strategy to gain territory in Ladakh so as to consolidate positions held by GHQ Rawalpindi and the PLA in the vicinity. Next year is the centenary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party, and a military victory is needed to burnish the record of the CCP under its new leader. Beijing intends to take control of the entirety of the Himalayan massif, the South China Sea and Taiwan. There needs to be a military victory as in 1962, not a stalemate as in Vietnam in 1979. The South China Seas are crawling with naval craft of multiple countries, including India, and is at present therefore a difficult location to score a swift triumph. As for Taiwan, from almost the start of her first term in office, President Tsai Ing-wen has focused on linking her country to the US defence supply chain. Over the past four years, ties between Taipei and Washington have grown closer than at any time since President Richard M. Nixon threw Taiwan to the wolves in order to recruit Beijing in his campaign to weaken Moscow. It seems only a matter of time before Taipei enters into a formal security alliance with the US in the manner of Seoul and Tokyo. Ideally, such an alliance would be with the Quadrilateral Alliance, should that group of four countries graduate from a talking shop to a genuine security construct. Given the strategic essentiality of Taiwan remaining outside the grasp of China, it is certain that any attack on the island by the PLA would lead to countermoves by Japan and the US. The latter would, unless in a Biden Presidency the “kompromat” on Hunter Biden is radioactive, escalate the confrontation into other theatres, given the kinetic escalation dominance that the US armed forces enjoy over their counterpart in the PLA. Despite the chokehold that the PRC has over Russia at the present time, the Kremlin (especially under the geopolitical Grand Master Vladimir Putin) would be delighted to see the President of the US intensify moves against China. The farther apart Washington and Beijing are, the more room to breathe that Moscow has. As for India, in the absence of a clear understanding between India and the US about mutual security, the Himalayan massif seems to be the option offering a higher chance of a PLA success in 2021 than clearing the South China Sea of foreign navies by the PLA Navy or an attempted takeover or even blockade of Taiwan.

U.S. AS FORCE MULTIPLIER

Should the Indian Army be assured of replenishment by the US of lethal armaments as well as other platforms such as fighter and transport aircraft, any move by the PLA to duplicate its 1962 ingress into Indian territory could be met by a countermove by the armed forces of India that would push the Line of Actual Control substantially outwards from the Indian side. This would result in a humiliation for the PLA that would have significant consequences on the prestige and credibility of the CCP, just as a kinetic setback on the boundary would have immediate consequences for the political establishment in office in India. Much of the difference between what took place in 1962 and what happened in 1971 was the result of the Indo-Soviet Treaty that was the brainchild of former Ambassador to the USSR, Durga Prasad Dhar. The treaty ensured the entry of the USSR into any conflict involving India and a hostile force, and this was sufficient to keep China out of the ring despite plaintive cries from both Yahya Khan and Henry Kissinger for Beijing to send in its troops now that India had committed so many of its forces to the ongoing conflict with Pakistan. For population-reducing moves such as the bombing of Cambodia and backing of the genocide in Bangladesh, Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. During the Bangladesh liberation war undertaken jointly by the Indian armed forces and the Mukti Bahini, Nixon sought to tempt Chairman Mao to intervene on the side of the genocidal Pakistan army by sending in the Seventh Fleet. Treaty ally of India Leonid I. Brezhnev sent in the Sixth Fleet and the Seventh Fleet, not liking the company, made an exit from the seas nearby the conflict. The Indo-Soviet Treaty ensured the absence of China from the 1971 conflict, just as a Quadrilateral Mutual Security Alliance would almost certainly restrain the PLA from using its new firepower on India. Given the risks to the CCP leadership in case there is a military setback (as would be the case were India to get logistical, tactical and intelligence support from other Quad members in the event of PLA aggression), it is unlikely that the Himalayan massif will be chosen as the next theatre for PRC expansionism were the 1971 precedent of a defensive treaty alliance to be followed by India, this time not with Moscow but with Washington and hopefully Tokyo and Canberra as well, besides in time Hanoi, Manila, Singapore, Jakarta and Muscat.

BEIJING’S ASK TO MOSCOW

The not insubstantial task given to Moscow by Beijing is to ensure that New Delhi does not enter into a security pact that involves the United States, whether this be a bilateral treaty or as part of a newly formalised Quadrilateral Alliance. In the absence of such a treaty, it would be problematic for Washington to ensure the degree of logistical support that would be needed for the Indian armed forces (Army, Navy and Air Force) to take the battle into the territory of the attacker and humiliate the latter. Conversely, should there be such a pact, the odds are high that the friskiness that the PLA has been showing since 2005 (soon after the self-effacing Manmohan Singh was appointed Prime Minister by Congress president Sonia Gandhi) would diminish substantially. Should it not, from the viewpoint of the Quadrilateral Alliance, any lunge towards hostilities by the PLA would create an opportunity for a newly strengthened India to push outwards in order to gain control over the Himalayan chain and using the opportunity to clear the South China Sea of artificial islands and fortifications set up by the PRC. Given the high probability of the resumption of 1962-scale hostilities by the PLA in 2021, it is a matter of surprise that till now, no effort seems to have been made to formalise the structure of the Quadrilateral Alliance into a mutual defence treaty. What is needed is for India to indicate clearly what is needed for victory in the event of an attack by China, and to work out what needs to be done to formalise a structure that assures such assistance. In 1962, India had neither a security treaty with Moscow nor with Washington. The same situation should not be allowed to prevail in the present. Thus far, Russia seems to have succeeded in its mission of keeping India from entering into a mutual security pact that involves the US. Besides helping China by such abstinence on the part of India, persuading Delhi to remain wedded to non-alignment works to the benefit of Moscow, in that a security treaty involving the US would give an advantage to that country’s weapons systems over the offerings of Russia in a market crucial to the health of the armaments industry in that giant country. There are leaders who play a strong hand poorly. Vladimir Putin plays a weak hand with spectacular success.

TIME OVERDUE TO FORMALISE QUAD

Rather than luxuriate in visions of the dragon becoming a vegetarian from its normal existence as a carnivore, what is needed is for India to push a door that is already open. This would be the formalisation of an alliance mechanism involving the Quadrilateral Alliance. This would assure the entry of other partners in any attack on a member of the Quad. What is needed is to work on what would be needed for the armed forces of the Union of India to push substantially outwards the Line of Actual Control in the event of likely PLA aggression. Given the events of the past several years, this is no longer a case of “whether” but “when”. Hence the need to secure an alliance mechanism. In 1971 as well, sceptics within the bureaucracy and the commentariat abounded in the matter of a pact with the USSR. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi went ahead with D.P. Dhar’s suggestion and in the process, changed both history as well as geography. Prime Minister Narendra Modi needs to study the history of the 1962 and 1971 conflicts. Beijing and Rawalpindi look forward to a repeat of 1962. Instead, what they should be served is a repeat of 1971, this time with the Line of Actual Control getting extended substantially across the western side, and fortified in strength on the eastern side. The Himalayan massif is the patrimony of the Indian subcontinent and smart policy based on reality rather than hope anchored to illusions can ensure that this come true once again.

