Economic forecasts are a mug’s game but while there are no signs of the green shoots of recovery if people do not feel that their pockets are lighter compared to five years ago they may not want to make Rishi wish he had kept his American green card … writes Mihir Bose@mihirbose
I doubt if anyone could have predicted how 2022 would turn up. I did begin my 2022 piece for Asian Lite by saying a lot will depend on how the Russia-China relations shape up but I didn’t think President Vladimir Putin would invade Ukraine claiming it always belonged to Russia, all part of his longed for desire to see the return of the Russian empire, if not that ruled by Stalin certainly that by the Tsars.
Nor I must confess did I see Boris Johnson’s fall, let alone Britain suddenly transformed in a few months of the summer into more like a banana republic where three Prime Ministers waltzed in and out of No 10 Downing Street. Or should we say a case of that old Hindi saying Aya Ram, Gaya Ram. Ram Comes and Ram Goes.
The dance the Conservatives performed over who should lead them was not so much a waltz but more like the frenzied dance we used to do on Saturday nights at university gyrating to a little-known pop group hoping to emulate the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, in the hope by the end of the evening we would find a partner. That a party, which has always claimed to be the most successful political party in the world, so adept at crafting election successes, should have so suddenly lost its ability to hold on to power was astonishing.
So, can Dishy Rishi do the trick and lead them to victory when the election comes in 2024? I believe he can. My reason for saying so is that there are signs that the economy may provide us not with gloom and doom but with pleasant surprises. Already it seems the recession may not prove to be as deep, and inflation is coming down. Economic forecasts are a mug’s game but while there are no signs of the green shoots of recovery if people do not feel that their pockets are lighter compared to five years ago they may not want to make Rishi wish he had kept his American green card.
It is a common belief that elections are won or lost on how well the economy is doing. Reagan’s election-winning slogan against Carter in 1980 was, “Are you better off?”. Clinton’s election campaign had a notice up saying, “It’s the economy, stupid”. However, 1997 shows that even when the economy is doing well people may not vote for the government responsible for it. Then the Conservatives under John Major had turned the economy around but could not get away from the huge shadow cast by Black Wednesday.
The Sunny Monday that followed did not do the trick. The Conservatives had lost their own big winning card which never fails to trump their opponents. That they are better managers of the economy than Labour.
But in 1997 Labour had Tony Blair. This, the shrewdest British politician of the last two decades, had so remodelled Labour that it was unrecognisable from Labour governments that had proved so incompetent. Blair had also crafted slogans that resonated. Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. Education, education, education. Keir Starmer is no Blair. He comes across as a competent apparatchik who can deliver a case on which he has been well briefed which, given he was head of the CPS, is no surprise. But Blair, also a lawyer, could write a brief. Starmer is yet to show he can do that. So far he is enjoying the fall-out from the mess the Conservatives have made. But under an election spotlight he may find it not that easy to answer the question both the Conservatives and the media will relentlessly ask him, “So, Sir Keir what will your government do?”. Just going on repeating that he is opposed to Tory policies will not work.
I appreciate it will not be easy to paint Labour as tax and spend as the Conservatives have traditionally done. After all, Tories have been Labour dressed in blue. The problem for Labour is on this issue they have little room for manoeuvre and cannot be further to the right of the Tories. And while Labour is 20 points ahead in the polls they also show that Sunak is more popular than Starmer and considered better able to manage the economy.
But where Sunak may come unstuck are two issues which few in this country are prepared to discuss. One is race and the other is wealth. There is no question the Conservatives have completely remodelled themselves on race with many of the leading Cabinet positions held by people of Asian and black origin. The Conservatives, having historically been anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim, have become very fond of Hindus and to have Diwali celebrated in No 10 tells us a lot of how the party has changed. But Labour cannot use the race card, at least not openly, more so when as a party it is still very a white party at least with those occupying senior positions.
Even more than race what may cause Sunak greater problems is that he is rich, and his wife is even richer, the daughter of one of India’s richest men. Unlike America, where politicians can boast of their wealth and win votes as Trump did, however dubious his claim to wealth may have been, the British do not like their politicians to brag that they are wealthy. In fact, almost nobody in No 10 could do that.
