Nominating Supreme Court justices has always been about identity and politics. It’s just that for nearly the first two centuries of the court’s existence, the only people considered for inclusion were white men.

When it comes to power, white and male are silent, like the “u” in disguise. In this country, white men are the presumptive base of power from which everyone else is a deviation. They are the norm against which all others are judged to be anomalous.

When white men were the only people being considered for seats on the Supreme Court, qualifications didn’t always matter. James Francis Byrnes dropped out of school at the age of 14 and never went to college or law school. What he knew of the law he learned from working at law firms before he was admitted to the South Carolina bar and started his own practice.

His lack of any formal higher education didn’t prevent President Franklin D. Roosevelt from appointing him to the Supreme Court. He served for a little over a year before he quit. (He later became secretary of state under Harry Truman.)

Some justices, like John Archibald Campbell, enslaved Africans. Campbell would side with the majority in the horrendous Dred Scott case. In 1861, he resigned from the court, and the following year, he joined the Confederate government as its assistant secretary of war.

Not all of the white men who served on the court were paragons of morality. Not all of them went to college, let alone law school. But they each had the golden ticket: low melanin and high testosterone.

So now, it is fascinating to watch as people work themselves into conniptions about Joe Biden committing to choosing a Supreme Court nominee from a group that has long been overlooked: Black women.

It is identity politics and affirmative action, they scream.

Ben Carson said on “The Vince Coglianese Show” that Biden’s pledge to choose a Black woman was a sign that “we’re reverting back to identity politics” and that it would “bring more division into our country.”

Carson hoped, he said, that people would “be incensed about it.” In the end, he called it “abominable.”

As Carson explained it, “We need a Supreme Court where we have the best candidates.”

This from one of the most unqualified secretaries of housing and urban development the country has ever had, a man who didn’t even know the basics of his job. When Rep. Katie Porter asked him at a congressional hearing if he knew what an REO was (the initials stand for “real estate owned,” a term used to describe property that has failed to sell at a foreclosure auction), Carson seemed to think she was referring to an Oreo cookie. Even after Porter clarified the three letters, Carson was still left guessing what the O stood for, at one point suggesting: “Real Estate e-organization.”

This from a man whom Donald Trump may have nominated to the post only because of Trump’s own constant, problematic conflation of “Black” with “urban,” even though most Black people in this country live in the suburbs.

The irony here is that Ronald Reagan, the Republicans’ patron saint before the rise of Trump, made a similar promise in 1980 when he was in trouble with women for not supporting the Equal Rights Amendment. He promised to nominate a woman — again the word “white” was silent — and that’s how we got Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Carson wasn’t the only conservative making a fuss about Biden and identity politics. Tucker Carlson also railed against the impending pick, saying, “Biden claims that his race counting is essential so that the court and the rest of his administration, quote, ‘looks like America.’ ” He continued, “Of all the lies that Joe Biden tells, this could be the easiest to check. We have the latest census numbers, and we can promise you with dead certainty that Joe Biden’s nominees look nothing like America, not even close.” Instead, Carlson said, a Black woman nominee will “represent about 7% of the population.”

I say, look at it another way.

Of the 115 justices who have served on the bench since 1789, 108 — roughly 94% — have been white men. Zero percent have been Black women.

Viewed this way, through the long sweep of American history, the United States has some work to do.

There is no legitimate or logical argument against inclusion. Consciously including racial groups can be one of the most effective reparative remedies for centuries of racial exclusion.

Only when we disentangle the concepts of whiteness and maleness from the concept of power can we see the damage the association has done. Only then can we truly accept and celebrate the power of inclusion, diversity and equity. Only then can representative democracy in a pluralistic society begin to live up to its ideals.

Nominating Supreme Court justices has always been about identity and politics. It’s just that for nearly the first two centuries of the court’s existence, the only people considered for inclusion were white men.

Nominating Supreme Court justices has always been about identity and politics. It’s just that for nearly the first two centuries of the court’s existence, the only people considered for inclusion were white men. When it comes to power, white and male are silent, like the “u” in disguise. In this country, white men are the presumptive base of power from which everyone else is a deviation. They are the norm against which all others are judged to be anomalous. When white men were the only people being considered for seats on the Supreme Court, qualifications didn’t always matter. James Francis Byrnes dropped out of school at the age of 14 and never went to college or law school. What he knew of the law he learned from working at law firms before he was admitted to the South Carolina bar and started his own practice. His lack of any formal higher education didn’t prevent President Franklin D. Roosevelt from appointing him to the Supreme Court. He served for a little over a year before he quit. (He later became secretary of state under Harry Truman.) Some justices, like John Archibald Campbell, enslaved Africans. Campbell would side with the majority in the horrendous Dred Scott case. In 1861, he resigned from the court, and the following year, he joined the Confederate government as its assistant secretary of war. Not all of the white men who served on the court were paragons of morality. Not all of them went to college, let alone law school. But they each had the golden ticket: low melanin and high testosterone. So now, it is fascinating to watch as people work themselves into conniptions about Joe Biden committing to choosing a Supreme Court nominee from a group that has long been overlooked: Black women. It is identity politics and affirmative action, they scream. Ben Carson said on “The Vince Coglianese Show” that Biden’s pledge to choose a Black woman was a sign that “we’re reverting back to identity politics” and that it would “bring more division into our country.” Carson hoped, he said, that people would “be incensed about it.” In the end, he called it “abominable.” As Carson explained it, “We need a Supreme Court where we have the best candidates.” This from one of the most unqualified secretaries of housing and urban development the country has ever had, a man who didn’t even know the basics of his job. When Rep. Katie Porter asked him at a congressional hearing if he knew what an REO was (the initials stand for “real estate owned,” a term used to describe property that has failed to sell at a foreclosure auction), Carson seemed to think she was referring to an Oreo cookie. Even after Porter clarified the three letters, Carson was still left guessing what the O stood for, at one point suggesting: “Real Estate e-organization.” This from a man whom Donald Trump may have nominated to the post only because of Trump’s own constant, problematic conflation of “Black” with “urban,” even though most Black people in this country live in the suburbs. The irony here is that Ronald Reagan, the Republicans’ patron saint before the rise of Trump, made a similar promise in 1980 when he was in trouble with women for not supporting the Equal Rights Amendment. He promised to nominate a woman — again the word “white” was silent — and that’s how we got Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Carson wasn’t the only conservative making a fuss about Biden and identity politics. Tucker Carlson also railed against the impending pick, saying, “Biden claims that his race counting is essential so that the court and the rest of his administration, quote, ‘looks like America.’ ” He continued, “Of all the lies that Joe Biden tells, this could be the easiest to check. We have the latest census numbers, and we can promise you with dead certainty that Joe Biden’s nominees look nothing like America, not even close.” Instead, Carlson said, a Black woman nominee will “represent about 7% of the population.” I say, look at it another way. Of the 115 justices who have served on the bench since 1789, 108 — roughly 94% — have been white men. Zero percent have been Black women. Viewed this way, through the long sweep of American history, the United States has some work to do. There is no legitimate or logical argument against inclusion. Consciously including racial groups can be one of the most effective reparative remedies for centuries of racial exclusion. Only when we disentangle the concepts of whiteness and maleness from the concept of power can we see the damage the association has done. Only then can we truly accept and celebrate the power of inclusion, diversity and equity. Only then can representative democracy in a pluralistic society begin to live up to its ideals.

Opinion: When all-white was all right

Gabriel Boric, widely dubbed as a 'leftist millennial' created history by becoming Chile's youngest president at the age of 35.&nbsp;

For the country it was deja vu. Chile became the first Latin American nation to democratically elect a Marxist leader when Salvador Allende came to power in 1970. His term was cut short by a US-backed military coup led by Augusto Pinochet in 1973.

As for Boric, he is the latest in a series of leaders spearheading the resurgence of the Left in Latin America.

The last five years saw the election of socialist leaders in the region- Lopez Obrador in Mexico (2018), Alberto Fernandez in Argentina (2019) and Pedro Castillo in Peru (2021).

In Brazil, former President Lula Da Silva has been maintaining a lead over incumbent leader Jair Bolsonaro in opinion polls ahead of the 2022 elections.

History is repeating itself. Latin America has long been under the sway of Leftist politics.

Socialist leaders saw a rise in popularity in the 1950s and 1970s. But it was the Cold War era and these governments were toppled through coups backed by the United States with notable examples being the overthrow of Brazilian President Joao Goulart in 1964 and Argentina's Isabel Peron in 1976. Washington was opposed to governments that it saw as ideologically inclined to its rival Soviet Union.&nbsp;

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), US interference in the region declined and the Left saw an opportunity to bounce back. One of the most notable Leftist leaders to emerge in the years that followed was Lula who ruled Brazil from 2003 to 2010.

The Left's comeback is not a stand-alone phenomenon. It's also important to take note of the competing ideologies. In Chile, Boric was pitted against Jose Antonio Kast, a vocal supporter of Pinochet whose brutal military regime was marred by political killings.

In Peru, Castillo contested against Keiko Fujimori, the daughter of unpopular former President Alberto Fujimori whose rule has been described as dictatorial. Fujimori's support for her father only worsened her poll prospects.

One thing is clear- leaders who evoke the memories of dictatorships are unlikely to be favoured by the public. The issue here is that of extremes.

Presently, Latin America lacks popular centrist parties. In the end, the choice is often between the Left and the Right.

But this doesn't mean that Leftist governments have always remained popular. They have been ousted from power over corruption, unemployment and debt. In 2016, Lula's close aide and then Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was impeached over a graft scandal.

Poor handling of the economy has also led to the defeat of governments that are not Left-leaning. At the time of his election in 2015, centre-right President Mauricio Macri promised to fix the Argentine economy through free-market policies. He lost the next polls amid controversy over a multi-billion dollar loan that his government took from the International Monetary Fund.

The Left continues to charm Latin America. But there's also an aversion to its policies amid fears of becoming another Venezuela.

It was one of the region's most prosperous countries.

Now, Venezuela is battling hyperinflation that has been driven by poor strategies and international sanctions.

The country's economic freefall has served as a cautionary tale for those on the path of socialism in Latin America

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Gabriel Boric, widely dubbed as a 'leftist millennial' created history by becoming Chile's youngest president at the age of 35. For the country it was deja vu. Chile became the first Latin American nation to democratically elect a Marxist leader when Salvador Allende came to power in 1970.

Gabriel Boric, widely dubbed as a 'leftist millennial' created history by becoming Chile's youngest president at the age of 35. For the country it was deja vu. Chile became the first Latin American nation to democratically elect a Marxist leader when Salvador Allende came to power in 1970. His term was cut short by a US-backed military coup led by Augusto Pinochet in 1973. As for Boric, he is the latest in a series of leaders spearheading the resurgence of the Left in Latin America. The last five years saw the election of socialist leaders in the region- Lopez Obrador in Mexico (2018), Alberto Fernandez in Argentina (2019) and Pedro Castillo in Peru (2021). In Brazil, former President Lula Da Silva has been maintaining a lead over incumbent leader Jair Bolsonaro in opinion polls ahead of the 2022 elections. History is repeating itself. Latin America has long been under the sway of Leftist politics. Socialist leaders saw a rise in popularity in the 1950s and 1970s. But it was the Cold War era and these governments were toppled through coups backed by the United States with notable examples being the overthrow of Brazilian President Joao Goulart in 1964 and Argentina's Isabel Peron in 1976. Washington was opposed to governments that it saw as ideologically inclined to its rival Soviet Union. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), US interference in the region declined and the Left saw an opportunity to bounce back. One of the most notable Leftist leaders to emerge in the years that followed was Lula who ruled Brazil from 2003 to 2010. The Left's comeback is not a stand-alone phenomenon. It's also important to take note of the competing ideologies. In Chile, Boric was pitted against Jose Antonio Kast, a vocal supporter of Pinochet whose brutal military regime was marred by political killings. In Peru, Castillo contested against Keiko Fujimori, the daughter of unpopular former President Alberto Fujimori whose rule has been described as dictatorial. Fujimori's support for her father only worsened her poll prospects. One thing is clear- leaders who evoke the memories of dictatorships are unlikely to be favoured by the public. The issue here is that of extremes. Presently, Latin America lacks popular centrist parties. In the end, the choice is often between the Left and the Right. But this doesn't mean that Leftist governments have always remained popular. They have been ousted from power over corruption, unemployment and debt. In 2016, Lula's close aide and then Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff was impeached over a graft scandal. Poor handling of the economy has also led to the defeat of governments that are not Left-leaning. At the time of his election in 2015, centre-right President Mauricio Macri promised to fix the Argentine economy through free-market policies. He lost the next polls amid controversy over a multi-billion dollar loan that his government took from the International Monetary Fund. The Left continues to charm Latin America. But there's also an aversion to its policies amid fears of becoming another Venezuela. It was one of the region's most prosperous countries. Now, Venezuela is battling hyperinflation that has been driven by poor strategies and international sanctions. The country's economic freefall has served as a cautionary tale for those on the path of socialism in Latin America (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion | The Left returns to Latin America

Rarely in the world have women’s and girls’ rights been challenged as they have been in Afghanistan. The latest developments give cause for great concern.&nbsp;The EU has made it clear that future development assistance to Afghanistan will depend on the respect for the international legal framework and for norms on human rights, including women’s and girls’ rights. The EU is determined and committed to continue to support the women and girls of Afghanistan and worldwide, sticking to our values and beliefs.&nbsp;

Together with human rights, freedom and democracy, equality represents one of the core values that make the European Union what it is. It enriches our societies and strengthens their resilience. Gender equality is a core part of peace, security, economic prosperity and sustainable development. Moreover, defending and promoting gender equality is required by the EU Treaties.&nbsp;

That is why working politically, operationally and financially to promote and safeguard progress on gender equality is a political priority and a key objective for the EU. The EU Gender Action Plan III and the new EU external action budget provide a roadmap for global action towards a gender-equal world. We work closely together with multilateral, regional and bilateral partners, including civil society organisations, to achieve those objectives. We still have a long way to go; there is no room for complacency. However, we are stronger together while many challenges remain.

In many countries, the COVID-19 crisis has exacerbated existing gender inequalities across different areas: education, vocational training, health, security and safety, sexual and reproductive health and rights, decision-making, and economic opportunities.&nbsp;

The COVID-19 lockdowns have often seen an increase in gender-based violence, in particular domestic violence, while women and girls’ access to sexual and reproductive health services has been reduced. At the same time, a significant part of the care burden has fallen on women and girls. Workers in the informal economy and in low-skilled jobs (most of whom are women), migrants, and those belonging to minorities, have been more at risk and face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination.&nbsp;

Moreover, school closures have exposed girls to an increased risk of sexual exploitation, early pregnancy, child labour and forced marriage. The Malala Fund estimates that 20 million more girls risk dropping out of school, adding up to a total of 150 million girls – equivalent to a third of the EU population – without educational prospects.

According to a recent UN report, military spending in 2020 still outplaced the worldwide expenses on health, even in a year that was dominated by the corona pandemic. For a sustainable recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, we need to redouble our efforts to promote gender equality.&nbsp;

Now is the time to do more&nbsp;

This challenge requires a global response and needs to be tackled now, when we are building the future we wish for our children and grandchildren to grow up in a post-pandemic world that is more equal, more diverse, and where equal opportunities are a reality. We need to address the root causes of gender inequality and gender-based discrimination in order to achieve sustainable change.

The European Union and its members states, as well as the European financial institutions have stood with the women and girls of the world throughout the pandemic. As Team Europe, we have already mobilised €46 billion in support of over 130 partner countries, with a particular focus on women and youth.

Three examples as an illustration: In Nepal, we helped one million girls and boys continue their education through radio-based learning. In Togo, we supported the creation of a universal income scheme and the appointment of women to head new municipalities. Worldwide, the EU-UN Spotlight Initiative has helped 650,000 women and girls prevent or address violence against them, and educated 880,000 men and boys on positive masculinity, non-violent conflict resolution and parenting.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Still, to meet the growing challenges, we need to do more and better. That is the purpose of the Gender Action Plan III. It promotes leadership and meaningful participation of women, girls and young people in political, economic, social and cultural life, as well as in all matters related to peace and security, worldwide.

We work to get human development back on track

We are now making this plan a reality with the help of the new €79.5 billion NDICI-Global Europe instrument that will support the EU’s external action for the next seven years.&nbsp;

Support for education and particularly girls’ education will have a central role. Just as we support education in emergencies, the EU has worked with partner countries throughout the pandemic to minimise its impact on learning and the well-being of children and to facilitate a safe return to school.&nbsp;

We already provide more than half of all global aid to education as Team Europe. But we will increase funding further, to promote gender equality through quality education at all levels. Our joint €1.7 billion pledge to the Global Partnership for Education in July – to transform education for girls and boys in up to 90 countries and territories – is part of this new beginning.&nbsp;

We are multiplying our efforts across the board, from supporting women and girls’ education and economic opportunities to improving their access to sexual and reproductive health services. By 2025, 85% of all the EU’s new external actions, across all sectors, will contribute to gender equality and women's empowerment.

This is now being finalised with our partner countries based on close consultation with civil society organisations, women's rights activists and youth.&nbsp;

We need to put human development back on track and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, leaving no woman or girl behind.&nbsp;

It is crucial that we get it right.

This article was written on the occasion of International Day to Eliminate Violence Against Women, which falls on November 25.

Authored by: Josep Borrell Fontelles, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/VP of the European Commission; Jutta Urpilainen, EU’s Commissioner for International Partnerships, and EU Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Development from 24 Member States.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.) &nbsp;&nbsp;

Rarely in the world have women’s and girls’ rights been challenged as they have been in Afghanistan. The latest developments give cause for great concern. The EU has made it clear that future development assistance to Afghanistan will depend on the respect for the international legal framework and for norms on human rights, including women’s and girls’ rights.

Rarely in the world have women’s and girls’ rights been challenged as they have been in Afghanistan. The latest developments give cause for great concern. The EU has made it clear that future development assistance to Afghanistan will depend on the respect for the international legal framework and for norms on human rights, including women’s and girls’ rights. The EU is determined and committed to continue to support the women and girls of Afghanistan and worldwide, sticking to our values and beliefs. Together with human rights, freedom and democracy, equality represents one of the core values that make the European Union what it is. It enriches our societies and strengthens their resilience. Gender equality is a core part of peace, security, economic prosperity and sustainable development. Moreover, defending and promoting gender equality is required by the EU Treaties. That is why working politically, operationally and financially to promote and safeguard progress on gender equality is a political priority and a key objective for the EU. The EU Gender Action Plan III and the new EU external action budget provide a roadmap for global action towards a gender-equal world. We work closely together with multilateral, regional and bilateral partners, including civil society organisations, to achieve those objectives. We still have a long way to go; there is no room for complacency. However, we are stronger together while many challenges remain. In many countries, the COVID-19 crisis has exacerbated existing gender inequalities across different areas: education, vocational training, health, security and safety, sexual and reproductive health and rights, decision-making, and economic opportunities. The COVID-19 lockdowns have often seen an increase in gender-based violence, in particular domestic violence, while women and girls’ access to sexual and reproductive health services has been reduced. At the same time, a significant part of the care burden has fallen on women and girls. Workers in the informal economy and in low-skilled jobs (most of whom are women), migrants, and those belonging to minorities, have been more at risk and face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination. Moreover, school closures have exposed girls to an increased risk of sexual exploitation, early pregnancy, child labour and forced marriage. The Malala Fund estimates that 20 million more girls risk dropping out of school, adding up to a total of 150 million girls – equivalent to a third of the EU population – without educational prospects. According to a recent UN report, military spending in 2020 still outplaced the worldwide expenses on health, even in a year that was dominated by the corona pandemic. For a sustainable recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, we need to redouble our efforts to promote gender equality. Now is the time to do more This challenge requires a global response and needs to be tackled now, when we are building the future we wish for our children and grandchildren to grow up in a post-pandemic world that is more equal, more diverse, and where equal opportunities are a reality. We need to address the root causes of gender inequality and gender-based discrimination in order to achieve sustainable change. The European Union and its members states, as well as the European financial institutions have stood with the women and girls of the world throughout the pandemic. As Team Europe, we have already mobilised €46 billion in support of over 130 partner countries, with a particular focus on women and youth. Three examples as an illustration: In Nepal, we helped one million girls and boys continue their education through radio-based learning. In Togo, we supported the creation of a universal income scheme and the appointment of women to head new municipalities. Worldwide, the EU-UN Spotlight Initiative has helped 650,000 women and girls prevent or address violence against them, and educated 880,000 men and boys on positive masculinity, non-violent conflict resolution and parenting. Still, to meet the growing challenges, we need to do more and better. That is the purpose of the Gender Action Plan III. It promotes leadership and meaningful participation of women, girls and young people in political, economic, social and cultural life, as well as in all matters related to peace and security, worldwide. We work to get human development back on track We are now making this plan a reality with the help of the new €79.5 billion NDICI-Global Europe instrument that will support the EU’s external action for the next seven years. Support for education and particularly girls’ education will have a central role. Just as we support education in emergencies, the EU has worked with partner countries throughout the pandemic to minimise its impact on learning and the well-being of children and to facilitate a safe return to school. We already provide more than half of all global aid to education as Team Europe. But we will increase funding further, to promote gender equality through quality education at all levels. Our joint €1.7 billion pledge to the Global Partnership for Education in July – to transform education for girls and boys in up to 90 countries and territories – is part of this new beginning. We are multiplying our efforts across the board, from supporting women and girls’ education and economic opportunities to improving their access to sexual and reproductive health services. By 2025, 85% of all the EU’s new external actions, across all sectors, will contribute to gender equality and women's empowerment. This is now being finalised with our partner countries based on close consultation with civil society organisations, women's rights activists and youth. We need to put human development back on track and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, leaving no woman or girl behind. It is crucial that we get it right. This article was written on the occasion of International Day to Eliminate Violence Against Women, which falls on November 25. Authored by: Josep Borrell Fontelles, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/VP of the European Commission; Jutta Urpilainen, EU’s Commissioner for International Partnerships, and EU Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Development from 24 Member States. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Putting gender equality first 

When a friend barged into my room years ago, with heaps of paper in hand, screaming, "I am going to America!", I thought to myself, "Only a third-world country kid could have reacted this way over making it to a fashion college in New York." As much as I was happy for her, I wanted to learn--out of sheer curiosity--what was so appealing about the land of Liberty that she was willing to stay neck-deep in debt for most part of the finest years of her life. Without fluttering her eyelashes, she said, "Freedom, babe. Freedom! I am going to wear bikinis and go bar-hopping and do not have to worry about curfews or look over my shoulder constantly. *Expletive* patriarchy and dated rules... woohoo!" Today morning, when I sat down to write the <a href="Finally! Britney Spears' conservatorship dissolved by Judge">latest on Britney Spears' primitive conservatorship impositions</a> for the publication, I wondered how my friend's notion of American freedom was a tinted one. Just like mine.

<img alt="Britney Spears on stage" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="11c4601c-09fb-4b99-b77b-bc78e78f8164" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/pjimage%20-%202021-11-13T190512.201.jpg" /> 
Many moons back, Britney had rather unceremoniously attacked the vehicle of a paparazzo in a moment of utter madness, perhaps from being tired over that community tracking every move&nbsp;she made, every breathe she took and every heartbeat she would skip. Yes, violence is no civilised way of combating intrusive behaviour. But, between divorce proceedings, estrangement with children, drugs, rehab, and being the biggest popstar in the world, Britney--the human--stood no chance. For those who cared, it must have come as huge relief that her once <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/day-has-finally-come-paris-hilton-cher-other-celebs-react-to-britney-spears-conservatorship-end-428939">distant father, Jamie Spears</a>, was stepping in as her conservator. By definition, conservatorship means, "the legal status of a person appointed by a court to protect the interests of someone, such as a child, who is unable to manage his or her own affairs."

<img alt="Britney Spears had a mental breakdown in 2007-08" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="32a8c165-81b6-4b6f-b52e-beb167bdd1d9" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/pjimage%20-%202021-11-13T190418.028.jpg" /> 
So, the idea of having someone watch over her 'business affairs' while she grappled with personal woes may not have seemed like such an outrageous legal course of action to seek at the time. To fight for it to be squashed for 13 years straight, is. Multiple documentaries, and Britney herself, have accused the father--who had, by the way, declared bankruptcy at one point--of living off of her wealth, dragging her to shows as if she were a stubborn child all of four, and pocketed most of what she made living under his tyrannical regime. <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/finally-free-a-timeline-of-britney-spears-conservatorship-battle-429009">If what Britney said about her father is true</a>, even a small fraction of it, then, where does parental love end and greed begin? Can the love of a parent be quantified at all? If yes, then is $60 million the running price in the market of parenthood that could get one to nurture those they brought into the world by choice ? Hopefully, not.

<img alt="Over the years, Britney has spoken against her father's bullying ways" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="cd5574b6-a14b-4c1e-8851-6dd5413935d1" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/pjimage%20-%202021-11-13T190600.181.jpg" /> 
To say Jamie Spears getting away with barbaric levels of control over his cash cow of a daughter is an offshoot of society's patriarchal mindset would be redundant. Historically, male artists--and we are not naming names to avoid lawsuits, but you know who they are--have always worn their bad-boy images with pride; flaunted them live on concerts and late-night shows. Outside girlfriends' apartments, at bars, during one-night stands, but how many of them have been left by a court of law to be supervised by their folks? Before you Google any further, I will tell you now: not anyone you know! In fact, some of these questionable behaviors have been tucked away under the big blankets of money and power. So, using that logic, a legally adult Britney gets 14-year prison-esque treatment for shaving off her own head while a male artist walks scot-free and goes on to win awards after being labelled a sexual predator, a bully? If this is not an indication of just how biased the society is in favour of men, then we do not know of another apt example that could prove our argument right.

<img alt="Britney Spears: Smiling and happy!" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="1dae7c0f-1835-421a-b691-cf6b9562abcf" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/pjimage%20-%202021-11-13T190738.630.jpg" /> 
Britney, during these years of living under the tight grip of her 'abusive' father, could not have kids, get married and had to seek permission for smallest of things. With the toxicity gone from her life once and for all, some may think making a comeback like the mammoth pop star she once was would be an uphill battle for her.

 
To summarise my thoughts on the resurrection of Britney, the pop star, in a way that someone with little knowledge of Indian epics would understand, we borrow a small snippet from a mythological story circling Lord Rama. He was sent on a 14-year exile to remote Dandaka forest and when he came back, much to everyone's disbelief, he sat on the throne of Ayodhya. Although there's no logic to back that theory, I believe Britney's headed for a similar fate: all in sweet time.

Also read:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/hollywood/news-britney-vs-spears-review-a-lonely-princess-in-her-hellish-castle-416940">&nbsp;Britney Vs Spears review: A lonely princess in her hellish castle</a>

 
As the lady herself said, "My loneliness ain’t killing me no more. I’m stronger."

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

When a friend barged into my room years ago, with heaps of paper in hand, screaming, "I am going to America!", I thought to myself, "Only a third-world country kid could have reacted this way over making it to a fashion college in New York.

When a friend barged into my room years ago, with heaps of paper in hand, screaming, "I am going to America!", I thought to myself, "Only a third-world country kid could have reacted this way over making it to a fashion college in New York." As much as I was happy for her, I wanted to learn--out of sheer curiosity--what was so appealing about the land of Liberty that she was willing to stay neck-deep in debt for most part of the finest years of her life. Without fluttering her eyelashes, she said, "Freedom, babe. Freedom! I am going to wear bikinis and go bar-hopping and do not have to worry about curfews or look over my shoulder constantly. *Expletive* patriarchy and dated rules... woohoo!" Today morning, when I sat down to write the latest on Britney Spears' primitive conservatorship impositions for the publication, I wondered how my friend's notion of American freedom was a tinted one. Just like mine. Many moons back, Britney had rather unceremoniously attacked the vehicle of a paparazzo in a moment of utter madness, perhaps from being tired over that community tracking every move she made, every breathe she took and every heartbeat she would skip. Yes, violence is no civilised way of combating intrusive behaviour. But, between divorce proceedings, estrangement with children, drugs, rehab, and being the biggest popstar in the world, Britney--the human--stood no chance. For those who cared, it must have come as huge relief that her once distant father, Jamie Spears, was stepping in as her conservator. By definition, conservatorship means, "the legal status of a person appointed by a court to protect the interests of someone, such as a child, who is unable to manage his or her own affairs." So, the idea of having someone watch over her 'business affairs' while she grappled with personal woes may not have seemed like such an outrageous legal course of action to seek at the time. To fight for it to be squashed for 13 years straight, is. Multiple documentaries, and Britney herself, have accused the father--who had, by the way, declared bankruptcy at one point--of living off of her wealth, dragging her to shows as if she were a stubborn child all of four, and pocketed most of what she made living under his tyrannical regime. If what Britney said about her father is true, even a small fraction of it, then, where does parental love end and greed begin? Can the love of a parent be quantified at all? If yes, then is $60 million the running price in the market of parenthood that could get one to nurture those they brought into the world by choice ? Hopefully, not. To say Jamie Spears getting away with barbaric levels of control over his cash cow of a daughter is an offshoot of society's patriarchal mindset would be redundant. Historically, male artists--and we are not naming names to avoid lawsuits, but you know who they are--have always worn their bad-boy images with pride; flaunted them live on concerts and late-night shows. Outside girlfriends' apartments, at bars, during one-night stands, but how many of them have been left by a court of law to be supervised by their folks? Before you Google any further, I will tell you now: not anyone you know! In fact, some of these questionable behaviors have been tucked away under the big blankets of money and power. So, using that logic, a legally adult Britney gets 14-year prison-esque treatment for shaving off her own head while a male artist walks scot-free and goes on to win awards after being labelled a sexual predator, a bully? If this is not an indication of just how biased the society is in favour of men, then we do not know of another apt example that could prove our argument right. Britney, during these years of living under the tight grip of her 'abusive' father, could not have kids, get married and had to seek permission for smallest of things. With the toxicity gone from her life once and for all, some may think making a comeback like the mammoth pop star she once was would be an uphill battle for her. To summarise my thoughts on the resurrection of Britney, the pop star, in a way that someone with little knowledge of Indian epics would understand, we borrow a small snippet from a mythological story circling Lord Rama. He was sent on a 14-year exile to remote Dandaka forest and when he came back, much to everyone's disbelief, he sat on the throne of Ayodhya. Although there's no logic to back that theory, I believe Britney's headed for a similar fate: all in sweet time. Also read: Britney Vs Spears review: A lonely princess in her hellish castle As the lady herself said, "My loneliness ain’t killing me no more. I’m stronger." (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion | Britney Spears: A long walk to freedom

A new idea is gaining currency among some politicians and policymakers in Washington: The United States is in a “Cold War” with China. It’s a bad idea — bad on history, bad on politics, bad for our future.

The Biden administration has wisely pushed back on the framing. But the president’s actions suggest that his strategy for dealing with China may indeed suffer from Cold War thinking, which locks our minds into the traditional two-dimensional chess model.

Competition with China, though, is a three-dimensional game. And if we continue to play two-dimensional chess, we will lose.

While neither the conflict with the Soviet Union nor the current competition with China has led to all-out combat, the games are very different. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was a direct military and ideological threat to the United States. We had almost no economic or social connections: Containment was a feasible objective.

Because the game was based on a simple two-dimensional premise — that the only fight was between their respective militaries — each side depended on the other not to pull the trigger. But with China, the three-dimensional game features a distribution of power at each level — military, economic and social — not just one.

That is why the Cold War metaphor, although convenient, is lazy and potentially dangerous. It obscures and misleads us by underestimating the real challenge we face — and offering ineffective strategies.

On the economic level, the United States and China are deeply interdependent. The United States had more than half a trillion dollars in trade with China in 2020. While some voices in Washington talk about “decoupling,” it would be foolish to think we can separate our economy completely from China without enormous costs. And we should not expect other countries to do so either, since China is reportedly now the largest trading partner of more countries than the United States.

The social fabrics of the United States and China are also deeply intertwined: There are millions of social connections, from students and tourists and others, between the two countries. And it’s physically impossible to decouple ecological issues like pandemics and climate change.

Interdependence is a double-edged sword. It creates networks of sensitivity to what is happening in another country that can encourage caution. But it also creates vulnerabilities that both Beijing and Washington can try to manipulate as tools of influence.

Despite the above factors, a two-dimensional mind-set assumes the United States can take on China largely because of its military superiority. While China is modernizing its forces, the United States is still the only truly global power. (Though it’s unclear how long that will last.) We must carefully plot our horizontal moves — like improving relations with India and reinforcing our alliance with Japan — on the traditional military board of chess to maintain the balance of power in Asia. At the same time, we cannot continue to ignore the different power relations on the economic or transnational boards — and how those levels interact. If we do, we will suffer.

On the economic board, the distribution of power is multipolar, with the United States, China, Europe and Japan the largest players. And on the transnational board, when it comes to issues such as climate change and pandemics, nongovernmental actors play powerful roles and no country is in control.

And yet, the United States has an inadequate trade policy for East Asia, which leaves the field to China. On transnational issues, the United States risks letting sour relations with Beijing jeopardize climate goals. China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Foreign Minister Wang Yi has warned America not to expect climate negotiations to remain an oasis in a desert of overall relations.

No country can solve transnational issues like climate change and pandemics alone. And so the politics of ecological interdependence involve power with as well as over others.

The political competition today is also different. The United States and its allies are not threatened by the export of communism in the same way they were in the days of Stalin or Mao. There is less proselytizing; few today take to the streets in favor of “Xi Jinping thought.”

Instead, China manipulates the system of deep economic and political interdependence to support its authoritarian government and to influence opinion in democracies to counter and pre-empt criticism. For evidence of that, we just have to look at China’s economic punishment of our allies Norway and Australia for daring to knock China on human rights. A three-dimensional strategy would recognize and respond to the fact that these actions taken by China create opportunities for us to take supportive steps that will in turn increase our influence. Trade agreements would help, as does the recent agreement to export our nuclear submarine technology to Australia.

For better and worse, we are locked in a “cooperative rivalry” with China that requires a strategy that can accomplish those two contradictory things — compete and cooperate — at the same time.

At home, the United States must reinforce its technological advantages by increasing support for research and development. On the military board, this means restructuring traditional forces to incorporate new technologies and strengthening the aforementioned alliances.

On the economic board, American withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership left a gaping hole in an important area of trade. And on transnational issues we need to strengthen and develop institutions and international treaties — such as the World Health Organization and the Paris climate accord — to cope with health and climate issues.

Pessimists look at China’s population size and economic growth rates and believe they will prevail. But if we treat our allies as assets, the combined military strength and economic wealth of Western-aligned democracies — the United States, Europe, Japan — will far exceed that of China well into this century.

President Biden is correct that Cold War rhetoric has more negative than positive effects. But he also needs to ensure that his China strategy suits the three-dimensional game.

A new idea is gaining currency among some politicians and policymakers in Washington: The United States is in a “Cold War” with China. It’s a bad idea — bad on history, bad on politics, bad for our future.

A new idea is gaining currency among some politicians and policymakers in Washington: The United States is in a “Cold War” with China. It’s a bad idea — bad on history, bad on politics, bad for our future. The Biden administration has wisely pushed back on the framing. But the president’s actions suggest that his strategy for dealing with China may indeed suffer from Cold War thinking, which locks our minds into the traditional two-dimensional chess model. Competition with China, though, is a three-dimensional game. And if we continue to play two-dimensional chess, we will lose. While neither the conflict with the Soviet Union nor the current competition with China has led to all-out combat, the games are very different. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was a direct military and ideological threat to the United States. We had almost no economic or social connections: Containment was a feasible objective. Because the game was based on a simple two-dimensional premise — that the only fight was between their respective militaries — each side depended on the other not to pull the trigger. But with China, the three-dimensional game features a distribution of power at each level — military, economic and social — not just one. That is why the Cold War metaphor, although convenient, is lazy and potentially dangerous. It obscures and misleads us by underestimating the real challenge we face — and offering ineffective strategies. On the economic level, the United States and China are deeply interdependent. The United States had more than half a trillion dollars in trade with China in 2020. While some voices in Washington talk about “decoupling,” it would be foolish to think we can separate our economy completely from China without enormous costs. And we should not expect other countries to do so either, since China is reportedly now the largest trading partner of more countries than the United States. The social fabrics of the United States and China are also deeply intertwined: There are millions of social connections, from students and tourists and others, between the two countries. And it’s physically impossible to decouple ecological issues like pandemics and climate change. Interdependence is a double-edged sword. It creates networks of sensitivity to what is happening in another country that can encourage caution. But it also creates vulnerabilities that both Beijing and Washington can try to manipulate as tools of influence. Despite the above factors, a two-dimensional mind-set assumes the United States can take on China largely because of its military superiority. While China is modernizing its forces, the United States is still the only truly global power. (Though it’s unclear how long that will last.) We must carefully plot our horizontal moves — like improving relations with India and reinforcing our alliance with Japan — on the traditional military board of chess to maintain the balance of power in Asia. At the same time, we cannot continue to ignore the different power relations on the economic or transnational boards — and how those levels interact. If we do, we will suffer. On the economic board, the distribution of power is multipolar, with the United States, China, Europe and Japan the largest players. And on the transnational board, when it comes to issues such as climate change and pandemics, nongovernmental actors play powerful roles and no country is in control. And yet, the United States has an inadequate trade policy for East Asia, which leaves the field to China. On transnational issues, the United States risks letting sour relations with Beijing jeopardize climate goals. China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Foreign Minister Wang Yi has warned America not to expect climate negotiations to remain an oasis in a desert of overall relations. No country can solve transnational issues like climate change and pandemics alone. And so the politics of ecological interdependence involve power with as well as over others. The political competition today is also different. The United States and its allies are not threatened by the export of communism in the same way they were in the days of Stalin or Mao. There is less proselytizing; few today take to the streets in favor of “Xi Jinping thought.” Instead, China manipulates the system of deep economic and political interdependence to support its authoritarian government and to influence opinion in democracies to counter and pre-empt criticism. For evidence of that, we just have to look at China’s economic punishment of our allies Norway and Australia for daring to knock China on human rights. A three-dimensional strategy would recognize and respond to the fact that these actions taken by China create opportunities for us to take supportive steps that will in turn increase our influence. Trade agreements would help, as does the recent agreement to export our nuclear submarine technology to Australia. For better and worse, we are locked in a “cooperative rivalry” with China that requires a strategy that can accomplish those two contradictory things — compete and cooperate — at the same time. At home, the United States must reinforce its technological advantages by increasing support for research and development. On the military board, this means restructuring traditional forces to incorporate new technologies and strengthening the aforementioned alliances. On the economic board, American withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership left a gaping hole in an important area of trade. And on transnational issues we need to strengthen and develop institutions and international treaties — such as the World Health Organization and the Paris climate accord — to cope with health and climate issues. Pessimists look at China’s population size and economic growth rates and believe they will prevail. But if we treat our allies as assets, the combined military strength and economic wealth of Western-aligned democracies — the United States, Europe, Japan — will far exceed that of China well into this century. President Biden is correct that Cold War rhetoric has more negative than positive effects. But he also needs to ensure that his China strategy suits the three-dimensional game.

