SOUTH ASIA ANALYSIS GROUP

 

Surging Inequality and possible Social disharmony- in Asian Context

Paper No. 6754                      Dated 18-Feb-2021

By Kazi Anwarul Masud

Karl Schwab of World Economic Forum (February 9^th 2021) praised China’s Xi Jinxing’s speech that came at an historic time for the global economy.

For the first time in 200 years, Asia is the world economy’s dominant region, set to account for more than half of global GDP in 2021. As Asia’s – and soon the worlds – largest economy, China has played a decisive role in this development.   Given this, he particularly appreciated Xi’s call for continued global cooperation in areas like economic development, trade, and especially climate change”. He praised China’s commitments to the international agreements on trade and climate as crucial. Karl Schwab adds that income and wealth inequality are two of the most problematic realities of our time.

To be sure, the news is not all bad. Globally, income inequality has decreased in recent decades, thanks largely to economic progress in countries like China and India. Though full participation in the global economy has reduced inequality   it has not offset the sharp and deeply worrying rise in inequality within countries, including the US and much of Europe, as well as China and India.   Schwab’ however, admits the fundamental difference between Xi Jinping’s authoritarianism with democratic values of other countries where peoples’ voice are heard and makes a difference in the ultimate decision made.

As Arvind Subramanian argues  (After Capital   A Radical Agenda to Tame Inequality By Arvind Subramanian   July/August 2020) giving the example of the USA whose economy faces taxi metered ambulance where profit making is the business of the business it is necessary to  raise  the voice of dissenters  “those who want to raise minimum wages and change antimonopoly laws, or to reform corporate governance and socialize medicine. Referring to French economist Thomas Piketty, who wants to overhaul capitalism beyond the point of recognition by abolishing permanent private property altogether.    Subramanian adds that Picketty’s  Capital and Ideology  “was premised on the idea that an iron law of capitalism, captured in the expression r > g—meaning that the returns on capital would exceed overall economic growth—has doomed societies to ever-greater degrees of inequality. Essentially, r captures the income made by capitalists, and g, that made by society as a whole; if the expression holds, inequality will rise in favor of the former group.

Piketty raises a fundamental question: Why have all the revolutions and upheavals of history, which were intended to overthrow an unfair social order, ended up changing so little for those at the bottom of the pyramid? Inequality in France on the eve of World War I was much greater than it was before the French Revolution: in Paris, for example, the share of total private property of the top one percent was about ten percentage points greater in 1910 than in 1780. Whatever may have happened to liberté and fraternité, it is clear that égalité ended up serving more as a rousing call to arms than as a realized outcome.      Piketty explains this puzzle through historical examples drawn from the aftermath of upheavals in Brazil, France, Haiti, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In all those cases, societies were keen to compensate owners of property—land, capital, and slaves—but never the peasants or the slaves themselves…. Why have history's revolutions ended up changing so little for those at the bottom?”   

 The impulse Piketty describes stems from the sacralization of property. Those in powers, even if they had gotten there by means of a revolutionary overthrow of the previous political order, feared that if property rights were seriously violated, the economic and social order would collapse. And so the contest between justice and property rights was never really a contest: around the mid-1800s, the British preferred to pay wealthy slaveholders in the Caribbean about five percent of the United Kingdom’s GDP to compensate for the abolition of slavery rather than direct that money to education and public health to improve the circumstances of the poor in the United Kingdom itself…. Interestingly, Piketty’s aversion to private property comes with absolutely no wistfulness about the Soviet or the Chinese communist model. In fact, he attributes the rise of the Reagan-Thatcher revolution in part to the Soviet Union’s economic failure. And for all of China’s economic miracles, its undemocratic, nontransparent, repressive approach is not to his taste, either.

In his Leviathan Thomas Picketty gives credit to India for reducing the disparity in the ratio of lower-caste to upper-caste incomes  which is higher in India than the ratio of black people’s incomes to white people’s incomes in the  USA and South Africa  and India has posted stronger improvements over time, as well.  That achievement elicits a positive assessment from Piketty of India’s attempt to redress caste inequality via affirmative action or “reservations”: a euphemism for strict, constitutionally enshrined quotas for certain castes in public-sector jobs, government, and educational institutions. At the country’s independence, such quotas were set at about 22.5 percent for “scheduled castes” (the so-called Untouchables) and “scheduled tribes” (indigenous communities). Over time, they have been extended to different social groups, such as “Other Backward Classes,” and they now reach as high as 60 percent in some sectors.