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/modi-can-repeat-1971-ensure-1962-reverse

Helping needy urban citizens is good policy (Sunday Guardian)

 

Among the policies needing to be adopted is an extension of the moratorium by two more years.

Old habits may die hard, but perish they do in most places. In India they seem to linger on and on. Whether it be the Police Code or the Criminal Code, what was designed by a colonial government more than a hundred years ago seems to be accepted as perfectly suited to the India of the 21st century. The reason for such fealty towards a construct that from the start was destructive of individual freedom and endeavour resides in the fact that the greater the discretionary powers, the more the bribe that can be squeezed out of citizens by corrupt officials. The grant of discretion goes on and on. In the New Education Policy, which overall is an immense improvement over the past, it needs to be kept in mind when detailing the new policy that the automatic route should be the rule and the discretionary roadblock the exception. If the certifying official is not among the majority of officials who are honest and conscientious, what some discretionary provisions do is to give that individual an opportunity to try and extract “good will” from an institution every now and then. If any institution is seen as indulging in unwholesome activities, a warning could be given to them to change course and such warnings repeated once again within a reasonable time frame. If they do not change course even after this, either a penalty should be levied or in some cases, certification could be withdrawn, the entire process being made transparent from the start. India has been given a bad name because many times a new government in a state scraps the projects of the previous regime, the way Chief Minister Jagan Mohan Reddy astonished Singapore by walking away from the Amravati State Capital Project that had been agreed upon by authorities in that country and the Andhra Pradesh government under Chandrababu Naidu. Certainly, wrongdoing deserves to be punished, and courts are right to insist on this, for example in telecom. But instead of taking away the licences of all but a handful of operators as a consequence of the 2G case, what may have been more desirable would have been to levy financial penalties on the wrongdoers while allowing them to continue in business. Telecom in India has been drained of competition, and the effect on services is evident. Browsing speeds are slower than those elsewhere in South Asia, while hundreds of millions of citizens still do not have access to the internet, something that ought to be the fundamental right of every citizen.

In India we have seen a forex saving copper company being shut down, thereby resulting in a bulge in imports of that metal. Or the closure of a giant mobile telephone handset manufactory,  resulting in job losses and foreign exchange outgo. Interestingly, the country whose exports to India have gained exponentially from various obstacles to domestic output is China. Several business houses have specialised in substituting domestic products from other manufacturers with imports from China, and this often with money borrowed from public sector banks. Such business houses seem to be happy in their role of facilitators of foreign companies looking to hollow out domestic companies. Instead, such Indian businesses need to make money abroad through exports rather than spend borrowed money abroad on imports. Or in the matter of charity, if every dollar of grant to foreign universities that are given by citizens of India is matched by their 

setting up of world class universities in India, such largesse to foreign institutions already bursting with cash could be excused as a gesture to a university where presumably the sons and daughters of families and friends study. That the colonial mindset is still prevalent in India is clear from the cavalier manner in which a few enterprises have scooped up huge loans from public sector banks and used the money to generate jobs abroad rather than in India, where they are most needed. Neither the RBI nor North Block seems to have any problem with this. What they seem to oppose are suggestions that the moneys going to public sector banks from the exchequer to improve their balance sheets be used to waive the interest during the lockdown of MSME and those stressed citizens with housing and vehicle loans. It would be easy to check on the manner in which the income of a borrower has been affected by the novel coronavirus. In case income has been severely affected (say by a minimum of a 30% cut from pre-pandemic days), the outstanding interest on the home or vehicle loan of that individual should be written off through the moneys received by the banks from the exchequer. Otherwise, once the moratorium is over, such individuals would face default. Barack Obama disgraced himself as President of the United States by allowing in 2009 and subsequently, delinquent financial institutions to gobble up huge cash transfers from the exchequer while standing by as millions of homeowners were made homeless through foreclosures. Why the RBI and North Block are against an extension of the moratorium (by two years, given the damage to the economy that Covid-19 has caused) and writing off the interest payable by stressed borrowers is explainable only by their consistent record of favouring external funds over needy citizens, and their policy of steadily lowering the value of the rupee.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is making strides in simplifying procedures during his second term. Among the policies needing to be adopted is an extension of the moratorium by two more years, and taking care of the interest cost of the home and vehicle loans of stressed borrowers during the period of the moratorium or in the interregnum, till such borrowers return to financial health (i.e., recover at least 70% of their pre-pandemic income). Such a move would not just make economic but ethical sense. Helping needy citizens, even if they are part of the urban middle class, is good policy.

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/helping-needy-urban-citizens-good-policy

Israel and Arab countries both gain from better ties (Sunday Guardian)

The GCC needs to reform its economic structure in order to link it with the knowledge economy and retrain young citizens of the GCC.

Since taking over as Senior Advisor to the President of the United States, Jared Kushner built up a relationship of friendship and trust with several royals within the GCC, prominent among them being the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad bin Salman. The next in line to the Saudi throne had made history by walking away from the Wahhabi ideology that had been linked to the Al Saud family for three centuries. Especially after the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the effort by Ayatollah Khomeini to make Iran the theological centre of gravity in the region in place of Saudi Arabia, hundreds of billions of dollars had been expended by Riyadh in supporting Wahhabi preachers. The money had gone into the building of new mosques and the takeover of existing mosques. Each such change was marked by adherence to the ideology propagated by Abdul Wahhab more than three hundred years ago, which was a stark and ruthless view of the world that saw any difference in practice between his doctrines and the more moderate strands of a great faith as apostasy. Very recently, the Crown Prince has begun the task of revising the theological books written during that period (many with the assistance of US scholars eager to boost Wahhabism as a way of ensuring sufficient recruits for the 1980s anti-Soviet conflict in Afghanistan). The new books will reflect the compassion and tolerance that is at the heart of the Muslim faith. Kushner made sure that the White House backed MBS and his anti-Wahhabi policies rather than go along with the worldwide campaign backed by the Wahhabi International to severely discredit and finally depose the Al Saud reformer. This has to be seen as a plus, as also the normalisation of relations between the UAE and Israel, a process in which he played a discreet but effective role. The rulers of the UAE have seen for themselves the effects of low oil prices. The GCC needs to reform its economic structure in order to link it with the knowledge economy and retrain young citizens of the GCC to develop skills relevant to the industries of the future, rather than remain tied to dependence on oil. Unless this be done, the streets of the cities in the sheikhdoms will seethe and boil over, as took place in 2011 in Egypt, Tunisia and in other countries.

