Wednesday, September 16, 2020

SOUTH ASIA ANALYSIS GROUP

Minorities in India :

Paper No. 6682 Dated 16-Sep-2020

By Kazi Anwarul Masud- (Former Secretary and Ambassador of Bangladesh.)

Throughout history minorities have faced with discriminations, of different forms, based on language, clans, tribes, and most importantly religion.

Intra-religion conflicts have been known throughout history. Famous are the conflicts among the Christians-the Protestants and the Catholics; Muslims and the Christians; are the famous conflicts based on religion. Intra-Christians is the most famous one is the revolt against the Pope by Martin Luther giving rise to Catholics and non-Catholics. Other factors emerged to divide the Christianity like the annulments sought by King Henry the Eighth from the Pope revolting in the separation of the English branch of Christianity. Most important however was the Spanish Inquisition (1478-1834) which saw the most brutal killing of human beings by other human beings.

Editor Edward Rayan of Enclopedia Britannica wrote extensively “Spanish Inquisition, (1478–1834), judicial institution ostensibly established to combat heresy in Spain. In practice, the Spanish Inquisition served to consolidate power in the monarchy of the newly unified Spanish kingdom, but it achieved that end through infamously brutal methods.

When did the Spanish Inquisition end? The Spanish queen regent María Cristina de Borbón issued a decree abolishing the Spanish Inquisition on July 15, 1834. The papal Inquisition—founded in 1542 and formally known as the Congregation of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition, or Holy Office—was reorganized by Pope Paul VI. Pope Lucius III declared the first inquisition in 1184, nearly 300 years before the creation of the Spanish Inquisition, and the use of torture was authorized for inquisitors in 1252. As the Reconquista brought the territories of Moorish Spain under the control of Christian kings, many Jews in these areas declared their conversion to Christianity in an attempt to escape persecution.

The medieval inquisition had played a considerable role in Christian Spain during the 13th century, Over centuries, the Jewish community in Spain had flourished and grown in numbers and influence, though anti-Semitism had surfaced from time to time. After Aragon and Castile were united by the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella (1469), the Jews were denounced as a danger to the existence of Christian Spain... The Spanish crown now had in its possession a weapon too precious to give up, however, and the efforts of the pope to limit the powers of the Inquisition were without avail... At the end of the 15^th century ` Ferdinand and Isabella issued an edict giving Spanish Jews the choice of exile or baptism; as a result, more than 160,000 Jews were expelled from Spain. Ryan The).”

Linguistic differences not only led to dissension among the people of the same region but also led to the creation of a new state. BANGLADESH was created mainly because Urdu and Bengali were separate language but also had separate script. The languages were so different that one could not the read or write the other. But then politico-economic reasons were there too. Bangladesh felt that this part of the country was being milked for the benefit of the other.

Then again linguistic differences are not uncommon in different countries of the world. There are 22 major languages in India, written in 13 different scripts, with over 720 dialects. The official Indian languages are Hindi (with approximately 420 million speakers) and English, which is also widely spoken. In addition, several states in India have their own official languages, which are usually only spoken particular areas. As per 2011 Census of India languages by highest number of speakers are as follows: Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, Telugu, Tamil, Gujarati, Urdu, Kannada, Odia, and Malayalam. 22 languages are accepted by Indian Constitution. In Belgium spoken languages are—French and Dutch.

In short differences in languages do not constitute a government or a state. Nor does ethnicity. What makes a nation then? Britannica defines a nation state as---- Nation-state, a territorially bounded sovereign polity—i.e., a state —that is ruled in the name of a community of citizens who identify themselves as a nation. The legitimacy of a nation-state’s rule over a territory and over the population inhabiting it stems from the right of a core national group within the state (which may include all or only some of its citizens) to self-determination. So why religion was the main determinant in the Partition of British ruled Indian sub-continent? What caused was the predominance of Hindus over Muslim population in India? Was the political ambition of the leaders of Indian Congress Party and the Muslim League? Questions arose what was the population of British India in 1947. British India had a population of ~299 million (1941: 292,164,791), the Native states ~90 million (1941: 88,167,852), French India 0.225 million, Portuguese India 0.5 million, the Dominion of India started with a population of ~230 million, while East Bengal / East Pakistan / Bangladesh picked up ~40 million, formerly British Indian subjects, with the rest ending up in West Pakistan, though there was quite a bit of movement, and annexation of territory and peoples soon after independence.

There was a Census in 1941 before India’s Independence , when India’s population was enumerated as 31,86,60,000 . Govt of India made first Census in 1951 when India’s her population was 36,10,88,000 an increase of 13.31% in Ten years or an average increase of 1.33126 % per year or 2.986 % between 1941 and 1947 .So it could be estimated as 32,81,76,000 . So Muslim population was considerably lower than the Hindu population leading to a conclusion that Muslims would always be under the rule of Hindus. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was determined to be the first Prime Minister of India. Pandit Nehru and Sardar Patel were opposed to Mahatma Gandhi’s reported offer to Mohammed Ali for any position in an undivided India- Governor Genera, Prime Minister or whatever he chose. Dalai Lama who is dictating his autobiography is reported to have blamed Pandit Nehru for the partition of India.