Among Indians, especially those from upper castes, such reservations have become increasingly controversial as their reach has expanded”.  How far can the already disbelieving world continue to bank on Chinese speeches? In the Davos meeting, pointed out by Eli Friedman (Why China Is Capitalist    Toward an Anti-Nationalist Anti-Imperialism    Eli Friedman   July 15, 2020), “ China’s rapid evolution from one of the most economically equal countries in the world to one of the most unequal is suggestive of major structural shifts”.  China’s membership in the WTO, Friedman adds, the government’s continued insistence that it is in fact a market economy, or Xi Jinxing defending globalization in Davos and advocating for the market to play a “decisive role” in resource allocation, as signs that the state is embracing capitalism.

Similarly, one can find widespread cultural expressions that suggest an underlying capitalist orientation, including the valorization of hard work, a crass consumerism, and worship of the unique genius of corporate heroes from Steve Jobs to Jack Ma.    It would, however, be a mistake to confound such effects of capitalism with capitalism itself”.    China, a vast country of 1.3 billion people is heterogeneous with consequent inequality of income despite the surge of rural people rushing towards cities where jobs can be found but at a cost that has to be borne. Change of residence from village to cities deprive those leaving their place where they are originally registered would deprive them of the facilities, they were entitled had they not shifted from the village.   One may ask the reason of the exodus of rural people to crowded cities where increasingly technical works are difficult to come by and in any case unfit for the rushing rural people with little or no knowledge of rudimentary technology. Such a situation results not only in increasing income inequality but at the same time demand push increase in the price of commodities.

Could one opt for Thomas Picketty’s revolutionary proposal of “Patek Philippe Custodialism”     which contains a proposal of giving  certain amount of money to each individual at the age of 25 or there about to start a business thus ensuring his future. Such a proposal even if affordable to developed economies would not be acceptable to a rich country like China or much poorer third world countries either because they do not have the resources or would push up price of consumer goods to an already impoverished people.  There is also the possibility of financial repression if people find price of commodities being too high   that it would be preferable to keep the money in the bank, many banks are offering advantages to clients,

Bangladesh may be cited as an example, assuming that these people have money to spare.   This writer had in the past expressed his opinion that India’s economic and political health are of crucial importance to her neighbors. China as an alternative is not acceptable to India’s neighbors for historical and economic reasons. But for Bangladesh as a Muslim nation other countries-Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Bhutan have more similarity with India. Branco Milanovic (China’s Inequality Will Lead It to a Stark Choice a New Oligarchy Can Be Restrained Only by the Government That Made It February 11, 2021) considers stark inequality as the Achilles for China. He thinks “China’s inequality looks at first glance like the predictable product of rapid growth and urbanization. But aspects of the country’s distribution of wealth and income are more particular. They rise from the nexus of economic and political power within the Chinese system, and they suggest that the country’s leadership faces a difficult choice as to how, and whether, to restrain the growing power of new elite.”

The level of income inequality in China today is very high. According to the official data China’s Gini coefficient (a measure of inequality that ranges from 0 to 1) is around 0.47. By comparison, that of the United States is around 0.41. Chinese leaders have insisted a number of times that inequality above 0.40 is potentially destabilizing.    Milanovic adds:  A person with the median urban income in China is in the 70th global percentile (meaning that he or she is richer than 70 percent of humankind), while a person with the median rural income is in the 52nd global percentile. Differently put, the average urban person in China is as rich as the average person in Hungary, whereas the average rural person in China is as poor as the average person in Vietnam.

 One study comparing Chinese and American inequality has shown that 22 percent of Chinese inequality is due to these two “structural” features—inequality among provinces and between urban and rural areas.   According to the UN and World Bank indices (2020) the ratio of the average income of the richest 10% to the poorest 10%. and the ratio of the average income of the richest 20% to the poorest 20% and Gini coeffient is:-21.6,10.2, 38.5 and 2016 while that of India are 8.6, 55, 37.8 and 2011. The world’s richest 1% has more than twice as much wealth as 6.9 billion people. Only 4 cents in every dollar of tax revenue comes from taxes on wealth. It is generally reported that in both India and China, income inequality substantially grew after the economic liberalization of the 1980s. In India, the top 10% income share grew from 30% in the 1980s to over 56% in 2019, while in China; the top 10% share grew from 28% in 1980 to 41% in 2019. 

In Asia, within-country inequality has been rising significantly since the 1990s. In India, the top 10% income share grew from 30% in the 1980s to over 56% today, following deregulation and liberalization reforms. In contrast, the top 10% share in China grew from 28% to 41% in 2019. The lower rise of inequality in China was associated with stronger growth rates and much faster poverty eradication than in India, showing that more economic growth need not necessarily mean increased inequality.