Johnson was always moaning that being in Downing Street had impoverished him and he had to rely on the generosity of donors to get his Downing Street flat refurbished. Sunak has already had problems as a result of his wife’s non-dom status. He cannot go around saying that because of his wealth he will make everyone else wealthy. That would immediately make him a parvenu and a man who is not one of us. This combined with his Hindu status may mean defeat.
Of course, all this could change if Putin falls, Ukraine emerges victorious, and the energy crisis is over. Suddenly everyone is well-off and Sunak without saying he is rich could make people feel he will make them richer.
But this brings us to the great unknown. What will Putin do? The war in Ukraine, which Putin thought would last a few weeks and we hoped would be over in a few months looks like, if not quite Europe’s modern-day version of the hundred years’ war, going on long enough to cause a great deal of disruption. Sunak has limited ability to keep on saying it is not the Tories fault but the fault of Putin. Carter tried to use the energy crisis of the early 80s against Reagan but that failed. The only problem is Starmer is no Reagan. Unless he has virtues that he has kept hidden I can still see Sunak leading the Tories to another election triumph.
Mihir Bose’s latest book is Dreaming The Impossible: The Battle to Create A Non-Racial Sports World. His twitter sign is @mihirbose
UK Universities alignment with Confucius Institutions exposed China’s External Propaganda Schemes. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has promised to ban all 30 Confucius Institutions across Britain and termed it as the “largest threat to the world’s security and prosperity this century” … A special report by Kaliph Anaz
China’s infamous Propaganda Department led by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) decrees ‘external propaganda’ to sway opinions on Chinese policies and politics abroad. The nuance of asserting ‘soft power’ by establishing Confucius Institutions (CIs) in the United Kingdom distinguishes its political mission from language and cultural schooling.
Confucius Institutes were administered by Hanban, an abbreviation of the Office of the Leading Small Group (LSG) for the International Promotion of the Chinese Language. The Office was a Ministry of Education unit overseen by LSG and later evolved as the Confucius Institute Headquarters Council (CIHQ Council) in 2009. The LSG/CIHQ was chaired by two successive former United Front Work Department (UFWD) heads turned vice premiers; Liu Yandong and then Sun Chulan.
Xi Jinping, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, waves to journalists at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, Oct. 23, 2022. (Xinhua/Pang Xinglei/IANS)
The Office, i.e., Hanban/CIHQ was gradually integrated into the CCP propaganda system, with propaganda organs represented at the CHIQ Council. The CCP explicitly referred to CIs as an “important component” of external propaganda. The PRC controlled state-media institutions described the integration of Confucius Institutions as a means to “disperse misinterpretation” amongst Western critics. There are about 30 Confucius Institutions within British universities and 150 schools that have been funded to the tune of perhaps £46,000,000 by the Chinese government. Their influence extends well into British politics, academia, and business.
The recruitment of Confucius Institutions staff is done by Chinese stakeholders in China and involves political and ethnic vetting. The members vetted are obligated to follow Chinese law whilst in the UK. Xi Jinping stressed the importance of preventing the barriers to the “integration” of the CIs into the mainstream activities of universities, schools and communities in the UK, at a Hanban central conference in 2012.
CCP’s desires to use Confucius Institutions to infiltrate the study of China in the UK; have come up with strategies to launch a research-focused “Confucius China Studies Program” also referred to as the “New Confucius Sinology Plan,” which allows systematic cooperation between the CIs and host institutions on the projects of doctoral students, youth leadership, study trips for scholars to “understand China”, international conferences and assistance for publishing research.
The CCP is the most powerful political party in China, and its members are required to take an oath of loyalty to it. This invertedly means that members of private-owned companies or state-owned enterprises from China in foreign countries, e.g., Confucius Institutions in the UK are obligated to follow Chinese law; this also explains that every information acquired through CIs is directly being shared with the CCP.
The Hanban agreement clearly states that Confucius Institutions must abide by the “One China” principle. Hanban has distributed books titled “The Economy of Tibet,” “Invest in China,” “The Road to China’s Prosperity; “The Communist Party of China”, and “Contemporary China” as per the agreement to UK’s Confucius Institutions to sway the public perception about China; this act is external propaganda through academia. The British universities must also facilitate a special bank account with the Bank of China under the CI’s name; and set an annual funding to CIs that at least equals Hanban’s contribution, i.e., nearly $150,000 ‘start-up’ fund.