Congress Party leader Man Shankar Ayyar (It was not Nehru who cut Jinnah’s chances of becoming PM—August 17 2020) as initially claimed by Dalai lama in his autography (but later quickly withdrawn). Ayyar added “since almost the morrow of Muslim League’s resolution of March 23 1940 the Congress had been attempting to persuade Stanley Wolpert in his biography of Jinnah, wrote that Jinnah and his League pressed the Pakistan demand as the Congress was more than willing to ensure that, to avoid partition, post-Independence, the reins of power could be passed to the hands of Jinnah and his League…It was not Nehru but Jinnah who rejected Gandhi-ji's offer. As Wolpert puts it, "Such an offer might have tempted Jinnah if he believed in or trusted Gandhi". He did not. Instead, as he told the press, "Mr. Gandhi's conception of 'Independent India' is basically different from ours", adding, "Mr. Gandhi by independence means Congress raj. Mani Shankar Ayyar concluded “therefore, suggest to a new generation of students born decades after these events that Nehru opposed Gandhi-ji's suggestion because he, Nehru, was hungering to become PM is both cruel and unfair and totally unhistorical”.

Given this background of two divisions-Muslim League and Congress- had already been created defacto it is pointless to bring about the Hindu-Muslim divide after decades of majority-minority rule practiced throughout the world despite the unfairness it entails. Neil Ferguson used the words “historical evidence of technological innovation, religious effects, and economic differences, among other factors, to explain why the West, and Western Europe especially, was the dominant force in the world for centuries” He added that The West used to be hugely powerful. That was not because of chance. It was because of distinct traits that made the West more innovative and intrepid than the rest of the world”. Stanley Wilbert gave credit to colonialism , “despite its occasional brutality”, was largely beneficial because it brought civilization and the attendant advances to areas of the world that were still living in barbaric versions of the Stone Age. Colonialism, made possible by the fact that the West was more powerful than “the rest” is what led to the rest of the world getting to experience the benefits of Western civilization.

It is debatable: what factors led to Narendra Modi’s victory in the elections: is it his muscularity vis-à-vis China and Pakistan or the benefits the common people got from his domestic reforms or was it his Hindutva philosophy which he has been preaching as a “ pracharak” from his young age or the amalgamation of all these factors. Sashi Tharor Congress Party leader, explains that Hinduism is a rich religion brimming with multifariousness. As opposed to the Semitic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the most well-known faiths in the Western world have some beliefs in common: every one of the three, for instance, accept that there’s just a single God and that he’s an existent and immaterial being. A genuine devotee must acknowledge that basic tenet.

Hinduism, with regards to the mentioned tenet, is a totally contrasting religion. In opposition to their monotheistic partners, Hindus affirm the existence of several divine beings. These include Ganesh, the remover of deterrents, and Shiva, the destroyer. There is likewise a wide cluster of Holy Scriptures like the Bhagavad Gita and the Rigveda. Each Hindu is allowed to pick which gods she adores, which writings she upholds and when and where she supplicates. That makes Hinduism a profoundly individual-specific faith that differs from one adherent to another”. In other words Hindus are freerer than others in the choice of their God.

A contrary argument could be confusion which more often than not leads to physical confrontation particularly in plutocratic societies. Imagine a household where husband and wife pray to different Gods. Hinduism generally regarded every other religion and venerated their consecrated writings and welcomed Buddhism and Sikhism as coming from the same roots.

The present scenario of slaughtering Beef eating Muslims and the anti-Muslim riots being read and seen on television screen give another picture. Communal fault-lines are not new in the country. When India was partitioned in 1947 — leading to the creation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan — tens of millions of Muslims chose a secular India as their homeland; they were betting on a more promising future in a country that enshrined religious equality into its constitution. But Hindu nationalists have long claimed a greater moral right over the nation and have questioned the patriotism of Indian Muslims. And the prejudice is no longer just rhetorical. It has turned into violent hatred that has spilled onto the streets of the country. The shift in India’s attitude towards Muslims has been there for centuries ever since the Muslims started invading India. This is the first time that Hindu population have voted BJP as a single majority political party with a group of people capable and willing to implement an anti-Muslim agenda. Such activities are in violation on the Constitution contrary to the oath taken by the Council of Ministers, and harmful to the image of India carved out by the predecessors are of little importance when President Trump at Allahabad meeting termed it as the internal affairs of India

Gone with the wind when Pandit Nehru, President Nkrumah, Gamal Abdul Nasser dared to clear a path of Non-Aligned Movement when the US was busy with forming NATO, SEATO, CENTO and other alliances to guard the Russian encirclement of East Europe. Indian Congress Party leader Sashi Tharoor in his book Why I am a Hindu states “In 1989, the BJP adopted Hindutva as its official ideology. The BJP or Indian People’s Party has been ruling since 2014. From the beginning of their assuming of power, the nation has seen a flare-up of insularity which would’ve been incomprehensible to its Hindu ancestors. The BJP is focused on Hindutva, signifying “Hinduness.”” Tharoor traced the thought to a previously developed one of the mid-twentieth century.

At the point when India’s foremost sovereignty leader Mahatma Gandhi advocated for solidarity between the future sovereignty’s different religious societies, he experienced harsh criticism from various commentator one being Vinayak Savarkar, a government official, and essayist who promoted the idea of Hinduness with his 1923 book Essentials of Hindutva. Savarkar’s seminar in Hindu patriotism asserted that Hindus were the earliest occupants of India. That, he surmised, implied that India was by definition the place of habitation of the Hindus – a controversial move which right away proscribed other different religious faiths from Savarkar’s idea of citizenship. In 1939, a conservative mastermind called MS Golwalkar expounded upon that line of thought in We, or Our Nationhood Defined. Golwalkar asserted that nationality was dictated by culture as opposed to geology. India, obviously, was socially Hindu from his point of view. A Muslim may live inside the nation’s physical territory, yet she wasn’t genuinely Indian since she didn’t partake in or identify with Hindu culture. That makes the BJP a great deal like a fundamentalist crusades. Like its partners in different parts of the world, its stubborn and discriminatory assertions about social personality sets up a precedence for an institutionalized abuse of minority groups.

