Well, am neither the
first to ponder on this thought nor the last. But, this for one, have crossed
the mind of many, when posed with a set of challenges to confront.
Few had radical
thoughts, that eventually led to establishment of religions. Take for example
of Gautam Buddha; sufferings in this world made him renounce the worldly
pleasures and seek the path of divinity, founding Buddhism. Not commenting on
the other monotheistic ones; founders who found and heard God in the most
mysterious of ways. Had they lived in today's world, their views would have had
some Freudian interpretation and most probably would have been recommended to
undergo some kind of therapies - end of religions - boon or bane - a separate
discussion altogether.
But coming to the
core premise: All religions to some extent have codified the means to live a
happy, healthy life devoid of pleasures. Practically speaking, in today's
world, it would rather be an oxymoron.
One unique example
comes to my mind in this regard. The recent wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan
Markle made memorable by a long sermon on love by Rev. Michael Curry. He had an
Apple iPad as his book of sermon that he often referred to; just wondering the
possibilities of the discourse without it. Imagine Jesus with an iPad,
preaching. Or nearer home, Baba Ramdev and his multi-billion dollar empire of
FMCG products that have taken on the heavyweights in the sector and has
literally shaken them up to the core. Does he really need that kind of moolah
to do good in the society? Or is he just being practical about spreading
goodness through his charitable trusts - which by the way am in no way
promoting or questioning (*disclaimer in order to avoid being sued of being
making a certain section of populace angry).
At the end,
happiness is individual centric. While one can radiate and spread happiness,
how well it spreads depends centrally on the individual. Be it giving up
worldly pleasures or playing PS4 for days at a stretch - happiness is at the
core of it. Another example, that of a professional video gamer giving up on
relationship with the world's hottest weather girl has raised eyebrows of many
- but at the end, being happy is the core motto here.
While many have
defined renouncing worldly pleasures as happiness; many have unfortunately
found happiness in less desirable means of drugs, alcohol etc, which not only
has negative impact on self, but also around others. Albeit, it provides a
temporary sense of fragile mistaken happiness, but leads to disastrous
consequences in the end. Does the individual in question care? Well, they don’t
- most of the time… why? As it provides them happiness…
So what is
happiness?
It's relative.
Depends on how one defines it in this material world - denounce all or be in
love with it as two ends of the spectrum… The Happiness Relativity Spectrum, as I would like to call it...
While founders of the religion fall at one end of the spectrum that gave them happiness, more often we come across
people who are in love with money, sex, drugs or alcohol falling at the other
end of the spectrum. There cannot be any defined happiness level for every
individual as each one is unique. It rather has to be an unique self-discovery
that falls somewhere in the middle for most. Be happy and still enjoy the
fruits of labour without any overt concerns. If someone is able to guide
another in that direction to identify the real happiness, would be doing a
better job than all the holy books combined. That would be real happiness at
the end. Humans have invented God. Humans have defined happiness. But for sure,
neither do we understand God, nor have the patience to find real happiness. That
is why, Chris Gardener and the movie, In Pursuit of Happyness remains one of
the classics of all time in that regards.
Diwali is the festival of lights…
not the festival of sound (and pollution).
Keeping this in mind, the
Honourable Supreme Court of India has issued an order on the ban on selling of fireworks in the NCR till 1st
November, 2017. This means that there is no
ban on bursting of fire crackers.
There are many good reasons that
has been cited for this move. First and foremost being the deterioration of the
air quality in and around Delhi. Secondly, this almost coincides with the
season of crop burning in the neighbouring states of Haryana and Punjab.
Lastly, the smog situation in Delhi during winters, despite having the largest
fleet of CNG buses and 100% Green Metro (DMRC) and temporary closure of coal
based Badarpur Thermal Power Plant. This is not a revelation. This is a
constant reminder of the fact of the failure of the central and state
governments to tackle this multi-directional cumbersome problem. CPCB (Central
Pollution Control Board) and SPCB (State Pollution Control Board) are toothless
tigers that have been entrusted to monitor the air-quality. In case of Delhi,
CPCB is supposed to send a daily air quality report to EPCA (Environment
Pollution Control Authority) that is supposed to implement the “Graded Response
Action Plan” formulated by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest in
January, 2017. The State Secretaries have been designated as the Nodal Officers
for the implementation.