Israel is a Great Power not in terms of territory but in the field of knowledge. Should the education system in the UAE better approximate the technical and pedagogical excellence that is visible in educational institutions throughout Israel, the country would become a model for the rest of the Arab world. Change begins from elementary school, and hence the need to modernize curricula and teaching staff and methods so as to equip graduates with the skills needed to compete globally. The welcome given by the young in Saudi Arabia to the reforms introduced by the Crown Prince indicate that they understand and accept the need for change. Allowing women to drive or involving them in the administration of the holy sites of Medina and Mecca nay not seem significant in some countries, but in Saudi Arabia, they represent amazing and necessary progress. In much the same way, the population of the UAE responded with calm to the announcement of normalisation of relations between the UAE and Israel. The feuds and attitudes of the past must not be permitted to further delay the transformative change that is needed for the Arab world to regain the position it once had. This was as a fulcrum of learning and innovation from which the rest of the world drew lessons. It is to be seen whether Jared Kushner can succeed in getting a few other members of the GCC to follow the example of the UAE and establish diplomatic relations with Israel. The induction of technology and knowhow from that country to others in the region would be an immense force multiplier for good. Meanwhile, the expected opposition has come from neo-Wahhabi countries such as Turkey and Pakistan, where the doctrine is putting down strong roots that are causing social cleavages and economic distress. As for Iran, Khamenei seems to have adopted the fantasy of Imam Khomeini, which is that unconditional support for what is defined as the “Palestinian cause” (which is to try and end the existence of Israel) is the key to winning over the billion-plus Muslims across the world. This was not the case in 1979 and is visibly not so now, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has made Teheran follow policies that have had the effect of impoverishing a country with a gifted and generally moderate population.

There has been much speculation about a reversal of US policy should Joe Biden prevail over Donald Trump on 3 November. The 45th President of the US followed a policy of indiscriminately and thoughtlessly reversing the policies of his predecessor Barack Obama. Such reflexive action by Trump may be the single biggest reason why Biden is favoured to become the 46th President of the US, and it is doubtful that the experienced and wily politician from Delaware would repeat the mistake of his predecessor and throw out all signature policies of Donald Trump, including the successful bid to ensure a better relationship between the Arab states and Israel. In this, as in some other matters, including Trump’s hard line on China (also favoured by Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren), a President Biden is likely to continue on the path of his predecessor. It must be said that only in the Trump Presidency did the White House understand what has been obvious to the Chinese for decades, which is that the US and China are engaged in a battle as consequential for the future of the world as that which took place between the USSR and the US. Now that this has been understood, Biden is likely to go along with US public interest and opinion and retain a hard line on the PRC. The chances are that Susan Rice will be part of his team, perhaps as Defense Secretary or Secretary of State, and she is clear-eyed on China, just as is Vice-Presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

On 3 August, a summit (organised by the American Jewish Committee and the Sunday Guardian Foundation besides the indefatigable Dr Bharat Barai) took place between officials and scholars of India, Israel and the US. The three have a common interest in ensuring that the Indo-Pacific remain free and open to all rather than become the monopoly of any single country. They also have an interest in working towards the overcoming of extremism and the progress of stability and moderation in South Asia as well as the Middle East. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has shown that relations between the Arab world and Israel are not a Zero Sum game, in which good relations with one side leads to bad relations with the other. Now the UAE and Israel have once again shown that better ties between Israel and the Arab world are a win for both sides.

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/israel-arab-countries-gain-better-ties

Team Biden may yet reelect Donald Trump ( Sunday Guardian)

 

If the overconfident Biden team have their own way in how Democratic campaign is conducted, Trump could win a second term.

Donald Trump is seeking to portray Joe Biden as a secret follower of the principles of the US Congressional members known as the Squad. After the 2018 US Congressional races, four young women banded together as the “Squad”. All four meet Donald J. Trump’s definition of those below the poverty line, which in his view is any citizen with assets below a million dollars. Of the four, the disappointment for liberals has been Ilhan Omar, a backer of Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan and with a neo-Wahhabi philosophy far from the world view of Ayanna Pressley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, both of whom are impressive in the dedication each has to the interests of the modest income groups from whence they emerged into fame. The ideological outlier, Ms Omar, needs to consider whether the Wahhabi world view that she embraces is consistent with the values of democracy. In contrast to her, the only other Muslim Representative in the US Congress, Rashida Tlaib, is relatively moderate. The exception is her distaste for Israel.

Representative Tlaib may not think highly of the current Prime Minister of Israel, but it must be said that few whose families have their roots in the Palestinian Territory feel differently from her about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has made no secret of his view that the lawful boundaries of Israel stretch from Judea to Samaria. In other words, that they include almost all the West Bank of the Palestinian Territory. Perhaps a digression into history may be instructive for those involved in policymaking such as a member of the House of Representatives. Every peace offer made by Israel has been rejected by the Palestinians on the grounds that the territory offered was too small. Each such refusal was usually followed by the takeover of more territory by the Israeli government. Whether it be in 1948 or 1967, efforts by the Palestinians and their supporters in the region to use military force to secure a withdrawal by the Jewish state resulted in more land that had been under Palestinian control getting incorporated into Israel. Looking at the disproportion in capabilities, this columnist has for long suggested that the Israeli side should decide what territory it regarded as essential for its security, absorb that, and leave the Palestinian Authority free to administer the remainder. Unhappily for the Palestinians and their backers, the illusion that Israel would surrender a significant amount of what it considers to be Holy Land to come to a peace agreement has led the Palestinian Authority to reject every offer made to it of a compromise peace settlement. Rather than cancel a visit to the homeland of her extended family, it would have been helpful for Ms Tlaib to see for herself the situation in the West Bank.

Given the rising disproportion between the upper reaches of US society and the rest, Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib together with Bernie Sanders have tens of millions of voters who agree with them that policies that perpetuate such disparities would inevitably lead to social unrest. Ms Omar seems to have a different agenda from the other three, that of ensuring that neo-Wahhabism re-establish itself as the dominant force in the Muslim world. This in an era when even Saudi Arabia has begun distancing itself from that creed and seeking a return to the compassionate and merciful vision enunciated in the Quran in its 114 suras.

Apart from their relative youth, gender and dedication to their beliefs, a common factor between the four members of the Squad is that none have European ethnicity. This is probably why a sizeable section of Donald J. Trump’s base agrees with the demonisation of the four in Republican news outlets. Theirs seems a nostalgia for the years when those not of European ethnicity knew their place in the social, political and economic hierarchy. The securing of the Presidency by Barack Hussein Obama terrified such elements, and his second term led directly to the massive support of closet segregationists for Trump. The sprouting since the 2016 campaign of energetic manifestations of the same tendencies as those which motivated segregation in the past is no accident. President Trump has, perhaps not by design, given back such elements the sense of entitlement taken away from them by the Obama Presidency, and which is now once again threatened because Kamala Harris may step into the Presidency in case Joe Biden’s health collapses. Harris in the White House would be a cross too heavy to bear for millions of those wedded to segregationist nostalgia, and they are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure that Donald Trump wins a second term in office, even if that means fomenting violence in cities located in swing states. Such scare tactics may work, given that the Biden campaign seems to be heading the way of the Clinton poll machine took in 2016. Hillary’s campaign focused less on the Presidential campaign than on what they proposed to do once she was sworn in on 20 January 2021. While Trump has character flaws, evangelical Christians seem to prefer the former to Biden, the quintessential family man. It remains to be seen whether the white underclass in towns and cities will continue to back President Trump, who has showered bounties on billionaires rather than on those lower down the food chain. Trump has thus far refused to actually block WeChat, thereby forcing the CCP to choose between allowing western communication software apps to operate in China or witness a breakdown in most of communication between individuals in the US and China. He has allowed Steven Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross to adopt a soft line on China, even while Mike Pompeo and Mark Esper push for tough measures. It must be said to Trump’s credit that he has been much tougher on China than any US President since Harry Truman.