Be that as it may, here’s the Catch 22: Hinduism is profoundly dedicated to a reverence for other faiths and religious inclusiveness, putting Hinduness up against an indispensable part of its own legacy. Can one find similarity with the Nazi belief of superiority over other creed if one were to go with Golwalker’s assertion that that Nazi Germany’s institutionalized extermination of Europe’s Jews was a case of “race pride at its best,” something from which he trusted India would do well to learn?

Tags:

india

Minorities

Category:

Papers

Countries:

South Asia (General)

Topics:

Tuesday, September 1, 2020

SOUTH ASIA ANALYSIS GROUP

Can India be the Leader of South Asia?

Submitted by asiaadmin2 on Mon, 08/31/2020 - 06:41

Paper No. 6673 Dated 31-Aug-2020

By Kazi Anwarul Masud (Former Secretary & Ambassador of Bangladesh.)

Several trends of thought are circulating in India today, prominent

among those are, whether India should be the leader of South Asia or

look inwards towards more development –both economically, culturally,

and militarily to face the growing threat of Chinese soft and hard

power in the region. The pressure is increasing due to tussle with

Nepal, China’s hands of friendship extended towards Bangladesh through

donation of coronavirus equipment and emphasis on infra-structural

projects.

Long considered as a kind of “hinterland” by India

Chinese “intrusion” into South Asia and ASEAN countries are troubling

Indian policy planners. A critic (India’s New Opportunity to Lead

South Asia THE DIPLOMAT The Modi government should look at China’s

‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative from a broader perspective. By

Sourabh Gupta July 10, 2015In February 2014, at the 17th round of

Special Representative talks in New Delhi)), Beijing formally invited

India to join its ambitious Maritime Silk Road (MSR) project. The

Narendra Modi government should aim to make China’s activities in

South Asia complementary to its own neighborhood policy. It should

draw up an integrated view of how the various proposals under the

rubric of China’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ initiative—the MSR, the

Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) corridor, and rail, road and

port development in Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar—can be

harmonized to serve both India’s peaceful rise within its extended

Asian neighborhood and Asia’s peaceful rise to the forefront of world

affairs.

At a time when New Delhi lacks the funds—and perhaps

the intent—to underwrite the modernization programs of its common

neighborhood, it must not be seen to undermine an initiative that it

does not at any rate possess the wherewithal to subvert. ‘One Belt,

One Road’ is the centerpiece of the Xi Jinping administration’s “new

type of international relations” concept—an imposing win–win scheme

that aspires to embed the China Dream within a neighborhood community

of common destiny. Co-opting ‘One Belt, One Road’ in South Asia will

liberate New Delhi from its penchant to oscillate between viewing the

subcontinent as its exclusive sphere of influence and longing to vault

over the neighborhood to pursue flashier adventures abroad.

Asia’s seas were a genuine free sea. China’s outward foot forward is

not bounded by Asia but also extends towards Africa and Latin America.

Chinese attempts appear to challenge the hegemony of the US enjoyed

since the end of the Second World War. US launch of Marshall Plan and

reconstruction of Europe (not the present European Union) and the

creation of rule based international financial institutions, NATO and

the appeal of democracy to the members of the club appear to be

threatened. “Unfortunately” considering the present situation Trump

administration’s anti-China policies implementation of “America First”

declared on the day of taking oath as President is one of the results

of that policy.

Singaporean Prime Minister voiced concern over

the US-China rivalry (The endangered Asian Century America,

China, and the Perils of Confrontation By Lee Hsien Loong

July/August 2020). He wrote “Asia has prospered because Pax

Americana, which has held since the end of World War II, provided a

favorable strategic context. But now, the troubled U.S.-Chinese

relationship raises profound questions about Asia’s future and the

shape of the emerging international order. Southeast Asian countries,

including Singapore, are especially concerned, as they live at the

intersection of the interests of various major powers and must avoid

being caught in the middle or forced into invidious choices.

The status quo in Asia must change. But will the new configuration enable

further success or bring dangerous instability? That depends on the

choices that the United States and China make, separately and

together. The two powers must work out a modus vivendi that will be

competitive in some areas without allowing rivalry to poison

cooperation in others”. Unsurprisingly Singaporean Prime Minister

sees as the United States as a resident power. At the same time,

China is a reality on the doorstep. Asian countries do not want to be

forced to choose between the two. And if either attempts to force such

a choice—if Washington tries to contain China’s rise or Beijing seeks

to build an exclusive sphere of influence in Asia—they will begin a

course of confrontation which could land the Asian century in

jeopardy Lee credits the US for Asia’s stability and prosperity and

credited the United States for championing an open, integrated, and

rules-based global order and providing a security umbrella under

which regional countries could cooperate and peacefully compete.