Courtesy: Hindustan Times
Many believe, it is too little,
too late – including me.
We need to have an overarching
plan to combat the pollution, not just in Delhi. This is a basic governance
problem that has not be effectively alleviated, resulting in the Supreme Court
to step in. In this context, much has been highlighted in the media about the petition
received on behalf of 3 children last year, that has resulted in passing of
this order.
But will this achieve the desired
results? Is it not a judicial overreach?
We need to understand that this
is a temporary measure, just like the highly debated odd-even scheme. Secondly,
why target just Diwali as the festival and why not also include crackers as a
whole across all occasions including marriages, Christmas and New year? This
shows that the issue is being addressed in a piecemeal approach. Thirdly, why
not ban bursting of crackers as well? Fourthly, the livelihood, GST and various
other factors have already hit the informal sector hard enough. This will also
result in lower income of this population segment engaged in fireworks
production. Fifthly, despite 1,200 kg of illegal fireworks seizure since SC ban
on the sale, those enthusiastic enough will buy on black market or from places
outside of NCR. Lastly, once the fireworks are bought, do the Indian government
have actually enough manpower and effort to actually validate whether it was purchased
legally?
On the aspect of Judicial
overreach, while it is understood that the honourable SC was passing the
judgement on the petition submitted by the children last year; should it not be
the responsibility of taking the government, the CPCB, SPCB and EPA to task and
grill them why the situation remains grim with respect to pollution, especially
in NCR that the air is unbreathable and remains at 999 on AQI? The SC may have all
the good intentions at the core, but also needs to ensure that the respective agencies
entrusted to protect the environment along with the Government are doing their
job. Also, just banning the sale and not the bursting of crackers is another
example why this order will have limited impact on the pollution.
To conclude, Judicial Activism is
good and important in the Indian democratic context. When this turns into
Judicial Overreach – primarily due to the failure of Government institutions,
this becomes a problem. The current SC order, in this case seems to be a
classic catch 22 situation where there is a very fine line drawn between Judicial
Activism vis-à-vis Judicial Overreach. As someone said, “Like beauty, Activisim
lies in the eyes of beholder!” So, you the reader – be the judge of this
situation…
India and
Pakistan’s diplomatic row has reached to another level. After 46 years, since
1971, India for the first time has approached the International Court of
Justice, Hague, in the hope of resolving an issue that could have been possibly
solved through bilateral negotiations and backdoor diplomacy. While mentioning
this, the author acknowledges the fact that there is every possible chance
that backdoor diplomacy might have been tried but failed to yield any results –
unfortunately, such actions cannot be brought to public light... just yet.
The issue in
question is the Kulbhushan Jadhav’s death sentence row by Pakistan’s military
tribunal. While Pakistan claims that he is a RAW agent, sent by India to create
unrest in Balochistan; India maintains that he is an ex-Naval officer who owned
legitimate business in Iran and was abducted by ISI near Pakistan border. There
is contention on both sides – whether he was illegally in Pakistan at the time
of his capture or snatch – terminology depending on the intent.
The Indian
passport in question mentions his name as Hussein Mubarak Patel. This raises
more question than it answers. Also, there has been no open decry (that the
author is aware of at the time of penning this article) from Indian side
against denying the fact that Hussain Mubarak Patel and Kulbhushan Jadhav are
two different persons. Here lies a fundamental question on which Pakistani
arguments and allegations lie – Why the same person has 2 different names or
rather an alias? What was he doing near Pakistani border in
Iran? Also his past as an ex-Naval officer doesn’t help much to
save him, but raises more suspicion in the mind of the Pakistani
establishment.
Even though a
lot of reasoning can be provided around his legitimate presence including
business that he owns near Indian developed Chabahar Port in Iran
(strategically to counter China’s involvement in Pakistan’s Gwadar Port some 50
km away), it still becomes a point of contention – why was the person
travelling under the Indian passport that bears his name as Hussain Mubarak Patel
instead of Kulbhushan Jadhav? Is it a Pakistani ploy to mislead India? Was
there any maleficent intent on the part of the person in question? Did he
really pose any legitimate threat to the sovereignty of Pakistan? Well, it will
be folly to speculate or answer the question – as whatever possible logical
conclusion that might be construed will be without facts to support in the
public domain. It will be the only select few at the top echelons at both sides
of the government who are fully aware of the truth at this stage.