The Trump campaign seeks to portray Joe Biden as a traitor to his ethnicity, his religion and his beliefs. It ought not to be an easy sell, except for the fact that Joe Biden seems to have followed the example set by Jeb Bush in his 2015-quest for the Republican nomination. This was through Bush surrounding himself with smug, “know it all” aides who assumed that the Republican nomination was theirs for the asking. If the overconfident Biden team have their own way in how the Democratic Party campaign is conducted, Donald J. Trump could overcome the effects of Covid-19 on the economy and win a second term in the White House. In contrast to Biden’s retaining in his team the big names of a failed and unpopular past, many of the members of the Trump Cabinet are unscarred by past policy mistakes. These include Secretary of State Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Esper, who together with Vice-President Mike Pence may prove persuasive enough to quell doubts among voters about the wisdom of giving a second term to a President who seems to revel most in uttering the words, “You’re fired”.

 https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/team-biden-may-yet-re-elect-donald-trump

Smart Policy by PM Modi will frustrate PLA designs on border ( Sunday Guardian)

 

The PRC needs a neutral India and this it hopes to achieve by showcasing that the costs of abandoning neutrality, which by definition includes continued reliance on Russia for defence needs, would be severe.

 

NEW DELHI: Neither the top tier of the Chinese Communist Party (which elevated him in 2012 to the post of CCP General Secretary over the claims of Li Keqiang), nor the international community correctly understood the difference between Xi Jinping and his party peers. Before taking over the top job in China, Xi had been content to walk in the shadow of his elders. The anti-corruption campaigns that he launched prior to his appointment in 2012 had netted only small fish, or those few in the middle echelons who had fallen out of favour with higher echelons in the CCP. There were few hints of the thorough-going changes that Xi would make to both the CCP as well as to domestic and foreign policy soon after his takeover, or of his emergence not just as first among equals but as the second CCP supremo after Mao.

What the elders who chose Xi over Li in 2012 failed to factor in was the fact that in common with Mao Zedong, Xi has a ruthless drive to promote the Han nationalist concept of where the PRC should be, and what needs to be done to get it there. In Mao’s case, the effort was mostly internal. In Xi’s case, the drive for primacy is global. The tactics and policies of Mao and Xi are in many respects different, yet the underlying objective remained the same, which was to position Beijing as the fulcrum of the global order, in much the same way as Washington emerged in 1945 after the war between the Axis and the Allies. Mao took care to camouflage this intention behind a smokescreen expertly crafted by Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, going on verbal offensives against the “hegemony of the United States” to show the PRC’s commitment to an equalitarian world order. During the period in power of Deng Xiaoping, “biding time and concealing strength” became the rule, with China moving away from overt reliance on the military after the 1979 attack on Vietnam. The Paramount Leader instead turned to the use of diplomacy and commerce to create the conditions needed for the rise of China within the post-1945 international order. Mao was clear that this order needed to change, but concentrated on internal changes in preparation for the shift. Interestingly, Mao’s expansion of the PRC and Deng’s expansion of the economy created the conditions that Xi believed he needed to effect changes globally and in the open. Both Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao expended vast sums of money in developing a network of friendly contacts across the world, paying particular attention to the US and to Europe, and secondly Southeast Asia and Africa. Around two decades ago, India was identified by the CCP leadership as the only country with the potential to emerge as a serious competitor to the PRC in Asia. From that time onwards, the attention paid to India multiplied, and priority was given to assessing the probability of India getting over its (mainly self-created) obstacles and better leveraging its immense potential. The assessment in Beijing was that the institutional structure in India was too rule-oriented and process-centred to enable a breakout into the innovative policies needed to generate and sustain double digit growth, while the political class was too busy seeking individual gratification to have time to cogitate over the “Big Picture”. Nor in the Chinese Communist Party view did the political class in India have much interest in taking on the challenge of changing the governance mechanism enough to make it responsive to the needs of the 21st century. Self-interest combined with inertia would prevent such a transformation of the governance mechanism, according to the CCP, although constant vigilance was needed to ensure that India remained in a box, unable to break out and pose a serious challenge to the PRC and its drive for global primacy.

Another worry within the CCP leadership was the possibility of the coming together of the US and India, and in this context, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (unlike Congress President Sonia Gandhi) was considered an individual who was much too inclined for an alliance of the two largest democracies in the world for comfort. Hence the silent welcome given to the sniping against him within India on the grounds that he was far too biased towards the US. In Cold War 1.0 as well, Moscow had proved an effective antidote, preventing India from moving to close ties with the US. This role assumed importance in the changed geopolitical context of Cold War 2.0, with its open confrontation in several fields between the two superpowers, the PRC and the US. This role of the PRC’s most important partner, Russia, has added greatly to its value as a strategic partner of China.