As Washington promoted free trade and opened U.S. markets to the world,

Asian trade with the United States grew. Lee considers two pivotal

events in the 1970s shifted Pax Americana in Asia into a new phase:

the secret visit to China in 1971 by Henry Kissinger, then the U.S.

national security adviser, which laid the basis for U.S.-Chinese

rapprochement after decades of hostility, and the launch, in 1978, of

Deng’s program of “reform and opening up,” which allowed China’s

economy to take off. By the end of the decade, economic barriers were

coming down, and international trade was growing rapidly. After the

Vietnam War and the war in Cambodia ended, Vietnam and the other

countries of Indochina were able to focus their energies and resources

on economic development, and they started catching up with the rest of

Asia”. Lee Hsien Loog as an important member of ASEAN adds as

expected he pointed the importance of ASEAN and of the US and of China

in the prosperity of the region. As China’s stake in the region has

grown, Lee Tsien Loong pointed out China’s launch of its own

initiatives, including the Belt and Road Initiative and the Asian

Infrastructure Investment Bank. These have helped deepen China’s

engagement with its neighbors and, of course, increased its influence.

But because the regional architecture is open, China’s influence

is not exclusive. The United States remains an important participant,

underpinning regional security and stability and enhancing its

economic engagement. ASEAN believes that such a network of

connections creates a more robust framework for cooperation and more

space to advance its members’ collective interests internationally”.

Warning bells have also been sounded in the US against decoupling of

US-China cultural relationship. Minxin Pei an eminent political

commentator is of the view that in the long run cutting cultural,

educational and journalistic ties would harm the US more that than

China because American soft and hard power which had attracted US-Euro

and newly freed colonized countries had an attraction that MAO-Xi Ping

model, with the exception of Deng Xiao-Ping “go slow” policy, could

not have been chosen by the freed people after the ignominy suffered

at the hands of the colonizers. In recent time US Vice President

Michael Pence had publicly upbraided China for laying “debt Trap” in

financing Belt and Road schemes. Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port and

Laotian Railways improvement projects are proven examples. An August

19th report by a group of American reporters revealed that officials

in Beijing were kept in the dark for weeks about the potential

devastation of the virus by local officials in central China.

The report concluded that officials in the city of Wuhan and in Hubei

Province, where the outbreak began late last year, tried to hide

information from China’s central leadership. This perhaps prompted

President Trump to say on July 4th speech at the White House that

“China’s secrecy, deceptions and cover-up” enabled the pandemic.

Secretary of State Mike Pompe insisted the administration was “telling

the truth every day” about “the Communist cover-up of that virus.”

The truth of the matter, whether China deliberately the lid on the

escape of the disease, voluntarily or through confusion depends on the

teller. It is also not certain whether WHO’s connivance in keeping the

oncoming pandemic was deliberate or due to pressure from China. Trump

administration is convinced is the complicity of WHO in not letting

the world know when it should have been. Suspension of money from WHO,

withdrawal of membership, and other punitive actions are indicative of

the US conviction of WHO’s complicity. The reason of hiding the truth

from the Central Committee is obvious. In an article published by some

US reporters on Aug. 19, 2020 it was revealed that “ Officials in

Beijing were kept in the dark for weeks about the potential

devastation of the virus by local officials in central China,

according to American officials familiar with a new internal report by

U.S. intelligence agencies. The report concluded that officials in

the city of Wuhan and in Hubei Province, where the outbreak began late

last year, tried to hide information from China’s central leadership”.

In China the rule of law is more imperial than a court process where

the judge and the jury decide on the fate of the accused. More likely

the accused is shot to death before a charge sheet has been framed.

China is a populous country (not to be equated with Indian justice system).

Former Foreign Secretary Shayam Saran in an interview

expressed the view that one of China’s motives for the intrusions in

Ladakh could be tactical i.e. to alter the alignment of the Line of

Actual Control, another was undoubtedly to show the world that China

is the big power in Asia and, simultaneously, cut India to size and

put it in its place. Whereas Deng Xiaoping told Rajiv Gandhi in

1988 that the 21st century would be India and China’s century, the

Chinese leadership of today believes that it is China’s century alone

and there is limited or perhaps no room for India alongside the

expanding growth of China. Saran said that one option which India

could have exercised earlier on was a quick and focused counter by

intruding into Chinese territory at a point along the LAC where India

has a military advantage. That would have given India bargaining space

and provided a quid pro quo to facilitate a Chinese withdrawal. He

added that although the present intrusions are limited to Ladakh,

Saran said it’s possible there could be other intrusions along the

rest of the 3,488 km border in Arunachal or in the central sector. He

also accepted that if India were to accept the Chinese intrusions in

Ladakh as a fait accompli there is no guarantee China won’t attempt to

repeat them a little while later. In other words, the present

intrusions cannot be seen as a one-off. They could be part of a

recurring pattern. Saran also held that just because military

level talks have not produced satisfactory results up till now is not

a reason for discontinuing them and seeking to negotiate at the

ministerial level. This was the point at which he counseled patience.

Questioned about the Chief of Defence Staff’s comment on Monday

that “a military option … is on the table”, Saran said it was possible

that this is intended as a message to the Chinese to encourage Beijing

to be accommodating in forthcoming talks. However, he pointed out that

exercising a military option could easily lead to conflict which is

likely to include the deaths of soldiers. On Pakistan’s

reaction to a possible India-China conflict Saran said that Pakistan

would look to exploit the situation to its advantage. At one point he

also talked about how Ladakh is a part of India where the country

faces a two-front threat. He made it clear that whilst India has

America’s verbal support it is extremely unlikely that America will

fight our battles for us. If it came to conflict we could receive

American equipment but he did not think there was any further support

that India could expect. At a time when New Delhi lacks the

funds—and perhaps the intent—to underwrite the modernization programs

of its common neighborhood, it must not be seen to undermine an

initiative that it does not at any rate possess the wherewithal to

subvert. ‘One Belt, One Road’ is the centerpiece of the Xi Jinping

administration’s ‘new type of international relations concept.