When it comes to China, don’t call it a ‘Cold War’

India is participating in the Moscow Format meeting on Afghanistan on 20th October, 2021. The meeting will be attended by the representatives of 10 countries, including Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries in Central Asia and a high-level delegation from Taliban.&nbsp;

This is the first meeting of the Moscow Format being held since the Taliban captured power by force on 15th August this year, and also the first collective interaction between the Taliban and regional players since then. The meeting therefore should provide an important opportunity to convey the expectations of the international community from Taliban and listen to the Taliban’s perspective and if possible lay a road map for the stabilisation of Afghanistan.&nbsp;

The invitation to India and India’s acceptance are significant in more than one sense. For the first time India would be face-to-face with Taliban delegation within the Moscow format, and it is second &nbsp;officially &nbsp;acknowledged interaction with Taliban since the formation of an interim government in Kabul.

The first interaction took place when Taliban’s representative Stanekzai met India’s Ambassador to Qatar, at the Indian Embassy in Doha on August 31. The meeting was projected as one with limited objective of the safe evacuation of the Indian nationals from Afghanistan and to convey India’s concerns over the presence of anti-India terror outfits in Afghanistan.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/two-months-of-taliban-20-challenges-and-threats-420937">Two months of Taliban 2.0: Challenges and threats</a>

It is noteworthy that India has been invited to participate in a dialogue with Taliban, despite the known fact that India has questioned the legitimacy of the interim government in Kabul, and expressed its serious apprehensions over the possible misuse of the Afghan soil for acts of terrorism in the region and beyond.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/why-is-taliban-interior-minister-haqqanis-face-being-blurred-in-public-photographs-422333">Why is Taliban interior minister Haqqani's face being blurred in public photographs?</a>

The invitation therefore reflects the acknowledgement on the part of other regional players that India can play an important role in the stabilisation of the situation in Afghanistan, and it cannot be excluded from any collective processes which aim at handling the situation arising out of the Taliban’s take-over.

From India’s perspective, the participation in Moscow Format is justified for more than one reason.&nbsp;

Firstly, the agenda of the Moscow Format meeting as revealed by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, is in tune with India’s own priorities and also in line with the demands placed on Taliban through the UNSC Resolution 2593 of 30th August.&nbsp;

For instance, Lavrov was reported to have said,"We encourage them (Taliban) &nbsp;to live up to the promises they made when they came to power, including ensuring that the government is inclusive not only along the ethnic lines, but also along the political lines, so that the full range of political beliefs of the society is reflected in the government's composition”. &nbsp;

He further said that the meeting would focus on the developments related to the political and security situation in Afghanistan, and on the consolidation of the efforts by the international community to prevent humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. Significantly, Lavrov is also reported to have said that the recognition of the Taliban-led government in Kabul was not on the agenda.

Further, and perhaps more importantly, India remained by and large excluded from the processes which were meant to shape the future road-map of Afghanistan, even though India made a valuable contribution towards the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan by investing over $3bn in nearly 500 big and small infrastructure projects during the tenure of the elected governments in Afghanistan. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/opinion-us-military-presence-in-the-middle-east-the-less-the-better-420728">Opinion | US military presence in the Middle East: The less the better</a>

Despite being a strategic partner of the USA, India was not kept informed on certain aspects of the deal which the Trump Administration struck with the Taliban on 29th February, 2020. Being a part of the Moscow Format therefore offers an opportunity to stay in the game and remain relevant in a strategic space where India’s adversaries namely Pakistan and China appear to have an edge at this point of time.

It is abundantly clear that India has no intention to sit on the fence and watch in silence, which can only deprive it of the chance to influence the future course of developments in Afghanistan. It must be underlined in this context that India has reportedly invited the National Security Advisors of the countries in the region including China, Russia, Pakistan, Tajikistan etc. for a meeting on Afghanistan in November this year.

In short India appears to have taken a right decision to participate in the Moscow Format meeting; it would be erroneous to interpret it as softening of India’s attitude towards Taliban or dilution of its principled stand or as a prelude to its recognition of the Taliban-led government in Kabul. It may, however, not be easy for India to push its point of view in the presence of Pakistan and China. The absence of the USA (which has decided to pull out of the meeting for the time being) would also mean the absence of support from a like-minded partner, though it would not be easy for the adversaries also to sideline India, considering that India can persist on its own and also count on the support from Russia and Iran and some Central Asian countries.

It would be interesting to watch the outcome of the Moscow Format meeting even if it is unlikely to resolve all the issues at hand.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

India is participating in the Moscow Format meeting on Afghanistan on 20th October, 2021. The meeting will be attended by the representatives of 10 countries, including Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries in Central Asia and a high-level delegation from Taliban.

India is participating in the Moscow Format meeting on Afghanistan on 20th October, 2021. The meeting will be attended by the representatives of 10 countries, including Russia, China, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries in Central Asia and a high-level delegation from Taliban. This is the first meeting of the Moscow Format being held since the Taliban captured power by force on 15th August this year, and also the first collective interaction between the Taliban and regional players since then. The meeting therefore should provide an important opportunity to convey the expectations of the international community from Taliban and listen to the Taliban’s perspective and if possible lay a road map for the stabilisation of Afghanistan. The invitation to India and India’s acceptance are significant in more than one sense. For the first time India would be face-to-face with Taliban delegation within the Moscow format, and it is second officially acknowledged interaction with Taliban since the formation of an interim government in Kabul. The first interaction took place when Taliban’s representative Stanekzai met India’s Ambassador to Qatar, at the Indian Embassy in Doha on August 31. The meeting was projected as one with limited objective of the safe evacuation of the Indian nationals from Afghanistan and to convey India’s concerns over the presence of anti-India terror outfits in Afghanistan. Also Read | Two months of Taliban 2.0: Challenges and threats It is noteworthy that India has been invited to participate in a dialogue with Taliban, despite the known fact that India has questioned the legitimacy of the interim government in Kabul, and expressed its serious apprehensions over the possible misuse of the Afghan soil for acts of terrorism in the region and beyond. Also Read | Why is Taliban interior minister Haqqani's face being blurred in public photographs? The invitation therefore reflects the acknowledgement on the part of other regional players that India can play an important role in the stabilisation of the situation in Afghanistan, and it cannot be excluded from any collective processes which aim at handling the situation arising out of the Taliban’s take-over. From India’s perspective, the participation in Moscow Format is justified for more than one reason. Firstly, the agenda of the Moscow Format meeting as revealed by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, is in tune with India’s own priorities and also in line with the demands placed on Taliban through the UNSC Resolution 2593 of 30th August. For instance, Lavrov was reported to have said,"We encourage them (Taliban) to live up to the promises they made when they came to power, including ensuring that the government is inclusive not only along the ethnic lines, but also along the political lines, so that the full range of political beliefs of the society is reflected in the government's composition”. He further said that the meeting would focus on the developments related to the political and security situation in Afghanistan, and on the consolidation of the efforts by the international community to prevent humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. Significantly, Lavrov is also reported to have said that the recognition of the Taliban-led government in Kabul was not on the agenda. Further, and perhaps more importantly, India remained by and large excluded from the processes which were meant to shape the future road-map of Afghanistan, even though India made a valuable contribution towards the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan by investing over $3bn in nearly 500 big and small infrastructure projects during the tenure of the elected governments in Afghanistan. Also Read | Opinion | US military presence in the Middle East: The less the better Despite being a strategic partner of the USA, India was not kept informed on certain aspects of the deal which the Trump Administration struck with the Taliban on 29th February, 2020. Being a part of the Moscow Format therefore offers an opportunity to stay in the game and remain relevant in a strategic space where India’s adversaries namely Pakistan and China appear to have an edge at this point of time. It is abundantly clear that India has no intention to sit on the fence and watch in silence, which can only deprive it of the chance to influence the future course of developments in Afghanistan. It must be underlined in this context that India has reportedly invited the National Security Advisors of the countries in the region including China, Russia, Pakistan, Tajikistan etc. for a meeting on Afghanistan in November this year. In short India appears to have taken a right decision to participate in the Moscow Format meeting; it would be erroneous to interpret it as softening of India’s attitude towards Taliban or dilution of its principled stand or as a prelude to its recognition of the Taliban-led government in Kabul. It may, however, not be easy for India to push its point of view in the presence of Pakistan and China. The absence of the USA (which has decided to pull out of the meeting for the time being) would also mean the absence of support from a like-minded partner, though it would not be easy for the adversaries also to sideline India, considering that India can persist on its own and also count on the support from Russia and Iran and some Central Asian countries. It would be interesting to watch the outcome of the Moscow Format meeting even if it is unlikely to resolve all the issues at hand. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion | Moscow talks are a chance for India to influence Afghan situation

The world’s activists and delegates soon on their way to Glasgow have reason to be anxious. After all, they are gathering for a climate summit with exceptionally high stakes. Known as COP26 and running from Oct. 31 to Nov. 12, the conference is perhaps one of the world’s last chances to keep the average global temperature from rising less than 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels — and to avert planetary heating on a terrifying scale.

This apprehensive mood seems not to affect Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain, the leader of the host nation. With bombastic optimism, Mr. Johnson appears confident that countries will step up climate action: The conference, he said in September, will be “a turning point for humanity.” And he has positioned Britain as boldly leading the way.

To make the case, Mr. Johnson points to how Britain has decarbonized more than any other developed country, 1.8 times the average among European Union nations, and was the first major economy to enshrine in law a net-zero target for carbon emissions.

Yet Britain is far from a climate hero. The country is committed to fossil fuels and private corporations, opposed to stringent regulation and unwilling to recognize its historical responsibility to the Global South. Even the lauded net zero by 2050 target relies on unreliable carbon offsets and is too distant to bring about decarbonization soon enough. Mr. Johnson may claim the country leads the world on climate action, but we shouldn’t fall for the trick.

A glance behind the rhetoric reveals hypocrisy everywhere. For COP26, formally the 26th U.N. Climate Change Conference of the Parties, the government has set out four top goals — global net zero by 2050, protection of communities and natural habitats, increased climate finance and strengthened international collaboration. But in practice, it is pursuing policies at home and abroad that violate every single goal.

In order to seal a free-trade agreement with Australia, which recently ranked last in the world for tackling greenhouse gas emissions, Mr. Johnson dropped from the text references to temperature goals established by the 2015 Paris Agreement. As well as a bad example, it’s an insult to nations especially vulnerable to climate change, which argue a 1.5-degree Celsius limit is critical to their survival. For Mr. Johnson, international collaboration is good — until it gets in the way of national self-interest.

In September, Mr. Johnson was energetically cajoling countries to cough up more cash at the U.N. General Assembly in New York — part of an attempt to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate breakdown. It was an audacious gambit, not least because Britain is far behind in its contribution to climate finance. Its efforts have been rated “highly insufficient” by the Climate Action Tracker, which provides independent scientific analysis of climate policy.

But the most blatant double standards are closer to home. Against the warnings of the Scottish government, the national government in Westminster is poised to approve 18 new oil and gas projects in the North Sea. One of the most significant oil fields, known as Cambo, would drill for a total of 150 to 170 million barrels of oil up to 2050.

New drilling is in line with the “maximizing economic recovery” strategy of the Oil and Gas Authority, the body responsible for regulating Britain’s oil and gas resources. Adopted by Parliament in 2015, it states that companies should aim to extract any oil or gas that is profitable. The government has the ultimate power to change this strategy — and to stop Cambo if it wants to. But besides requiring the regulator to help meet distant net-zero targets by reducing production emissions, the government has so far failed to intervene.

Cambo is the most egregious example of a political and economic approach that knocks Britain off its moral high ground. The list of sins is long. It includes airport expansions, missed biodiversity targets, a botched attempt to insulate homes, not ruling out a new coal mine in Cumbria and, of course, failing to regulate the world’s biggest financiers of fossil fuels in the City of London. At every juncture the government has made clear where its priorities really lie.

Most maddeningly of all, these actions lie beneath a smoke screen of good words. The government may be world leading in setting targets (there are 78 commitments in a new plan to decarbonize transport alone), but it can’t promise its way out of escalating heat waves, fires and floods. One of the government’s own climate advisers rated the government nine out of 10 on targets but said it was “somewhere below” four out of 10 in efforts to meet them. The government’s long-awaited strategy to reach net-zero emissions, expected to be published on Tuesday, is unlikely to alter the picture. Warm words won’t stop a warming world.

You could charitably call this cognitive dissonance, the result of an inability to reconcile climate targets with an economy forged by fossil fuels. But the bald truth is harsher. Countries across the world, Britain foremost among them, are willfully pursuing an economic strategy that is heating up the planet, to the devastation of communities everywhere. They prefer private profit to a livable planet.

The time frame in which we can avert the worst shrinks with every passing day. The two weeks of COP26, when governments have a chance to close the gap between rhetoric and reality, will prove pivotal for the planet. Either we continue along the path of a rapidly heating world or we alter the course of human civilization.

But whatever happens in Glasgow, the storm is no longer gathering. It is overhead.

The world’s activists and delegates soon on their way to Glasgow have reason to be anxious. After all, they are gathering for a climate summit with exceptionally high stakes.

The world’s activists and delegates soon on their way to Glasgow have reason to be anxious. After all, they are gathering for a climate summit with exceptionally high stakes. Known as COP26 and running from Oct. 31 to Nov. 12, the conference is perhaps one of the world’s last chances to keep the average global temperature from rising less than 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels — and to avert planetary heating on a terrifying scale. This apprehensive mood seems not to affect Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain, the leader of the host nation. With bombastic optimism, Mr. Johnson appears confident that countries will step up climate action: The conference, he said in September, will be “a turning point for humanity.” And he has positioned Britain as boldly leading the way. To make the case, Mr. Johnson points to how Britain has decarbonized more than any other developed country, 1.8 times the average among European Union nations, and was the first major economy to enshrine in law a net-zero target for carbon emissions. Yet Britain is far from a climate hero. The country is committed to fossil fuels and private corporations, opposed to stringent regulation and unwilling to recognize its historical responsibility to the Global South. Even the lauded net zero by 2050 target relies on unreliable carbon offsets and is too distant to bring about decarbonization soon enough. Mr. Johnson may claim the country leads the world on climate action, but we shouldn’t fall for the trick. A glance behind the rhetoric reveals hypocrisy everywhere. For COP26, formally the 26th U.N. Climate Change Conference of the Parties, the government has set out four top goals — global net zero by 2050, protection of communities and natural habitats, increased climate finance and strengthened international collaboration. But in practice, it is pursuing policies at home and abroad that violate every single goal. In order to seal a free-trade agreement with Australia, which recently ranked last in the world for tackling greenhouse gas emissions, Mr. Johnson dropped from the text references to temperature goals established by the 2015 Paris Agreement. As well as a bad example, it’s an insult to nations especially vulnerable to climate change, which argue a 1.5-degree Celsius limit is critical to their survival. For Mr. Johnson, international collaboration is good — until it gets in the way of national self-interest. In September, Mr. Johnson was energetically cajoling countries to cough up more cash at the U.N. General Assembly in New York — part of an attempt to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate breakdown. It was an audacious gambit, not least because Britain is far behind in its contribution to climate finance. Its efforts have been rated “highly insufficient” by the Climate Action Tracker, which provides independent scientific analysis of climate policy. But the most blatant double standards are closer to home. Against the warnings of the Scottish government, the national government in Westminster is poised to approve 18 new oil and gas projects in the North Sea. One of the most significant oil fields, known as Cambo, would drill for a total of 150 to 170 million barrels of oil up to 2050. New drilling is in line with the “maximizing economic recovery” strategy of the Oil and Gas Authority, the body responsible for regulating Britain’s oil and gas resources. Adopted by Parliament in 2015, it states that companies should aim to extract any oil or gas that is profitable. The government has the ultimate power to change this strategy — and to stop Cambo if it wants to. But besides requiring the regulator to help meet distant net-zero targets by reducing production emissions, the government has so far failed to intervene. Cambo is the most egregious example of a political and economic approach that knocks Britain off its moral high ground. The list of sins is long. It includes airport expansions, missed biodiversity targets, a botched attempt to insulate homes, not ruling out a new coal mine in Cumbria and, of course, failing to regulate the world’s biggest financiers of fossil fuels in the City of London. At every juncture the government has made clear where its priorities really lie. Most maddeningly of all, these actions lie beneath a smoke screen of good words. The government may be world leading in setting targets (there are 78 commitments in a new plan to decarbonize transport alone), but it can’t promise its way out of escalating heat waves, fires and floods. One of the government’s own climate advisers rated the government nine out of 10 on targets but said it was “somewhere below” four out of 10 in efforts to meet them. The government’s long-awaited strategy to reach net-zero emissions, expected to be published on Tuesday, is unlikely to alter the picture. Warm words won’t stop a warming world. You could charitably call this cognitive dissonance, the result of an inability to reconcile climate targets with an economy forged by fossil fuels. But the bald truth is harsher. Countries across the world, Britain foremost among them, are willfully pursuing an economic strategy that is heating up the planet, to the devastation of communities everywhere. They prefer private profit to a livable planet. The time frame in which we can avert the worst shrinks with every passing day. The two weeks of COP26, when governments have a chance to close the gap between rhetoric and reality, will prove pivotal for the planet. Either we continue along the path of a rapidly heating world or we alter the course of human civilization. But whatever happens in Glasgow, the storm is no longer gathering. It is overhead.

Boris Johnson is playing another trick

These days, there’s a lot to be anxious about. There’s a lot to fear. There’s the environmental wreckage that’s increasingly evident around the world, the fragile state of our political systems, the mutating virus making the very air we breathe dangerous.

It’s perhaps no surprise that a horror renaissance has happened in film over the last decade. If many other aspects of one’s day are a running list of terrors or involve creeping dread and consuming paranoia, then the eyes and mind, already accustomed to that, will expect it from whatever page or screen they land on.

In 2016, Victor LaValle’s novella “The Ballad of Black Tom” showed racism and institutional violence through the lens of Lovecraftian cosmic horror (while pushing back against the racism and xenophobia built into H.P. Lovecraft’s original work). The year after that, Jordan Peele’s horror film “Get Out” literalized the oppression and occupation of Black people. As Americans have taken to the streets to protest police violence, a raft of films and shows have explored the horrors of the nation’s racist history, culminating recently in “Candyman.”

On Friday, there’s the release of “Halloween Kills,” which adds to the 43-year-old franchise. We’re all still watching the religiously tinged “Midnight Mass” on television, and the bookshelves are bleeding this year from Chuck Wendig’s “The Book of Accidents,” about a dark past that continues to haunt, next week’s collection of tragic tales “Ghost Sequences” by A.C. Wise and “Nothing but Blackened Teeth” by Cassandra Khaw, a story, in part, about soul-sucking relationships.

Horror fans have always known that the genre is more than a nightmare carnival. Horror is, and always has been, in dialogue with the anxieties and fears of its time. During the Great Depression, the misery and economic strife were embodied by monsters from literature and folklore, as Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster and the Mummy made their way across the movie screen. In the 1980s, when paranoia about the Cold War and fears of nuclear winter reached a fever pitch, a slate of suburban terrors assured us that our insecurities were valid, that we were not, in fact, safe in our homes. Enter Jason Voorhees, with his machete and hockey mask; Michael Myers, with his mechanic overalls and chef’s knife; and Freddy Krueger, with his fedora and very sharp fingers.

But horror doesn’t just reflect our fears and anxieties back at us. It also helps us process them. Horror is a fun house mirror everybody can use. It exaggerates, distorts and distills whatever it is we’re trying to work through, then delivers it back to us as entertainment.

Horror can offer comfort, can offer solace. Not because it’s an accurate representation or dramatization of our turmoil — who’s that intentional with their media consumption? — but because horror comes packaged for us in 400-page novels, in two-hour movies, in stories that end. Whether those books or films end happily or not, they end. For all of us who sense no end to our own daily horror stories, that’s what’s important.

And even amid the jump scares and houses that are obviously haunted, horror can get you thinking, can get you talking. That’s the key to what horror can do. Horror can shine a light on things we’d rather ignore, can confront us with our failings. Horror can challenge us to do better. “Get Out” didn’t solve discrimination or racism — Black people are still dying in traffic stops — but it did, at least for a couple of hours, make a lot of people see the racism that lurks beneath even the most liberal-seeming facades. And that’s success. That’s art.

Every horror story, whether an ecological disaster or a vampire encounter, a haunted house or a plague, is basically a long, dark tunnel that the story’s “final girl” is trying to survive.

It’s terrible in this tunnel, no doubt. The cars she clambers over are coffins. There are unnatural creatures shrieking from the ceiling. The walls are crumbling and seeping and maybe even undulating, and this muck she’s having to wade through is noxious, but — but way down there, through the dark, almost too distant to see, so far away that it has to be taken on faith that it’s actually there, is a point of light.

That’s where she’s headed. The light might be a train, or some monstrous angler fish (horror writers can be cruel like that), but struggling ahead toward that light is what a horror story can gift you.

Never mind that this virus keeps reaching back for variant after variant. Never mind that our politicians are so entrenched in their camps that the common good is just a dim memory. Never mind our monstrous ecological footprint.

In the long, terrible tunnel of her horror story, our heroine keeps struggling ahead, placing one foot in front of the other. Despite the damage, the terror, the hopelessness, the pain, despite her friends and family falling all around her, our heroine does that thing that humans are so, so good at: She keeps going.

If she can struggle on against those insurmountable odds, then, well — so can we, right?

These days, there’s a lot to be anxious about. There’s a lot to fear. There’s the environmental wreckage that’s increasingly evident around the world, the fragile state of our political systems, the mutating virus making the very air we breathe dangerous.

These days, there’s a lot to be anxious about. There’s a lot to fear. There’s the environmental wreckage that’s increasingly evident around the world, the fragile state of our political systems, the mutating virus making the very air we breathe dangerous. It’s perhaps no surprise that a horror renaissance has happened in film over the last decade. If many other aspects of one’s day are a running list of terrors or involve creeping dread and consuming paranoia, then the eyes and mind, already accustomed to that, will expect it from whatever page or screen they land on. In 2016, Victor LaValle’s novella “The Ballad of Black Tom” showed racism and institutional violence through the lens of Lovecraftian cosmic horror (while pushing back against the racism and xenophobia built into H.P. Lovecraft’s original work). The year after that, Jordan Peele’s horror film “Get Out” literalized the oppression and occupation of Black people. As Americans have taken to the streets to protest police violence, a raft of films and shows have explored the horrors of the nation’s racist history, culminating recently in “Candyman.” On Friday, there’s the release of “Halloween Kills,” which adds to the 43-year-old franchise. We’re all still watching the religiously tinged “Midnight Mass” on television, and the bookshelves are bleeding this year from Chuck Wendig’s “The Book of Accidents,” about a dark past that continues to haunt, next week’s collection of tragic tales “Ghost Sequences” by A.C. Wise and “Nothing but Blackened Teeth” by Cassandra Khaw, a story, in part, about soul-sucking relationships. Horror fans have always known that the genre is more than a nightmare carnival. Horror is, and always has been, in dialogue with the anxieties and fears of its time. During the Great Depression, the misery and economic strife were embodied by monsters from literature and folklore, as Dracula, Frankenstein’s monster and the Mummy made their way across the movie screen. In the 1980s, when paranoia about the Cold War and fears of nuclear winter reached a fever pitch, a slate of suburban terrors assured us that our insecurities were valid, that we were not, in fact, safe in our homes. Enter Jason Voorhees, with his machete and hockey mask; Michael Myers, with his mechanic overalls and chef’s knife; and Freddy Krueger, with his fedora and very sharp fingers. But horror doesn’t just reflect our fears and anxieties back at us. It also helps us process them. Horror is a fun house mirror everybody can use. It exaggerates, distorts and distills whatever it is we’re trying to work through, then delivers it back to us as entertainment. Horror can offer comfort, can offer solace. Not because it’s an accurate representation or dramatization of our turmoil — who’s that intentional with their media consumption? — but because horror comes packaged for us in 400-page novels, in two-hour movies, in stories that end. Whether those books or films end happily or not, they end. For all of us who sense no end to our own daily horror stories, that’s what’s important. And even amid the jump scares and houses that are obviously haunted, horror can get you thinking, can get you talking. That’s the key to what horror can do. Horror can shine a light on things we’d rather ignore, can confront us with our failings. Horror can challenge us to do better. “Get Out” didn’t solve discrimination or racism — Black people are still dying in traffic stops — but it did, at least for a couple of hours, make a lot of people see the racism that lurks beneath even the most liberal-seeming facades. And that’s success. That’s art. Every horror story, whether an ecological disaster or a vampire encounter, a haunted house or a plague, is basically a long, dark tunnel that the story’s “final girl” is trying to survive. It’s terrible in this tunnel, no doubt. The cars she clambers over are coffins. There are unnatural creatures shrieking from the ceiling. The walls are crumbling and seeping and maybe even undulating, and this muck she’s having to wade through is noxious, but — but way down there, through the dark, almost too distant to see, so far away that it has to be taken on faith that it’s actually there, is a point of light. That’s where she’s headed. The light might be a train, or some monstrous angler fish (horror writers can be cruel like that), but struggling ahead toward that light is what a horror story can gift you. Never mind that this virus keeps reaching back for variant after variant. Never mind that our politicians are so entrenched in their camps that the common good is just a dim memory. Never mind our monstrous ecological footprint. In the long, terrible tunnel of her horror story, our heroine keeps struggling ahead, placing one foot in front of the other. Despite the damage, the terror, the hopelessness, the pain, despite her friends and family falling all around her, our heroine does that thing that humans are so, so good at: She keeps going. If she can struggle on against those insurmountable odds, then, well — so can we, right?

You’re Anxious. You’re Afraid. And I Have Just the Solution.

Backdrop

The 13th round of Corps Commander level talks between India and China ending at an awkward note, was not a surprise to anyone analysing Chinese activities and signaling prior to the talks. The talks happened in the backdrop of recent incidents of intrusions by Chinese troops in the Barahoti sector of Uttarakhand, Tawang sector of Arunachal Pradesh, heavy concentration of troops and modern arsenal along Line of Actual Control (LAC), exercises and building permanent structures in areas which China had encroached in April 2020, vacation of which was the main purpose of the talks. It was therefore amply evident that China was in no mood to concede anything and went through the talks for optics of ongoing talkathon. Post disengagement of troops in Eastern Ladakh from North and South of Pangong Tso, some disengagement in Gogra, no disengagement in other areas to include Depsang plains, Hot Spring, Demchok, and no de-escalation, was therefore, a forgone conclusion.&nbsp;

The Chinese intention to coerce India to resume business as usual, sidelining border/LAC issue and not insist on further pullback was refuted by the India earlier when it conveyed that disengagement at all friction points leading to de-escalation, peace and tranquility on borders are pre-requisites to progressing smooth bilateral ties. This rightful Indian stance to get back to pre-April 2020 positions stands adversely affected by Chinese obnoxious allegation of ‘India pushing for unreasonable and unrealistic demands, which is creating difficulties in negotiations’, which indirectly conveys no more pulling back. In recent past almost 80 percent of Chinese top leaders including President Xi Jinping have visited Tibet/Xinjiang. Massive infrastructure development in terms of airstrips, rail, road network to border towns like Nyngchi, accommodation and other activities are worth monitoring for India to strategise its responses. &nbsp;

Aim and Strategies of China and India so far! 
&nbsp; 
Chinese political aim was and continues to be China-centric Asia and forcing Indian subordination, a necessity to achieve it. This aim could not be achieved despite prolonged standoff in Ladakh so far, but will remain unchanged, even in future. Chinese strategic aim to control Eastern Ladakh was to provide depth to its National Highway G-219, Karakoram Pass, redraw Line of Actual Control (LAC) as per its perception (1959-60) and negotiate border on its terms thereafter. China can claim to have partially achieved it, with continued presence in extra kilometrage in Depsang plains, Hot Spring, Demchok areas, where disengagement hasn’t taken place. Having developed its infrastructure in areas as per its perception of LAC, its aim to deny the same to India has not been so successful, as India continues to develop its infrastructure at unprecedented speed to catch up, in recent past.&nbsp;

The Indian aim has been to get Chinese back to pre-standoff positions as of April 2020 in all friction points, not to concede unilateral change of LAC, and pursue talks towards its demarcation, hoping to lead to border resolution. With current disengagement, status quo stands achieved in areas north and south of Pangong Tso, albeit at the cost of losing the crucial leverage of giving up occupation of certain heights on Kailash range and north of Pangong Tso, prior to Chinese vacation of ‘Other Areas’. Pursuing disengagement and de-escalation in remaining areas will be an uphill task due to shortage of leverages, given Chinese past track record and recent activities.&nbsp;

China, marched in areas, where it was not supposed to be, junking all CBMs, as part of overall ‘Incremental Encroachment Strategy’, exploiting first mover advantage. China soon found itself handicapped by strong Indian response, resistance and resolve, with proactive actions resulting newly created vulnerabilities to Maldo Garrison and its launch pad, South of Pangong Tso. Despite disengagement in Pangong Tso area, Chinese discomfort due to Indian dispositions in Sub Sector North including DBO, infrastructure development including DSDBO road, as a threat to crucial Tibet-Xinjiang-Pakistan connectivity remains.&nbsp;

The Indian planners will find it difficult to explain why disengagement was not sequenced on ‘first in and first out' basis, meaning thereby, that India should have vacated Kailash Range heights only after China had vacated all the areas, where it advanced in Depsang plains, Gogra, Hot Spring and Demchok areas, since April 2020, despite being pointed out by many strategic analysts. It is reasonable to believe that it has left India at a disadvantage, due to shortage of leverages and no worthwhile saving in financial and human cost, as no de-escalation has taken place. Notwithstanding the political debates over legacy of Depsang issue, it remains strategically important and a threat to DBO and DS-DBO Road; hence a concern for India.

What can India do other than Talkathon?

Unlike all major powers, India does not have a National Security Strategy (NSS) in open domain to steer capacity building to take on China’s challenge in synergised manner. The classified part of NSS is kept secret by all countries and rightly so. The reactive actions of India over several decades indicate diplomacy-driven ‘Don’t annoy China Approach”, which has failed miserably as China gave no concession on displaying accommodation so far.&nbsp;

Not calling out Xinjiang or Hong Kong by India did not prevent China from dragging India to UNSC on Kashmir issue or not progressing CPEC on Indian sovereign territory. In absence of not even stating our challenges, expecting different agencies to synergise in capacity building to take on Two-Front challenges seems far-fetched. India needs to formulate its NSS, prioritise its challenges and task required agencies to develop capacities. A change in mindset is required, from being reactive to proactive with additional offensive capability to demonstrate capacity to encroach into Chinese sensitive areas, in absence of which China has assumed no threat from India, with freedom to encroach anywhere, at will. &nbsp; &nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Over a period the stands of China and India on stated position on borders have hardened. The resolution has become extremely complex due to rising sentiments/ nationalism in respective countries increasing the political cost of any compromise by either side. In light of no major breakthrough in 22nd round of China-India border talks, no worthwhile development on delineation, delimitation for demarcation of LAC is expected, which is otherwise necessary to prevent repeated standoffs.&nbsp;

India’s strategic goal should be to continue insisting on a formal delimitation and demarcation of the LAC, which is difficult but not impossible. Indian aim should be not to concede Chinese attempt to redraw LAC as LAC-2020, because a temporary solution/side-lining main issue is recipe for the next standoff, leading to LOC-ization of LAC further. Chinese will like to keep border unsettled, till the time the political cost of Not settling it, becomes higher than doing so, for CCP, China. With no de-escalation by Chinese, India is and will continue to be ready for all contingencies with similar deployment along LAC, in coming months/years, including creating some more leverages, if situation demands so.

India must be prepared for ‘Two Front War’ as a worst case scenario, and continue capacity building in all domains, including maritime domain, where Chinese vulnerable sea lines of communications can be threatened. Besides ongoing infrastructure development along borders it is recommended that States/UT along LAC should allot concessional land to security forces like regional SCOUTS, ITBP, SSB, and families hailing from that area (on son of soil concept), ready to settle in villages so constructed, along own perception of LAC. This will improve inclusive growth, integration, besides proof of our claims on the border, to ward off Chinese design of developing hundreds of new villages along LAC. The best way to avoid a two-front war is to convince both adversaries that India can fight it, backed by appropriate capacity building and intent to use all instruments of power.&nbsp;

Strategic partnerships with like-minded democracies and collective naval posturing to create multifront situation for China are efforts in right direction. There is a need for alternative supply chain, trade and technological eco system, independent of China for which some initial steps taken by Quad countries need to be pursued. India needs to develop its strategic culture with professional strategists, as diplomacy driven patch ups and talkathon hasn’t worked so far. The overall strategic approach has to be proactive at tactical, operational as well as strategic level. &nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Backdrop The 13th round of Corps Commander level talks between India and China ending at an awkward note, was not a surprise to anyone analysing Chinese activities and signaling prior to the talks.

Backdrop The 13th round of Corps Commander level talks between India and China ending at an awkward note, was not a surprise to anyone analysing Chinese activities and signaling prior to the talks. The talks happened in the backdrop of recent incidents of intrusions by Chinese troops in the Barahoti sector of Uttarakhand, Tawang sector of Arunachal Pradesh, heavy concentration of troops and modern arsenal along Line of Actual Control (LAC), exercises and building permanent structures in areas which China had encroached in April 2020, vacation of which was the main purpose of the talks. It was therefore amply evident that China was in no mood to concede anything and went through the talks for optics of ongoing talkathon. Post disengagement of troops in Eastern Ladakh from North and South of Pangong Tso, some disengagement in Gogra, no disengagement in other areas to include Depsang plains, Hot Spring, Demchok, and no de-escalation, was therefore, a forgone conclusion. The Chinese intention to coerce India to resume business as usual, sidelining border/LAC issue and not insist on further pullback was refuted by the India earlier when it conveyed that disengagement at all friction points leading to de-escalation, peace and tranquility on borders are pre-requisites to progressing smooth bilateral ties. This rightful Indian stance to get back to pre-April 2020 positions stands adversely affected by Chinese obnoxious allegation of ‘India pushing for unreasonable and unrealistic demands, which is creating difficulties in negotiations’, which indirectly conveys no more pulling back. In recent past almost 80 percent of Chinese top leaders including President Xi Jinping have visited Tibet/Xinjiang. Massive infrastructure development in terms of airstrips, rail, road network to border towns like Nyngchi, accommodation and other activities are worth monitoring for India to strategise its responses. Aim and Strategies of China and India so far! Chinese political aim was and continues to be China-centric Asia and forcing Indian subordination, a necessity to achieve it. This aim could not be achieved despite prolonged standoff in Ladakh so far, but will remain unchanged, even in future. Chinese strategic aim to control Eastern Ladakh was to provide depth to its National Highway G-219, Karakoram Pass, redraw Line of Actual Control (LAC) as per its perception (1959-60) and negotiate border on its terms thereafter. China can claim to have partially achieved it, with continued presence in extra kilometrage in Depsang plains, Hot Spring, Demchok areas, where disengagement hasn’t taken place. Having developed its infrastructure in areas as per its perception of LAC, its aim to deny the same to India has not been so successful, as India continues to develop its infrastructure at unprecedented speed to catch up, in recent past. The Indian aim has been to get Chinese back to pre-standoff positions as of April 2020 in all friction points, not to concede unilateral change of LAC, and pursue talks towards its demarcation, hoping to lead to border resolution. With current disengagement, status quo stands achieved in areas north and south of Pangong Tso, albeit at the cost of losing the crucial leverage of giving up occupation of certain heights on Kailash range and north of Pangong Tso, prior to Chinese vacation of ‘Other Areas’. Pursuing disengagement and de-escalation in remaining areas will be an uphill task due to shortage of leverages, given Chinese past track record and recent activities. China, marched in areas, where it was not supposed to be, junking all CBMs, as part of overall ‘Incremental Encroachment Strategy’, exploiting first mover advantage. China soon found itself handicapped by strong Indian response, resistance and resolve, with proactive actions resulting newly created vulnerabilities to Maldo Garrison and its launch pad, South of Pangong Tso. Despite disengagement in Pangong Tso area, Chinese discomfort due to Indian dispositions in Sub Sector North including DBO, infrastructure development including DSDBO road, as a threat to crucial Tibet-Xinjiang-Pakistan connectivity remains. The Indian planners will find it difficult to explain why disengagement was not sequenced on ‘first in and first out' basis, meaning thereby, that India should have vacated Kailash Range heights only after China had vacated all the areas, where it advanced in Depsang plains, Gogra, Hot Spring and Demchok areas, since April 2020, despite being pointed out by many strategic analysts. It is reasonable to believe that it has left India at a disadvantage, due to shortage of leverages and no worthwhile saving in financial and human cost, as no de-escalation has taken place. Notwithstanding the political debates over legacy of Depsang issue, it remains strategically important and a threat to DBO and DS-DBO Road; hence a concern for India. What can India do other than Talkathon? Unlike all major powers, India does not have a National Security Strategy (NSS) in open domain to steer capacity building to take on China’s challenge in synergised manner. The classified part of NSS is kept secret by all countries and rightly so. The reactive actions of India over several decades indicate diplomacy-driven ‘Don’t annoy China Approach”, which has failed miserably as China gave no concession on displaying accommodation so far. Not calling out Xinjiang or Hong Kong by India did not prevent China from dragging India to UNSC on Kashmir issue or not progressing CPEC on Indian sovereign territory. In absence of not even stating our challenges, expecting different agencies to synergise in capacity building to take on Two-Front challenges seems far-fetched. India needs to formulate its NSS, prioritise its challenges and task required agencies to develop capacities. A change in mindset is required, from being reactive to proactive with additional offensive capability to demonstrate capacity to encroach into Chinese sensitive areas, in absence of which China has assumed no threat from India, with freedom to encroach anywhere, at will. Over a period the stands of China and India on stated position on borders have hardened. The resolution has become extremely complex due to rising sentiments/ nationalism in respective countries increasing the political cost of any compromise by either side. In light of no major breakthrough in 22nd round of China-India border talks, no worthwhile development on delineation, delimitation for demarcation of LAC is expected, which is otherwise necessary to prevent repeated standoffs. India’s strategic goal should be to continue insisting on a formal delimitation and demarcation of the LAC, which is difficult but not impossible. Indian aim should be not to concede Chinese attempt to redraw LAC as LAC-2020, because a temporary solution/side-lining main issue is recipe for the next standoff, leading to LOC-ization of LAC further. Chinese will like to keep border unsettled, till the time the political cost of Not settling it, becomes higher than doing so, for CCP, China. With no de-escalation by Chinese, India is and will continue to be ready for all contingencies with similar deployment along LAC, in coming months/years, including creating some more leverages, if situation demands so. India must be prepared for ‘Two Front War’ as a worst case scenario, and continue capacity building in all domains, including maritime domain, where Chinese vulnerable sea lines of communications can be threatened. Besides ongoing infrastructure development along borders it is recommended that States/UT along LAC should allot concessional land to security forces like regional SCOUTS, ITBP, SSB, and families hailing from that area (on son of soil concept), ready to settle in villages so constructed, along own perception of LAC. This will improve inclusive growth, integration, besides proof of our claims on the border, to ward off Chinese design of developing hundreds of new villages along LAC. The best way to avoid a two-front war is to convince both adversaries that India can fight it, backed by appropriate capacity building and intent to use all instruments of power. Strategic partnerships with like-minded democracies and collective naval posturing to create multifront situation for China are efforts in right direction. There is a need for alternative supply chain, trade and technological eco system, independent of China for which some initial steps taken by Quad countries need to be pursued. India needs to develop its strategic culture with professional strategists, as diplomacy driven patch ups and talkathon hasn’t worked so far. The overall strategic approach has to be proactive at tactical, operational as well as strategic level. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

India border issues: Strategy beyond talkathon to deal with China

Saudi and Emirati efforts to define ‘moderate’ Islam as socially more liberal while being subservient to an autocratic ruler is as much an endeavour to ensure regime survival and bolster aspirations to lead the Muslim world as it is an attempt to fend off challenges rooted in diverse strands of religious ultra-conservatism.

The Saudi and Emirati efforts to garner religious soft power have much in common even though the kingdom and the United Arab Emirates build their respective campaigns on historically different forms of Islam. The two Gulf states are, moreover, rivals in the battle for the soul of Islam, a struggle to define what strand or strands will dominate the faith in the 21st century.

The battle takes on added significance at a time that Middle Eastern rivals are attempting to dial down regional tensions by managing their disputes and conflicts rather than resolving them. The efforts put a greater emphasis on soft power rivalry rather than hard power confrontation often involving proxies.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/opinion-76th-united-nations-general-assembly-key-issues-and-the-indian-dilemma-414656">Opinion | 76th United Nations General Assembly: Key issues and the Indian dilemma</a>

Saudi Arabia and the UAE propagate a ‘moderate’ Islam on the back of significant social reforms in recent years that preaches absolute obedience to the ruler and relegates the clergy to the status of the ruler’s clerics.

The reforms include Saudi Arabia’s lifting of a ban on women’s driving, enhancing of women’s professional and personal opportunities, curbing the powers of the religious police and introducing Western-style entertainment.

The UAE last November allowed unmarried couples to cohabitate, loosened alcohol restrictions and criminalised “honour killings,” a widely criticised religiously packaged tribal custom that allows a male relative to kill a woman accused of dishonouring her family.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE compete in the Muslim world with Turkish and Iranian Islamist strands of the faith that are laced with nationalism.

The Gulf states’ state-led moderation of religious practices rather than of theology and Muslim jurisprudence is also challenged by some strands of Wahhabism, the ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam on the basis of which Saudi Arabia was founded.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/opinion-initial-taliban-moves-fail-to-convince-afghanistans-neighbours-413032">Opinion | Initial Taliban moves fail to convince Afghanistan’s neighbours</a>

“Wahhabism has refracted into three broad groups since the early 1990s: a left that has developed a discourse of civic rights, a centre occupying official posts of state (dubbed ‘ulama al-sultan’ or the ruler’s clerics) that has put up some resistance to the loosening of their powers in the social, juridical and media spheres, and a Wahhabi right sympathetic to the jihadist discourse of al-Qaeda and its focus on questions of foreign policy,” said scholar Andrew Hammond.

While Turkey and Iran pose a geopolitical danger, autocratic monarchical rule is more fundamentally threatened by the religious challenge posed by what Mr. Hammond dubs the Wahhabi left and the Wahhabi right as well as Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama, the only non-state player in the battle for the soul of Islam, that advocates and practices reform of Islamic jurisprudence and unconditionally endorses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The arrests in recent years of Saudi scholars and preachers such as Safar al-Hawali, Salman al-Awda, Sulayman al-Duwaish, Ibrahim al-Sakran, and Hasan al-Maliki suggests as much.

Implicitly drawing a distinction with Nahdlatul Ulama, Mr. Hammond argues that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s reforms amount to “defanging Wahhabism not dethroning it.”

The crown prince, since coming to office, has radically cut back on the investment of tens of billions of dollars in the propagation of religious ultra-conservatism across the globe, most effectively in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He has also sought to balance Wahhabism with Saudi ultra-nationalism and shave off the rough social edges of the kingdom’s austere interpretation of the faith. His subjugation of the clergy, and incarceration of adherents of the Wahhabi left and far-right, put an end to a 73-year long power-sharing agreement between the ruling Al-Saud family and the clergy.

The left has entertained concepts of a constitutional rather than an absolute monarchy, called for political liberalisation and civil rights and in some cases endorsed the 2011 popular Arab revolts that toppled four Arab autocrats.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/opinion-new-taliban-government-and-the-dangers-posed-by-it-411656">Opinion | New Taliban government and the dangers posed by it</a>

The Wahhabi left could be joined in challenging the conservative Gulf monarchies and, simultaneously, be challenged by Nahdlatul Ulama once the group expands its activities to target the Muslim world’s grassroots beyond Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country as well as its foremost democracy. In its first outreach to grassroots elsewhere, Nahdlatul Ulama is expected to launch an Arabic-language website before the end of the year that would target the Arab world.

Nahdlatul Ulama’s concept of a humanitarian Islam that embraces principles of tolerance, pluralism, gender equality, secularism and human rights as defined in the Universal Declaration goes considerably further than proposals put forward by Mr. Hammond’s Wahhabi left, perhaps better described as more liberal rather than an ideological left-wing of a fundamentally ultra-conservative movement.

The Indonesian group’s concept of Islam also contrasts starkly with the Saudi and Emirati notion of autocratic religious moderation that involves no theological or jurisprudential reform but uses ‘the ruler’s clergy’ to religiously legitimise repressive rule under which protests, political parties and petitioning of the government are banned and thought is policed.

“The state has strengthened the Wahhabi centre through neutralising the Wahhabi left and right, which have each represented a threat to state authority and legitimacy … As for the civic rights innovations of the Wahhabi left exemplified by al-Awda, it is precisely this discourse that the state wants to shut down,” Mr. Hammond said, referring to the imprisoned cleric.

The track record of proponents of autocratic religious moderation is checkered at best. While the UAE has created a society that is by and large religiously tolerant, neither Saudi Arabia nor Egypt, which doesn’t have the wherewithal to fight a soft power battle in the Muslim world but seeks to project itself as a champion of religious tolerance, can make a similar claim.

Prince Mohammed has met Jewish and Evangelical leaders. Mohammed al-Issa, the head of the Muslim World League, long a major vehicle to promote Saudi religious ultra-conservatism, doesn’t miss an opportunity these days to express his solidarity with other faith groups. Yet, non-Muslims remain barred in the kingdom from worshipping publicly or building their own houses of worship.

In Egypt, Patrick George Zaki, a 27-year-old student, lingers in prison since February 2020 on charges of spreading false news and rumours for publishing an article documenting incidents of discrimination against Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority.

Mr. Zaki was arrested a year after Ahmed el-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al Azhar, Egypt’s citadel of Islamic learning, signed a Declaration of Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together with Pope Francis during the two men’s visit to the UAE. The declaration advocates religious freedom and pluralism.

By contrast, Nahdlatul Ulama secretary general Yahya Staquf recently told the story of Riyanto in a September 11 speech at Regent University, a bulwark of American Evangelical anti-Muslim sentiment founded by televangelist Pat Robertson. A member of Nahdlatul Ulama’s militia, Riyanto died guarding a church in Java on Christmas Eve when a bomb exploded in his arms as he removed it from a pew.

“To us in Nahdlatul Ulama, Riyanto is a martyr, and we honour his memory every Christmas Eve alongside millions of our Indonesian Christian brothers and sisters,” Mr. Staquf said.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Saudi and Emirati efforts to define ‘moderate’ Islam as socially more liberal while being subservient to an autocratic ruler is as much an endeavour to ensure regime survival and bolster aspirations to lead the Muslim world as it is an attempt to fend off challenges rooted in diverse strands of religious ultra-conservatism.

Saudi and Emirati efforts to define ‘moderate’ Islam as socially more liberal while being subservient to an autocratic ruler is as much an endeavour to ensure regime survival and bolster aspirations to lead the Muslim world as it is an attempt to fend off challenges rooted in diverse strands of religious ultra-conservatism. The Saudi and Emirati efforts to garner religious soft power have much in common even though the kingdom and the United Arab Emirates build their respective campaigns on historically different forms of Islam. The two Gulf states are, moreover, rivals in the battle for the soul of Islam, a struggle to define what strand or strands will dominate the faith in the 21st century. The battle takes on added significance at a time that Middle Eastern rivals are attempting to dial down regional tensions by managing their disputes and conflicts rather than resolving them. The efforts put a greater emphasis on soft power rivalry rather than hard power confrontation often involving proxies. Also Read | Opinion | 76th United Nations General Assembly: Key issues and the Indian dilemma Saudi Arabia and the UAE propagate a ‘moderate’ Islam on the back of significant social reforms in recent years that preaches absolute obedience to the ruler and relegates the clergy to the status of the ruler’s clerics. The reforms include Saudi Arabia’s lifting of a ban on women’s driving, enhancing of women’s professional and personal opportunities, curbing the powers of the religious police and introducing Western-style entertainment. The UAE last November allowed unmarried couples to cohabitate, loosened alcohol restrictions and criminalised “honour killings,” a widely criticised religiously packaged tribal custom that allows a male relative to kill a woman accused of dishonouring her family. Saudi Arabia and the UAE compete in the Muslim world with Turkish and Iranian Islamist strands of the faith that are laced with nationalism. The Gulf states’ state-led moderation of religious practices rather than of theology and Muslim jurisprudence is also challenged by some strands of Wahhabism, the ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam on the basis of which Saudi Arabia was founded. Also Read | Opinion | Initial Taliban moves fail to convince Afghanistan’s neighbours “Wahhabism has refracted into three broad groups since the early 1990s: a left that has developed a discourse of civic rights, a centre occupying official posts of state (dubbed ‘ulama al-sultan’ or the ruler’s clerics) that has put up some resistance to the loosening of their powers in the social, juridical and media spheres, and a Wahhabi right sympathetic to the jihadist discourse of al-Qaeda and its focus on questions of foreign policy,” said scholar Andrew Hammond. While Turkey and Iran pose a geopolitical danger, autocratic monarchical rule is more fundamentally threatened by the religious challenge posed by what Mr. Hammond dubs the Wahhabi left and the Wahhabi right as well as Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama, the only non-state player in the battle for the soul of Islam, that advocates and practices reform of Islamic jurisprudence and unconditionally endorses the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The arrests in recent years of Saudi scholars and preachers such as Safar al-Hawali, Salman al-Awda, Sulayman al-Duwaish, Ibrahim al-Sakran, and Hasan al-Maliki suggests as much. Implicitly drawing a distinction with Nahdlatul Ulama, Mr. Hammond argues that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s reforms amount to “defanging Wahhabism not dethroning it.” The crown prince, since coming to office, has radically cut back on the investment of tens of billions of dollars in the propagation of religious ultra-conservatism across the globe, most effectively in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He has also sought to balance Wahhabism with Saudi ultra-nationalism and shave off the rough social edges of the kingdom’s austere interpretation of the faith. His subjugation of the clergy, and incarceration of adherents of the Wahhabi left and far-right, put an end to a 73-year long power-sharing agreement between the ruling Al-Saud family and the clergy. The left has entertained concepts of a constitutional rather than an absolute monarchy, called for political liberalisation and civil rights and in some cases endorsed the 2011 popular Arab revolts that toppled four Arab autocrats. Also Read | Opinion | New Taliban government and the dangers posed by it The Wahhabi left could be joined in challenging the conservative Gulf monarchies and, simultaneously, be challenged by Nahdlatul Ulama once the group expands its activities to target the Muslim world’s grassroots beyond Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country as well as its foremost democracy. In its first outreach to grassroots elsewhere, Nahdlatul Ulama is expected to launch an Arabic-language website before the end of the year that would target the Arab world. Nahdlatul Ulama’s concept of a humanitarian Islam that embraces principles of tolerance, pluralism, gender equality, secularism and human rights as defined in the Universal Declaration goes considerably further than proposals put forward by Mr. Hammond’s Wahhabi left, perhaps better described as more liberal rather than an ideological left-wing of a fundamentally ultra-conservative movement. The Indonesian group’s concept of Islam also contrasts starkly with the Saudi and Emirati notion of autocratic religious moderation that involves no theological or jurisprudential reform but uses ‘the ruler’s clergy’ to religiously legitimise repressive rule under which protests, political parties and petitioning of the government are banned and thought is policed. “The state has strengthened the Wahhabi centre through neutralising the Wahhabi left and right, which have each represented a threat to state authority and legitimacy … As for the civic rights innovations of the Wahhabi left exemplified by al-Awda, it is precisely this discourse that the state wants to shut down,” Mr. Hammond said, referring to the imprisoned cleric. The track record of proponents of autocratic religious moderation is checkered at best. While the UAE has created a society that is by and large religiously tolerant, neither Saudi Arabia nor Egypt, which doesn’t have the wherewithal to fight a soft power battle in the Muslim world but seeks to project itself as a champion of religious tolerance, can make a similar claim. Prince Mohammed has met Jewish and Evangelical leaders. Mohammed al-Issa, the head of the Muslim World League, long a major vehicle to promote Saudi religious ultra-conservatism, doesn’t miss an opportunity these days to express his solidarity with other faith groups. Yet, non-Muslims remain barred in the kingdom from worshipping publicly or building their own houses of worship. In Egypt, Patrick George Zaki, a 27-year-old student, lingers in prison since February 2020 on charges of spreading false news and rumours for publishing an article documenting incidents of discrimination against Egypt’s Coptic Christian minority. Mr. Zaki was arrested a year after Ahmed el-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al Azhar, Egypt’s citadel of Islamic learning, signed a Declaration of Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together with Pope Francis during the two men’s visit to the UAE. The declaration advocates religious freedom and pluralism. By contrast, Nahdlatul Ulama secretary general Yahya Staquf recently told the story of Riyanto in a September 11 speech at Regent University, a bulwark of American Evangelical anti-Muslim sentiment founded by televangelist Pat Robertson. A member of Nahdlatul Ulama’s militia, Riyanto died guarding a church in Java on Christmas Eve when a bomb exploded in his arms as he removed it from a pew. “To us in Nahdlatul Ulama, Riyanto is a martyr, and we honour his memory every Christmas Eve alongside millions of our Indonesian Christian brothers and sisters,” Mr. Staquf said. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion | The Battle for the soul of Islam: Will the real reformer of the faith stand up?

Big is not always better, especially when it comes to the car market. Ford Motor is an example of how things can ho go horribly wrong even for big players. Also, it is a season of Americans exiting countries and regions, somewhere discreetly and completely and at other places after making the official announcements and by taking one step at a time. For this comparison, Afghanistan and India are not far from each other. For some of the automobile industry watchers, the announcement of shutting down of manufacturing operations by Ford in India was not surprising. It had to happen some day as its sales were dwindling, making it a matter of WHEN, and not IF it will shut its India business or manufacturing.

Ford's Initial Success

Ford, a company that started its journey much earlier in the Indian market around 25 years ago is finally going to shut its manufacturing operations in India. The things went wrong in multiple ways, and it won't be wrong to say that Ford became so much enamored with its initial success in the Indian market that it failed to notice which side the winds were blowing. First, it was the success of the iconic Ikon, the sedan that was droolworthy and aspirational and its success was cemented by the next sedan Fiesta. It was a time when buying Ford cars was a sign of prosperity and stability and the company had not fallen into the trap of volumes. Even the Fusion, which was bigger than a hatchback and smaller than a sedan was worth a try in the market and established the brand a bit further.

Turning Tide

Was it the sheer arrogance or inability to read the market, Ford failed to see when the tide was turning in favour of compact sedans. Indians were so much in love with three-box cars that other mid-size sedans like Fiesta completely fell out of favour with them and Ikon was no longer available. Ford was hence, out of mind of customers of this class. The buyers were also looking to upgrade from the entry-level car and sub-Rs 5-6 lakh market was booming and Ford had nothing to offer in that segment. It was clearly a loss from which Ford couldn't ever recover.&nbsp;

Hits and Misses

It is not that Ford didn't try to gain foothold in the market dominated by Japanese and Korean Maruti Suzuki, Honda and Hyundai and Indian companies like M&amp;M, Tata Motors.&nbsp;

In September 2009 Ford made its much-awaited entry into affordable yet feature-rich hatchbacks with Figo challenging the likes of Maruti Suzuki Swift and Hyundai's i10. Figo was based on the same small car platform used for the Ford Fiesta as well and with Figo, Ford registered initial success in the market. But it was not that the competition was sitting idle and soon Figo was out of Indian buyers' mind who was spoilt for choice with hatchbacks and compact sedans from Maruti Suzuki, Hyundai, Chevrolet and even Tata Motors. Ford came up with Aspire compact sedan much later and new Figo, but by that time buyers had completely erased the brand when it came to compact cars and compact sedans.

Ecosport Era

I remember sitting down for an interview with Allan Mulally, the former global CEO and President of Ford Motor in January, 2012. His eyes were beaming with hope for one of the promising car markets India at that time and the American carmaker was readying for a fresh onslaught. It was the launch of EcoSport and it did wonders for Ford. As the competition was only from Renault's Duster compact SUV, a segment that was unheard of before Duster's launch, Ford tasted unparallel success with EcoSport.

One Swallow Doesn't Make A Summer

Ford has pulled the plug on its India manufacturing operations forecasting that it can't be in the driver's seat or even be co-passenger seat with success with just one car EcoSport. It wanted to build pillars of at least four successful products to enable the standing of a profitable ecosystem but it couldn't happen. Also, the breakup with M&amp;M was a jolt it couldn't recover from taking along with it the hopes of any successful future partnership. &nbsp; &nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Big is not always better, especially when it comes to the car market. Ford Motor is an example of how things can ho go horribly wrong even for big players. Also, it is a season of Americans exiting countries and regions, somewhere discreetly and completely and at other places after making the official announcements and by taking one step at a time.

Big is not always better, especially when it comes to the car market. Ford Motor is an example of how things can ho go horribly wrong even for big players. Also, it is a season of Americans exiting countries and regions, somewhere discreetly and completely and at other places after making the official announcements and by taking one step at a time. For this comparison, Afghanistan and India are not far from each other. For some of the automobile industry watchers, the announcement of shutting down of manufacturing operations by Ford in India was not surprising. It had to happen some day as its sales were dwindling, making it a matter of WHEN, and not IF it will shut its India business or manufacturing. Ford's Initial Success Ford, a company that started its journey much earlier in the Indian market around 25 years ago is finally going to shut its manufacturing operations in India. The things went wrong in multiple ways, and it won't be wrong to say that Ford became so much enamored with its initial success in the Indian market that it failed to notice which side the winds were blowing. First, it was the success of the iconic Ikon, the sedan that was droolworthy and aspirational and its success was cemented by the next sedan Fiesta. It was a time when buying Ford cars was a sign of prosperity and stability and the company had not fallen into the trap of volumes. Even the Fusion, which was bigger than a hatchback and smaller than a sedan was worth a try in the market and established the brand a bit further. Turning Tide Was it the sheer arrogance or inability to read the market, Ford failed to see when the tide was turning in favour of compact sedans. Indians were so much in love with three-box cars that other mid-size sedans like Fiesta completely fell out of favour with them and Ikon was no longer available. Ford was hence, out of mind of customers of this class. The buyers were also looking to upgrade from the entry-level car and sub-Rs 5-6 lakh market was booming and Ford had nothing to offer in that segment. It was clearly a loss from which Ford couldn't ever recover. Hits and Misses It is not that Ford didn't try to gain foothold in the market dominated by Japanese and Korean Maruti Suzuki, Honda and Hyundai and Indian companies like M&M, Tata Motors. In September 2009 Ford made its much-awaited entry into affordable yet feature-rich hatchbacks with Figo challenging the likes of Maruti Suzuki Swift and Hyundai's i10. Figo was based on the same small car platform used for the Ford Fiesta as well and with Figo, Ford registered initial success in the market. But it was not that the competition was sitting idle and soon Figo was out of Indian buyers' mind who was spoilt for choice with hatchbacks and compact sedans from Maruti Suzuki, Hyundai, Chevrolet and even Tata Motors. Ford came up with Aspire compact sedan much later and new Figo, but by that time buyers had completely erased the brand when it came to compact cars and compact sedans. Ecosport Era I remember sitting down for an interview with Allan Mulally, the former global CEO and President of Ford Motor in January, 2012. His eyes were beaming with hope for one of the promising car markets India at that time and the American carmaker was readying for a fresh onslaught. It was the launch of EcoSport and it did wonders for Ford. As the competition was only from Renault's Duster compact SUV, a segment that was unheard of before Duster's launch, Ford tasted unparallel success with EcoSport. One Swallow Doesn't Make A Summer Ford has pulled the plug on its India manufacturing operations forecasting that it can't be in the driver's seat or even be co-passenger seat with success with just one car EcoSport. It wanted to build pillars of at least four successful products to enable the standing of a profitable ecosystem but it couldn't happen. Also, the breakup with M&M was a jolt it couldn't recover from taking along with it the hopes of any successful future partnership. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion | Why is Ford exiting India?

The Taliban’s record in recent weeks on making good on promises to respect human and women’s rights as well as uphold freedom of the press is mixed at best. Afghanistan’s neighbours and near-neighbours are not holding their breath even if some are willing to give the Central Asian country’s new rulers the benefit of the doubt.

A litmus test of Taliban willingness to compromise may come sooner than later.

It’s most likely only a matter of time before China knocks on newly appointed Afghan acting interior minister Sirajuddin Haqqani’s door demanding the extradition of Uighur fighters.

The Chinese demand would be challenging not only because of the Taliban’s consistent rejection, no matter the cost, of requests for the expulsion of militants who have helped them in their battles.

The Taliban already made that clear two decades ago when they accepted the risk of a US invasion of Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 by refusing for the umpteenth time to hand over Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. There is little in Taliban 2.0 that suggests that this has changed.

If Haneef Atamar, the foreign minister in the US-backed Afghan government of former president Ashraf Ghani, is to be believed, Uighurs, including one-time fighters in Syria, contributed significantly to the Taliban’s most recent battlefield successes in northern Afghanistan.

A demand to extradite Uighurs to China would also be challenging because Mr Haqqani himself, the Afghan official in charge of internal security, is a wanted man with a $5 million US bounty on his head. Moreover, the United Nations has sanctioned Mr Haqqani’s prime minister, Mullah Hasan Akhund, and several other members of the caretaker government.

“It’s hard to see a wanted man turning over someone who is wanted for similar reasons,” said a Western diplomat.

Moreover, honouring extradition requests could threaten unity within the Taliban’s ranks. "Taliban actions against foreign jihadist groups to appease neighbouring countries would be especially controversial, because there is quite a widespread sense of solidarity and comradeship with those who fought alongside the Taliban for so long," said Afghanistan scholar Antonio Giustozzi.

Unanswered is the question of whether China would go along with what seems to be an unspoken international consensus that it may be best not to seek extraditions if the Taliban keep their word and prevent militants from striking at targets beyond Afghanistan.

Counterterrorism experts and diplomats argue that if forced, the Taliban would quietly let foreign militants leave their country rather than hand them over. That would make it difficult to monitor these individuals.

China has in recent years successfully demanded the extradition of its Turkish Muslim citizens from countries like Egypt, Malaysia, and Thailand and has pressured many more to do so even though they were not suspected of being foreign fighters and/or members of the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP). The United Nations Security Council has designated TIP’s predecessor, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) as a terrorist organisation.

There is little reason to assume that China would make Afghanistan, a refuge from Syria for Uighur fighters, the exception.&nbsp;

Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi made that clear when he hinted at possible extradition requests during talks in July in China with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a co-founder of the Taliban and the new government’s first deputy prime minister. Mr Wang demanded that the Taliban break relations with all militant groups and take resolute action against the TIP.

Moreover, the Taliban may have destroyed any chance of Chinese reliance on them by demonstrating early on that they and the international community may be speaking different languages even if they use the same words.

The Taliban made clear that their definition of inclusivity, a term the group and the international community, including China, Russia and India, appeared to agree on, was very different. The Taliban formed an overwhelming ethnic, all-male government that was anything but inclusive by the universally agreed meaning of the word.

Similarly, Mr Haqqani and his colleagues, including Qari Fasihuddin Badakhshani, the Afghan military’s new Taliban chief of staff, a Tajik and one of only three non-Pashtuns in the new 33-member government structure, is believed to have close ties to Uighur, Pakistani and other militants.&nbsp;

As a result, they are likely to be equally reticent about entertaining Chinese-backed Pakistan requests for the transfer of members of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), more commonly known as the Pakistani Taliban.

The TTP is a coalition of Pashtun Islamist groups with close ties to the Afghan Taliban that last year joined forces with several other militant Pakistani groups, including Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a violently anti-Shiite Sunni Muslim supremacist organization.&nbsp;

Hazara Shiites, who account for 20 per cent of the Afghan population were not included in the newly appointed Afghan government even though the Taliban made a point of last month protecting Shiite religious celebrations. Nonetheless, the Taliban’s notion of inclusivity has already troubled relations with Iran and could persuade the Islamic republic to covertly support resistance to the group’s rule.

China fears that the fallout of the Taliban’s sweep across Afghanistan could affect China beyond Afghanistan’s borders, perhaps no more so than in Pakistan, a major focus of the People’s Republic’s single largest Belt-and Road (BRI)-related investment.

The killing in July of nine Chinese nationals in an attack on a bus transporting Chinese workers to the construction site of a dam in the northern mountains of Pakistan raised the spectre of Afghanistan-based religious militants jihadists targeting China. Until now, it was mainly Baloch nationalists who targeted the Chinese in Pakistan.

The attack occurred amid fears that the Taliban victory would bolster ultra-conservative religious sentiment in Pakistan where many celebrated the group’s success in the hope that it would boost chances for austere religious rule in the world’s second-most populous Muslim-majority state.

“Our jihadis will be emboldened. They will say that ‘if America can be beaten, what is the Pakistan army to stand in our way?’” said a senior Pakistani official.

Indicating concern in Beijing, China has delayed the signing of a framework agreement on industrial cooperation that would have accelerated the implementation of projects that are part of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a crown jewel of the People’s Republic’s transportation, telecommunications and energy-driven BRI.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid recently kept the Taliban’s relationship with the TTP ambiguous.

"The issue of the TTP is one that Pakistan will have to deal with, not Afghanistan. It is up to Pakistan, and Pakistani Islamic scholars and religious figures, not the Taliban, to decide on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of their war and to formulate a strategy in response," Mr Mujahid said during an interview on a Pakistani television program. The spokesman stopped short of saying the Taliban would abide by a decision of the scholars.

Afghan sources suggest that the Taliban advised the TTP to restrict their fight to Pakistani soil and have offered to negotiate with the Pakistan government an amnesty and the return of the Pakistani militants to the South Asian nation. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Uncertainty about where the Taliban may be taking Afghanistan has also cast a shadow over Indian hopes that the Iranian port of Chabahar would facilitate trade with Afghanistan and Central Asia and counterbalance the Chinese-supported Pakistani port of Gwadar.

Eager to maintain leverage in its relations with Pakistan as well as China, Taliban official Sher Mohammed Abbas Stanekzai chose his words carefully by stressing that economics should be at the centre of Afghan-Indian relations. “We give due importance to our political, economic and trade ties with India and we want these ties to continue. We are looking forward to working with India in this regard,” Mr Stanekzai said.

Mr. Stanekzai’s business-focused approach coupled with the pressure on Taliban to police militants on Afghan soil, some of whom have attacked India in the past, dovetails with Islamic scholars in the Deobandi alma mater in the Uttar Pradesh town of Deoband stressing the divide between themselves and their Afghan and Pakistani brethren.&nbsp;

The Indian Deobandi posture created an opportunity that the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has yet to grasp to involve them in India’s backchannel and direct contacts with the Taliban. India invested US$3 billion over the last 20 years in building Afghan roads, girls' schools and health clinics. Mr. Stanekzai’s remarks indicate that the Taliban would like India to continue its investments in the country.

The Taliban as well as a significant number of Pakistani ultra-conservatives root their worldview in Deobandism, a strand of Islam that emerged in India in the mid-19th century to oppose British colonial rule by propagating an austere interpretation of the faith. Deobandism became prevalent among Pashtuns even if Deobandis in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India went their separate ways after the 1947 partition of the subcontinent.

Arshad Madani, the principal of the Darul Uloom Deoband, the original Deobandi madrassa established in 1886, recently welcomed a decision by India’s Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) to set up a training centre in Deoband.

“There is nothing wrong with what we teach, and we welcome the ATS staff to be a part of our classes whenever they like,” Mr. Madani said. A spokesman for the madrassa added that “we are a religious school, but we are also Indians. To doubt our integrity every time the Taliban spread terror is shameful.”

Mr. Madani’s posture should serve as an incentive for the Modi government to work with Indian Deobandis in the hope that the Taliban may be more willing to listen to religious figures with whom they share a history.

Mr. Madani has never had contact with the Taliban nor has he ever visited Afghanistan. “I'm weak and old,” says the 80-year-old cleric. “But if given the chance, I would go to Afghanistan.”

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

The Taliban’s record in recent weeks on making good on promises to respect human and women’s rights as well as uphold freedom of the press is mixed at best. Afghanistan’s neighbours and near-neighbours are not holding their breath even if some are willing to give the Central Asian country’s new rulers the benefit of the doubt.

The Taliban’s record in recent weeks on making good on promises to respect human and women’s rights as well as uphold freedom of the press is mixed at best. Afghanistan’s neighbours and near-neighbours are not holding their breath even if some are willing to give the Central Asian country’s new rulers the benefit of the doubt. A litmus test of Taliban willingness to compromise may come sooner than later. It’s most likely only a matter of time before China knocks on newly appointed Afghan acting interior minister Sirajuddin Haqqani’s door demanding the extradition of Uighur fighters. The Chinese demand would be challenging not only because of the Taliban’s consistent rejection, no matter the cost, of requests for the expulsion of militants who have helped them in their battles. The Taliban already made that clear two decades ago when they accepted the risk of a US invasion of Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 by refusing for the umpteenth time to hand over Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. There is little in Taliban 2.0 that suggests that this has changed. If Haneef Atamar, the foreign minister in the US-backed Afghan government of former president Ashraf Ghani, is to be believed, Uighurs, including one-time fighters in Syria, contributed significantly to the Taliban’s most recent battlefield successes in northern Afghanistan. A demand to extradite Uighurs to China would also be challenging because Mr Haqqani himself, the Afghan official in charge of internal security, is a wanted man with a $5 million US bounty on his head. Moreover, the United Nations has sanctioned Mr Haqqani’s prime minister, Mullah Hasan Akhund, and several other members of the caretaker government. “It’s hard to see a wanted man turning over someone who is wanted for similar reasons,” said a Western diplomat. Moreover, honouring extradition requests could threaten unity within the Taliban’s ranks. "Taliban actions against foreign jihadist groups to appease neighbouring countries would be especially controversial, because there is quite a widespread sense of solidarity and comradeship with those who fought alongside the Taliban for so long," said Afghanistan scholar Antonio Giustozzi. Unanswered is the question of whether China would go along with what seems to be an unspoken international consensus that it may be best not to seek extraditions if the Taliban keep their word and prevent militants from striking at targets beyond Afghanistan. Counterterrorism experts and diplomats argue that if forced, the Taliban would quietly let foreign militants leave their country rather than hand them over. That would make it difficult to monitor these individuals. China has in recent years successfully demanded the extradition of its Turkish Muslim citizens from countries like Egypt, Malaysia, and Thailand and has pressured many more to do so even though they were not suspected of being foreign fighters and/or members of the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP). The United Nations Security Council has designated TIP’s predecessor, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) as a terrorist organisation. There is little reason to assume that China would make Afghanistan, a refuge from Syria for Uighur fighters, the exception. Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi made that clear when he hinted at possible extradition requests during talks in July in China with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a co-founder of the Taliban and the new government’s first deputy prime minister. Mr Wang demanded that the Taliban break relations with all militant groups and take resolute action against the TIP. Moreover, the Taliban may have destroyed any chance of Chinese reliance on them by demonstrating early on that they and the international community may be speaking different languages even if they use the same words. The Taliban made clear that their definition of inclusivity, a term the group and the international community, including China, Russia and India, appeared to agree on, was very different. The Taliban formed an overwhelming ethnic, all-male government that was anything but inclusive by the universally agreed meaning of the word. Similarly, Mr Haqqani and his colleagues, including Qari Fasihuddin Badakhshani, the Afghan military’s new Taliban chief of staff, a Tajik and one of only three non-Pashtuns in the new 33-member government structure, is believed to have close ties to Uighur, Pakistani and other militants. As a result, they are likely to be equally reticent about entertaining Chinese-backed Pakistan requests for the transfer of members of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), more commonly known as the Pakistani Taliban. The TTP is a coalition of Pashtun Islamist groups with close ties to the Afghan Taliban that last year joined forces with several other militant Pakistani groups, including Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a violently anti-Shiite Sunni Muslim supremacist organization. Hazara Shiites, who account for 20 per cent of the Afghan population were not included in the newly appointed Afghan government even though the Taliban made a point of last month protecting Shiite religious celebrations. Nonetheless, the Taliban’s notion of inclusivity has already troubled relations with Iran and could persuade the Islamic republic to covertly support resistance to the group’s rule. China fears that the fallout of the Taliban’s sweep across Afghanistan could affect China beyond Afghanistan’s borders, perhaps no more so than in Pakistan, a major focus of the People’s Republic’s single largest Belt-and Road (BRI)-related investment. The killing in July of nine Chinese nationals in an attack on a bus transporting Chinese workers to the construction site of a dam in the northern mountains of Pakistan raised the spectre of Afghanistan-based religious militants jihadists targeting China. Until now, it was mainly Baloch nationalists who targeted the Chinese in Pakistan. The attack occurred amid fears that the Taliban victory would bolster ultra-conservative religious sentiment in Pakistan where many celebrated the group’s success in the hope that it would boost chances for austere religious rule in the world’s second-most populous Muslim-majority state. “Our jihadis will be emboldened. They will say that ‘if America can be beaten, what is the Pakistan army to stand in our way?’” said a senior Pakistani official. Indicating concern in Beijing, China has delayed the signing of a framework agreement on industrial cooperation that would have accelerated the implementation of projects that are part of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a crown jewel of the People’s Republic’s transportation, telecommunications and energy-driven BRI. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid recently kept the Taliban’s relationship with the TTP ambiguous. "The issue of the TTP is one that Pakistan will have to deal with, not Afghanistan. It is up to Pakistan, and Pakistani Islamic scholars and religious figures, not the Taliban, to decide on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of their war and to formulate a strategy in response," Mr Mujahid said during an interview on a Pakistani television program. The spokesman stopped short of saying the Taliban would abide by a decision of the scholars. Afghan sources suggest that the Taliban advised the TTP to restrict their fight to Pakistani soil and have offered to negotiate with the Pakistan government an amnesty and the return of the Pakistani militants to the South Asian nation. Uncertainty about where the Taliban may be taking Afghanistan has also cast a shadow over Indian hopes that the Iranian port of Chabahar would facilitate trade with Afghanistan and Central Asia and counterbalance the Chinese-supported Pakistani port of Gwadar. Eager to maintain leverage in its relations with Pakistan as well as China, Taliban official Sher Mohammed Abbas Stanekzai chose his words carefully by stressing that economics should be at the centre of Afghan-Indian relations. “We give due importance to our political, economic and trade ties with India and we want these ties to continue. We are looking forward to working with India in this regard,” Mr Stanekzai said. Mr. Stanekzai’s business-focused approach coupled with the pressure on Taliban to police militants on Afghan soil, some of whom have attacked India in the past, dovetails with Islamic scholars in the Deobandi alma mater in the Uttar Pradesh town of Deoband stressing the divide between themselves and their Afghan and Pakistani brethren. The Indian Deobandi posture created an opportunity that the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has yet to grasp to involve them in India’s backchannel and direct contacts with the Taliban. India invested US$3 billion over the last 20 years in building Afghan roads, girls' schools and health clinics. Mr. Stanekzai’s remarks indicate that the Taliban would like India to continue its investments in the country. The Taliban as well as a significant number of Pakistani ultra-conservatives root their worldview in Deobandism, a strand of Islam that emerged in India in the mid-19th century to oppose British colonial rule by propagating an austere interpretation of the faith. Deobandism became prevalent among Pashtuns even if Deobandis in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India went their separate ways after the 1947 partition of the subcontinent. Arshad Madani, the principal of the Darul Uloom Deoband, the original Deobandi madrassa established in 1886, recently welcomed a decision by India’s Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) to set up a training centre in Deoband. “There is nothing wrong with what we teach, and we welcome the ATS staff to be a part of our classes whenever they like,” Mr. Madani said. A spokesman for the madrassa added that “we are a religious school, but we are also Indians. To doubt our integrity every time the Taliban spread terror is shameful.” Mr. Madani’s posture should serve as an incentive for the Modi government to work with Indian Deobandis in the hope that the Taliban may be more willing to listen to religious figures with whom they share a history. Mr. Madani has never had contact with the Taliban nor has he ever visited Afghanistan. “I'm weak and old,” says the 80-year-old cleric. “But if given the chance, I would go to Afghanistan.” (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion | Initial Taliban moves fail to convince Afghanistan’s neighbours

As the Afghan imbroglio continues where Taliban is causing reverses among the rank and file of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and its claims to have annexed considerable chunks of territory especially on the borders of Pakistan and Iran grows, Prime Minister Imran Khan in a TV interview to the US channel PBS has said that US has messed up in Afghanistan. The interview, carried on the prime-time slot on the night of July 27 was seen by many and Khan went on to vehemently criticise the US by charging the US for trying to look for a military solution while what was needed was a political solution. Elaborating his argument, the Pakistani PM said that on earlier occasions when he ruled out a military solution, he was dubbed as Taliban Khan and anti-American.&nbsp;

Responding to a pointed query whether the Pakistani PM thought of Taliban resurgence was a positive development for Afghanistan, the PM reiterated that the only good outcome would be a political settlement, which was inclusive. He further stated that the ‘worst case scenario’ if aptly described, as being one where Afghanistan descends into a civil war; this was however, from Pakistan's point of view. Protracted civil war, if it happens, Khan went on to say, would bring in more refugees inside Pakistan and as it is there were three million Afghan refugees already sheltered in Pakistan. Expressing his apprehensions rather candidly, the Pakistani PM said Pashtuns in Pakistan would be drawn into the civil war and that will have devastating consequences. During his interview, Khan forthrightly denied any financial support based on Pakistan military intelligence to Afghanistan and he found that extremely unfair. Of late, US-Pakistan ties have been plummeting rather rapidly.&nbsp;

According to security analysts, due to the Quad threat looming large perceived to be targeting China where India, Japan and Australia have joined hands with the US, Pakistan is under severe pressure from China to distance itself from the US influence and by default, it would then keep India also at an arm's length, strategically. The ties also soured because of Pakistan’s blatant refusal to the US to allow use of Pakistan air bases to target Afghan Taliban targets for attack and counter offensives. Pakistan also continues to be wary about India’s growing proximity with regard to a strategic partnership with the US in Joe Biden’s seven-month-long presidentship. Several retired senior military officials of the Pakistan establishment and diplomats with good knowledge on US-Pakistan dynamics are blaming the Biden administration for letting Pakistan down, while Pakistan, as argued by a segment, had stood by the US in all its military endeavours. Be it training the Mujahideen with arms and stinger missiles during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, creation of Taliban or a solid collaboration when under President Musharraf, Pakistan cooperated in partnering with the US in taking on the Taliban in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks.&nbsp;

Amid this scene of downsliding of the bilateral relations, Pakistan has recently rejected the comments recorded by a latest US report which cast serious aspersions on the Pakistani judicial system. Reacting to the contents of such a report, a spokesperson from the Pakistan Foreign Office asserted that the judiciary in Pakistan was independent and the courts were functioning in accordance with the constitution and laws of the country. Such claims, however, are far from reality.&nbsp;

As there are no signs of any let up in the deteriorating US-Pakistan ties, the latter is likely to feel the heat following a very successful just concluded India visit by the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken on July 27 and 28. Indo-US watchers feel that US assurances to India for all support and strategic partnership is a matter of concern for China as the Quad dispensation stands strengthened and US commitment to cooperate with India in counter-terror measures will be more comforting to the two countries though it could be a matter of unease for Pakistan. Plus, Blinken’s meetings with Prime Minister Modi, EAM S Jaishankar, NSA A K Doval and other key functionaries will give a lot of food for thought to Pakistan, which already seems to have burnt its bridges with the US. Blinken’s complimentary remarks that the US would never forget the timely Indian help to the US during the COVID-19 pandemic augur very well in the context of Indo-US ties.&nbsp;

It does not end here, Blinken on July 28, also said that the US and India are bound by democratic values and free citizenry. While in India, the US Secretary of State also met representatives of various civil societies including one from the Dalai Lama. The representatives from the other religio-cultural organisations also met him and a free interaction was the hallmark of the meeting. Pak watchers are intently watching this growing bonhomie between India and US. Whether it is worrisome for Pakistan is a million-dollar question. Meanwhile China, has very angrily reacted to Blinken’s statement of India and US sharing the same democratic values. It has surely hurt China which, like Pakistan, is obviously disturbed by the warming up of US-India strategic cooperation.&nbsp;

Latest inputs indicate that the Chinese government lashed out on July 29 at Antony Blinken while he was in India, especially protesting on the visiting US Secretary of State’s meeting the Dalai Lama representatives describing it as a violation of the US commitment to acknowledge Tibet being a part of China. Elaborating the tenor of the protest, the Chinese Foreign Ministry clarified in a statement that the Dalai Lama is not a mere religious figure but a political exile, who has long engaged in anti-China separatist activities. In another China-related development, President Xi Jinping visited the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) recently which commenced from a village very close to Arunachal Pradesh. This is possibly an act of flexing of muscles or display of show of strength to India as intimidatory tactics. This is a known Chinese way of exhibiting ire or displeasure. It, however, remains interesting to watch more Chinese reactions, fraught with belligerence, as strategic bonhomie between India and the US further consolidates. &nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

As the Afghan imbroglio continues where Taliban is causing reverses among the rank and file of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and its claims to have annexed considerable chunks of territory especially on the borders of Pakistan and Iran grows, Prime Minister Imran Khan in a TV interview to the US channel PBS has said that US has messed up in Afghanistan.

As the Afghan imbroglio continues where Taliban is causing reverses among the rank and file of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and its claims to have annexed considerable chunks of territory especially on the borders of Pakistan and Iran grows, Prime Minister Imran Khan in a TV interview to the US channel PBS has said that US has messed up in Afghanistan. The interview, carried on the prime-time slot on the night of July 27 was seen by many and Khan went on to vehemently criticise the US by charging the US for trying to look for a military solution while what was needed was a political solution. Elaborating his argument, the Pakistani PM said that on earlier occasions when he ruled out a military solution, he was dubbed as Taliban Khan and anti-American. Responding to a pointed query whether the Pakistani PM thought of Taliban resurgence was a positive development for Afghanistan, the PM reiterated that the only good outcome would be a political settlement, which was inclusive. He further stated that the ‘worst case scenario’ if aptly described, as being one where Afghanistan descends into a civil war; this was however, from Pakistan's point of view. Protracted civil war, if it happens, Khan went on to say, would bring in more refugees inside Pakistan and as it is there were three million Afghan refugees already sheltered in Pakistan. Expressing his apprehensions rather candidly, the Pakistani PM said Pashtuns in Pakistan would be drawn into the civil war and that will have devastating consequences. During his interview, Khan forthrightly denied any financial support based on Pakistan military intelligence to Afghanistan and he found that extremely unfair. Of late, US-Pakistan ties have been plummeting rather rapidly. According to security analysts, due to the Quad threat looming large perceived to be targeting China where India, Japan and Australia have joined hands with the US, Pakistan is under severe pressure from China to distance itself from the US influence and by default, it would then keep India also at an arm's length, strategically. The ties also soured because of Pakistan’s blatant refusal to the US to allow use of Pakistan air bases to target Afghan Taliban targets for attack and counter offensives. Pakistan also continues to be wary about India’s growing proximity with regard to a strategic partnership with the US in Joe Biden’s seven-month-long presidentship. Several retired senior military officials of the Pakistan establishment and diplomats with good knowledge on US-Pakistan dynamics are blaming the Biden administration for letting Pakistan down, while Pakistan, as argued by a segment, had stood by the US in all its military endeavours. Be it training the Mujahideen with arms and stinger missiles during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, creation of Taliban or a solid collaboration when under President Musharraf, Pakistan cooperated in partnering with the US in taking on the Taliban in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks. Amid this scene of downsliding of the bilateral relations, Pakistan has recently rejected the comments recorded by a latest US report which cast serious aspersions on the Pakistani judicial system. Reacting to the contents of such a report, a spokesperson from the Pakistan Foreign Office asserted that the judiciary in Pakistan was independent and the courts were functioning in accordance with the constitution and laws of the country. Such claims, however, are far from reality. As there are no signs of any let up in the deteriorating US-Pakistan ties, the latter is likely to feel the heat following a very successful just concluded India visit by the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken on July 27 and 28. Indo-US watchers feel that US assurances to India for all support and strategic partnership is a matter of concern for China as the Quad dispensation stands strengthened and US commitment to cooperate with India in counter-terror measures will be more comforting to the two countries though it could be a matter of unease for Pakistan. Plus, Blinken’s meetings with Prime Minister Modi, EAM S Jaishankar, NSA A K Doval and other key functionaries will give a lot of food for thought to Pakistan, which already seems to have burnt its bridges with the US. Blinken’s complimentary remarks that the US would never forget the timely Indian help to the US during the COVID-19 pandemic augur very well in the context of Indo-US ties. It does not end here, Blinken on July 28, also said that the US and India are bound by democratic values and free citizenry. While in India, the US Secretary of State also met representatives of various civil societies including one from the Dalai Lama. The representatives from the other religio-cultural organisations also met him and a free interaction was the hallmark of the meeting. Pak watchers are intently watching this growing bonhomie between India and US. Whether it is worrisome for Pakistan is a million-dollar question. Meanwhile China, has very angrily reacted to Blinken’s statement of India and US sharing the same democratic values. It has surely hurt China which, like Pakistan, is obviously disturbed by the warming up of US-India strategic cooperation. Latest inputs indicate that the Chinese government lashed out on July 29 at Antony Blinken while he was in India, especially protesting on the visiting US Secretary of State’s meeting the Dalai Lama representatives describing it as a violation of the US commitment to acknowledge Tibet being a part of China. Elaborating the tenor of the protest, the Chinese Foreign Ministry clarified in a statement that the Dalai Lama is not a mere religious figure but a political exile, who has long engaged in anti-China separatist activities. In another China-related development, President Xi Jinping visited the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) recently which commenced from a village very close to Arunachal Pradesh. This is possibly an act of flexing of muscles or display of show of strength to India as intimidatory tactics. This is a known Chinese way of exhibiting ire or displeasure. It, however, remains interesting to watch more Chinese reactions, fraught with belligerence, as strategic bonhomie between India and the US further consolidates. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion: China, Pakistan ire on growing Indo-US relations  

In the past few weeks, South Africa was gripped by the biggest explosion of unrest in decades. Shopping malls and warehouses were looted, supply trucks attacked and businesses destroyed. At least 337 people died.

Initially, as families loaded up consumer goods they would otherwise be unable to afford, the tumult seemed like an organic expression of popular discontent. After all, with unemployment over 30 percent, hunger widespread and inequality spiraling, there’s ample cause for anger. But far from a spontaneous social revolt, the rioting seems in fact to have been politically orchestrated.

After Jacob Zuma, the country’s former president, was arrested on July 7 — to serve a 15-month sentence for contempt of court — his supporters and allies vowed to make the country ungovernable. Coordinating a campaign of economic sabotage through WhatsApp, Telegram, Twitter and other social networks, they succeeded.

President Cyril Ramaphosa has since sought to calm the country, suggesting the worst is over. But it doesn’t feel that way. In fact, the events of the past weeks have demonstrated a bleak truth about the country. The deep rot of South Africa’s social and political order — rife with racial tension, communal mistrust, injustice and corruption — is now on full display. The rainbow nation, supposed beacon of reconciliation, is falling apart.

At the heart of the discord is the ruling African National Congress. In the 27 years since it steered South Africa to democracy, it has carried the hopes of millions of South Africans. Drawing on its reputation as the party of liberation, it has strong support and remains electorally unassailable. But it has now become squarely a source of division. A devastating battle for its soul is underway, with the country as the battlefield.

Driving the conflict are the forces loyal to Mr. Zuma, mostly composed of disgraced politicians who seek to be returned to their former positions of privilege. Though the A.N.C. always promoted the rise of a Black elite, Mr. Zuma’s presidency, beginning in 2009, changed the focus: The state, rather than the market, became the main site for opportunity and enrichment. A spurious ideology of “Radical Economic Transformation,” spun as a radical challenge to South Africa’s white-dominated private sector, provided rhetorical cover for corruption and patronage. Now removed from power, the beneficiaries of Mr. Zuma’s rule are determined to wreak havoc.

In their sights is Mr. Ramaphosa, who rose to power in 2018 on an anti-corruption platform. His efforts to root out endemic graft in his party — and by extension, the South African state — have been mixed at best. Before the drama of Mr. Zuma’s arrest, the country was stunned by the news that Zweli Mkhize, the well-liked health minister, played a role in awarding a contract worth $10 million to a communications company run by two associates. Though Mr. Ramaphosa recently escalated his anti-corruption push — not least by suspending the A.N.C.’s secretary general this year — Mr. Mkhize’s example underlines how widespread the looting of state resources has been. It’s clearly not just a case of bad apples. The batch is rotten.

And yet no political force looks able to hold the A.N.C. to account. The two major opposition parties, the Democratic Alliance and the Economic Freedom Fighters, have retired any ambitions of becoming mass parties capable of challenging the A.N.C. After some years of growth as the anti-Zuma opposition, the Democratic Alliance has doubled down on its identity as a party of white liberals; the Economic Freedom Fighters has reduced itself to an extension of Mr. Zuma’s faction of the A.N.C. Tellingly, in his last days as a free man, Mr. Zuma was flanked by Dali Mpofu, a former national chair of the E.F.F.

In the absence of effective opposition, the A.N.C. is coming apart at the seams. Never a party of ideology, it has always been a broad coalition united in opposition to minority rule. Since the end of apartheid, it has struggled to develop a stable political identity. Given the party’s enduring popularity, the challenge is less regaining public credibility than finding internal coherence. But until another party rivals the A.N.C., we can expect it to rest on its laurels. That spells a future of more factional strife and poor governance, at great cost to the country.

The president, for his part, is using the unrest’s aftermath as an opportunity to rebuild. As one of the key negotiators of South Africa’s liberal Constitution, Mr. Ramaphosa hopes to tap into the spirit of that time — a moment also marked by violence, when things felt equally on a knife’s edge. But these reserves are low. Back then, at the end of apartheid, the promise of democracy filled many with hope. Now, after nearly three decades of things remaining mostly the same, many people just feel despair.

An uneasy calm has settled. How long it lasts is anyone’s guess. Yet the past few weeks have conclusively dispelled many illusions about the country, none more so than the myth of South African exceptionalism — of a South Africa more peaceful than its African neighbors, more developed and with a future that bends inevitably toward good and triumph. The reality, as we await the next outbreak of violence, is much uglier. 
&nbsp;

In the past few weeks, South Africa was gripped by the biggest explosion of unrest in decades. Shopping malls and warehouses were looted, supply trucks attacked and businesses destroyed.

In the past few weeks, South Africa was gripped by the biggest explosion of unrest in decades. Shopping malls and warehouses were looted, supply trucks attacked and businesses destroyed. At least 337 people died. Initially, as families loaded up consumer goods they would otherwise be unable to afford, the tumult seemed like an organic expression of popular discontent. After all, with unemployment over 30 percent, hunger widespread and inequality spiraling, there’s ample cause for anger. But far from a spontaneous social revolt, the rioting seems in fact to have been politically orchestrated. After Jacob Zuma, the country’s former president, was arrested on July 7 — to serve a 15-month sentence for contempt of court — his supporters and allies vowed to make the country ungovernable. Coordinating a campaign of economic sabotage through WhatsApp, Telegram, Twitter and other social networks, they succeeded. President Cyril Ramaphosa has since sought to calm the country, suggesting the worst is over. But it doesn’t feel that way. In fact, the events of the past weeks have demonstrated a bleak truth about the country. The deep rot of South Africa’s social and political order — rife with racial tension, communal mistrust, injustice and corruption — is now on full display. The rainbow nation, supposed beacon of reconciliation, is falling apart. At the heart of the discord is the ruling African National Congress. In the 27 years since it steered South Africa to democracy, it has carried the hopes of millions of South Africans. Drawing on its reputation as the party of liberation, it has strong support and remains electorally unassailable. But it has now become squarely a source of division. A devastating battle for its soul is underway, with the country as the battlefield. Driving the conflict are the forces loyal to Mr. Zuma, mostly composed of disgraced politicians who seek to be returned to their former positions of privilege. Though the A.N.C. always promoted the rise of a Black elite, Mr. Zuma’s presidency, beginning in 2009, changed the focus: The state, rather than the market, became the main site for opportunity and enrichment. A spurious ideology of “Radical Economic Transformation,” spun as a radical challenge to South Africa’s white-dominated private sector, provided rhetorical cover for corruption and patronage. Now removed from power, the beneficiaries of Mr. Zuma’s rule are determined to wreak havoc. In their sights is Mr. Ramaphosa, who rose to power in 2018 on an anti-corruption platform. His efforts to root out endemic graft in his party — and by extension, the South African state — have been mixed at best. Before the drama of Mr. Zuma’s arrest, the country was stunned by the news that Zweli Mkhize, the well-liked health minister, played a role in awarding a contract worth $10 million to a communications company run by two associates. Though Mr. Ramaphosa recently escalated his anti-corruption push — not least by suspending the A.N.C.’s secretary general this year — Mr. Mkhize’s example underlines how widespread the looting of state resources has been. It’s clearly not just a case of bad apples. The batch is rotten. And yet no political force looks able to hold the A.N.C. to account. The two major opposition parties, the Democratic Alliance and the Economic Freedom Fighters, have retired any ambitions of becoming mass parties capable of challenging the A.N.C. After some years of growth as the anti-Zuma opposition, the Democratic Alliance has doubled down on its identity as a party of white liberals; the Economic Freedom Fighters has reduced itself to an extension of Mr. Zuma’s faction of the A.N.C. Tellingly, in his last days as a free man, Mr. Zuma was flanked by Dali Mpofu, a former national chair of the E.F.F. In the absence of effective opposition, the A.N.C. is coming apart at the seams. Never a party of ideology, it has always been a broad coalition united in opposition to minority rule. Since the end of apartheid, it has struggled to develop a stable political identity. Given the party’s enduring popularity, the challenge is less regaining public credibility than finding internal coherence. But until another party rivals the A.N.C., we can expect it to rest on its laurels. That spells a future of more factional strife and poor governance, at great cost to the country. The president, for his part, is using the unrest’s aftermath as an opportunity to rebuild. As one of the key negotiators of South Africa’s liberal Constitution, Mr. Ramaphosa hopes to tap into the spirit of that time — a moment also marked by violence, when things felt equally on a knife’s edge. But these reserves are low. Back then, at the end of apartheid, the promise of democracy filled many with hope. Now, after nearly three decades of things remaining mostly the same, many people just feel despair. An uneasy calm has settled. How long it lasts is anyone’s guess. Yet the past few weeks have conclusively dispelled many illusions about the country, none more so than the myth of South African exceptionalism — of a South Africa more peaceful than its African neighbors, more developed and with a future that bends inevitably toward good and triumph. The reality, as we await the next outbreak of violence, is much uglier.

South Africa is falling apart

On hoardings, Instagram, sister’s WhatsApp Status, an acquaintance’s Facebook Story… a sensuous—but within the acceptable limits of Indian sensibilities—Deepika Padukone rollicking to ‘Koi Yahan Aha Naache Naache’ in the basement of some abandoned establishment, caught my attention. The fact that it is an ad for the global brand Levi’s—then in troubled waters in India, financially—dawned on me about 30 seconds later. Curious, I hurriedly searched for the company’s IG handle to see more of her; the new global brand ambassador. While scrolling through pictures of the lady in jeans of all shapes and sizes—boyfriend, skinny and what not—I chanced upon Levi’s rather untimely—to me, at the time—‘Stop Asian Hate’ campaign. “Why would they promote this now? What’s the context,” I thought to myself. The date was February 26, I vividly remember. Well, Asians were about to be left gob-smacked even further with&nbsp;what was to follow—good, bad and the ugly.

 
In a parallel universe, a little film called ‘Minari’ was making big noise—142 nominations across award shows, big and small—and people couldn’t stop gushing over Alan Kim’s ‘I'm not pretty, I'm good looking’ shenanigan or the fact that he sobbed uncontrollably after having won the Best Young Actor at Critic’s Choice Awards. The boy was all of eight and the last time white folks mollycoddled a (white) kid on the internet was when Oscar-winning ‘Room’ presented a raw, fine actor, Jacob Tremblay. But this is a Japanese-American boy with epicanthic folds. So, what happened? Turns out, a lot!

 
‘Minari’ was also the doorway to a ‘sweet, sweet’ revelation in grandma Youn Yuh-jung. The actress’s late-blooming appeal of&nbsp;the 'Wild West' is evident when the mere sight of Glenn Close leaves her trembling with joy, in the middle of a red-carpet interview, “Oh! It’s Glenn Close!” she screams with excitement. At 73, Hollywood must really look like a spaceship showing up, unannounced, and Glenn Close, a goddess of an alien.

 
Childlike glee is Jackie Chan’s forte, and the famous alter ego that gets him instant recognition. Somehow ‘the funny man’ image stuck, not his body of work. On Google, there are numerous listicles on his ‘Ten Most Brutal Injuries’ or ‘Five Most Brutal Injuries’. And yet,&nbsp;it is only in 2016, Chan’s boundless contribution to cinema and his&nbsp;world of kicks-and-punches was finally recognized by Oscars Honorary Award committee. The&nbsp;award was bestowed upon him for ‘charming audiences with his dazzling athleticism, inventive stunt work and boundless charisma’. "I'd like to say a heartfelt thank you to the Oscars for giving me this award of encouragement and recognizing my achievements while I'm still 'young'. I'm absolutely honoured to be the first Chinese in history to receive this award," Chan had said in response. If he was being sarcastic, they had it coming. Jackie Chan began his career in 1962, he is&nbsp; 67 now. You do the math.

 
Just two days ago, ‘Crazy Rich Asians’ matriarch—Mama Young, played by Michelle Yeoh—landed a mainstream role in James Cameron’s ‘Avatar 2’. No, she did not bag this role like a Hollywood royalty would—she is 58, not that it’s relevant here—and had self-admittedly made desperate pleas to Cameron to cast her. “I said to James, 'I don't (know) why I'm here, I'm here because you're a genius and I am your biggest fan. I mean, I would be your coffee lady. I would just come here and sit down and watch you (sic).’” Understandable; after all, why would James Cameron hire a ‘Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur’ awardee for his money-devouring ‘Avatar’ franchise. Of course, she had to beg!

 
Straight out of&nbsp;‘Crazy Rich Asians’ muzzle&nbsp;is the jaw-droppingly beautiful Gemma Chan. If good looks—slender, glossy, expensive—sells in Hollywood, Gemma should have been ‘sold out’ by now. Yes, for those of you frowning, Chan has appeared in ‘a brief role’ in one of the Marvel projects and has flashed her pretty smile a few times at Cannes and this fashion show and that red carpet event. But God forbid an Asian actor gets a full-length, meaty, central role in whitewashed Hollywood…

 
SOUTH-EAST ASIANS: A LONG WAY HOME…

 
My theory on selective representation of desi distinction in cinema stems from these ideas: it is an offshoot of prejudices against immigrants, a brainchild of the propagators of ‘our land, our rent, our jobs’ dogma. “Oh, yes, I do know him. That&nbsp;dude… ‘Sound Of Metal’, right?” was someone’s social media reaction to a post on Riz Ahmed. It is appalling that&nbsp;Ahmed, a longtime British-Pakistani actor-rapper, a Primetime Emmy Award winner, and this, in 2021—Oscars nomination for ‘Best Actor In A Leading Role’— is his only claim to fame? A line from Ahmed’s own song—‘Immigrants (We Get The Job Done)' from ‘The Hamilton Mixtape’—lingers on my mind as I try to put a fitting conclusion to his segment:

 
&nbsp;“It's a hard line when you're an import/ The credit is only borrowed/ Look how far I come.” &nbsp;Isn’t that always the case, eh?

 
There’s a fresh wave of zeal for being global stars in Bollywood—‘the world is your stage’, like they say—which is marvelous, in all honesty. The Priyankas, and maybe even the Deepikas, of India will hold the black ladies and golden statues of America someday—hey, Nick Jonas has made that&nbsp;prediction about his wife already, and a flurry of GenZ material will suit, too. But is it worth the agent fees and expensive tickets and all that jazz for being, let’s say for example, a taxi driver in some future installment of ‘Deadpool’ where South-East Asians are a Karan Soni, and Ryan Reynolds, still the Deadpool?

 
There’s a joke among my peers about Dev Patel every time an Indian or Pakistani role&nbsp;goes to some actor that is not Mr. Patel himself—which, between us, is rarely the case. “Abbe, Dev Patel busy hoga… Abbe, Dev Patel zyada charge kar rahaan hoga… (Man, Dev Patel must be busy…. Dev Patel must be charging more). Actors from this side of the globe have&nbsp;been synonymous to small, insignificant, nameless characters in Hollywood for so long that even Indians struggle to comprehend how—on Earth—did a new, promising actor even make it to Hollywood, or just Netflix? Isn’t that just brutally sad?

 
Probably the least known controversy surrounding Steven Spielberg—and we get why; the man, the mystery, the whole shebang—is that he lifted the basic idea of ‘E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial’ from Indian masterpiece-deliverer, the late Satyajit Ray’s unreleased&nbsp;film ‘The Alien’. Like Chan, Ray did get an honorary Oscar in 1992 for his outstanding contribution to cinema—but he was given the award in haste, while&nbsp;on his death bed, and not half as ‘young’ as Chan. Even in death, Ray’s thunder was stolen by a white man—it is believed that Spielberg, along with his other high-brow industry friends, pushed for Ray’s honorary award. For obvious reasons, you get it.&nbsp;

 
WHAT CHANGED?

 
Although some of us are puffed with pride for making Asian artists—and rightly so—a part of the global fabric that forms the very essence of cinema, a question that needs to be pondered upon: If #OscarsSoWhite triggered more nominations, and subsequent wins, for the black community, then has the unfortunate #stopasianhate played a catalyst in putting Asians on a pedestal?

 
True, between haters ‘busting bindis’ (South-East Asian reference) and #IAMNOTAVIRUS &nbsp;hashtags, Asians have broken many artistic barriers. But, has recognition become the new form of appeasement? Hope not. No, after all these years, this better not be a fad. &nbsp;

 
(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

On hoardings, Instagram, sister’s WhatsApp Status, an acquaintance’s Facebook Story… a sensuous—but within the acceptable limits of Indian sensibilities—Deepika Padukone rollicking to ‘Koi Yahan Aha Naache Naache’ in the basement of some abandoned establishment, caught my attention.

On hoardings, Instagram, sister’s WhatsApp Status, an acquaintance’s Facebook Story… a sensuous—but within the acceptable limits of Indian sensibilities—Deepika Padukone rollicking to ‘Koi Yahan Aha Naache Naache’ in the basement of some abandoned establishment, caught my attention. The fact that it is an ad for the global brand Levi’s—then in troubled waters in India, financially—dawned on me about 30 seconds later. Curious, I hurriedly searched for the company’s IG handle to see more of her; the new global brand ambassador. While scrolling through pictures of the lady in jeans of all shapes and sizes—boyfriend, skinny and what not—I chanced upon Levi’s rather untimely—to me, at the time—‘Stop Asian Hate’ campaign. “Why would they promote this now? What’s the context,” I thought to myself. The date was February 26, I vividly remember. Well, Asians were about to be left gob-smacked even further with what was to follow—good, bad and the ugly. In a parallel universe, a little film called ‘Minari’ was making big noise—142 nominations across award shows, big and small—and people couldn’t stop gushing over Alan Kim’s ‘I'm not pretty, I'm good looking’ shenanigan or the fact that he sobbed uncontrollably after having won the Best Young Actor at Critic’s Choice Awards. The boy was all of eight and the last time white folks mollycoddled a (white) kid on the internet was when Oscar-winning ‘Room’ presented a raw, fine actor, Jacob Tremblay. But this is a Japanese-American boy with epicanthic folds. So, what happened? Turns out, a lot! ‘Minari’ was also the doorway to a ‘sweet, sweet’ revelation in grandma Youn Yuh-jung. The actress’s late-blooming appeal of the 'Wild West' is evident when the mere sight of Glenn Close leaves her trembling with joy, in the middle of a red-carpet interview, “Oh! It’s Glenn Close!” she screams with excitement. At 73, Hollywood must really look like a spaceship showing up, unannounced, and Glenn Close, a goddess of an alien. Childlike glee is Jackie Chan’s forte, and the famous alter ego that gets him instant recognition. Somehow ‘the funny man’ image stuck, not his body of work. On Google, there are numerous listicles on his ‘Ten Most Brutal Injuries’ or ‘Five Most Brutal Injuries’. And yet, it is only in 2016, Chan’s boundless contribution to cinema and his world of kicks-and-punches was finally recognized by Oscars Honorary Award committee. The award was bestowed upon him for ‘charming audiences with his dazzling athleticism, inventive stunt work and boundless charisma’. "I'd like to say a heartfelt thank you to the Oscars for giving me this award of encouragement and recognizing my achievements while I'm still 'young'. I'm absolutely honoured to be the first Chinese in history to receive this award," Chan had said in response. If he was being sarcastic, they had it coming. Jackie Chan began his career in 1962, he is 67 now. You do the math. Just two days ago, ‘Crazy Rich Asians’ matriarch—Mama Young, played by Michelle Yeoh—landed a mainstream role in James Cameron’s ‘Avatar 2’. No, she did not bag this role like a Hollywood royalty would—she is 58, not that it’s relevant here—and had self-admittedly made desperate pleas to Cameron to cast her. “I said to James, 'I don't (know) why I'm here, I'm here because you're a genius and I am your biggest fan. I mean, I would be your coffee lady. I would just come here and sit down and watch you (sic).’” Understandable; after all, why would James Cameron hire a ‘Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur’ awardee for his money-devouring ‘Avatar’ franchise. Of course, she had to beg! Straight out of ‘Crazy Rich Asians’ muzzle is the jaw-droppingly beautiful Gemma Chan. If good looks—slender, glossy, expensive—sells in Hollywood, Gemma should have been ‘sold out’ by now. Yes, for those of you frowning, Chan has appeared in ‘a brief role’ in one of the Marvel projects and has flashed her pretty smile a few times at Cannes and this fashion show and that red carpet event. But God forbid an Asian actor gets a full-length, meaty, central role in whitewashed Hollywood… SOUTH-EAST ASIANS: A LONG WAY HOME… My theory on selective representation of desi distinction in cinema stems from these ideas: it is an offshoot of prejudices against immigrants, a brainchild of the propagators of ‘our land, our rent, our jobs’ dogma. “Oh, yes, I do know him. That dude… ‘Sound Of Metal’, right?” was someone’s social media reaction to a post on Riz Ahmed. It is appalling that Ahmed, a longtime British-Pakistani actor-rapper, a Primetime Emmy Award winner, and this, in 2021—Oscars nomination for ‘Best Actor In A Leading Role’— is his only claim to fame? A line from Ahmed’s own song—‘Immigrants (We Get The Job Done)' from ‘The Hamilton Mixtape’—lingers on my mind as I try to put a fitting conclusion to his segment: “It's a hard line when you're an import/ The credit is only borrowed/ Look how far I come.” Isn’t that always the case, eh? There’s a fresh wave of zeal for being global stars in Bollywood—‘the world is your stage’, like they say—which is marvelous, in all honesty. The Priyankas, and maybe even the Deepikas, of India will hold the black ladies and golden statues of America someday—hey, Nick Jonas has made that prediction about his wife already, and a flurry of GenZ material will suit, too. But is it worth the agent fees and expensive tickets and all that jazz for being, let’s say for example, a taxi driver in some future installment of ‘Deadpool’ where South-East Asians are a Karan Soni, and Ryan Reynolds, still the Deadpool? There’s a joke among my peers about Dev Patel every time an Indian or Pakistani role goes to some actor that is not Mr. Patel himself—which, between us, is rarely the case. “Abbe, Dev Patel busy hoga… Abbe, Dev Patel zyada charge kar rahaan hoga… (Man, Dev Patel must be busy…. Dev Patel must be charging more). Actors from this side of the globe have been synonymous to small, insignificant, nameless characters in Hollywood for so long that even Indians struggle to comprehend how—on Earth—did a new, promising actor even make it to Hollywood, or just Netflix? Isn’t that just brutally sad? Probably the least known controversy surrounding Steven Spielberg—and we get why; the man, the mystery, the whole shebang—is that he lifted the basic idea of ‘E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial’ from Indian masterpiece-deliverer, the late Satyajit Ray’s unreleased film ‘The Alien’. Like Chan, Ray did get an honorary Oscar in 1992 for his outstanding contribution to cinema—but he was given the award in haste, while on his death bed, and not half as ‘young’ as Chan. Even in death, Ray’s thunder was stolen by a white man—it is believed that Spielberg, along with his other high-brow industry friends, pushed for Ray’s honorary award. For obvious reasons, you get it. WHAT CHANGED? Although some of us are puffed with pride for making Asian artists—and rightly so—a part of the global fabric that forms the very essence of cinema, a question that needs to be pondered upon: If #OscarsSoWhite triggered more nominations, and subsequent wins, for the black community, then has the unfortunate #stopasianhate played a catalyst in putting Asians on a pedestal? True, between haters ‘busting bindis’ (South-East Asian reference) and #IAMNOTAVIRUS hashtags, Asians have broken many artistic barriers. But, has recognition become the new form of appeasement? Hope not. No, after all these years, this better not be a fad. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Asian representation in Hollywood: Better now than later

For years, the United States has adopted a wary tolerance of Haiti, batting aside the horror of kidnappings, murders and gang warfare. The more convenient strategy generally seemed to be backing whichever government was in power and supplying endless amounts of foreign aid.

Donald Trump supported President Jovenel Moïse mainly because Mr. Moïse supported a campaign to oust President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. And in February, the Biden administration accepted Mr. Moïse’s tenuous argument that he still had another year to serve despite opposition calls for his departure and large street protests. Mr. Moïse, though initially elected to a five-year term due to end in 2021, did not take office until 2017, thus his claim to an extra year as president.

There had appeared to be a tacit understanding during Mr. Moïse’s rule: Haiti is turbulent and difficult, a bomb waiting to explode in the hands of anyone who attempts to defuse it. After all, why should Mr. Biden take on the unrewarding task of “fixing” Haiti when there was already an elected president in office who could bear the brunt of criticism about the deteriorating political situation there?

But the assassination of Mr. Moïse on Wednesday will now force a reluctant administration to focus more carefully on the next steps it wants to take concerning Haiti. There are no simple options.

The killing has destroyed the Biden administration’s hopes (however far-fetched) for a peaceful transfer of power with elections presided over by Mr. Moïse. But that’s not to say that Haiti’s future is entirely up to the United States nor should it be. When the United States has stepped in, Haitians have ended up worse off. When President Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam was killed by an angry crowd in 1915, U.S. Navy ships lay on the Haitian coast waiting to quell unrest to keep Haiti stable for American business interests there. In the wake of the killing, U.S. Marines occupied Haiti and remained there for 19 years.

U.S. interventions didn’t stop there. In 1986, the dictatorship of Jean-Claude Duvalier (and his father before him) fell to a combination of popular unrest in Haiti and political maneuvering by Washington. The country managed to hold its first free and fair elections in 1990, in which Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a former liberation-theology priest, was elected. Three years after Mr. Aristide was removed in a coup, the Clinton administration reinstated him.

Haiti was never able to shake off the foreign yoke, except, one might argue, during the darkest days of the Duvalier regime. Over the years it has been at the mercy of the United States, of course, and of the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank, the Organization of American States and the United Nations, which deployed a peacekeeping force there from 2004 until 2017. Yet Haiti has ended up just as poor and unstable as ever, if not more so. And the country never truly recovered from a devastating earthquake in 2010.

Drug cartels and their Haitian connections have also played a damaging role. Observers say that much of the violence in recent years has stemmed from turf wars between street gangs operating in a largely lawless environment.

The presidential mandate of Mr. Moïse itself was iffy, to say the least. Only 21 percent of the electorate voted in that election. Nevertheless, it was easier for the United States and other parties to tolerate Mr. Moïse and wait for the next elections, no matter how flawed they were likely to be, than to deal with a void created by his assassination.

President Biden has called Mr. Moïse’s killing “very worrisome.” But Haiti was very worrisome even before the killing. Now the United States is confronted by an even murkier situation there: no leader, no legislature, a justice system in disarray, a nonfunctioning and dispirited police and army, and gangs roaming the streets. It’s not clear what will emerge from the vacuum at the top — perhaps a new strongman or, less likely, an interim government.

Despite that precariousness, the United States has still called for elections before the end of the year. But it’s hard to imagine how elections can proceed in an atmosphere of security and freedom, leading to a truly democratically elected president and legislature. As it stands, two men are claiming the role of prime minister, accentuating the sense of instability.

Haiti’s problems cannot be solved by U.S. intervention. The United States no longer has the standing, the stomach or even the desire to impose its vision on Haiti. The best option right now for the United States is to wait and watch and listen not just to the usual suspects but to a broad new generation of Haitian democrats who can responsibly begin to move toward a more workable Haitian polity.

Haiti still needs the cooperation of international friends who pay attention to the character and the goals of those to whom they extend financial and political support, rather than choosing a convenient candidate in a quickie election, with the catastrophic results for the country that we’ve seen in the past.

A majority of Haitians want to build back their institutions and return to a normal life: schools, clinics and businesses opening again, a plan to deal with the Covid-19 crisis, produce markets functioning and safe streets free from the threat of armed gangs. This is the best of all possible outcomes for Haiti — but sadly, it’s improbable, at least in the near future.

For years, the United States has adopted a wary tolerance of Haiti, batting aside the horror of kidnappings, murders and gang warfare. The more convenient strategy generally seemed to be backing whichever government was in power and supplying endless amounts of foreign aid.

For years, the United States has adopted a wary tolerance of Haiti, batting aside the horror of kidnappings, murders and gang warfare. The more convenient strategy generally seemed to be backing whichever government was in power and supplying endless amounts of foreign aid. Donald Trump supported President Jovenel Moïse mainly because Mr. Moïse supported a campaign to oust President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. And in February, the Biden administration accepted Mr. Moïse’s tenuous argument that he still had another year to serve despite opposition calls for his departure and large street protests. Mr. Moïse, though initially elected to a five-year term due to end in 2021, did not take office until 2017, thus his claim to an extra year as president. There had appeared to be a tacit understanding during Mr. Moïse’s rule: Haiti is turbulent and difficult, a bomb waiting to explode in the hands of anyone who attempts to defuse it. After all, why should Mr. Biden take on the unrewarding task of “fixing” Haiti when there was already an elected president in office who could bear the brunt of criticism about the deteriorating political situation there? But the assassination of Mr. Moïse on Wednesday will now force a reluctant administration to focus more carefully on the next steps it wants to take concerning Haiti. There are no simple options. The killing has destroyed the Biden administration’s hopes (however far-fetched) for a peaceful transfer of power with elections presided over by Mr. Moïse. But that’s not to say that Haiti’s future is entirely up to the United States nor should it be. When the United States has stepped in, Haitians have ended up worse off. When President Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam was killed by an angry crowd in 1915, U.S. Navy ships lay on the Haitian coast waiting to quell unrest to keep Haiti stable for American business interests there. In the wake of the killing, U.S. Marines occupied Haiti and remained there for 19 years. U.S. interventions didn’t stop there. In 1986, the dictatorship of Jean-Claude Duvalier (and his father before him) fell to a combination of popular unrest in Haiti and political maneuvering by Washington. The country managed to hold its first free and fair elections in 1990, in which Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a former liberation-theology priest, was elected. Three years after Mr. Aristide was removed in a coup, the Clinton administration reinstated him. Haiti was never able to shake off the foreign yoke, except, one might argue, during the darkest days of the Duvalier regime. Over the years it has been at the mercy of the United States, of course, and of the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank, the Organization of American States and the United Nations, which deployed a peacekeeping force there from 2004 until 2017. Yet Haiti has ended up just as poor and unstable as ever, if not more so. And the country never truly recovered from a devastating earthquake in 2010. Drug cartels and their Haitian connections have also played a damaging role. Observers say that much of the violence in recent years has stemmed from turf wars between street gangs operating in a largely lawless environment. The presidential mandate of Mr. Moïse itself was iffy, to say the least. Only 21 percent of the electorate voted in that election. Nevertheless, it was easier for the United States and other parties to tolerate Mr. Moïse and wait for the next elections, no matter how flawed they were likely to be, than to deal with a void created by his assassination. President Biden has called Mr. Moïse’s killing “very worrisome.” But Haiti was very worrisome even before the killing. Now the United States is confronted by an even murkier situation there: no leader, no legislature, a justice system in disarray, a nonfunctioning and dispirited police and army, and gangs roaming the streets. It’s not clear what will emerge from the vacuum at the top — perhaps a new strongman or, less likely, an interim government. Despite that precariousness, the United States has still called for elections before the end of the year. But it’s hard to imagine how elections can proceed in an atmosphere of security and freedom, leading to a truly democratically elected president and legislature. As it stands, two men are claiming the role of prime minister, accentuating the sense of instability. Haiti’s problems cannot be solved by U.S. intervention. The United States no longer has the standing, the stomach or even the desire to impose its vision on Haiti. The best option right now for the United States is to wait and watch and listen not just to the usual suspects but to a broad new generation of Haitian democrats who can responsibly begin to move toward a more workable Haitian polity. Haiti still needs the cooperation of international friends who pay attention to the character and the goals of those to whom they extend financial and political support, rather than choosing a convenient candidate in a quickie election, with the catastrophic results for the country that we’ve seen in the past. A majority of Haitians want to build back their institutions and return to a normal life: schools, clinics and businesses opening again, a plan to deal with the Covid-19 crisis, produce markets functioning and safe streets free from the threat of armed gangs. This is the best of all possible outcomes for Haiti — but sadly, it’s improbable, at least in the near future.

Haiti is in peril, and there are no simple options

Widely seen as a populist with ultra-conservative inklings, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan increasingly appears to reinforce widespread traditionalist attitudes that reject religious tolerance as well as the rights of women and minorities.

In doing so, Mr Khan is aligning Pakistan in religious and social terms closer to Turkey than his country’s traditional allies, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has bolstered religious education at home as well as in Turkish schools abroad and recently withdrew from an international women’s rights convention.

Mr Khan’s foreign minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, reportedly was scheduled to meet this week in Islamabad with Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel Al-Jubeir amid concern about regional security as US forces withdraw from Afghanistan and the Taliban rapidly gain ground.

Saudi Arabia, once a bulwark of religious ultra-conservatism, has, like the United Arab Emirates, sought to shave off the raw edges of its long-standing austere interpretation of Islam, liberalize social mores, enhance women’s mobility and professional opportunities, and position the kingdom as a proponent of a moderate form of Islam that highlights religious tolerance and inter-faith dialogue while supporting autocratic rule.

Except for his empathy with authoritarianism, Mr. Khan appears to be going in the opposite direction. In doing so, Mr. Khan can dip into a deep reservoir of ultra-conservatism in Pakistan that was fueled in part until the rise in 2015 of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman by decades of Saudi financial, material, and religious support.

Last month, the prime minister pushed the implementation of educational reform that would Islamicise syllabi across the board from primary schools to universities. Arabic would be mandatory for the first 12 years of a child’s schooling. Critics charge that religion would account for up to 30 per cent of the new syllabus.

Fueling controversy, Mr. Khan recently blamed increased sexual violence in Pakistan on women who failed to dress properly. “If a woman is wearing very few clothes, it will have an impact on the men, unless they are robots. It’s just common sense,” Mr. Khan said.

The prime minister went on to say that the practice of wearing a veil existed so “that there is no temptation in society.”

Earlier, Mr. Qureshi, the foreign minister, told CNN that Israel had “deep pockets” and was home to “very influential people” who “control media.”

When accused by the interviewer of employing anti-Semitic tropes and asked to condemn anti-Semitism, Mr. Qureshi sidestepped the question by saying: “I will not justify any rocket attacks…and I cannot condone the aerial bombardment that is taking place.” Mr Qureishi was speaking in May as Israel responded to rockets fired by Hamas, the Islamist group that controls Gaza, with a massive assault on the territory.

A recent explosion in Lahore that killed three people and wounded 27 others appeared to suggest that there could be regional consequences to the ultra-conservative moves. The explosion was seen by analysts and officials as India warning the government not to ease a crackdown on Islamic militants who long did Pakistan’s bidding in disputed Kashmir.

Mr. Khan’s national security advisor, Moeed Yousuf, said an investigation had concluded that the explosion was a car bomb planted by Indian intelligence near the home of Hafiz Saeed, a leader of the outlawed Jamat ud-Dawa and founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, another Kashmir-focused group banned as a terrorist organization.

It was not immediately clear whether Mr. Saeed was at home at the time of the explosion. Sentenced to multiple prison terms on terrorism-related charges, some sources suggested that he had been allowed to serve time under house arrest.

Without identifying India by name, Pakistan’s Punjab province police chief, Inam Ghani, said a United Arab Emirates-based Pakistani national had recruited local Pakistanis to place the bomb.

The UAE mediated earlier this year a revival of a lapsed ceasefire between India and Pakistan along the Line of Control that divides Kashmiri into an Indian and Pakistani-controlled bit. The line often was a flashpoint along which Pakistani-backed militants operated.

A United Nations-designated terrorist, the US Department of Justice has put a US$10 million bounty on the head of Mr. Saeed. Mr. Saeed is believed to have masterminded the 2008 attacks on multiple targets in Mumbai that killed 165 people.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international anti-money laundering and terrorism finance watchdog, recently refused to remove Pakistan from its grey watchlist because the country had not been vigorous enough in the prosecution of United Nations-designated terrorists.

Grey listing carries no legal sanctions but restricts a country’s access to international loans. Mr. Qureshi, the Pakistani foreign minister, estimated that the grey listing cost his country’s economy US$10 billion a year.

Mr. Khan’s ultra-conservative inklings suggest that Saudi and US hopes that Pakistan, the world’s second-most populous Muslim-majority country, may pave the way for the kingdom’s establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel by going first, is a figment of the imagination.

A former senior adviser to Mr. Khan denied days before the reported talks with Mr. Al-Jubeir, the Saudi minister, that he had secretly visited Israel for meetings with senior government officials.

Sayed Zulfi Bukhari tweeted "DIDNOT go to Israel. Funny bit is Pakistani paper says I went to Israel based on ‘Israeli news source’ &amp; Israeli paper says I went to Israel based on a ‘Pakistani source’-wonder who this imaginative Pakistani source is. Apparently, I’m the only one who was kept out of the loop.” Mr. Bukhari resigned weeks before the tweet after being accused of abuse of power in a government report.

The issue of Saudi recognition of Israel is likely to be a topic in talks in Washington this week between US officials and visiting Saudi Deputy Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman.

Saudi Arabia, in a move primarily targeting the United Arab Emirates, which last year established diplomatic relations with Israel, signaled its refusal to follow suit by altering its application of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) customs tariffs.

The kingdom said it was exempting from GCC preferential treatment goods that include components manufactured in Israel or made by companies fully or partially owned by entities on the Arab League boycott list because of their commercial relations with Israel.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.) 
&nbsp;

Widely seen as a populist with ultra-conservative inklings, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan increasingly appears to reinforce widespread traditionalist attitudes that reject religious tolerance as well as the rights of women and minorities.

Widely seen as a populist with ultra-conservative inklings, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan increasingly appears to reinforce widespread traditionalist attitudes that reject religious tolerance as well as the rights of women and minorities. In doing so, Mr Khan is aligning Pakistan in religious and social terms closer to Turkey than his country’s traditional allies, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has bolstered religious education at home as well as in Turkish schools abroad and recently withdrew from an international women’s rights convention. Mr Khan’s foreign minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, reportedly was scheduled to meet this week in Islamabad with Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel Al-Jubeir amid concern about regional security as US forces withdraw from Afghanistan and the Taliban rapidly gain ground. Saudi Arabia, once a bulwark of religious ultra-conservatism, has, like the United Arab Emirates, sought to shave off the raw edges of its long-standing austere interpretation of Islam, liberalize social mores, enhance women’s mobility and professional opportunities, and position the kingdom as a proponent of a moderate form of Islam that highlights religious tolerance and inter-faith dialogue while supporting autocratic rule. Except for his empathy with authoritarianism, Mr. Khan appears to be going in the opposite direction. In doing so, Mr. Khan can dip into a deep reservoir of ultra-conservatism in Pakistan that was fueled in part until the rise in 2015 of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman by decades of Saudi financial, material, and religious support. Last month, the prime minister pushed the implementation of educational reform that would Islamicise syllabi across the board from primary schools to universities. Arabic would be mandatory for the first 12 years of a child’s schooling. Critics charge that religion would account for up to 30 per cent of the new syllabus. Fueling controversy, Mr. Khan recently blamed increased sexual violence in Pakistan on women who failed to dress properly. “If a woman is wearing very few clothes, it will have an impact on the men, unless they are robots. It’s just common sense,” Mr. Khan said. The prime minister went on to say that the practice of wearing a veil existed so “that there is no temptation in society.” Earlier, Mr. Qureshi, the foreign minister, told CNN that Israel had “deep pockets” and was home to “very influential people” who “control media.” When accused by the interviewer of employing anti-Semitic tropes and asked to condemn anti-Semitism, Mr. Qureshi sidestepped the question by saying: “I will not justify any rocket attacks…and I cannot condone the aerial bombardment that is taking place.” Mr Qureishi was speaking in May as Israel responded to rockets fired by Hamas, the Islamist group that controls Gaza, with a massive assault on the territory. A recent explosion in Lahore that killed three people and wounded 27 others appeared to suggest that there could be regional consequences to the ultra-conservative moves. The explosion was seen by analysts and officials as India warning the government not to ease a crackdown on Islamic militants who long did Pakistan’s bidding in disputed Kashmir. Mr. Khan’s national security advisor, Moeed Yousuf, said an investigation had concluded that the explosion was a car bomb planted by Indian intelligence near the home of Hafiz Saeed, a leader of the outlawed Jamat ud-Dawa and founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, another Kashmir-focused group banned as a terrorist organization. It was not immediately clear whether Mr. Saeed was at home at the time of the explosion. Sentenced to multiple prison terms on terrorism-related charges, some sources suggested that he had been allowed to serve time under house arrest. Without identifying India by name, Pakistan’s Punjab province police chief, Inam Ghani, said a United Arab Emirates-based Pakistani national had recruited local Pakistanis to place the bomb. The UAE mediated earlier this year a revival of a lapsed ceasefire between India and Pakistan along the Line of Control that divides Kashmiri into an Indian and Pakistani-controlled bit. The line often was a flashpoint along which Pakistani-backed militants operated. A United Nations-designated terrorist, the US Department of Justice has put a US$10 million bounty on the head of Mr. Saeed. Mr. Saeed is believed to have masterminded the 2008 attacks on multiple targets in Mumbai that killed 165 people. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international anti-money laundering and terrorism finance watchdog, recently refused to remove Pakistan from its grey watchlist because the country had not been vigorous enough in the prosecution of United Nations-designated terrorists. Grey listing carries no legal sanctions but restricts a country’s access to international loans. Mr. Qureshi, the Pakistani foreign minister, estimated that the grey listing cost his country’s economy US$10 billion a year. Mr. Khan’s ultra-conservative inklings suggest that Saudi and US hopes that Pakistan, the world’s second-most populous Muslim-majority country, may pave the way for the kingdom’s establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel by going first, is a figment of the imagination. A former senior adviser to Mr. Khan denied days before the reported talks with Mr. Al-Jubeir, the Saudi minister, that he had secretly visited Israel for meetings with senior government officials. Sayed Zulfi Bukhari tweeted "DIDNOT go to Israel. Funny bit is Pakistani paper says I went to Israel based on ‘Israeli news source’ & Israeli paper says I went to Israel based on a ‘Pakistani source’-wonder who this imaginative Pakistani source is. Apparently, I’m the only one who was kept out of the loop.” Mr. Bukhari resigned weeks before the tweet after being accused of abuse of power in a government report. The issue of Saudi recognition of Israel is likely to be a topic in talks in Washington this week between US officials and visiting Saudi Deputy Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman. Saudi Arabia, in a move primarily targeting the United Arab Emirates, which last year established diplomatic relations with Israel, signaled its refusal to follow suit by altering its application of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) customs tariffs. The kingdom said it was exempting from GCC preferential treatment goods that include components manufactured in Israel or made by companies fully or partially owned by entities on the Arab League boycott list because of their commercial relations with Israel. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion: Pakistani PM Khan’s ultra-conservative inklings raise eyebrows

In my last column I tried to describe part of the current controversy over race and K-12 education — the part that turns on whether it’s possible to tell a fuller historical story about slavery and segregation while also retaining a broadly patriotic understanding of America’s founding and development.

In this column I will try to describe the part of the controversy that concerns how we teach about racism today. It’s probably the more intense debate, driving both progressive zeal and conservative backlash.

Again, I want to start with what the new progressivism is interested in changing. One change involves increasingly familiar terms like “structural” and “systemic” racism, and the attempt to teach about race in a way that emphasizes not just explicitly racist laws and attitudes but also how America’s racist past still influences inequalities today.

In theory, this shift is supposed to enable debates that avoid using “racist” as a personal accusation — since the point is that a culture can sustain persistent racial inequalities even if most white people aren’t bigoted or biased.

Still, this kind of vision would, on its own, face inevitable conservative resistance on several grounds: that it overstates the challenges facing minorities in America today; that it seems to de-emphasize personal responsibility; that it implies policy responses (racial quotas, reparations) that are racially discriminatory, arguably unconstitutional and definitely threatening to the white middle class.

But the basic claim that structural racism exists has strong evidence behind it, and the idea that schools should teach about it in some way is probably a winning argument for progressives. (Almost half of college Republicans, in a recent poll, supported teaching about how “patterns of racism are ingrained in law and other institutions.”) Especially since not every application of the structural-racist diagnosis implies left-wing policy conclusions: The anti-abortion and school choice movements, for instance, regularly invoke the impact of past progressive racism on disproportionately high African American abortion rates and underperforming public schools.

What’s really inflaming today’s fights, though, is that the structural-racist diagnosis isn’t being offered on its own. Instead it’s yoked to two sweeping theories about how to fight the problem it describes.

First, there is a novel theory of moral education, according to which the best way to deal with systemic inequality is to confront its white beneficiaries with their privileges and encourage them to wrestle with their sins.

Second, there is a Manichaean vision of public policy, in which all policymaking is either racist or anti-racist, all racial disparities are the result of racism — and the measurement of any outcome short of perfect “equity” may be a form of structural racism itself.

The first idea is associated with Robin DiAngelo, the second with Ibram X. Kendi, and they converge in places like the work of Tema Okun, whose presentations train educators to see “white supremacy culture” at work in traditional measures of academic attainment.

The impulses these ideas encourage take different forms in different institutions, but they usually circle around to similar goals: first, the attempt to use racial-education programs to construct a stronger sense of shared white identity, on the apparent theory that making Americans of European ancestry think of themselves as defined by a toxic “whiteness” will lead to its purgation; second, the deconstruction of standards that manifest racial disparities, on the apparent theory that if we stop using gifted courses or standardized tests, the inequities they reveal will cease to matter.

These goals, it should be stressed, don’t follow necessarily from the theory of structural racism. The first idea arguably betrays the theory’s key insight, that you can have “racism without racists,” by deliberately trying to increase individual racial guilt. The second extends structural analysis beyond what it can reasonably bear, into territory where white supremacy supposedly explains Asian American success on the SAT.

But precisely because they don’t follow from modest and defensible conceptions of systemic racism, smart progressives in the media often retreat to those modest conceptions when challenged by conservatives — without acknowledging that the dubious conceptions are a big part of what’s been amplifying controversy and conjuring up dubious Republican legislation in response.

Here one could say that figures like Kendi and DiAngelo, and the complex of foundations and bureaucracies that have embraced the new anti-racism, increasingly play a similar role to talk radio in the Republican coalition. They represent an ideological extremism that embarrasses clever liberals, as the spirit of Limbaugh often embarrassed right-wing intellectuals. But this embarrassment encourages a pretense that their influence is modest, their excesses forgivable, and the real problem is always the evils of the other side.

That pretense worked out badly for the right, whose intelligentsia awoke in 2016 to discover that they no longer recognized their own coalition. It would be helpful if liberals currently dismissing anxiety over Kendian or DiAngelan ideas as just a “moral panic” experienced a similar awakening now — before progressivism simply becomes its excesses, and the way back to sanity is closed. 
 
(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

In my last column I tried to describe part of the current controversy over race and K-12 education — the part that turns on whether it’s possible to tell a fuller historical story about slavery and segregation while also retaining a broadly patriotic understanding of America’s founding and development.

In my last column I tried to describe part of the current controversy over race and K-12 education — the part that turns on whether it’s possible to tell a fuller historical story about slavery and segregation while also retaining a broadly patriotic understanding of America’s founding and development. In this column I will try to describe the part of the controversy that concerns how we teach about racism today. It’s probably the more intense debate, driving both progressive zeal and conservative backlash. Again, I want to start with what the new progressivism is interested in changing. One change involves increasingly familiar terms like “structural” and “systemic” racism, and the attempt to teach about race in a way that emphasizes not just explicitly racist laws and attitudes but also how America’s racist past still influences inequalities today. In theory, this shift is supposed to enable debates that avoid using “racist” as a personal accusation — since the point is that a culture can sustain persistent racial inequalities even if most white people aren’t bigoted or biased. Still, this kind of vision would, on its own, face inevitable conservative resistance on several grounds: that it overstates the challenges facing minorities in America today; that it seems to de-emphasize personal responsibility; that it implies policy responses (racial quotas, reparations) that are racially discriminatory, arguably unconstitutional and definitely threatening to the white middle class. But the basic claim that structural racism exists has strong evidence behind it, and the idea that schools should teach about it in some way is probably a winning argument for progressives. (Almost half of college Republicans, in a recent poll, supported teaching about how “patterns of racism are ingrained in law and other institutions.”) Especially since not every application of the structural-racist diagnosis implies left-wing policy conclusions: The anti-abortion and school choice movements, for instance, regularly invoke the impact of past progressive racism on disproportionately high African American abortion rates and underperforming public schools. What’s really inflaming today’s fights, though, is that the structural-racist diagnosis isn’t being offered on its own. Instead it’s yoked to two sweeping theories about how to fight the problem it describes. First, there is a novel theory of moral education, according to which the best way to deal with systemic inequality is to confront its white beneficiaries with their privileges and encourage them to wrestle with their sins. Second, there is a Manichaean vision of public policy, in which all policymaking is either racist or anti-racist, all racial disparities are the result of racism — and the measurement of any outcome short of perfect “equity” may be a form of structural racism itself. The first idea is associated with Robin DiAngelo, the second with Ibram X. Kendi, and they converge in places like the work of Tema Okun, whose presentations train educators to see “white supremacy culture” at work in traditional measures of academic attainment. The impulses these ideas encourage take different forms in different institutions, but they usually circle around to similar goals: first, the attempt to use racial-education programs to construct a stronger sense of shared white identity, on the apparent theory that making Americans of European ancestry think of themselves as defined by a toxic “whiteness” will lead to its purgation; second, the deconstruction of standards that manifest racial disparities, on the apparent theory that if we stop using gifted courses or standardized tests, the inequities they reveal will cease to matter. These goals, it should be stressed, don’t follow necessarily from the theory of structural racism. The first idea arguably betrays the theory’s key insight, that you can have “racism without racists,” by deliberately trying to increase individual racial guilt. The second extends structural analysis beyond what it can reasonably bear, into territory where white supremacy supposedly explains Asian American success on the SAT. But precisely because they don’t follow from modest and defensible conceptions of systemic racism, smart progressives in the media often retreat to those modest conceptions when challenged by conservatives — without acknowledging that the dubious conceptions are a big part of what’s been amplifying controversy and conjuring up dubious Republican legislation in response. Here one could say that figures like Kendi and DiAngelo, and the complex of foundations and bureaucracies that have embraced the new anti-racism, increasingly play a similar role to talk radio in the Republican coalition. They represent an ideological extremism that embarrasses clever liberals, as the spirit of Limbaugh often embarrassed right-wing intellectuals. But this embarrassment encourages a pretense that their influence is modest, their excesses forgivable, and the real problem is always the evils of the other side. That pretense worked out badly for the right, whose intelligentsia awoke in 2016 to discover that they no longer recognized their own coalition. It would be helpful if liberals currently dismissing anxiety over Kendian or DiAngelan ideas as just a “moral panic” experienced a similar awakening now — before progressivism simply becomes its excesses, and the way back to sanity is closed. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion | The excesses of anti-racist education

In a major restructuring like reorganising Indian Military into Theatre Commands, there will be variation of views between stakeholders and many rounds of discussions on merits and demerits of the existing force structure vis-a-vis the proposed one; hence it may not be appropriate to call it a ‘turf war’ as has been referred in some media reports.

Is the Timing Right?

Today, India is facing a ‘Two Front Threat’ in real terms, in a manner that it is already in standoff with the largest military in the world, and the other adversary is also devising new ways to disturb peace through drones/terror attacks. Irrespective of merits and demerits of theaterisation, strategically, it is not the right time to go through such a major apex level restructuring, when the largest military force is knocking at Line of Actual Control. Such major restructuring takes at least few years of teething problems; hence it will bring turbulence in time tested command structure during the intervening period, a risk which the country must avoid. In an overdrive to minimise cost of defence, or meet certain personality oriented deadlines, the restructuring should not compromise operational effectiveness of Indian Military. &nbsp;

What needs to be restructured?&nbsp;

Regarding implementation of Indian model of Theatre Commands, I endorse Air Defence Command, Defence Space Agency (DSA), Armed Forces Special Operations Division (AFSOD), integration in logistics and recommend up-gradation of Defence Cyber Agency (DCA) to “Information Warfare Command” as explained in my detailed analysis. &nbsp; 
The critical shortage of air and other assets is a concern, too serious to be overlooked. The Maritime Command accruing advantage of unity of command, will have to be weighed against manageability of increased span of control, as Indian definition of Indo-Pacific and area of maritime interest has grown from eastern coasts of Africa to northern Pacific, up to Japan. With tri-service structure, reporting to single Service Chief has its own &nbsp;problems. Reporting to CDS may be difficult for him to manage them in operations, (unmanageable span of control), and he not being tasked and organised for it. The first priority of India should be to do capability development over restructuring of apex level restructuring.

The Air Power Debate!

The Indian Air Force is an offensive component of Indian Military. It has national role besides synergising with other services to contribute to national combat power. For comprehensive air battle, with inadequate air resources, switching assets between operational commands of same service is much more effective than trying to do so between integrated theatre commands with dedicated resources, through CDS/ COSC Committee System.&nbsp;

It also needs to be noted that with the current speed of fighter aircrafts and high intensity of lethal air defence systems, globally, the close air support role is being performed better by attack helicopters and variety of artillery assets due to safety concerns. New generation aircrafts are mostly multi-role, increasingly employed for long and short-range interdiction, creating favourable air situation, degradation, offensive air missions and strategic national missions.&nbsp;

Indianised Model&nbsp;

US and China have laid down expeditionary role for their military away from mainland; hence their theatre commands like Indo-Pacific Command can’t be supported from air assets from mainland, which justifies separate allocation of air assets.&nbsp;

Both these countries have done so after reaching self-reliance in defence production. In case of India, expeditionary role doesn’t hold good for considerable period, when it finds raising of much needed mountain strike corps to threaten immediate adversary too costly. India must first bring up its asset availability up to a point that they can be distributed as first priority, with indigenous technology and hardware by self-reliance, which is a work in progress.&nbsp;

Everyone needs focus on capacity building at this time under discernible ‘Two Front Threat’, rather than igniting debates on apex level Restructuring, which doesn’t improve combat capability very much at cutting edge, where we need more military assets like aircrafts and drones.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

In a major restructuring like reorganising Indian Military into Theatre Commands, there will be variation of views between stakeholders and many rounds of discussions on merits and demerits of the existing force structure vis-a-vis the proposed one; hence it may not be appropriate to call it a ‘turf war’ as has been referred in some media reports.

In a major restructuring like reorganising Indian Military into Theatre Commands, there will be variation of views between stakeholders and many rounds of discussions on merits and demerits of the existing force structure vis-a-vis the proposed one; hence it may not be appropriate to call it a ‘turf war’ as has been referred in some media reports. Is the Timing Right? Today, India is facing a ‘Two Front Threat’ in real terms, in a manner that it is already in standoff with the largest military in the world, and the other adversary is also devising new ways to disturb peace through drones/terror attacks. Irrespective of merits and demerits of theaterisation, strategically, it is not the right time to go through such a major apex level restructuring, when the largest military force is knocking at Line of Actual Control. Such major restructuring takes at least few years of teething problems; hence it will bring turbulence in time tested command structure during the intervening period, a risk which the country must avoid. In an overdrive to minimise cost of defence, or meet certain personality oriented deadlines, the restructuring should not compromise operational effectiveness of Indian Military. What needs to be restructured? Regarding implementation of Indian model of Theatre Commands, I endorse Air Defence Command, Defence Space Agency (DSA), Armed Forces Special Operations Division (AFSOD), integration in logistics and recommend up-gradation of Defence Cyber Agency (DCA) to “Information Warfare Command” as explained in my detailed analysis. The critical shortage of air and other assets is a concern, too serious to be overlooked. The Maritime Command accruing advantage of unity of command, will have to be weighed against manageability of increased span of control, as Indian definition of Indo-Pacific and area of maritime interest has grown from eastern coasts of Africa to northern Pacific, up to Japan. With tri-service structure, reporting to single Service Chief has its own problems. Reporting to CDS may be difficult for him to manage them in operations, (unmanageable span of control), and he not being tasked and organised for it. The first priority of India should be to do capability development over restructuring of apex level restructuring. The Air Power Debate! The Indian Air Force is an offensive component of Indian Military. It has national role besides synergising with other services to contribute to national combat power. For comprehensive air battle, with inadequate air resources, switching assets between operational commands of same service is much more effective than trying to do so between integrated theatre commands with dedicated resources, through CDS/ COSC Committee System. It also needs to be noted that with the current speed of fighter aircrafts and high intensity of lethal air defence systems, globally, the close air support role is being performed better by attack helicopters and variety of artillery assets due to safety concerns. New generation aircrafts are mostly multi-role, increasingly employed for long and short-range interdiction, creating favourable air situation, degradation, offensive air missions and strategic national missions. Indianised Model US and China have laid down expeditionary role for their military away from mainland; hence their theatre commands like Indo-Pacific Command can’t be supported from air assets from mainland, which justifies separate allocation of air assets. Both these countries have done so after reaching self-reliance in defence production. In case of India, expeditionary role doesn’t hold good for considerable period, when it finds raising of much needed mountain strike corps to threaten immediate adversary too costly. India must first bring up its asset availability up to a point that they can be distributed as first priority, with indigenous technology and hardware by self-reliance, which is a work in progress. Everyone needs focus on capacity building at this time under discernible ‘Two Front Threat’, rather than igniting debates on apex level Restructuring, which doesn’t improve combat capability very much at cutting edge, where we need more military assets like aircrafts and drones. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion | Theatre Commands: Is India on right path, at right time? 

For a while, it wasn’t clear that this week’s meeting in Geneva between President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Biden would go ahead.

Mr. Biden, seeking his first encounter as president with Mr. Putin, made the invitation in mid-April; but it took until the end of May for the summit to be confirmed. Despite Mr. Putin’s experience with American presidents — he’s dealt with four, across two decades — the Kremlin, Russian officials said, was considering the risk that Mr. Biden would use the meeting to publicly lecture his Russian counterpart on democracy and human rights.

The caution seemed reasonable. After all, the new American administration, especially by comparison with its predecessor, devotes considerable attention to promoting human rights across the globe. And Mr. Biden set out his stall when he agreed in an interview in March that Mr. Putin is a “killer.”

Yet the Kremlin eventually accepted the invitation. Why? Besides the chance to de-escalate tensions, there’s one very good reason: Mr. Putin has nothing to fear from Mr. Biden. Enduringly popular and freshly buoyed by the quashing of the opposition, Russia’s president has ample cause to feel secure. Whatever the American president might say in Geneva — or his administration do, by way of sanctions — will not affect Mr. Putin’s rule in Russia.

The first impediment for Mr. Biden is straightforward: His message will not get a good airing. Television, dominated by channels run or controlled by the state, remains the main source of news for three-quarters of Russians, so most people in Russia will see the American president through the Kremlin’s eyes. Independent media, recently curtailed by the authorities declaring several prominent outlets to be “foreign agents,” won’t be able to redress the imbalance.

Yet even without this media filter, Mr. Putin has no reason to fear any aspersions Mr. Biden might cast his way. Though the president’s popularity has waned a touch since its peak in 2014, he retains the trust and approval of over 60 percent of Russians, according to Levada Center, an independent and highly respected polling organization. This might be more inertia and apathy than a conscious political affiliation, but the result is the same. The opposition can only dream about such ratings: Support for the most prominent opposition leader, Aleksei Navalny, doesn’t rise above 20 percent.

The blame for that can’t be placed squarely on the Kremlin. Though the opposition is hampered by a range of state restrictions, the fact remains that opposition rallies do not attract significant numbers of participants. The last big protest in support of Mr. Navalny — one of the largest displays of dissent in the past decade — brought between 51,000 and 120,000 people to 109 cities across the country on April 21, according to opposition outlets. But even if you take the higher number, that amounts to less than 0.1 percent of the country’s population. Protesting is a minority interest.

And that’s not just because Russian authorities have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to brutally suppress gatherings. Many people unhappy with life in Russia stay away from protests because they don’t associate themselves with the organizers and don’t believe they can bring about change from the street. In a recent survey by the Levada Center, only 21 percent of respondents said they would consider going to a rally in support of economic demands, and even fewer, 16 percent, said they’d go in support of political demands. There are demographic divides — young people are generally more eager to protest — but that doesn’t really change the picture.

What’s more, those ready to actively challenge Mr. Putin’s rule have been repressed. Mr. Navalny, who returned to the country in January in the hope of setting off a substantive movement to oppose Mr. Putin, was imprisoned with a two-and-a-half-year sentence. Many of his allies were jailed, while others fled the country. And last week, his organization, the Anti-Corruption Foundation, whose activities were already suspended, was officially labeled “extremist” — effectively preventing its activists from running in future elections and further intimidating supporters.

It’s not just Mr. Navalny. Another opposition network — Open Russia, founded by a former oil tycoon and now exiled Kremlin critic, Mikhail Khodorkovsky — recently announced its closure, hoping to protect its coordinators. That didn’t stop the arrest on May 31 of one of the group’s executives, Andrey Pivovarov, who now faces up to six years in prison. Fearing the same fate, another prominent opposition figure, Dmitry Gudkov, fled to Ukraine in early June.

Ahead of September’s legislative elections, the authorities have disbanded the opposition and docked the media, closing down the space for dissent. But a majority of Russians, consumed by the concerns of everyday life and long inured to Mr. Putin’s rule, don’t seem to care much. With them, Mr. Biden’s message about the inviolability of human rights and the sanctity of democracy — both of which are slipping away in Russia, to no general uproar — is likely to ring hollow.

Even among Russians who actively support democracy, the rule of law and human rights, Mr. Biden won’t find much support. Over the past decades, many Russian liberals have become disillusioned with the West, especially the United States. For some, America’s image started to crack with the bombing of Yugoslavia and the war in Iraq. For others, it was the revelations of WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden, which brought to light a host of America’s covert operations and dirty dealings, that soured feelings of admiration.

And for many, the presidency of Donald Trump — during which Washington abandoned international agreements, treated allies as clients, badly mismanaged the pandemic and, most important, exacerbated political polarization and social dysfunction — definitively stripped America of its authority. With this legacy, no American president would have a substantial audience in Russia.

Secure internally and with little to lose, Vladimir Putin is ready for President Biden. As for his image in the United States and the rest of the West, it’s fair to assume — after years as their arch-villain and evil mastermind — that Mr. Putin couldn’t care less.

For a while, it wasn’t clear that this week’s meeting in Geneva between President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Biden would go ahead. Mr. Biden, seeking his first encounter as president with Mr.

For a while, it wasn’t clear that this week’s meeting in Geneva between President Vladimir Putin of Russia and President Biden would go ahead. Mr. Biden, seeking his first encounter as president with Mr. Putin, made the invitation in mid-April; but it took until the end of May for the summit to be confirmed. Despite Mr. Putin’s experience with American presidents — he’s dealt with four, across two decades — the Kremlin, Russian officials said, was considering the risk that Mr. Biden would use the meeting to publicly lecture his Russian counterpart on democracy and human rights. The caution seemed reasonable. After all, the new American administration, especially by comparison with its predecessor, devotes considerable attention to promoting human rights across the globe. And Mr. Biden set out his stall when he agreed in an interview in March that Mr. Putin is a “killer.” Yet the Kremlin eventually accepted the invitation. Why? Besides the chance to de-escalate tensions, there’s one very good reason: Mr. Putin has nothing to fear from Mr. Biden. Enduringly popular and freshly buoyed by the quashing of the opposition, Russia’s president has ample cause to feel secure. Whatever the American president might say in Geneva — or his administration do, by way of sanctions — will not affect Mr. Putin’s rule in Russia. The first impediment for Mr. Biden is straightforward: His message will not get a good airing. Television, dominated by channels run or controlled by the state, remains the main source of news for three-quarters of Russians, so most people in Russia will see the American president through the Kremlin’s eyes. Independent media, recently curtailed by the authorities declaring several prominent outlets to be “foreign agents,” won’t be able to redress the imbalance. Yet even without this media filter, Mr. Putin has no reason to fear any aspersions Mr. Biden might cast his way. Though the president’s popularity has waned a touch since its peak in 2014, he retains the trust and approval of over 60 percent of Russians, according to Levada Center, an independent and highly respected polling organization. This might be more inertia and apathy than a conscious political affiliation, but the result is the same. The opposition can only dream about such ratings: Support for the most prominent opposition leader, Aleksei Navalny, doesn’t rise above 20 percent. The blame for that can’t be placed squarely on the Kremlin. Though the opposition is hampered by a range of state restrictions, the fact remains that opposition rallies do not attract significant numbers of participants. The last big protest in support of Mr. Navalny — one of the largest displays of dissent in the past decade — brought between 51,000 and 120,000 people to 109 cities across the country on April 21, according to opposition outlets. But even if you take the higher number, that amounts to less than 0.1 percent of the country’s population. Protesting is a minority interest. And that’s not just because Russian authorities have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to brutally suppress gatherings. Many people unhappy with life in Russia stay away from protests because they don’t associate themselves with the organizers and don’t believe they can bring about change from the street. In a recent survey by the Levada Center, only 21 percent of respondents said they would consider going to a rally in support of economic demands, and even fewer, 16 percent, said they’d go in support of political demands. There are demographic divides — young people are generally more eager to protest — but that doesn’t really change the picture. What’s more, those ready to actively challenge Mr. Putin’s rule have been repressed. Mr. Navalny, who returned to the country in January in the hope of setting off a substantive movement to oppose Mr. Putin, was imprisoned with a two-and-a-half-year sentence. Many of his allies were jailed, while others fled the country. And last week, his organization, the Anti-Corruption Foundation, whose activities were already suspended, was officially labeled “extremist” — effectively preventing its activists from running in future elections and further intimidating supporters. It’s not just Mr. Navalny. Another opposition network — Open Russia, founded by a former oil tycoon and now exiled Kremlin critic, Mikhail Khodorkovsky — recently announced its closure, hoping to protect its coordinators. That didn’t stop the arrest on May 31 of one of the group’s executives, Andrey Pivovarov, who now faces up to six years in prison. Fearing the same fate, another prominent opposition figure, Dmitry Gudkov, fled to Ukraine in early June. Ahead of September’s legislative elections, the authorities have disbanded the opposition and docked the media, closing down the space for dissent. But a majority of Russians, consumed by the concerns of everyday life and long inured to Mr. Putin’s rule, don’t seem to care much. With them, Mr. Biden’s message about the inviolability of human rights and the sanctity of democracy — both of which are slipping away in Russia, to no general uproar — is likely to ring hollow. Even among Russians who actively support democracy, the rule of law and human rights, Mr. Biden won’t find much support. Over the past decades, many Russian liberals have become disillusioned with the West, especially the United States. For some, America’s image started to crack with the bombing of Yugoslavia and the war in Iraq. For others, it was the revelations of WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden, which brought to light a host of America’s covert operations and dirty dealings, that soured feelings of admiration. And for many, the presidency of Donald Trump — during which Washington abandoned international agreements, treated allies as clients, badly mismanaged the pandemic and, most important, exacerbated political polarization and social dysfunction — definitively stripped America of its authority. With this legacy, no American president would have a substantial audience in Russia. Secure internally and with little to lose, Vladimir Putin is ready for President Biden. As for his image in the United States and the rest of the West, it’s fair to assume — after years as their arch-villain and evil mastermind — that Mr. Putin couldn’t care less.

Sorry, Biden. Putin honestly could not care less

The position of women in the armed forces, which is described as a male-dominated establishment generally, offers a limited window for any kind of change in the role of women in occupational and bureaucratic structures. However, breaking the glass ceiling, two women officers have been selected to train as helicopter pilots at Combat Army Training School, Nashik. Till now, women officers were only limited to performing ground duties in the Army Aviation Corps.

In today’s times, women are walking shoulder to shoulder with men in all occupations.&nbsp;However, gender equality is still a paramount challenge in the armed forces. The Supreme Court last year ruled that women could serve as army commanders further granting permanent commission and promotions equal to their male counterparts.&nbsp;

The decisions stood in stark contrast to the Centre’s opinion, which belonged to the school of thought that women were not suitable for commanding posts in the army because male troops were not yet ready to accept their orders. However, women officers of the Indian Army are of the opinion that the trained soldiers should focus on the rank of the officer and not the gender. They further reiterate that performance should be criteria to decide, who rises in the ranks.

Since time, immemorial women have proved their mettle and performed extremely well in peace locations and in hostile zones. The role of women in the Indian Army began in 1888 when the ‘Indian Military Nursing Service’ was formed during the British Raj but it was only in 1992 that the organisation opened doors and started inducting women in non-medical roles. In 2015, India also opened new combat air force roles for women as fighter pilots. However, despite all these developments, the women in the Indian armed forces that constitute 3% of the Indian army are still not allowed to be a part of the active combat.

Active combat also known as the fighting arms of the armed forces is predominantly defined as individuals or groups fighting in a war and the causalities suffered in combat.&nbsp;

Employment of women in combat forces has become a paramount issue in the present day, there are two schools of thoughts emerging, the first professing that women officers are on a par with the male officers while performing the job on the other hand, the supporters of latter claim that it is the exploitation of women to deploy them in combat areas since they are not physically and psychologically fit to perform the job.

However, if we trace back in history, women have contributed their bit in the armed forces by working in the defence industry during the world wars. There were huge influxes of women in munitions, the work that was done by men previously. About a million women worked in munitions factories during the First World War making guns, shells and explosives.

The whole assumption that women lack resolution along with how fragility and delicacy are synonym to a women’s character has just erupted in the contemporary era because history is the testimony of the fact that women have always shown courage and valour.

The pivotal questions that lies here is that why is war a man’s business? The main reason quoted by the generals of the Indian Army and the people, who follow the latter school of thought is that, they are concerned over women’s vulnerability if captured and over their physical and mental ability to cope with the frontline deployments. Under such circumstances, the constant question being, whether women should serve in combat roles? The liberals argue that women should get access to the same military jobs as men; they are of the opinion that through this woman would also gain a greater political power. The conservatives reject the notion of women in combat. In the current status quo, women have been fighting for their right to equality in all spheres of occupation, they are demanding equal opportunity at workplace, hence, making the Indian army no exception to this wave of equality. The relevant question being that does the military need to change with the changing times?

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

The position of women in the armed forces, which is described as a male-dominated establishment generally, offers a limited window for any kind of change in the role of women in occupational and bureaucratic structures.

The position of women in the armed forces, which is described as a male-dominated establishment generally, offers a limited window for any kind of change in the role of women in occupational and bureaucratic structures. However, breaking the glass ceiling, two women officers have been selected to train as helicopter pilots at Combat Army Training School, Nashik. Till now, women officers were only limited to performing ground duties in the Army Aviation Corps. In today’s times, women are walking shoulder to shoulder with men in all occupations. However, gender equality is still a paramount challenge in the armed forces. The Supreme Court last year ruled that women could serve as army commanders further granting permanent commission and promotions equal to their male counterparts. The decisions stood in stark contrast to the Centre’s opinion, which belonged to the school of thought that women were not suitable for commanding posts in the army because male troops were not yet ready to accept their orders. However, women officers of the Indian Army are of the opinion that the trained soldiers should focus on the rank of the officer and not the gender. They further reiterate that performance should be criteria to decide, who rises in the ranks. Since time, immemorial women have proved their mettle and performed extremely well in peace locations and in hostile zones. The role of women in the Indian Army began in 1888 when the ‘Indian Military Nursing Service’ was formed during the British Raj but it was only in 1992 that the organisation opened doors and started inducting women in non-medical roles. In 2015, India also opened new combat air force roles for women as fighter pilots. However, despite all these developments, the women in the Indian armed forces that constitute 3% of the Indian army are still not allowed to be a part of the active combat. Active combat also known as the fighting arms of the armed forces is predominantly defined as individuals or groups fighting in a war and the causalities suffered in combat. Employment of women in combat forces has become a paramount issue in the present day, there are two schools of thoughts emerging, the first professing that women officers are on a par with the male officers while performing the job on the other hand, the supporters of latter claim that it is the exploitation of women to deploy them in combat areas since they are not physically and psychologically fit to perform the job. However, if we trace back in history, women have contributed their bit in the armed forces by working in the defence industry during the world wars. There were huge influxes of women in munitions, the work that was done by men previously. About a million women worked in munitions factories during the First World War making guns, shells and explosives. The whole assumption that women lack resolution along with how fragility and delicacy are synonym to a women’s character has just erupted in the contemporary era because history is the testimony of the fact that women have always shown courage and valour. The pivotal questions that lies here is that why is war a man’s business? The main reason quoted by the generals of the Indian Army and the people, who follow the latter school of thought is that, they are concerned over women’s vulnerability if captured and over their physical and mental ability to cope with the frontline deployments. Under such circumstances, the constant question being, whether women should serve in combat roles? The liberals argue that women should get access to the same military jobs as men; they are of the opinion that through this woman would also gain a greater political power. The conservatives reject the notion of women in combat. In the current status quo, women have been fighting for their right to equality in all spheres of occupation, they are demanding equal opportunity at workplace, hence, making the Indian army no exception to this wave of equality. The relevant question being that does the military need to change with the changing times? (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion: Changing role of women in the Indian armed forces

A chef’s knife. A painter’s brush. A writer’s pen. What would artists be without their tools (And the mild obsession we have with them)?

Since time immemorial, the image of the writer has been a figure bent over paper (or parchment, depending on how far you want to go) with a quill and a pot of ink. Next to a flame. There is always a flame!&nbsp;

So romantic is this visual that every aspiring writer has at some point adopted a fancy pen when committing to putting words on paper. The more old school ones will even go for a pot of ink to dip in! But those in the business of words can tell you, when you make a living out of writing, a certain number of words a day is function over romance! Sure, the poets and lyricists can still afford to indulge. But those of us who commit to manuscripts with a lakh or more words are cursed to carry a thought cloud threatening to disappear any moment, unless hastily scribbled as notes. Not to mention the fear of a manuscript washed out by spontaneous rain! Or an unexpected pen leakage in the bag, discovered when your hand emerged from it, stained in the pen’s blue blood… (True Story.)

No sir! I belong to the tribe of scribes that swears by the humble ball point pen. Fast. Efficient. And dependable.&nbsp;

I remember when we made the transition in Class 6 from pencil to pen. That was when I stopped getting the extra mark for neatness! But it wasn’t just that. A pencil provides the scope to make a mistake. No such thing with pens! Pens do not give second chances. They demand clarity of thought and an unfaltering will. My notebooks looked like tiny insects had dipped their feet in ink and had a parade on the page. The thick strokes from the nib of fountain pens aren’t kind to those with a shy, unsure hand.&nbsp;

Then one day I made the discovery- a Cello ball point pen! It had a tiny ball at the end of a needle-like nib that made thin, precise strokes. Neat, un-smudgeable writing. And the pen would just glide over the page, oh-so-smoothly! In blue and black. I still prefer blue.

I’m often asked what I prefer to write on- laptop or on paper with a pen. To that I say- laptop for short documents, emails, etc. But for real writing that requires thought, that demands filling page after page with story, when lines are struck out and re-written on top, barely fitting in the lines, when the sides are filled with side notes, forgotten at first then hastily scribbled- it’s on paper, a sturdy notebook with a pen that can keep up with my state of frenzy. And that is a job for a hardworking pen!

For me it’s the writing that needs to be beautiful, not the pen. I did use a fancy leather-bound notebook with handmade paper while writing my first novel Urmila, The Forgotten Princess. The yellowed paper felt like parchment, and though I didn’t write next to a flame, it was the closest I could get to that classic writer visual! In the lockdown I switched to a simple school stationary notebook, with neat lines that didn’t let my sentences droop or ascend. But my choice of pen to write on both was the ball point pen. It has been since years. I buy them in bundles. I stash them in different bags, in different corners of the house for easy access, in case the thought cloud threatens to disappear. I find that it keeps up with my pace. It helps my thoughts as I twist the cap. Or tap the pen impatiently against my face. Or poke my forehead with it when a stubborn thought refuses to come out.&nbsp;

Getting 440 pages written is no easy feat. Specially of a story that has been around for thousands of years. When I was struggling to finish it, I would wonder sometimes as to how long it must have taken for the first writers of the Ramayana…&nbsp;

Who knows, they may have finished it faster if they had a ball point pen!

(Smriti Dewan is an award-winning screenwriter, director and recently turned author with her debut novel Urmila: The Forgotten Princess published by Bloomsbury)

A chef’s knife. A painter’s brush. A writer’s pen. What would artists be without their tools (And the mild obsession we have with them)? Since time immemorial, the image of the writer has been a figure bent over paper (or parchment, depending on how far you want to go) with a quill and a pot of ink.

A chef’s knife. A painter’s brush. A writer’s pen. What would artists be without their tools (And the mild obsession we have with them)? Since time immemorial, the image of the writer has been a figure bent over paper (or parchment, depending on how far you want to go) with a quill and a pot of ink. Next to a flame. There is always a flame! So romantic is this visual that every aspiring writer has at some point adopted a fancy pen when committing to putting words on paper. The more old school ones will even go for a pot of ink to dip in! But those in the business of words can tell you, when you make a living out of writing, a certain number of words a day is function over romance! Sure, the poets and lyricists can still afford to indulge. But those of us who commit to manuscripts with a lakh or more words are cursed to carry a thought cloud threatening to disappear any moment, unless hastily scribbled as notes. Not to mention the fear of a manuscript washed out by spontaneous rain! Or an unexpected pen leakage in the bag, discovered when your hand emerged from it, stained in the pen’s blue blood… (True Story.) No sir! I belong to the tribe of scribes that swears by the humble ball point pen. Fast. Efficient. And dependable. I remember when we made the transition in Class 6 from pencil to pen. That was when I stopped getting the extra mark for neatness! But it wasn’t just that. A pencil provides the scope to make a mistake. No such thing with pens! Pens do not give second chances. They demand clarity of thought and an unfaltering will. My notebooks looked like tiny insects had dipped their feet in ink and had a parade on the page. The thick strokes from the nib of fountain pens aren’t kind to those with a shy, unsure hand. Then one day I made the discovery- a Cello ball point pen! It had a tiny ball at the end of a needle-like nib that made thin, precise strokes. Neat, un-smudgeable writing. And the pen would just glide over the page, oh-so-smoothly! In blue and black. I still prefer blue. I’m often asked what I prefer to write on- laptop or on paper with a pen. To that I say- laptop for short documents, emails, etc. But for real writing that requires thought, that demands filling page after page with story, when lines are struck out and re-written on top, barely fitting in the lines, when the sides are filled with side notes, forgotten at first then hastily scribbled- it’s on paper, a sturdy notebook with a pen that can keep up with my state of frenzy. And that is a job for a hardworking pen! For me it’s the writing that needs to be beautiful, not the pen. I did use a fancy leather-bound notebook with handmade paper while writing my first novel Urmila, The Forgotten Princess. The yellowed paper felt like parchment, and though I didn’t write next to a flame, it was the closest I could get to that classic writer visual! In the lockdown I switched to a simple school stationary notebook, with neat lines that didn’t let my sentences droop or ascend. But my choice of pen to write on both was the ball point pen. It has been since years. I buy them in bundles. I stash them in different bags, in different corners of the house for easy access, in case the thought cloud threatens to disappear. I find that it keeps up with my pace. It helps my thoughts as I twist the cap. Or tap the pen impatiently against my face. Or poke my forehead with it when a stubborn thought refuses to come out. Getting 440 pages written is no easy feat. Specially of a story that has been around for thousands of years. When I was struggling to finish it, I would wonder sometimes as to how long it must have taken for the first writers of the Ramayana… Who knows, they may have finished it faster if they had a ball point pen! (Smriti Dewan is an award-winning screenwriter, director and recently turned author with her debut novel Urmila: The Forgotten Princess published by Bloomsbury)

Blog: Musings on a ballpoint pen from an author

At this stage I did not realise the significance of this ceremony, I did not know what to expect and I could not have begun to fathom the feeling and emotion that I would encounter. The level of patriotism and the passion and pride on display. I had never experienced anything like this before anywhere in the world.

The ceremony happens every evening, it has been happening since 1959. The Indian Border Security Force (BSF) and the Pakistan Rangers each do a complex routine that includes marching and dancing and as the sun goes down the flags of both countries are lowered. It is meant to be at the same time a symbol of power and rivalry but also a display of cooperation between the two countries.

And of course, another never-ending queue. Even the separate one for foreigners was not much better. I made my way through the throngs of people and once I had entered the complex, I was taken aback by the sheer size of it. It was so grand and overpowering. A real physical depiction of power. It was in a semicircular shape like an open-air auditorium where the border gates were the stage. Rows and rows of seats stretching up high into the sky. And the fact that the stands were already packed with people like sardines was even more intimidating. There were thirty or forty thousand people on the Indian side. 
 
<img alt="Wagah border" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="686be775-4525-4b4b-948a-f358498e0f25" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%289%29_47.jpg" />

There was music and dancing. There were hundreds of girls and women all dressed in brightly colored outfits who were dancing on the main parade on the road which leads directly to the border. There were dashing men in military uniforms standing to attention lining each side of the street. I walked slowly trying to take in this visual feast, making my way to the section for foreigners which is closest to the border fence on the right-hand side. It was slightly less crowded. Everyone with a camera or phone in their hands while the rest of the stands continued to erupt with music and chanting. It was overwhelming, the energy and excitement was palpable. &nbsp; 
 
<img alt="Wagah border" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="ea11b1a4-e353-407e-a2d9-9c82b00730c2" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%288%29_54.jpg" />

Once I was settled in my seat facing the festivities I glanced to my right where I was looking toward the border and beyond the fence...Pakistan. What I saw there was in such stark contrast to the happenings on the Indian side.&nbsp;

The structure at the border is a lot smaller, the capacity is probably half the size.

And there were hardly any people there. I could count less than fifty. There were armed men in uniform, the Pakistan Rangers standing guard in the same way as the Indian side along the edge of the same street and the marching band was marching and parading and there was music. But there was only one person dancing. One man, in military uniform, with one leg and holding one flag. And he was spinning around in circles to the beats of the marching band. The contrast between the two countries' celebrations was so stark. I later discovered that it had been a public holiday in Pakistan which is why the crowd was so diminished on that day.

Patriotism exists in any country, for any person and every person. That kind of nationalism is strong, and it gives anyone a reason to sing and stand proud and dance even if we only have one leg, and in this stark difference I saw so clearly that We are the same in our longing for a sense of belonging. 
&nbsp; 
The spectacle of the ceremony really was worthwhile, but I was exhausted and suddenly realised that all of these people would soon be leaving this venue just after sunset. &nbsp;I decided that I would not survive another interminable queue and made the very brave decision to get up and leave just before the mass exodus.

This was brave as there were so many soldiers all standing at attention. No one else was standing. All approximately 80 thousand eyes were focused on the two guards who were slowly folding the flag and then there seemed to be silence as I stood slowly and made my way down the steps that lead to the road and it felt like all of those eyes had shifted focus onto where I so conspicuously made my way along the path, walking past all the soldiers.&nbsp;

A thought suddenly struck me that this might not be the wisest thing to do, make moves towards where the guards were standing to attention and alert and so 'on guard', I tried my best to appear non-threatening and gave a little swoon almost as if I were about to faint, and that, thank goodness seemed to work to dispel any sense that I may be up to anything other than trying to leave the premises. &nbsp;

Once past the guards I made my way to where I knew that Ash was waiting to take me back to my hotel. What a day. &nbsp;

The next morning began with another impossibly early flight back to Delhi and straight to work from the airport, but not before one last run in with the border security forces. Well, that is slightly dramatic, but it definitely could have ended with me calling in late to the studio from an Indian prison.

I got to the airport with only my cabin-sized baggage as this is the only way to travel for a quick weekend soul searching, answer finding get-away. And with my boarding pass in hand made my way through security..... almost. &nbsp;

I was waiting for my bag when I noticed it was pulled to the side for inspection. I knew that I hadn't even packed my mini nail file so was unsure of the reason and waited a little impatiently as the security rescanned my bag. &nbsp;They then called out enquiring who owned the offending bag, I made my way forward claiming it and dreading the embarrassing search of all your possessions, I'm ashamed to say that had been hurriedly and messily packed for my early journey. &nbsp;

The guard watched as I pulled out anything that I thought could be causing the security scanners to light up. &nbsp;After it seemed that I had more or less emptied the contents I pulled out a Sikh sword. Yes, I know now that this is not really something that one should carry onto a flight.

But in my defense, it was simply a memento purchased from a store outside the Golden temple, a gift for my godson, it was a curio, a keepsake, not meant to do any harm. &nbsp;All of this I tried to explain to a fierce and serious-looking female border guard. &nbsp;

After all the pleading and persuading nothing worked but she said she would allow me to check in my luggage. &nbsp;This seemed the only option if I wanted to bring home a little piece of Amritsar for Joshy. So, I made my way back to the check-in counter but during my unsuccessful negotiations with GI Jane another long queue had formed, it was the sword or my job. &nbsp;

I went back through security, with the same boarding pass and the same sword, GI Jane was not happy, even when I explained that I was willing to surrender my sword, she told me I now needed a new boarding pass, with the time pressure this is something I could not do. &nbsp;&nbsp;

I started getting really worked up, as I was feeling the pressure of time and the thought of missing my flight and began letting my impatience come through in my slightly raised voice, and then, thank goodness, that same strange new sense of calm prevailed, and allowed me to see so clearly the mistake I was making here. I stopped and gave this border security guard a big smile and apologised and thank goodness the sudden shift in my behavior seemed to totally disarm her. She returned my smile, and the ice was broken. We came to a quick compromise, she kept Joshy's sword and let me pass with the nearly destroyed boarding pass, a “namaste” and a friendly pat on the back.&nbsp;

I was so relieved to not be pulled into the dreaded side room, and to find myself safely on the plane, armed only with the new lessons I had learned from this adventure, patience is something that needs work but it is so worthwhile, a plan can be made if you keep a level head a little trust and have belief in the ultimate goodness of people, and a smile really does go a long way.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

At this stage I did not realise the significance of this ceremony, I did not know what to expect and I could not have begun to fathom the feeling and emotion that I would encounter.

At this stage I did not realise the significance of this ceremony, I did not know what to expect and I could not have begun to fathom the feeling and emotion that I would encounter. The level of patriotism and the passion and pride on display. I had never experienced anything like this before anywhere in the world. The ceremony happens every evening, it has been happening since 1959. The Indian Border Security Force (BSF) and the Pakistan Rangers each do a complex routine that includes marching and dancing and as the sun goes down the flags of both countries are lowered. It is meant to be at the same time a symbol of power and rivalry but also a display of cooperation between the two countries. And of course, another never-ending queue. Even the separate one for foreigners was not much better. I made my way through the throngs of people and once I had entered the complex, I was taken aback by the sheer size of it. It was so grand and overpowering. A real physical depiction of power. It was in a semicircular shape like an open-air auditorium where the border gates were the stage. Rows and rows of seats stretching up high into the sky. And the fact that the stands were already packed with people like sardines was even more intimidating. There were thirty or forty thousand people on the Indian side. There was music and dancing. There were hundreds of girls and women all dressed in brightly colored outfits who were dancing on the main parade on the road which leads directly to the border. There were dashing men in military uniforms standing to attention lining each side of the street. I walked slowly trying to take in this visual feast, making my way to the section for foreigners which is closest to the border fence on the right-hand side. It was slightly less crowded. Everyone with a camera or phone in their hands while the rest of the stands continued to erupt with music and chanting. It was overwhelming, the energy and excitement was palpable. Once I was settled in my seat facing the festivities I glanced to my right where I was looking toward the border and beyond the fence...Pakistan. What I saw there was in such stark contrast to the happenings on the Indian side. The structure at the border is a lot smaller, the capacity is probably half the size. And there were hardly any people there. I could count less than fifty. There were armed men in uniform, the Pakistan Rangers standing guard in the same way as the Indian side along the edge of the same street and the marching band was marching and parading and there was music. But there was only one person dancing. One man, in military uniform, with one leg and holding one flag. And he was spinning around in circles to the beats of the marching band. The contrast between the two countries' celebrations was so stark. I later discovered that it had been a public holiday in Pakistan which is why the crowd was so diminished on that day. Patriotism exists in any country, for any person and every person. That kind of nationalism is strong, and it gives anyone a reason to sing and stand proud and dance even if we only have one leg, and in this stark difference I saw so clearly that We are the same in our longing for a sense of belonging. The spectacle of the ceremony really was worthwhile, but I was exhausted and suddenly realised that all of these people would soon be leaving this venue just after sunset. I decided that I would not survive another interminable queue and made the very brave decision to get up and leave just before the mass exodus. This was brave as there were so many soldiers all standing at attention. No one else was standing. All approximately 80 thousand eyes were focused on the two guards who were slowly folding the flag and then there seemed to be silence as I stood slowly and made my way down the steps that lead to the road and it felt like all of those eyes had shifted focus onto where I so conspicuously made my way along the path, walking past all the soldiers. A thought suddenly struck me that this might not be the wisest thing to do, make moves towards where the guards were standing to attention and alert and so 'on guard', I tried my best to appear non-threatening and gave a little swoon almost as if I were about to faint, and that, thank goodness seemed to work to dispel any sense that I may be up to anything other than trying to leave the premises. Once past the guards I made my way to where I knew that Ash was waiting to take me back to my hotel. What a day. The next morning began with another impossibly early flight back to Delhi and straight to work from the airport, but not before one last run in with the border security forces. Well, that is slightly dramatic, but it definitely could have ended with me calling in late to the studio from an Indian prison. I got to the airport with only my cabin-sized baggage as this is the only way to travel for a quick weekend soul searching, answer finding get-away. And with my boarding pass in hand made my way through security..... almost. I was waiting for my bag when I noticed it was pulled to the side for inspection. I knew that I hadn't even packed my mini nail file so was unsure of the reason and waited a little impatiently as the security rescanned my bag. They then called out enquiring who owned the offending bag, I made my way forward claiming it and dreading the embarrassing search of all your possessions, I'm ashamed to say that had been hurriedly and messily packed for my early journey. The guard watched as I pulled out anything that I thought could be causing the security scanners to light up. After it seemed that I had more or less emptied the contents I pulled out a Sikh sword. Yes, I know now that this is not really something that one should carry onto a flight. But in my defense, it was simply a memento purchased from a store outside the Golden temple, a gift for my godson, it was a curio, a keepsake, not meant to do any harm. All of this I tried to explain to a fierce and serious-looking female border guard. After all the pleading and persuading nothing worked but she said she would allow me to check in my luggage. This seemed the only option if I wanted to bring home a little piece of Amritsar for Joshy. So, I made my way back to the check-in counter but during my unsuccessful negotiations with GI Jane another long queue had formed, it was the sword or my job. I went back through security, with the same boarding pass and the same sword, GI Jane was not happy, even when I explained that I was willing to surrender my sword, she told me I now needed a new boarding pass, with the time pressure this is something I could not do. I started getting really worked up, as I was feeling the pressure of time and the thought of missing my flight and began letting my impatience come through in my slightly raised voice, and then, thank goodness, that same strange new sense of calm prevailed, and allowed me to see so clearly the mistake I was making here. I stopped and gave this border security guard a big smile and apologised and thank goodness the sudden shift in my behavior seemed to totally disarm her. She returned my smile, and the ice was broken. We came to a quick compromise, she kept Joshy's sword and let me pass with the nearly destroyed boarding pass, a “namaste” and a friendly pat on the back. I was so relieved to not be pulled into the dreaded side room, and to find myself safely on the plane, armed only with the new lessons I had learned from this adventure, patience is something that needs work but it is so worthwhile, a plan can be made if you keep a level head a little trust and have belief in the ultimate goodness of people, and a smile really does go a long way. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Discovering India with Alyson le Grange: The Beating Retreat at Wagah border

Israel and &nbsp;Palestine are once again entangled in a series of bloody clashes as part of the on-going decades-long conflict. The conflict has entered into second week, resulted in significant loss of life and property and more importantly, there are no signs of either side willing to retract.

Brief Background to the Conflict&nbsp;

Even though the origins of the conflict can be traced deep into the history of the region, its modern phase can be said to have begun in in early 20th century. Palestine was one of the Provinces of Turkish Ottoman &nbsp;Empire till it came under British control in 1922 as a fall out of World war 1, and remained so till 1948.&nbsp;

During this period the migration of Jews to the region increased palpably and resultantly tensions between the Arab Muslims and Jews also grew considerably. As the end of Britain’s Palestine Mandate drew closer, Britain referred the Palestine Issue to UN in April, 1947.&nbsp;

The UN came forward with a plan (UN Resolution 181 of 29th November 1947) to partition Palestine into Arab and Jewish States with the city of Jerusalem as a Corpus separatum i.e. separate entity to be governed by a special international regime under UN. The Plan was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs.

The Jews of Palestine went ahead and created an independent sovereign State in May 1948. &nbsp;What followed was a series of Arab-Israel wars and repeated armed clashes which keep erupting from time to time, including the current conflict which began in early May this year and has escalated since then and threatens to assume serious proportions.

Core Elements of the Conflict&nbsp;

What is at the core of the conflict? Essentially, the conflict has three important dimensions: ethno-religious, right to self-determination and independent homeland, and related to that are the territorial claims. The Arab Muslim Palestinians and Israeli Jews are the two parties to this ethno-religious conflict. &nbsp;

The Jews have succeeded in establishing an independent sovereign State i.e. Israel, and in securing the full membership of the United Nations and recognition from a large number countries except from some Arab League and OIC Member States.&nbsp;

In contrast, the Palestinians have so far managed to secure the status of a Non-Member &nbsp;UN Observer State. The city of Jerusalem-sacred to Muslims, Jews as well as Christians for their own valid reasons - is at the core of the territorial dimension of this conflict.

It also houses the Indian Hospice which is a historic place associated with a great Indian Sufi saint Baba Farid. &nbsp;

The city including East Jerusalem (occupied by &nbsp;Israel in 1967 war and later annexed in 1980) is under de-facto control of Israel who considers “whole and united” Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a claim not recognised by the entire international community. &nbsp;

On the other hand, the Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of a future independent State of Palestine to be established in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 Arab-Israel war.&nbsp;

Israel’s de facto control of Jerusalem on the ground has enabled it to invest vast resources and efforts into changing the physical and demographic characteristics of the City. The Palestinians also stake claim to whole of West Bank where the Palestine Authority is in administrative control of about half the territory.

Conflict Resolution&nbsp;

The Quartet, comprised of the USA, Russian Federation, European Union and United Nations, and established in 2002 to facilitate peace process negotiations developed a “Performance Based Road Map to a Permanent Two States Solution” and has met numerous times in pursuance of its objectives but has prima-facie, failed to deliver, presumably due to irreconcilable positions adopted by the parties to the conflict.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, Israel has gradually normalised its relations with some of the key Arab countries including Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, UAE, and is said to be moving in this direction with Saudi Arabia as well. The Palestinians have reacted by describing these developments as betrayal of the Palestinian cause by these Arab countries. &nbsp;

The rapprochement between Israel and Arab States may not augur well for the Palestinians who may not find some of them on their side in hours of desperate need if they are required to choose between Israel and Palestine. &nbsp;

The situation is further complicated by the lack of unity amongst Palestinians who went through a civil war in 2006-2007 and are now divided into two broad groups: the militant Hamas in control of Gaza and relatively moderate Fateh-led Palestine Authority in control of parts of the West Bank.&nbsp;

Current Scenario

At present the energies of the international community are focussed on finding ways and means to de-escalate the confrontation leading to cessation of hostilities. Several countries in their individual capacities have made appeals to achieve these objectives. Regrettably,&nbsp;the UN, which has a poor track record in resolving global conflicts, looks toothless once again in bringing the situation under control.&nbsp;

The UN Security Council held a public virtual meeting on 16th May preceded by two closed-door meetings earlier in the previous week but has failed to issue any official statement on the outcome of its deliberations.&nbsp;

Reports at hand suggest that the USA, a staunch ally of Israel, was instrumental in blocking resolutions/joint statement which would have condemned Israel’s military response to rocket attacks by Hamas, besides calling for an immediate cease-fire.

India’s Position

India has been consistent in its support for the “just cause” of Palestinians. For several years, even after establishing diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, India was looking at its relations with Palestine through the prism of its relations with Israel and vice versa.&nbsp;

By undertaking a standalone first-ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Israel in 2017, PM Modi signalled de-hyphenation of India’s policy towards Palestine and Israel but nevertheless has not wavered in its principled position on Israel-Palestine conflict despite rapidly growing relations with Israel.

In its statement at the UNSC meeting, India has therefore reiterated its “strong support to the just Palestinian cause and its unwavering commitment to the two-State solution”.

Interestingly, while India has condemned the “indiscriminate rocket firings from Gaza targeting the civilian population in Israel” it has described the Israeli airstrikes as “retaliatory” without any condemnation. &nbsp;

India has thus in a way endorsed Israeli action though it stopped short of openly endorsing Israel’s right to self-defence as done by the USA in its initial statements. The condemnation of the rocket attacks by Hamas can possibly also be seen as India’s rejection of Hamas’ modus-operandi for attaining its political objectives through violent means.

What's in store?&nbsp;

It is matter of academic debate as to who between Israel and Palestine should be held responsible for triggering the current conflict. Expectedly, each one of the two is blaming the other. The Israelis are describing the rocket fires by Hamas as premeditated and their own action as retaliatory in self-defence, whereas Hamas is justifying it as its response to Israeli aggression.&nbsp;

Fortunately, the chances of a full-scale Arab-Israel war with participation by select Arab countries alongside Palestine looks remote.&nbsp;

Yet, as rightly pointed by India and many other countries, the need of the hour is to de-escalate so as to arrest any further slide towards the brink.&nbsp;

We can expect to see a flurry of diplomatic activity including by Quartet and some individual countries with the immediate objective of cessation of hostilities. Final and lasting resolution of the conflict, meeting the aspirations of the parties to the conflict, however, is nowhere on the horizon.&nbsp;

At this point in time, an agreement to ceasefire would be a great achievement. The pertinent question is how soon can we expect a ceasefire? It is somewhat intriguing in this context that the key player USA is not showing any sense of urgency. Is this by design? Is the idea behind it is to allow sufficient time to Israel to weaken Hamas as much as possible before a truce is reached? It is noteworthy that Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization, inter-alia, by Israel, USA and the EU, and Israel has let it be known that it is targeting Hamas leaders and its infrastructure.

Hopefully, the wise sense will prevail soon and it will be possible to prevent further loss of precious human lives and damage to property.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Israel and Palestine are once again entangled in a series of bloody clashes as part of the on-going decades-long conflict. The conflict has entered into second week, resulted in significant loss of life and property and more importantly, there are no signs of either side willing to retract.

Israel and Palestine are once again entangled in a series of bloody clashes as part of the on-going decades-long conflict. The conflict has entered into second week, resulted in significant loss of life and property and more importantly, there are no signs of either side willing to retract. Brief Background to the Conflict Even though the origins of the conflict can be traced deep into the history of the region, its modern phase can be said to have begun in in early 20th century. Palestine was one of the Provinces of Turkish Ottoman Empire till it came under British control in 1922 as a fall out of World war 1, and remained so till 1948. During this period the migration of Jews to the region increased palpably and resultantly tensions between the Arab Muslims and Jews also grew considerably. As the end of Britain’s Palestine Mandate drew closer, Britain referred the Palestine Issue to UN in April, 1947. The UN came forward with a plan (UN Resolution 181 of 29th November 1947) to partition Palestine into Arab and Jewish States with the city of Jerusalem as a Corpus separatum i.e. separate entity to be governed by a special international regime under UN. The Plan was accepted by the Jews but rejected by the Arabs. The Jews of Palestine went ahead and created an independent sovereign State in May 1948. What followed was a series of Arab-Israel wars and repeated armed clashes which keep erupting from time to time, including the current conflict which began in early May this year and has escalated since then and threatens to assume serious proportions. Core Elements of the Conflict What is at the core of the conflict? Essentially, the conflict has three important dimensions: ethno-religious, right to self-determination and independent homeland, and related to that are the territorial claims. The Arab Muslim Palestinians and Israeli Jews are the two parties to this ethno-religious conflict. The Jews have succeeded in establishing an independent sovereign State i.e. Israel, and in securing the full membership of the United Nations and recognition from a large number countries except from some Arab League and OIC Member States. In contrast, the Palestinians have so far managed to secure the status of a Non-Member UN Observer State. The city of Jerusalem-sacred to Muslims, Jews as well as Christians for their own valid reasons - is at the core of the territorial dimension of this conflict. It also houses the Indian Hospice which is a historic place associated with a great Indian Sufi saint Baba Farid. The city including East Jerusalem (occupied by Israel in 1967 war and later annexed in 1980) is under de-facto control of Israel who considers “whole and united” Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, a claim not recognised by the entire international community. On the other hand, the Palestinians claim East Jerusalem as the capital of a future independent State of Palestine to be established in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 Arab-Israel war. Israel’s de facto control of Jerusalem on the ground has enabled it to invest vast resources and efforts into changing the physical and demographic characteristics of the City. The Palestinians also stake claim to whole of West Bank where the Palestine Authority is in administrative control of about half the territory. Conflict Resolution The Quartet, comprised of the USA, Russian Federation, European Union and United Nations, and established in 2002 to facilitate peace process negotiations developed a “Performance Based Road Map to a Permanent Two States Solution” and has met numerous times in pursuance of its objectives but has prima-facie, failed to deliver, presumably due to irreconcilable positions adopted by the parties to the conflict. Meanwhile, Israel has gradually normalised its relations with some of the key Arab countries including Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, UAE, and is said to be moving in this direction with Saudi Arabia as well. The Palestinians have reacted by describing these developments as betrayal of the Palestinian cause by these Arab countries. The rapprochement between Israel and Arab States may not augur well for the Palestinians who may not find some of them on their side in hours of desperate need if they are required to choose between Israel and Palestine. The situation is further complicated by the lack of unity amongst Palestinians who went through a civil war in 2006-2007 and are now divided into two broad groups: the militant Hamas in control of Gaza and relatively moderate Fateh-led Palestine Authority in control of parts of the West Bank. Current Scenario At present the energies of the international community are focussed on finding ways and means to de-escalate the confrontation leading to cessation of hostilities. Several countries in their individual capacities have made appeals to achieve these objectives. Regrettably, the UN, which has a poor track record in resolving global conflicts, looks toothless once again in bringing the situation under control. The UN Security Council held a public virtual meeting on 16th May preceded by two closed-door meetings earlier in the previous week but has failed to issue any official statement on the outcome of its deliberations. Reports at hand suggest that the USA, a staunch ally of Israel, was instrumental in blocking resolutions/joint statement which would have condemned Israel’s military response to rocket attacks by Hamas, besides calling for an immediate cease-fire. India’s Position India has been consistent in its support for the “just cause” of Palestinians. For several years, even after establishing diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992, India was looking at its relations with Palestine through the prism of its relations with Israel and vice versa. By undertaking a standalone first-ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Israel in 2017, PM Modi signalled de-hyphenation of India’s policy towards Palestine and Israel but nevertheless has not wavered in its principled position on Israel-Palestine conflict despite rapidly growing relations with Israel. In its statement at the UNSC meeting, India has therefore reiterated its “strong support to the just Palestinian cause and its unwavering commitment to the two-State solution”. Interestingly, while India has condemned the “indiscriminate rocket firings from Gaza targeting the civilian population in Israel” it has described the Israeli airstrikes as “retaliatory” without any condemnation. India has thus in a way endorsed Israeli action though it stopped short of openly endorsing Israel’s right to self-defence as done by the USA in its initial statements. The condemnation of the rocket attacks by Hamas can possibly also be seen as India’s rejection of Hamas’ modus-operandi for attaining its political objectives through violent means. What's in store? It is matter of academic debate as to who between Israel and Palestine should be held responsible for triggering the current conflict. Expectedly, each one of the two is blaming the other. The Israelis are describing the rocket fires by Hamas as premeditated and their own action as retaliatory in self-defence, whereas Hamas is justifying it as its response to Israeli aggression. Fortunately, the chances of a full-scale Arab-Israel war with participation by select Arab countries alongside Palestine looks remote. Yet, as rightly pointed by India and many other countries, the need of the hour is to de-escalate so as to arrest any further slide towards the brink. We can expect to see a flurry of diplomatic activity including by Quartet and some individual countries with the immediate objective of cessation of hostilities. Final and lasting resolution of the conflict, meeting the aspirations of the parties to the conflict, however, is nowhere on the horizon. At this point in time, an agreement to ceasefire would be a great achievement. The pertinent question is how soon can we expect a ceasefire? It is somewhat intriguing in this context that the key player USA is not showing any sense of urgency. Is this by design? Is the idea behind it is to allow sufficient time to Israel to weaken Hamas as much as possible before a truce is reached? It is noteworthy that Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization, inter-alia, by Israel, USA and the EU, and Israel has let it be known that it is targeting Hamas leaders and its infrastructure. Hopefully, the wise sense will prevail soon and it will be possible to prevent further loss of precious human lives and damage to property. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion | Israel-Palestine: Where is the conflict heading?

Vesak (Pali: Vesākha, Sanskrit: Vaiśākha), known as Buddha Jayanti or Buddha Purnima and Buddha Day is observed by Buddhist communities in and beyond India as the day of the birth, enlightenment and death (Parinirvāna) of Gautama Buddha.&nbsp;

We in Mongolia also plan to celebrate the Buddha Day on 26th May declared as a public holiday. &nbsp;

Historically, Buddhism was introduced to Mongolia not once but three times. The first transmission happened over two thousand years ago when in ancient times Indian acharyas went to Mongolia for disseminating Dharma. A famous Mongol scholar, Gabju Zava Damdin (1867-1937) who was one of the founding members of the Institute of Sutras and Letters of Mongolia, has recorded in a book on history- Buddhism was introduced into Mongolia through the Silk road at the time of Hunnu (Xiangnu) empire, known as the first state established by the Mongols, nearly 2200 years back”.&nbsp;

Other sources claim that Buddhist monasteries and temples were built on the Mongolian land at the time of Xianbei state which had emerged afterwards.

In 7th century Xuanzang, a Chinese traveler, who was a Buddhist monk and a scholar recorded that while traversing the Gobi desert on the way to reach the Silk Road, he saw Buddhist temples in the territory of Mongols, where monks were doing puja and studying, as well as chanting in Indian language.

Also, there is a record that states that in the 6th and 7th centuries an Indian Pandita Narendra-yashas and a teacher at a school in Magadha, Baragawara Midara, came to the land of the Mongols.

Historical sources corroborate that Mongolia was indeed the earliest to receive the Bauddha dharma among the three dharmic lands after India.

There are archeological evidences to prove the second spread of Buddhism in Mongolia. For instance, a Buddha’s statue found in the tomb of a Uyghur nobleman is directly related to the time of Uyghur empire (9th-10th century) in Tsagaan– Ovoo soum of Dornod province.

The ancient Indian culture and arts reached Mongolia through its dharma. Based on these and other records, we can say that our ancestors adopted the Bauddha dharma from India through Sogdian and Uyghur panditas in ancient past.

Kavyadarsha by Dandini (a Mirror of Poetry) is an ancient systematic methodology of poetry in Sanskrit, which was composed in the 7th century in India. Kavyadarsha plays an important role in oriental literature. This text on Indian theories of poetry was translated into Mongolian language like Pali and Tibetan. Learned lama Gelegjaltsan had translated this text on theories from Tibetan into Mongolian in the17th century and other lamas wrote commentaries in Sanskrit language. Even nowadays, the young generation of scholars like D. Shirendev, who studied at the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies in Varanasi, translated 13 volumes of Pali Tripitaka into Mongolian. 8 volumes of the 13 are already published. “The Tsogt Khurden” an editorial group is also doing translation and comparative studies of these ancient sutras from Pali and Sanskrit languages.

Later, since 13th century Mongolian emperors invited the spiritual masters and assigned them the tile of “Imperial guru” for enlightening the commoners with Bauddha Dharma. Chinggis Khan exempted Buddhist monasteries from taxes. His successor, Ugedei khan established a Buddhist monastery in the capital of then Mongolian empire- Khar Korin. Guyug Khan, Godun Khan, Mongke Khan and Kublai Khan and their descendants disseminated the Bauddha Dharma during their respective times. During the time of Khaisan khuleg Khan and Buyan Khan Buddhist sutras such as “Pancha Ragsha Sutra”, “Saddharmapundarika Sutra” and “Arya Manju Shiri Nama Samgiri” and “Bodhicaryavartara” were translated into the Mongolian language and Kanjur was casted in gold.

Thus, from Chinggis to Togoontumur all the great khans were relying on Dharma and Damma Gurus.&nbsp;

The monasteries, statues and stupas built during the Yuan dynasty are countless. The manuscripts “Shebya Rabsel” composed by Phagva Lama at the request of Chingim, a son of Kublai Khan was block-printed. This sutra, written in the Square script the then formal script of the Yuan dynasty, obviously attracts interests of scholars because Mongolians used all the Buddhist terms and notions that were used in the old Mongol script when they translated Buddhist sutras.&nbsp;

Prof. B Rinchen made a catalogue of the texts translated into Mongolian which could be partly published during his life-time. Now Dr. Shashibala, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan is editing the remaining part and contemplates to publish them in four volumes.

The Grand White Stupa built in the capital city of the Yuan dynasty by the decree of Kublai Khan is a historical property that provides with valuable information of the Yuan dynasty in modern time.

The 13th century’s famous annals “The Sacred History of Mongols” (Chapter 261 to 264) referred to India as Hindu or Hindustan and the river of Indus as Sindhi or a “Shine gol or New river”. By the way this manuscript was first translated into English language in 1959 at Aligarh Muslim University by noted historian Mohammad Habib.

At the time of Ligden Khan Mongolian scholars completed translating the entire Kanjur and Tanjur consisting of over 5000 sutras. By the end of 15th century Mongolian noblemen extensively contributed to the spread of Bauddha Dharma. Amongst them, Altan Khan of Tumed invited His Holiness Sonam Gyatso to Mongolia and himself became his spiritual disciple and bestowed the famous title of “Dalai Lama” to His Holiness (Lama with knowledge as vast as ocean).

In the 16th century, there were three great Buddhist figures spreading Dharma. At the grace of Neij toin (Avid) from Inner Mongolia, Lofty Venerable Zanabazar (Gyani Vajaru) from Khalkha and Jaya Pandit Namkhaijamtso from Oirad, the Gelugpa tradition flourished in its full zenith. At this time, all Mahayana manuscripts were entirely translated into the Mongolian language. Many if not all of them, are preserved in the Gandantegchilin monastery and Public Library of Mongolia.

Honorable Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India during his official visit to Mongolia in 2015 graciously presented saplings of Banyan tree and pledged to help in building statue of Lord Buddha and his two disciples as well as digitalizing these ancient and rare Buddhist manuscripts. His offer was deeply appreciated as a vivid indication of our bonds of Dharma and common civilizational affinities.&nbsp;

Two years back, Government of India built up and gifted statues of Lord Budha and his two main disciples’ beautifully crafted by well-known sculptors Ram and Anil Sutars to the Gandantegchilin monastery in Ulaanbaatar. And 108 volumes Mongol Kanjur a compilation of Buddha’s teachings have also being republished by the National Mission for Manuscripts, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, Ministry of Culture, GOI along with International Academy of Indian Culture in order to present to Mongolia on the upcoming Buddha Day.

Teachings of Buddha and Buddhism have become inseparable part of Mongolian way of living. Madhyamika, known as the Middle Path or Noble Eightfold Path, consisting of perfect view, perfect thought, perfect speech, perfect action, perfect mode of living, perfect endeavor, perfect mindfulness and perfect consciousness helped to form our thoughts and turned into a philosophy that has huge impact on our state policy. &nbsp;Henceforth, Mongolians attach highest value to gyan (knowledge), dharma (realization) and karma (action). Though, sitting on the northern and southern fringes of the Buddhist Asia Mongolia and India have been intertwined with such spiritual legacies which has grown into a solid basis of our state-to-state relations. Recently, we jointly marked the 65th anniversary of the establishment of the diplomatic relations.

These dharmic and cultural ties, in my belief will continue to contribute to the growth of our relations in the coming years too. By the way Mongolians adhere to oriental calendar and account by sixty-years instead of a century. For instance the date of 26th May, 2021 is defined as day of Dog of month of Snake of White Ox year of the 17th Sixtieth. 
&nbsp; 
Since Buddhism adopted in my country came from India and many of our learned scholars studied at the ancient centers of Buddhist studies such as Nalanda. Coming back to Mongolia after the attainment of high religious order they significantly contributed to the promotion of humane values in their native land. Mongolian Buddhist scholars wrote a large number of sacred texts on the tradition of Dharma. With enormous suffering and great sacrifices Mongolians have preserved their national culture and Buddhist heritage. I wish to note that majority of Mongolians practice Buddhism, not only as religion but as a philosophy of empowerment and contentment. Even nowadays a large number of novitiates are cloistering in monasteries in India. &nbsp;Thus, Bharat regarded as a sacred land of Dharma and a source of wisdom and knowledge.These spiritual ties constitute another pillar of our close cultural and educational exchanges.&nbsp;

On this auspicious occasion, I pay heartfelt tributes to those Buddhist masters who cultivated Dharma and Damma and brought our two nations as closer as strategic partners. &nbsp;

Both of us, peace-loving nations, free from any military alliances are constructively collaborating within the framework of the Asian Buddhist for Peace Conference over 50 odd years and &nbsp;International Buddhist Confederation in order to avoid conflicts and facilitate understanding and amity. Undoubtedly, the contemporary world needs more spiritual and moral empowerment for sustainable development. It is worth to be underlined here that the Teachings of the Gautam Buddha are more relevant today. They not only inspire the people for cultivation of wisdom but also for peaceful co-existence, mutual respect and togetherness.&nbsp;

When people get associated through faith and conviction, their bonds become more durable since spiritual mind that never aggravates but cultivates truthful consciousness and ensures the path of compassion and enlightenment.

Our collaborations are exponentially growing in multiple areas including information and communication technology, agriculture and mining industry. Collaboration between Mongolia and India have ample room for growth and will play &nbsp;a substantive role in their economies. &nbsp;

Mongolia ranks as one of the richest countries in Asia as well as in the world in terms of variety and value of its mineral resources. More than 8 thousand deposits of 440 different minerals including cooking coal are discovered, of which around 600 deposits are being exploited.&nbsp;

Mongolia exports primarily commodities such as minerals and agricultural products. These account for about 80 percent of our exports. However, the Government pursues policies supporting investors who export not just raw material, such as ores and concentrates, but bring in deep processing and produce value-added products. There is immense potential still available to increase non-mineral exports, especially of agriculture-based Mongolian brand products. Today 80 million heads of animals have been counted which constitute untapped resources of ecologically clean hides, dairy, cashmere and wool.&nbsp;

To bolster sustainable growth, Mongolia has undertaken a comprehensive set of initiatives over the past years in such areas as taxation, visa regime and trade policy that provide for a stable investment and legal environment and clear guidelines for the role of Government in major projects.&nbsp;

Mongolia currently offers a range of tax concessions for export-oriented industries and priority sectors of economy. Foreign investment is encouraged in tourism. Indian tourist companies used to work in the area of studying market and legal environment are now showing interest to ramp up their presence and increase their operations in Mongolia. Given the promising initiative of the “Hunnu Air” a company of Mongolia to launch scheduled flights connecting Ulaanbaatar and New Delhi and brand new International Airport at Khoshigt valley, outskirt of Ulaanbaatar coming into operation. I am optimistic that India’s involvement in the field of tourism and hospitality industry would be enhanced.

Considering the fact of full vaccination of 5.9 lakh of the eligible citizens Mongolia is reopened for international air travellers by 10th May 2021, and resumed scheduled flights with countries, those recognize its immunization certificates for COVID-19, named International Travel Health Certificate (ITHC) I believe that it would be another favourable destination for their brothers and sisters in dharma.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Vesak (Pali: Vesākha, Sanskrit: Vaiśākha), known as Buddha Jayanti or Buddha Purnima and Buddha Day is observed by Buddhist communities in and beyond India as the day of the birth, enlightenment and death (Parinirvāna) of Gautama Buddha.

Vesak (Pali: Vesākha, Sanskrit: Vaiśākha), known as Buddha Jayanti or Buddha Purnima and Buddha Day is observed by Buddhist communities in and beyond India as the day of the birth, enlightenment and death (Parinirvāna) of Gautama Buddha. We in Mongolia also plan to celebrate the Buddha Day on 26th May declared as a public holiday. Historically, Buddhism was introduced to Mongolia not once but three times. The first transmission happened over two thousand years ago when in ancient times Indian acharyas went to Mongolia for disseminating Dharma. A famous Mongol scholar, Gabju Zava Damdin (1867-1937) who was one of the founding members of the Institute of Sutras and Letters of Mongolia, has recorded in a book on history- Buddhism was introduced into Mongolia through the Silk road at the time of Hunnu (Xiangnu) empire, known as the first state established by the Mongols, nearly 2200 years back”. Other sources claim that Buddhist monasteries and temples were built on the Mongolian land at the time of Xianbei state which had emerged afterwards. In 7th century Xuanzang, a Chinese traveler, who was a Buddhist monk and a scholar recorded that while traversing the Gobi desert on the way to reach the Silk Road, he saw Buddhist temples in the territory of Mongols, where monks were doing puja and studying, as well as chanting in Indian language. Also, there is a record that states that in the 6th and 7th centuries an Indian Pandita Narendra-yashas and a teacher at a school in Magadha, Baragawara Midara, came to the land of the Mongols. Historical sources corroborate that Mongolia was indeed the earliest to receive the Bauddha dharma among the three dharmic lands after India. There are archeological evidences to prove the second spread of Buddhism in Mongolia. For instance, a Buddha’s statue found in the tomb of a Uyghur nobleman is directly related to the time of Uyghur empire (9th-10th century) in Tsagaan– Ovoo soum of Dornod province. The ancient Indian culture and arts reached Mongolia through its dharma. Based on these and other records, we can say that our ancestors adopted the Bauddha dharma from India through Sogdian and Uyghur panditas in ancient past. Kavyadarsha by Dandini (a Mirror of Poetry) is an ancient systematic methodology of poetry in Sanskrit, which was composed in the 7th century in India. Kavyadarsha plays an important role in oriental literature. This text on Indian theories of poetry was translated into Mongolian language like Pali and Tibetan. Learned lama Gelegjaltsan had translated this text on theories from Tibetan into Mongolian in the17th century and other lamas wrote commentaries in Sanskrit language. Even nowadays, the young generation of scholars like D. Shirendev, who studied at the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies in Varanasi, translated 13 volumes of Pali Tripitaka into Mongolian. 8 volumes of the 13 are already published. “The Tsogt Khurden” an editorial group is also doing translation and comparative studies of these ancient sutras from Pali and Sanskrit languages. Later, since 13th century Mongolian emperors invited the spiritual masters and assigned them the tile of “Imperial guru” for enlightening the commoners with Bauddha Dharma. Chinggis Khan exempted Buddhist monasteries from taxes. His successor, Ugedei khan established a Buddhist monastery in the capital of then Mongolian empire- Khar Korin. Guyug Khan, Godun Khan, Mongke Khan and Kublai Khan and their descendants disseminated the Bauddha Dharma during their respective times. During the time of Khaisan khuleg Khan and Buyan Khan Buddhist sutras such as “Pancha Ragsha Sutra”, “Saddharmapundarika Sutra” and “Arya Manju Shiri Nama Samgiri” and “Bodhicaryavartara” were translated into the Mongolian language and Kanjur was casted in gold. Thus, from Chinggis to Togoontumur all the great khans were relying on Dharma and Damma Gurus. The monasteries, statues and stupas built during the Yuan dynasty are countless. The manuscripts “Shebya Rabsel” composed by Phagva Lama at the request of Chingim, a son of Kublai Khan was block-printed. This sutra, written in the Square script the then formal script of the Yuan dynasty, obviously attracts interests of scholars because Mongolians used all the Buddhist terms and notions that were used in the old Mongol script when they translated Buddhist sutras. Prof. B Rinchen made a catalogue of the texts translated into Mongolian which could be partly published during his life-time. Now Dr. Shashibala, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan is editing the remaining part and contemplates to publish them in four volumes. The Grand White Stupa built in the capital city of the Yuan dynasty by the decree of Kublai Khan is a historical property that provides with valuable information of the Yuan dynasty in modern time. The 13th century’s famous annals “The Sacred History of Mongols” (Chapter 261 to 264) referred to India as Hindu or Hindustan and the river of Indus as Sindhi or a “Shine gol or New river”. By the way this manuscript was first translated into English language in 1959 at Aligarh Muslim University by noted historian Mohammad Habib. At the time of Ligden Khan Mongolian scholars completed translating the entire Kanjur and Tanjur consisting of over 5000 sutras. By the end of 15th century Mongolian noblemen extensively contributed to the spread of Bauddha Dharma. Amongst them, Altan Khan of Tumed invited His Holiness Sonam Gyatso to Mongolia and himself became his spiritual disciple and bestowed the famous title of “Dalai Lama” to His Holiness (Lama with knowledge as vast as ocean). In the 16th century, there were three great Buddhist figures spreading Dharma. At the grace of Neij toin (Avid) from Inner Mongolia, Lofty Venerable Zanabazar (Gyani Vajaru) from Khalkha and Jaya Pandit Namkhaijamtso from Oirad, the Gelugpa tradition flourished in its full zenith. At this time, all Mahayana manuscripts were entirely translated into the Mongolian language. Many if not all of them, are preserved in the Gandantegchilin monastery and Public Library of Mongolia. Honorable Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India during his official visit to Mongolia in 2015 graciously presented saplings of Banyan tree and pledged to help in building statue of Lord Buddha and his two disciples as well as digitalizing these ancient and rare Buddhist manuscripts. His offer was deeply appreciated as a vivid indication of our bonds of Dharma and common civilizational affinities. Two years back, Government of India built up and gifted statues of Lord Budha and his two main disciples’ beautifully crafted by well-known sculptors Ram and Anil Sutars to the Gandantegchilin monastery in Ulaanbaatar. And 108 volumes Mongol Kanjur a compilation of Buddha’s teachings have also being republished by the National Mission for Manuscripts, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, Ministry of Culture, GOI along with International Academy of Indian Culture in order to present to Mongolia on the upcoming Buddha Day. Teachings of Buddha and Buddhism have become inseparable part of Mongolian way of living. Madhyamika, known as the Middle Path or Noble Eightfold Path, consisting of perfect view, perfect thought, perfect speech, perfect action, perfect mode of living, perfect endeavor, perfect mindfulness and perfect consciousness helped to form our thoughts and turned into a philosophy that has huge impact on our state policy. Henceforth, Mongolians attach highest value to gyan (knowledge), dharma (realization) and karma (action). Though, sitting on the northern and southern fringes of the Buddhist Asia Mongolia and India have been intertwined with such spiritual legacies which has grown into a solid basis of our state-to-state relations. Recently, we jointly marked the 65th anniversary of the establishment of the diplomatic relations. These dharmic and cultural ties, in my belief will continue to contribute to the growth of our relations in the coming years too. By the way Mongolians adhere to oriental calendar and account by sixty-years instead of a century. For instance the date of 26th May, 2021 is defined as day of Dog of month of Snake of White Ox year of the 17th Sixtieth. Since Buddhism adopted in my country came from India and many of our learned scholars studied at the ancient centers of Buddhist studies such as Nalanda. Coming back to Mongolia after the attainment of high religious order they significantly contributed to the promotion of humane values in their native land. Mongolian Buddhist scholars wrote a large number of sacred texts on the tradition of Dharma. With enormous suffering and great sacrifices Mongolians have preserved their national culture and Buddhist heritage. I wish to note that majority of Mongolians practice Buddhism, not only as religion but as a philosophy of empowerment and contentment. Even nowadays a large number of novitiates are cloistering in monasteries in India. Thus, Bharat regarded as a sacred land of Dharma and a source of wisdom and knowledge.These spiritual ties constitute another pillar of our close cultural and educational exchanges. On this auspicious occasion, I pay heartfelt tributes to those Buddhist masters who cultivated Dharma and Damma and brought our two nations as closer as strategic partners. Both of us, peace-loving nations, free from any military alliances are constructively collaborating within the framework of the Asian Buddhist for Peace Conference over 50 odd years and International Buddhist Confederation in order to avoid conflicts and facilitate understanding and amity. Undoubtedly, the contemporary world needs more spiritual and moral empowerment for sustainable development. It is worth to be underlined here that the Teachings of the Gautam Buddha are more relevant today. They not only inspire the people for cultivation of wisdom but also for peaceful co-existence, mutual respect and togetherness. When people get associated through faith and conviction, their bonds become more durable since spiritual mind that never aggravates but cultivates truthful consciousness and ensures the path of compassion and enlightenment. Our collaborations are exponentially growing in multiple areas including information and communication technology, agriculture and mining industry. Collaboration between Mongolia and India have ample room for growth and will play a substantive role in their economies. Mongolia ranks as one of the richest countries in Asia as well as in the world in terms of variety and value of its mineral resources. More than 8 thousand deposits of 440 different minerals including cooking coal are discovered, of which around 600 deposits are being exploited. Mongolia exports primarily commodities such as minerals and agricultural products. These account for about 80 percent of our exports. However, the Government pursues policies supporting investors who export not just raw material, such as ores and concentrates, but bring in deep processing and produce value-added products. There is immense potential still available to increase non-mineral exports, especially of agriculture-based Mongolian brand products. Today 80 million heads of animals have been counted which constitute untapped resources of ecologically clean hides, dairy, cashmere and wool. To bolster sustainable growth, Mongolia has undertaken a comprehensive set of initiatives over the past years in such areas as taxation, visa regime and trade policy that provide for a stable investment and legal environment and clear guidelines for the role of Government in major projects. Mongolia currently offers a range of tax concessions for export-oriented industries and priority sectors of economy. Foreign investment is encouraged in tourism. Indian tourist companies used to work in the area of studying market and legal environment are now showing interest to ramp up their presence and increase their operations in Mongolia. Given the promising initiative of the “Hunnu Air” a company of Mongolia to launch scheduled flights connecting Ulaanbaatar and New Delhi and brand new International Airport at Khoshigt valley, outskirt of Ulaanbaatar coming into operation. I am optimistic that India’s involvement in the field of tourism and hospitality industry would be enhanced. Considering the fact of full vaccination of 5.9 lakh of the eligible citizens Mongolia is reopened for international air travellers by 10th May 2021, and resumed scheduled flights with countries, those recognize its immunization certificates for COVID-19, named International Travel Health Certificate (ITHC) I believe that it would be another favourable destination for their brothers and sisters in dharma. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion: Brothers and sisters in Dharma

Backdrop

For decades, the strategic planners of India have been boosting offensive capability along western borders for credible deterrence and remained contented with limited offensive capability with reactive mindset along northern and eastern borders, against the basic military strategy which says “Offense is the best form of defence” and a defender can at best respond to offensive as he doesn’t have the initiative. The number of Strike Corps earmarked for western borders versus northern/eastern borders bears testimony to this observation.&nbsp;

Was our Strategy against China reactive?

One of the reasons for adopting reactive/dissuasive strategy against China by various decision-makers was unwarranted faith in the Confidence Building Measures (CBM) between China and India, in the form of various Border Peace and Tranquility Agreements (BPTA), although the basis of the faith was unrealistic, in light of Chinese repeated misadventures like 1962, Sumdurong Chu, Doklam, to name a few.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-china-celebrates-indias-suffering-382633/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The fact that Chinese have been dragging their feet on demarcation of LAC/Border settlement also proves the fragility of any agreement with them. Except for few proactive actions at tactical/operational level like Pangong Tso heights, Nathu La and Doklam, by and large, the Indian strategy against China has been reactive at strategic plane. &nbsp;

Voices for “China being enemy No 1” and proposals to have mountain strike corps have been on the tables of South Block since long, but the delay in complete raising of Mountain Strike Corps apparently has been due to economic and bureaucratic reasons, together with the idea of not disturbing peace and tranquility on borders, due to over-reliance on CBMs, BPTA and other agreements, despite China violating them repeatedly. The fact is that incidences of patrol clashes and soldiers pushing each other, having different perception of LAC have been quite frequent, which remains an unsatisfactory arrangement for any professional force to guard borders/LAC without firing. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Hasn’t the need of having Mountain Strike Corps become Inescapable?&nbsp;

After China junked all the CBM’s in Eastern Ladakh, and now reluctant to disengage in ‘other areas’ after disengaging North and South of Pangong Tso, it’s evident that de-escalation is nowhere in sight. The campaigning season is approaching with summers, which can again lead to heavy troop concentration by both sides. With many similar actions taken by China along LAC in past few decades, it is evident that a reactive, defensive strategy will not influence China to negotiate LAC/borders, which is important to avoid repeated standoffs.&nbsp;

The need for dedicated Mountain Strike Corps for India is inescapable, to create worthwhile punitive deterrence against China, which can also be used elsewhere. As per media reports, some re-alignment/rebalancing of existing offensive forces, grouped with adequate mechanized forces and other elements is being done to create corps level offensive capability for Northern Theatre and partially raised ‘Mountain Strike Corps’ for eastern theatre, with adequate flexibility of application in other theatres. It makes strategic sense to meet the offensive requirements of various theatres and is a reasonably practical option, till India completes further capacity building.

Strike Corps Headquarters versus Integrated Battle Groups under Theatres?&nbsp;

The much-referred division/independent brigade-sized ‘Integrated Battle Groups’ (IBG) is a concept tried in many exercises in the recent past with adequate media coverage, but there is a need for all such forces to operate under offensive Corps Headquarters, tasked for an offensive role in adversary’s territory so that they are oriented, trained and equipped accordingly, which is a time-consuming process. Historical experience of operations in these areas indicates that the theatre commanders by virtue of such long borders and wide span of control, had a tendency to manage their defensive posture as a higher priority. &nbsp;

To create deterrence and not be reactive, India needs offensive Corps Commanders to be looking for objectives into adversary’s territory and posturing accordingly. The logistics requirements and equipment profiling of an offensive corps have to be much different in terms of light tanks, guns, clothing and other equipment. It needs detailed planning and earmarking resources, which IBG’s are not designed to handle, and Theatre Headquarters will find it difficult to concentrate on offensive build-up, due to large span of control.&nbsp;

The Mountain Strike Corps Commander will be able to pick up his objectives across LAC, capable of threatening its vital objectives, oriented, trained, equipped and organized with logistics set up to sustain forces across LAC, which will improve punitive deterrence capability of India. There may be a need to locate parts of such offensive corps at heights to minimize the acclimatization requirements, to cut short the mobilization timings. It is therefore recommended that the Mountain Strike Corps must be developed with Corps Headquarters, IBG and other components as part of it, on priority. This will impose required cost on China, making settlement of LAC/border issue a better option than not doing so.&nbsp;

Future Military Strategy in Dealing with Aggressive China

India needs to adopt multi-pronged strategy to include military, economic, diplomatic and other elements of power. Preparing for ‘Two Front War’ for India is not a choice, but a compulsion, although it may/may not happen. The only way to avoid ‘Two Front War’ for India, is to convince the potential adversaries that it is capable of fighting it successfully and posing multiple front for China. This convincing has to be backed by building capability to do so. India seems to be working on it, fast-tracking procurements and boosting indigenous production of necessary equipment through ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’, besides a tough stance by forces on borders. India needs to be prepared to pose a threat to Chinese vulnerabilities in maritime domain in collaboration with Quad and other friendly navies. The overall strategic approach has to be proactive at tactical, operational as well as strategic level.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Backdrop For decades, the strategic planners of India have been boosting offensive capability along western borders for credible deterrence and remained contented with limited offensive capability with reactive mindset along northern and eastern borders, against the basic military strategy which says “Offense is the best form of defence” and a defender can at best respond to offensive as he doesn’t have the initiative.

Backdrop For decades, the strategic planners of India have been boosting offensive capability along western borders for credible deterrence and remained contented with limited offensive capability with reactive mindset along northern and eastern borders, against the basic military strategy which says “Offense is the best form of defence” and a defender can at best respond to offensive as he doesn’t have the initiative. The number of Strike Corps earmarked for western borders versus northern/eastern borders bears testimony to this observation. Was our Strategy against China reactive? One of the reasons for adopting reactive/dissuasive strategy against China by various decision-makers was unwarranted faith in the Confidence Building Measures (CBM) between China and India, in the form of various Border Peace and Tranquility Agreements (BPTA), although the basis of the faith was unrealistic, in light of Chinese repeated misadventures like 1962, Sumdurong Chu, Doklam, to name a few. × The fact that Chinese have been dragging their feet on demarcation of LAC/Border settlement also proves the fragility of any agreement with them. Except for few proactive actions at tactical/operational level like Pangong Tso heights, Nathu La and Doklam, by and large, the Indian strategy against China has been reactive at strategic plane. Voices for “China being enemy No 1” and proposals to have mountain strike corps have been on the tables of South Block since long, but the delay in complete raising of Mountain Strike Corps apparently has been due to economic and bureaucratic reasons, together with the idea of not disturbing peace and tranquility on borders, due to over-reliance on CBMs, BPTA and other agreements, despite China violating them repeatedly. The fact is that incidences of patrol clashes and soldiers pushing each other, having different perception of LAC have been quite frequent, which remains an unsatisfactory arrangement for any professional force to guard borders/LAC without firing. Hasn’t the need of having Mountain Strike Corps become Inescapable? After China junked all the CBM’s in Eastern Ladakh, and now reluctant to disengage in ‘other areas’ after disengaging North and South of Pangong Tso, it’s evident that de-escalation is nowhere in sight. The campaigning season is approaching with summers, which can again lead to heavy troop concentration by both sides. With many similar actions taken by China along LAC in past few decades, it is evident that a reactive, defensive strategy will not influence China to negotiate LAC/borders, which is important to avoid repeated standoffs. The need for dedicated Mountain Strike Corps for India is inescapable, to create worthwhile punitive deterrence against China, which can also be used elsewhere. As per media reports, some re-alignment/rebalancing of existing offensive forces, grouped with adequate mechanized forces and other elements is being done to create corps level offensive capability for Northern Theatre and partially raised ‘Mountain Strike Corps’ for eastern theatre, with adequate flexibility of application in other theatres. It makes strategic sense to meet the offensive requirements of various theatres and is a reasonably practical option, till India completes further capacity building. Strike Corps Headquarters versus Integrated Battle Groups under Theatres? The much-referred division/independent brigade-sized ‘Integrated Battle Groups’ (IBG) is a concept tried in many exercises in the recent past with adequate media coverage, but there is a need for all such forces to operate under offensive Corps Headquarters, tasked for an offensive role in adversary’s territory so that they are oriented, trained and equipped accordingly, which is a time-consuming process. Historical experience of operations in these areas indicates that the theatre commanders by virtue of such long borders and wide span of control, had a tendency to manage their defensive posture as a higher priority. To create deterrence and not be reactive, India needs offensive Corps Commanders to be looking for objectives into adversary’s territory and posturing accordingly. The logistics requirements and equipment profiling of an offensive corps have to be much different in terms of light tanks, guns, clothing and other equipment. It needs detailed planning and earmarking resources, which IBG’s are not designed to handle, and Theatre Headquarters will find it difficult to concentrate on offensive build-up, due to large span of control. The Mountain Strike Corps Commander will be able to pick up his objectives across LAC, capable of threatening its vital objectives, oriented, trained, equipped and organized with logistics set up to sustain forces across LAC, which will improve punitive deterrence capability of India. There may be a need to locate parts of such offensive corps at heights to minimize the acclimatization requirements, to cut short the mobilization timings. It is therefore recommended that the Mountain Strike Corps must be developed with Corps Headquarters, IBG and other components as part of it, on priority. This will impose required cost on China, making settlement of LAC/border issue a better option than not doing so. Future Military Strategy in Dealing with Aggressive China India needs to adopt multi-pronged strategy to include military, economic, diplomatic and other elements of power. Preparing for ‘Two Front War’ for India is not a choice, but a compulsion, although it may/may not happen. The only way to avoid ‘Two Front War’ for India, is to convince the potential adversaries that it is capable of fighting it successfully and posing multiple front for China. This convincing has to be backed by building capability to do so. India seems to be working on it, fast-tracking procurements and boosting indigenous production of necessary equipment through ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’, besides a tough stance by forces on borders. India needs to be prepared to pose a threat to Chinese vulnerabilities in maritime domain in collaboration with Quad and other friendly navies. The overall strategic approach has to be proactive at tactical, operational as well as strategic level. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion: Reactive defensive strategy will not work against China

As the World in general and India, in particular, are&nbsp;grappling to overcome the COVID-19 crisis of monstrous proportions, the National Security Advisor (NSA) of the United States of America, Jake Sullivan called up (April 25) his Indian counterpart, Ajit Doval expressing deep sympathy for the people of India amid an unprecedented surge in the cases. This telephonic conversation, high in quality and substance, saw Jake Sullivan assuring that India and the US will work jointly for the already existing, seven-decade-old health partnership between the two big democracies.

This talk between the two NSAs, followed up by a call by President Joe Biden clearly demonstrated that the US was inclined to help India at this critical juncture.&nbsp;

The US President, the NSA and other US officials holding key positions assured India rather convincingly that the US was sending specific raw material urgently required in India for the manufacture of Covishield vaccine.&nbsp;

For this, the US administration further said that it had already identified supplies of therapeutic and diagnostic test kits, Personal Protection Equipment (PPE), Oxygen generation equipment and allied supplies like ventilators and linked items of life-saving nature.&nbsp;

The US DFC (United States International Development Finance Corporation), in the meantime, has also disclosed funding to India, a substantial expansion of the scheme for manufacture at Bio E, the vaccine manufacturer in India to produce at least one billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines by the end of the year 2022.&nbsp;

In addition to this, the US is also deploying an expert team of public health advisors from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and USAID to extend support.

This support notwithstanding, NSAs of both India and the US will remain in close touch.&nbsp;

Jake&nbsp;Sullivan even tweeted about the US’s determined support to India. President Biden also used social media pledging support to India to tide over the ongoing health crisis.&nbsp;

Such a development marks a visible move by the US to help India in an all-out manner. Apart from this, US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin has directed his defence department to extend maximum support to India to overcome the prevailing monumental health challenges. Meanwhile, US Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi and Representative Pramila Jayapal have also urged for extended all-out support to India, both moral and material, to meet the Corona menace.

In a related development, the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (UK), several European countries including Denmark have assured all possible help.&nbsp;

However, most significantly, a loud call for help to India from Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has caught the attention of many who have also expressed his country’s solidarity in helping India at this moment of serious challenge.&nbsp;

Similar offers of help are also seen in the social media from Pakistan to extend a helping hand. Some knowledgeable quarters reckon that this is a golden opportunity for Pakistan to warm up to India as in the past, India too had offered help to Pakistan in a slew of natural calamities and catastrophe in Pakistan.&nbsp;

Pakistan and India are already believed to be engaged in a thaw through backchannel diplomacy restoring the status of ceasefire. There has been some restraint seen in criticising each other in recent times or any belligerent stance with any aggressive tenor. These think tanks believe that both India and Pakistan can jointly combat this health crisis as the iron is hot and opportunity doesn’t merit to be missed.&nbsp;

In sum, Pakistani gestures noticed recently, could be capitalised for the larger interest of peace bringing down temperatures. On its part, Pakistan can give up its stand on Kashmir for restoration of pre-August 5, 2019 status as it looks to be bereft of reality. An understanding on both sides, displaying maturity could usher in peace, good health and prosperity on both sides of the border.

The US help to India, triggered initially by the talks between the two NSAs, and now the offer by Pakistan offering solidarity, raises a ray of hope in these depressing times.

Amid these developments, China has visibly stepped up its presence in the South Asian region as seen from the recent visit of its Defence and People's Liberation Army Minister Wei Fenghe.

Arriving in Sri Lankan capital Colombo on April 27, the visiting Chinese minister met Sri Lanka President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and held wide-ranging talks signalling that China and Sri Lanka are further warming up to each other.&nbsp;

Barely six months ago a high level Chinese foreign policy official Yang Jiechi had paid a visit to Colombo. The Chinese Defence Minister, during his most recent visit to this region, had called for resisting powers from outside the region setting up military alliances in South Asia.&nbsp;

He was obviously referring to the Quad formation comprising India, the US, Australia and Japan. The Chinese defence minister also met Bangladesh President Abdul Hamid in Dhaka and called for renewed cooperation at a high level between China and Bangladesh in the areas of vaccine, defence, technology etc.&nbsp;

Also, General Secretary of Bangladesh's ruling Awami League, Obaidul Quader disclosed that Bangladesh is open to receiving vaccines from any country.&nbsp;

In the meantime, Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dr AK Abdul Momen indicated that China will gift five lakh doses of corona vaccine to Bangladesh. He further averred that Bangladeshis engaged in business with China prefer getting vaccines from China.&nbsp;

It would appear from these happenings unfolding in the region that China is trying to play a more proactive role in further befriending countries in South Asia focusing on Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Pakistan, Nepal and Afghanistan in an apparent bid to prove that it is alive and kicking in the region and can’t be ignored despite the Quad and emerging bonhomie between the US and India in the light of the coronavirus pandemic bringing them closer.&nbsp;

How far will China succeed in such geopolitical endeavours?&nbsp;

Only time will testify.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

As the World in general and India, in particular, are grappling to overcome the COVID-19 crisis of monstrous proportions, the National Security Advisor (NSA) of the United States of America, Jake Sullivan called up (April 25) his Indian counterpart, Ajit Doval expressing deep sympathy for the people of India amid an unprecedented surge in the cases.

As the World in general and India, in particular, are grappling to overcome the COVID-19 crisis of monstrous proportions, the National Security Advisor (NSA) of the United States of America, Jake Sullivan called up (April 25) his Indian counterpart, Ajit Doval expressing deep sympathy for the people of India amid an unprecedented surge in the cases. This telephonic conversation, high in quality and substance, saw Jake Sullivan assuring that India and the US will work jointly for the already existing, seven-decade-old health partnership between the two big democracies. This talk between the two NSAs, followed up by a call by President Joe Biden clearly demonstrated that the US was inclined to help India at this critical juncture. The US President, the NSA and other US officials holding key positions assured India rather convincingly that the US was sending specific raw material urgently required in India for the manufacture of Covishield vaccine. For this, the US administration further said that it had already identified supplies of therapeutic and diagnostic test kits, Personal Protection Equipment (PPE), Oxygen generation equipment and allied supplies like ventilators and linked items of life-saving nature. The US DFC (United States International Development Finance Corporation), in the meantime, has also disclosed funding to India, a substantial expansion of the scheme for manufacture at Bio E, the vaccine manufacturer in India to produce at least one billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines by the end of the year 2022. In addition to this, the US is also deploying an expert team of public health advisors from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and USAID to extend support. This support notwithstanding, NSAs of both India and the US will remain in close touch. Jake Sullivan even tweeted about the US’s determined support to India. President Biden also used social media pledging support to India to tide over the ongoing health crisis. Such a development marks a visible move by the US to help India in an all-out manner. Apart from this, US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin has directed his defence department to extend maximum support to India to overcome the prevailing monumental health challenges. Meanwhile, US Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi and Representative Pramila Jayapal have also urged for extended all-out support to India, both moral and material, to meet the Corona menace. In a related development, the European Union (EU), the United Kingdom (UK), several European countries including Denmark have assured all possible help. However, most significantly, a loud call for help to India from Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has caught the attention of many who have also expressed his country’s solidarity in helping India at this moment of serious challenge. Similar offers of help are also seen in the social media from Pakistan to extend a helping hand. Some knowledgeable quarters reckon that this is a golden opportunity for Pakistan to warm up to India as in the past, India too had offered help to Pakistan in a slew of natural calamities and catastrophe in Pakistan. Pakistan and India are already believed to be engaged in a thaw through backchannel diplomacy restoring the status of ceasefire. There has been some restraint seen in criticising each other in recent times or any belligerent stance with any aggressive tenor. These think tanks believe that both India and Pakistan can jointly combat this health crisis as the iron is hot and opportunity doesn’t merit to be missed. In sum, Pakistani gestures noticed recently, could be capitalised for the larger interest of peace bringing down temperatures. On its part, Pakistan can give up its stand on Kashmir for restoration of pre-August 5, 2019 status as it looks to be bereft of reality. An understanding on both sides, displaying maturity could usher in peace, good health and prosperity on both sides of the border. The US help to India, triggered initially by the talks between the two NSAs, and now the offer by Pakistan offering solidarity, raises a ray of hope in these depressing times. Amid these developments, China has visibly stepped up its presence in the South Asian region as seen from the recent visit of its Defence and People's Liberation Army Minister Wei Fenghe. Arriving in Sri Lankan capital Colombo on April 27, the visiting Chinese minister met Sri Lanka President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and held wide-ranging talks signalling that China and Sri Lanka are further warming up to each other. Barely six months ago a high level Chinese foreign policy official Yang Jiechi had paid a visit to Colombo. The Chinese Defence Minister, during his most recent visit to this region, had called for resisting powers from outside the region setting up military alliances in South Asia. He was obviously referring to the Quad formation comprising India, the US, Australia and Japan. The Chinese defence minister also met Bangladesh President Abdul Hamid in Dhaka and called for renewed cooperation at a high level between China and Bangladesh in the areas of vaccine, defence, technology etc. Also, General Secretary of Bangladesh's ruling Awami League, Obaidul Quader disclosed that Bangladesh is open to receiving vaccines from any country. In the meantime, Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dr AK Abdul Momen indicated that China will gift five lakh doses of corona vaccine to Bangladesh. He further averred that Bangladeshis engaged in business with China prefer getting vaccines from China. It would appear from these happenings unfolding in the region that China is trying to play a more proactive role in further befriending countries in South Asia focusing on Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Pakistan, Nepal and Afghanistan in an apparent bid to prove that it is alive and kicking in the region and can’t be ignored despite the Quad and emerging bonhomie between the US and India in the light of the coronavirus pandemic bringing them closer. How far will China succeed in such geopolitical endeavours? Only time will testify. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion: Depressing Covid times and rays of hope

India is one of the first countries to legalize abortions. Abortions became legal in India under certain conditions only in 1971. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (“MTP Act”) was passed due to the progress made in the field of medical science with respect to safer abortions. Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2020 (“the Bill”) amends the MTP Act, 1971 and was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 2nd March 2020 and passed on 17th March 2020. &nbsp;

Thereafter, Rajya Sabha passed the said bill after much deliberation on 16th March 2021. Presently, it awaits the President’s assent for it to become a law. It is pertinent to state that this Bill was presented in the Parliament before and lapsed thrice, in 2014, 2017 and 2018. 
&nbsp; 
Many Writ Petitions were filed by women activists who sought permission to abort after 20 weeks due to rape or foetal abnormalities. It is commonly reported by gynecologists that severe congenital abnormalities only show up after 20 weeks and such pregnancy cannot be legally terminated under the MPT Act,1971. The new Bill aims to resolve this issue.&nbsp;

The Bill was drafted after extensive consultation with various leading NGO’s, Indian Medical Association, the Gynecologist Associations etc., along with ethics committee. &nbsp;The amendment has given a respite to women who are rape survivors, differently-abled, minors, victims of incest etc.

The Bombay High Court, in a petition by Niketa Mehta, held that an abortion of a 24 week old fetus, which had a congenital heart defect, to be in contravention of the MTP Act, 1971, which was also later affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. &nbsp;

This case raised issues around abortion laws after 20 weeks and the upbringing of a child suffering from incurable defects. This case shed light on the loopholes in the MTP Act, 1971 and prompted the government to reconsider abortion laws in the country.