CHINA WARY OF PM MODI

As Chief Minister, Narendra Modi was open to investment from China (as to investment in his home state from other countries). Given the missteps by both Bush and Obama such as the denial of a visa to Modi, it came as a surprise to Beijing that President Obama gave Modi such a warm welcome during his first visit to Washington as Prime Minister of India in September 2014. The expectation had been that the steady drumbeat of criticism of Modi by those in the Democratic Party who were historically close to the Congress Party would ensure a tepid welcome. The welcome given to PM Modi was a warning sign that Washington would go the extra mile to woo India, and that President Obama had discarded the G-2 illusions nurtured during his first term by the State Department under Hillary Clinton. Rather, he had fixed his gaze on the Indo-Pacific and moved away from the Atlantic, as was made explicit by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter together with National Security Advisor Susan Rice. The key strategists embedded in the leadership councils of the PRC kept a close eye on the rate of growth of the economy under Modi, and took comfort from the fact that this was on a gentle downward trajectory since 2015, despite the coming to power of Modi at the Central level. However, the clear intention of Modi from 26 May 2014 itself to once again establish the centrality of New Delhi within South Asia resulted in a wariness about him. A lookout was maintained on efforts during Modi 1.0 to modernize the administrative structure and remove the numerous bureaucratic obstacles to growth. Reports about the success of startups launched by ethnic Indians in Silicon Valley added to the attention paid to the possible breakout of India from its sluggish trajectory. Such linkages made India and the US natural partners in advanced technology, a nightmare for the planners in Beijing. Even before President Donald J. Trump launched a trade war against China in 2017, several companies from the US, Taiwan and Japan had been looking to shift their operations outside of the PRC, and close track was kept of those seeking relocation to India. It was clear to the CCP strategists that only India had the brainpower, locational advantages and market size to pose a serious threat to the supply chains based in China. At a time when General Secretary Xi had fashioned the Belt & Road Initiative to ensure that Eurasian supply chains located their centre of gravity in China, any displacement of industrial assets to a potential competitor of the size and potential of India was unwelcome. Constant watch was therefore maintained over both policy as well as physical developments in India. Increased attention began to be paid on how the country could be thrown off balance, in conjunction not only with Pakistan but other South Asian powers as well. Efforts at this intensified. It would be a catastrophe for the CCP if conditions in India ensured a smooth glide path for enterprises wishing to relocate from the PRC, especially with the advent of the trade war with the US. Although growth in India was slowing down, and in fact strains had been visible from 2011 onwards, the potential for expansion of the second largest democracy in the world could not be ignored. A decision appears to have been taken around 2016 by the PRC leadership core that GHQ Rawalpindi should be given a boost in military assistance, not only to hold its own against India but also to serve as a more effective brake on rapid development of capabilities by India. This could be achieved by generating a volley of internal fissures designed to draw attention away from PM Modi’s key objective of systemic reform and faster growth. From that time onwards, more direct involvement across Kashmir became a focus area for the PLA, and it began to openly work alongside GHQ Rawalpindi in attempts to stymie Indian progress in the union territory. More than generating international opinion, the calculation in Beijing (nurtured by Islamabad) was that heightened activity at the UN Security Council would motivate more Kashmiris to destroy their own futures by taking to violence against their own country. Thus far, despite repeated efforts by Beijing at bringing up a moribund issue in the UN Security Council, the unrest promised by GHQ Rawalpindi has not taken place. This is unlike what took place in 1990 when V.P. Singh was the Prime Minister, who presided over the development of a full-blown insurgency in the state. The UNSC was proving to be ineffective as a motivator for unrest and violence. Perhaps a reversal of fortune by India on the Sino-Indian frontier would cause the sparks of ISI-funded unrest in Kashmir to once again convert to flames. It is very likely that the idea of ramping up border incursions was suggested to the CMC (Central Military Commission) by GHQ Rawalpindi, which by now has in effect become almost a Corps of the PLA. Apart from fear that PM Modi would order the takeover of PoK during Modi 2.0, frustration with the lack of change on the ground in Kashmir in spite of prodding the UNSC was probably the genesis of the May 2020 PLA operation of intruding from several points into the territory of India. Care was taken to ensure that the points selected in this phase of the operation were manned not by the Indian Army but by paramilitary forces. Preparations for the incursions began in November 2019 and the actual intrusions were launched after 3 May 2020.

CMC, GHQ WORK TOGETHER

Given the reality of the Chinese side first working out a comprehensive Plan of Action and thereafter obsessively sticking to it, it is unreal to expect that the PLA will withdraw as a consequence of discussions between the two Special Representatives or the Foreign Ministers of both sides, much less as a consequence of military-level talks. GHQ Rawalpindi seems to have convinced the Central Military Commission that a show of force and resolve against troops in Ladakh will cause elements nurtured by it to launch a conflagration in Kashmir. A withdrawal from such a stance would be tantamount to an admission that the plan jointly worked out by the CMC and GHQ Rawalpindi is defective. Such an admission would cause the downfall of several “star” careers in the PLA, which is why the gambler’s instinct has operated in the CMC of increasing the bid with every failure of build-ups and thrusts (to ignite passions in the Ladakh and Jammu UTs). On the Indian side, there seems to be a fixation by some analysts on conventional modes of thought and operation that fail to factor in the reality that the Chinese methods of planning and execution, especially under Xi Jinping, are very different from the western concepts that have freely been adopted on the Indian side. Any reversal of course by the Chinese side would be seen as unacceptable until the potential penalties for holding firm are too severe to justify to the higher leadership of the CCP. A price that steep can only come about once an alliance structure is crafted on the Indian side on the lines of the alliance with the USSR in 1971 that opened the doors to the liberation of Bangladesh. Thus far, a mutual security pact with the US has yet to take place, to the relief of Islamabad, Beijing and Moscow. Since 2005, a time when allies of the CCP had an outsize influence over UPA policy towards countries such as China and Nepal, the PLA has adopted a policy of changing facts on the ground to its advantage, then negotiating on the basis of the new status quo before seizing the next opportunity to change the previously altered status quo.

TALKS AS DISTRACTION

It is instructive that the public assertion that the Galwan Valley belonged to China came the day after conciliatory statements by the Indian side that were designed to lower tensions. By May, it was clear that the novel coronavirus pandemic was sweeping across India, and hence presented an opportunity to set in motion plans already made by forces already in place for weeks. In the coming period, should major unrest take place in locations across India as a consequence of economic hardship, as is expected by those opposed to PM Modi, that may present the PLA an opportunity to make another series of thrusts, this time in the eastern sector as well. Next year is the centenary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party, and the leadership needs a military triumph to cover up the problems being faced on the economic side. The possible locations for an effort to generate such a victory would be the Himalayas, the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait. Depending on where the pickings would be easiest, the move is likely to be made. Should the Indian economy continue on a downward trajectory and a new Biden administration backpedal on the Obama-Trump offer of a military partnership with India, the PLA may judge that their time to move forward in Kashmir, Bhutan and Arunachal Pradesh has arrived. The Chinese side adopts the tactics of the gecko, which is to wait patiently till its prey comes close, and then swoop on it. During this time of waiting for the next chance to strike, talks that in the matter of outcomes go nowhere are welcomed as distractions from the reality of the ongoing plan to resume overt operations. Covert operations, of course, would never have stopped.

RELOOK AT POLICY NEEDED

The twin issues confronting Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the ambience created by the novel coronavirus are the economy and China. Effective solutions will need to be found to address both, as long-held perceptions and policy courses do not seem to be making the requisite progress. The second is related to the first. The Chinese are nothing if not pragmatic. Should the economy of India begin to grow at speed, and should the military alliance with the US become a reality rather than an objective that never seems to be getting achieved, China is likely to back away from further provoking India as the country approaches its 75th year of Independence. India not going in for hard options will not lead to a change in behaviour on the other side, only creation of hard facts and outcomes will. An alteration of tone came after the fighting spirit shown by the Indian Army during the Galwan clash, and the unexpected Apps Ban introduced by PM Modi. Incidentally, despite his rhetoric President Donald J. Trump has yet to banish WeChat from the US. The reason is that a well-endowed lobby of business interests is trying to prevent him from doing so, by arguing that such a ban would affect commercial communications between the US and China. The reality is that WeChat enables the CCP to access any communication between US companies and their Chinese subsidiaries, thereby assisting them in ensuring that domestic champions prevail in a contest with foreign rivals. This far, WeChat has been banned only in India and not anywhere else, thereby continuing to give an advantage to Chinese businesses over the competition. The assessment of the CCP is that Chinese pools of resources and consequent goodwill will enable the country to weather temporary shocks and storms and enter calmer seas less damaged than its rivals. The PLA has already ensured that the degree of control it exercises over the South China Sea is much higher than what was the case five years ago. This is the new “status quo” that Beijing would like the world to accept, which in a practical sense it already has, in that almost all exploitation of the sea by Vietnam and other countries has been blocked. Only a kinetic shock that severely unsettles the PLA would reverse such a progression towards PRC primacy in the Indo-Pacific. Such a reversal of fate would be aided by coordinated military activities of multiple partners (including the US, India, Australia, Vietnam and Japan) across fronts that have been subjected to PLA intrusions, an outcome that thus far seems distant.