Co-opting ‘One Belt, One Road’ in South Asia will afford some freedom

to New Delhi from oscillating between viewing the subcontinent as

its exclusive sphere of influence and longing to vault over the

neighborhood to pursue flashier adventures abroad. A 21st century

infrastructure project geared to connect the Asian heartland to its

hinterland and beyond might yet revive a set of loose integrative

norms, which can foster principles of order and self-restraint in East

Asia and South Asia. Narendra Modi, unrestricted by the blinkers

of his elitist predecessors, should exercise his abundant leadership

qualities to walk India and South Asia confidently down the path of

prosperity and equal sovereignty.

Tags:

Category:

Countries:

Topics:

Strategic Affairs & Security

Thursday, August 20, 2020

De-Consolidating Democracy- Role of SAARC

By Kazi Anwarul Masud, Former Secretary and Ambassador of Bangladesh,

Through out history men have been trying to express themselves to declare his existence.

Albeit these efforts were thwarted by events beyond his control or even with their own volition because they conditions they wanted to change were beyond their capacity or tradition made them accept the situation that prevailed at that time.

Yale University Professor Robert Alan Dahl also known as Dean of American Political Science Association and a powerful voice in research of democracy attempted to trace the history of known human civilization. In one of his articles Dahl wrote “The most famous city-state, in classical times and after, was Athens. In 507 B.C.E. the Athenians adopted a system of popular government that lasted nearly two centuries, until the city was subjugated by its more powerful neighbor to the north, Macedonia. …. It was the Greeks-probably the Athenians-who coined the term democracy, or demokratia, from the Greek words demos, the people, and kratos, to rule. It is interesting, by the way, that while in Athens the word demos usually referred to the entire Athenian people, sometimes it meant only the common people or even just the poor.

The word democracy, it appears, was sometimes used by its aristocratic critics as a kind of epithet, to show their disdain for the common people who had wrested away the aristocrats' previous control over the government…. the political institutions of Greek democracy, innovative though they had been, in their time, were ignored or even rejected outright during the development of modern representative democracy”. As in Athens, the right to participate was restricted to men, just as it was also in all later democracies and republics until the twentieth century.

The question that is uncertain to answer is whether in the present circumstances the world besieged by pandemic is seeing the approach of democratic deconsolidation. Some would argue, Amanda Taub of Fodham University and NYT journalist, for example, as she examines “Early signs of decline Political scientists have a theory called “democratic consolidation,” which holds that once countries develop democratic institutions, a robust civil society and a certain level of wealth, their democracy is secure.

For decades, global events seemed to support that idea. Data from Freedom House, a watchdog organization that measures democracy and freedom around the world, shows that the number of countries classified as “free” rose steadily from the mid-1970s to the early 2000s. Many Latin American countries transitioned from military rule to democracy; after the end of the Cold War, much of Eastern Europe followed suit. And longstanding liberal democracies in North America, Western Europe and Australia seemed more secure than ever.

But since 2005, Freedom House’s index has shown a decline in global freedom each year. Is that a statistical anomaly, a result of a few random events in a relatively short period of time? Or does it indicate a meaningful pattern?” Mr. Mounk and Mr. Foa developed a three-factor formula to answer that question. The first factor was public support: How important do citizens think it is for their country to remain democratic? The second was public openness to nondemocratic forms of government, such as military rule. And the third factor was whether “antisystem parties and movements” — political parties and other major players whose core message is that the current system is illegitimate — were gaining support.If support for democracy was falling while the other two measures were rising, the researchers marked that country “deconsolidating.” And they found that deconsolidation was the political equivalent of a low-grade fever that arrives the day before a full-blown case of the flu.

While the process of dedemocratisation is worrying, the optimists are of the opinion that human urge to act as they wish barring the bounds of law cannot be held in check for any length of time because once economies worries are over and a viable middle class has been formed the wish for a voice in the governance of the country becomes a premier concern. This is no less applicable for the less developed countries where economies predominate the day to day life. It is believed that peoples’ urge for a representative government becomes predominant when the question of taxation comes into play. The people then want to know how and where their money is being spent.

It is not necessary that such wish would be fulfilled in less developed countries particularly because of the reins of the government have already passed on to the patricians( not the landowning gentry of the past) who would be reluctant to part with such power wielded with the corrupt portion of society “elected” by the people. These people have their muscle men in every locality also duly “elected” or associated with different wings of the ruling political party. Not very dissimilar with the Chinese “wolf warrior diplomacy” (The Diplomat—12 July 2020) the writer reasons that this kind of diplomacy earned the ruling elite soaring nationalism.

The writer reasoned that “First, this change did not occur suddenly. Since 2010, when China’s GDP overtook Japan’s as the world’s second largest, the Chinese have become more confident and China’s foreign policy has become more assertive, gradually departing from Deng Xiaoping’s taotaoguang dictum. As the Communist Party continues to promote “four confidences”— in our chosen path, in our political system, in our guiding theories, and in our culture — nationalism has been on the rise. “Wolf-warrior diplomacy” is an extension of soaring nationalism at home.