In such a situation where does Bangladesh go? Due to historical and geographic reasons Bangladesh must remain in Indian orbit. India is already in the top table in the world (G 20 and other organizations). Most importantly India is a democracy while China is not. Till the British left in 1947 most of the South Asian countries, barring Nepal and Afghanistan, were one entity. Even looking at recent history but for Indian assistance Bangladesh war of liberation could not have been achieved so quickly. Despite recent interpretation of few hundred years of Muslim rule of India by a section firmly rooting themselves in the concept of Hindutva’s articulated by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar as foreign rule, Hindutva   is the main inspirational theology of the ruling political party. According to Association of Asian Studies “The exploration of the relationship between Hinduism as a religion and Hindutva as a political philosophy has become a virtual academic cottage industry that shows no signs of slowing down. In popular writings on the subject, Hindutva has been variously described as “Hinduism on steroids,” as “Hinduism which resists.”

A preliminary way of understanding the difference between Hinduism and Hindutva would be to recognize that Hinduism is a religion (however defined) while Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva, is a political ideology, whose relation to the religion of Hinduism could be considered analogous to the relationship between Christianity and Christian fundamentalism or Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. There is, however, one key difference. Hinduism is a plural tradition, as compared to Christianity and Islam which possess well defined universal creedal formulations that are largely absent in Hinduism according to most observers. Therefore, Hindu “fundamentalism” is remarkably thin in terms of religious content as compared to Christianity and Islam. What follows is an attempt to analyze the differences between Hinduism and Hindutva by identifying the points that separate or divide them”.

 It therefore appears that difference in religion alone cannot and should not divide our two countries. Bangladesh shall continue to have friendly relations with China more so because of the benefits expected from China’s Road and Belt Initiative. Bangladesh officially became a partner member of BRI project when the Chinese President visited Bangladesh in 2016 when several deals between the 2 countries were signed. Under the deal, Bangladesh will receive $26 billion for BRI and $14 billion for joint venture project (totaling $40 billion). The big Chinese loan is expected to be invested in power / infrastructure/manufacturing industries.

 Geographically, writes Dr Jashimuddin of Bangladesh Bank,  Bangladesh holds a strategically important position blessed with the easy access to the Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean. Out of 2 maritime and 6 economic corridors under BRI initiative, one will pass through Bangladesh (the corridor that starts at Kunming city in China, passes through Myanmar and then enters the North East part of India. The corridor finally ends up to Kolkata via Bangladesh).  To all intents and purposes, Bangladesh can be a suitable connecting corridor between the semi-industrialized ASEAN (Association of South East Asian countries) and the highly populated fast growing Indian sub-continent.   Despite considerable Bangladesh-China trade. the amount of foreign trade between Bangladesh and China is about 10 billion dollars. Bangladesh import about 8 billion dollars of goods from China while it exports 2 billion dollar of goods. Bangladesh Balance of Trade Bangladesh recorded a trade deficit of 98.20 BDT Billion in June of 2019. Balance of Trade in Bangladesh averaged -29.24 BDT Billion from 1976 until 2019, reaching an all time high  in April of 1977 and a record low of -209.80 BDT Billion in May of 2018.

An Indian critique( Economic Times-July 11 2020) cautions Bangladesh that China’s decision to offer duty free access to Bangladesh is merely a promise on paper as Beijing has very stringent Rules of Origin criteria and lot of concessions remain on paper. This so called “diplomatic victory” by China involving duty free access taking advantage of the pandemic can only push a promising economy into distress and despair. Chinese trade concessions can push Bangladesh into a 'dual-deficit and debt trap'. China’s decision to offer duty free access to Bangladesh is merely a promise on paper as Beijing has very stringent Rules of Origin criteria and lot of concessions remain on paper. This so called “diplomatic victory” by China involving duty free access taking advantage of the pandemic can only push a promising economy into distress and despair. This could force Dhaka to accept stringent terms and conditions .Beijing’s moves come as BRI projects get delayed ever since Covid outbreak. “While BRI projects may not be shelved, they will most certainly be plagued by delays. China is already facing requests for debt relief. In South Asia, the Maldives has sought to renegotiate its debt to China while Bangladesh has reportedly requested China to consider deferring payments.   In October 2018 then Vice President of the USA in a speech at the Hudson Institute accused China of militarization of South and South East Asia and of practicing “debt diplomacy” in developing countries. Cases of Sri Lanka and Laos need no reiteration.