*Courtesy Asian Age
Now, for the sake
of argument – there are four possible theories:
Kulbhushan is innocent and no agent of RAW
Kulbhushan is innocent at the time of capture but
might have different objective
Kulbhushan is a legitimate entity, assisting Indian
foreign policy, but was in Iranian soil at the time of capture
Kulbhushan is guilty as charged by Pakistan
Irrespective of
the whether Kulbhushan is guilty or not, he should have been provided Consular
Access by Pakistan under Vienna Convention that was denied. It
no doubt is a violation of Human Rights. Hence, this calls for review
of the legitimacy of the verdict passed by the Pakistani Military Tribunal –
which is nothing but a sham (compare this with the open trial of Kasab). This
is the cornerstone on which esteemed lawyer Harish Salve has set across his
argument that has been hailed as an initial victory for India; which led to the
denial of Pakistan playing the supposed confession tape (in all probability
obtained under duress) in front of the judges.
But it is not
the time to celebrate for India yet, unfortunately. There are dangerous
precedents that can be set in motion (you can read it here).
There is a pretty good chance that India might lose this case. In all
probability, Pakistan might still go ahead and execute Mr. Jadhav disregarding
the ICJ ruling even if it’s in India’s favour, or might decide to use him
as a bargaining chip in the long run. Kulbhushan Jadhav’s future doesn’t look
bright right now, but it is still heartening to see that he is garnering the
attention he deserves as an Indian national under foreign imprisonment unlike
Sarabjeet Singh or so many umpteen fishermen who are often caught straying into
Pakistani waters unknowingly.
Every covert
operative is aware of the dangers of operating in the shadowy circumstances and
the disavowing protocol of plausible deniability if caught, but that should not
lead to any action at all – which has been the Indian stance so far in the last
70 years of independence. There has been the famous case of the American spy
Gary Powers who was caught by USSR flying a U2 Recon plane over Russia at the
heights of Cold War in 1960-62. He was eventually swapped with a Russian
spy in 1962 after spending almost 1yr 9 months in captivity. Here lies some
hope.
If all else
fails, there should be an ace up the sleeve that India should be able
to utilise effectively and efficiently to ensure that Kulbhushan
Jadhav is returned unharmed back to India. Hoping, Lt Col (retd) Mohammed Habib
Zahir working for Pakistan’s ISI and supposedly part of the team that captured
Kulbhushan Jadhav is possibly that ace – whom Pakistan claims to have
been abducted by India from Nepal in a bid to arm-twist Pakistan into submission.
Let’s hope it’s true; but hope against all hope – let’s hope it
will not come to that. If it does, then let’s be hopeful of an Indian version
of Gary Powers. Finally, let’s pray that Kulbhushan, the son of India returns
unharmed. All’s well that ends well!
N.B. A detailed transcript of the application submitted by India before the ICJ can be found here.
India and China – two largest
nations on the Earth in population terms; chose different ways towards their right
to self-determination. While India, based on the earlier established limited
democratic framework under the British and the GoI Act 1935 decided for a
democratically elected bicameral legislature with President as the head of the
state; China went for a unicameral legislature with Communism as the core
doctrine – what Chinese call as ‘Socialism with Chinese Characteristics’.
Despite China and India moving on
different political trajectories post 1940 – both of them have remarkable
similarities. Both the countries gained
total control to decide their future roughly around the same time – 1947 for
India and 1949 for China. It is notable that both the countries had similar
share of world GDP in 1950 [4.2% & 4.5% for India and China respectively]
and were agrarian in nature, both had to fight illiteracy, poor health care and
corruption; But China today is on much better footing than India, even HDI says
so.
The start for either of these
countries was marked with challenges – primarily being how to increase the pie
to be effectively shared amongst the population?