The UK Universities such as UCL, LSBU, Nottingham, Southampton, Ulster, Leeds, Goldsmiths, Edge Hill, Coventry and more have been flagged as outliers for not reporting actual data on how their Confucius Institutions have been funded. There are huge amounts of ‘missing’ funding that range from £9,859,381 to £12,966,014.
The University of Sheffield had established partnerships in/with China/Chinese organisations through Confucius Institutions. The university was on joint ventures with The Institute of Chemistry, Beijing; The Changchun Institute of Applied Chemistry; The Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica; The Beijing University of Chemical Technology; and Beijing Aerospace & Aeronautical University (aka Beihang) “to work together on artificial intelligence and manufacturing”. The concerning aspect is that no universities were able to share a specific risk assessment conducted concerning the impact of CIs on students that specifically belong to a particular group or region, i.e., students from Taiwan or Hong Kong, pro-democracy Chinese students, Uyghur students, and Tibetan students who are likely at risk of being targeted by pro-CCP agencies on UK university campuses.
In light of recent events, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has promised to ban all 30 Confucius Institutions and termed it as the “largest threat to the world’s security and prosperity this century.”
The Prime Minister has acknowledged China’s promoting soft power through external propaganda that needs to be dealt with swiftly.
Prof. Madhavan K. Palat, is a former professor of History at the Centre for Historical Studies at the School of Social Sciences at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Professor Palat is considered to be a foremost scholar in the realm of Russian and European intellectual history. In 2006 he was a visiting professor of imperial Russian history at University of Chicago. Asian Lite’s Abhish K. Bose discusses the ramifications of the Russia – Ukraine war with the eminent professor. Excerpts from the interview:
ABHISH K. BOSE: The Russian invasion of Ukraine has activated insecurity among small nations across the world and forced them to earmark more resources for defence. This would compel the countries to cut back on crucial sectors such as agriculture, education, and the health sector, which are integral in improving the quality of life of the people. What will be the impact caused in the economies of small countries as a result of it?
PROF. PALAT: It is not certain that it has created insecurity for the small nations of the world other than those in East Europe contiguous with Russia. These nations in any case depend on the USA for defence, and they will not have to cut back seriously for defence.
ABHISH K. BOSE: According to the United Nations, 11 million Ukrainians have been displaced by this war. 5.3 million of them have taken refuge in neighbouring countries and 6.5 million people are internally displaced. Two-thirds of the children in Ukraine are adversely affected. Tens and thousands of houses and apartments, besides public facilities, are destroyed. How long will it take for Ukraine to overcome the still worsening humanitarian crisis? How should the rest of the world respond to this?
Prof. Madhavan K. Palat,
PROF. PALAT: It depends on the kind of peace that will be established at the end of the war and the aid Ukraine receives from the West for reconstruction. The rest of the world would have varied responses, it cannot be a single one. As the West is heavily invested in Ukraine, they will be the ones responding; elsewhere, there will be little action other than words of sympathy.
ABHISH K. BOSE: Ukraine grows food to feed 400 million people across the world. This includes 50 per cent of the world’s sunflower oil supply, 10 per cent of the world’s grain supply, and 13 per cent of the world’s corn supply. The estimates say that 30 per cent of the crop areas will not be planted or harvested due to the war. Adding to this supply chains from Ukraine are disrupted because of the closure of Black Sea ports. How will affect the rest of the world?
PROF. PALAT: The impact is obvious, there will be shortages, scarcity, possibly famine in some places, inflation, and an opportunity for other food crop growers to take advantage.
ABHISH K. BOSE: The USA, the UK and Canada have imposed an embargo on Russian oil and gas after the invasion of Ukraine. The European Union too is planning to reduce dependence on Russian gas and oil by 2024. Big private energy companies are leaving Russia. How this will affect Russia? Is it likely that this would hurt Europe more than Russia?
PROF. PALAT: Both will be hurt.
ABHISH K. BOSE: There is a view that Ukraine has been led into this tragedy by the US and the EU. Do you agree? What do you think about Donald Trump’s claim that this crisis would not have happened if he were still the President of the US?