In recent years, President Xi Jinping has advocated “a fighting spirit” on several occasions, whether speaking to soldiers or party officials….The latest diplomatic offensive is also part of the official effort to project China as a great power leading the global fight against the COVID-19. China’s image suffered during the crisis due to its bungled handling of the outbreak at the early stage. Many blame China for initially covering up the human-to-human transmission of the virus and not sharing complete information with the international community.

From China’s perspective, wolf-warrior diplomacy is a direct response to “unfair” approaches by other countries, especially the U.S., toward China and the Chinese people….. In fact, wolf-warrior diplomacy is already hurting China’s foreign policy, since it has generated pushback, such as Australia’s calls for an independent probe into the coronavirus’ origins. China’s soft power is weak globally; a belligerent approach will further damage China’s global image. According Pew polls released on April 21, 66 percent of Americans say they have an unfavorable view of China, its most negative rating since Pew began asking the question in 2005. The problem with China is her miscalculation of feeling too confident to be able to take on the US militarily. Equally a part of the elite Chinese establishment is sounding caution against any misadventure.

History teaches us that the US protected by the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans and having no credible threats in the vicinity should not be regarded as a hermit nation but one used post-1945 as a nation eager and willing to act as a policeman of the world. Besides the US and Europe convinced of its ideological superiority of democratic institution and technological advancement, aware as they are that G7, G20 and other organizations have changed the definition of developed and developing countries, are certain that the world would not accept the Xi jinping and Mao Tse Tung dictatorship, different as it is from Deng Xiaoping’s cautious approach.

In the above lines the possible global role as a passive observer in the ongoing pandemic situation looks missing. But it is highly unlikely. Time is now for cooperation among nations, despite China’s initial bungling on covit-19 and WHO’s initial hesitancy in announcing to the world that it is beset with a pandemic. Time for taking account may pend for a later date. Historically American Exceptionalism bas been a by-word for the people living in the continent.

Noted political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset argues that while the US has exercised tremendous influence over Western countries since WW II it remains exceptional: Americans are more religious, more patriotic, more populist, more egalitarian, more likely to volunteer, less likely to vote, more prone to divorce, and wealthier than citizens of other developed countries. Lipset asserts that these seemingly contradictory qualities result from several traits that have characterized America from its founding: a commitment to competitive individualism and self-determination; a deep anti-statist orientation; and a tendency toward populism and egalitarianism. What has emerged from this mix is a genuinely ``liberal'' society in the classical sense:

Even those called conservatives in our political lexicon are committed to individualist and egalitarian principles that would have marked them as radicals in 19th-century Europe. The moral foundation of public affairs in America has resulted in an ideological, crusading approach to foreign policy, while the commitment to individualism has resulted in high crime and divorce rates. Lipset adds “Being an American, however, is an ideological commitment. It is not a matter of birth. Those who reject American values are un-American. .. As G. K. Chesterton put it: "America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence. . . ." As noted in the Introduction, the nation's ideology can be described in five words: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez-faire”.

Lipset does not escape criticism. Harvard University’s Stephen Walt states that there is no difference in the way the US behaves as a great power as England, France, Portugal behaved in the same way in their heydays. Nor does the US behave better than the others. The US has not succeeded due to any special genius but due to luck. Walt writes “America’s past success is due as much to good luck as to any uniquely American virtues. The new nation was lucky that the continent was lavishly endowed with natural resources and traversed by navigable rivers. It was lucky to have been founded far from the other great powers and even luckier that the native population was less advanced and highly susceptible to European diseases”. But if Americans want to be truly exceptional, they might start by viewing the whole idea of "American exceptionalism" with a much more skeptical eye.

All said and done nearer home in South Asia we have to traverse a long way in which SAARC has to play a very important role. India as the logical leader of the area has to brace itself in words and deeds. Catering to a particular creed to gain votes in elections while alienating others from different creeds may lead the country to greater peril.

Tags:

Category:

Countries:

Topics:

Monday, June 22, 2020

Save the World from the Valley of Death: The Pandemic and the India-China Face off-

Paper No. 6606 Dated 21- June-2020

By Kazi Anwarul Masud (former Secretary and ambassador of Bangladesh)

Till today no definitive cure for the coronavirus has been found. Nor is it certain when it will be found. The failure is not due to lack of trying. The best brains of the world are engaged in relentless efforts to solve the elusive nature of the pandemic which like a magician changes its appearance frequently. The most optimistic view is that a cure may be found by September. Pessimistic view puts the period in years.

Majority of the intellectuals, however, agree that the world we had known and got used to since 1945 will not be there in post-coronavirus era. It is feared that the growth the developed countries had achieved and the developing countries were achieving would be wiped out by the global politico-economic slowdown. Given the fact that what politico-economic advantages the developed and the developing worlds is not going to be amnesiac of the achievement gained so far they are going to build upon it in an post-coronavirus era which possibly will be more technology based. Since the developed world had the advantage of technological innovation, they are going to hold on to their lead with the developing world following their lead.

The question that arises is the division between the two worlds which would not be as defined in the centuries past. According to Global Finance (January 17 2020). to determine where a country stands in the global tech race, the Global Finance used four integrated metrics, three of which serve as standard measures of the availability and prevalence of technology: internet users as a proportion of the population; smartphone users as a percentage of the population; and LTE users as a percentage of the population. The fourth metric used was a Digital Competitiveness Score developed by the IMD World Competitiveness Center. Their competitiveness score focuses on technological knowledge, readiness for developing new technologies, and the ability to exploit and build on new innovations.