India followed the
Nehru-Mahalonobis model of development favouring heavy industries over
agriculture and China followed a similar path – both relying on USSR initially
to expand the industrial technology. Both the countries were averse to the idea
of ‘West’ helping them, leaning towards self-sufficiency. Then came the famines
– Earlier in China as a result of Mao’s ill-conceived Great Leap forward
[1958-1961] and in India as a result of poor monsoon [1966-1969]. For India, it
was a positive outcome resulting in ‘Green Revolution’. On the other-hand in
China, it resulted in heavy censure of Mao. Mao had to launch the ‘Cultural
Revolution’ unleashing his ‘Red Guards’ over his perceived enemies
consolidating this power from 1966 till 1978. This put Chinese development on a
stand-still till Mao’s death in 1978. India faced a similar situation much
later in 1975-1977 when Emergency was declared and India witnessed a
pseudo-dictatorial regime within a democratic framework. So for both India and
China – the periods from 1947-1980 and from 1949-1978 respectively were the age
of self-learning through mistakes.
China rebounded harder under the
leadership of her visionary leader Deng Xiaoping who is credited with Chinese
reform. One of the first things that Deng did was to make China more receptive
of growth of its Asian neighbours [Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea] and learn
from their experience and implement them under Chinese context. Introduction of
Family Responsibility System, allowing foreign capital and opening up SEZs were
great steps under communist regime. India partially opened up in 1980’s but the
shock of 1991 was the actual turning point when the doors were finally opened
to foreign competition ushering in LPG reforms. But, it was easier to introduce
reforms in China than in India – due to the political culture in place. Chinese
leader had the final say on all major reforms while Indian PM often had to
appease a larger audience in the political spectrum to remain in power given
the coalition politics.
The key takeaway is Chinese rise
as compared to other communist countries seems an anomaly, primarily due to the
fact that China has been able to segregate its Political ideology of Leninist
State from its economic prerogatives and decisions [allowing limited capitalism
within communist ideology]. In India’s case, economic socialism is inbuilt in
Indian democracy as enshrined in the Indian Constitution, but still has a long
way to go. India’s case seems to be driven primarily by private sector
entrepreneurial spirit that is best served by limited government intervention
unlike China. License Raj was a glorious failure. In today’s interconnected
world, closed economy is a guaranteed failure. A lesson learnt by both the
countries.
In conclusion, China will have to
eventually address the questions of political ideology when dissent happens –
but so long, the economic prosperity ensues, such questions can be kept in
check. India on the otherhand may remain a soft-state as compared to China, and
little chance that it can ever catch up with China in the next few decades
economically, but nevertheless, free speech and actions will ensure that
poverty is eventually a bygone word in Indian context.
World is witnessing incredible changes in the sphere of
environment sustainability in this decade. The steps taken, though tentative,
are instrumental in reversing the damages caused due to rapid industrialization
over the last 2 centuries.
Kyoto Protocol has been hailed as the most successful
initiative so far that had the blessings and willingness of more than 190
countries – an amazing feat. It has been able to heal the ozone layer to an
extent in a short span of 2 decades. More recent Paris Agreement on Climate
Change was ratified by again a similar number of countries in less than 11
months of its conception – another wonderful feat indeed considering the
challenges that are inherently associated with such a large number of countries
with their own demands and needs & getting the same accommodated to
everyone’s satisfaction as was highlighted by Prof. Ghosh of CEEW at the
seminar conducted by Takshashila in Delhi on 5th Nov, 2016.
But few questions remain.
One should ask – Is it enough? There is enough criticism on
the content of the Paris Agreement. Firstly, it is largely non-binding on the
member countries. Secondly, many estimates suggest that the current commitment
of NDCs are too low to restrict temperature rise below 2 degrees, while
restricting it below 1.5 degrees by 2100 is more preferable. Thirdly, there are
enough caveats for the developed countries to bypass the existing commitments
[like purchasing Carbon Credits] – which no doubt is a great instrument in
investing in cleaner energy in developing worlds; but essentially provides the
right to pollute by more wealthy countries. Fourthly, it has a finance
component of USD 100 Billion to be invested by 2025 which seems to be a
challenge.
With respect to the last point about climate finance, Green
Climate Fund [GCF] was proposed, established and operationalised in COP 15
[Copenhagen Accord], COP 16 [Cancun] and COP 17 [Durban] respectively. The
objective was to generate a fund of USD 100 Billion by 2020. But only USD 10.3
Billion could be raised from member countries – with major European Countries
facing tough financial situation during the period. It seems the that finance
component of the new Paris Agreement is the extension of the same with an
extended target. How much of it would be feasible and successful is yet to be
seen; given the history of poor generation of finance from the wealthy
countries who have a moral obligation to invest in such areas that focus on
cleaner technologies.