PROF. PALAT: Yes, Ukraine has been led into this by the US and EU with the carrots of EU and NATO dangled. Perhaps Trump would not have done this, but nothing is certain about Trump. And after Trump, the same thing could have happened.
ABHISH K. BOSE: Does the Ukraine crisis signal the beginning of the end of the American domination of the world? Is the focus of history shifting from the Euro-American block to Asia? How do you read the Chinese policy regarding this crisis?
PROF. PALAT: American domination is not declining. Instead, the crisis has reinforced American domination over Europe which has lined up fully, as also the rest of the G7. There is no shift to Asia. In fact, America is now targeting Russia and China together. The Islamic countries will benefit to the extent that the war on terror ends because the focus is on Russia-China.
ABHISH K. BOSE: Weakening Russia is the stated goal of the US if the Secretary of Defence Austin is to be believed. What could be the end result of this goal? Will it accelerate the Chinese domination of the world, rather than enhance the security of the countries in Eastern Europe?
PROF. PALAT: Weakening Russia does not strengthen China, since Russia was not a challenger to China.
ABHISH K. BOSE: Do you believe that the present crisis could aggravate into a nuclear war, limited or otherwise? Does Russia threaten to resort to the nuclear option if its existence is threatened? Does this statement betray a heightened sense of insecurity on the part of Russia, or is it mere bluster?
PROF. PALAT: There are no indications of a nuclear war unless the US is foolish enough to provoke it. But it would not since it has enough instruments to bring down Russia. After all, it did that to the Soviet Union, which was so much more powerful. Russia is of course trying to whip up European and American opinion, possibly also Ukrainian, by talking of a nuclear war which it knows it will not resort to.
India’s Permanent Representative Ruchira Kamboj presides over the United Nations Security Council meeting on Ukraine on Tuesday, December 6,2022. (Photo Source: UN)
ABHISH K. BOSE: India has chosen to be neutral? Is neutrality a feasible option? Is this the best option for India? What is more, is this a stand that harmonises with what India has stood for these many decades? What could the long-term implications of India’s present neutrality?
PROF. PALAT: Neutrality is the best option, the closest to non-alignment. It harmonizes well with India’s traditional stand.
ABHISH K. BOSE: What could be the impact of the Ukraine crisis on China’s geopolitical ambitions? Will it encourage China to annex Taiwan? Can the US afford to stand by Taiwan, in case the need arises?
PROF. PALAT: China will be more cautious, not adventurous, now. It will keep off Taiwan while engaging in noisy polemic.
ABHISH K. BOSE: Russia would not have annexed Crimea in 2014 or launched this ‘special operations’ into Ukraine if it had not signed the Budapest Memorandum in 2004. Had it still retained the vast nuclear stockpile it held then comprising some 1900 warheads, it would have avoided the present misery. Will not other countries of the world read this message and will this not mean a setback for nuclear non-proliferation?
PROF. PALAT: That is true, as it was for Saddam Hussein also. But it is not a setback for nuclear non-proliferation since the nuclear non-nuclear powers are fixed. There can be no change.
ABHISH K. BOSE: If you were to reorganize the UN, especially in light of its ineffectiveness in dealing with the present crisis, what major changes would you suggest? In particular, what are your views on continuing the facility of veto powers for a limited number of nations, institutionalising inequality in the UN based on the asymmetry of power? Should this be continued forever? Do you see this provision being abolished in the near future?
Russia-Ukraine war pictures.(photo: https://www.facebook.com/zelenskiy.official)
PROF. PALAT: The UN has little role in this crisis, and it has not failed, any more than in any of the previous crises.
ABHISH K. BOSE: It is said that the nations of the world preach peace and prepare for war at the same time. This is due to the axiomatic assumption that war is a necessary arbiter in international affairs. Do you agree with this view? Is it possible to create a climate of opinion against war? Where do we make a beginning in this regard?
PROF. PALAT: Yes to both. We can begin where Nehru always was.
ABHISH K. BOSE: What will be the long-term economic and political ramifications of the Russia – Ukraine war? Is it really possible to overcome the disastrous impact of the war?