Ranking nations according to these metrics produced interesting results. For example, smaller advanced countries seem to score better than larger ones—Hong Kong and Taiwan are both ranked above Japan, the country that produced game-changing inventions like the Nintendo, the Walkman, and the VCR. This is likely due to the fact that smartphone penetration is higher in Hong Kong and Taiwan. In Hong Kong, approximately 97% of internet searches are done on smartphones, indicating their prevalence.

Perhaps the biggest or most shocking anomaly is Russia’s poor showing, being ranked 47^th out of the 67 countries on the list. Russia does poorly across all metrics, with low scores on smartphone penetration as well as digital competitiveness. In fact, Ukraine is ranked two slots above Russia despite having a GDP 14 times smaller. Perhaps this is because Ukraine long served as a technological hub of the former USSR and currently structures its education and business interests towards promoting its information technology sector.

Some of the rankings are less surprising. Every one of the top 20 countries has a developed economy and European countries with advanced economies lead the pack, making up four of the top five most technologically advanced. However, Asian countries including the U.A.E, Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea are all in the top 12, giving the top players in the global tech race a measure of geographic diversity. Among South Asian India ranks 60 and Pakistan ranks 67 while China is at 38. Global Finance’s ranking is debatable. Many other factors have to be considered. China is the second largest economy in the world with a population of 1.3 billion. China has the largest foreign exchange reserve and a worldwide presence. In 2020 India’s GDP was 3.3 trillion with a population over 1.2 billion. Singapore, Hong Kong and South Korea have already graduated to developed country status.

Indian economy is the third largest in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP). The long-term growth perspective of the Indian economy remains positive due to its young population and corresponding low dependency ratio, healthy savings and investment rates, and its `increasing integration into global economy. The visit by coronavirus in all parts of the world has changed the prospects for not only India and China but for the entire universe.

In the midst of this uncontrollable pandemic India and China are engaged in a border dispute. The fights are bloody though firearms have not been used. The fights occurred in April and May in Ladakh and in Sikkim. Chinese troops occupied around 40 to 60 square kilometers of territory that India considers to be its own. The Economist (India and China have their first deadly clashes in 45 years The border affray is a sign of worrying military escalation between Asia’s giants. June 16th 2020) adds that “India is anxious over China’s growing economic and political clout on India’s periphery—in Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka—and over the influx of Chinese warships into the Indian Ocean. In response, successive Indian governments have tilted closer to America.... A quartet of China-skeptic countries known as the “Quad”, comprising America, Australia, India and Japan, now meet regularly. Though India is at pains to stress that the Quad is not an alliance, Australia may soon join naval exercises involving the other three countries, lending a naval dimension to the group. The violent turn in the border dispute is likely to accelerate these trends”.

Optimists however think that bilateral trade estimated at US $ 95 billion in 2018 compared with US $ 3 trillion economy supplying US dollar 13 trillion, consumer oriented middle income Chinese market could be a deterrent to India’s military response. Then India has to consider asymmetric power balance between the two countries. China’s GDP is five times larger than that of India and spends four times more than Indian defense budget. International mediation seems neither possible nor sought by the combatants. Yet the gory details appearing in the Indian media of soldiers mutilated bodies retrieved from the battle field and the pressure on the Indian Prime Minister to respond forcefully to the Chinese aggression further complicated by Chinese leadership’s belief in the (How to Prevent a War in Asia The Erosion of American Deterrence Raises the Risk of Chinese Miscalculation By Michèle A. Flournoy June 18, 2020) “military doctrine that the side that can make and execute battlefield decisions most quickly will gain a decisive advantage in any conflict.

China’s theory of victory increasingly relies on “system destruction warfare”—crippling an adversary at the outset of conflict, by deploying sophisticated electronic warfare, counter space, and cyber-capabilities to disrupt what are known as C4ISR network (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance), and thereby thwarting its power projection and undermining its resolve”. All said it has to be recognized that the world is now passing through a fluid situation due to coronavirus epidemic and the global responsibility lies in saving lives and distraught economies shelving muscle flexing however genuine the grievances may be.

Monday, May 18, 2020

Tackling Corona (Wuhan) Virus. Must We Surrender to George Orwell’s Animal Farm?

Paper No. 6579 Dated 17-May-2020

By Kazi Anwarul Masud ( Former Secretary and Ambassador- Bangladesh)

Time and again credible intellectuals have told the global audience that the world we had been used to since the great world war that ended in 1945 would no longer be there after the unpredictable and viscous coronavirus has left us. It is as yet unknown with the best scientific brains trying to find out when this “unpredictable” will become “predictable” and the people of the world will have a weapon to fight this demon.

Another battle also would have to be fought on the question of who gets the first shot of the nectar, will it again be distributed along the lines of the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots, the privileged and the underprivileged, the developed and the underdeveloped world. Any kind of justice requires that the claims of all be considered equally.

As Amartya Sen elucidates in his Theory of Justice by giving an example of three competing claims on a flute one claim based on his being the best flutist; another claim based on his being the poorest; and the third because of his expertise in making the flute. Sen argues that the three arguments are based, in turn, on principles of utility, economic equity, and the entitlement to the fruits of one’s unaided efforts. Each can be defended with strong, impartial arguments. But is the outcome necessarily arrived at the most optimum result? At least one can be satisfied that all claims were discussed and the decision was arrived based on the claims put forward at the time of discussion.