RESILIENCE OF DEMOCRACY

India has the potential of being critical link in the transition of US, Taiwanese and Japanese supply chains from the PRC, which is why this country is the object of so much attention by Beijing. Only an action-oriented group that includes India can ensure primacy in the Indo-Pacific. The PRC for its part needs a neutral India to ensure its own progression to that role, and this it hopes to achieve by showcasing that the costs of abandoning neutrality (which by definition includes continued reliance on Russia for defence needs) would be severe. The problem for the planners in the CMC as they parley with GHQ Rawalpindi is simple. Their strategy of diplomatic and military pressure has failed in Kashmir and will fail across the rest of India. Democracies have a resilience and a capacity to overcome not apparent on the surface. What is needed for this is Smart Policy, and soon.

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/smart-policy-pm-modi-will-frustrate-pla-designs-border

Use of military in disputes causing economic shock in China ( Sunday Guardian)

 

Under the prodding of the generals within the Central Military Commission, China has brushed aside the lawful claims over territories and waters of countries ranging from Vietnam to the Philippines to India.

 

New Delhi: The founder of the People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong, was clear that the (Chinese Communist) Party controlled the gun (i.e. the armed forces). Over the past 16 years, this dictum seems to have steadily been reversed, with the CCP more and more adopting policies favoured by the PLA rather than the other way around. The consequence of the adoption of the short-term and aggressive stance favoured by the PLA generals towards ASEAN, India, Taiwan and even the US has resulted in a coming together of these countries in the face of such behaviour by China. The country was developed into an economic superpower by Deng Xiaoping, who never repeated the decision made in 1979 to use the military to try and settle a dispute, this time with Vietnam. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had its reins loosened during the period in office of Hu Jintao (2002-12), and this policy of giving leeway to the military has been strengthened under General Secretary Xi Jinping, who took over the leadership of the party and the country in 2012. Under the prodding of the generals within the Central Military Commission, China has brushed aside the lawful claims over territories and waters of countries ranging from Vietnam to the Philippines to India. Although far from the shores of the People’s Republic of China, the entirety of the South China Sea is being claimed by Beijing, with artificial islands getting constructed and military outposts set up to enforce a claim set aside by UN bodies and almost the whole of the international community, barring a few countries such as Pakistan. As a consequence, even so pro-China a leader as President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines has ensured that his Navy join the RIMPAC exercises this year, while Vietnam is reviewing its policy of not permitting linkages with foreign militaries.

A treaty between India and Vietnam for both militaries to access each other’s facilities may be an idea whose time has come. Similar treaties could be signed by Vietnam later, with the US and Australia in the first instance. Across the South China Sea, this PLA-inspired policy has resulted in a stoppage of several projects of ASEAN and other countries to exploit the mineral wealth of the waters of the region. Such projects need to be resumed with protection ensured by the Quad fleet present in the waters.

It was US President Donald J. Trump who fired the first salvo against the CCP policy of the gun controlling the policy of the party, by initiating a trade war in 2017 that has continued since then. The next major salvo was fired this year by Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India. This was the Apps Ban, in which 49 Chinese apps were barred from the Indian market. At that time, it had been estimated that the ban could shave off hundreds of billions of dollars from the value of Chinese corporates, and this is what is happening. The US has followed, and additional steps may get taken on the same lines as already active in India, such as barring Chinese firms from accessing US capital markets or even the banking system. The Apps Ban has the potential to sharply limit the growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI) skills in the PRC, given that users create more users, brand exposure generates more exposure, and contents spawn fresh content in an unprecedented manner. The rapid growth in user and value terms of TikTok or WeChat in just a few years shows the potency of such instruments of access to the vast amounts of data needed for AI to develop. Just as an app can shoot up, it can crash in a short time, as AOL or Mindspace have shown. TikTok is seeking to cobble together some cash from potential buyers in the US and India, but given the toxicity associated with the brand, it would be risky for corporates in the US or India to effect such a rescue of the brand. As for WeChat, if it were banned in the US and in other countries, Chinese users would need to shift to other means of communication, and as a consequence, authorities in China would need to lift the domestic ban on applications such as Facebook, Twitter or WhatsApp, so that their citizens can converse with those from other countries, especially in the major democracies. Should such bans remain in place within the PRC, communications between China and many other countries would be substantially affected in a world that is increasingly following India’s lead in banning Chinese apps. Among the heaviest long-term blows to the Chinese economy has been the ordered decoupling of supply chains from within the PRC, with manufacturing units and offices relocating to other countries at a steady and growing pace. At the same time, increased barriers are being placed on imports from China, many on national security concerns triggered by the aggressive stance taken by the PLA in theatres in South, Southeast and East Asia.

Although China itself has long kept away outside apps from entering its own market, Beijing reacted very sharply to India and the US following its own example, worried that countries in Europe such as Germany that have hitherto been very respectful of Beijing’s commands may stop such automatic acquiescence. In the Indo-Pacific, Australia has been the most notable in putting security before commerce so far as relations with China are concerned. In India, over the years, several businesspersons have made huge amounts of profit (much of it located abroad) by acting as channels for the takeover of markets in India by Chinese substitutes, but this policy is becoming more difficult under the watchful eye of Prime Minister Modi. In China itself, not only were foreign competitors barred from entry, but a few “national champions” were identified in key sectors and discreetly given assistance. As a consequence, whether it be ByteDance or Huawei, such enterprises have become global giants, and were on the cusp of eclipsing their European and US competitors when PLA adventurism caused the brakes to be applied on commerce from China in several markets. WeChat listens to every conversation made through it, just as Alipay or Huawei collects data that is invaluable in the development of AI, a field where China is already the global champion. Almost all communication between overseas customers and PRC suppliers gets done on WeChat, hence the deadly effect on the economy of a ban by countries on the use of the application. Among the most consequential decisions taken by the CCP on the advice of the PLA has been the manner in which GHQ Rawalpindi has been encouraged and empowered to carry out covert and other acts against India. This when access to the Indian market is crucial for China to maintain a high growth rate, besides prevail over competitors in fields such as AI and telecom. Earlier policy of delinking commerce from the boundary issue was reversed by Prime Minister Modi, who made it clear that any country trifling with the territorial integrity of India cannot expect to be allowed to rake in tens of billions of dollars in profits from consumers in this country. Several domestic lines of manufacture have been destroyed or are close to collapse because of the dumping of Chinese products and services by businesspersons who care little for India’s security and are focused only on their foreign bank accounts. The Galwan clash put an end to the free ride that such elements have enjoyed in policymaking circles in India thus far. In the years ahead, the ignoring of the interests and sensibilities of India in PRC dealings with Pakistan will be judged among the most consequential mistakes made by the CCP in its external policies.