But still Paris agreement is a positive step in the right direction.
It focusses primarily on adaptation of new technologies rather than Mitigation.
Thereby, it stresses on use and investment in cleaner and newer technology,
rather than implementing safeguard measures and workarounds on the existing
polluting means of energy generation. It will be a quantum jump for the
developing nations and underdeveloped nations to directly use and utilise these
technologies which do not come cheap. It is in the world’s best interests that
the developed countries provide these technologies at an effective viable cost
and subsidize where necessary along with a liberal IPR policy where required -
in order to allow these technologies to be widely adopted; so that the social
benefits are not traded off with development goals of these nations.
What should India do?
India has done quite a lot in this regard – slowly gaining
traction as a pioneer of thought leadership in this arena. India has in place
relevant laws enacted domestically to counter and support the stand it needs to
take globally. But more importantly, Mr. Modi has led from the front with the
foundation of International Solar Alliance – a grouping of 121 poorer and
developing countries, pledging growth with the help of greener energy.
Converting this motley alliance of 121 countries into a strong buyers’ club
effectively has put the ball in the court of the richer developed countries
that has a moral obligation to financially support these countries in the goal
of achieving energy independence through cleaner energy without compromising on
the developmental aspects.
One aspect that goes in India’s favour is that, there can be
proper planning to add new energy sources to the existing power grids –
evaluating in advance whether it will be through existing standard power generation
techniques primarily thermal and nuclear power plants or through other means
like hydel, tidal, wind or solar. GoI has already announced the target of
175,000 MW of renewable energy production to be achieved by 2022 as follows:
100,000 MW from solar power, 60,000 MW from wind energy, 10,000 MW from biomass
and 5,000 MW from small hydro power projects. This provides a clear sense of
direction.
Subsidies are already in place for both producers and
consumers promoting solar energy adoption, especially at individual unit level.
But unfortunately, the residential units figure at the bottom of the list of
priorities for availing the subsidies [1]. Understandably, schools and
government institutions like hospitals are higher on priority, but low income
groups need to be kept in mind, specially first time energy consumers who may
not have the purchasing potential to avail these schemes. There are few pockets
in the country where off-grid subsidised solar energy sets are being provided
at a minimal price, but as mentioned, these are happening in pockets.
Second aspect to be looked into is how soon can India reach
its peak energy demands? This has various aspects and implications. Firstly,
peaking is important to consider if the target of temperature rise has to be
contained below 1.5 degrees by 2100. Secondly, later we peak, lesser time we
have to cut down on emissions. Thirdly, can India afford to declare the peak
emissions like China did [2030] at this stage? This doesn’t augur well for
India at the moment, and hence no peak year has been mentioned. It would be
more apt to look at the consumption pattern for another decade before a peak
year is committed – as we are far behind China as far as development goals are
concerned. It is a typical catch-22 situation. So, in short it is in India’s
best interests to peak its energy demands as fast as possible – implementing
and upgrading its existing energy infrastructure as per the policy defined
above.
Last aspect being, can there be some radical means to bypass
the entire discussion of energy savings and fight between rich and poorer
countries on clean energy adoption and technology transfer?
We need radical technologies to effectively change the
current pace of environment degradation – many existing estimates suggest that
we might be a little late in containing the damage [2] [3]. There are
ground-breaking new technologies like SolarCity and Hyperloop One that are
being worked upon which will completely revamp two keys areas where energies
are consumed in bulk – Housing and Transportation. Elon Musk’s overall objective
is to tie in both of these horizontally with his Tesla project thereby creating
an effective loop of energy savings. And the best place on Earth to start with,
on a large scale should be China and India – two of the largest and fastest
economies where appetite for energy is going to increase in the coming decades.
Both India and China has to aggressively support such innovative technologies
and embed them as part of national policies on energy – so that the right
message is sent out to the world that we are indeed serious about climate
change it is not all rhetoric and that we will walk the talk. The current
challenges seem to be the investment climate of these countries coupled with
complex bureaucracies that has a negative effect on investment from these
companies in the energy sector.