PROF. PALAT: Long-term it is a blow to Russia, not to China, though China is being independently targeted.
Pakistan Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto with his Singapore counterpart Dr Vivian Balakrishnan at Singapore City
Using vulgar and un-parliamentary expressions in public against adversaries– politicians and even the general public– is an established Pakistani tradition where politics is played without observing the etiquettes of decency … writes Dr Sakariya Kareem
India has taken exception to the potty language used by the ‘Pappu’ Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Bilawal Zardari Bhutto, against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. India may have taken the right course, but don’t hope that it will have a sobering effect on him or Pakistani politicians’ proclivity to hurl invectives against Indian leaders.
Using vulgar and un-parliamentary expressions in public against adversaries– politicians and even the general public– is an established Pakistani tradition where politics is played without observing the etiquettes of decency.
Imran Khan’s public outbursts with free use of all that will be classified as ‘un-parliamentary’ would prove that.
Many Indians are believed to have given up watching TV ‘news’ because there is virtually no ‘news’ in the programmes but plenty of ‘action’—shouts, calling names, humiliations and ‘arguments’ based on fiction.
This is not very different from what the Pakistani TV viewers are fed. Actually, they get better and offer more ‘entertainment’ with free expression of expletives and the participants in TV shows converting the studio into a wrestling arena where the anchor has as good a chance as a rival in being hit smack on the face.
It may be added that such scenes are also sometimes enacted in the provincial legislatures and the Federal Assembly (Parliament) of Pakistan and it becomes an engrossing clip for millions of Pakistanis. If anything, the circulation of videos of such scenes seems to spur more such activities in the belief of an Urdu saying that says if you attract bad publicity you also become famous!
The Pakistani TV journalists do take offence and question the perpetrators of using foul words and display of violence. But the offending politicians are smart enough to justify their egregious behaviour.
A politician who had used the word ‘Randi’ for a rival female politician saw nothing wrong in it as ‘Randi’ was the Urdu word for a widow. To lend more weight to his argument, he added that in the province of Punjab such a word is not considered bad. The social sanctity granted to certain words and phrases cannot be ridiculed.
Clearly, Bilawal is a cut above the rest of Pakistani politicians for whom foul expressions are common in their day-to-day conversations and speeches. After all, the Pakistani minister is a grandson of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who had once shocked an audience in Lahore by using a four-letter word.
Known to love the good life, the Islamists in Pakistan used to denounce Bhutto’s un-Islamic way of life, including his love for alcohol.
‘Yes, I drink, but I don’t drink the blood of the people,’ he said words to that effect in 1977 when he was still the prime minister. The reference to blood suckers was a rounded berating of his political enemies who had launched a campaign against him.
Bilawal choosing an Indian prime minister as a special target of his profanity may appear to be quite natural, given the traditional intensity of hatred of Indian leaders among the Pakistanis. But, again, the impulse must have been inherited by him from his grandfather as well as his mother, Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto.
Pakistan’s birth can be said to be the result of an uncompromising, inherent hatred for India among the great majority of Pakistanis, but Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto took it to a new height with his infamous declaration that Pakistanis would wage a thousand-year with India and would eat grass in continuing an eternal war.
Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari
Bilawal’s mother, growing out of her fun-loving teen years, shared her father’s passion against India and, apparently, so does young Bilawal. He has become an important minister at an age younger than the Bhutto who as prime minister was ousted in a coup by a general who hanged him on ‘court orders’ which held him guilty of complicity in the murder of a politician.
Bilawal’s father, Asif Ali Zardari, was not born with an inveterate hatred for India. In fact, soon after becoming President of Pakistan in 2008, he spoke of his desire to have warm relations with India, a country, which, he said rested in the hearts of every Pakistani.
Not surprisingly, the powerful men at the GHQ were furious and the President of the country had to bow to the wishes of the generals and do a U-turn on his views in India.
Bilawal may or may not have heard of his father’s humiliation at the hands of the de facto rulers of the country, but his mother’s dominant influence would have eliminated any chance of Bilawal being anything but a strong hawk vis-à-vis India. Reacting to India’s strong censure of Bilawal, Pakistan has sounded even more unrepentant and aggressive. Well, what can be expected from the land of the pure, as the Pakistanis describe their country.
Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif insults PoK top leader Tanvir Ilyas during an official function which triggered a flood of Azadi slogans across Kashmir. No signs of development are visible in PoK as the region has never been treated at par with the other parts of Pakistan. The federal government has always neglected basic needs in PoK, which suffers from poor infrastructure and a lack of available resources and technology … writes Dr Sakariya Kareem
Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif snubbing Tanvir Ilyas, the so-called Prime Minister of Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK), during an official function has once again proven that Islamabad treats PoK as its colony and its rulers as puppets. A video which has gone viral on the internet shows the Pakistan Prime Minister not listening to Tanvir Ilyas and indulging in a verbal spat with him. “You sit down, we will talk later,” Sharif is seen telling Ilyas. As Ilyas refuses to sit down, Sharif is seen losing his cool and continuing with his speech angrily.
Tanvir Ilyas @Twitter
The so-called PoK Prime Minister, according to media reports, wanted to raise the issues of his people but he was not allowed to speak as his assertions would have left the Pakistan Prime Minister embarrassed. After being insulted by Sharif at an official function, Ilyas alleged that he was attacked by the guards of the Prime Minister. Ilyas facing humiliation in an official function triggered anti-Islamabad protests in many areas of PoK with protesters demanding Azadi from the tyrannical rule of Pakistan. They expressed their outrage at the ill-treatment meted out to them and their leaders since 1947 when the tribal raiders illegally occupied PoK. The brutal exploitation of PoK natural resources by successive regimes in Islamabad has turned the region barren. The ruling class of PoK seems to have understood that there is no room for negotiation with Islamabad and that the only way forward is to seek freedom from Pakistan and its rulers. To teach the so-called PoK, Prime Minister a lesson the federal government ordered sealing Centaurus Mall in Islamabad, which is owned by Ilyas. By doing so Islamabad sent a clear message to leaders and the denizens of PoK that anyone who dares to raise his voice will have to face the consequences.
For the past 70 years, residents of PoK have been suffering in silence as they are not allowed to raise their voices. The media is controlled by the government so human rights abuses by the armed forces and terrorists go unreported. No signs of development are visible in PoK as the region has never been treated at par with the other parts of Pakistan. The federal government has always neglected basic needs in PoK, which suffers from poor infrastructure and a lack of available resources and technology. Pakistan’s military establishment under a well-thought-out plan has kept the region underdeveloped and underprivileged. PoK during all these years has served as a breeding ground for terrorists.
The unemployment rate in PoK is high and the literacy rate is low. Rulers have not paid much attention towards developing any sector in the region. The PoK natives migrate to large cities in Pakistan in search of low-paying jobs at hotels, restaurants, and clothing stores as there are no avenues available for them in their native place. They also suffer from poor governance, an absence of political legitimacy, and disenfranchisement. The federal government has focused on securing its political hold over the region and has neglected actual governance in the process.
Puppet governments The local dispensations in PoK since 1947 have been nothing more than puppet governments having limited resources and governing authority. All the decisions vis-à-vis PoK is taken by the officials and officers sitting in Islamabad. Natives have no say in the policy decisions which touch their skins directly. Earlier this year Islamabad slashed PoK’s development budget by Rs 5.2 billion, which led to severe financial system disbalance in the region. The arbitrary decisions taken by Islamabad have created a void between the people of PoK and Pakistani rulers. Many PoK natives are of the opinion that the federal government harbours deep animosity towards the people of PoK and Gilgit Baltistan and is proving it by taking anti-people decisions due to which region is becoming poorer.
Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif meets Chinese President Xi Jinping.(photo:facebook.com/ShehbazSharif)
China Factor
Another factor that is haunting the people of PoK is China making inroads in the region and using it to fulfilling its expansionist designs. Debt-ridden Islamabad is allowing China to go ahead with its golden plan of forming a sea route through PoK. Chinese engineers and workers in PoK are plundering the natural resources of the region. Chinese are earning their livelihood in PoK. The debt-ridden Islamabad has no locus standi to tell Chinese companies to fix some quota for the locals in their projects. Resentment is brewing against the federal government and the recent insult and humiliation of the so-called PoK Prime Minister has turned the situation more volatile in the region.
PoK looks towards J&K
PoK denizens are looking towards Jammu and Kashmir, which has witnessed unprecedented development after New Delhi on August 5, 2019, announced its decision to abrogate J&K’s special status and bifurcated it into two Union Territories.
During the past three years, J&K has turned into the most visited tourist destination, and many roads and highways have been built. Train to Kashmir is not that far away and is expected to reach the Valley by 2024.
New Delhi after the abrogation of Article 370, a temporary provision in the Constitution, has embarked on the path of building a completely new Jammu and Kashmir. Electricity and water have reached every household in J&K. Employment avenues have been created and very importantly a sense of security has been created among the people.
Azadi voices in PoK Inrecent months voices seeking Azadi from Pakistan have become shriller in PoK and the people are dropping enough hints to Prime Minister, Narendra Modi to reclaim the region which has been under the illegal occupation of Pakistan for the past seven decades. They also want to live comfortable and decent lives like their counterparts in J&K. They want to see what development means. Islamabad not treating PoK denizens at par with the other citizens of the country is ample proof of the fact that PoK people are second-grade citizens, who don’t enjoy the privileges and rights. Their leaders are just titular heads and have no powers, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif insulting Tanvir Ilyas and he being heckled by the guards of PM Sharif have shown the worth of PoK leaders.
Alarming level of intolerance against political and religious minorities are comparable to what has been witnessed in Pakistan, observes Ayesha Jalal. INTERVIEW BY ABHISH K. BOSE
Professor Ayesha Jalal is the Mary Richardson Professor of History and Director Centre for South Asian and Indian Ocean studies at Tuft University. After majoring in history and politics at Wellesley College, she pursued her doctorate in history from the University of Cambridge. She has been a fellow at Trinity College, (1980-84), Leverhulme Fellow at the Centre of South Asian Studies, Cambridge ( 1984-1987), Fellow of the Woodrow Wilson Centre for International Scholars at Washington DC, ( 1985-86), and Academy Scholar at the Harvard Academy of International and Area Studies ( 1988 – 90). From 1998 to 2003 she was a McArthur fellow.
A native of Lahore in Pakistan her books include “The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the demand for Pakistan; Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia: A comparative historical perspective; The State of Martial rule: The origins of Pakistan’s political economy of defence. She has co-authored ‘ Modern South Asia: History, culture and Political economy with Sugatha Bose, Her recent book is ‘Partisans of Allah: Jihad in South Asia’. In an interview with Asian Lite’s Abhish K. Bose, she discusses the growing intolerance against religious minorities and the Taliban’s ascending power in Afghanistan.
Prof. Ayesha Jalal
ABHISH K. BOSE: What is your take on Indian secularism and the future of minorities in India and Pakistan?
AYESHA JALAL: Recent political developments in India have undermined the constitutional principle of neutrality towards different religious communities, which had been the cornerstone of the post-colonial Indian state’s commitment to maintaining a secular and democratic polity. Efforts to create a Hindu Rashtra and alarming displays of intolerance towards the cultural and political rights of religious minorities are comparable to what has been witnessed in Pakistan. But there are important differences between the two countries. India’s geographical size and formally democratic nature contrast sharply with military authoritarian Pakistan, a truncated state that lost its majority population in 1971 and, unlike India’s much-advertised secular credentials, claims to be an Islamic republic. Given the absence of military dominance in India, the relatively robust Indian federal configuration’s capacity to counter insular and exclusionary religiopolitical rhetoric can never be ruled out.
ABHISH K. BOSE: Though India and Pakistan secured independence and became separate countries, Pakistan immediately fell in due course into the hands of the military, whereas India managed to remain as a secular democracy. What are the reasons for the contrasting routes the two countries took? What are the factors that sustained the democratic culture and vitality of India, even as democracy floundered all around in its neighbourhoods?
AYESHA JALAL: I have dealt with the question of India’s and Pakistan’s divergent political trajectories at some length in my book, Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia (1995). India inherited the British colonial state’s unitary centre and the international personality of British India while Pakistan had to create a wholly new centre from scratch over its territories and was cast into the role of a seceding state. Severely strapped for funds and with serious doubts about its ability to survive, Pakistan became entangled with Cold War politics with detrimental effects on relations between the new centre and the constituent units. India under Nehru, on the other hand, adopted non-alignment as its policy, which together with support for the Congress in the various regions helped to confirm the democratic process insofar as holding regular elections on five-yearly intervals was concerned.