Whether it be Xiaomi, Huawei or TikTok, users will have almost all her or his activities tracked by the remote controller, which is why a ban on 5G, for example, would have a severe effect on the ability of remote controllers to monitor activity in third countries. Given that India, Japan, the EU and the US are targets of the PLA and its allies, the national security case for banning such access is overwhelming, except that the business lobbies that have fattened on their role as purveyors of Chinese substitutes to domestic products were effective for years in preventing security concerns from interfering with their moneymaking. Once on 15 June the PLA took the lives of 20 gallant soldiers of the Indian Army including the Commanding Officer of a battalion, it became difficult for such interests to continue to act as facilitators of PRC dominance in the Indian market of the same brands that are assisting GHQ Rawalpindi establish control over restive populations in PoK and in parts of Pakistan such as the Pashtun territories, Sindh and Balochistan. India needs to ban any company from any country that invested in PoK from accessing the Indian market, and such a move has long been necessary. The CCP was under notice for quite a while that its policy of following the lead of the PLA in foreign policy would cause severe blowback on commerce, but such warnings were ignored. The consequence has been a US-India led counterattack on expansionist policies through the “soft underbelly of the crocodile”, which is commerce. Prime Minister Modi has been acknowledged as the global leader in the countermoves against intrusive and (till recently) dominant Chinese apps.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has sought to ensure that the process of decision-making in government pass through far fewer (and more transparent) processes than has been the case thus far. Whether it be in the processing of passports or in the postal department, PM Modi has overseen a revolution in transparency, with citizens able to track deliveries and the rate of progress of requests made to government departments. Such changes are essential as the presence of too many layers and opacity in processes makes it easier for hostile players to subvert a few of those involved and cause either wrong decisions to be taken or right decisions to get blocked. A policy integrating geopolitics with commerce and security would ensure that India move into the high growth stage during Modi 2.0. The catalyst for this has been the PLA, which by its aggressive behaviour has alerted countries across the world to the risks of being dependent on PRC-based supply chains.

 https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/use-military-disputes-causing-economic-shock-china

Modi 2.0 moving towards 21st century methods and mindset ( Sunday Guardian)

 

Trusting civil society rather than only civil service, and devolving of powers rather than concentrating them are needed for unleashing the potential of the economy.

Throughout the closing months of 2015 going into most of the next year, suggestions were made from the Republican side that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe meet Donald J. Trump during one of the former’s visits to the US. Such a meeting never took place, and in not meeting the Republican nominee while he was on the campaign trail, Abe was not alone. Japan regards the alliance with the US as the cornerstone of its foreign and security policy, and yet never once did Prime Minister Shinzo Abe meet Trump. That is until 8 November 2016, when soon afterwards he rushed to New York to personally congratulate the billionaire who had bested Hillary Clinton to the shock of chancelleries across the world. During the 2016 elections, there was a small group of enthusiasts from the Indian-American community who worked tirelessly for the victory of the Republican nominee, and their number expanded substantially after Trump became President. During the campaign this year, this group is keeping up a barrage of attacks on Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to the delight of the China and Pakistan embassies. Should the Democrats win on 3 November 2020, the many abusive comments made by more than a few India-loving Trump backers on Biden and Harris would have done no favours for the world’s most populous democracy, just as in 2016 those who ignored Trump and placed all their bets on Hillary Clinton did a disservice to India. Fortunately, Prime Minister Narendra Modi soon became best friends with Donald Trump, just as he had been with Barack Obama. Despite—or perhaps because of—the fact that he had not previously served in the Central government before taking charge as Prime Minister on 26 May 2014, Modi established close relationships with several world leaders, including Vladimir Putin in Russia, Shinzo Abe in Japan and David Cameron in the UK. After Cameron unwisely resigned, Teresa May took over as PM, and her lack of warmth towards India affected relations with the third-largest English-speaking country in the world in terms of the number of those speaking the international link language, after the US and India.

In India, although the southern and northeastern states are seen as the redoubt of the international link language, the reality is that it is the Hindi-speaking states where the drive to learn English is strongest. Among those fluent in the language are Prime Minister Modi himself and BJP president J.P. Nadda. Although news reports speak of the New Education Policy as being toxic to English, the reality is different. The importance of that language not just in education but in opening up opportunities in both India as well as in many parts of the world has been recognised in the NEP, which may have its setbacks, but is overall a considerable improvement over the present educational doctrines. Similar is the case with the agricultural marketing reforms brought into effect in Modi 2.0, which overall gives promise of not just incremental but rapid reform. Should a telecom policy designed to enhance internet coverage and speeds be added on to a program of giving access to that medium to those thus far excluded, the country would accelerate its transformation into a more modern economy where much of the population is empowered by new technologies that unlock stores of knowledge. China barred the most deadly competitors to local competitors in software and ensured through policy the growth of national champions that rivalled banned items such as Facebook, Google and Twitter. By blocking Chinese apps and possibly other telecom products (including 5G and handsets), Modi 2.0 is creating the conditions for Indian champions to grow. These may not be those who are masters of profiting from the intersection of politics, officialdom and business, but others who rely not on contacts but on innovation. It is noteworthy that some of the largest enterprises in India have prospered not through growing the domestic production base but in importing foreign equipment and supplies, principally from China. Prime Minister Modi has by both word and deed conveyed to such captains of industry that they need to stop using money made or borrowed from India to create jobs and wealth for foreign countries, except in the rare cases where such external sources of supply are impossible to dispense with. The ease of imports in place of local materials and manufactures has created a wasteland within India for much of small and medium industry, and this needs to get reversed so that the fast-multiplying youth of India have jobs that give them the dignity of an adequate income. Small and medium industry is the foundation on which large industry can grow, something that the USSR-focused Lutyens Zone planners forgot. Since 2011, after the abuse of the economy by UPA 1.0 and beyond, the animal spirits that are needed for boosting the rate of growth to double digits have been absent. Where it was the accelerator that needed to be pressed, Mint Road and North Block, by instinct, reached out for the brakes, and the impact of this on the economy has been substantial. Any rate of growth below 9% annually ought to be unacceptable to those in government who are dealing with policy, as this is the minimum needed to ensure social justice. If the middle class is shrinking rather than growing, and if incomes are getting more rather than less unequal, even relatively small doles of food and cash to the very poor cannot be maintained for very long. Unlocking the potential of India is impossible unless the propensity of corrupt officials to block genuine businesspersons in favour of cronies bloated by favours gets blocked. Such a process needs to accelerate during Modi 2.0.

The Prime Minister has been clear that he would like to see systems and processes in India enter the 21st century rather than remain tethered to the 19th and the 20th, as much of the governance mechanism presently is. Trusting civil society rather than only the civil service, and devolving of powers rather than concentrating them are needed for unleashing the potential of the economy. Doing such will among other things ensure that banks in India lend to potentially successful businesses rather than store in the RBI moneys given to them during Modi 1.0. Those who have long had faith in Narendra Modi are looking forward to the unbinding of procedures in several fields, in the manner that has been witnessed in some, such as agricultural marketing and education.