The Bill regulates the state of pregnancy, specifically focussing on the increase of the time limit for abortion. Prior to the amendment, abortion undertaken within 12 weeks of conception required the opinion of a doctor and when done between 12-20 weeks, required the opinion of two doctors. The current MTP Act, 1971 does not have any provision for abortion after 20 weeks.&nbsp;

However, the amendment now allows an abortion to be done up to 20 weeks with only one doctor’s advice instead of two and two doctor’s advice in between 20-24 weeks in special cases. Additionally, the Bill also gives authority to States, to decide if a pregnancy may be terminated due to foetal abnormalities after 24 weeks, by way of setting up State-level Medical Boards. The said Board is to consist of a Paediatrician, Radiologist/ Sinologist, Gynecologist and other such members notified by the concerned State Government.

Countries all over the world have put limitations and differing time frames for allowing abortions which are based on the health of the mother and the foetus, along with the possible risk to the mother. One strong viewpoint that is put forth by this Bill is that the State has an obligation to protect all life forms, which also includes that of a foetus.&nbsp;

The Bill gives relief in this aspect by permitting termination of pregnancy after 24 weeks after the approval of the Medical Board, on diagnosis of foetal abnormalities. Having said that, in cases of rape exceeding 24 weeks of pregnancy, only recourse left was to approach the courts through a Writ Petition.&nbsp;

Both, the Act and the Bill, specify that abortion should only be performed by gynecologists or obstetricians and not by untrained persons, which commonly happens in rural areas, where there is a shortage of doctors. As for the privacy of the woman is concerned, the registered medical practitioner is permitted to reveal the details of the patient to only a person who has been authorized by law. Upon violation, the violating medical official is liable to be imprisoned for a year, or fined, or both.&nbsp;

In addition to extending the time frame for terminating pregnancy, the Central Government has also taken a progressive outlook on women, keeping in mind the current changing times. The Bill mentions “woman” and “her partner” instead of a “married woman” and “her husband”, showcasing open-mindedness of the society. &nbsp;The Central Government acknowledges the failure of contraception as well. It further gives relief to women undergoing stress of getting permissions from various courts due to the pressing time factor in pregnancy.&nbsp;

It is noteworthy that India is the first country to pass a legislation which gives mothers and their partners the right to a paid leave following a miscarriage or stillbirth, followed by New Zealand in 2021. More specifically, the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 1961, extends miscarriage leave to six weeks of paid leave. Even today, countries such as the UK, United States of America, Brazil and Germany do not give as much autonomy to a pregnant woman as does India.&nbsp;

It is commendable that the Central Government has taken such a bold stand while balancing the diverse cultures, traditions and schools of thought that our country maintains. With the hope of this Bill turning into an Amendment, one can be assured that the country is on the road to advancement, addressing women issues more fiercely than ever.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

India is one of the first countries to legalize abortions. Abortions became legal in India under certain conditions only in 1971. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (“MTP Act”) was passed due to the progress made in the field of medical science with respect to safer abortions.

India is one of the first countries to legalize abortions. Abortions became legal in India under certain conditions only in 1971. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (“MTP Act”) was passed due to the progress made in the field of medical science with respect to safer abortions. Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2020 (“the Bill”) amends the MTP Act, 1971 and was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 2nd March 2020 and passed on 17th March 2020. Thereafter, Rajya Sabha passed the said bill after much deliberation on 16th March 2021. Presently, it awaits the President’s assent for it to become a law. It is pertinent to state that this Bill was presented in the Parliament before and lapsed thrice, in 2014, 2017 and 2018. Many Writ Petitions were filed by women activists who sought permission to abort after 20 weeks due to rape or foetal abnormalities. It is commonly reported by gynecologists that severe congenital abnormalities only show up after 20 weeks and such pregnancy cannot be legally terminated under the MPT Act,1971. The new Bill aims to resolve this issue. The Bill was drafted after extensive consultation with various leading NGO’s, Indian Medical Association, the Gynecologist Associations etc., along with ethics committee. The amendment has given a respite to women who are rape survivors, differently-abled, minors, victims of incest etc. The Bombay High Court, in a petition by Niketa Mehta, held that an abortion of a 24 week old fetus, which had a congenital heart defect, to be in contravention of the MTP Act, 1971, which was also later affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. This case raised issues around abortion laws after 20 weeks and the upbringing of a child suffering from incurable defects. This case shed light on the loopholes in the MTP Act, 1971 and prompted the government to reconsider abortion laws in the country. The Bill regulates the state of pregnancy, specifically focussing on the increase of the time limit for abortion. Prior to the amendment, abortion undertaken within 12 weeks of conception required the opinion of a doctor and when done between 12-20 weeks, required the opinion of two doctors. The current MTP Act, 1971 does not have any provision for abortion after 20 weeks. However, the amendment now allows an abortion to be done up to 20 weeks with only one doctor’s advice instead of two and two doctor’s advice in between 20-24 weeks in special cases. Additionally, the Bill also gives authority to States, to decide if a pregnancy may be terminated due to foetal abnormalities after 24 weeks, by way of setting up State-level Medical Boards. The said Board is to consist of a Paediatrician, Radiologist/ Sinologist, Gynecologist and other such members notified by the concerned State Government. Countries all over the world have put limitations and differing time frames for allowing abortions which are based on the health of the mother and the foetus, along with the possible risk to the mother. One strong viewpoint that is put forth by this Bill is that the State has an obligation to protect all life forms, which also includes that of a foetus. The Bill gives relief in this aspect by permitting termination of pregnancy after 24 weeks after the approval of the Medical Board, on diagnosis of foetal abnormalities. Having said that, in cases of rape exceeding 24 weeks of pregnancy, only recourse left was to approach the courts through a Writ Petition. Both, the Act and the Bill, specify that abortion should only be performed by gynecologists or obstetricians and not by untrained persons, which commonly happens in rural areas, where there is a shortage of doctors. As for the privacy of the woman is concerned, the registered medical practitioner is permitted to reveal the details of the patient to only a person who has been authorized by law. Upon violation, the violating medical official is liable to be imprisoned for a year, or fined, or both. In addition to extending the time frame for terminating pregnancy, the Central Government has also taken a progressive outlook on women, keeping in mind the current changing times. The Bill mentions “woman” and “her partner” instead of a “married woman” and “her husband”, showcasing open-mindedness of the society. The Central Government acknowledges the failure of contraception as well. It further gives relief to women undergoing stress of getting permissions from various courts due to the pressing time factor in pregnancy. It is noteworthy that India is the first country to pass a legislation which gives mothers and their partners the right to a paid leave following a miscarriage or stillbirth, followed by New Zealand in 2021. More specifically, the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 1961, extends miscarriage leave to six weeks of paid leave. Even today, countries such as the UK, United States of America, Brazil and Germany do not give as much autonomy to a pregnant woman as does India. It is commendable that the Central Government has taken such a bold stand while balancing the diverse cultures, traditions and schools of thought that our country maintains. With the hope of this Bill turning into an Amendment, one can be assured that the country is on the road to advancement, addressing women issues more fiercely than ever. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion | Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2020: A Short Analysis

Act 1. Scene 1. &nbsp;Enter Irony, through a simple but loaded question: Isn’t it truly intriguing that the most hymned, celebrated and revered emotion on planet Earth is – alas – allocated just one day in the year for remembrance [Valentine’s Day] when hard-sell, heart-sell goes on a maniacal overdrive? That done, on every other day, this emotion is slung back in the deep freeze with technological prowess, pricing coups, strategic alliance et al, grabbing the spotlight?

Fact is, never in recorded history has there been a more desperate desire and need for love. &nbsp;Quickly translated, it means the love-market has never been so huge and inviting!&nbsp;

Cynics &amp; pin-striped collar-down marketers may scoff at this line of thought, but obviously these sophisticated, myopic cavemen are a universe away from the new, exciting world of the Attraction Economy which explores the terrain created through narratives that are both engaging &amp; insightful and connect directly with the heart. Champions of this movement believe that the old, ghisa pita branding practices have become stultified and need to be put to sleep with love-affairs with the brand, the new name of the game. &nbsp;

Look around and see for yourself the scene exploding with people longing to invest in love, emotion, imagination &amp; feeling with one huge stumbling block. &nbsp;They are clueless about how to hit which button! Declares an amused Corporate Consultant “They are caught flat-footed in the challenge of translating love into a palpable &amp; tangible act that is warm and credible.” &nbsp;To real people, it is not rocket science. It’s about getting back to basics. Junking those bulky reports and research studies &amp; leveraging this emotion as a strategic device for consumer-connect. Then watch the bottom line soar!&nbsp;

Actually, there are three outstanding attributes define this template. Mystery, Sensuality and Intimacy.&nbsp;

Mystery is about stories, metaphors, dreams and symbols, a space where past, present and future becomes one. &nbsp;Also, what keeps long-term relationships alive.&nbsp;

Sensuality keeps the five senses on a red alert for new textures, intriguing scents and tastes, great music, spell-binding imagery. &nbsp;

Intimacy invokes empathy, commitment, passion – the small, perfect gesture. These are connections that win intense loyalty and are remembered long after features &amp; benefits have faded away. &nbsp;With intimacy comes the feeling of brand ownership. &nbsp;We all know the power of mystery, sensuality and intimacy from our personal journeys.&nbsp;

This could beg the question “why should relationships in business be any different?” The answer is simple. Business too needs the three traits that define transactions. &nbsp;Mystery draws together stories, metaphors and dreams that give a relationship, texture. Not surprisingly, after the metric mania of the 20th century, mystery is again taking centre stage. What we don’t know starts to be as critical as what we do know. &nbsp;Who wants to be squirted with perfume as they walk into a store? This formulaic spray-and-bray is just a symptom of a much bigger malaise – passion trimmed into efficiency. Inspiration pulled back to a positive attitude and love diluted to LIKE. &nbsp;By focusing on mystery, sensuality and intimacy, business-as-usual can be transformed as a powerfully, emotionally-driven selling idea.

Insightful and clued-in communicators have always understood, recognised and cashed in on this emotion intelligently to escape from the ‘commodity trap’ to place brands where they belong – centre stage! &nbsp;This is a hallowed space reserved totally for charismatic brands – Pepsi, Coke, Reebok, Nike, Apple, Fevicol, Tanishq, Vodafone, Airtel, Lux, HDFC, Archies – which inspires passion and loyalties that are non-negotiable. &nbsp;What better time than today’s cynical and complex times to get love back on track? &nbsp;Reaffirm what smart emo-driven marketers have always believed: In the war between reason and emotion, get your facts straight. &nbsp;Reason leads to conclusion. &nbsp;Emotion drives action!

Finally, if fun, sensuality, mystery &amp; intimacy enthrall, engage, entertain, enrich and empower life, why should they be blinkered off from the communication thrust related to trade &amp; commerce, business &amp; industry? &nbsp;Aren’t they driven to people? &nbsp;Why not substitute the dumb, impersonal, corporatised passion-trimmed-into-efficiency mode with a strong, personal &amp; emotional connect? Starbucks, Cafe Coffee Day, Barista and the new bank (ICICI) ads seem to be doing it, brilliantly, all the time.&nbsp;

They’ve understood that the rules of the game have changed. &nbsp;It’s no longer only about consumer contact programmes; it’s about hanging out and being involved. &nbsp;Not about taking notes – but taking the pulse. &nbsp;Also, they’ve recognised that the research guys, after researching the hell out of what they believe needs to be researched, have conveniently ignored the rest. &nbsp;The truth is, everything of value cannot be probed, dissected, analysed, scanned and researched for the right answer. Why? Because then we are in danger [as one perceptive pundit brilliantly put it] of being exactly wrong instead of being approximately right. Of placing consumers at the base of the pyramid rather than the centre, of mistaking the figures on our hands for the beat of our hearts.

So what’s the takeaway? Basically, we need to stop talking about love &amp; emotion and set it to work, blend it to the rampaging, new age emotion economy. The entertainment industry is a brilliant setting, it appeals to our creative, unconscious and intuitive side – zones that operate beyond rationality &amp; rules, celebrating story-telling mystery &amp; metaphor.

So at the end of the day: Is love a Mango? &nbsp;A four-letter word? &nbsp;A many splendoured thing? The April rose that only grows in early spring? &nbsp;Nature’s way of giving a reason to living, the golden crown that makes a man a king? &nbsp;You decide, but yes ... the jury is out and the popular consensus is that [everything considered], love is indeed the CEO that presides over all constituencies and target groups simply because it unfailingly conquers the most significant, critical, precious, sacrosanct and empowering territory of all – your heart!

Hey guys, give love a chance ...!

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Act 1. Scene 1. Enter Irony, through a simple but loaded question: Isn’t it truly intriguing that the most hymned, celebrated and revered emotion on planet Earth is – alas – allocated just one day in the year for remembrance [Valentine’s Day] when hard-sell, heart-sell goes on a maniacal overdrive?

Act 1. Scene 1. Enter Irony, through a simple but loaded question: Isn’t it truly intriguing that the most hymned, celebrated and revered emotion on planet Earth is – alas – allocated just one day in the year for remembrance [Valentine’s Day] when hard-sell, heart-sell goes on a maniacal overdrive? That done, on every other day, this emotion is slung back in the deep freeze with technological prowess, pricing coups, strategic alliance et al, grabbing the spotlight? Fact is, never in recorded history has there been a more desperate desire and need for love. Quickly translated, it means the love-market has never been so huge and inviting! Cynics & pin-striped collar-down marketers may scoff at this line of thought, but obviously these sophisticated, myopic cavemen are a universe away from the new, exciting world of the Attraction Economy which explores the terrain created through narratives that are both engaging & insightful and connect directly with the heart. Champions of this movement believe that the old, ghisa pita branding practices have become stultified and need to be put to sleep with love-affairs with the brand, the new name of the game. Look around and see for yourself the scene exploding with people longing to invest in love, emotion, imagination & feeling with one huge stumbling block. They are clueless about how to hit which button! Declares an amused Corporate Consultant “They are caught flat-footed in the challenge of translating love into a palpable & tangible act that is warm and credible.” To real people, it is not rocket science. It’s about getting back to basics. Junking those bulky reports and research studies & leveraging this emotion as a strategic device for consumer-connect. Then watch the bottom line soar! Actually, there are three outstanding attributes define this template. Mystery, Sensuality and Intimacy. Mystery is about stories, metaphors, dreams and symbols, a space where past, present and future becomes one. Also, what keeps long-term relationships alive. Sensuality keeps the five senses on a red alert for new textures, intriguing scents and tastes, great music, spell-binding imagery. Intimacy invokes empathy, commitment, passion – the small, perfect gesture. These are connections that win intense loyalty and are remembered long after features & benefits have faded away. With intimacy comes the feeling of brand ownership. We all know the power of mystery, sensuality and intimacy from our personal journeys. This could beg the question “why should relationships in business be any different?” The answer is simple. Business too needs the three traits that define transactions. Mystery draws together stories, metaphors and dreams that give a relationship, texture. Not surprisingly, after the metric mania of the 20th century, mystery is again taking centre stage. What we don’t know starts to be as critical as what we do know. Who wants to be squirted with perfume as they walk into a store? This formulaic spray-and-bray is just a symptom of a much bigger malaise – passion trimmed into efficiency. Inspiration pulled back to a positive attitude and love diluted to LIKE. By focusing on mystery, sensuality and intimacy, business-as-usual can be transformed as a powerfully, emotionally-driven selling idea. Insightful and clued-in communicators have always understood, recognised and cashed in on this emotion intelligently to escape from the ‘commodity trap’ to place brands where they belong – centre stage! This is a hallowed space reserved totally for charismatic brands – Pepsi, Coke, Reebok, Nike, Apple, Fevicol, Tanishq, Vodafone, Airtel, Lux, HDFC, Archies – which inspires passion and loyalties that are non-negotiable. What better time than today’s cynical and complex times to get love back on track? Reaffirm what smart emo-driven marketers have always believed: In the war between reason and emotion, get your facts straight. Reason leads to conclusion. Emotion drives action! Finally, if fun, sensuality, mystery & intimacy enthrall, engage, entertain, enrich and empower life, why should they be blinkered off from the communication thrust related to trade & commerce, business & industry? Aren’t they driven to people? Why not substitute the dumb, impersonal, corporatised passion-trimmed-into-efficiency mode with a strong, personal & emotional connect? Starbucks, Cafe Coffee Day, Barista and the new bank (ICICI) ads seem to be doing it, brilliantly, all the time. They’ve understood that the rules of the game have changed. It’s no longer only about consumer contact programmes; it’s about hanging out and being involved. Not about taking notes – but taking the pulse. Also, they’ve recognised that the research guys, after researching the hell out of what they believe needs to be researched, have conveniently ignored the rest. The truth is, everything of value cannot be probed, dissected, analysed, scanned and researched for the right answer. Why? Because then we are in danger [as one perceptive pundit brilliantly put it] of being exactly wrong instead of being approximately right. Of placing consumers at the base of the pyramid rather than the centre, of mistaking the figures on our hands for the beat of our hearts. So what’s the takeaway? Basically, we need to stop talking about love & emotion and set it to work, blend it to the rampaging, new age emotion economy. The entertainment industry is a brilliant setting, it appeals to our creative, unconscious and intuitive side – zones that operate beyond rationality & rules, celebrating story-telling mystery & metaphor. So at the end of the day: Is love a Mango? A four-letter word? A many splendoured thing? The April rose that only grows in early spring? Nature’s way of giving a reason to living, the golden crown that makes a man a king? You decide, but yes ... the jury is out and the popular consensus is that [everything considered], love is indeed the CEO that presides over all constituencies and target groups simply because it unfailingly conquers the most significant, critical, precious, sacrosanct and empowering territory of all – your heart! Hey guys, give love a chance ...! (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion: Give love a chance?

Sports governance worldwide has had the legs knocked out from under it. Yet, national and international sports administrators are slow in realizing the magnitude of what has hit them.

Tectonic plates underlying sports’ guiding principle that sports and politics are unrelated have shifted, driven by a struggle against racism and a quest for human rights and social justice.

The principle was repeatedly challenged over the last year by athletes as well as businesses forcing national and international sports federations to either support anti-racist protest or at the least refrain from penalizing athletes who use their sport to oppose racism and promote human rights and social justice, acts that are political by definition.

The assault on what is a convenient fiction started in the United States as much a result of the explosion of Black Lives Matter protests on the streets of American cities as the fact that, in contrast to the fan-club relationship in much of the world, US sports clubs and associations see fans as clients, and the client is king.

The assault moved to Europe in the last month with the national soccer teams of Norway, Germany, and the Netherlands wearing T-shirts during 2022 World Cup qualifiers that supported human rights and change. The Europeans were adding their voices to perennial criticism of migrant workers’ rights in Qatar, the host of next year’s World Cup.

Gareth Southgate, manager of the English national team, said the Football Association was discussing with human rights group Amnesty International tackling migrant rights in the Gulf state.

While Qatar is the focus in Europe, greater sensitivity to human rights appears to be moving beyond. Formula One driver Lewis Hamilton told a news conference in Bahrain ahead of this season’s opening Grand Prix that “there are issues all around the world, but I do not think we should be going to these countries and just ignoring what is happening in those places, arriving, having a great time and then leave.”

Mr Hamilton has been prominent in speaking out against racial injustice and social inequality since the National Football League in the United States endorsed Black Lives Matter and players taking the knee during the playing of the American national anthem in protest against racism.

In a dramatic break with its ban on “any political, religious or personal slogans, statements or images” on the pitch, world soccer governing body FIFA said it would not open disciplinary proceedings against the European players. “FIFA believes in the freedom of speech and in the power of football as a force for good,” a spokesperson for the governing body said.

The statement constituted an implicit acknowledgement that standing up for human rights and social justice was inherently political. It raises the question of how FIFA going forward will reconcile its stand on human rights with its statutory ban on political expression.

It makes maintaining the fiction of a separation of politics and sports ever more difficult to defend and opens the door to a debate on how the inseparable relationship that joins sports and politics at the hip like Siamese twins should be regulated.

Signalling that a flood barrier may have collapsed, Major League Baseball this month said it would be moving its 2021 All Star Game out of Atlanta in response to a new Georgia law that threatens to potentially restrict voting access for people of colour.

In a shot across the bow to FIFA and other international sports associations, major Georgia-headquartered companies, including Coca Cola, one of the soccer body’s longest-standing corporate sponsors, alongside Delta Airlines and Home Depot adopted political positions in their condemnation of the Georgia law.

The greater assertiveness of athletes and corporations in speaking out for fundamental rights and against racism and discrimination will make it increasingly difficult for sports associations to uphold the fiction of a separation between politics and sports.

The willingness of FIFA, the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) and other national and international associations to look the other way when athletes take their support for rights and social justice to the sports arena has let a genie out of the bottle. It has sawed off the legs of the FIFA principle that players’ “equipment must not have any political, religious or personal slogans.”

Already, the US committee has said that it would not sanction American athletes who choose to raise their fists or kneel on the podium at this July’s Tokyo Olympic Games as well as future tournaments.

The decision puts the USOPC at odds with the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) staunch rule against political protest.

The IOC suspended and banned US medallists Tommie Smith and John Carlos after the sprinters raised their fists on the podium at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics to protest racial inequality in the United States.

Acknowledging the incestuous relationship between sports and politics will ultimately require a charter or code of conduct that regulates the relationship and introduces some form of independent oversight akin to the supervision of banking systems or the regulation of the water sector in Britain, alongside the United States the only country to have privatized water as an asset.

Human rights and social justice have emerged as monkey wrenches that could shatter the myth of a separation of sports and politics. If athletes take their protests to the Tokyo Olympics and the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, the myth would sustain a significant body blow.

Said a statement by US athletes seeking changes to the USOPC’s rule banning protest at sporting events: “Prohibiting athletes to freely express their views during the Games, particularly those from historically underrepresented and minoritized groups, contributes to the dehumanization of athletes that is at odds with key Olympic and Paralympic values.”

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Sports governance worldwide has had the legs knocked out from under it. Yet, national and international sports administrators are slow in realizing the magnitude of what has hit them.

Sports governance worldwide has had the legs knocked out from under it. Yet, national and international sports administrators are slow in realizing the magnitude of what has hit them. Tectonic plates underlying sports’ guiding principle that sports and politics are unrelated have shifted, driven by a struggle against racism and a quest for human rights and social justice. The principle was repeatedly challenged over the last year by athletes as well as businesses forcing national and international sports federations to either support anti-racist protest or at the least refrain from penalizing athletes who use their sport to oppose racism and promote human rights and social justice, acts that are political by definition. The assault on what is a convenient fiction started in the United States as much a result of the explosion of Black Lives Matter protests on the streets of American cities as the fact that, in contrast to the fan-club relationship in much of the world, US sports clubs and associations see fans as clients, and the client is king. The assault moved to Europe in the last month with the national soccer teams of Norway, Germany, and the Netherlands wearing T-shirts during 2022 World Cup qualifiers that supported human rights and change. The Europeans were adding their voices to perennial criticism of migrant workers’ rights in Qatar, the host of next year’s World Cup. Gareth Southgate, manager of the English national team, said the Football Association was discussing with human rights group Amnesty International tackling migrant rights in the Gulf state. While Qatar is the focus in Europe, greater sensitivity to human rights appears to be moving beyond. Formula One driver Lewis Hamilton told a news conference in Bahrain ahead of this season’s opening Grand Prix that “there are issues all around the world, but I do not think we should be going to these countries and just ignoring what is happening in those places, arriving, having a great time and then leave.” Mr Hamilton has been prominent in speaking out against racial injustice and social inequality since the National Football League in the United States endorsed Black Lives Matter and players taking the knee during the playing of the American national anthem in protest against racism. In a dramatic break with its ban on “any political, religious or personal slogans, statements or images” on the pitch, world soccer governing body FIFA said it would not open disciplinary proceedings against the European players. “FIFA believes in the freedom of speech and in the power of football as a force for good,” a spokesperson for the governing body said. The statement constituted an implicit acknowledgement that standing up for human rights and social justice was inherently political. It raises the question of how FIFA going forward will reconcile its stand on human rights with its statutory ban on political expression. It makes maintaining the fiction of a separation of politics and sports ever more difficult to defend and opens the door to a debate on how the inseparable relationship that joins sports and politics at the hip like Siamese twins should be regulated. Signalling that a flood barrier may have collapsed, Major League Baseball this month said it would be moving its 2021 All Star Game out of Atlanta in response to a new Georgia law that threatens to potentially restrict voting access for people of colour. In a shot across the bow to FIFA and other international sports associations, major Georgia-headquartered companies, including Coca Cola, one of the soccer body’s longest-standing corporate sponsors, alongside Delta Airlines and Home Depot adopted political positions in their condemnation of the Georgia law. The greater assertiveness of athletes and corporations in speaking out for fundamental rights and against racism and discrimination will make it increasingly difficult for sports associations to uphold the fiction of a separation between politics and sports. The willingness of FIFA, the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) and other national and international associations to look the other way when athletes take their support for rights and social justice to the sports arena has let a genie out of the bottle. It has sawed off the legs of the FIFA principle that players’ “equipment must not have any political, religious or personal slogans.” Already, the US committee has said that it would not sanction American athletes who choose to raise their fists or kneel on the podium at this July’s Tokyo Olympic Games as well as future tournaments. The decision puts the USOPC at odds with the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) staunch rule against political protest. The IOC suspended and banned US medallists Tommie Smith and John Carlos after the sprinters raised their fists on the podium at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics to protest racial inequality in the United States. Acknowledging the incestuous relationship between sports and politics will ultimately require a charter or code of conduct that regulates the relationship and introduces some form of independent oversight akin to the supervision of banking systems or the regulation of the water sector in Britain, alongside the United States the only country to have privatized water as an asset. Human rights and social justice have emerged as monkey wrenches that could shatter the myth of a separation of sports and politics. If athletes take their protests to the Tokyo Olympics and the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, the myth would sustain a significant body blow. Said a statement by US athletes seeking changes to the USOPC’s rule banning protest at sporting events: “Prohibiting athletes to freely express their views during the Games, particularly those from historically underrepresented and minoritized groups, contributes to the dehumanization of athletes that is at odds with key Olympic and Paralympic values.” (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion: Athletes knock the legs from under global sports governance

Existing Status of Standoff

The 11th round of India-China corps commanders'&nbsp;meeting has ended with good optics and pleasantly worded PIB release, with no concrete agreement (if any) disseminated so far.&nbsp;

After disengagement of troops in eastern Ladakh from north and south of Pangong Tso, no disengagement in other areas including Depsang plains, Gogra, Hot Spring, Demchok, and no further de-escalation, was well predicted by most analysts.&nbsp;

In the “Two Session” press conference last month, China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi suggested China and India to strengthen cooperation instead of harboring suspicion at each other and earlier indicated to get back to business as usual, sidelining the border/LAC issue. The Indian Foreign Ministry seems to be conveying that disengagement at all friction points leading to de-escalation, peace and tranquility on borders are pre-requisites to progressing smooth bilateral ties.&nbsp;

This rightful Indian stance is adversely affected by indicators like the likelihood of Indian permission for progress in 45 Chinese projects and 300 Crore contracts to Huawei. This is not in sync with the stance conveyed.&nbsp;

The standoff is therefore yet to be resolved. as Indian Army Chief General Naravane puts it “the threat has only abated and it has not gone away altogether”, although domestic events in both countries have dimmed the spotlight on borders.&nbsp;

What was China trying? 
&nbsp; 
Chinese political aim was and continues to be China-centric Asia and forcing Indian subordination, a necessity to achieve it. This aim could not be achieved despite prolonged standoff in Ladakh so far, but will remain unchanged, even in future. Chinese strategic aim to control eastern Ladakh was to provide depth to its National Highway G-219, Karakoram Pass and China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), redraw Line of Actual Control (LAC) as per its perception and negotiate border on its terms thereafter.&nbsp;

The Indian aim has been to get Chinese back to pre-standoff positions as of April 2020 in all friction points, not to concede unilateral change of LAC, and pursue talks towards its demarcation, hoping to lead to border resolution. With current disengagement, status quo stands achieved in areas north and south of Pangong Tso, at the cost of losing the crucial leverage of giving up occupation of certain heights on Kailash range and north of Pangong Tso, prior to Chinese vacation of ‘Other Areas’. Pursuing disengagement and de-escalation in remaining areas will be an uphill task due to shortage of leverages, given Chinese past track record of junking agreements at will.&nbsp;

China, having marched in areas, where it was not supposed to be, junking all Confidence Building Measures (CBMs), as part of overall ‘Incremental Encroachment Strategy’, exploiting first-mover advantage, makes unfair use of Indian engagement in combating COVID-19 pandemic. China soon found itself handicapped by strong Indian response, resistance and resolve, with proactive actions resulting newly-created vulnerabilities to Maldo Garrison and its launch pad, South of Pangong Tso.&nbsp;

Despite disengagement in Pangong Tso area, Chinese discomfort remains due to Indian dispositions in Sub Sector North including Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO as well as infrastructure development including DSDBO road. This remains a threat to crucial Tibet-Xinjiang-Pakistan connectivity.&nbsp;

Why Speedy Partial Disengagement?&nbsp;

After getting locked in the standoff for so long, both countries realized that with such large troop density on both sides, prolonging it further will not achieve any meaningful gains. Escalation to conflict or further standoff was proving costly to both, in terms of human and financial cost.

A very heavy troop concentration within striking distance was prone to accidental triggering of conflict, which both countries wanted to avoid. Disengagement per se, therefore, was certainly a preferred option for both countries but its sequencing deserves an analysis.&nbsp;

The domestic compulsion of getting into “Two Session 2021” with vulnerable Maldo Garrison was also mounting for China. Under such circumstances, a disengagement agreement involving Indians'&nbsp;vacation of heights south and north of Pangong Tso at the cost of pulling back from finger areas to its original positions, with its road intact, gave a much-desired face-saver to China and it disengaged with unprecedented speed in Pangong Tso area.&nbsp;

The Two Narratives!

Both countries justify disengagement process favourable to them although disengagement is yet to be done at many friction points. The Chinese narrative to its population up to “Two Session” has been that it has got Indians down from heights north and south of Pangong Tso and ensured no Indian presence from Finger 4 to Finger 8, no patrolling by declaring it as buffer zone, while retaining its presence in Depsang plains, Gogra, Hot Spring and Demchok areas. It can, therefore, claim to have launched a successful incremental encroachment operation. The explainers of Chinese narrative will find it difficult to explain their gain by moving forward from Finger 8 to Finger 4 and then speedily withdrawing back to the same location

The Indian narrative to its critiques is that it has been able to successfully push Chinese back to status quo ante positions as existed pre standoff in Pangong Tso area, the stance which India maintained throughout.&nbsp; 
Amongst rest areas, like Gogra, Hot Spring and Demchok, it is work in progress.

Depsang is a legacy issue of decades, where patrolling points to limit ITBP/ Army patrols were designated to avoid confrontation.&nbsp;

India can draw solace from the fact that, while it is being denied patrolling to the patrol points on Depsang Plateau East of the area bottleneck inside the Raki Nallah, it has also denied PLA patrols movement West of Bottleneck, to Chinese claimed area close to Burtse.&nbsp;

Future Options with India

The actual worth of disengagement agreement is yet to be seen in light of trust deficit and past track record of Chinese in junking Agreements, when it suits them, as the LAC, as well as border, remains un-demarcated between both countries.&nbsp;

The relative calmness along LAC doesn’t mean a smooth ride ahead.&nbsp;

With both armies preparing for annual summer exercises and stepping up deployment along LAC in high altitude region, in coming weeks, in addition to the troop deployment in ‘Other Areas’ doesn’t promise de-escalation.&nbsp;

The Indian forces and the country has given a befitting reply to Chinese misadventure, and will do so each time, with added confidence and experience of 2020. &nbsp;

Indian aim should be not to concede Chinese attempt to redraw LAC as LAC-2020. In light of no major breakthrough in 22nd round of China-India border talks, I do not expect any worthwhile development on delineation, delimitation for demarcation of LAC, which, is necessary to prevent repeated standoffs, even if the present one sees some resolution.&nbsp;

Chinese will like to keep border unsettled, till the time the political cost of not settling it, becomes higher than doing so, for Chinese Communist Party.&nbsp;

India must be prepared for ‘Two Front War’ as a worst-case scenario, and continue capacity building in all domains, including maritime arena. Ongoing infrastructure development along borders should lead to settling of locals in villages along LAC with better facilities, to ward off Chinese design of developing hundreds of new villages along LAC.&nbsp;

Strategic partnerships with like-minded democracies and collective naval posturing to create multifront situation for China are efforts in right direction. There is a need for alternative supply chain, trade and technological ecosystem, independent of China for which some initial steps taken by Quad countries need to be pursued on strategic plane.

(Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Existing Status of Standoff The 11th round of India-China corps commanders' meeting has ended with good optics and pleasantly worded PIB release, with no concrete agreement (if any) disseminated so far.

Existing Status of Standoff The 11th round of India-China corps commanders' meeting has ended with good optics and pleasantly worded PIB release, with no concrete agreement (if any) disseminated so far. After disengagement of troops in eastern Ladakh from north and south of Pangong Tso, no disengagement in other areas including Depsang plains, Gogra, Hot Spring, Demchok, and no further de-escalation, was well predicted by most analysts. In the “Two Session” press conference last month, China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi suggested China and India to strengthen cooperation instead of harboring suspicion at each other and earlier indicated to get back to business as usual, sidelining the border/LAC issue. The Indian Foreign Ministry seems to be conveying that disengagement at all friction points leading to de-escalation, peace and tranquility on borders are pre-requisites to progressing smooth bilateral ties. This rightful Indian stance is adversely affected by indicators like the likelihood of Indian permission for progress in 45 Chinese projects and 300 Crore contracts to Huawei. This is not in sync with the stance conveyed. The standoff is therefore yet to be resolved. as Indian Army Chief General Naravane puts it “the threat has only abated and it has not gone away altogether”, although domestic events in both countries have dimmed the spotlight on borders. What was China trying? Chinese political aim was and continues to be China-centric Asia and forcing Indian subordination, a necessity to achieve it. This aim could not be achieved despite prolonged standoff in Ladakh so far, but will remain unchanged, even in future. Chinese strategic aim to control eastern Ladakh was to provide depth to its National Highway G-219, Karakoram Pass and China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), redraw Line of Actual Control (LAC) as per its perception and negotiate border on its terms thereafter. The Indian aim has been to get Chinese back to pre-standoff positions as of April 2020 in all friction points, not to concede unilateral change of LAC, and pursue talks towards its demarcation, hoping to lead to border resolution. With current disengagement, status quo stands achieved in areas north and south of Pangong Tso, at the cost of losing the crucial leverage of giving up occupation of certain heights on Kailash range and north of Pangong Tso, prior to Chinese vacation of ‘Other Areas’. Pursuing disengagement and de-escalation in remaining areas will be an uphill task due to shortage of leverages, given Chinese past track record of junking agreements at will. China, having marched in areas, where it was not supposed to be, junking all Confidence Building Measures (CBMs), as part of overall ‘Incremental Encroachment Strategy’, exploiting first-mover advantage, makes unfair use of Indian engagement in combating COVID-19 pandemic. China soon found itself handicapped by strong Indian response, resistance and resolve, with proactive actions resulting newly-created vulnerabilities to Maldo Garrison and its launch pad, South of Pangong Tso. Despite disengagement in Pangong Tso area, Chinese discomfort remains due to Indian dispositions in Sub Sector North including Daulat Beg Oldi (DBO as well as infrastructure development including DSDBO road. This remains a threat to crucial Tibet-Xinjiang-Pakistan connectivity. Why Speedy Partial Disengagement? After getting locked in the standoff for so long, both countries realized that with such large troop density on both sides, prolonging it further will not achieve any meaningful gains. Escalation to conflict or further standoff was proving costly to both, in terms of human and financial cost. A very heavy troop concentration within striking distance was prone to accidental triggering of conflict, which both countries wanted to avoid. Disengagement per se, therefore, was certainly a preferred option for both countries but its sequencing deserves an analysis. The domestic compulsion of getting into “Two Session 2021” with vulnerable Maldo Garrison was also mounting for China. Under such circumstances, a disengagement agreement involving Indians' vacation of heights south and north of Pangong Tso at the cost of pulling back from finger areas to its original positions, with its road intact, gave a much-desired face-saver to China and it disengaged with unprecedented speed in Pangong Tso area. The Two Narratives! Both countries justify disengagement process favourable to them although disengagement is yet to be done at many friction points. The Chinese narrative to its population up to “Two Session” has been that it has got Indians down from heights north and south of Pangong Tso and ensured no Indian presence from Finger 4 to Finger 8, no patrolling by declaring it as buffer zone, while retaining its presence in Depsang plains, Gogra, Hot Spring and Demchok areas. It can, therefore, claim to have launched a successful incremental encroachment operation. The explainers of Chinese narrative will find it difficult to explain their gain by moving forward from Finger 8 to Finger 4 and then speedily withdrawing back to the same location The Indian narrative to its critiques is that it has been able to successfully push Chinese back to status quo ante positions as existed pre standoff in Pangong Tso area, the stance which India maintained throughout. Amongst rest areas, like Gogra, Hot Spring and Demchok, it is work in progress. Depsang is a legacy issue of decades, where patrolling points to limit ITBP/ Army patrols were designated to avoid confrontation. India can draw solace from the fact that, while it is being denied patrolling to the patrol points on Depsang Plateau East of the area bottleneck inside the Raki Nallah, it has also denied PLA patrols movement West of Bottleneck, to Chinese claimed area close to Burtse. Future Options with India The actual worth of disengagement agreement is yet to be seen in light of trust deficit and past track record of Chinese in junking Agreements, when it suits them, as the LAC, as well as border, remains un-demarcated between both countries. The relative calmness along LAC doesn’t mean a smooth ride ahead. With both armies preparing for annual summer exercises and stepping up deployment along LAC in high altitude region, in coming weeks, in addition to the troop deployment in ‘Other Areas’ doesn’t promise de-escalation. The Indian forces and the country has given a befitting reply to Chinese misadventure, and will do so each time, with added confidence and experience of 2020. Indian aim should be not to concede Chinese attempt to redraw LAC as LAC-2020. In light of no major breakthrough in 22nd round of China-India border talks, I do not expect any worthwhile development on delineation, delimitation for demarcation of LAC, which, is necessary to prevent repeated standoffs, even if the present one sees some resolution. Chinese will like to keep border unsettled, till the time the political cost of not settling it, becomes higher than doing so, for Chinese Communist Party. India must be prepared for ‘Two Front War’ as a worst-case scenario, and continue capacity building in all domains, including maritime arena. Ongoing infrastructure development along borders should lead to settling of locals in villages along LAC with better facilities, to ward off Chinese design of developing hundreds of new villages along LAC. Strategic partnerships with like-minded democracies and collective naval posturing to create multifront situation for China are efforts in right direction. There is a need for alternative supply chain, trade and technological ecosystem, independent of China for which some initial steps taken by Quad countries need to be pursued on strategic plane. (Disclaimer: The views of the writer do not represent the views of WION or ZMCL. Nor does WION or ZMCL endorse the views of the writer.)

Opinion | China-India disengagement at Ladakh: An unfinished agenda

opinion

Opinion, News on Opinion, stories on Opinion, articles on Opinion, Opinion stories at Wion, Opinion news, Opinion latest news