Bangladesh is India's biggest trade partner in South Asia. Bilateral trade between India and Bangladesh has grown steadily over the last decade. India's exports to Bangladesh in FY 2018-19 stood at $9.21 billion and imports during the same period was at $1.04 billion. Despite occasional problems, particularly in land based connectivity, political desire to cement bilateral relationship overcomes difficulties mentioned above. China will remain as a gargantuan in the area and all South Asian countries will have to deal with it in accordance with their national interests. Relations between China and India does not have to be a zero one sum of the game theory.

In our case relations with India has to remain a mathematical constant if it always assumes the same value independent of how its parameters are varied.   

(The writer is a former Ambassador and Secretary in Bangladesh Foreign Service)

 

 

SOUTH ASIA ANALYSIS GROUP

 

Indo-Bangladesh Relation in Post Trump Era

 Paper No. 6741                    Dated 25-Jan-2021

By Kazi Anwarul Masud                            

Now that Donald Trump has finally gone the damning of his administration by Francis Fukuyama (Rotten to the Core), Stephen Walt( Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elites), John Mearshiemer’s ( The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities) and many others have not only joined force for the deliberate slide of American international standing, but many like NYT’s Jennifer Rubin’s eulogy of January 21^st 2021 (Joe Biden delivers one of the best inaugural addresses in memory) hopes for a better America more inclusive like a middle class foreign policy bringing anew democracies still reluctant to join forces with the US fearing that the country may not again elect an authoritarian President more at home with Capitol burning mob reminiscent of Hitler’s burning of Bundestag than democracies   more at home with peaceful transfer of power.  

Fukuyama exhorted the world to look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights based on the principle of universal human dignity, “without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status”  as the lodestar.  Thomas Carothers and Andrew O!Donahue( of Carnegie Endowment of International Peace) have described political polarization in South and South East Asia as with entrenched political divides and limiting liberalization of taking faltering steps towards democracy.

 It is surprising that the largest democracy in the world—India—has been bracketed in the group of taking ‘faltering steps” if one were to, constitutional legality aside, India since liberation from British rule in 1947  has been practicing unbroken democratic rule. The recent constitutional changes regarding  status of Kashmir   and persecution of a minority have blighted the Image India had created for decades. This polarization based on religious differences, one hopes, would not only be confined within definable geographical area but also would be temporary in a country that houses people of different ethnic, religious, an identity thus avoiding polarization which India can ill afford. 

 Carothers and O!Donohue observed utilizing “ a common definition of severe polarization developed by Jennifer McCoy and Murat Somer. In their path-breaking recent work, these scholars define severe or “pernicious” polarization as “a process whereby the normal multiplicity of differences in the society increasingly align[s] along a single dimension, cross-cutting differences become reinforcing, and people increasingly perceive and describe politics and society in terms of ‘us’ versus ‘them”.  The authors added the comments by Niranjan Sahoo that  the divide between secular and Hindu nationalist visions of Indian identity forms the crux of polarization.

Although country’s political tensions have been simmering since the 1980s, the Hindu right’s landslide electoral victories in 2014 and 2019 brought polarization to a boil. In the current context of toxic partisanship, attacks on independent institutions have increased, violence against minority communities has flared up, and the electoral success of Hindu nationalist parties has rendered the opposition reluctant to defend pluralism and minority rights. In a panel discussion (Constitution, Democracy, and Citizenship - Circa 2020)  Niranjan Sahoo expressed his opinion for  a need to protect and safeguard the Constitution which remained the mother of not just Indian democracy but also seen as the bible to understand the working of democracy worldwide. He explained how CAA and NRC have become a serious threat to the citizen and the idea of citizenship. He argued, “The citizenship idea will not wither away or be deleted from Constitution but the very notion of its day to day affairs of the Republic is witnessing a sort of systematic erosion. And it is not largely through the constitutional changes but through the politics on street. Sahoo  appealed for the need for more collective action and mobilization as happened in the case of farmer’s agitation and anti-CAA protests.

These unprecedented ideological transformations and unprecedented mobilization can challenge the majoritarian state not just in terms of ideas but also in terms of politics on the streets.   As the Indians themselves are critical of the Central government’s policies so it is natural for the immediate neighbors to be alert as developments in India affect their internal and external policies. Some of Indian neighbors are more affected than others. Bangladesh is the most prominent among them. Muslim population is estimated to be 165 million with a density of 1265 per sq kilometer. Hindu population is estimated to be 13 million or about 9% of the total population. It used to be 30% in 1947. Partition of India and Pakistan was the major reason for the exodus of Hindus from then East Pakistan. It is surmised that the representation of Hindus in government service and in law enforcement agencies is more than in proportion to the Hindu population in Bangladesh.

Besides the imposition of Citizenship Amendment Act in Assam and cross border killing of Bangladeshi citizens by BSF is increasingly becoming an issue of concern to Bangladesh authorities. Yet relations between the two neighbors are and have to be as friendly as possible. India has promised to provide covid vaccine to Bangladesh at the same time as is provided to Indian nationals. The effect of temporary stoppage of the export of onions from India to Bangladesh is of recent memory. Inter-country relations are determined by several factors of which geographical proximity is an important factor.

India and Bangladesh share a common border of 4096 km running through five Indian states, West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. India’s relations with Bangladesh are traditionally, cultural, social and economic. There is a much that brings them together-a shared history and common heritage linguistic and cultural ties, passion for music, literature and the arts. India shares not only a common history of struggle for freedom and liberation but also enduring feeling of both fraternal as well as familial ties (Javid Ahmad Mir, Research Scholar at School of Social Sciences, Devi Ahlya Viswavidalya , Indore, India). Many opine that Indian help to Bangladesh in 1971 was more dictated by her resolve to dismember Pakistan than to see an immediate neighbor in distress. Hosting about a million refugees from then East Pakistan had put immense pressure on India. If Bangabandhu   

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was the Father of Bangladesh in whose name millions of Bangladeshis fought and won the war of independence then the undeterred resolve and untiring efforts of then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi brought the war of independence to fruition. But for Henry Kissinger’s Machiavellian policy of creating a front with China Indian forces were within striking distance of  capturing  Lahore the second most important city of Pakistan. BBC termed a report by Anthony Mascarehas, then a  Pakistani journalist on genocide committed on unarmed Bengalis  as a first hand report exposing to the world yet unaware of the extent of brutality  committed in the “civilized” society of twentieth century. Similarly Christopher Hitchens in his book Trial of Henry Kissinger named Bangladesh as one of those countries  indicting Henry Kissinger for authorizing in  “Indochina, Bangladesh, Chile, Cyprus, East Timor, and in the plight of the Iraqi Kurds, "including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture. "With the precision and tenacity of a prosecutor, Hitchens offers an unrepentant portrait of a felonious diplomat who "maintained that laws were like cobwebs," and implores governments around the world, including our own, to bring him swiftly to justice”. 

Many books and articles have been written on genocide in Bangladesh and should continue to be written so that the world jumping from crisis to crisis do not forget those who laid down their lives for freedom. No less important, perhaps more in many cases, is the economic relations between neighbors. Bangladesh’s dependence on India is considerable given the fact that bilateral trade between India and Bangladesh has grown steadily over the last decade. India’s exports to Bangladesh in FY 2018-19 stood at $9.21 billion and imports during the same period was at $1.04 billion. In comparison, Bangladesh’s trade deficit with China is hugely tilted in Beijing’s favour. Bangladesh being hemmed on three sides by India land related trade is logical option. Besides India’s economy being one of the largest in the world and growing fast ( less than that of China  due to its democratic way of decision making compared to Xi Jiping’s dictatorial way) the opportunity of discussion before decisions are taken is favorable to India’s neighbors used to the practice since the British left Indian subcontinent. In May last year Britain proposed formation of D10—that would include existing G 7 and include India, South Korea and Australia to create a wall of democracies against  external threats from China and other non-democracies admitting at the same time fractures within democracies caused mainly during the Trump years.

As Hal Brands (John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies) pointed out “Most important, Trump’s recognition that the great gamble of post–Cold War foreign policy—the effort to pacify China through integration and, eventually, liberalization—had failed, freed the Pentagon and other agencies to begin crafting a more competitive approach. It took an illiberal president to identify the distortions and illusions that had accumulated within the liberal order—Last Chance for American Internationalism).

Trump has already made history by becoming the first President of the US to be impeached twine for his foolhardy domestic and foreign policies. Whether Joe Biden’s Presidency would be able to fully weather the fallout of Trump’s legacy remains to be seen. For South Asia India’s domestic and foreign policies would remain to have immediate impact.  Bangladesh in particular as the only Muslim majority country in India’s vicinity would need to remain alert.

The writer is a former Secretary and Ambassador in the Foreign Service of Bangladesh.

 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: 

 

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: 

South Asia

china

           

 

Category: 

Papers

Countries: 

South Asia (General)

China

India

Topics: 

Strategic Affairs & Security

 

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: 

SAARC

            

 

 

Category: 

Papers

Countries: 

South Asia (General)

Topics: 

Political