If an eventual or at least temporary palliative for coronavirus is discovered then its availability should be based on the necessity of all the people of the world because as yet no scientific basis has been found to base necessity except Angela Merkel’s advice to the Germans of “ testing, testing and testing” which alone can detect the contagious from the non-contagious. This testing. is possible more easily for the rich countries than the poor who are equally affected but have little to cope with the fallout both justice and necessity demands that the nectar be equally made available to all. While equitable distribution is being debated Sino-US conflict has taken a turn for the worse.

In an article James Palmer (China’s Coronavirus Success Is Made Possible by Xi’s Brutality-May 14^th) writes: “After an initial and disastrous cover-up, the systems that allowed the government to successfully act are the same ones that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) uses to maintain its control over citizens—and that are currently being used as part of a campaign of mass imprisonment and cultural genocide against Uighurs and other minorities in the western region of Xinjiang. This omnipresent domestic control apparatus is funded out of a so-called stability maintenance budget larger than that for national defense. These systems are not necessary for success, as Taiwan and South Korea have shown, but in China they proved critical”.)

A contrary view has been expressed by The Economist casting doubt on Trump administration’s “coherent” accusation that China is responsible for the pandemic, its birthplace is in Wuhan laboratory, the contagion did spread from an animal market in Wuhan which helped transmission from animal to human being though no direct allegation has yet been made of Chinese malfeasance. The Economist chided US Secretary of State for his unwavering loyalty to Trump administration’s which has resulted in Mike Pompeo’s demotion from the position of the Western world to one singing a lonely tune. “It is hard to think the words of any previous American chief diplomat, a role traditionally considered supra-partisan to a degree, have carried less weight. Yet, in an administration of mediocrities, Mr Pompeo remains a substantial figure. He is one of its last significant talents. Even his critics note his smarts—famously displayed in a stellar record at West Point and Harvard Law School—and policy seriousness. His articulation of an America First foreign policy that engages with the world consistently but sceptically is a fair stab at making Trumpism coherent. Since the sacking of John Bolton eight months ago, he has been the administration’s foreign-policy tsar. Mark Esper and Robert O’Brien, the Defence secretary and national security adviser, are nonentities by comparison”.

(Is the Pandemic China’s Sputnik Moment? What a Virus Reveals About Two Systems By Branko Milanovic May 12, 2020). Branco milanovich also compared the momentary Soviet surge in global influence following its successful sending of Sputnik into space. It was an inspiring feat for the Soviet Union in greater global influence but it was transitory in the evolution of human history. The Soviet camp was no less delighted but the Americans were not to be left behind. The US stole the march by putting a man on the moon despite Yuri Gagarin’s orbiting the earth before the US could even match the Soviet feat.

Similarly, China’s control of coronavirus through Xi Jinping’s draconian measures, Chinese data, disbelieved as these are globally, is likened to Soviet transient Sputnik feat of the yester years. In the ultimate analysis the longevity of a discovery, assuming a vaccine against coronavirus will be found in time to remove the global distress, may also seem Sputnik like Soviet victory as the Chinese claim of controlling the coronavirus’ forward march in heightening humanity’s distress. In the quest for global influence some countries may emotionally embrace the saying of “a friend in need is a friend indeed” as the Italian Foreign Minister did in receiving prompt Chinese help. Such transient emotional expression do not have a long life as realpolitik slips in the fight for global influence.

The truest armor the West has is the consent of the people in framing the architecture of their fate which the alternative form of government cannot offer. (COVID-19 Tempts Would-Be AuthoritariansBut Exploiting a Pandemic Comes at a Cost By Ruth Ben-Ghiat May 5, 2020—DEMOCRACY). Ruth Ben Ghiat points out the cooicidence of the appearance of coronavirus with a phase in our history with the rise of authoritarianism. Some how people in parts of the world were getting comfortable with strong leaders some of whom they felt were better suited to lead them out of the dystopian world where no end was in sight. Fortunately for us their number was small as the great majority still had not lost their faith in Jurgen Habermas’ communicative action where people could debate and reach results, if not consensus, on what needs to be done.

The strength of communicative action lay in discussions, and not in being forced to accept what a small minority of “leaders” felt was good for all. Granted the system was not Periclean in essence yet it gave the people to discuss and reach conclusion on what was best for all. Ruth Ben Ghats felt camaraderie with Taiwan based analyst Victor Lin Pu who described the Chinese government’s chief goal during the early days of the epidemic was not to contain the virus but “to maintain regime stability and social control.”

For authoritarian leaders, staying in power nearly always trumps the public’s welfare. The Chinese authoririties’ attempts to conceal the Wuhan debacle is common knowledge now. Yet many in the world would like to take account from the Chinese at a later date than now. The most important thing now is to survive and find a way out of this maze. This attitude is not one of surrender nor reflecting one of “by gone be bygone” but a practical one of survival. The people of the world is not looking at the menace with Voltaire’s Panglossian eyes ( Candide) but with a certainty that one day the fog will disappear and a new normal, in whatever shape it comes, will be embraced.

For South Asians India should prepare itself to be the beacon of light for the region. Despite differences, as differences must remain among neighbors, but similarities of history and tradition outrank the differences, and most importantly India is steeped in embracing a multi-lingual, multi-ethnic, multi-religious carpet for centuries and have provided shelter and voice to all. This what makes India great and acceptable to the region.

Tags:

Category:

Countries:

Topics: