The unauthorised passage of a US naval ship through India’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) has created a highly avoidable controversy, which prima-facie may appear to be a case of the conflict arising out of the interpretation and application of international and national laws but in fact, there is more than what meets the eyes and remains to be revealed.

The US 7th Fleet Commander announced (from an unspecified location in Arabian Sea) that “on 7th April 2021, the USS John Paul Jones (DDG53) (a guided-missile destroyer) asserted navigational rights and freedoms approximately 130 nautical miles west of the Lakshadweep Islands, inside India’s exclusive economic zone, without requesting India’s prior consent”. It said its act was “consistent with international law”.&nbsp;

<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/us-navy-conducts-patrol-in-indian-eez-without-consent-376453/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The statement did not stop here but went on to add that India’s requirement of “prior consent for military exercises or manoeuvres in its exclusive economic zone or continental shelf”, was &nbsp;“inconsistent with international law”.&nbsp;

As if to add insult to injury, the US Navy asserted that the Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) “upheld the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea recognized in international law by challenging India’s excessive maritime claims”. Placing restrictions on the passage of ships through its territorial sea waters and EEZ etc. by any state is described by the USA as “excessive maritime claims”&nbsp;

It is apparent from the official statement that the US Navy’s decision not to send a prior notice or seek India’s prior consent was by design and not by default or any oversight. Besides, asserting the freedom of navigation in international waters, the US objective was also to challenge India’s national laws and stated position on the requirement of obtaining prior consent and also to act in defiance of India’s national laws. A serious enough matter.

Yet, India’s public response was reasonably guarded, dignified and restrained. According to an official statement by the Foreign Office (April 9), India has conveyed its “concerns regarding this passage through our EEZ to the Government of USA through diplomatic channels.”&nbsp;

No further details were made public.&nbsp;

Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-protests-us-navys-transit-through-its-exclusive-economic-zone-376721">India protests US Navy's transit through its exclusive economic zone</a> 
 
However, India has countered the US position by stating that the “Government of India’s stated position on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is that the convention does not authorise other states to carry out in the Exclusive Economic Zone and on the continental shelf, military exercises or manoeuvres, in particular, those involving the use of weapons or explosives, without the consent of the coastal state”.

The Statement also puts on record that the ship’s movements were being monitored throughout, implying that the Indian Navy was alert and not caught by surprise.

The US Navy has repeatedly justified its act as being consistent with “international law”. The UNCLOS 1982 is the only well-established international law on the subject under reference. Interestingly– or rather ironically- the US has not yet ratified UNCLOS, though it claims to adhere to several of its principles. &nbsp;

India is a signatory to UNCLOS and has also ratified it. In addition, there is national legislation governing the coastal regions within the sovereignty of India known as the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and others under Maritime Zones Act, 1976.

Section 4(2) of this act allows foreign warships including submarines and other underwater vehicles to enter or pass through the territorial waters after giving prior notice to the Central Government. They are also required to navigate on the surface and show their flags.&nbsp;

India is not the only country that imposes restrictions on the innocent passage of foreign military ships.

Even though one of the fundamental principles of UNCLOS is that all ships of all states, including both civilian and military vessels, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea of other states, the fact of the matter is that not all countries agree with this interpretation, particularly where the innocent passage of military vessels is concerned. &nbsp;

According to a briefing paper of June 2017 by the Harvard Kennedy School, titled “Freedom of Navigation in South China Sea: A Practical Guide", over 40 states impose restrictions on the innocent passage of military ships, including requiring permission or notice prior to transit under innocent passage.

The significance of this episode is not only in the legal aspects of the case. The cause of serious concern is the arrogant manner in which the US Navy has acted deliberately to challenge India’s position and has also gone public without caring for the implications.

The USA is known to challenge the “excessive maritime claims” by other states either through diplomatic communications, or bilateral/multilateral discussions or operational assertions. It is not clear as to whether the USA has exhausted the first two options with India before opting for “operational assertion” on April 7. &nbsp;

Most probably not.

As two sovereign countries, India and the USA have the legitimate right to differ with each other on any given matter.

However, the irresponsible and amateurish manner in which the US Navy decided to highlight this difference of opinion and enforce its own position and make it public is in complete contrast with the rapid growth in India-US ties culminating into “comprehensive global strategic partnership”; this is true in particular in defence and security areas.&nbsp;

For instance, in 2016, the United States designated India as a Major Defence Partner; in 2018, India was elevated to Strategic Trade Authorization Tier 1 status, which allows India to receive license-free access to a wide range of military and dual-use technologies regulated by the US Department of Commerce.&nbsp;

India and US have concluded the four defence and security related foundational agreements namely Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA), Communications, Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA), the Industrial Security Agreement (ISA) and Basic Exchange and Communication Agreement (BECA).

The US’s total defence trade with India has increased from near zero in 2008 to over $20 billion in 2020. &nbsp;The two countries have been participating in regular joint multilateral military exercises such as Malabar and tri-services exercises e.g. Triumph.&nbsp;

It is noteworthy that the incident took place in close heels of the Quad Summit (March 13) when both India and USA (along with Australia and Japan) reiterated their commitment to freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific region which they would like to see as open, free and inclusive, where the rule of law prevails. 
&nbsp; 
Further, in the first outreach by the Biden Administration, the US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin paid a three-day visit to India from March 19, 2021, during which he termed India as a “great partner” and reaffirmed the importance which the USA attaches to India in promoting peace and stability in Indo-Pacific region.&nbsp;

The US fully realises the important role which only India can play in support of the US plans to contain China.&nbsp;

In the above backdrop, the manner in which the US Navy has conducted itself publically is beyond comprehension but for sure objectionable.&nbsp;

It is difficult to digest- as being speculated by some international affairs analysts- that India was targeted with the objective of sending a message to China whose assertive, aggressive and expansionist behaviour in the Indo-Pacific is of concern to USA as well as many other countries in the region, including India.&nbsp;

It would be even more absurd to suggest that it was an operation jointly scripted by the USA and India to target a common adversary namely China.

The canvas of the Indo-US relations at the moment is extremely broad; this incident is, therefore, unlikely to cause any serious dent. It is important at the same time that the required measures are taken immediately to prevent the recurrence of such or similar incidents. A publicised damage control measure by the US Navy would be a bonus.

(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 unauthorised passage of a US naval ship through India’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) has created a highly avoidable controversy, which prima-facie may appear to be a case of the conflict arising out of the interpretation and application of international and national laws but in fact, there is more than what meets the eyes and remains to be revealed.

The unauthorised passage of a US naval ship through India’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) has created a highly avoidable controversy, which prima-facie may appear to be a case of the conflict arising out of the interpretation and application of international and national laws but in fact, there is more than what meets the eyes and remains to be revealed. The US 7th Fleet Commander announced (from an unspecified location in Arabian Sea) that “on 7th April 2021, the USS John Paul Jones (DDG53) (a guided-missile destroyer) asserted navigational rights and freedoms approximately 130 nautical miles west of the Lakshadweep Islands, inside India’s exclusive economic zone, without requesting India’s prior consent”. It said its act was “consistent with international law”. × The statement did not stop here but went on to add that India’s requirement of “prior consent for military exercises or manoeuvres in its exclusive economic zone or continental shelf”, was “inconsistent with international law”. As if to add insult to injury, the US Navy asserted that the Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) “upheld the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea recognized in international law by challenging India’s excessive maritime claims”. Placing restrictions on the passage of ships through its territorial sea waters and EEZ etc. by any state is described by the USA as “excessive maritime claims” It is apparent from the official statement that the US Navy’s decision not to send a prior notice or seek India’s prior consent was by design and not by default or any oversight. Besides, asserting the freedom of navigation in international waters, the US objective was also to challenge India’s national laws and stated position on the requirement of obtaining prior consent and also to act in defiance of India’s national laws. A serious enough matter. Yet, India’s public response was reasonably guarded, dignified and restrained. According to an official statement by the Foreign Office (April 9), India has conveyed its “concerns regarding this passage through our EEZ to the Government of USA through diplomatic channels.” No further details were made public. Read | India protests US Navy's transit through its exclusive economic zone However, India has countered the US position by stating that the “Government of India’s stated position on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is that the convention does not authorise other states to carry out in the Exclusive Economic Zone and on the continental shelf, military exercises or manoeuvres, in particular, those involving the use of weapons or explosives, without the consent of the coastal state”. The Statement also puts on record that the ship’s movements were being monitored throughout, implying that the Indian Navy was alert and not caught by surprise. The US Navy has repeatedly justified its act as being consistent with “international law”. The UNCLOS 1982 is the only well-established international law on the subject under reference. Interestingly– or rather ironically- the US has not yet ratified UNCLOS, though it claims to adhere to several of its principles. India is a signatory to UNCLOS and has also ratified it. In addition, there is national legislation governing the coastal regions within the sovereignty of India known as the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and others under Maritime Zones Act, 1976. Section 4(2) of this act allows foreign warships including submarines and other underwater vehicles to enter or pass through the territorial waters after giving prior notice to the Central Government. They are also required to navigate on the surface and show their flags. India is not the only country that imposes restrictions on the innocent passage of foreign military ships. Even though one of the fundamental principles of UNCLOS is that all ships of all states, including both civilian and military vessels, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea of other states, the fact of the matter is that not all countries agree with this interpretation, particularly where the innocent passage of military vessels is concerned. According to a briefing paper of June 2017 by the Harvard Kennedy School, titled “Freedom of Navigation in South China Sea: A Practical Guide", over 40 states impose restrictions on the innocent passage of military ships, including requiring permission or notice prior to transit under innocent passage. The significance of this episode is not only in the legal aspects of the case. The cause of serious concern is the arrogant manner in which the US Navy has acted deliberately to challenge India’s position and has also gone public without caring for the implications. The USA is known to challenge the “excessive maritime claims” by other states either through diplomatic communications, or bilateral/multilateral discussions or operational assertions. It is not clear as to whether the USA has exhausted the first two options with India before opting for “operational assertion” on April 7. Most probably not. As two sovereign countries, India and the USA have the legitimate right to differ with each other on any given matter. However, the irresponsible and amateurish manner in which the US Navy decided to highlight this difference of opinion and enforce its own position and make it public is in complete contrast with the rapid growth in India-US ties culminating into “comprehensive global strategic partnership”; this is true in particular in defence and security areas. For instance, in 2016, the United States designated India as a Major Defence Partner; in 2018, India was elevated to Strategic Trade Authorization Tier 1 status, which allows India to receive license-free access to a wide range of military and dual-use technologies regulated by the US Department of Commerce. India and US have concluded the four defence and security related foundational agreements namely Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA), Communications, Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA), the Industrial Security Agreement (ISA) and Basic Exchange and Communication Agreement (BECA). The US’s total defence trade with India has increased from near zero in 2008 to over $20 billion in 2020. The two countries have been participating in regular joint multilateral military exercises such as Malabar and tri-services exercises e.g. Triumph. It is noteworthy that the incident took place in close heels of the Quad Summit (March 13) when both India and USA (along with Australia and Japan) reiterated their commitment to freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific region which they would like to see as open, free and inclusive, where the rule of law prevails. Further, in the first outreach by the Biden Administration, the US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin paid a three-day visit to India from March 19, 2021, during which he termed India as a “great partner” and reaffirmed the importance which the USA attaches to India in promoting peace and stability in Indo-Pacific region. The US fully realises the important role which only India can play in support of the US plans to contain China. In the above backdrop, the manner in which the US Navy has conducted itself publically is beyond comprehension but for sure objectionable. It is difficult to digest- as being speculated by some international affairs analysts- that India was targeted with the objective of sending a message to China whose assertive, aggressive and expansionist behaviour in the Indo-Pacific is of concern to USA as well as many other countries in the region, including India. It would be even more absurd to suggest that it was an operation jointly scripted by the USA and India to target a common adversary namely China. The canvas of the Indo-US relations at the moment is extremely broad; this incident is, therefore, unlikely to cause any serious dent. It is important at the same time that the required measures are taken immediately to prevent the recurrence of such or similar incidents. A publicised damage control measure by the US Navy would be a bonus. (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: US Navy intrusion in Indian EEZ is beyond comprehension but objectionable

It’s clearly evident that the House in Pakistan under Prime Minister Imran Khan is sharply divided. There was a flicker of hope noticed in February this year when due to robust back-channel diplomacy and restraint on part of the otherwise vocal critics of an Indo-Pak thaw, gave rise to chances of peace. The guns on the borders were thought to have fallen silent reducing the sense of attrition and warmongering clouds. The aggressive tenor also showed signs of disappearance. Global pacifists and the diplomatic community saw that peace was perhaps on the anvil.

This was further carried forward when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on the Pakistan National Day (March 23) hoping for cordial bilateral relations between the two neighbours. Imran Khan reciprocated articulating a similar tenor but wanted resolution of all mutual issues including Kashmir. This development again made the people on both sides hope that peace might dawn sooner than later and tranquil will prevail. This feeling got further boost when the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC), functional under Pakistan’s commerce ministry, decided last week to resume trade ties with India, suspended since 2019 and allowing to import sugar and cotton from India. Again, this was seen as a forward movement towards the amelioration of further normalcy between India and Pakistan.

Also Read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/opinion-pakistan-seeking-peace-with-india-is-it-for-real-375007">Opinion | Pakistan seeking peace with India: Is it for real?</a>

Sadly, however, the Pakistani Federal Cabinet, in a hurriedly convened meeting, didn’t endorse the ECC decision and there was an outright reversal of decision on an import of sugar and cotton from Pakistan. This was a major setback to a hopeful peace process set in motion barely a month ago ostensibly to give peace a chance. There were other indicators too which made one reckon that at least peace efforts were put to test in all earnest. These include a visible tone-down on parts of the Army Chief General Qamar Bajwa, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and other hawks in their rhetorics which were hitherto signalled acrimony. At the recently concluded Dushanbe meet also the Pakistan FM Qureshi chose to exercise restraint by not coming out with any anti-India remarks.

Under these circumstances, what could possibly be the compelling reason on part of Pakistan to take a sharp U-turn from its immediately earlier decision leading to the federal cabinet reversing the thought considered to have been executed after due diligence?&nbsp;This surely calls for a visceral examination.&nbsp;

Prime Minister Imran Khan defending the cabinet decision on the imports said on April 2 that resuming trade with India would signal a wrong impression on Kashmir and further expressed that until India reverses the august 5, 2019 decision of abrogating Article 370, the status quo will remain. It’s difficult to fathom how the matter of Kashmir is linked to resumption of trade ties? ECC had already decided.&nbsp;

On this, Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Security Advisor Moeed Yusuf stated on April 2 that the ECC had only explored the commercial angle and merely recommended import of items like sugar and cotton. Final decision rested with the Federal Cabinet. ECC, he further clarified with faint arguments, was an apolitical body.&nbsp;

Judging by his afterthought statements, it would seem that there was a complete lack of coordination between the various ministries causing this volte-face. His defence was also weak when he said in defence that resumption of trade ties was strategically and politically untenable. This again seems far from being logical.

Judging by the rapid unfolding of these developments, it would appear that while PM Imran Khan had given a ‘go ahead’ for initiating the peace attempts, the hardliners within the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) must have prevailed over the decision and derailed the entire thing. Similarly, the religious extremists and the homegrown radicalised terror groups got the better of the political leadership in forcing the cabinet to reverse and reject the decision. Sadly again, it shows that the government in Pakistan is at the mercy of non-governmental ultra and extra-constitutional elements who are calling the shots. More crucially, they want to keep the Kashmir issue somehow alive by bringing it as a spanner in any move to restoring normalisation of relations.

Another factor dampening the prospects of peace efforts is a bunch of ministers within the cabinet. They include Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi (surprising though, as he chose to be unprovocative at the recent Dushanbe meet towards his Indian counterpart), Interior Minister Sheikh Rasheed, another minister Shireen Mazari etc. These ministers, by deduction, must have reeled under their mentors from the ISI or religious extremist groups to rake up Kashmir mainly to divert attention from the core domestic ills that have afflicted Pakistan including the continued stay in the grey list in terror funding as ruled by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The poor economic condition and abysmal standing in the global community is also a major concern for Pakistan for which they continue to whip the Kashmir issue to be seen to remain alive in the domain of international politics though it’s highly illusory.

In a separate Pakistan related development, Prime Minister Imran Khan on April 2 expressed in a very despairing note that he was puzzled at what he described as cacophony over Pakistan not being invited to a conference on Climate Change. To prove his point, smattered with frustration, Imran Khan claimed that his government’s policies were driven solely by Pakistan’s commitment to its future generations of a clean and green Pakistan to mitigate the impact of Climate Change. To cover up the frustration arising out of a conspicuous exclusion, the Pakistan PM cited examples of a green Pakistan campaign and the 10 billion Tree Tsunami initiative. Imran’s statement came in the wake of US Climate Envoy John Kerry's trips to Abu Dhabi, New Delhi and Dhaka from April 1 to April 9 in an attempt to slow the impact of global warming. Pakistan’s exclusion is seen as good as Pakistan being ignored on the critical issue of Climate Change. That’s obviously difficult to swallow. With such marginalisation, Pakistan could have done well by taking a step further in resuming trade ties with India instead of a forthright reversal of the imports if needed commodities. It would surely have marked a good beginning.

(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.)

It’s clearly evident that the House in Pakistan under Prime Minister Imran Khan is sharply divided. There was a flicker of hope noticed in February this year when due to robust back-channel diplomacy and restraint on part of the otherwise vocal critics of an Indo-Pak thaw, gave rise to chances of peace.

It’s clearly evident that the House in Pakistan under Prime Minister Imran Khan is sharply divided. There was a flicker of hope noticed in February this year when due to robust back-channel diplomacy and restraint on part of the otherwise vocal critics of an Indo-Pak thaw, gave rise to chances of peace. The guns on the borders were thought to have fallen silent reducing the sense of attrition and warmongering clouds. The aggressive tenor also showed signs of disappearance. Global pacifists and the diplomatic community saw that peace was perhaps on the anvil. This was further carried forward when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on the Pakistan National Day (March 23) hoping for cordial bilateral relations between the two neighbours. Imran Khan reciprocated articulating a similar tenor but wanted resolution of all mutual issues including Kashmir. This development again made the people on both sides hope that peace might dawn sooner than later and tranquil will prevail. This feeling got further boost when the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC), functional under Pakistan’s commerce ministry, decided last week to resume trade ties with India, suspended since 2019 and allowing to import sugar and cotton from India. Again, this was seen as a forward movement towards the amelioration of further normalcy between India and Pakistan. Also Read: Opinion | Pakistan seeking peace with India: Is it for real? Sadly, however, the Pakistani Federal Cabinet, in a hurriedly convened meeting, didn’t endorse the ECC decision and there was an outright reversal of decision on an import of sugar and cotton from Pakistan. This was a major setback to a hopeful peace process set in motion barely a month ago ostensibly to give peace a chance. There were other indicators too which made one reckon that at least peace efforts were put to test in all earnest. These include a visible tone-down on parts of the Army Chief General Qamar Bajwa, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and other hawks in their rhetorics which were hitherto signalled acrimony. At the recently concluded Dushanbe meet also the Pakistan FM Qureshi chose to exercise restraint by not coming out with any anti-India remarks. Under these circumstances, what could possibly be the compelling reason on part of Pakistan to take a sharp U-turn from its immediately earlier decision leading to the federal cabinet reversing the thought considered to have been executed after due diligence? This surely calls for a visceral examination. Prime Minister Imran Khan defending the cabinet decision on the imports said on April 2 that resuming trade with India would signal a wrong impression on Kashmir and further expressed that until India reverses the august 5, 2019 decision of abrogating Article 370, the status quo will remain. It’s difficult to fathom how the matter of Kashmir is linked to resumption of trade ties? ECC had already decided. On this, Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Security Advisor Moeed Yusuf stated on April 2 that the ECC had only explored the commercial angle and merely recommended import of items like sugar and cotton. Final decision rested with the Federal Cabinet. ECC, he further clarified with faint arguments, was an apolitical body. Judging by his afterthought statements, it would seem that there was a complete lack of coordination between the various ministries causing this volte-face. His defence was also weak when he said in defence that resumption of trade ties was strategically and politically untenable. This again seems far from being logical. Judging by the rapid unfolding of these developments, it would appear that while PM Imran Khan had given a ‘go ahead’ for initiating the peace attempts, the hardliners within the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) must have prevailed over the decision and derailed the entire thing. Similarly, the religious extremists and the homegrown radicalised terror groups got the better of the political leadership in forcing the cabinet to reverse and reject the decision. Sadly again, it shows that the government in Pakistan is at the mercy of non-governmental ultra and extra-constitutional elements who are calling the shots. More crucially, they want to keep the Kashmir issue somehow alive by bringing it as a spanner in any move to restoring normalisation of relations. Another factor dampening the prospects of peace efforts is a bunch of ministers within the cabinet. They include Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi (surprising though, as he chose to be unprovocative at the recent Dushanbe meet towards his Indian counterpart), Interior Minister Sheikh Rasheed, another minister Shireen Mazari etc. These ministers, by deduction, must have reeled under their mentors from the ISI or religious extremist groups to rake up Kashmir mainly to divert attention from the core domestic ills that have afflicted Pakistan including the continued stay in the grey list in terror funding as ruled by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The poor economic condition and abysmal standing in the global community is also a major concern for Pakistan for which they continue to whip the Kashmir issue to be seen to remain alive in the domain of international politics though it’s highly illusory. In a separate Pakistan related development, Prime Minister Imran Khan on April 2 expressed in a very despairing note that he was puzzled at what he described as cacophony over Pakistan not being invited to a conference on Climate Change. To prove his point, smattered with frustration, Imran Khan claimed that his government’s policies were driven solely by Pakistan’s commitment to its future generations of a clean and green Pakistan to mitigate the impact of Climate Change. To cover up the frustration arising out of a conspicuous exclusion, the Pakistan PM cited examples of a green Pakistan campaign and the 10 billion Tree Tsunami initiative. Imran’s statement came in the wake of US Climate Envoy John Kerry's trips to Abu Dhabi, New Delhi and Dhaka from April 1 to April 9 in an attempt to slow the impact of global warming. Pakistan’s exclusion is seen as good as Pakistan being ignored on the critical issue of Climate Change. That’s obviously difficult to swallow. With such marginalisation, Pakistan could have done well by taking a step further in resuming trade ties with India instead of a forthright reversal of the imports if needed commodities. It would surely have marked a good beginning. (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 | On Pakistan’s sudden reversal on improving ties with India

Bangladesh capital Dhaka is all spruced up with the ongoing celebrations of the country’s golden jubilee of attaining independence and centenary year of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, whose exemplary leadership was largely responsible for the liberation of Bangladesh from the brutal Pakistani occupational forces. The grand celebrations, already underway, with the participation of many world leaders, appear more significant with the upcoming presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi who is reaching Dhaka on a two-day visit (March 26-27). Indian PM's visit is also crucial because Bangladesh is the first overseas country that PM Modi is paying a visit to after almost a year of remaining within the country due to coronavirus pandemic. The COVID threat notwithstanding, PM Modi and his counterpart, Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina had video talks discussing crucial bilateral issues. In sum, both the neighbouring countries remained in close touch further reinforcing ties.

PM Modi, visiting Dhaka at this juncture is bound to strengthen relationship. Incidentally, Bangladesh was the first recipient of COVID vaccines from India when the consignment was flown by a special aircraft. This humanitarian gesture has augured very well with the Bangladesh government as well the people of Bangladesh. It was purely a humanitarian gesture. Bangladesh accepted this extraordinary gesture with gratitude. The Indian Foreign Secretary, Harshvardhan Shringla, who was immediately earlier Indian High Commissioner to Dhaka, &nbsp;reached out to PM Hasina at the peak of coronavirus&nbsp;pandemic and later Indian External Affairs Minister, S Jaishankar paid a visit and met PM Hasina and his counterpart, Bangladesh Foreign Minister paving the way for a smooth and creaseless interaction between PMs Modi and Hasina scheduled in less than a week’s time.&nbsp;

Earlier, PM Modi had inaugurated a new bridge appropriately called the Maitri (friendship) bridge connecting India and Bangladesh over river Feni. This is yet another milestone reaffirming ties between the two friendly countries.

While in Dhaka, PM Modi, other than participating in the Golden Jubilee independence and Mujib centenary celebrations, will visit Tungipara, the birthplace of Mujib and pay tributes to Bangabandhu, visit two Hindu temples in Gopalganj and Satkhira districts, meet a delegation of prominent Hindus in Bangladesh other than holding bilateral talks with Hasina on matters of mutual concern. It is also said that two postage stamps will be issued in PM Modi’s presence.

Meanwhile, heads of governments of Maldives, Sri Lanka and Bhutan are already in Dhaka and some other global leaders are also expected to join in by next week. A number of world leaders including from Russia, Canada and Sweden have sent video recordings greeting the Bangladesh PM in the twin celebrations. All seem to be genuinely reaching out to Bangladesh for multiple reasons.

Bangladesh, under Sheikh Hasina’s uninterrupted more than a decade long governance, has paid a lot of dividends. Its economy is shining, there is a stable government in place, terror scene looks largely under control and on the social front , women emancipation, literacy etc are showing a steady trend. Trade and exports of Ready Made Garments ( RMGs) is picking up. And most recently, Bangladesh has been declared the 68th happiest nation in the world. The timing couldn’t have been more appropriate for Bangladesh .

Prime Minister Hasina’s political stature is now on the upswing. Her handling of the humongous Rohingya problem since 2017 had been praiseworthy. She seems to be transiting from a politician to a statesman or at least that’s a perception in the making. Her iron-handed dealing with the terror menace has also been recognised. Since the July 1, 2016 Artesan Bakery deadly terror incident in Dhaka, there had not been any major terror incident. The patience she displayed on repeated provocations by certain quarters that China was cosying towards Bangladesh and that was at the cost of Indian security interests displayed her maturity. And, similarly, Bangladesh purchasing submarines from China seemed to unsettle some in India but she handled it adroitly.&nbsp;

Bangladesh is a sovereign independent nation and it has every right to maintain ties with other countries. Recently, Pakistan and Turkey have set up new diplomatic missions in Dhaka. Geo-political equations are rapidly changing. It would appear prudent to be alert and watch the activities rather than reacting. There had been acerbic attacks on Bangladesh when some unsavourily called Bangladeshis as termites or pests. Bangladesh and Hasina showed restraint aplenty not to be dragged in any controversy impairing bilateral ties. Fortunately, things appear to be settling down and there are hardly any talk of CAA or NRC. This status merits to be maintained to keep the bonhomie intact. Bangladesh has so far proved to be the most trusted ally and friend in the neighbourhood.&nbsp;

Hence, it’s imperative to develop more deeper ties and this can be further firmed up during PM Modi’s upcoming visit. On her part, Hasina has time and again acknowledged India’s role in the liberation of Bangladesh and Indian war heroes are decorated by Hasina for their valiant role in the freedom struggle of 1971.

Now that it’s becoming increasingly clear that India and Bangladesh are coming closer than before, utilising the Mujib centenary and golden jubilee of independence rejoicings, the opportunity must be seized for good. Yet, the security outfits of both countries must not lower their guard or be complacent. The elements vehemently opposed to Indo- Bangladesh friendship, with the help of religious extremists and in collaboration with extraneous powers, can go to any extent to harm the mutual interests. We have Sheikh Mujib's brutal end still fresh in our memory. If history is any indication or a lesson or two to be learnt, utmost security preparedness is called for. A more dynamic intelligence and security cooperation seems need of the hour amid a new chapter being opened between India and Bangladesh. In the coming week, more events are likely to unfold in relation to Indian PM’s visit, which could be worth watching with interest.

(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.)

Bangladesh capital Dhaka is all spruced up with the ongoing celebrations of the country’s golden jubilee of attaining independence and centenary year of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, whose exemplary leadership was largely responsible for the liberation of Bangladesh from the brutal Pakistani occupational forces.

Bangladesh capital Dhaka is all spruced up with the ongoing celebrations of the country’s golden jubilee of attaining independence and centenary year of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, whose exemplary leadership was largely responsible for the liberation of Bangladesh from the brutal Pakistani occupational forces. The grand celebrations, already underway, with the participation of many world leaders, appear more significant with the upcoming presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi who is reaching Dhaka on a two-day visit (March 26-27). Indian PM's visit is also crucial because Bangladesh is the first overseas country that PM Modi is paying a visit to after almost a year of remaining within the country due to coronavirus pandemic. The COVID threat notwithstanding, PM Modi and his counterpart, Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina had video talks discussing crucial bilateral issues. In sum, both the neighbouring countries remained in close touch further reinforcing ties. PM Modi, visiting Dhaka at this juncture is bound to strengthen relationship. Incidentally, Bangladesh was the first recipient of COVID vaccines from India when the consignment was flown by a special aircraft. This humanitarian gesture has augured very well with the Bangladesh government as well the people of Bangladesh. It was purely a humanitarian gesture. Bangladesh accepted this extraordinary gesture with gratitude. The Indian Foreign Secretary, Harshvardhan Shringla, who was immediately earlier Indian High Commissioner to Dhaka, reached out to PM Hasina at the peak of coronavirus pandemic and later Indian External Affairs Minister, S Jaishankar paid a visit and met PM Hasina and his counterpart, Bangladesh Foreign Minister paving the way for a smooth and creaseless interaction between PMs Modi and Hasina scheduled in less than a week’s time. Earlier, PM Modi had inaugurated a new bridge appropriately called the Maitri (friendship) bridge connecting India and Bangladesh over river Feni. This is yet another milestone reaffirming ties between the two friendly countries. While in Dhaka, PM Modi, other than participating in the Golden Jubilee independence and Mujib centenary celebrations, will visit Tungipara, the birthplace of Mujib and pay tributes to Bangabandhu, visit two Hindu temples in Gopalganj and Satkhira districts, meet a delegation of prominent Hindus in Bangladesh other than holding bilateral talks with Hasina on matters of mutual concern. It is also said that two postage stamps will be issued in PM Modi’s presence. Meanwhile, heads of governments of Maldives, Sri Lanka and Bhutan are already in Dhaka and some other global leaders are also expected to join in by next week. A number of world leaders including from Russia, Canada and Sweden have sent video recordings greeting the Bangladesh PM in the twin celebrations. All seem to be genuinely reaching out to Bangladesh for multiple reasons. Bangladesh, under Sheikh Hasina’s uninterrupted more than a decade long governance, has paid a lot of dividends. Its economy is shining, there is a stable government in place, terror scene looks largely under control and on the social front , women emancipation, literacy etc are showing a steady trend. Trade and exports of Ready Made Garments ( RMGs) is picking up. And most recently, Bangladesh has been declared the 68th happiest nation in the world. The timing couldn’t have been more appropriate for Bangladesh . Prime Minister Hasina’s political stature is now on the upswing. Her handling of the humongous Rohingya problem since 2017 had been praiseworthy. She seems to be transiting from a politician to a statesman or at least that’s a perception in the making. Her iron-handed dealing with the terror menace has also been recognised. Since the July 1, 2016 Artesan Bakery deadly terror incident in Dhaka, there had not been any major terror incident. The patience she displayed on repeated provocations by certain quarters that China was cosying towards Bangladesh and that was at the cost of Indian security interests displayed her maturity. And, similarly, Bangladesh purchasing submarines from China seemed to unsettle some in India but she handled it adroitly. Bangladesh is a sovereign independent nation and it has every right to maintain ties with other countries. Recently, Pakistan and Turkey have set up new diplomatic missions in Dhaka. Geo-political equations are rapidly changing. It would appear prudent to be alert and watch the activities rather than reacting. There had been acerbic attacks on Bangladesh when some unsavourily called Bangladeshis as termites or pests. Bangladesh and Hasina showed restraint aplenty not to be dragged in any controversy impairing bilateral ties. Fortunately, things appear to be settling down and there are hardly any talk of CAA or NRC. This status merits to be maintained to keep the bonhomie intact. Bangladesh has so far proved to be the most trusted ally and friend in the neighbourhood. Hence, it’s imperative to develop more deeper ties and this can be further firmed up during PM Modi’s upcoming visit. On her part, Hasina has time and again acknowledged India’s role in the liberation of Bangladesh and Indian war heroes are decorated by Hasina for their valiant role in the freedom struggle of 1971. Now that it’s becoming increasingly clear that India and Bangladesh are coming closer than before, utilising the Mujib centenary and golden jubilee of independence rejoicings, the opportunity must be seized for good. Yet, the security outfits of both countries must not lower their guard or be complacent. The elements vehemently opposed to Indo- Bangladesh friendship, with the help of religious extremists and in collaboration with extraneous powers, can go to any extent to harm the mutual interests. We have Sheikh Mujib's brutal end still fresh in our memory. If history is any indication or a lesson or two to be learnt, utmost security preparedness is called for. A more dynamic intelligence and security cooperation seems need of the hour amid a new chapter being opened between India and Bangladesh. In the coming week, more events are likely to unfold in relation to Indian PM’s visit, which could be worth watching with interest. (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: PM Modi's visit to open new vista in Indo-Bangladesh ties

The occurrences in Myanmar, India’s immediate eastern neighbourhood have shaken the whole world in the wake of a military take-over by the junta on Feb 1, promulgating an emergency for the next one year and more significantly, putting popular pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi behind bars. The country is up in flames. So far more than 50 have been killed. Well over 1700 have been arrested, and a violent showdown between the protesters and heavily armed security forces has become more a routine than an exception. Reports of confrontation between the military and the agitators seeking return of democracy and release of Aung San Suu Kyi in Yangon, Mandalay and other places are trickling on a regular basis.

The scene looks perilous. The villain behind crushing the democratic future of Myanmar and causing a Coup d’etat is 64-year-old General Min Aung Hlaing who has been functioning as the army chief of Myanmar since 2011. Known for his ruthless response against any civilian uprising, Gen Hlaing, a law graduate himself, came to adverse light in 2009 when as a “battle-hardened warrior” of the Myanmar military, he ruthlessly launched a military offensive in Kokang region crushing the Myanmar Nationalities Democratic Alliance.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/opinion-myanmar-exploiting-lessons-learnt-in-the-middle-east-365829">Opinion- Myanmar: Exploiting lessons learnt in the Middle East</a>

This infamous General is also singularly responsible for the brutal crackdown on the Rohingyas in 2017 resulting in the influx of nearly 7 million of them into Bangladesh in the last over three years, the number has exceeded 10 million. This shows his heartlessness and resolve to sabotage any chances of democracy trying to find a space in the political landscape of Myanmar.

Meanwhile, the ongoing political turbulence and incessant crackdown on the defiant protesters have drawn acerbic criticism from the UN. UN Human Rights Chief, Michelle Rachelet, in a recent statement, called upon the military to stop forthwith the vicious repression and killings of the innocents.&nbsp;

ASEAN calls for an end to perpetration of excesses have also fallen on deaf ears like the appeals from the UN. There have been more than visible protest demonstrations in front of the Indonesian and Thai Embassies in Myanmar that have not resulted in any impact except stirring an increasing public opinion against the military.&nbsp;

Public is surely in a defiant mood.&nbsp;

Slogans and placards are carrying banner headlines that say “Stone Age is over”. &nbsp;They are also ranting that the protesters are no longer afraid of any threat from the military. The cities in Myanmar are dotted with barricades and fortifications, never seen before of this scale. The country, since its independence, has seen five military takeovers dating from 1948 but the resistance put up this time seems unprecedented. Several “people’s governing bodies” have been formed which pose a direct challenge to the military leadership.&nbsp;

Their resorting to lobbing of stun grenades and firing of live ammunition have also been proving ineffective. Foreign Minister of Singapore, Vivian Balakrishnan on March 5 has described in the Parliament, the happenings in Myanmar as national shame including the armed forces' use of weapons against its own people.

Amid these happenings, credible reports suggest that the military leadership in Myanmar has tried to withdraw one billion US dollars from Federal Reserve after seizing power on Feb 1. The US has put a freeze on the transaction. &nbsp;It’s further known now that the Central Bank of Myanmar had tried to siphon off the money from the US. The US is trying to ascertain the names of those involved in this attempt to withdraw money as the US, the UK, EU and Canada have imposed fresh sanctions on Myanmar.

At the same time, however, there seems to be a concerted disinformation campaign unleashed by the military as seen from disclosure by an ex-Israeli military intelligence officer who is also a Canadian citizen. Ari Ben Menashe, who claims to have intervened in military regimes of Sudan and other conflict zones, said that he has been hired by the Myanmar military to do some damage control lest its image is tarnished in the eyes of the US and other western countries. Menashe’s firm is known as Dickens &amp; Madsons.&nbsp;

Canada hinted that Myanmar military leadership is trying to distance itself from China so that it’s not seen as a Chinese puppet. This looks surprising and couldn’t be independently verified at this juncture. Menashe further claimed that Myanmar is trying to take back Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh and its using diplomatic channels in Saudi Arabia and the UAE for their early return. This again appears intriguing yet it needs close monitoring.

Meanwhile, inputs as of March 7 reveal that there were sporadic incidents of violence during clashes between the security forces in different parts of Myanmar with protesters intensifying their tirade against the military regime. There have been raids in the houses of hundreds of protesters and one activist of the National League for Democracy (NLD), Khin Maung Latt died in military custody allegedly after he was tortured. A northern Shan State city Lashio saw a barrage of police firing, stun grenades and tear-gassing that injured many.&nbsp;

There is an uneasy calm prevailing in many parts of Myanmar. As regards to India, its borders with Myanmar need to be extra vigilant to prevent unauthorised entry of the victims of the military. A section of the Myanmar military is believed to have told the Indian authorities to return many Myanmar policemen who are thought to have crossed over to the Indian side in the state of Mizoram to escape the military onslaught.

As things unfold dramatically in Myanmar with the rising military oppression and the anti-coup protestors stepping up their aggressive opposition, a longish stand-off between the military-led government and the pro-democracy forces looks certain in the near foreseeable future.

India, diplomatically, has so far played its card with dexterity and patience at the same time eyeing the situation closely to act and react as the ground situation demands.

(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 occurrences in Myanmar, India’s immediate eastern neighbourhood have shaken the whole world in the wake of a military take-over by the junta on Feb 1, promulgating an emergency for the next one year and more significantly, putting popular pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi behind bars.

The occurrences in Myanmar, India’s immediate eastern neighbourhood have shaken the whole world in the wake of a military take-over by the junta on Feb 1, promulgating an emergency for the next one year and more significantly, putting popular pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi behind bars. The country is up in flames. So far more than 50 have been killed. Well over 1700 have been arrested, and a violent showdown between the protesters and heavily armed security forces has become more a routine than an exception. Reports of confrontation between the military and the agitators seeking return of democracy and release of Aung San Suu Kyi in Yangon, Mandalay and other places are trickling on a regular basis. The scene looks perilous. The villain behind crushing the democratic future of Myanmar and causing a Coup d’etat is 64-year-old General Min Aung Hlaing who has been functioning as the army chief of Myanmar since 2011. Known for his ruthless response against any civilian uprising, Gen Hlaing, a law graduate himself, came to adverse light in 2009 when as a “battle-hardened warrior” of the Myanmar military, he ruthlessly launched a military offensive in Kokang region crushing the Myanmar Nationalities Democratic Alliance. Also Read | Opinion- Myanmar: Exploiting lessons learnt in the Middle East This infamous General is also singularly responsible for the brutal crackdown on the Rohingyas in 2017 resulting in the influx of nearly 7 million of them into Bangladesh in the last over three years, the number has exceeded 10 million. This shows his heartlessness and resolve to sabotage any chances of democracy trying to find a space in the political landscape of Myanmar. Meanwhile, the ongoing political turbulence and incessant crackdown on the defiant protesters have drawn acerbic criticism from the UN. UN Human Rights Chief, Michelle Rachelet, in a recent statement, called upon the military to stop forthwith the vicious repression and killings of the innocents. ASEAN calls for an end to perpetration of excesses have also fallen on deaf ears like the appeals from the UN. There have been more than visible protest demonstrations in front of the Indonesian and Thai Embassies in Myanmar that have not resulted in any impact except stirring an increasing public opinion against the military. Public is surely in a defiant mood. Slogans and placards are carrying banner headlines that say “Stone Age is over”. They are also ranting that the protesters are no longer afraid of any threat from the military. The cities in Myanmar are dotted with barricades and fortifications, never seen before of this scale. The country, since its independence, has seen five military takeovers dating from 1948 but the resistance put up this time seems unprecedented. Several “people’s governing bodies” have been formed which pose a direct challenge to the military leadership. Their resorting to lobbing of stun grenades and firing of live ammunition have also been proving ineffective. Foreign Minister of Singapore, Vivian Balakrishnan on March 5 has described in the Parliament, the happenings in Myanmar as national shame including the armed forces' use of weapons against its own people. Amid these happenings, credible reports suggest that the military leadership in Myanmar has tried to withdraw one billion US dollars from Federal Reserve after seizing power on Feb 1. The US has put a freeze on the transaction. It’s further known now that the Central Bank of Myanmar had tried to siphon off the money from the US. The US is trying to ascertain the names of those involved in this attempt to withdraw money as the US, the UK, EU and Canada have imposed fresh sanctions on Myanmar. At the same time, however, there seems to be a concerted disinformation campaign unleashed by the military as seen from disclosure by an ex-Israeli military intelligence officer who is also a Canadian citizen. Ari Ben Menashe, who claims to have intervened in military regimes of Sudan and other conflict zones, said that he has been hired by the Myanmar military to do some damage control lest its image is tarnished in the eyes of the US and other western countries. Menashe’s firm is known as Dickens & Madsons. Canada hinted that Myanmar military leadership is trying to distance itself from China so that it’s not seen as a Chinese puppet. This looks surprising and couldn’t be independently verified at this juncture. Menashe further claimed that Myanmar is trying to take back Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh and its using diplomatic channels in Saudi Arabia and the UAE for their early return. This again appears intriguing yet it needs close monitoring. Meanwhile, inputs as of March 7 reveal that there were sporadic incidents of violence during clashes between the security forces in different parts of Myanmar with protesters intensifying their tirade against the military regime. There have been raids in the houses of hundreds of protesters and one activist of the National League for Democracy (NLD), Khin Maung Latt died in military custody allegedly after he was tortured. A northern Shan State city Lashio saw a barrage of police firing, stun grenades and tear-gassing that injured many. There is an uneasy calm prevailing in many parts of Myanmar. As regards to India, its borders with Myanmar need to be extra vigilant to prevent unauthorised entry of the victims of the military. A section of the Myanmar military is believed to have told the Indian authorities to return many Myanmar policemen who are thought to have crossed over to the Indian side in the state of Mizoram to escape the military onslaught. As things unfold dramatically in Myanmar with the rising military oppression and the anti-coup protestors stepping up their aggressive opposition, a longish stand-off between the military-led government and the pro-democracy forces looks certain in the near foreseeable future. India, diplomatically, has so far played its card with dexterity and patience at the same time eyeing the situation closely to act and react as the ground situation demands. (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: Is worst still waiting to happen in Myanmar?

In a very recent development that seemed to be significant, Turkey and Pakistan, already close allies, have decided for a robust military cooperation through a formal defence agreement. This was disclosed by Bloomberg. It is also revealed now that these countries are soon entering into manufacture of missiles and fighter jets and in this regard. Officials from Pakistan and Turkey have been holding meetings for the last several months. Pakistan Defence Secretary Mia Mohammad Hilal Hussain met the Turkish Defence Minister, Hulusi Akar in December 2020 to give final shape to the upcoming deal. More specifically, the deal would entail long-range Siper missiles and TF-X fighter jets.

Defence experts reckon that with this emerging defence cooperation, Istanbul will be part of the JF-17 Thunder Fighter Jets that currently Pakistan develops with China. As it is, Turkey and Pakistan look up to each other as reliable strategic allies, and this is very likely to take their relationship to newer heights. Turkish President has most recently described that such a dependable strategic relationship has serious potential between the two countries. However, the US is believed to have taken note of this development and as it has already imposed sanctions on Turkey for the latter’s decision two years ago to buy Russian S-400 missiles system which is an eyesore to the US.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/opinion-us-foreign-policy-and-its-middle-east-conundrum-367054">Opinion: US foreign policy and its Middle East conundrum</a>

It may be recollected&nbsp;that Turkey had snapped its deal with China to procure missiles and subsequently reaching out to Russia for getting this military hardware.

As this news is getting under circulation, analysts have started pondering over this. Pakistan has been cosying up to Turkey and the latter too has been reciprocating in good measure. Erdogan’s more than one visit to Pakistan each year in the recent past has not gone unnoticed. Every time he comes or Prime Minister Imran Khan goes to Istanbul, fresh commitments are signed.

Exceeding his niceties as head of a sovereign country, Erdogan has been repeating his offers of militarily intervening in Kashmir to express his solidarity with Pakistan. Pakistan derives extraordinarily hollowed satisfaction by such assurances which are bereft of any substance or logic especially when India and Pakistan are believed to have revived a cease-fire deal of 2003 to end the hostilities. Erdogan has been playing a divisive role to abet animus which is unfortunately not a sign of a good leader.

Another implication of the Turkey Pakistan military cooperation would mean an arms race in the region. The US is likely to have a dim view of the issue particularly when President Biden is closely watching Turkey and Pakistan. Pakistan sadly doesn’t comprehend that Turkey is not the best choice as its ally.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/opinion-turkey-signals-sweeping-regional-ambitions-365427">Opinion: Turkey signals sweeping regional ambitions</a>

Erdogan has a clear agenda of propelling himself as a Muslim leader of global level and he also wants to slight Saudi Arabia in this regard. Since Riyadh is not favourably inclined towards Pakistan anymore and the relations are more than sour, Imran Khan is placing all his eggs into Erdogan’s basket.&nbsp;

This suits Erdogan who is always trying to run down Saudi led Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and by default befriends Pakistan. Also, by warming upto Pakistan through a defence cooperation for manufacturing lethal weaponry, Turkey and Pakistan are encouraging security perils in the region which have far-reaching devastating consequences. Assuming and rightly so that such production of deadly military hardware will deter India - the South Asia giant, they are erroneously mistaken. Every country with self-esteem is bound to defend its borders and sovereignty with all its might even militarily. She let there be no illusions on such utopian dreams, and that’s what the experts also say.

Pakistan and Turkey are also enjoying fantasy films like Ertugrul, based on a tribal character who is thought to have existed during the Ottoman Empire. Films on him are watched widely and are full of violence and bloodshed. That shows the priorities of the leaders of the two countries who are perhaps living under false notions of chivalry. It is also known now that Pakistan and Turkish passport holders can have dual nationalities which is understandable but displays a more vibrant equation between the two countries.

The roles of Turkey and Pakistan have been under close scrutiny for their support to Azerbaijan during its military conflict with Armenia last year. By the upcoming military cooperation of joint manufacturing enterprise, it would mean that in any other future skirmishes or full-scale war, both Pakistan and Turkey will not be inhibited to militarily intervene and take sides according to one’s own whims and fancies. World at large is hoping that it does not happen and all eyes are trained in the new US administration.

Meanwhile, knowledgeable Pakistan watchers say that religious intolerance is high in Pakistan. The Pakistan Taliban has been reunified. Terrorists have successfully targeted a number of civilians in addition to several casualties amongst the military and paramilitary personnel. Nobel Laureate and activist, Malala Yousafzai, who had providentially survived an assassination attempt in the past, had received death threat again in the recent past. Afsandyar Mir, a security analyst and Fellow at the Centre for Internal Security and Cooperation opines that reunification of a splintered militancy remains dangerous news for Pakistan.

Hence, it would appear in the larger interest of peace in the region, joint arms manufacture or anti tranquil defence enterprises will prove counterproductive adding more security uncertainties to the people of South Asia.

(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 very recent development that seemed to be significant, Turkey and Pakistan, already close allies, have decided for a robust military cooperation through a formal defence agreement.

In a very recent development that seemed to be significant, Turkey and Pakistan, already close allies, have decided for a robust military cooperation through a formal defence agreement. This was disclosed by Bloomberg. It is also revealed now that these countries are soon entering into manufacture of missiles and fighter jets and in this regard. Officials from Pakistan and Turkey have been holding meetings for the last several months. Pakistan Defence Secretary Mia Mohammad Hilal Hussain met the Turkish Defence Minister, Hulusi Akar in December 2020 to give final shape to the upcoming deal. More specifically, the deal would entail long-range Siper missiles and TF-X fighter jets. Defence experts reckon that with this emerging defence cooperation, Istanbul will be part of the JF-17 Thunder Fighter Jets that currently Pakistan develops with China. As it is, Turkey and Pakistan look up to each other as reliable strategic allies, and this is very likely to take their relationship to newer heights. Turkish President has most recently described that such a dependable strategic relationship has serious potential between the two countries. However, the US is believed to have taken note of this development and as it has already imposed sanctions on Turkey for the latter’s decision two years ago to buy Russian S-400 missiles system which is an eyesore to the US. Also Read | Opinion: US foreign policy and its Middle East conundrum It may be recollected that Turkey had snapped its deal with China to procure missiles and subsequently reaching out to Russia for getting this military hardware. As this news is getting under circulation, analysts have started pondering over this. Pakistan has been cosying up to Turkey and the latter too has been reciprocating in good measure. Erdogan’s more than one visit to Pakistan each year in the recent past has not gone unnoticed. Every time he comes or Prime Minister Imran Khan goes to Istanbul, fresh commitments are signed. Exceeding his niceties as head of a sovereign country, Erdogan has been repeating his offers of militarily intervening in Kashmir to express his solidarity with Pakistan. Pakistan derives extraordinarily hollowed satisfaction by such assurances which are bereft of any substance or logic especially when India and Pakistan are believed to have revived a cease-fire deal of 2003 to end the hostilities. Erdogan has been playing a divisive role to abet animus which is unfortunately not a sign of a good leader. Another implication of the Turkey Pakistan military cooperation would mean an arms race in the region. The US is likely to have a dim view of the issue particularly when President Biden is closely watching Turkey and Pakistan. Pakistan sadly doesn’t comprehend that Turkey is not the best choice as its ally. Also Read | Opinion: Turkey signals sweeping regional ambitions Erdogan has a clear agenda of propelling himself as a Muslim leader of global level and he also wants to slight Saudi Arabia in this regard. Since Riyadh is not favourably inclined towards Pakistan anymore and the relations are more than sour, Imran Khan is placing all his eggs into Erdogan’s basket. This suits Erdogan who is always trying to run down Saudi led Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and by default befriends Pakistan. Also, by warming upto Pakistan through a defence cooperation for manufacturing lethal weaponry, Turkey and Pakistan are encouraging security perils in the region which have far-reaching devastating consequences. Assuming and rightly so that such production of deadly military hardware will deter India - the South Asia giant, they are erroneously mistaken. Every country with self-esteem is bound to defend its borders and sovereignty with all its might even militarily. She let there be no illusions on such utopian dreams, and that’s what the experts also say. Pakistan and Turkey are also enjoying fantasy films like Ertugrul, based on a tribal character who is thought to have existed during the Ottoman Empire. Films on him are watched widely and are full of violence and bloodshed. That shows the priorities of the leaders of the two countries who are perhaps living under false notions of chivalry. It is also known now that Pakistan and Turkish passport holders can have dual nationalities which is understandable but displays a more vibrant equation between the two countries. The roles of Turkey and Pakistan have been under close scrutiny for their support to Azerbaijan during its military conflict with Armenia last year. By the upcoming military cooperation of joint manufacturing enterprise, it would mean that in any other future skirmishes or full-scale war, both Pakistan and Turkey will not be inhibited to militarily intervene and take sides according to one’s own whims and fancies. World at large is hoping that it does not happen and all eyes are trained in the new US administration. Meanwhile, knowledgeable Pakistan watchers say that religious intolerance is high in Pakistan. The Pakistan Taliban has been reunified. Terrorists have successfully targeted a number of civilians in addition to several casualties amongst the military and paramilitary personnel. Nobel Laureate and activist, Malala Yousafzai, who had providentially survived an assassination attempt in the past, had received death threat again in the recent past. Afsandyar Mir, a security analyst and Fellow at the Centre for Internal Security and Cooperation opines that reunification of a splintered militancy remains dangerous news for Pakistan. Hence, it would appear in the larger interest of peace in the region, joint arms manufacture or anti tranquil defence enterprises will prove counterproductive adding more security uncertainties to the people of South Asia. (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: Is Turkey wooing Pakistan through defence cooperation? 

Crises differ between countries according to the different viewpoints and ideologies of each country, whether these policies are designed and planned to reach a goal. The crisis may be also a recent emergency, as is the case in the "Covid 19" pandemic, which hit many countries without warning. The crisis may have limited features with one party in a country, as happened in Greece, the economic collapse and the crisis that was threatening the euro area.&nbsp;

Crises may be unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral, as is case with the liberation of Kuwait war in 1991. Crises may be outside the control of the state due to natural disasters such as volcanoes and hurricanes.

The crisis is defined as a period of tension and a turning point from one situation to another, and it needs a quick decision to stop this decline or collapse as it affects the various relevant entities as it is the case with political, economic, natural, social, military and security crises.

Crises of all kinds are a major part of political, social and human life of all degrees. This leads everyone to seriously think about how to move the crisis and reach the best results. This what was call shifting from negative to positive? This shift requires wise leadership and exemplary leaders.

The diplomatic strategy enjoys widespread interest among the leading elites and formal and informal institutions because of their close relationship with many international politics. The strategy is used today in various fields of life. The strategy is thus the goals set by the head of state or senior officials to reach results of a specific nature. They put in place tools to achieve such a strategy.

Diplomatic strategy is one of the most important tools for decision-makers and their future vision of the country's foreign policy in dealing with its regional and international environment. This policy depends mainly on national interests and how to strengthen and sustain the internal fabric of the country and develop it in the best way possible through its tools - diplomatic missions of various degrees.

Recently, the Sultanate received 100,000 doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine from India where the medicine was produced at Serum Institute. Oman’s Minister of Health has thanked the government of India for delivering 100,000 vaccines at no charge, to help with the country’s coronavirus vaccination drive. The doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were produced by the Serum Institute of India, having undergone clinical trials to ensure they were safe to use on humans.

The deep historical ties between the Sultanate and India span thousands of years. Late Sultan Qaboos laid the foundations of a solid diplomatic strategy between the two countries, as they share the same concept of strategy and objectives. The two countries diplomacies are based on quiet diplomacy away from foreign interference in the regional and international environment. The first Indian ambassador to the Sultanate arrived in 1973 and the Sultanate opened an embassy in New Delhi in 1972.

It is well known that India is a country with an ancient history and civilization for thousands of years and it is an advanced industrial country in all fields.&nbsp;

There have been flourishing old trade and cultural relations hundreds of years ago linking the two friendly peoples outside the scope of international protocols and frameworks of diplomatic systems. In terms of diplomacy and politics, the Sultanate’s government-supported India’s position to have permanent membership in the UN Security Council.&nbsp;

India has been an important trading partner for Oman since the beginning of its strong ties and ties. Sultan Haitham bin Tariq emphasized the foreign policy approach, as His Majesty said, “We will externally follow the line drawn by Sultan Qaboos. This positive and distinguished step by the friendly Republic of India did not come out of a vacuum, but rather came with the concerted views and efforts of the head of the two countries.

The Omani people and government will record this generous gesture and step by India in golden letters. The gesture will remain in history as an example of love and respect between the two friendly countries and peoples at various governmental and popular levels. It also reflects the keenness of both countries to remain beside each other at will and woe. I hope that this initiative will be an example to be followed in resolving international crises. I hope this will deter unfriendly countries to stop weaving conspiracies here and there to serve causes that will not serve humanity.

(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.)

Crises differ between countries according to the different viewpoints and ideologies of each country, whether these policies are designed and planned to reach a goal.

Crises differ between countries according to the different viewpoints and ideologies of each country, whether these policies are designed and planned to reach a goal. The crisis may be also a recent emergency, as is the case in the "Covid 19" pandemic, which hit many countries without warning. The crisis may have limited features with one party in a country, as happened in Greece, the economic collapse and the crisis that was threatening the euro area. Crises may be unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral, as is case with the liberation of Kuwait war in 1991. Crises may be outside the control of the state due to natural disasters such as volcanoes and hurricanes. The crisis is defined as a period of tension and a turning point from one situation to another, and it needs a quick decision to stop this decline or collapse as it affects the various relevant entities as it is the case with political, economic, natural, social, military and security crises. Crises of all kinds are a major part of political, social and human life of all degrees. This leads everyone to seriously think about how to move the crisis and reach the best results. This what was call shifting from negative to positive? This shift requires wise leadership and exemplary leaders. The diplomatic strategy enjoys widespread interest among the leading elites and formal and informal institutions because of their close relationship with many international politics. The strategy is used today in various fields of life. The strategy is thus the goals set by the head of state or senior officials to reach results of a specific nature. They put in place tools to achieve such a strategy. Diplomatic strategy is one of the most important tools for decision-makers and their future vision of the country's foreign policy in dealing with its regional and international environment. This policy depends mainly on national interests and how to strengthen and sustain the internal fabric of the country and develop it in the best way possible through its tools - diplomatic missions of various degrees. Recently, the Sultanate received 100,000 doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine from India where the medicine was produced at Serum Institute. Oman’s Minister of Health has thanked the government of India for delivering 100,000 vaccines at no charge, to help with the country’s coronavirus vaccination drive. The doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine were produced by the Serum Institute of India, having undergone clinical trials to ensure they were safe to use on humans. The deep historical ties between the Sultanate and India span thousands of years. Late Sultan Qaboos laid the foundations of a solid diplomatic strategy between the two countries, as they share the same concept of strategy and objectives. The two countries diplomacies are based on quiet diplomacy away from foreign interference in the regional and international environment. The first Indian ambassador to the Sultanate arrived in 1973 and the Sultanate opened an embassy in New Delhi in 1972. It is well known that India is a country with an ancient history and civilization for thousands of years and it is an advanced industrial country in all fields. There have been flourishing old trade and cultural relations hundreds of years ago linking the two friendly peoples outside the scope of international protocols and frameworks of diplomatic systems. In terms of diplomacy and politics, the Sultanate’s government-supported India’s position to have permanent membership in the UN Security Council. India has been an important trading partner for Oman since the beginning of its strong ties and ties. Sultan Haitham bin Tariq emphasized the foreign policy approach, as His Majesty said, “We will externally follow the line drawn by Sultan Qaboos. This positive and distinguished step by the friendly Republic of India did not come out of a vacuum, but rather came with the concerted views and efforts of the head of the two countries. The Omani people and government will record this generous gesture and step by India in golden letters. The gesture will remain in history as an example of love and respect between the two friendly countries and peoples at various governmental and popular levels. It also reflects the keenness of both countries to remain beside each other at will and woe. I hope that this initiative will be an example to be followed in resolving international crises. I hope this will deter unfriendly countries to stop weaving conspiracies here and there to serve causes that will not serve humanity. (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: Oman will record India sending vaccines in golden letter

Two decades of snail pace revisions of Saudi schoolbooks aimed at removing supremacist references to Jews, Christians, and Shiites suggest a willingness to delete offensive language while keeping in place fundamental concepts of an ultra-conservative, anti-pluralistic, and intolerant interpretation of Islam.

In a break with the past, Human Rights Watch and Impact-se, an education-focused Israeli research group, reported for the first time in two decades of post-9/11 pressure on Saudi Arabia that the kingdom had made significant progress in revising textbooks.

The reports focussed on explicit references to other religions but noted that further revisions were needed to eliminate language that disparages practices associated with religious minorities, particularly Shiite Muslims and Sufis, sects viewed as heretic by ultra-conservatives.

“As long as the texts continue to disparage religious beliefs and practices of minority groups, including those of fellow Saudi citizens, it will contribute to the culture of discrimination that these groups face,” said Michael Page, Human Rights Watch’s deputy Middle East director.

“They removed some of the more offensive stuff like pictures of Shiite shrines that were called shirk (polytheistic) and they removed some offensive language, but the kernel is still there... They are trying to make the language less offensive but the whole idea is offensive,” added Human Rights Watch Middle East researcher Adam Coogle.

Implicit in the two reports’ conclusions, but at best only summarily mentioned, was the fact that the ultra-conservative interpretation of basic religious concepts as promoted by Saudi Arabia until the rise of King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, remain unaltered in the schoolbooks.

These interpretations relate to the ban on bida’a or religious innovation and shirk or polytheism as well as the rejection of supplication, a thinly veiled reference to the Shia practice of intercession.

Critics, including prominent Muslim scholars, argue that Saudi Arabia’s failure to address problematic concepts of Islam, that constitute the basis for ultra-conservative rejection of religious pluralism and supremacist and intolerant interpretations of the faith, call into question the kingdom’s projection of itself as a paragon of religious moderation and leader of the Islamic world.

The critics assert that the significant progress reported by Human Rights Watch and Impact-se constitutes part of Saudi Arabia’s effort to pre-empt pressure from the Biden administration as it recalibrates its relationship with the kingdom.

They also charge that the progress is designed to make Saudi Arabia, whose image has been tarnished by human rights abuse and the 2018 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, palatable to foreign direct investors as well as boost pressure on international companies to shift their regional operations from Dubai to the kingdom.

Scholars in Saudi Arabia took issue with the Human Rights Watch report. “I do not know why the world is so busy with us. Although their countries are full of things that need attention, revision, arrangement, and organization,” said political sociologist Widad al-Jarwan, adding that “even their curricula in the West are full of mistakes against” Muslims.

Indonesian Muslim scholars argue that the Saudi interpretation of ibadah, the rules governing worship, constitute an innovation by defining aspects of worship practised by a majority of Muslims in ways that are viewed by ultra-conservatives as beyond the pale.

“What matters is how the Saudis interpret the teachings related to how Muslims should treat anybody of a different sect or faith. The problem is how they believe the other should be treated. It doesn’t matter what they call me. It doesn’t matter if they call me a kafir, an infidel, as long as they truly believe that I should be treated equally. The problem is that the Saudis don’t really want to change their established system of beliefs,” said Yahya Cholil Staquf, a prominent Islamic scholar and secretary-general of Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim movement.

Mr. Staquf was one of the major forces behind Nahdlatul Ulama’s charter of Humanitarian Islam that embraces the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and calls for reform of problematic or obsolete religious legal concepts that negate equal rights for all.

Ali al-Ahmad, director of the Washington-based Institute of Gulf Affairs that has long highlighted problems with Saudi textbooks, contended that “when it comes to bida’a and shirk, the Wahhabis are more guilty than other Muslims. Saudi Arabia will not be able to move forward with Wahhabism as its state religion. The concept of a state religion must be abolished before the country can move into the modern age.”

Mr Al-Ahmed’s comment goes to the core of the debate about religious reform in the Muslim world and whether states like Saudi Arabia without the lead and buy-in of civil society can achieve real and lasting change.

“There’s no civil society. There’s no dialogue. Zero,” Mr Coogle said.

Significant social reforms in recent years were primarily designed to cater to youth aspirations, enable economic diversification, attract foreign direct investment, and shore up the country’s tarnished image while ensuring state-control on the principle of absolute obedience to the ruler. They were not rooted in a recognition that the kingdom’s ultra-conservative mores were problematic in and of themselves.

Discussing the textbook revisions, Mr. Coogle noted that “it’s not like the Saudis looked at their textbooks and saw a problem. Other people didn’t like it and the Saudis are trying to quell those concerns.”

The stepped-up Saudi revision of schoolbooks was in part spurred by a draft bill in the US Congress that would require the Secretary of State to report annually “on religious intolerance in Saudi Arabian educational materials.” The draft was initially introduced in 2017 by a Republican sponsor who has since retired and reintroduced in 2019.

The Human Rights Watch report noted that although the revised schoolbooks no longer contain explicit references to Shia Islam, they still included harsh criticism of Shia practices and traditions, labelling them evidence of polytheism that threatens the existence of Islam.

A schoolbook for 4th-grade nine-year olds advised that adherence to such practices would lead to the cancellation of a person’s good deeds, God’s rejection of their repentance, and eternal damnation.

The practices include praying to saints and visiting tombs and shrines of prominent religious figures that are rejected by Wahhabism as a form of idolatry. They also involve the Shiite supplication to God via intermediaries as well as kneeling to anyone other than God, building mosques and shrines on top of graves, and wailing over the dead.

“Any Saudi who reads this will understand what it means,” Mr. Coogle said.

Saudi Shiites noted that all Muslim students, including Shiites, were required to use these textbooks even if they were perceived as offensive.

“The textbooks are written under the close supervision of leading Wahhabi clerics led by Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan,” one of Saudi Arabia’s most senior ultra-conservative clerics, Mr. Al-Ahmad said.

Mr. Al-Fawzan “views Islam as a Wahhabi-only religion. This vision is what is reflected in Saudi textbooks and other religious literature. This means that Shia Muslims, Sufis, other Sunni Muslims –are polytheists and deviants,” Mr. Al-Ahmad added.

Mr. Page cautioned that “as long as disparaging references to religious minorities remain in the text it will continue to stoke controversy and condemnation.”

By the same token, Saudi Arabia’s failure to address ultra-conservative interpretations of religious concepts that justify a rejection of pluralism and religious tolerance challenge the kingdom’s claim to be a leading voice of moderation – a pillar of the country’s quest to be recognized as a, if not the leader of the Muslim world in a new world order.

(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.)

Two decades of snail pace revisions of Saudi schoolbooks aimed at removing supremacist references to Jews, Christians, and Shiites suggest a willingness to delete offensive language while keeping in place fundamental concepts of an ultra-conservative, anti-pluralistic, and intolerant interpretation of Islam.

Two decades of snail pace revisions of Saudi schoolbooks aimed at removing supremacist references to Jews, Christians, and Shiites suggest a willingness to delete offensive language while keeping in place fundamental concepts of an ultra-conservative, anti-pluralistic, and intolerant interpretation of Islam. In a break with the past, Human Rights Watch and Impact-se, an education-focused Israeli research group, reported for the first time in two decades of post-9/11 pressure on Saudi Arabia that the kingdom had made significant progress in revising textbooks. The reports focussed on explicit references to other religions but noted that further revisions were needed to eliminate language that disparages practices associated with religious minorities, particularly Shiite Muslims and Sufis, sects viewed as heretic by ultra-conservatives. “As long as the texts continue to disparage religious beliefs and practices of minority groups, including those of fellow Saudi citizens, it will contribute to the culture of discrimination that these groups face,” said Michael Page, Human Rights Watch’s deputy Middle East director. “They removed some of the more offensive stuff like pictures of Shiite shrines that were called shirk (polytheistic) and they removed some offensive language, but the kernel is still there... They are trying to make the language less offensive but the whole idea is offensive,” added Human Rights Watch Middle East researcher Adam Coogle. Implicit in the two reports’ conclusions, but at best only summarily mentioned, was the fact that the ultra-conservative interpretation of basic religious concepts as promoted by Saudi Arabia until the rise of King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, remain unaltered in the schoolbooks. These interpretations relate to the ban on bida’a or religious innovation and shirk or polytheism as well as the rejection of supplication, a thinly veiled reference to the Shia practice of intercession. Critics, including prominent Muslim scholars, argue that Saudi Arabia’s failure to address problematic concepts of Islam, that constitute the basis for ultra-conservative rejection of religious pluralism and supremacist and intolerant interpretations of the faith, call into question the kingdom’s projection of itself as a paragon of religious moderation and leader of the Islamic world. The critics assert that the significant progress reported by Human Rights Watch and Impact-se constitutes part of Saudi Arabia’s effort to pre-empt pressure from the Biden administration as it recalibrates its relationship with the kingdom. They also charge that the progress is designed to make Saudi Arabia, whose image has been tarnished by human rights abuse and the 2018 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, palatable to foreign direct investors as well as boost pressure on international companies to shift their regional operations from Dubai to the kingdom. Scholars in Saudi Arabia took issue with the Human Rights Watch report. “I do not know why the world is so busy with us. Although their countries are full of things that need attention, revision, arrangement, and organization,” said political sociologist Widad al-Jarwan, adding that “even their curricula in the West are full of mistakes against” Muslims. Indonesian Muslim scholars argue that the Saudi interpretation of ibadah, the rules governing worship, constitute an innovation by defining aspects of worship practised by a majority of Muslims in ways that are viewed by ultra-conservatives as beyond the pale. “What matters is how the Saudis interpret the teachings related to how Muslims should treat anybody of a different sect or faith. The problem is how they believe the other should be treated. It doesn’t matter what they call me. It doesn’t matter if they call me a kafir, an infidel, as long as they truly believe that I should be treated equally. The problem is that the Saudis don’t really want to change their established system of beliefs,” said Yahya Cholil Staquf, a prominent Islamic scholar and secretary-general of Indonesia’s Nahdlatul Ulama, the world’s largest Muslim movement. Mr. Staquf was one of the major forces behind Nahdlatul Ulama’s charter of Humanitarian Islam that embraces the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and calls for reform of problematic or obsolete religious legal concepts that negate equal rights for all. Ali al-Ahmad, director of the Washington-based Institute of Gulf Affairs that has long highlighted problems with Saudi textbooks, contended that “when it comes to bida’a and shirk, the Wahhabis are more guilty than other Muslims. Saudi Arabia will not be able to move forward with Wahhabism as its state religion. The concept of a state religion must be abolished before the country can move into the modern age.” Mr Al-Ahmed’s comment goes to the core of the debate about religious reform in the Muslim world and whether states like Saudi Arabia without the lead and buy-in of civil society can achieve real and lasting change. “There’s no civil society. There’s no dialogue. Zero,” Mr Coogle said. Significant social reforms in recent years were primarily designed to cater to youth aspirations, enable economic diversification, attract foreign direct investment, and shore up the country’s tarnished image while ensuring state-control on the principle of absolute obedience to the ruler. They were not rooted in a recognition that the kingdom’s ultra-conservative mores were problematic in and of themselves. Discussing the textbook revisions, Mr. Coogle noted that “it’s not like the Saudis looked at their textbooks and saw a problem. Other people didn’t like it and the Saudis are trying to quell those concerns.” The stepped-up Saudi revision of schoolbooks was in part spurred by a draft bill in the US Congress that would require the Secretary of State to report annually “on religious intolerance in Saudi Arabian educational materials.” The draft was initially introduced in 2017 by a Republican sponsor who has since retired and reintroduced in 2019. The Human Rights Watch report noted that although the revised schoolbooks no longer contain explicit references to Shia Islam, they still included harsh criticism of Shia practices and traditions, labelling them evidence of polytheism that threatens the existence of Islam. A schoolbook for 4th-grade nine-year olds advised that adherence to such practices would lead to the cancellation of a person’s good deeds, God’s rejection of their repentance, and eternal damnation. The practices include praying to saints and visiting tombs and shrines of prominent religious figures that are rejected by Wahhabism as a form of idolatry. They also involve the Shiite supplication to God via intermediaries as well as kneeling to anyone other than God, building mosques and shrines on top of graves, and wailing over the dead. “Any Saudi who reads this will understand what it means,” Mr. Coogle said. Saudi Shiites noted that all Muslim students, including Shiites, were required to use these textbooks even if they were perceived as offensive. “The textbooks are written under the close supervision of leading Wahhabi clerics led by Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan,” one of Saudi Arabia’s most senior ultra-conservative clerics, Mr. Al-Ahmad said. Mr. Al-Fawzan “views Islam as a Wahhabi-only religion. This vision is what is reflected in Saudi textbooks and other religious literature. This means that Shia Muslims, Sufis, other Sunni Muslims –are polytheists and deviants,” Mr. Al-Ahmad added. Mr. Page cautioned that “as long as disparaging references to religious minorities remain in the text it will continue to stoke controversy and condemnation.” By the same token, Saudi Arabia’s failure to address ultra-conservative interpretations of religious concepts that justify a rejection of pluralism and religious tolerance challenge the kingdom’s claim to be a leading voice of moderation – a pillar of the country’s quest to be recognized as a, if not the leader of the Muslim world in a new world order. (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: What does it take to recontextualise Islam in Saudi schoolbooks?

A prominent Muslim scholar has warned that the West’s failure to include the incarceration in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Muslim world of pro-democracy religious scholars risks perpetuating autocratic rule.

“The world manufactures the condition that it condemns. We don’t rise up to condemn the persecution of Muslim democrats when it occurs, and we don’t go out of our way to protect Muslim democrats. In fact, there is a deeply embedded hypocrisy when it comes to the Muslim world,” said Khaled Abou el Fadel, a Kuwait-born University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Islamic law professor and human rights activist.

Mr Abou el Fadel was speaking at a virtual conference, organized by the Washington-based Arab Center for Law and Research to focus attention on Sheikh Salman al Oudeh, a popular but controversial religious scholar, who is one of several religious figures incarcerated since 2017 on terrorism-related charges. Saudi prosecutors have demanded the death sentence for Mr. Al-Oudeh.

The conference was held days after prominent Saudi women’s rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul was released after more than three years in prison as part of the kingdom’s effort to blunt criticism from the Biden administration that has pledged to make human rights a central plank of its foreign policy.

Mr Al-Oudeh was detained after he called in a tweet to his millions of followers for reconciliation with Qatar in the wake of the economic and diplomatic boycott imposed by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt on the Gulf state.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/islamophobia-a-fungible-prop-for-muslim-religious-soft-power-360288">Islamophobia: A fungible prop for Muslim religious soft power</a>

A long-standing Islamist proponent of reform in Saudi Arabia with an affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood, Mr. Al-Oudeh has been in and out of prison as his thinking evolved from a degree of support for jihadism against foreign occupation to becoming a key figure in the government’s efforts to rehabilitate militants and steer youth away from militancy.

In the wake of the 2011 popular Arab revolts that toppled the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, Mr. Al Oudeh became a proponent of peaceful revolution to achieve social and political change, the importance of civil society, humanist interpretations of Islam, contextualization of Islamic law, rejection of theocracy, pluralism as opposed to sectarianism, minority rights, and democracy.

He laid out his thinking that was grounded in Islamic tradition in a book, Aislat al-Thawra &nbsp;(Questions of Revolution), that was immediately banned in Saudi Arabia. Mr Al-Oudeh was initially barred from leaving the kingdom and delivering sermons in mosques while his popular television program was shut down.

Critics charged that Mr Al-Oudeh’s thinking represented a fusion of Western principles with his Salafist background rather than a break with the ultra-conservative school of thought. They also asserted that the scholar vacillated between silence and reconciliation on issues of gender and minorities such as Shiites.

Mr Abou el Fadel, who has rejected repeated Saudi attempts to co-opt him, positioned the importance of thinkers like Mr. Al-Oudeh and the need to include them in Western support of human rights in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East in the context of a sustained autocratic campaign to suppress any call for political change that is rooted in Islamic theology.

“There is a well-orchestrated, systematic assault against all forms of theological thinking in Islam that is supportive of reconciling Islamic theology and ethics with democratic governance, accountability in governance, limited power in governance, rule of law in governance, and a system of rights… The only democracy that can survive in the Islamic world is a democracy that reconciles itself with Islamic values. The idea that a democracy that is antithetical to Islamic values has no future in the Muslim world,” Mr. Abou el Fadel said.

“Those that rule countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the Emirates know that very well. And that is why…they are targeting the ideological thrust of democracy itself. We must recognize that the idea of political despotism as an unethical enterprise is well supported in the Islamic tradition… But it was always recognized as a rather unideal situation, an ethical failure that can be tolerated, but an ethical failure nonetheless,” he went on to say.

Targeting Middle Eastern projections of a ‘moderate’ Islam that propagates absolute obedience to the ruler, rejects political change, and endorses authoritarian, if not autocratic rule, Mr Abou el Fadel argued that “there is no way to reconcile between despotism and monotheism and tawhid (the oneness of God). The very notion of tawhid, the very notion of being a Muslim and submitting to God means that you cannot submit to a mundane ruler absolutely and totally. No mundane ruler has a moral claim to represent the rule of God.”

“It is why the persecution of Salman al Oudeh must end. It is a blotch on the conscience of the world. The world of human rights, the world of democratic advocacy will remain in a perpetual state of hypocrisy as long as people like Salman al Oudeh remain in prison and confront a very dark future,” Mr. Abou el Fadel said.

By implication, Mr Abou el Fadl was arguing that Western governments and activists were doing themselves a disservice by not putting equal emphasis on getting secular civil society activists and religious dissidents sprung from jail.

To be fair, human rights groups like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, ALQST, and Democracy in the Arab World Now (DAWN) have highlighted the plight of Mr Al-Oudeh and other religious figures. Mr Abou el Fadel serves on an advisory board of Human Rights Watch.

Founded by murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, DAWN counts Mr Al-Oudeh’s son, Abdullah Aloudh, a Washington-based scholar, among its senior executives.

While Western governments, including the Biden administration, have largely remained silent, analysts and activists appear at times to diverge on what the emphasis of human rights pressure on Saudi Arabia should be.

Saudi Arabia scholar Madawi al-Rasheed recently took issue with a suggestion by Bruce Riedel, a Brookings Institution scholar, former CIA official and ex-advisor on South Asia and the Middle East to several US presidents, to focus in the wake of the release of Ms Al-Hathloul on the plight of former Saudi crown prince and interior minister Mohammed bin Nayef.

Prince Mohammed, a US darling widely viewed as a potential threat to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, was arrested a year ago on charges of treason and has been held incommunicado since.

“Bruce Riedel forgets the abysmal human rights record of MBN who consolidated the Saudi police state that MBS came to benefit from. Instead of calling for putting him on trial, he wants him free,” Ms Al-Rasheed tweeted. She was referring to the two Saudi princes by their initials.

In a separate tweet, Ms Al-Rashid added: “No piecemeal progress on the plight of prisoners of conscience - all prisoners of conscience mean all prisoners.”

(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.)

A prominent Muslim scholar has warned that the West’s failure to include the incarceration in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Muslim world of pro-democracy religious scholars risks perpetuating autocratic rule.

A prominent Muslim scholar has warned that the West’s failure to include the incarceration in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Muslim world of pro-democracy religious scholars risks perpetuating autocratic rule. “The world manufactures the condition that it condemns. We don’t rise up to condemn the persecution of Muslim democrats when it occurs, and we don’t go out of our way to protect Muslim democrats. In fact, there is a deeply embedded hypocrisy when it comes to the Muslim world,” said Khaled Abou el Fadel, a Kuwait-born University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Islamic law professor and human rights activist. Mr Abou el Fadel was speaking at a virtual conference, organized by the Washington-based Arab Center for Law and Research to focus attention on Sheikh Salman al Oudeh, a popular but controversial religious scholar, who is one of several religious figures incarcerated since 2017 on terrorism-related charges. Saudi prosecutors have demanded the death sentence for Mr. Al-Oudeh. The conference was held days after prominent Saudi women’s rights activist Loujain al-Hathloul was released after more than three years in prison as part of the kingdom’s effort to blunt criticism from the Biden administration that has pledged to make human rights a central plank of its foreign policy. Mr Al-Oudeh was detained after he called in a tweet to his millions of followers for reconciliation with Qatar in the wake of the economic and diplomatic boycott imposed by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt on the Gulf state. Also Read | Islamophobia: A fungible prop for Muslim religious soft power A long-standing Islamist proponent of reform in Saudi Arabia with an affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood, Mr. Al-Oudeh has been in and out of prison as his thinking evolved from a degree of support for jihadism against foreign occupation to becoming a key figure in the government’s efforts to rehabilitate militants and steer youth away from militancy. In the wake of the 2011 popular Arab revolts that toppled the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, Mr. Al Oudeh became a proponent of peaceful revolution to achieve social and political change, the importance of civil society, humanist interpretations of Islam, contextualization of Islamic law, rejection of theocracy, pluralism as opposed to sectarianism, minority rights, and democracy. He laid out his thinking that was grounded in Islamic tradition in a book, Aislat al-Thawra (Questions of Revolution), that was immediately banned in Saudi Arabia. Mr Al-Oudeh was initially barred from leaving the kingdom and delivering sermons in mosques while his popular television program was shut down. Critics charged that Mr Al-Oudeh’s thinking represented a fusion of Western principles with his Salafist background rather than a break with the ultra-conservative school of thought. They also asserted that the scholar vacillated between silence and reconciliation on issues of gender and minorities such as Shiites. Mr Abou el Fadel, who has rejected repeated Saudi attempts to co-opt him, positioned the importance of thinkers like Mr. Al-Oudeh and the need to include them in Western support of human rights in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East in the context of a sustained autocratic campaign to suppress any call for political change that is rooted in Islamic theology. “There is a well-orchestrated, systematic assault against all forms of theological thinking in Islam that is supportive of reconciling Islamic theology and ethics with democratic governance, accountability in governance, limited power in governance, rule of law in governance, and a system of rights… The only democracy that can survive in the Islamic world is a democracy that reconciles itself with Islamic values. The idea that a democracy that is antithetical to Islamic values has no future in the Muslim world,” Mr. Abou el Fadel said. “Those that rule countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the Emirates know that very well. And that is why…they are targeting the ideological thrust of democracy itself. We must recognize that the idea of political despotism as an unethical enterprise is well supported in the Islamic tradition… But it was always recognized as a rather unideal situation, an ethical failure that can be tolerated, but an ethical failure nonetheless,” he went on to say. Targeting Middle Eastern projections of a ‘moderate’ Islam that propagates absolute obedience to the ruler, rejects political change, and endorses authoritarian, if not autocratic rule, Mr Abou el Fadel argued that “there is no way to reconcile between despotism and monotheism and tawhid (the oneness of God). The very notion of tawhid, the very notion of being a Muslim and submitting to God means that you cannot submit to a mundane ruler absolutely and totally. No mundane ruler has a moral claim to represent the rule of God.” “It is why the persecution of Salman al Oudeh must end. It is a blotch on the conscience of the world. The world of human rights, the world of democratic advocacy will remain in a perpetual state of hypocrisy as long as people like Salman al Oudeh remain in prison and confront a very dark future,” Mr. Abou el Fadel said. By implication, Mr Abou el Fadl was arguing that Western governments and activists were doing themselves a disservice by not putting equal emphasis on getting secular civil society activists and religious dissidents sprung from jail. To be fair, human rights groups like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, ALQST, and Democracy in the Arab World Now (DAWN) have highlighted the plight of Mr Al-Oudeh and other religious figures. Mr Abou el Fadel serves on an advisory board of Human Rights Watch. Founded by murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, DAWN counts Mr Al-Oudeh’s son, Abdullah Aloudh, a Washington-based scholar, among its senior executives. While Western governments, including the Biden administration, have largely remained silent, analysts and activists appear at times to diverge on what the emphasis of human rights pressure on Saudi Arabia should be. Saudi Arabia scholar Madawi al-Rasheed recently took issue with a suggestion by Bruce Riedel, a Brookings Institution scholar, former CIA official and ex-advisor on South Asia and the Middle East to several US presidents, to focus in the wake of the release of Ms Al-Hathloul on the plight of former Saudi crown prince and interior minister Mohammed bin Nayef. Prince Mohammed, a US darling widely viewed as a potential threat to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, was arrested a year ago on charges of treason and has been held incommunicado since. “Bruce Riedel forgets the abysmal human rights record of MBN who consolidated the Saudi police state that MBS came to benefit from. Instead of calling for putting him on trial, he wants him free,” Ms Al-Rasheed tweeted. She was referring to the two Saudi princes by their initials. In a separate tweet, Ms Al-Rashid added: “No piecemeal progress on the plight of prisoners of conscience - all prisoners of conscience mean all prisoners.” (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: A Muslim scholar says human rights policy needs to focus on religious scholars

Feb 14 is this big world mush day when lovers of love in all sizes, shapes, colour, language, religion &amp; region, floating on a delirious lavender cloud, play out their very own expression of love. Different degrees of anticipation – from the hysteric, hi-decibel to the coy &amp; understated – come centre-stage because of the sanction to openly display their dil ki baat to their significant other. &nbsp;

With setting, day, time &amp; occasion in place, this is the day to Show the oldest emotion on Earth...through action and not words. Let it all hang out. Undoubtedly, gifts top the list of this big, fat V-Day bazaar for the moony gang to shower their mehbooba with one-from-the-heart!

In 2021, however, is the pandemic all set to rain on this parade? Despite unlock happening with baby steps, is the conscious and (sub) conscious apprehension, fear, nervousness &amp; negativity that coloured the recent nightmare times going to play spoil-sport &amp; ruin the Love Utsav? Or will the lovers of love proclaim, Pyar kiya to darna kya and discover new &amp; ingenious ways to insist Sangam, hoga!hoga!hoga!!

20-year-old, Delhi-based psychology student of Amity University, Esha Chauhan fires the first salvo. Like most of her gen, she is fully into the hi-pitched, over-the-top, baring-of-the-heart theatrics that explode on this day “But since I am single, I choose to do my own thing ... Meet with friends, party, bond afresh with them and generally have fun. Now with the Pandemic, life has gone on-line, so from studies to socialising and chatting with friends, video calls &amp; zooms have defined my life." &nbsp;

"Result? My friends are in my room every day!"

However, for young couples in relationships, it can be trying and frustrating but on-line range of romance-driven fare [thanks to the huge demand &amp; supply quotient] are on call. &nbsp;Singer Prateek Kuhad is this sensational mush singer, a pied-piper for Gen Y, who adore his stuff. &nbsp;Then there are music events, concerts, etc but I know there will be a big segment of kids who will defy this edgy time and physically meet with who cares? &amp; damn-the-pandemic writ large on their heart! &nbsp;

"After all, for young people in relationships, this is undoubtedly the biggest day of the year!” Senior citizen, communication person Delhi-based Esha Guha, for a second, goes coy and misty-eyed.&nbsp; 
“Let’s face it. &nbsp;Virtual life is virtual life and real life is real life. &nbsp;Zoom calls are fine for business meetings, education and catching up with friends, a platform that facilitates collective events, but love is the most intimate relationship of all, something age cannot wither nor custom stale her infinite variety ...”&nbsp;

A trifle embarrassed at her emotional outpouring, Guha agreed that kids will take a hit and resort to on-line romancing, but the ones that wear their heart on their sleeves will follow the love is a many splendoured thing melody &amp; fly to their soul mate.&nbsp;

Kolkata-based Chitrani Ghosh agrees. &nbsp;

“Here clubs &amp; pubs are great popular settings for fun &amp; entertainment and they are forever designing themes for special events. After the miserable nine-month-plus push on the pause button, things have started opening out and action – with checks &amp; balances in place – is happening. &nbsp;However, like it’s been mentioned before, it does cast a cloud, barrier and a purdah between couples that feel compromised on the thrill of feel &amp; touch. Without the real ambience of person-to-person, no matter how fabulous the roses &amp; chocolates and on-line gifts are, somewhere, the magic is lost.”

Kolkata-based [Dr.] Angana Moitra, 29 year old, visiting faculty (Dept. of English, Sister Nivedita University) offers her evolved take on this theme.&nbsp;

“Kolkata, the City of Joy, is a city that is truly irrepressible in its zest for life! V-Day, obviously, for young couples is a very special day, when their world will revolve around everything that is heart-shaped! With the pandemic slowly appearing to calm down &amp; cool-off and the vaccine a reality, psychologically it is an easier time. &nbsp;Responsible young people will certainly celebrate but with caution, avoid crowded events and parties. However, I am sure there will be tons who will explode and freak out, throwing to the winds the SMS [Sanitiser, Mask, Social Distancing] way of life that held them in vice grip all these miserable months. Youth can be an intoxicating time and given an inch could trigger an Usain Bolt flyer into their favourite zone!” Adman Tito Khanna is the only dissenter who comes on strong and zooms in with his take&nbsp;

“This annual hoo-haa about V-day, I am certain, is a brilliantly orchestrated marketing and merchandising exercise seductively flaunting a product called love – aiming at the exact spots where logic is hit out of the park &amp; love, emotion &amp; cupid play huge starring roles! Before getting the knives out, answer this: If love was such a big deal, why is it given just one lousy day in the year for celebration? &nbsp;To me, it is a blatant commodification of a sentiment that supposedly makes the world go round; a calculated smooth and savvy commercialisation of the four letter word that zonks the softies, transporting them to a never-never-land-of-happy-ever-after! &nbsp;In a savagely consumerist society which knows the price of everything and value of nothing, isn’t V-day an event totally in sync with the tone, tenor &amp; testosterone of the times we live in, a vulnerable acceptance of a global phenomenon that champions hollow, emotional posturing? I rest my case.”

Before the howling mobs are at the gate of this gentleman, yelling things like KILL-JOY, CYNIC, DOOMSAYER, WET BLANKET, DAMPENER, let’s get back on track and address the main issue. &nbsp;It was a year of the forced re-discovery &amp; re-evaluation and in some ways echoed the life of pre-liberalised India. Sure technology helped, but could it go the distance? &nbsp;It made us reflective and hope that the future has a better script for [hopefully] the new &amp; improved version of ourselves with Love at its centre.

Mohabbat Zindabad!

(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.)

Feb 14 is this big world mush day when lovers of love in all sizes, shapes, colour, language, religion & region, floating on a delirious lavender cloud, play out their very own expression of love.

Feb 14 is this big world mush day when lovers of love in all sizes, shapes, colour, language, religion & region, floating on a delirious lavender cloud, play out their very own expression of love. Different degrees of anticipation – from the hysteric, hi-decibel to the coy & understated – come centre-stage because of the sanction to openly display their dil ki baat to their significant other. With setting, day, time & occasion in place, this is the day to Show the oldest emotion on Earth...through action and not words. Let it all hang out. Undoubtedly, gifts top the list of this big, fat V-Day bazaar for the moony gang to shower their mehbooba with one-from-the-heart! In 2021, however, is the pandemic all set to rain on this parade? Despite unlock happening with baby steps, is the conscious and (sub) conscious apprehension, fear, nervousness & negativity that coloured the recent nightmare times going to play spoil-sport & ruin the Love Utsav? Or will the lovers of love proclaim, Pyar kiya to darna kya and discover new & ingenious ways to insist Sangam, hoga!hoga!hoga!! 20-year-old, Delhi-based psychology student of Amity University, Esha Chauhan fires the first salvo. Like most of her gen, she is fully into the hi-pitched, over-the-top, baring-of-the-heart theatrics that explode on this day “But since I am single, I choose to do my own thing ... Meet with friends, party, bond afresh with them and generally have fun. Now with the Pandemic, life has gone on-line, so from studies to socialising and chatting with friends, video calls & zooms have defined my life." "Result? My friends are in my room every day!" However, for young couples in relationships, it can be trying and frustrating but on-line range of romance-driven fare [thanks to the huge demand & supply quotient] are on call. Singer Prateek Kuhad is this sensational mush singer, a pied-piper for Gen Y, who adore his stuff. Then there are music events, concerts, etc but I know there will be a big segment of kids who will defy this edgy time and physically meet with who cares? & damn-the-pandemic writ large on their heart! "After all, for young people in relationships, this is undoubtedly the biggest day of the year!” Senior citizen, communication person Delhi-based Esha Guha, for a second, goes coy and misty-eyed. “Let’s face it. Virtual life is virtual life and real life is real life. Zoom calls are fine for business meetings, education and catching up with friends, a platform that facilitates collective events, but love is the most intimate relationship of all, something age cannot wither nor custom stale her infinite variety ...” A trifle embarrassed at her emotional outpouring, Guha agreed that kids will take a hit and resort to on-line romancing, but the ones that wear their heart on their sleeves will follow the love is a many splendoured thing melody & fly to their soul mate. Kolkata-based Chitrani Ghosh agrees. “Here clubs & pubs are great popular settings for fun & entertainment and they are forever designing themes for special events. After the miserable nine-month-plus push on the pause button, things have started opening out and action – with checks & balances in place – is happening. However, like it’s been mentioned before, it does cast a cloud, barrier and a purdah between couples that feel compromised on the thrill of feel & touch. Without the real ambience of person-to-person, no matter how fabulous the roses & chocolates and on-line gifts are, somewhere, the magic is lost.” Kolkata-based [Dr.] Angana Moitra, 29 year old, visiting faculty (Dept. of English, Sister Nivedita University) offers her evolved take on this theme. “Kolkata, the City of Joy, is a city that is truly irrepressible in its zest for life! V-Day, obviously, for young couples is a very special day, when their world will revolve around everything that is heart-shaped! With the pandemic slowly appearing to calm down & cool-off and the vaccine a reality, psychologically it is an easier time. Responsible young people will certainly celebrate but with caution, avoid crowded events and parties. However, I am sure there will be tons who will explode and freak out, throwing to the winds the SMS [Sanitiser, Mask, Social Distancing] way of life that held them in vice grip all these miserable months. Youth can be an intoxicating time and given an inch could trigger an Usain Bolt flyer into their favourite zone!” Adman Tito Khanna is the only dissenter who comes on strong and zooms in with his take “This annual hoo-haa about V-day, I am certain, is a brilliantly orchestrated marketing and merchandising exercise seductively flaunting a product called love – aiming at the exact spots where logic is hit out of the park & love, emotion & cupid play huge starring roles! Before getting the knives out, answer this: If love was such a big deal, why is it given just one lousy day in the year for celebration? To me, it is a blatant commodification of a sentiment that supposedly makes the world go round; a calculated smooth and savvy commercialisation of the four letter word that zonks the softies, transporting them to a never-never-land-of-happy-ever-after! In a savagely consumerist society which knows the price of everything and value of nothing, isn’t V-day an event totally in sync with the tone, tenor & testosterone of the times we live in, a vulnerable acceptance of a global phenomenon that champions hollow, emotional posturing? I rest my case.” Before the howling mobs are at the gate of this gentleman, yelling things like KILL-JOY, CYNIC, DOOMSAYER, WET BLANKET, DAMPENER, let’s get back on track and address the main issue. It was a year of the forced re-discovery & re-evaluation and in some ways echoed the life of pre-liberalised India. Sure technology helped, but could it go the distance? It made us reflective and hope that the future has a better script for [hopefully] the new & improved version of ourselves with Love at its centre. Mohabbat Zindabad! (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: Pandemic moved Valentine's Day online

After a lull of about a month, the Progressive Democratic Movement (PDM), has decided to step up its activities to pin down the Imran Khan government. In furthering its aim, PDM chief, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, in the presence of Maryam Nawaz of Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari of Pakistan People's Party (PPP), held a press conference on February 4 in Islamabad.&nbsp;

As per the latest plans, the PDM will organize a long march towards Islamabad. This anti-government alliance with the blessings of former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, has also decided that all parties will contest state elections together, rejecting the open ballot method. This is in complete defiance of the government decision as the proposed constitutional amendment had endorsed for the open ballot system in the Senate Polls. The PDM has also described this march as the Mehngai March (March against inflation). This assumes significance as the electricity, gas and petroleum costs have skyrocketed in Pakistan in the recent past.

Meanwhile, opposition parties in Pakistan continue to be in a non-cooperation mode during the proceedings of the parliament. Also, there is no let up in the cases of corruption in government circles and Prime Minister Imran Khan remains under criticism for heading a corrupt government though his party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), had pledged an honest and clean governance during the election campaign of 2018.&nbsp;

Earlier, political commentators in Pakistan had assessed that PDM had run out of steam and was no longer force to reckon with. However, with the recent renewed plans by the PDM which comprises all the principal opposition parties, Imran Khan is expected to be under mounting pressure. Therefore, March 26 and run up to that date, remains crucial meriting close watch.

In a separate development, Prime Minister Imran Khan was castigated by well known military veteran, Lt Gen (retd) Talat Masood for the prime minister’s generous showering of praise and yearning for the Chinese political system of governance. In a writeup in a popular newspaper, The Express Tribune, dated February 3, 2021, Gen Masood finds PM’s opinion on Chinese governance as worrisome as it needs clarity which needs to be addressed to the general public.&nbsp;

Coming down heavily on the Pakistani Prime Minister, Gen Masood, charges his PM for being disillusioned with democracy and finds the role of the Opposition and the checks and balances in it frustrating.

The commentator also questions that if left to himself, PM Imran Khan would probably adopt a quasi-Chinese model with a token Opposition and greater freedom of action. Gen Masood, with vast political and military experience finds the Chinese communist system as harsh curbing individual freedom.

No doubt, Chinese leaders including Deng Xiaoping have brought about some elementary changes by partially opening the economy to generate wealth, yet this was at the cost of immense political and religious freedom.

This point is of particular importance in Pakistan and the leadership has to sensitise itself to the aspirations and expectations of the people of the four provinces and give them due representation. Even the mention of a presidential system or a quasi-Chinese model would invite a serious backlash. Pakistani military rulers had all the power at their command, similar to Imran Khan’s dream scenario, yet they failed miserably and left behind legacies the consequences of which Pakistan is still suffering.

The PM should realise as warned by Gen Talat Masood that at times he is setting aside key requirements of democratic governance by bypassing institutions. His reliance on the military may give him the confidence to bypass constitutional and legal obligations but these have a downside of weakening democracy and undermining his own role and that of the cabinet.

Gen Talat Masood further writes that good leadership demands they leave in their wake, legacies that place the country on a stable trajectory and not get embroiled in endless controversies. Their main aim should be to build the edifices of the country and create new ones where necessary.&nbsp;

For Pakistani leadership, high priority should be placed on strengthening parliament, correcting courses in civil-military relations, building a firm foundation for the economy, and expanding and deepening relations with friendly countries. Pakistan also needs to develop capabilities to deal with challenges like climate change and cybersecurity and maintain a hard focus on improving health and education facilities.&nbsp;

A country where 44% of the population is illiterate and a very high percentage of children are challenged, and is drowned by the burden of multiple problems, has to seriously rethink its priorities. For it is easier to take out processions but difficult to plan, address its weaknesses and rebuild the country.&nbsp;

By the observations of this war veteran in China, it can be easily surmised that the Pakistani think-tanks generally are averse to the Chinese system of economy and governance. Prime Minister Imran Khan going overboard to warm up to China, as seen currently, does not seem to have the endorsement of a large section of the Pakistani polity.

In the meantime, the Pakistan National Assembly witnessed an unprecedented and nasty chaos in its session of February 4. Many members engaged in physical scuffles which many say was perhaps the first time in Pakistan’s parliamentary history.&nbsp;

The Speaker, having failed to control the rowdiness, had to be provided a security ring by his protection team as the atmosphere inside the National Assembly was charged. The opposition staged a walkout registering their protest due to what they alleged the bullish behaviour of the ruling PTI.&nbsp;

In another significant statement emanating from the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa, while addressing at the graduation ceremony at the Pakistan Air Force Academy on Feb 2, called upon India and Pakistan to resolve the longstanding “issue” of Jammu and Kashmir in a dignified and peaceful manner.&nbsp;

He claimed that Pakistan was a peace-loving country and wanted to co-exist. However, he also said that the Armed Forces of Pakistan are fully capable and prepared to thwart any threat.&nbsp;

In view of this statement, India being a non-aggressor in all the previous wars with Pakistan might walk an extra mile to reciprocate in the larger interest of peace and tranquil between the two countries.&nbsp;

Yet, India in likelihood, will wait and weigh about the sincerity of Gen Bajwa’s statement which, on the face of it, has raised “hopes” of a reconciliation.

(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.)

After a lull of about a month, the Progressive Democratic Movement (PDM), has decided to step up its activities to pin down the Imran Khan government. In furthering its aim, PDM chief, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, in the presence of Maryam Nawaz of Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari of Pakistan People's Party (PPP), held a press conference on February 4 in Islamabad.

After a lull of about a month, the Progressive Democratic Movement (PDM), has decided to step up its activities to pin down the Imran Khan government. In furthering its aim, PDM chief, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, in the presence of Maryam Nawaz of Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari of Pakistan People's Party (PPP), held a press conference on February 4 in Islamabad. As per the latest plans, the PDM will organize a long march towards Islamabad. This anti-government alliance with the blessings of former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, has also decided that all parties will contest state elections together, rejecting the open ballot method. This is in complete defiance of the government decision as the proposed constitutional amendment had endorsed for the open ballot system in the Senate Polls. The PDM has also described this march as the Mehngai March (March against inflation). This assumes significance as the electricity, gas and petroleum costs have skyrocketed in Pakistan in the recent past. Meanwhile, opposition parties in Pakistan continue to be in a non-cooperation mode during the proceedings of the parliament. Also, there is no let up in the cases of corruption in government circles and Prime Minister Imran Khan remains under criticism for heading a corrupt government though his party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), had pledged an honest and clean governance during the election campaign of 2018. Earlier, political commentators in Pakistan had assessed that PDM had run out of steam and was no longer force to reckon with. However, with the recent renewed plans by the PDM which comprises all the principal opposition parties, Imran Khan is expected to be under mounting pressure. Therefore, March 26 and run up to that date, remains crucial meriting close watch. In a separate development, Prime Minister Imran Khan was castigated by well known military veteran, Lt Gen (retd) Talat Masood for the prime minister’s generous showering of praise and yearning for the Chinese political system of governance. In a writeup in a popular newspaper, The Express Tribune, dated February 3, 2021, Gen Masood finds PM’s opinion on Chinese governance as worrisome as it needs clarity which needs to be addressed to the general public. Coming down heavily on the Pakistani Prime Minister, Gen Masood, charges his PM for being disillusioned with democracy and finds the role of the Opposition and the checks and balances in it frustrating. The commentator also questions that if left to himself, PM Imran Khan would probably adopt a quasi-Chinese model with a token Opposition and greater freedom of action. Gen Masood, with vast political and military experience finds the Chinese communist system as harsh curbing individual freedom. No doubt, Chinese leaders including Deng Xiaoping have brought about some elementary changes by partially opening the economy to generate wealth, yet this was at the cost of immense political and religious freedom. This point is of particular importance in Pakistan and the leadership has to sensitise itself to the aspirations and expectations of the people of the four provinces and give them due representation. Even the mention of a presidential system or a quasi-Chinese model would invite a serious backlash. Pakistani military rulers had all the power at their command, similar to Imran Khan’s dream scenario, yet they failed miserably and left behind legacies the consequences of which Pakistan is still suffering. The PM should realise as warned by Gen Talat Masood that at times he is setting aside key requirements of democratic governance by bypassing institutions. His reliance on the military may give him the confidence to bypass constitutional and legal obligations but these have a downside of weakening democracy and undermining his own role and that of the cabinet. Gen Talat Masood further writes that good leadership demands they leave in their wake, legacies that place the country on a stable trajectory and not get embroiled in endless controversies. Their main aim should be to build the edifices of the country and create new ones where necessary. For Pakistani leadership, high priority should be placed on strengthening parliament, correcting courses in civil-military relations, building a firm foundation for the economy, and expanding and deepening relations with friendly countries. Pakistan also needs to develop capabilities to deal with challenges like climate change and cybersecurity and maintain a hard focus on improving health and education facilities. A country where 44% of the population is illiterate and a very high percentage of children are challenged, and is drowned by the burden of multiple problems, has to seriously rethink its priorities. For it is easier to take out processions but difficult to plan, address its weaknesses and rebuild the country. By the observations of this war veteran in China, it can be easily surmised that the Pakistani think-tanks generally are averse to the Chinese system of economy and governance. Prime Minister Imran Khan going overboard to warm up to China, as seen currently, does not seem to have the endorsement of a large section of the Pakistani polity. In the meantime, the Pakistan National Assembly witnessed an unprecedented and nasty chaos in its session of February 4. Many members engaged in physical scuffles which many say was perhaps the first time in Pakistan’s parliamentary history. The Speaker, having failed to control the rowdiness, had to be provided a security ring by his protection team as the atmosphere inside the National Assembly was charged. The opposition staged a walkout registering their protest due to what they alleged the bullish behaviour of the ruling PTI. In another significant statement emanating from the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa, while addressing at the graduation ceremony at the Pakistan Air Force Academy on Feb 2, called upon India and Pakistan to resolve the longstanding “issue” of Jammu and Kashmir in a dignified and peaceful manner. He claimed that Pakistan was a peace-loving country and wanted to co-exist. However, he also said that the Armed Forces of Pakistan are fully capable and prepared to thwart any threat. In view of this statement, India being a non-aggressor in all the previous wars with Pakistan might walk an extra mile to reciprocate in the larger interest of peace and tranquil between the two countries. Yet, India in likelihood, will wait and weigh about the sincerity of Gen Bajwa’s statement which, on the face of it, has raised “hopes” of a reconciliation. (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: PDM renews plans to corner Imran Khan

Out of sight, out of mind is a term we only know too well. Human memory is dangerously short &amp; in today’s nano-second times, when the here n’ now rules and impatience, impulsiveness &amp; promiscuity is the name of the game, this adage takes on ominous dimensions. &nbsp;

The nine-month closure of theatres &amp; releases, now slowly limping back but with pandemic still around and vaccine entering the frame with hope &amp; relief, presents a whole new Hitchcock-ian screenplay. &nbsp;In this sanitised world, fear, confusion and uncertainty reigns. Also, second and even third thoughts about entering movie theatres plague movie-junkies. &nbsp;

The nine-month interval however had one dramatic fallout; It allowed OTT, the streaming platform to usurp this space, offering sensationally varied, quality content that can be comfortably and securely enjoyed in the comforts of their home! &nbsp;For the traditional fans of the Bollywood-manufactured masala, this template started out by appearing to be weirdly different.&nbsp;

No high-pitched razzle-dazzle, dance, romance, glamour, tension, dialogue-baazi ignited by sexy, larger-than-life stars ... but soon [due to a lack of option, curiosity &amp; conditioning] and after a longish session of hide n’ seek, the OTT menu grew addictive. &nbsp;Over time, the Bollywood product seemed to move into soft focus, with fresh and absorbing OTT content slowly romancing their mind. [When was the last time you heard anyone excitedly recount or discuss mainstream films or stars?] Sure the media is warming up to usher their comeback – SRK’s Pathan heading the list – but isn’t the old hysteria missing?

Has OTT and their fantastically gifted actors converted a substantial section of the viewers in terms of sensibilities, taste &amp; quality control? Has this period unlocked a new side for audiences bred and buttered on cheap thrills, cardboard cut-out stars &amp; armpit rhetoric designed for instant gratification? &nbsp;Do all of this translate to the end of the blissed-out honeymoon of the superstars affair with their bhakts? Is this new and exciting version of David versus Goliath the latest show in town?

Tempting as it is to be carried away with the OTT-wave, perspective is the need of the day. &nbsp;Can stars really be so easily forgotten or relegated to the background after forever inhabiting the hearts and minds of the masses?&nbsp;

Remember, wherever films are made, stars are made too. &nbsp;Stardom is the characteristic of film industries, the world over. &nbsp;Unlike European and our regional films, which have a long tradition of expressing the viewpoints of their individual makers, Bollywood – like Hollywood – is totally star-driven. &nbsp;

They are the direct/indirect reflection of the needs, drives, dreams of the masses. &nbsp;In the darkened hall of a movie theatre, where wilful suspension of disbelief rules, stars seduce fans to participate in a collective experience that has more in common with tribal worship, myth and primitive magic.&nbsp;

No wonder, hardened film critic Anupama Chopra was once inspired to confess that “despite my long stint as a journo &amp; critic, I haven’t been able to be immune to their magical charms, their amazing ability to imbue inane scripts with heft, their innate talent for fuelling the fantasies of billions of people and their magical power to always provide hope. &nbsp;

Life may be nasty, brutish and short, but we can forever find comfort in the soothing image of SRK’s sexy wide-spread arms, Salman’s flamboyant bhai-giri, Aamir’s charming humour &amp; affection to find our own moral centre. Stars are a source of beauty, pleasure &amp; joy ... and totally irresistible. &nbsp;We in India enjoy a uniquely reverential, unthreatening but obsessive and overblown relationship with stars that remain totally unapologetic!”

So, as the clash between stars and actors is all set to zoom centre-stage very soon, the battle-lines will be drawn between the loyalists &amp; the converts. Will the amazing Pankaj Tripathi and his gifted co-actors or Criminal Justice, Sir, Patal Lok, Kagaz, Panchayat, Family Man or Bandish Bandits be able to match the fire power of the mighty Khans, Ajay, Akshay, Ranveer, Ranbir or the to-die-for wet dreams like Kat Kaif, Priyanka Chopra, Deepika Padukone?&nbsp;

As emotional responses go, stardom unleashes a different kind of fervour from the ones that greet actors. Actors invite respect and admiration. &nbsp;Stars attract craze and madness!

Furthermore, the star opens up doors to advantages galore. Stars have tangible features which can be advertised and marketed – face, body, voice, a certain kind of presence – and can be easily typed: Hero, Heroine, Comedian, Villain, Sexy Siren, Sweetie Pie, Neurotic, etc. The system provides a formula easy to understand and the use of this formula serves to protect Production House biggies from having to pay attention to such intangibles as the quality of the story or acting.&nbsp;

Here is a standardised product which the Bankers &amp; the Trade can easily connect with and regard as insurance for profits. &nbsp;

The Big Banners can then promise the junta of a SRK, Salman, Aamir, Akshay, Ajay, Hrithik, Ranveer, Ranbir, Deepika, Priyanka, Katrina starrer which traditionally spell profit. Star Power in action! Dramatically opposed to this perspective is a view presented by the legendary Marlon Brando.&nbsp;

“The idea is to be real, not to try and act out an emotion that you don’t feel or experience during the performance. Mostly, one has the popular and successful Personality Actors, totally predictable with manners well-loved. Acting is supposed to be a calling redolent with magic and mystique, a leap into the unknown, a voyage of discovery. It’s not about easy-to-digest junk food that guarantees inane feel-good smiles”.&nbsp;

Famous French Director Roger Vadim is up next. “Actors need gardeners more than professors. &nbsp;They are flowers that need to be watered, not cut. Actors, at the end of the day, don’t fantasise about the yellow brick road in the Wizard of Oz. &nbsp;Actors, like fire, are not meant to be hoarded, but spent!” 
&nbsp;&nbsp; 
So the question is: In this more mature environment, will cinema race past movies? &nbsp;Will content defeat glamour? &nbsp;Will realism confront escapism? Will actors challenge stars?

The heat is on and your time starts now!

Out of sight, out of mind is a term we only know too well. Human memory is dangerously short & in today’s nano-second times, when the here n’ now rules and impatience, impulsiveness & promiscuity is the name of the game, this adage takes on ominous dimensions.

Out of sight, out of mind is a term we only know too well. Human memory is dangerously short & in today’s nano-second times, when the here n’ now rules and impatience, impulsiveness & promiscuity is the name of the game, this adage takes on ominous dimensions. The nine-month closure of theatres & releases, now slowly limping back but with pandemic still around and vaccine entering the frame with hope & relief, presents a whole new Hitchcock-ian screenplay. In this sanitised world, fear, confusion and uncertainty reigns. Also, second and even third thoughts about entering movie theatres plague movie-junkies. The nine-month interval however had one dramatic fallout; It allowed OTT, the streaming platform to usurp this space, offering sensationally varied, quality content that can be comfortably and securely enjoyed in the comforts of their home! For the traditional fans of the Bollywood-manufactured masala, this template started out by appearing to be weirdly different. No high-pitched razzle-dazzle, dance, romance, glamour, tension, dialogue-baazi ignited by sexy, larger-than-life stars ... but soon [due to a lack of option, curiosity & conditioning] and after a longish session of hide n’ seek, the OTT menu grew addictive. Over time, the Bollywood product seemed to move into soft focus, with fresh and absorbing OTT content slowly romancing their mind. [When was the last time you heard anyone excitedly recount or discuss mainstream films or stars?] Sure the media is warming up to usher their comeback – SRK’s Pathan heading the list – but isn’t the old hysteria missing? Has OTT and their fantastically gifted actors converted a substantial section of the viewers in terms of sensibilities, taste & quality control? Has this period unlocked a new side for audiences bred and buttered on cheap thrills, cardboard cut-out stars & armpit rhetoric designed for instant gratification? Do all of this translate to the end of the blissed-out honeymoon of the superstars affair with their bhakts? Is this new and exciting version of David versus Goliath the latest show in town? Tempting as it is to be carried away with the OTT-wave, perspective is the need of the day. Can stars really be so easily forgotten or relegated to the background after forever inhabiting the hearts and minds of the masses? Remember, wherever films are made, stars are made too. Stardom is the characteristic of film industries, the world over. Unlike European and our regional films, which have a long tradition of expressing the viewpoints of their individual makers, Bollywood – like Hollywood – is totally star-driven. They are the direct/indirect reflection of the needs, drives, dreams of the masses. In the darkened hall of a movie theatre, where wilful suspension of disbelief rules, stars seduce fans to participate in a collective experience that has more in common with tribal worship, myth and primitive magic. No wonder, hardened film critic Anupama Chopra was once inspired to confess that “despite my long stint as a journo & critic, I haven’t been able to be immune to their magical charms, their amazing ability to imbue inane scripts with heft, their innate talent for fuelling the fantasies of billions of people and their magical power to always provide hope. Life may be nasty, brutish and short, but we can forever find comfort in the soothing image of SRK’s sexy wide-spread arms, Salman’s flamboyant bhai-giri, Aamir’s charming humour & affection to find our own moral centre. Stars are a source of beauty, pleasure & joy ... and totally irresistible. We in India enjoy a uniquely reverential, unthreatening but obsessive and overblown relationship with stars that remain totally unapologetic!” So, as the clash between stars and actors is all set to zoom centre-stage very soon, the battle-lines will be drawn between the loyalists & the converts. Will the amazing Pankaj Tripathi and his gifted co-actors or Criminal Justice, Sir, Patal Lok, Kagaz, Panchayat, Family Man or Bandish Bandits be able to match the fire power of the mighty Khans, Ajay, Akshay, Ranveer, Ranbir or the to-die-for wet dreams like Kat Kaif, Priyanka Chopra, Deepika Padukone? As emotional responses go, stardom unleashes a different kind of fervour from the ones that greet actors. Actors invite respect and admiration. Stars attract craze and madness! Furthermore, the star opens up doors to advantages galore. Stars have tangible features which can be advertised and marketed – face, body, voice, a certain kind of presence – and can be easily typed: Hero, Heroine, Comedian, Villain, Sexy Siren, Sweetie Pie, Neurotic, etc. The system provides a formula easy to understand and the use of this formula serves to protect Production House biggies from having to pay attention to such intangibles as the quality of the story or acting. Here is a standardised product which the Bankers & the Trade can easily connect with and regard as insurance for profits. The Big Banners can then promise the junta of a SRK, Salman, Aamir, Akshay, Ajay, Hrithik, Ranveer, Ranbir, Deepika, Priyanka, Katrina starrer which traditionally spell profit. Star Power in action! Dramatically opposed to this perspective is a view presented by the legendary Marlon Brando. “The idea is to be real, not to try and act out an emotion that you don’t feel or experience during the performance. Mostly, one has the popular and successful Personality Actors, totally predictable with manners well-loved. Acting is supposed to be a calling redolent with magic and mystique, a leap into the unknown, a voyage of discovery. It’s not about easy-to-digest junk food that guarantees inane feel-good smiles”. Famous French Director Roger Vadim is up next. “Actors need gardeners more than professors. They are flowers that need to be watered, not cut. Actors, at the end of the day, don’t fantasise about the yellow brick road in the Wizard of Oz. Actors, like fire, are not meant to be hoarded, but spent!” So the question is: In this more mature environment, will cinema race past movies? Will content defeat glamour? Will realism confront escapism? Will actors challenge stars? The heat is on and your time starts now!

Opinion: Is 2021 the year of Actor vs Star showdown?

Acting on the annual report of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), released in April 2020, the US State Department has designated (7th December) ten countries including China and Pakistan as “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPC) for &nbsp;“engaging in or tolerating systematic, on-going, egregious violations of religious freedom” in those countries. The CPC is considered as the US Government’s official term for countries that are the world’s worst offenders of religious freedom.

The State Department has however rejected the USCIRFs recommendation to include India as well in the list of Countries of Particular Concern. Credit for this must go to India’s impeccable credentials, aggressive diplomatic offensive by India and the prevalence of wise sense upon the policymakers in the USA.

After USCIRF’s annual report this year, 14 US Senators (10 Republicans and 4 Democrats) had urged the State Secretary to accept the recommendations. The move by the Senators was promptly welcomed by the so-called&nbsp;“The Coalition to Stop Genocide in India” (CSGI) which urged the US State Secretary Mike Pompeo not only to accept the USCIRF’s recommendation that India be designated as CPC but also to impose “targeted sanctions” against Indian agencies and officials “responsible for severe violations of religious freedom by freezing those individuals’ assets and/ or barring their entry into the United States.”

While responding to a question from a Pakistani-American journalist at a Press Conference (December 8), as to why Pakistan was included in CPC whereas India was left out, the US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Samuel Brownback said that in the case of Pakistan it was the state that was responsible for most of the violations whereas in India much of it was a result of communal violence.&nbsp;

Mr Brownback hit the nail on its head as far as Pakistan (and also China) was concerned. For there are numerous reports from diverse international bodies documenting the gross violation of human rights including the rights of ethnic and religious minorities as well as anti-government political activists who are being systematically discriminated by the state in Pakistan.&nbsp;

Ambassador Brownback rightly pointed out that half of the world’s people that are locked up for apostasy or blasphemy are in Pakistani jails. China’s track-record in this context is equally bad -be it the persecution of Uighur Muslims in concentration &nbsp;camps &nbsp;or the enactment of National Security Law in Hong Kong or demographic changes in Tibet or the forced sourcing of Pakistan’s ethnic minority girls for Chinese bridegrooms.&nbsp;

The US thus has every justifiable reason to designate Pakistan and China as Countries of Particular Concern.&nbsp; 
The US State Department’s decision to reject the USCIRF recommendation to include India in the CPC was arguably guided by reasons far more than what was cited by Ambassador Brownback.&nbsp;

The USA cannot ignore the fact that the freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution of India which allows not only the freedom to pursue a religion of an individual’s choice but also to preach it freely. Institutional mechanisms are in place to protect this freedom.&nbsp;

The laws enacted by the Indian government are directed primarily towards preventing any abuse of these freedoms, &nbsp;for instance inducement to conversion through material incentives.&nbsp;

The global community has by and large accepted India’s narrative that the CAA is not devised to deprive Indian Muslims of their Indian citizenship, and that the cow slaughter related laws have been enacted to address the genuine religious sentiments of the Hindus who constitute 80 per cent of India’s population rather than offend any other religious community.&nbsp;

Further, India had condemned the USCIRF report, signalling its displeasure. In a strongly worded statement, the Official Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs said (28th April, 2020) : “We reject the observations on India in the USCIRF Annual Report. Its biased and tendentious comments against India are not new. But on this occasion, its misrepresentation has reached new levels---. We regard it as an organization of particular concern and will treat it accordingly.”&nbsp;

Finally, the US understands the possible adverse political fall-out of taking a decision which is not supported either by facts or by logic and reason but has the potential to create a highly avoidable irritant in bilateral relations with India for no good reasons particularly now when the two countries enjoy a &nbsp;comprehensive global strategic partnership and when the USA &nbsp;is counting on India as a counter-weight to China in Asia.

The USCIRF&nbsp;Report episode has thus ended in the humiliation not only of the Commission but also of the certain other anti-India lobbies in the USA.

However, there are larger issues in the given context, which need to be addressed. First and foremost is the question of the right of an individual country- the USA in this case- to judge unilaterally the conduct of the rest of the world on the basis of the standards the judging country wishes to impose on other countries.&nbsp;

Further, what purpose, if any, can such censures serve unless followed by persuasive or punitive measures to motivate or force the erring countries to mend their ways. In the given case the US State Department has designated Pakistan as CPC but for geopolitical considerations refrained from announcing any punitive sanctions against Pakistan despite repeated violations of human rights. Finally, why create parallel unilateral structures when multilateral inter-Governmental mechanisms – UN Human Rights Council in the given case- are already in place?&nbsp;

The newly elected US President should reconsider the US decision in 2018 to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council and return to the Council with firm determination to reform and strengthen the organisation. The international community must make concerted efforts to reform as well as empower the Council so that it can take un-biased decisions, effectively protect human rights globally and enforce collective punitive actions wherever and whenever called for.&nbsp;

A similar approach must also be adopted for several institutions of global governance that require substantial reforms so that these organizations can inspire the global confidence in their ability to promote a just world order based on the collective will of the entire world community. In such a scenario, the need for unilateral actions and interventions would automatically stand obviated.

(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)

Acting on the annual report of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), released in April 2020, the US State Department has designated (7th December) ten countries including China and Pakistan as “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPC) for “engaging in or tolerating systematic, on-going, egregious violations of religious freedom” in those countries.

Acting on the annual report of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), released in April 2020, the US State Department has designated (7th December) ten countries including China and Pakistan as “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPC) for “engaging in or tolerating systematic, on-going, egregious violations of religious freedom” in those countries. The CPC is considered as the US Government’s official term for countries that are the world’s worst offenders of religious freedom. The State Department has however rejected the USCIRFs recommendation to include India as well in the list of Countries of Particular Concern. Credit for this must go to India’s impeccable credentials, aggressive diplomatic offensive by India and the prevalence of wise sense upon the policymakers in the USA. After USCIRF’s annual report this year, 14 US Senators (10 Republicans and 4 Democrats) had urged the State Secretary to accept the recommendations. The move by the Senators was promptly welcomed by the so-called “The Coalition to Stop Genocide in India” (CSGI) which urged the US State Secretary Mike Pompeo not only to accept the USCIRF’s recommendation that India be designated as CPC but also to impose “targeted sanctions” against Indian agencies and officials “responsible for severe violations of religious freedom by freezing those individuals’ assets and/ or barring their entry into the United States.” While responding to a question from a Pakistani-American journalist at a Press Conference (December 8), as to why Pakistan was included in CPC whereas India was left out, the US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Samuel Brownback said that in the case of Pakistan it was the state that was responsible for most of the violations whereas in India much of it was a result of communal violence. Mr Brownback hit the nail on its head as far as Pakistan (and also China) was concerned. For there are numerous reports from diverse international bodies documenting the gross violation of human rights including the rights of ethnic and religious minorities as well as anti-government political activists who are being systematically discriminated by the state in Pakistan. Ambassador Brownback rightly pointed out that half of the world’s people that are locked up for apostasy or blasphemy are in Pakistani jails. China’s track-record in this context is equally bad -be it the persecution of Uighur Muslims in concentration camps or the enactment of National Security Law in Hong Kong or demographic changes in Tibet or the forced sourcing of Pakistan’s ethnic minority girls for Chinese bridegrooms. The US thus has every justifiable reason to designate Pakistan and China as Countries of Particular Concern. The US State Department’s decision to reject the USCIRF recommendation to include India in the CPC was arguably guided by reasons far more than what was cited by Ambassador Brownback. The USA cannot ignore the fact that the freedom of religion is enshrined in the Constitution of India which allows not only the freedom to pursue a religion of an individual’s choice but also to preach it freely. Institutional mechanisms are in place to protect this freedom. The laws enacted by the Indian government are directed primarily towards preventing any abuse of these freedoms, for instance inducement to conversion through material incentives. The global community has by and large accepted India’s narrative that the CAA is not devised to deprive Indian Muslims of their Indian citizenship, and that the cow slaughter related laws have been enacted to address the genuine religious sentiments of the Hindus who constitute 80 per cent of India’s population rather than offend any other religious community. Further, India had condemned the USCIRF report, signalling its displeasure. In a strongly worded statement, the Official Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs said (28th April, 2020) : “We reject the observations on India in the USCIRF Annual Report. Its biased and tendentious comments against India are not new. But on this occasion, its misrepresentation has reached new levels---. We regard it as an organization of particular concern and will treat it accordingly.” Finally, the US understands the possible adverse political fall-out of taking a decision which is not supported either by facts or by logic and reason but has the potential to create a highly avoidable irritant in bilateral relations with India for no good reasons particularly now when the two countries enjoy a comprehensive global strategic partnership and when the USA is counting on India as a counter-weight to China in Asia. The USCIRF Report episode has thus ended in the humiliation not only of the Commission but also of the certain other anti-India lobbies in the USA. However, there are larger issues in the given context, which need to be addressed. First and foremost is the question of the right of an individual country- the USA in this case- to judge unilaterally the conduct of the rest of the world on the basis of the standards the judging country wishes to impose on other countries. Further, what purpose, if any, can such censures serve unless followed by persuasive or punitive measures to motivate or force the erring countries to mend their ways. In the given case the US State Department has designated Pakistan as CPC but for geopolitical considerations refrained from announcing any punitive sanctions against Pakistan despite repeated violations of human rights. Finally, why create parallel unilateral structures when multilateral inter-Governmental mechanisms – UN Human Rights Council in the given case- are already in place? The newly elected US President should reconsider the US decision in 2018 to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council and return to the Council with firm determination to reform and strengthen the organisation. The international community must make concerted efforts to reform as well as empower the Council so that it can take un-biased decisions, effectively protect human rights globally and enforce collective punitive actions wherever and whenever called for. A similar approach must also be adopted for several institutions of global governance that require substantial reforms so that these organizations can inspire the global confidence in their ability to promote a just world order based on the collective will of the entire world community. In such a scenario, the need for unilateral actions and interventions would automatically stand obviated. (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: US snubs anti-India lobbies, but larger issues remain to be addressed

Arrest of Arnab Goswami has drawn condemnation not only from the government and fans but also from the Journalist bodies. The bigger debate - Freedom of speech vs political vendetta.

Let's not make fun of a liberal state | Opinion | WION

Should India ban festival and other other religious gatherings? Why PM Modi didn't emphasise enough on religious and political gathering?

Why PM Modi didn't emphasise enough on religious and political gathering? WION Opinion

SC ruled that expression & dissent should take place in designated areas and public can not be inconvenienced. Ii also said " In democracy the opposition is not only tolerated as constitutional but must be maintained because it indispensable"

Protests in designated areas only but opposition also indispensable | Opinion | WION

Live-attenuated vaccines are a <a href="https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/types">type of vaccine</a> used for smallpox and childhood diseases like measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox, in which a weakened or “attenuated” form of the virus that causes the disease is manufactured.

Because such vaccines are so similar to the natural infection that they help prevent, they create a strong and long-lasting, even life-time immune response.

The disadvantage of live-attenuated vaccines resides in the fact that, because they contain a small amount of the weakened live virus, people with compromised immune systems or long-term health problems often referred to as “pre-conditions” may be at risk.

It has now been <a href="https://twitter.com/Rossana38510044/status/1311054913754009600">suggested</a> that SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, may have arisen from laboratory experiments to produce a live-attenuated vaccine, a process that may have included genetic manipulation.

Over time, viruses have developed strategies to avoid the human immune response, allowing them to better infect cells and replicate.

Many SARS-CoV-2 patients <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/117/21/11727">develop</a> only low levels of neutralizing antibodies and suffer prolonged illness compared to SARS-CoV-1, the coronavirus responsible for the 2002-2003 pandemic, indicating that SARS-CoV-2 evades human immune surveillance more effectively.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/chinese-scientist-says-covid-19-was-created-by-chinas-military-327862">Chinese scientist says covid-19 was created by China’s military</a>

It is <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/117/21/11727">widely-known</a> that when viruses evolve to escape immune detection, they often suffer reduced fitness and become less infectious, yet SARS-CoV-2 remains highly infectious.

SARS-CoV-2 first binds to the human cell and then undergoes a membrane fusion process to gain entry, a process which is mediated by its spike protein.

The S1 component of the spike protein contains the receptor binding domain (RBD) that binds to the human angiotensin converting enzyme-2 receptor (ACE2), while the S2 segment of the spike contains the fusion-regulating element. At the S1-S2 junction is a furin polybasic cleavage site, which is involved in the separation of the S1 from the S2 section.

The RBD constantly switches between an “up” position that allows for receptor binding and “down” position in order to evade an immune response.

For membrane fusion and viral entry into the cell to occur, the spike protein must be split at the S1-S2 junction by an enzymatic process. The furin polybasic cleavage site facilitates that process by interacting with the enzymes of the human cell surface.

How then does SARS-CoV-2, which is highly-adapted for human infection, evade the immune response?

The dynamic state of the RBD <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/117/21/11727">may explain</a> the paradox. That is, the switching between an “up” position that allows for receptor binding and “down” position in order to evade an immune response.

It appears that the SARS-CoV-2 RBD exists mainly in the “down” position to avoid triggering the immune system.

The presence of the furin polybasic cleavage site not only can “pre-activate” SARS-CoV-2 for fusion and cell entry, but S1-S2 cleavage may also <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-020-0468-7">facilitate</a> the adoption of the “up” conformation that is required for SARS-CoV-2 to bind to the ACE2 receptor.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions-blogs/a-2008-synthetic-model-to-make-covid-19-in-the-laboratory-329367">A 2008 synthetic model to make COVID-19 in the laboratory</a>

According to such a scenario, SARS-CoV-2 is protected from an immune response until the very moment infection takes place.

How is all of that related to vaccine development?

In order to produce a live-attenuated vaccine for a coronavirus, you need a RBD that is highly specific for human infection, but one that is also exposed to the human immune system.

There are no known naturally-occurring coronaviruses with a RBD highly adapted for human infection and, at the same time, containing the furin polybasic cleavage site found in SARS-CoV-2.

It is feasible, therefore, that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted from the accidental laboratory release of a coronavirus being artificially modified for the production of a live-attenuated vaccine.

(Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel, who previously worked at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases and conducted basic and clinical research in the pharmaceutical industry. is email address is lawrence.sellin@gmail.com)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Live-attenuated vaccines are a type of vaccine used for smallpox and childhood diseases like measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox, in which a weakened or “attenuated” form of the virus that causes the disease is manufactured.

Live-attenuated vaccines are a type of vaccine used for smallpox and childhood diseases like measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox, in which a weakened or “attenuated” form of the virus that causes the disease is manufactured. Because such vaccines are so similar to the natural infection that they help prevent, they create a strong and long-lasting, even life-time immune response. The disadvantage of live-attenuated vaccines resides in the fact that, because they contain a small amount of the weakened live virus, people with compromised immune systems or long-term health problems often referred to as “pre-conditions” may be at risk. It has now been suggested that SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, may have arisen from laboratory experiments to produce a live-attenuated vaccine, a process that may have included genetic manipulation. Over time, viruses have developed strategies to avoid the human immune response, allowing them to better infect cells and replicate. Many SARS-CoV-2 patients develop only low levels of neutralizing antibodies and suffer prolonged illness compared to SARS-CoV-1, the coronavirus responsible for the 2002-2003 pandemic, indicating that SARS-CoV-2 evades human immune surveillance more effectively. Also Read | Chinese scientist says covid-19 was created by China’s military It is widely-known that when viruses evolve to escape immune detection, they often suffer reduced fitness and become less infectious, yet SARS-CoV-2 remains highly infectious. SARS-CoV-2 first binds to the human cell and then undergoes a membrane fusion process to gain entry, a process which is mediated by its spike protein. The S1 component of the spike protein contains the receptor binding domain (RBD) that binds to the human angiotensin converting enzyme-2 receptor (ACE2), while the S2 segment of the spike contains the fusion-regulating element. At the S1-S2 junction is a furin polybasic cleavage site, which is involved in the separation of the S1 from the S2 section. The RBD constantly switches between an “up” position that allows for receptor binding and “down” position in order to evade an immune response. For membrane fusion and viral entry into the cell to occur, the spike protein must be split at the S1-S2 junction by an enzymatic process. The furin polybasic cleavage site facilitates that process by interacting with the enzymes of the human cell surface. How then does SARS-CoV-2, which is highly-adapted for human infection, evade the immune response? The dynamic state of the RBD may explain the paradox. That is, the switching between an “up” position that allows for receptor binding and “down” position in order to evade an immune response. It appears that the SARS-CoV-2 RBD exists mainly in the “down” position to avoid triggering the immune system. The presence of the furin polybasic cleavage site not only can “pre-activate” SARS-CoV-2 for fusion and cell entry, but S1-S2 cleavage may also facilitate the adoption of the “up” conformation that is required for SARS-CoV-2 to bind to the ACE2 receptor. Also Read | A 2008 synthetic model to make COVID-19 in the laboratory According to such a scenario, SARS-CoV-2 is protected from an immune response until the very moment infection takes place. How is all of that related to vaccine development? In order to produce a live-attenuated vaccine for a coronavirus, you need a RBD that is highly specific for human infection, but one that is also exposed to the human immune system. There are no known naturally-occurring coronaviruses with a RBD highly adapted for human infection and, at the same time, containing the furin polybasic cleavage site found in SARS-CoV-2. It is feasible, therefore, that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted from the accidental laboratory release of a coronavirus being artificially modified for the production of a live-attenuated vaccine. (Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel, who previously worked at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases and conducted basic and clinical research in the pharmaceutical industry. is email address is lawrence.sellin@gmail.com) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Is the COVID-19 pandemic a case of vaccine research gone wrong?

The Indian subcontinent is obviously high on the Islamic State (IS) agenda. Ever since the Sri Lanka suicide bombings, IS statements, some genuine and others probably false, are focusing much on the subcontinent and India in particular.&nbsp;

Geo-strategically it makes a lot of sense to a strategic observer; the Indo-centric nature of the subcontinent does ensure that nations on the periphery are linked socially and economically. Besides, that IS hopes to exploit the presence of Muslims across the length and breadth of the country through attempts at radicalisation. Its initial efforts at drawing recruits from India largely failed. &nbsp;

The Rohingya issue in Myanmar and Bangladesh is looked upon as one with great trigger potential. It is something the IS has not been able to exploit. Little realised is also the fact that South Asia is the home to almost 500 million followers of Islam, the biggest regional entity the faith has anywhere in the world. Syria and Iraq had the emotive appeal for the so-called Caliphate due to proximity to the main Islamic shrines, with money and territory available by different means. Similarly, it should be the Indian subcontinent that should attract the next priority simply on the basis of religious affiliation and large strength of Muslims within the subcontinent.

The attempts to penetrate Pakistan and Afghanistan failed due to the lack of space and none of the other radical extremist groups willing to yield ground. The IS obviously has succeeded in ensuring trust deficit with other radical groups affiliated to Islam. It now appears to have changed its strategy of a direct entry to the heart of the subcontinent and possibly decided to enter it in right earnest through the periphery; Sri Lanka’s territory and vulnerable minority Muslim population facilitate this entry to the southern region of India. Indian intelligence agencies have been warning for some time that areas in Kerala and Tamil Nadu have been witnessing increasing radicalisation. The IS was also probably keeping its eyes and ears open particularly due to the large footprint of expatriates in the Gulf. &nbsp;

Selecting Sri Lanka as the peripheral area seems to have been fully borne out because the relative ease with which the IS managed its operations. However, a lot of thought probably went into the selection of locations and the modus operandi. It was probably aware that the focus of Sri Lanka’s intelligence and security services was entirely on the Tamil and Sinhala threats; the Muslim issue was a sideshow which emerged once in a while with the eight per cent (less than two million) Muslims of the island.&nbsp;

The Sri Lanka intelligence services were fed enough intelligence, of the impending action, by India and the US but they could not get their act together. Political and bureaucratic rivalries may have contributed to that but there is no doubt that it was the IS innovative modus operandi which also made the difference to its success. With intelligence bias focused on Tamils and Sinhala, a &nbsp;Sri Lanka Muslim network with Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath (TNTJ) remained under the radar; the National Thowheed Jamath (NTJ) of Sri Lanka is the chief suspect for the entire carnage. Even more than that, the system of radicalisation and networking was nothing short of brilliant. The IS returnees had set up cells which were based upon a few families instead of spreading them wide with a large array of individuals. Efforts were focused upon radicalising a whole family so that chances of information leakage were minimised. In January 2019, police had discovered a cache of explosives and detonators in Colombo and could not link it with anything. The phenomenon of radicalising families to take on bombings was also witnessed in Indonesia.&nbsp;

The selection of suicide bombers as weapons of destruction rather than simply placing improvised explosive devices (IEDs) at target locations was a deliberate choice. The social impact of suicide bombers on a society being addressed for greater radicalisation is much higher.&nbsp;

The choice of targets was made for maximum impact. High profile hotels in Colombo’s central district would mean foreign tourists, especially at breakfast time on a holiday, Easter. Congregations were simultaneously gathering at churches which were the other targets elsewhere; that made coordination so much easier. Foreign tourists in body bags meant an international furore and message of IS capability to hit at will.

“Sri Lanka is a developing country with divided politics and weak institutions. The same has happened in countless countries, many of them wealthy and with highly skilled intelligence services”, wrote the New York Times in an elaborate post-event report, referring to the inability of the Sri Lankan intelligence services to prevent the carnage despite adequate intelligence. &nbsp;Why is this important for us in India? The arrests that have taken place in Sri Lanka, some genuine and some on mere suspicion do not reflect the busting of the network which perpetrated the suicide blasts. Handlers and potential suicide bombers appear to be yet on the loose considering the assessment of the numbers. In India’s southern region where the support base exists for the networks in Sri Lanka, the authorities have arrested Rias Abu Bakr who allegedly was planning suicide attacks in Kerala. The mindless politics of Kerala and the extent of radical penetration in the southern region should worry India’s intelligence services who have had a creditable record in the anti-terror domain particularly since 26/11. The long drawn general election period of 2019 in India has taken its toll on intelligence and police services which have been stretched.&nbsp;

If the IS really has the intent of penetration into India it would have exploited this period and would be planning several decoys. One among them is the focus it has managed to draw to the southern region while something devious could be under planning for potential targets elsewhere in the country. One of the major challenges for the next government at the Centre would be the dilution of divisiveness a phenomenon promoting potential IS effectiveness. The political community does not realise the immense harm it is doing to the internal security and laying an open invite to devious entities such as IS to exploit.&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-sri-lanka-and-islamic-state-2750250">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

The Indian subcontinent is obviously high on the Islamic State (IS) agenda. Ever since the Sri Lanka suicide bombings, IS statements, some genuine and others probably false, are focusing much on the subcontinent and India in particular.

The Indian subcontinent is obviously high on the Islamic State (IS) agenda. Ever since the Sri Lanka suicide bombings, IS statements, some genuine and others probably false, are focusing much on the subcontinent and India in particular. Geo-strategically it makes a lot of sense to a strategic observer; the Indo-centric nature of the subcontinent does ensure that nations on the periphery are linked socially and economically. Besides, that IS hopes to exploit the presence of Muslims across the length and breadth of the country through attempts at radicalisation. Its initial efforts at drawing recruits from India largely failed. The Rohingya issue in Myanmar and Bangladesh is looked upon as one with great trigger potential. It is something the IS has not been able to exploit. Little realised is also the fact that South Asia is the home to almost 500 million followers of Islam, the biggest regional entity the faith has anywhere in the world. Syria and Iraq had the emotive appeal for the so-called Caliphate due to proximity to the main Islamic shrines, with money and territory available by different means. Similarly, it should be the Indian subcontinent that should attract the next priority simply on the basis of religious affiliation and large strength of Muslims within the subcontinent. The attempts to penetrate Pakistan and Afghanistan failed due to the lack of space and none of the other radical extremist groups willing to yield ground. The IS obviously has succeeded in ensuring trust deficit with other radical groups affiliated to Islam. It now appears to have changed its strategy of a direct entry to the heart of the subcontinent and possibly decided to enter it in right earnest through the periphery; Sri Lanka’s territory and vulnerable minority Muslim population facilitate this entry to the southern region of India. Indian intelligence agencies have been warning for some time that areas in Kerala and Tamil Nadu have been witnessing increasing radicalisation. The IS was also probably keeping its eyes and ears open particularly due to the large footprint of expatriates in the Gulf. Selecting Sri Lanka as the peripheral area seems to have been fully borne out because the relative ease with which the IS managed its operations. However, a lot of thought probably went into the selection of locations and the modus operandi. It was probably aware that the focus of Sri Lanka’s intelligence and security services was entirely on the Tamil and Sinhala threats; the Muslim issue was a sideshow which emerged once in a while with the eight per cent (less than two million) Muslims of the island. The Sri Lanka intelligence services were fed enough intelligence, of the impending action, by India and the US but they could not get their act together. Political and bureaucratic rivalries may have contributed to that but there is no doubt that it was the IS innovative modus operandi which also made the difference to its success. With intelligence bias focused on Tamils and Sinhala, a Sri Lanka Muslim network with Tamil Nadu Thowheed Jamath (TNTJ) remained under the radar; the National Thowheed Jamath (NTJ) of Sri Lanka is the chief suspect for the entire carnage. Even more than that, the system of radicalisation and networking was nothing short of brilliant. The IS returnees had set up cells which were based upon a few families instead of spreading them wide with a large array of individuals. Efforts were focused upon radicalising a whole family so that chances of information leakage were minimised. In January 2019, police had discovered a cache of explosives and detonators in Colombo and could not link it with anything. The phenomenon of radicalising families to take on bombings was also witnessed in Indonesia. The selection of suicide bombers as weapons of destruction rather than simply placing improvised explosive devices (IEDs) at target locations was a deliberate choice. The social impact of suicide bombers on a society being addressed for greater radicalisation is much higher. The choice of targets was made for maximum impact. High profile hotels in Colombo’s central district would mean foreign tourists, especially at breakfast time on a holiday, Easter. Congregations were simultaneously gathering at churches which were the other targets elsewhere; that made coordination so much easier. Foreign tourists in body bags meant an international furore and message of IS capability to hit at will. “Sri Lanka is a developing country with divided politics and weak institutions. The same has happened in countless countries, many of them wealthy and with highly skilled intelligence services”, wrote the New York Times in an elaborate post-event report, referring to the inability of the Sri Lankan intelligence services to prevent the carnage despite adequate intelligence. Why is this important for us in India? The arrests that have taken place in Sri Lanka, some genuine and some on mere suspicion do not reflect the busting of the network which perpetrated the suicide blasts. Handlers and potential suicide bombers appear to be yet on the loose considering the assessment of the numbers. In India’s southern region where the support base exists for the networks in Sri Lanka, the authorities have arrested Rias Abu Bakr who allegedly was planning suicide attacks in Kerala. The mindless politics of Kerala and the extent of radical penetration in the southern region should worry India’s intelligence services who have had a creditable record in the anti-terror domain particularly since 26/11. The long drawn general election period of 2019 in India has taken its toll on intelligence and police services which have been stretched. If the IS really has the intent of penetration into India it would have exploited this period and would be planning several decoys. One among them is the focus it has managed to draw to the southern region while something devious could be under planning for potential targets elsewhere in the country. One of the major challenges for the next government at the Centre would be the dilution of divisiveness a phenomenon promoting potential IS effectiveness. The political community does not realise the immense harm it is doing to the internal security and laying an open invite to devious entities such as IS to exploit. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Islamic State is focusing on subcontinent and India in particular

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has claimed responsibility for Sri Lanka’s Easter Sunday blasts and released photographs showing the eight suicide bombers who blew themselves up at three churches and four hotels.

It is the worst violence that Sri Lanka has witnessed since the end of the civil war a decade ago. As per official sources, nine suicide bombers of whom eight, including a woman, have been identified, are members of a local Islamist group called National Thowheed Jamat (NTJ).&nbsp;

Incidentally, the Wahabi-aligned NTJ has a significant presence in Tamil Nadu, particularly in districts close to the maritime boundary with Sri Lanka. State minister for defence, Ruwan Wijewardene, acknowledged that advance intelligence received about these blasts had suggested that the attackers were motivated by the Christchurch shootings.&nbsp;

It may be recalled that on March 15 this year, a lone white supremacist from Australia, Brenton Tarrant, attacked two mosques in Christchurch in New Zealand killing 50 worshippers and injuring another 50 while they were offering Friday prayers. India’s intelligence services are said to have alerted Sri Lankan officials at least three times on April 4, April 11 and two hours before the blasts on April 21.

Very specific information regarding churches to be targeted was shared on the basis of information allegedly obtained from an ISIS suspect arrested in Hyderabad by the NIA. Unfortunately, the Sri Lankan authorities did not act on these inputs. This is not the first time that Sri Lanka has ignored specific Indian intelligence inputs.&nbsp;

Even the assassination of the then Leader of the Opposition, Gamini Dissanayake, on October 24, 1994, by a female LTTE suicide bomber in which he and 55 others were killed in a virtual rerun of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, was said to have been shared in great detail and well in advance by Indian intelligence agencies with Sri Lanka, but no preventive action was taken. Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the so-called Caliph, had declared the official existence of ISIS from the now- destroyed Al Nuri mosque in Mosul on June 29, 2014.&nbsp;

After initial successes, it finally ceased to exist as a geographical entity only on March 23, 2019, when the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces officially declared its end by taking over the village of Baghouz and its roughly three-km boundary, which fell to the Kurds. Although officially the ISIS ceased to exist, but as anticipated, the ‘post Caliphate’ face of the ISIS is going to be difficult to tackle.&nbsp;

This is because the ISIS has an ideology that remains attractive to Islamist groups. Thousands of ISIS fighters have dispersed from Iraq and Syria to protect themselves and are trying to return to their countries of origin and so remain a potent threat. &nbsp;Further, the ISIS has very effectively used the internet and social media to create global support. It has succeeded in creating an international terrorist brand, one that anyone from an Islamist terrorist group to an individual, could brandish and conduct violence in its name attaining instant global interest.

So while the fight against the ISIS is over, the fight against its ideology is likely to be a long-drawn war where people, states and leaders will have to come up with better alternatives. The bombings in Sri Lanka show that the threat from ISIS is very real and at our doorstep. There have been a number of reports of Indian youth, particularly from Kerala, Karnataka, Hyderabad, Tamil Nadu and Jammu and Kashmir, being attracted to the ISIS to the extent of going to Syria to fight on their behalf.

Most of them have been radicalised through the internet or through certain Imams belonging to Wahabi extremist ideology. In mid-2014, the ISIS had issued a map depicting parts of north and western India to be a part of the Islamic State of Khorasan. These are areas, which had been ruled by Muslim rulers in the past.&nbsp;

India has a very large Muslim population of close to 180 million, which is the third largest in the world. Happily, most of them are well integrated in Indian society. Although poorly represented in formal jobs, they are largely self-employed or run MSME’s. The low radicalisation of Indian Muslims is attributed to the Sufi and non-Salafi nature of Islam in India. Official estimates put the number of Indian youth joining ISIS to be around 200. In sharp contrast, the neighbouring Maldives which has less than 0.4 million Muslims, has contributed nearly 700 fighters to ISIS.&nbsp;

Given the insidious threat from ISIS ideology, a regional, as well as global response, is urgently required. As events in Sri Lanka have shown, all SAARC countries are vulnerable to ISIS threats. ISIS has a significant presence in Afghanistan and controls a few provinces. Given Pakistan’s ambivalent attitude to terrorism, it is appropriate that India takes the remaining SAARC countries, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives, into confidence and works out a multilateral protocol to combat terror and terror financing in general and ISIS in particular.&nbsp;

A well-defined intelligence sharing mechanism and easy deportation of suspects to member countries without a difficult extradition process should be worked out. Steps for de-radicalisation and integrating Muslim youth into society with the sharing of best practices should also be included. Monitoring of cyberspace in real time is also required so that it is not misused for radicalisation. ISIS terrorism is trans-national in character and organisations propagating hatred are building networks around the world.

India’s proposal at the UN for a convention on Countering International Terrorism needs to be revived at the earliest.&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-post-sri-lanka-blues-2743764">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has claimed responsibility for Sri Lanka’s Easter Sunday blasts and released photographs showing the eight suicide bombers who blew themselves up at three churches and four hotels.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has claimed responsibility for Sri Lanka’s Easter Sunday blasts and released photographs showing the eight suicide bombers who blew themselves up at three churches and four hotels. It is the worst violence that Sri Lanka has witnessed since the end of the civil war a decade ago. As per official sources, nine suicide bombers of whom eight, including a woman, have been identified, are members of a local Islamist group called National Thowheed Jamat (NTJ). Incidentally, the Wahabi-aligned NTJ has a significant presence in Tamil Nadu, particularly in districts close to the maritime boundary with Sri Lanka. State minister for defence, Ruwan Wijewardene, acknowledged that advance intelligence received about these blasts had suggested that the attackers were motivated by the Christchurch shootings. It may be recalled that on March 15 this year, a lone white supremacist from Australia, Brenton Tarrant, attacked two mosques in Christchurch in New Zealand killing 50 worshippers and injuring another 50 while they were offering Friday prayers. India’s intelligence services are said to have alerted Sri Lankan officials at least three times on April 4, April 11 and two hours before the blasts on April 21. Very specific information regarding churches to be targeted was shared on the basis of information allegedly obtained from an ISIS suspect arrested in Hyderabad by the NIA. Unfortunately, the Sri Lankan authorities did not act on these inputs. This is not the first time that Sri Lanka has ignored specific Indian intelligence inputs. Even the assassination of the then Leader of the Opposition, Gamini Dissanayake, on October 24, 1994, by a female LTTE suicide bomber in which he and 55 others were killed in a virtual rerun of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination, was said to have been shared in great detail and well in advance by Indian intelligence agencies with Sri Lanka, but no preventive action was taken. Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the so-called Caliph, had declared the official existence of ISIS from the now- destroyed Al Nuri mosque in Mosul on June 29, 2014. After initial successes, it finally ceased to exist as a geographical entity only on March 23, 2019, when the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces officially declared its end by taking over the village of Baghouz and its roughly three-km boundary, which fell to the Kurds. Although officially the ISIS ceased to exist, but as anticipated, the ‘post Caliphate’ face of the ISIS is going to be difficult to tackle. This is because the ISIS has an ideology that remains attractive to Islamist groups. Thousands of ISIS fighters have dispersed from Iraq and Syria to protect themselves and are trying to return to their countries of origin and so remain a potent threat. Further, the ISIS has very effectively used the internet and social media to create global support. It has succeeded in creating an international terrorist brand, one that anyone from an Islamist terrorist group to an individual, could brandish and conduct violence in its name attaining instant global interest. So while the fight against the ISIS is over, the fight against its ideology is likely to be a long-drawn war where people, states and leaders will have to come up with better alternatives. The bombings in Sri Lanka show that the threat from ISIS is very real and at our doorstep. There have been a number of reports of Indian youth, particularly from Kerala, Karnataka, Hyderabad, Tamil Nadu and Jammu and Kashmir, being attracted to the ISIS to the extent of going to Syria to fight on their behalf. Most of them have been radicalised through the internet or through certain Imams belonging to Wahabi extremist ideology. In mid-2014, the ISIS had issued a map depicting parts of north and western India to be a part of the Islamic State of Khorasan. These are areas, which had been ruled by Muslim rulers in the past. India has a very large Muslim population of close to 180 million, which is the third largest in the world. Happily, most of them are well integrated in Indian society. Although poorly represented in formal jobs, they are largely self-employed or run MSME’s. The low radicalisation of Indian Muslims is attributed to the Sufi and non-Salafi nature of Islam in India. Official estimates put the number of Indian youth joining ISIS to be around 200. In sharp contrast, the neighbouring Maldives which has less than 0.4 million Muslims, has contributed nearly 700 fighters to ISIS. Given the insidious threat from ISIS ideology, a regional, as well as global response, is urgently required. As events in Sri Lanka have shown, all SAARC countries are vulnerable to ISIS threats. ISIS has a significant presence in Afghanistan and controls a few provinces. Given Pakistan’s ambivalent attitude to terrorism, it is appropriate that India takes the remaining SAARC countries, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives, into confidence and works out a multilateral protocol to combat terror and terror financing in general and ISIS in particular. A well-defined intelligence sharing mechanism and easy deportation of suspects to member countries without a difficult extradition process should be worked out. Steps for de-radicalisation and integrating Muslim youth into society with the sharing of best practices should also be included. Monitoring of cyberspace in real time is also required so that it is not misused for radicalisation. ISIS terrorism is trans-national in character and organisations propagating hatred are building networks around the world. India’s proposal at the UN for a convention on Countering International Terrorism needs to be revived at the earliest. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Post Sri Lanka blues: ISIS is now too close to Indian shores

The sale of fake or counterfeit goods the world over has seldom been as brisk as today, with the proliferation&nbsp;of digital platforms through e-commerce.

It has made transactions easier and free from the clutches of customs, crossing borders without any difficulty.&nbsp;

It is no surprise that the US President signed a memo earlier this month seeing details on how the country could better track the growth of spurious goods across the world. According to estimates, the value of counterfeit goods may touch the $500-billion-a-year mark with about 20 per cent of this trade violating US intellectual property.

Although no precise figures about the sale of such trade in fake goods exist, Paris-based intergovernmental think tank, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), undertakes a periodic study in concert with the European Union Intellectual Property Organisation (EU-IPO) to arrive at credible numbers.&nbsp;

Based on 2016 data, an updated report jointly released in the third week of March, estimated that the volume of global trade in counterfeit and pirated products could amount to as much as a whopping $509 billion. Even as this constitutes up to 3.3 per cent of world trade, it excludes domestically produced and consumed counterfeit and pirated products or pirated digital products being distributed via the Internet.

The previous OECD/EU-IPO study estimated that in 2013, up to 2.5 per cent of global trade worth $461 billion was in counterfeit and pirated goods. The point to note is that between 2013 and 2016, the share of global trade in counterfeit and pirated goods grew very significantly, even when world trade logged a relative slowdown!&nbsp;

The joint study warns about the rise in the intensity of counterfeiting and piracy, “with significant and potential risk for intellectual property (IP) in the knowledge-based open and globalised economy”. Interestingly, the study traces the dramatic sale of counterfeit and pirated goods from virtually all economies in all continents, with China and Hong Kong as the biggest conduits.&nbsp;

In addition, several Asian economies, including India are also important suppliers of counterfeit products, despite a role that is significantly lesser than China’s.

The key transit points for ten main sectors that are particularly vulnerable to counterfeit, span a wide range of IP-intense, tradable items - from fast-moving consumer goods such as foodstuff or cosmetics to business-to-business products such as spare parts and computer chips.

Sadly, fake products such as contact lenses, pharmaceuticals or baby formulas are continuously being fed to markets through multiple channels, including digital platform vendors at a volume unmatched by offline outfits.&nbsp;

It is equally sad that the degree of consumer deception is still the highest for these classes of products, posing a peril to the personal health and safety of consumers. Fake goods are dispatched in large quantities in containers and in small parcels by post or courier services. The report listed several West Asian economies - Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen -- as important transit points for sending counterfeit goods to Africa.&nbsp;

Four other transit points -- Albania, Egypt, Morocco and Ukraine -- are of particular significance for redistributing fake goods in the EU, while Panama is a vital conduit for fakes to the USA.&nbsp;

Highlighting the shortcomings, OECD said lamentable gaps in governance, especially high levels of corruption and lacunae in IP rights enforcement, boosts trade in counterfeits.&nbsp; It singles out the existence and proliferation of free trade zones (FTZs) or special economic zones (SEZs), which give a strong impetus to this parallel trade in economies with weak governance, high corruption levels and a lack of intellectual property rights enforcement.

China and India have plumped for such exclusive enclaves in recent years! Though these special zones are designed to benefit trade in general, such as good logistics facilities, it is the misuse of these amenities that could result in higher flows of trade in fake goods.&nbsp;

Rightly, the study cautioned that as the lightly regulated zones are lucrative for parties in illegal and criminal activities, the continued growth of such zones makes an important context and an alibi for such nefarious activities. As for India, the study mentions it is also emerging along with other Asian neighbours, as an important producer of counterfeit goods.&nbsp;

Trouble is such a dubious reputation affects domestic consumers too.&nbsp;A perfunctory click of the mouse shows that metro cities including Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Kolkata and Chennai throb with spurious goods, where replicas of luxury goods are available at one-fourth of the price! For the hapless consumers, counterfeit is dangerous to health, safety and privacy, besides lowering consumer satisfaction, particularly when low-grade fake goods are purchased unknowingly.

For right-holders and their authorised vendors, rising fakes aggravates revenue losses, while trademark infringements continuously erode brand values.&nbsp; For governments, counterfeiting entails a loss of tax revenues, higher unemployment and greater expenditure incurred --&nbsp;both to ensure compliance with anti-counterfeiting legislation and to react to public safety threats and labour market distortions.

The existing legal provisions from the Trademark Act and Copyrights Act in India are not sufficient deterrent to the band of organised counterfeit racketeers. The punishment for contravention of the rules of the game ought to be cognizable and non-bailable, as enshrined in the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-going-through-the-roof-2741567">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

The sale of fake or counterfeit goods the world over has seldom been as brisk as today, with the proliferation of digital platforms through e-commerce. It has made transactions easier and free from the clutches of customs, crossing borders without any difficulty.

The sale of fake or counterfeit goods the world over has seldom been as brisk as today, with the proliferation of digital platforms through e-commerce. It has made transactions easier and free from the clutches of customs, crossing borders without any difficulty. It is no surprise that the US President signed a memo earlier this month seeing details on how the country could better track the growth of spurious goods across the world. According to estimates, the value of counterfeit goods may touch the $500-billion-a-year mark with about 20 per cent of this trade violating US intellectual property. Although no precise figures about the sale of such trade in fake goods exist, Paris-based intergovernmental think tank, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), undertakes a periodic study in concert with the European Union Intellectual Property Organisation (EU-IPO) to arrive at credible numbers. Based on 2016 data, an updated report jointly released in the third week of March, estimated that the volume of global trade in counterfeit and pirated products could amount to as much as a whopping $509 billion. Even as this constitutes up to 3.3 per cent of world trade, it excludes domestically produced and consumed counterfeit and pirated products or pirated digital products being distributed via the Internet. The previous OECD/EU-IPO study estimated that in 2013, up to 2.5 per cent of global trade worth $461 billion was in counterfeit and pirated goods. The point to note is that between 2013 and 2016, the share of global trade in counterfeit and pirated goods grew very significantly, even when world trade logged a relative slowdown! The joint study warns about the rise in the intensity of counterfeiting and piracy, “with significant and potential risk for intellectual property (IP) in the knowledge-based open and globalised economy”. Interestingly, the study traces the dramatic sale of counterfeit and pirated goods from virtually all economies in all continents, with China and Hong Kong as the biggest conduits. In addition, several Asian economies, including India are also important suppliers of counterfeit products, despite a role that is significantly lesser than China’s. The key transit points for ten main sectors that are particularly vulnerable to counterfeit, span a wide range of IP-intense, tradable items - from fast-moving consumer goods such as foodstuff or cosmetics to business-to-business products such as spare parts and computer chips. Sadly, fake products such as contact lenses, pharmaceuticals or baby formulas are continuously being fed to markets through multiple channels, including digital platform vendors at a volume unmatched by offline outfits. It is equally sad that the degree of consumer deception is still the highest for these classes of products, posing a peril to the personal health and safety of consumers. Fake goods are dispatched in large quantities in containers and in small parcels by post or courier services. The report listed several West Asian economies - Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen -- as important transit points for sending counterfeit goods to Africa. Four other transit points -- Albania, Egypt, Morocco and Ukraine -- are of particular significance for redistributing fake goods in the EU, while Panama is a vital conduit for fakes to the USA. Highlighting the shortcomings, OECD said lamentable gaps in governance, especially high levels of corruption and lacunae in IP rights enforcement, boosts trade in counterfeits. It singles out the existence and proliferation of free trade zones (FTZs) or special economic zones (SEZs), which give a strong impetus to this parallel trade in economies with weak governance, high corruption levels and a lack of intellectual property rights enforcement. China and India have plumped for such exclusive enclaves in recent years! Though these special zones are designed to benefit trade in general, such as good logistics facilities, it is the misuse of these amenities that could result in higher flows of trade in fake goods. Rightly, the study cautioned that as the lightly regulated zones are lucrative for parties in illegal and criminal activities, the continued growth of such zones makes an important context and an alibi for such nefarious activities. As for India, the study mentions it is also emerging along with other Asian neighbours, as an important producer of counterfeit goods. Trouble is such a dubious reputation affects domestic consumers too. A perfunctory click of the mouse shows that metro cities including Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Kolkata and Chennai throb with spurious goods, where replicas of luxury goods are available at one-fourth of the price! For the hapless consumers, counterfeit is dangerous to health, safety and privacy, besides lowering consumer satisfaction, particularly when low-grade fake goods are purchased unknowingly. For right-holders and their authorised vendors, rising fakes aggravates revenue losses, while trademark infringements continuously erode brand values. For governments, counterfeiting entails a loss of tax revenues, higher unemployment and greater expenditure incurred -- both to ensure compliance with anti-counterfeiting legislation and to react to public safety threats and labour market distortions. The existing legal provisions from the Trademark Act and Copyrights Act in India are not sufficient deterrent to the band of organised counterfeit racketeers. The punishment for contravention of the rules of the game ought to be cognizable and non-bailable, as enshrined in the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

India is emerging as an important producer of counterfeit goods

The Tashkent Files sets itself up as political thriller masquerading as a murder mystery. The latter is never solved, but the film succeeds beyond expectations.&nbsp;

Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri’s scripting and directorial skills dispense high drama, in addition to an engrossing audience experience, without really uncovering new facts or theories about Shastri’s death. With great lines, flattering lighting, camera angles, exclusive spotlights and close-ups, Agnihotri extracts a power-packed performance from each of his actors. It is a sort of Indianized 12 Angry Men closed committee, rather than courtroom, drama. To that extent, Tashkent Files is as much a performers’ as viewers’ delight, offering much needed respite from the oppressive star system that dominates Bollywood.&nbsp;

Mithun Chakraborty as Shyam Sunder Tripathi, the ageing politician as comeback artist, is especially riveting. In the film Tripathi serves as the head of the Inquiry Commission on Shastri’s death, mirroring the Raj Narain Committee set up for precisely such a purpose by the Janata Government in 1977. Sadly, few today remember this committee or what happened to its findings; all records related to it are “untraceable,” suggesting one of many deliberate cover-ups on Shastri’s death. Anuj Dhar, who appears as one of the experts in the film, is also key source. His forthcoming expose, Your Prime Minister is Dead, is sure to ride on the film’s publicity and success.&nbsp;

Naseeruddin Shah as PKR Natrajan, Tiwari’s sinister, cynical, manipulating ruling-party opponent and Shweta Basu Prasad, the intrepid reporter, Raagini Phule, are not less memorable. Led by “deep throat” (voiced by Agnihotri himself), the mysterious caller who gives her a birthday scoop to investigate, Prasad ends up losing her livelihood as an investigative journalist, but is born-again in the dirty game of politics. Stressing her citizen’s right to know the truth, she is the viewer’s entrée and identification object. Agnihotri, with a stroke of genius, hits on this ruse to engage the youth of the nation in a subject of arguably little contemporary value. Pallavi Joshi makes an understated if embittered Aiysha Ali Shah, the beedi-smoking “sarkari” historian, now wheelchair-bound, almost reduced to a has-been. Mandira Bedi as the NGO lady, Indira Joseph Roy, is credible as position-shifting time-server, always high-sounding but of questionable morals. The only character who makes little sense is the scientist Gangaram Jha, revealed to be communalist and denounced as racist in the movie. Though well-played by Pankaj Tripathi, there is little that is “scientific” to his persona—a scripting, though not casting error, perhaps?&nbsp;

The action shifts from Delhi to Tashkent, where a rather unconvincing reporter-meets-spy series of episodes is enacted. Shweta, jobless and frustrated for want of leads, prays twice to Shastri’s spirit, at his memorial in Tashkent and at Vijay Ghat, New Delhi. What does she gain, however? The viewers’ sympathy and good grades in her five-step initiation into the murky deep state underworld led on by her unknown telephonic source. Why doesn’t she ask to trace the mobile number, one wonders. But such questions, if carried to their logical end, would deter our appreciation. The film, in fact, also glaringly glosses over the man who might have poisoned Shastri, the cook Jan Mohammad. Unlike the other witnesses such as his physician Dr Chugh, Jan Mohammad lived long after the event. He was not only interrogated by the Soviet Police, but went on to serve in the Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi. This is one of the loose ends, if not false leads of the film.&nbsp;

Ultimately, however, the real purpose of the film is not to try to solve the “unsolvable” mystery of Shastri’s death. Instead, it is to reflect on the nature of politics and unknowable deep state actors. At one point Tripathi says, the only truth of politics is that it accepts no truth. That is why, when the background score shifts from “sab chalta hai” (anything goes) to “sach chalta hai” (truth sells), we are not entirely convinced. Tripathi reveals that the real purpose of the Commission is not to shed new light on Shastri’s death, but to give him a “mudda,” a pretext, to fight elections.&nbsp;

If Shastri was murdered, who would be the immediate beneficiary? Wouldn’t it make sense for the Soviets, especially during the height of the Cold War, to gain control over India by engineering to elevate its own candidate as India’s supreme leader? The Mitrokhin papers, with which the movie begins, claim that the Indian state was heavily during Mrs Gandhi’s era. But these have been in the public domain for over a decade. Though Shastri’s death hasn’t become an election issue, the film’s success at the Box Office has established Agnihotri as a credible Bollywood-breaking breakout figure, an independent film maker who, because of his self-created fan-following, cannot be ignored.&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-the-unsolved-puzzle-of-lal-bahadur-shastri-s-death-2741298">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

The Tashkent Files sets itself up as political thriller masquerading as a murder mystery. The latter is never solved, but the film succeeds beyond expectations. Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri’s scripting and directorial skills dispense high drama, in addition to an engrossing audience experience, without really uncovering new facts or theories about Shastri’s death.

The Tashkent Files sets itself up as political thriller masquerading as a murder mystery. The latter is never solved, but the film succeeds beyond expectations. Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri’s scripting and directorial skills dispense high drama, in addition to an engrossing audience experience, without really uncovering new facts or theories about Shastri’s death. With great lines, flattering lighting, camera angles, exclusive spotlights and close-ups, Agnihotri extracts a power-packed performance from each of his actors. It is a sort of Indianized 12 Angry Men closed committee, rather than courtroom, drama. To that extent, Tashkent Files is as much a performers’ as viewers’ delight, offering much needed respite from the oppressive star system that dominates Bollywood. Mithun Chakraborty as Shyam Sunder Tripathi, the ageing politician as comeback artist, is especially riveting. In the film Tripathi serves as the head of the Inquiry Commission on Shastri’s death, mirroring the Raj Narain Committee set up for precisely such a purpose by the Janata Government in 1977. Sadly, few today remember this committee or what happened to its findings; all records related to it are “untraceable,” suggesting one of many deliberate cover-ups on Shastri’s death. Anuj Dhar, who appears as one of the experts in the film, is also key source. His forthcoming expose, Your Prime Minister is Dead, is sure to ride on the film’s publicity and success. Naseeruddin Shah as PKR Natrajan, Tiwari’s sinister, cynical, manipulating ruling-party opponent and Shweta Basu Prasad, the intrepid reporter, Raagini Phule, are not less memorable. Led by “deep throat” (voiced by Agnihotri himself), the mysterious caller who gives her a birthday scoop to investigate, Prasad ends up losing her livelihood as an investigative journalist, but is born-again in the dirty game of politics. Stressing her citizen’s right to know the truth, she is the viewer’s entrée and identification object. Agnihotri, with a stroke of genius, hits on this ruse to engage the youth of the nation in a subject of arguably little contemporary value. Pallavi Joshi makes an understated if embittered Aiysha Ali Shah, the beedi-smoking “sarkari” historian, now wheelchair-bound, almost reduced to a has-been. Mandira Bedi as the NGO lady, Indira Joseph Roy, is credible as position-shifting time-server, always high-sounding but of questionable morals. The only character who makes little sense is the scientist Gangaram Jha, revealed to be communalist and denounced as racist in the movie. Though well-played by Pankaj Tripathi, there is little that is “scientific” to his persona—a scripting, though not casting error, perhaps? The action shifts from Delhi to Tashkent, where a rather unconvincing reporter-meets-spy series of episodes is enacted. Shweta, jobless and frustrated for want of leads, prays twice to Shastri’s spirit, at his memorial in Tashkent and at Vijay Ghat, New Delhi. What does she gain, however? The viewers’ sympathy and good grades in her five-step initiation into the murky deep state underworld led on by her unknown telephonic source. Why doesn’t she ask to trace the mobile number, one wonders. But such questions, if carried to their logical end, would deter our appreciation. The film, in fact, also glaringly glosses over the man who might have poisoned Shastri, the cook Jan Mohammad. Unlike the other witnesses such as his physician Dr Chugh, Jan Mohammad lived long after the event. He was not only interrogated by the Soviet Police, but went on to serve in the Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi. This is one of the loose ends, if not false leads of the film. Ultimately, however, the real purpose of the film is not to try to solve the “unsolvable” mystery of Shastri’s death. Instead, it is to reflect on the nature of politics and unknowable deep state actors. At one point Tripathi says, the only truth of politics is that it accepts no truth. That is why, when the background score shifts from “sab chalta hai” (anything goes) to “sach chalta hai” (truth sells), we are not entirely convinced. Tripathi reveals that the real purpose of the Commission is not to shed new light on Shastri’s death, but to give him a “mudda,” a pretext, to fight elections. If Shastri was murdered, who would be the immediate beneficiary? Wouldn’t it make sense for the Soviets, especially during the height of the Cold War, to gain control over India by engineering to elevate its own candidate as India’s supreme leader? The Mitrokhin papers, with which the movie begins, claim that the Indian state was heavily during Mrs Gandhi’s era. But these have been in the public domain for over a decade. Though Shastri’s death hasn’t become an election issue, the film’s success at the Box Office has established Agnihotri as a credible Bollywood-breaking breakout figure, an independent film maker who, because of his self-created fan-following, cannot be ignored. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

The unsolved puzzle of Lal Bahadur Shastri’s death

By&nbsp;Kelli Matthews*

In a crisis, time is not on your side.

A crisis creates a vacuum, an informational void that gets filled one way or another. The longer a company or other organization at the centre of the crisis waits to communicate, the more likely that void will be filled by critics.&nbsp;

That’s exactly what’s happening to Boeing.&nbsp;

On March 10, Ethiopian Airlines flight ET302 crashed outside Addis Ababa shortly after takeoff, killing all 157 passengers on board. This was the second Boeing 737 Max to crash in fewer than four months, putting the total death toll at almost 350 people.&nbsp;

I’ve been both a manager and teacher of crisis communications for more than a decade. One thing I know for sure is that in crises in which there’s loss of life, it’s important to be compassionate, empathetic and careful.

However, in the two days after the Ethiopian Air crash, Boeing made crisis communications missteps that may have a long-term effect on its reputation and credibility.

Too little, too late&nbsp;

The key problem with Boeing’s approach is that its response was initially too defensive, slow and passive, suggesting a lack of openness and accountability.

For two days, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg insisted the 737 Max planes were safe, even as country after country grounded the aircraft. Then on March 13 when the Federal Aviation Administration eventually followed suit, Boeing again maintained that its planes were safe.

But other than these statements and two tweets from Muilenburg, Boeing’s leadership has been silent.

Silence is passive and suggests that an organization is neither in control nor trying to take control of a situation. Silence allows others to frame the issues and control the narrative.

As a result, Boeing has found itself playing defense to a storyline that suggests the company was more interested in profits than people in the rush to produce an aircraft that accounts for about a third of its revenue.

That narrative is being pushed by other airlines, media, employees and airplane safety advocates like Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger.

Being proactive&nbsp;

Boeing could have adopted a proactive approach, such as by taking the initiative to ground its own planes.

Instead, Boeing hesitated, wasn’t transparent and didn’t shoulder any responsibility for what had happened, leaving it to airlines, countries and regulators to ground the 737 Max.

According to crisis communications scholar Timothy Coombs, corporate openness is defined by a company’s availability to the media, willingness to disclose information and honesty. Boeing failed in all three regards.

And the few statements it has issued are chock-full of platitudes – such as “safety is a core value” – and lack meaningful information. In its statement after the FAA grounded the 737 Max, Boeing suggested it was complying “out of an abundance of caution.” But Boeing didn’t have a choice. The decision was made.

Boeing is now on the defensive and, going forward, will have to counter the damaging narrative circulating in the court of public opinion. It has its work cut out for it. Research shows that people are quick to believe the worst about organizations, which feeds negative speculation.

Turbulence ahead&nbsp;

The challenge Boeing faces is serious.

Many of its planes continue to be grounded, which could cost Boeing as much as US$5 billion, according to early estimates. Boeing has paused delivery on the 737 Max and orders for future planes are at risk – it recently received its first public cancellation. The company has about 4,500 of the airplanes on order.

Boeing does have one thing in its favour. The company has built strong relationships with government officials in Washington over the years.

But those relationships, which could be useful and shield the company to some degree, are now under stress as Congress and the Justice Department investigate how Boeing got the 737 Max certified to fly.

Turning things around&nbsp;

So is it too late to turn things around?

I believe it isn’t, but Boeing must immediately change its strategy from passive and closed to active and open. Rather than wait for lawmakers or investigators to get to the bottom of things, which could be devastating for Boeing, the airplane manufacturer should collect all the relevant information and disclose as much as possible, however damaging.

Boeing should be able to answer questions like what happened, who is responsible and why did it happen. The best way to demonstrate its commitment to safety is not with platitudes but concrete actions that reveal openness and accountability. Research has shown that transparency and honesty are key to effective communication in a crisis.

Ultimately, the company needs to show that the lives of passengers on its planes are more important than profits or its reputation. And in the long run, doing so will help it recover and regain the trust that’s been lost.

We all expect aeroplanes to be safe. Boeing has violated that expectation.

The decision about whether and when the 737 Max is back in the air – and how much this will ultimately cost Boeing – will be made by airlines, regulators and legislators. And, in turn, they will listen to their customers and constituents.

If the court of public opinion finds Boeing guilty of putting their lives and their families’ lives at risk, those decision-makers will find it hard to support the company.&nbsp;

*(Kelli Matthews is a senior instructor of public relations at the University of Oregon's School of Journalism and Communication.)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/boeing-is-doing-crisis-management-all-wrong-heres-what-a-company-needs-to-do-to-restore-the-publics-trust-114051">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

By Kelli Matthews* In a crisis, time is not on your side. A crisis creates a vacuum, an informational void that gets filled one way or another. The longer a company or other organization at the centre of the crisis waits to communicate, the more likely that void will be filled by critics.