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/modi-2-0-moving-towards-21st-century-methods-mindset

Prof M D Nalapat on taming the dragon, India's security chinks and Rajapaksa storming back to power (PGurus)

In this hard-hitting conversation, Prof M D Nalapat talks about India's chinks in its approach to security, muddled thinking in various departments dealing with security and the stunning victory of Mahinda Rajapakse in Sri Lanka. A must watch!

  

https://www.pgurus.com/prof-m-d-nalapat-on-taming-the-dragon-indias-security-chinks-and-rajapaksa-storming-back-to-power/

India must take bold foreign policy decisions ( Sunday Guardian)

 

Manipal: The Department of Geopolitics and International Relations of Manipal Academy of Higher Education (MAHE), Manipal, organised a national webinar on the theme “Dynamics of India’s Foreign Policy: Debates on Alliance v/s Friend”. The panelists for the national webinar were Ambassador Gautam Bombawale, Joyeeta Basu, Prof M.D. Nalapat, Seshadri Chari and Cleo Paskal. All of them spoke on the varying degree of challenges India has been confronting arising both from within and elsewhere in the world. There was a consensus on the view that it is high time India has to become more firm and start taking bold decisions mainly in dealing with its neighbourhood and the rest of the world. India has elevated its position in the international system. The perception of the rest of the world on India has been changing. India needs to leverage its soft power and promote its interest across the world.

It was said that India needed to be proactive and signal its intent and fundamental goals with confidence. India must change its reactive posturing. How India can promote its national interest and engage with the world formed a major part of the debate. India will have to emphasise on its economic development. A strong economy only can make India a part of global agenda setting. How India will promote economic development and boost the growth of its neighbourhood also featured in the discussion. An assessment on whether India can afford to tilt towards a particular major power was also discussed at length.

https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/india-must-take-bold-foreign-policy-decisions

China for Biden, Russia for Trump, India undecided ( Sunday Guardian)

 

India needs to sign BECA (the final foundation agreement) and abandon talk of swinging this way and that.

 

November 3, 2020 is when US citizens will either elect President Donald J. Trump to a second term or give the baton to Joe Biden. Both have strong Vice-Presidential candidates in their corner. Mike Pence has refused to take the bait thrown relentlessly at him to “become independent of Trump” and distance himself from the individual who is his only boss, now that the politician from Indiana was elected Vice-President of the US on 8 November 2016. Those who know Pence say that he is an individual who has clear views on the challenges facing the US, both internally and from outside. Some of his speeches have become fixtures in geopolitics classrooms, such as his speech at the Hudson Institute about China Recent presentations made by the US Secretary of State, the Defense Secretary and the National Security Advisor about China make it clear that the Trump White House has aligned itself to the reality of the Indo-Pacific Century, rather than flail around believing that the Atlantic Century has continued into the present era, the way many of Joe Biden’s foreign policy team do. However, the fact that Joe Biden came on the side of Jill Biden rather than Hillary Clinton in his choice of running mate, indicates that 21st century reality is entering the thinking of the individual who is within a whisker of becoming the 46th President of the US. Unless Biden puts on a shambling performance at the Democratic Party convention or puts up a weak show against the fiercely combative Trump in the debates, the odds favour him, especially now that he has an attractive and articulate Vice-Presidential choice, who represents the US as it is and not the country as it was until the close of the 1990s. Barack Obama’s upset win in (almost all white) Iowa over Hillary Clinton showed that the people of what is still the world’s most consequential nation are looking beyond skin colour in registering their preferences. This trend has been visible in the case of Indian-Americans for more than two decades. Several have more of a tan than do many African-Americans, and yet do very well in universities and corporates across the US, although not half as much in Europe, which in the EU represents the power of the Ethnic Idea in practice, although not in precept. Of course, the very EU (with its diminishing native population) that has made it so difficult for talented sons and daughters from India to settle there, is now getting flooded with those escaping from the hell that Wahhabis have made several countries in North Africa and parts of Asia. This is similar to what is taking place in parts of Siberia, which are rapidly becoming Chinese-speaking territories that have far greater affinity with Beijing than Moscow.

During the 2016 US Presidential elections, some Ukrainians of Russian extraction worked to defeat Hillary Clinton. They did so because the then Secretary of State used to make a habit of engineering regime change, especially in East Europe. She substantially assisted the efforts of ethnic Ukrainian nationalists to marginalise ethnic Russians in Ukraine, a policy that succeeded in creating what is now a country divided against itself. This interference by Hillary is what led Russian Ukrainians to target her in 2016, a process that the Moscow Centre may not have been oblivious of, but probably did not initiate. As in 2016 and again in 2020, Moscow Centre would like to see Donald Trump get elected, in part because the leverage of Russia with China grows, the more tension there is between Beijing and Washington. There are several pro-China elements embedded in the Biden campaign, and although inspired reports have appeared of Xi Jinping preferring Trump over Biden, this is disinformation. As for India, both Defense Secretary Mark Esper as well as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have adopted a friendly stance, in contrast to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who seem not to see the difference between China and India in their treatment of both. Indeed, both Ross as well as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (despite statements to the contrary) seek in several ways to promote the interests of those in the US who have profited from making China strong. Despite the influence of the two within the Trump White House, the CCP would like to see Biden defeat Trump. As for India, the presence in the Biden campaign of some Wahhabis crossing over from the Bernie Sanders campaign has led to more than a few incomprehensible and indeed incoherent statements from Biden and Harris about India, such as the Clinton trope that the US will “ensure justice” in Kashmir, presumably by facilitating the removal of the handful of Sikhs and Hindus left in the Valley after the genocide which took place in the 1990s. Neither Biden nor Harris seems to have any concern about the fate of minorities in Pakistan, for some reason.

India needs to sign BECA (the final foundation agreement) and abandon talk of swinging this way and that. Instead, what is needed is to adopt a firm stance towards the encroachment of Indian territory by the PLA. The Quad needs to become an actual alliance rather than just a photo op, and in the UNSC, India needs to call out those who are conniving at the occupation of Indian territory and seeking to cause a diversion by blaming the victim of their aggression. The Five Eyes need to expand to six, with the inclusion of India. Once such a transformation takes place, the India-phobic elements in the Beltway will lose their clout because of the need for the two biggest democracies to act together in the face of the common challenge of extremist violence and authoritarian takeover of territory.

 https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/china-biden-russia-trump-india-undecided

Prof M D Nalapat on the VP pick & whether the Biden-Harris presidency will be good or bad for India (PGurus)

Prof M D Nalapat was one of the first to predict a Biden-Harris team as early as in 2019. Now that his prediction has come true, what does it mean for the India-US relations. Have Sanders' Pak sympathizers jumped ship to the Biden-Harris bandwagon? The real reason various Democratic City Councils are voting against CAA. A $156 million purse from an advocate of anarchy.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqEXhzT5NgY