In conclusion, there are technologies that are focussing on
improving the efficiency of existing energy consumption – vehicles, power
generators, etc. A renewed focus is on reduce, reuse and recycle. Actions also underway in creating carbon sinks to suck up atmospheric carbon-di-oxide that acts
as a greenhouse gas. But the rhetoric is primarily around containing the temp
increase below 2 degrees which may not be enough, especially for island
countries. Developing countries and India also need to keep their
self-interests intact and there are ways and means that have been highlighted
above. It may be about time to take a step back and reassess if the existing
solutions should be adequate to address the situation or should we focus more
on new radical technologies and investment techniques that has more potential
in saving the day and assess their impact – however radical it sounds.
I. The Rising Powers There are many who argue that cinema are true reflections of the society that we live in. It shows us a portrait or a snapshot, that helps us acknowledge who we are; making us confront the truths that may be otherwise too difficult to acknowledge. With the advances of science in cinematography, we are able to recreate entire universe altogether on the large screen.
Is it a relevant discussion when we discuss geo-politics?
Well indeed it is – and will cite 2 such examples to buttress my point…
“Gravity” directed by Alfonso Cuarón
“Interstellar” directed by Christopher Nolan
Both of the above movies were made in Hollywood – the holy grail of sci-fi. Both the movies are critically acclaimed. Both have broken multiple barriers and records.
There is a reason, these movies are being referred to. In “Gravity”, Chinese space station Tien-gong plays a very crucial role for the American astronaut [Julia Roberts] to reach back to earth safely. In “Interstellar” Indian Air Force drone was shown at the beginning of the movie [1:35] that was in air, circling the Earth for over a decade [!!!], supposed to explain the robustness of Indian technology and to top it off, the programming language controlling the drone was in Sanskrit [2:00 – 2:07; notice the laptop screen]. Watch the video below.
These are plain imagination. But Hollywood has an uncanny ability to predict future where sci-fi is involved. The movies, which are part of American production houses, have done their due diligence and research, whose directors are critically acclaimed – that ought to say something – India and China are on the rise and will eventually beat America, technologically. That’s what these movies predict. Why not an American space-station or an American drone depicted in these movies? Well, that might be anybody’s guess; but the truth is India and China are too big to ignore today and if one charts their paths, both of these countries are moving precisely in that direction.
India’s stupendous success of Mars Mission that was on a budget cheaper than that of “Gravity” movie was the talk of the town for a long time. Today, China has sent it astronauts on the longest space mission so far on its Tien-gong 2 space station to make it eventually habitable by 2022. Both India and China are on the path to create their own regional GPS – IRNSS and Beidou respectively. While China possesses ASAT [anti-satellite] capabilities, India with its vast knowledge of missiles and satellites can quickly develop ASAT capabilities. India’s Chandrayaan mission has found water – it seems a day before NASA did. Now India is planning for a manned mission to moon that hopes to find resources and give NASA a run for its money. Space is the final frontier.
But there are issues closer to home – the Earth. The duel of China vs. India – the rise of Asian giants in the twenty-first century, wrestling to become the next world power. II.The Clash of Titans
China clearly is in the lead given its economic clout and military advances. China had an export led growth for over two decades and is now trying hard to maintain it through domestic consumption led growth. India has a considerable catch-up to do. One of these many pawns in the game of geo-strategy is CPEC, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor ['Colonising Pakistan to Enrich China' as Christine Fair calls it] by China.
Pakistan’s [supposedly] all weather friend, China has proposed to invest a mind boggling USD 46 billion in the fledgling state. It is a miniscule drop in the huge forex reserves it has built. How should one look at it? It has thrown open a Pandora’s box of questions that is the current hot-topic on the agenda of geo-strategic analysts in South East Asia.
Is it sheer foolishness to invest in a country that openly courts terrorists and is almost an international pariah, also considering the fact that a major part of the CPEC infrastructure will run through the most hostile regions of Pakistan? Or Is it a calculated move?
Is it a gift from a wealthy friend to a less fortunate one? Or Is it an extension of Chinese soft power?
Is it solely to bypass the Malacca strait and improve energy security of China? Or Is it part of the larger Chinese String of Pearl Strategy?
Is it about making Pakistan a closer ally? Or Is it a larger strategy of keeping Pakistan subservient to China’s overall foreign policy to counter India? Should India be worried? Obviously, given the fact that China has blocked India’s NSG membership fearing India’s rise and doesn’t support declaring Masood Azhar of JeM a terrorist by UN; by no stretch of imagination is China India's friend, even 45 years after Sino-Indian War, doesn't support India in these critical issues.
China exhibits all the traits of a rising hegemonic power in Asia. The following are some examples which are more or less in news at regular intervals:
It has already openly threatened to disobey the judgement of the International Tribunal in The Hague regarding the claims of waters of South China Sea.
It regularly breaches the territorial waters of its neighbours – Japan, Philippines and Vietnam to name a few.
It has established military bases in Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoals that are claimed by other countries in the region – disregarding their claim completely.
It has forcibly forced away Vietnam from 2 of its oil drilling operations.
It regularly breaches the Indian borders in Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh which it considers as disputed territories and provides stapled visas to residents of these states visiting China.
Also, it has a taken up an aggressive stance against India in the TAR.
In recent times, it has been sparring an invisible duel with America – especially in South China Sea, whenever American warships or Maritime Aircraft enters the hotly contested South China Sea.
The ability to declare ADIZ [Air Defence Identification Zone] that also includes the Senkaku islands claimed by Japan.
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. One cannot simply be a military might without being an economic powerhouse. This is a basic paradigm since eons – be it Roman Empire or British Empire; Or the American hegemony as of today which is on the wane, economy is the decisive factor that decides the might and standing of a nation in the global arena. A nation that aspires to be a force to reckon with, cannot ignore this simple rule. Take India’s example – the 1962 War with China; a resounding defeat primarily because defence was not a focus area for Indian leadership. ‘Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai’ was the slogan of the day and the Himalayas that was never breached was still expected to stand guardian of the nation despite modern advances in military technology – such was the naivety of the Indian leadership. There were many other issues and lacunae as well that was highlighted by Henderson-Brooks report, but the major cause still remains that defence was neglected due to poor political will despite have the largest military industrial complex amongst newly independent nations! How much one spends on defense depends on how much one can afford to spend and the opportunity cost of not spending it on the social sectors for a country that is still developing. India spends around USD 50 billion a year [2.3% of GDP] on defense, while China's defense expenditure is in excess of USD 210 billion a year [1.9% of GDP]. III.The Money Plant
China sits on a massive forex reserve of USD 3.5 trillion. The current trade deficit between US and China stands at USD 365 billion. These 2 figures tell us how, financially, US is at the mercy of China – without even facing a single Chinese soldier. If China decides to rock USD, it can simply do so by flooding the market with US dollars and improving the standing of Renminbi. US will be held an economic hostage in such a situation. Already there are tell-tale signs that Renminbi is now considered as a racehorse – by being included in the IMF basket of currencies in IMF’s SDR – in addition to USD, Euro, GBP and Japanese Yen.
There might be a lot of rhetoric about China trying to elbow India out of Indian Ocean region and establish itself as the most credible partner in IOR and other littoral countries. So is China India’s natural enemy? It depends, as there are a lot of issues where India and China has common interests – like controlling Greenhouse emissions or addressing infrastructure bottlenecks. Each nation addresses its concerns as per their perceived strategic interests. So, essentially it makes China look after its strategic interests – and given its size, any direction it moves causes ripples which is aggravated further by its hard bullying stance against smaller nations.
But the simplest explanation of Chinese investment in Pakistan is that China can afford to spend USD 46 billion without batting an eyelid even if it is a sunk cost given the situation in Pakistan.
If CPEC is viewed through this specific lens, it doesn’t look as menacing as it sounds. The entire Malacca strait is bypassed addressing security challenges, routes shortened, jobs created in Kashghar province, bringing Uighur to mainstream economy. It seems to be in India’s interest, as it will bring more stability in the region since CPEC also tries to address the critical power shortage problem that plagues Pakistan – thereby supporting its industries and small scale businesses, providing a necessary economic boost. CPEC will also open up alternate roadways in Balochistan which can lead to new businesses opening up along the highways.
But, CPEC has unnerved India to a huge extent – primarily due to two reasons:
CPEC passes through PoK [which is technically part of India under Pakistan occupation] in Gilgit-Baltistan area. Pakistan has even transferred some areas to Chinese and Chinese soldiers are present in this area. India can only protest.
Gwador – the deep sea port and alternate to Karachi port can be quickly converted into a Chinese naval base if the need arises. That’s is a huge naval threat for the entire Indian Western-Seaboard.
These two points will strengthen Pakistan’s claim of legitimacy in Kashmir, in which case it will become difficult for India to claim and control PoK in future if CPEC becomes operational as it also brings China into the picture; as Chinese will have a valid claim to defend CPEC and its sanctity as part of Chinese National Interest. This poses a huge threat to India. Hence India will also have to deal with China if a possible future war with Pakistan breaks out. India’s cold-start doctrine needs to be revisited in such a situation. IV.Indian Response
So, which is the greater good – an operational CPEC or poorer unstable Pakistan without CPEC? There is no straight answer to this, but it depends.
Operationalising CPEC is no mean feat. It has to travel through the hostile terrains of Balochistan and FATA where anti-Pakistani interests are in play. There is always a threat to the movement of goods through these regions. Secondly, there is a severe water shortage in Gwador and Balochistan in general that is difficult to address if one wants to improve population density along CPEC routes to create viable businesses and make the routes safer. Thirdly, Balochs are primarily kept outside of CPEC development in Balochistan causing a local resentment. Fourthly, at the northern end of CPEC, it goes through inhospitable Karakoram Range, where laying down navigable roads all year round would be a huge engineering feat. There are many other concerns, but operationalising CPEC is not as easy as it sounds.
Now, India can look at alternate unconventional options to block CPEC, so that the larger Indian claim on PoK isn’t diluted. And the most obvious means to do so is to support the Baloch separatists and their demand of Baloch homeland. It will be a costly proposition for Pakistan and China – one that will not be easy to sort out; exactly in the manner Kashmir issue has been kept alive by Pakistan over the last 70 years. Playing the cards, the way Pakistan does would be the most sustainable means of thwarting CPEC, with limited liability on India along with full plausible deniability clause. For this, there has to be considerable political resolve to see it through. India’s poor political will has often been roadblocks to a standard response in similar situations.
Balochistan is the fulcrum of the entire CPEC, where Gwador is located. Isolating Balochistan is enough for CPEC to fail. Indian government can start granting asylum to Baloch separatists and start citing human rights violation in Balochistan, to expose Pakistan’s duplicity. In the long run, it will also make Pakistan’s Kashmir claim more diluted as Pakistan will be given a dose of its own medicine and will be kept busy containing the unrest. China will be able to help little, except occasionally breaching the MacMahon line causing headaches to Indian establishment – but hopefully that would be well-calibrated and localised in nature like past incursions.
Secondly, there are too many disgruntled neighbours surrounding China. An effective nexus against China will definitely make it think twice before entering into a full blown conflict with India – which seems highly unlikely, even if India intervenes in Balochistan. India has already started creating an informal grouping of such nations through bilateral MoUs and other instruments. For example, providing Vietnam a line of credit to purchase naval vessels. It also has a robust relationship with Japan and Australia along with other SE Asian Countries. In the IOR, it has strengthened ties with Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles both economically and from maritime security perspective. The recent LEMOA with US was signed also keeping in mind, the US’s strategy of Pivot to Asia that aims to limit China and position almost 60% of American Military hardware in the Pacific theatre to contain China’s meteoric rise.
Thirdly, utilise the issues of common interests as coercive bargaining chips. India needs to swing properly and calibrate its timing well with respect to issues where Chinese need our support – be it WTO issues related to trade and tariff barriers or climate change issues for controlling emission norms. Let’s make it a high cost bargain for China to gain India's support on these critical issues that are of Chinese interest. That way, it ensures that India’s position is not compromised like it happened for NSG membership. Fourthly, India needs to utilize fully its soft power and 'Mausam' / Spice Route project to counter the overall Chinese One Road-One Belt and Silk Road strategy. India obviously cannot compete with China at the scale they have conceived due to huge investment needed, but nevertheless, most of the countries, especially in IOR are ideologically aligned to India's needs and interests and these projects would be a start to gain a proper foothold.
Lastly, despite covert and diplomatic initiatives, India still has to make use of the international platforms to isolate Pakistan and counter China’s position informally, without irking the neighbour. It is important to keep up the rhetoric, so that Indian position isn’t perceived to be weak; which unfortunately has been the Indian legacy for the better part of last 70 years.
As Sun Tzu says in ‘The Art of War’
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