By Kelli Matthews* In a crisis, time is not on your side. A crisis creates a vacuum, an informational void that gets filled one way or another. The longer a company or other organization at the centre of the crisis waits to communicate, the more likely that void will be filled by critics. That’s exactly what’s happening to Boeing. On March 10, Ethiopian Airlines flight ET302 crashed outside Addis Ababa shortly after takeoff, killing all 157 passengers on board. This was the second Boeing 737 Max to crash in fewer than four months, putting the total death toll at almost 350 people. I’ve been both a manager and teacher of crisis communications for more than a decade. One thing I know for sure is that in crises in which there’s loss of life, it’s important to be compassionate, empathetic and careful. However, in the two days after the Ethiopian Air crash, Boeing made crisis communications missteps that may have a long-term effect on its reputation and credibility. Too little, too late The key problem with Boeing’s approach is that its response was initially too defensive, slow and passive, suggesting a lack of openness and accountability. For two days, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg insisted the 737 Max planes were safe, even as country after country grounded the aircraft. Then on March 13 when the Federal Aviation Administration eventually followed suit, Boeing again maintained that its planes were safe. But other than these statements and two tweets from Muilenburg, Boeing’s leadership has been silent. Silence is passive and suggests that an organization is neither in control nor trying to take control of a situation. Silence allows others to frame the issues and control the narrative. As a result, Boeing has found itself playing defense to a storyline that suggests the company was more interested in profits than people in the rush to produce an aircraft that accounts for about a third of its revenue. That narrative is being pushed by other airlines, media, employees and airplane safety advocates like Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger. Being proactive Boeing could have adopted a proactive approach, such as by taking the initiative to ground its own planes. Instead, Boeing hesitated, wasn’t transparent and didn’t shoulder any responsibility for what had happened, leaving it to airlines, countries and regulators to ground the 737 Max. According to crisis communications scholar Timothy Coombs, corporate openness is defined by a company’s availability to the media, willingness to disclose information and honesty. Boeing failed in all three regards. And the few statements it has issued are chock-full of platitudes – such as “safety is a core value” – and lack meaningful information. In its statement after the FAA grounded the 737 Max, Boeing suggested it was complying “out of an abundance of caution.” But Boeing didn’t have a choice. The decision was made. Boeing is now on the defensive and, going forward, will have to counter the damaging narrative circulating in the court of public opinion. It has its work cut out for it. Research shows that people are quick to believe the worst about organizations, which feeds negative speculation. Turbulence ahead The challenge Boeing faces is serious. Many of its planes continue to be grounded, which could cost Boeing as much as US$5 billion, according to early estimates. Boeing has paused delivery on the 737 Max and orders for future planes are at risk – it recently received its first public cancellation. The company has about 4,500 of the airplanes on order. Boeing does have one thing in its favour. The company has built strong relationships with government officials in Washington over the years. But those relationships, which could be useful and shield the company to some degree, are now under stress as Congress and the Justice Department investigate how Boeing got the 737 Max certified to fly. Turning things around So is it too late to turn things around? I believe it isn’t, but Boeing must immediately change its strategy from passive and closed to active and open. Rather than wait for lawmakers or investigators to get to the bottom of things, which could be devastating for Boeing, the airplane manufacturer should collect all the relevant information and disclose as much as possible, however damaging. Boeing should be able to answer questions like what happened, who is responsible and why did it happen. The best way to demonstrate its commitment to safety is not with platitudes but concrete actions that reveal openness and accountability. Research has shown that transparency and honesty are key to effective communication in a crisis. Ultimately, the company needs to show that the lives of passengers on its planes are more important than profits or its reputation. And in the long run, doing so will help it recover and regain the trust that’s been lost. We all expect aeroplanes to be safe. Boeing has violated that expectation. The decision about whether and when the 737 Max is back in the air – and how much this will ultimately cost Boeing – will be made by airlines, regulators and legislators. And, in turn, they will listen to their customers and constituents. If the court of public opinion finds Boeing guilty of putting their lives and their families’ lives at risk, those decision-makers will find it hard to support the company. *(Kelli Matthews is a senior instructor of public relations at the University of Oregon's School of Journalism and Communication.) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Boeing's crisis management all wrong, here's what a company needs to do to restore the public's trust

Chabahar is back in the news after a hiatus of about two years. The contexts of its importance are several but the first one in the current milieu is the fact that despite President Donald Trump’s avowed sanctions on everything related to Iran, India’s Chabahar-based relationship with Tehran has received a waiver. That puts on course the fructification of efforts which commenced many summers ago but got an impetus with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Tehran in May 2016, leading to the signing of the trilateral tripartite agreement between India, Iran and Afghanistan.

The US provided an “exception” from certain sanctions, to the Iranian port of Chabahar that India has developed and used for reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. This exemption is in addition to temporary freedom from sanctions that the US announced for India and seven major importers of Iranian crude oil.

Why is Chabahar strategically important, for India, the US, Iran and Afghanistan? That will answer many questions. It starts with the fact that its geostrategic location, outside the Persian Gulf and yet on the Iranian coastline, puts it slightly out of harm’s way in the event of the Straits of Hormuz being forcibly closed; although, it is well appreciated that such a closure will no doubt presuppose an adverse effect on all of Iran’s port facilities.

To access Central Asia, often referred to as the heart of Asia, and Afghanistan, there are only two routes from the Indian Ocean. The first is from Pakistan’s Gwadar or Karachi ports and the second is from Chabahar which lies on the southeastern coast of Iran in the Sistan-Baluchistan province. Why the US agreed to waive sanctions for activities connected with the development of the port is simply because India is the nation providing alternatives for establishing communication arteries to Afghanistan, bypassing Pakistan.

For 17 years, the US has fought in Afghanistan and depended on a single artery for its logistics; through Karachi and Pakistan-Baluchistan into Afghan territory. Due to its animosity with Iran, the clearly viable alternative via Chabahar through Iranian territory, to West Afghanistan could not be exploited. The lack of development of Chabahar placed Afghanistan in a predicament because of its reliance on Karachi with all strings in the hands of none-too-friendly Pakistan.

India’s stakes in Afghanistan being high, the realization perhaps came late that Chabahar had serious transformational strategic potential to bypass Pakistan. Once India demonstrated its deep interest and the tripartite agreement with Iran and Afghanistan was signed in mid-2016, the movement of a consignment of wheat from Kandla port in Gujarat to Kabul via Chabahar went through smoothly; that experiment spurred further movement on Chabahar.

With portents of conflict termination in Afghanistan, the US too realised the important role India could play at this stage, such that all eggs were not in Pakistan’s basket. Otherwise all Pakistan needed to do in order to bring down the Afghan National Unity Government (NUG) was to establish a blockade from Karachi and the landlocked state of Afghanistan would have few options.

The tripartite agreement resolved that problem and increased India’s significance in Afghanistan. With India’s access via Chabahar, the viability of maintaining Afghanistan as a state under current dispensation, with minimal US presence, exponentially increases and there is considerable risk reduction. The joint Indian and US strategic interests in Afghanistan aim at the dilution of Pakistani influence and capability.

For the US the option of India in control is far more positive than leaving this to the stranglehold of China, Russia and Pakistan with the latter continuing to improve relations with Iran. For the Afghan NUG, this is as blissful a situation as it can expect with reduction of dependence on Pakistan and an avenue open to trade and assistance from India.

The Indian firm India Ports Global Limited has formally taken over operations at the Shahid Beheshti port in Chabahar. The routes for trade and transit corridors between the three countries have been finalised but this will remain work in progress as subsequent infrastructure caters for railway connectivity and eventual linkage to the INSTC.

While India has successfully completed a major geostrategic venture on one flank of the Persian Gulf, it needs to be mindful of the fact that its interests are divided on both sides of the Gulf. That is where the last few years of straddling diplomacy, which the Ministry of External Affairs has done with a fair degree of aplomb, will hopefully pay a dividend. India remains one of those unique countries which the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of Iran visited within two weeks of each other.

India has long and extremely important relationships with Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait which are as strategic as any of its relationships. The world of multilateralism is a sphere in which India is getting increasingly competent. That is why it needs to believe that Chabahar is the opening to the long-awaited strategic and civilisational relationship with Iran which need not be at the cost of the same which must be pursued with the Arab Gulf countries with equal vigour. 2018 was a good year for this, 2019 promises to be better.

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-iran-a-port-of-call-for-india-2704295">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Chabahar is back in the news after a hiatus of about two years. The contexts of its importance are several but the first one in the current milieu is the fact that despite President Donald Trump’s avowed sanctions on everything related to Iran, India’s Chabahar-based relationship with Tehran has received a waiver.

Chabahar is back in the news after a hiatus of about two years. The contexts of its importance are several but the first one in the current milieu is the fact that despite President Donald Trump’s avowed sanctions on everything related to Iran, India’s Chabahar-based relationship with Tehran has received a waiver. That puts on course the fructification of efforts which commenced many summers ago but got an impetus with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Tehran in May 2016, leading to the signing of the trilateral tripartite agreement between India, Iran and Afghanistan. The US provided an “exception” from certain sanctions, to the Iranian port of Chabahar that India has developed and used for reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. This exemption is in addition to temporary freedom from sanctions that the US announced for India and seven major importers of Iranian crude oil. Why is Chabahar strategically important, for India, the US, Iran and Afghanistan? That will answer many questions. It starts with the fact that its geostrategic location, outside the Persian Gulf and yet on the Iranian coastline, puts it slightly out of harm’s way in the event of the Straits of Hormuz being forcibly closed; although, it is well appreciated that such a closure will no doubt presuppose an adverse effect on all of Iran’s port facilities. To access Central Asia, often referred to as the heart of Asia, and Afghanistan, there are only two routes from the Indian Ocean. The first is from Pakistan’s Gwadar or Karachi ports and the second is from Chabahar which lies on the southeastern coast of Iran in the Sistan-Baluchistan province. Why the US agreed to waive sanctions for activities connected with the development of the port is simply because India is the nation providing alternatives for establishing communication arteries to Afghanistan, bypassing Pakistan. For 17 years, the US has fought in Afghanistan and depended on a single artery for its logistics; through Karachi and Pakistan-Baluchistan into Afghan territory. Due to its animosity with Iran, the clearly viable alternative via Chabahar through Iranian territory, to West Afghanistan could not be exploited. The lack of development of Chabahar placed Afghanistan in a predicament because of its reliance on Karachi with all strings in the hands of none-too-friendly Pakistan. India’s stakes in Afghanistan being high, the realization perhaps came late that Chabahar had serious transformational strategic potential to bypass Pakistan. Once India demonstrated its deep interest and the tripartite agreement with Iran and Afghanistan was signed in mid-2016, the movement of a consignment of wheat from Kandla port in Gujarat to Kabul via Chabahar went through smoothly; that experiment spurred further movement on Chabahar. With portents of conflict termination in Afghanistan, the US too realised the important role India could play at this stage, such that all eggs were not in Pakistan’s basket. Otherwise all Pakistan needed to do in order to bring down the Afghan National Unity Government (NUG) was to establish a blockade from Karachi and the landlocked state of Afghanistan would have few options. The tripartite agreement resolved that problem and increased India’s significance in Afghanistan. With India’s access via Chabahar, the viability of maintaining Afghanistan as a state under current dispensation, with minimal US presence, exponentially increases and there is considerable risk reduction. The joint Indian and US strategic interests in Afghanistan aim at the dilution of Pakistani influence and capability. For the US the option of India in control is far more positive than leaving this to the stranglehold of China, Russia and Pakistan with the latter continuing to improve relations with Iran. For the Afghan NUG, this is as blissful a situation as it can expect with reduction of dependence on Pakistan and an avenue open to trade and assistance from India. The Indian firm India Ports Global Limited has formally taken over operations at the Shahid Beheshti port in Chabahar. The routes for trade and transit corridors between the three countries have been finalised but this will remain work in progress as subsequent infrastructure caters for railway connectivity and eventual linkage to the INSTC. While India has successfully completed a major geostrategic venture on one flank of the Persian Gulf, it needs to be mindful of the fact that its interests are divided on both sides of the Gulf. That is where the last few years of straddling diplomacy, which the Ministry of External Affairs has done with a fair degree of aplomb, will hopefully pay a dividend. India remains one of those unique countries which the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of Iran visited within two weeks of each other. India has long and extremely important relationships with Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, Qatar and Kuwait which are as strategic as any of its relationships. The world of multilateralism is a sphere in which India is getting increasingly competent. That is why it needs to believe that Chabahar is the opening to the long-awaited strategic and civilisational relationship with Iran which need not be at the cost of the same which must be pursued with the Arab Gulf countries with equal vigour. 2018 was a good year for this, 2019 promises to be better. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Iran: A port of call for India

After a long time, Congress has a reason to smile. The number tally of the Karnataka assembly elections had put a question mark on the party's existence, but after today's development, Congress will be able to make a political turnaround.

B S Yeddyurappa's resignation just before the trust vote on the floor of Karnataka Assembly has sent a loud and clear message that Congress can fight back and defeat Modi-Shah combine. Today's development is redux of the same nail-biting suspense which was witnessed during Ahmad Patel’s election to Rajya Sabha last year. 
&nbsp; 
After Manipur, Goa and Meghalaya, Congress came under intense criticism for not been able to form the government. Congress emerged as the single largest party in both Manipur and Goa but delayed decision-making resulted in BJP forming the government in both states. This time around Congress had sent senior leadership to Bengaluru in case they fell short of numbers. 
&nbsp; 
Congress president Rahul Gandhi used this opportunity to launch a blistering attack on the BJP. That Yeddyurappa walked out of the Assembly while the national anthem was being played was the start of Rahul's attack. He said, "This how BJP respects our national anthem.”

He said that both BJP and RSS are trying to subvert government institutions throughout the country. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was also in the line of fire. "Not only Narendra Modi promotes corruption but he is corruption," said Rahul.

In his short victory speech, Rahul said that BJP’s stand on corruption has been exposed and Congress will not allow it to subvert democratic institutions. 
&nbsp; 
What added to BJP’s misery were three sting operations done by Congress MLAs who actively recorded the conversations where BJP leaders were asking Congress MLAs to cross the fence.

The BJP continues to be the largest party and stability in the state will entirely depend on the ability of JD(S) to keep its stock together. Congress, on the other hand, will also have to be careful lest BJP gains sympathy making it electorally difficult for them in coming Lok Sabha elections.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Congress president Rahul Gandhi used this opportunity to launch a blistering attack on the BJP. That Yeddyurappa walked out of the Assembly while the national anthem was being played was the start of Rahul's attack.

After a long time, Congress has a reason to smile. The number tally of the Karnataka assembly elections had put a question mark on the party's existence, but after today's development, Congress will be able to make a political turnaround. B S Yeddyurappa's resignation just before the trust vote on the floor of Karnataka Assembly has sent a loud and clear message that Congress can fight back and defeat Modi-Shah combine. Today's development is redux of the same nail-biting suspense which was witnessed during Ahmad Patel’s election to Rajya Sabha last year. After Manipur, Goa and Meghalaya, Congress came under intense criticism for not been able to form the government. Congress emerged as the single largest party in both Manipur and Goa but delayed decision-making resulted in BJP forming the government in both states. This time around Congress had sent senior leadership to Bengaluru in case they fell short of numbers. Congress president Rahul Gandhi used this opportunity to launch a blistering attack on the BJP. That Yeddyurappa walked out of the Assembly while the national anthem was being played was the start of Rahul's attack. He said, "This how BJP respects our national anthem.” He said that both BJP and RSS are trying to subvert government institutions throughout the country. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was also in the line of fire. "Not only Narendra Modi promotes corruption but he is corruption," said Rahul. In his short victory speech, Rahul said that BJP’s stand on corruption has been exposed and Congress will not allow it to subvert democratic institutions. What added to BJP’s misery were three sting operations done by Congress MLAs who actively recorded the conversations where BJP leaders were asking Congress MLAs to cross the fence. The BJP continues to be the largest party and stability in the state will entirely depend on the ability of JD(S) to keep its stock together. Congress, on the other hand, will also have to be careful lest BJP gains sympathy making it electorally difficult for them in coming Lok Sabha elections. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Karnataka floor test twist gives Congress a reason to smile

At a time when all of us were convinced that globalisation was firmly perched in the world economic order and that regional trade blocs such as the European Union were the only way forward, here came the divorce of the century -- Brexit. 
 
Until a few days ago, it would have not sounded plausible that the British would exit this marriage of 43 years. As a global citizen looking at this vote, it was a bit unbelievable for me too. We have grown up into the idea that we will all move forward and amalgamate into a more just and egalitarian world. 
 
It is one thing to talk about amalgamation and telling the world that we believe in equality and quite another, when it comes to accepting the ideas as part of your own reality. We have all heard the British talk about the idea of Commonwealth and how countries that were part of their global empire should continue to stick around. But when it came down to taking their relationship forward with the rest of Europe, many Britons rejected the idea. 
 
Details dug in history 
 
Bretton Woods system: It all started after the Second World War in 1944 in a small town in New Hampshire in United States where delegates of 44 nations came together to define a new international monetary system. It was at this meeting that the IMF and the World Bank came into existence and all the currencies around the world were pegged to the dollar which was in turn pegged to Bullion. 
 
After this, the trade between the countries in the western world started increasing enormously and we saw the birth of globalisation. The outlook of these western countries was more and more outward looking. Talks of working together in a cohesive manner and amalgamation were in the forefront of their scheme of things.. 
 
Thus, during 40s and thereafter, the western countries were talking the language of interconnectivity through trade, defence forces (NATO), powerplay at IMF and World Bank and the actual culmination of all this integration and globalisation was seen in the formation of European Union. 
 
In the various stages of formation of a union among countries, European Union was just one step away from the final stage where all the countries not only have same trade and monetary policies but also the same fiscal policy. This was termed as an Economic Union and was the step towards the political unification of countries. 
 
The time of the East 
 
As the time passed, in the 70s and 80s, the Eastern World also started opening up and moved towards adopting more liberalised policies. China is a manufacturing hub and trade-driven economy and none of the countries here is even close to China&#39;s share in world trade. The east Asian Tigers also reaped the benefits of opening up their economy to world trade and experienced a tremendous increase in their GDP. 
 
After the 1991 liberalisation, India has also reaped benefits of this integrated world. 
 
What the western world was experiencing in 40s and 50s, the eastern world has been experiencing since 80s and 90s, and they have just started to see that growth trajectory. The eastern countries are yet to realise the full potential of their liberalised and more integrated economies. 
 
<img alt="" class="img-responsive" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/Infographics_Who_is_next_to_follow-20160627110119.jpg" /> 
 
Resurrecting the walls 
 
But it seems that the western world is now in a reversal. Brexit is a clear indicator and the apparent rise of right-wing parties in other European countries represents that movement towards a more closed inward-looking policy. It has now become their territory, their national policy, their sovereignty. From &#39;our&#39; the world is moving to &#39;my&#39;. Thus, there is a clear swap in the positions of the western and eastern countries. 
 
The fall of the Berlin wall was not just a physical bringing down of the wall but it spoke more to the idea of people in Europe agreeing to share their wealth. 
 
But this backward trend is connected to the 2008 crisis, the result of which various European countries went into a second recession with their sovereign debt crisis. The debtor countries found themselves in deep trouble and were and still are forced to the terms and conditions of the surplus countries. And the entire paradigm about looking at national interests has started taking precedence. 
 
The incoming refugees from Syria and the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels added fuel to the already precarious situation, with the inward-looking mindset gaining more and more momentum. 
 
Maybe we should have listened to Keynes in 1944. 
 
At the Bretton Woods there were two proposals, one by Keynes and other by Henry White. The one that Henry White presented won. So this is probably a good time to ponder on what Keynes said. 
 
Keynes proposed a new currency called Bancor. He said that during the boom period a deficit nation takes more and more debt to fuel growth and a surplus nation also gives it. However, when this phase gets over and things start tumbling then the entire onus lies on the debtor nation and not the surplus one. So he proposed setting up of ICU: International Clearing Unit. 
 
Keynes proposed that any country racking up a large trade deficit (equating to more than half of its Bancor overdraft allowance) would be charged interest on its account. It would also be obliged to reduce the value of its currency and to prevent the export of capital. But -- and this was the key to his system -- he insisted that the nations with a trade surplus would be subject to similar pressures. 
 
Any country with a Bancor credit balance that was more than half the size of its overdraft facility would be charged interest, at a rate of 10%. It would also be obliged to increase the value of its currency and to permit the export of capital. If, by the end of the year, its credit balance exceeded the total value of its permitted overdraft, the surplus would be confiscated. The nations with a surplus would have a powerful incentive to get rid of it. In doing so, they would automatically clear other nations&#39; deficits. 
 
Doubt that world will be able to stop the reversal 
 
When Europe was in upheaval after Brexit, US Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump landed in Scotland and declared that America wants itself back too. The challenge is that globalisation has been slow in the East and it is only now that countries like India may be ready to ride the wave. But as the western economies go into a recession, they may be scrambling themselves and not in a position to even deal with the growth in the East. With a world in conflict, the eyes are going to be off the idea of amalgamation, and people will focus on protecting whatever they have, and this move by the UK is just that.

The idea of countries coming together and forming unions slowly fades as each one struggles to protect what it owns

At a time when all of us were convinced that globalisation was firmly perched in the world economic order and that regional trade blocs such as the European Union were the only way forward, here came the divorce of the century -- Brexit. Until a few days ago, it would have not sounded plausible that the British would exit this marriage of 43 years. As a global citizen looking at this vote, it was a bit unbelievable for me too. We have grown up into the idea that we will all move forward and amalgamate into a more just and egalitarian world. It is one thing to talk about amalgamation and telling the world that we believe in equality and quite another, when it comes to accepting the ideas as part of your own reality. We have all heard the British talk about the idea of Commonwealth and how countries that were part of their global empire should continue to stick around. But when it came down to taking their relationship forward with the rest of Europe, many Britons rejected the idea. Details dug in history Bretton Woods system: It all started after the Second World War in 1944 in a small town in New Hampshire in United States where delegates of 44 nations came together to define a new international monetary system. It was at this meeting that the IMF and the World Bank came into existence and all the currencies around the world were pegged to the dollar which was in turn pegged to Bullion. After this, the trade between the countries in the western world started increasing enormously and we saw the birth of globalisation. The outlook of these western countries was more and more outward looking. Talks of working together in a cohesive manner and amalgamation were in the forefront of their scheme of things.. Thus, during 40s and thereafter, the western countries were talking the language of interconnectivity through trade, defence forces (NATO), powerplay at IMF and World Bank and the actual culmination of all this integration and globalisation was seen in the formation of European Union. In the various stages of formation of a union among countries, European Union was just one step away from the final stage where all the countries not only have same trade and monetary policies but also the same fiscal policy. This was termed as an Economic Union and was the step towards the political unification of countries. The time of the East As the time passed, in the 70s and 80s, the Eastern World also started opening up and moved towards adopting more liberalised policies. China is a manufacturing hub and trade-driven economy and none of the countries here is even close to China's share in world trade. The east Asian Tigers also reaped the benefits of opening up their economy to world trade and experienced a tremendous increase in their GDP. After the 1991 liberalisation, India has also reaped benefits of this integrated world. What the western world was experiencing in 40s and 50s, the eastern world has been experiencing since 80s and 90s, and they have just started to see that growth trajectory. The eastern countries are yet to realise the full potential of their liberalised and more integrated economies. Resurrecting the walls But it seems that the western world is now in a reversal. Brexit is a clear indicator and the apparent rise of right-wing parties in other European countries represents that movement towards a more closed inward-looking policy. It has now become their territory, their national policy, their sovereignty. From 'our' the world is moving to 'my'. Thus, there is a clear swap in the positions of the western and eastern countries. The fall of the Berlin wall was not just a physical bringing down of the wall but it spoke more to the idea of people in Europe agreeing to share their wealth. But this backward trend is connected to the 2008 crisis, the result of which various European countries went into a second recession with their sovereign debt crisis. The debtor countries found themselves in deep trouble and were and still are forced to the terms and conditions of the surplus countries. And the entire paradigm about looking at national interests has started taking precedence. The incoming refugees from Syria and the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels added fuel to the already precarious situation, with the inward-looking mindset gaining more and more momentum. Maybe we should have listened to Keynes in 1944. At the Bretton Woods there were two proposals, one by Keynes and other by Henry White. The one that Henry White presented won. So this is probably a good time to ponder on what Keynes said. Keynes proposed a new currency called Bancor. He said that during the boom period a deficit nation takes more and more debt to fuel growth and a surplus nation also gives it. However, when this phase gets over and things start tumbling then the entire onus lies on the debtor nation and not the surplus one. So he proposed setting up of ICU: International Clearing Unit. Keynes proposed that any country racking up a large trade deficit (equating to more than half of its Bancor overdraft allowance) would be charged interest on its account. It would also be obliged to reduce the value of its currency and to prevent the export of capital. But -- and this was the key to his system -- he insisted that the nations with a trade surplus would be subject to similar pressures. Any country with a Bancor credit balance that was more than half the size of its overdraft facility would be charged interest, at a rate of 10%. It would also be obliged to increase the value of its currency and to permit the export of capital. If, by the end of the year, its credit balance exceeded the total value of its permitted overdraft, the surplus would be confiscated. The nations with a surplus would have a powerful incentive to get rid of it. In doing so, they would automatically clear other nations' deficits. Doubt that world will be able to stop the reversal When Europe was in upheaval after Brexit, US Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump landed in Scotland and declared that America wants itself back too. The challenge is that globalisation has been slow in the East and it is only now that countries like India may be ready to ride the wave. But as the western economies go into a recession, they may be scrambling themselves and not in a position to even deal with the growth in the East. With a world in conflict, the eyes are going to be off the idea of amalgamation, and people will focus on protecting whatever they have, and this move by the UK is just that.

McLuhan did not know that the village would be disconnected

opinion

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