ABHISH K. BOSE: With the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, the country comes under the rule of the Taliban. In the meantime, China is trying to invest in infrastructure -especially roads- in Afghanistan as top Chinese officials are in discussions with the Taliban leadership. The role played by China in giving financial aid to Sri Lanka also should be suspiciously perceived as when Sri Lanka failed to pay back the loans they took the Hambangotta port for lease for the next 99 years. Would you explain the hidden strategic agenda behind Chinese moves in these two countries and South Asia in general? Are they trying to repeat the role donned by the US in South Asia?
AYESHA JALAL: The notion of a Chinese conspiracy to ensnare Sri Lanka and now Afghanistan is more perception and suspicion than a proven fact based on solid evidence. It also underplays the role of the political leadership in Sri Lanka in accepting terms detrimental to the country’s economy and then failing to take the right steps to ensure their ability to service the debt. The Chinese are not interested in donning the American role. They are interested in extending their economic partnership to countries that are willing, not create new structures of dependency. Even if they are, it is up to the countries of South Asia inviting Chinese investments to ensure that they are not signing off on loans that they cannot afford to pay back.
ABHISH K. BOSE: Tehrik-E-Taliban in Afghanistan claims that since the arrival of the Taliban government to power in Afghan, they can influence the Talibanisation of Pakistan. How realistic is this, and what are its possible ramifications for countries such as India?
AYESHA JALAL: It depends on what you mean by the “Talibanisation” of Pakistan. If you are pointing to the possibility of a Taliban takeover of the Pakistan state and its institutions, the idea must be dismissed as unrealistic. This does not mean that Pakistani Taliban and their supporters are not aspiring to emulate the success of their Afghan counterparts. But they too will face stiff resistance in any effort to impose their preferred ideas on the people of Pakistan.
Taliban splinters–many from group join hardline ISIS-K to support anti-China Uyghur fighters(indianarrative)
ABHISH K. BOSE: How serious is the growth of Muslim radicalisation in India? How real is the danger that global Islamic terror will intrude into India if the present anti-Muslim sentiment gains ground? What is the harm this does to the image of India in the global village?
AYESHA JALAL: The real danger in India is the toxic nature of the political discourse that incites and enrages, preventing any sort of informed and reasoned debate. More than Muslim “radicalisation”, Indians need to do some soul-searching about worrying signs of radicalisation among a segment of the majority community. If wanton acts against Indian Muslims continue in India, adverse reactions of some sort or the other are unavoidable. Those orchestrating the politics of hate need to consider how far they want to push their Muslim minority into a corner without eroding the appeal of India’s well-crafted image of itself as the world’s largest democracy that is also secular and peaceful, something that has already begun to happen. The choice is India’s to make.
Torte, which means cake in German, is a European cloud patisserie founded by – then – 29-year-old, Chef Rhea Wadhawan, in 2019. Opulence is synonymous with each and every dessert that’s made at Torte today, writes FnB Columnist Riccha Grrover for Asian Lite International
After obtaining a Degree in Leather Design from the National Institute of Fashion Technology, New Delhi, Rhea Wadhawan didn’t restrict her designing just to products. Soon realising her inclination towards food and desserts, she knew she wanted to design food but it also had to taste the best. To hone her skills she enrolled herself in Scafa, a culinary school in Dubai.
As you scroll down their website, each of their creations is supremely unique with experimental flavour profiles, and high-quality ingredients yet creating a sense of nostalgia. The irony of her being diagnosed with gluten intolerance, while in culinary school, pushed her to ensure a complete care package of her food without compromising on the experience, taste and aesthetics.
OPULENT DESERTS: Torte by Chef Rhea
“While my gluten intolerance made sure I constantly doubted my abilities to build my dessert brand, constant motivation and constructive feedback have been my driving factor to keep going,” said Rhea.
Bringing her two worlds of design and food together, Chef Rhea creates classic European desserts with a blend of modern techniques.
Living up to its name, Torte specialises in experimental yet nostalgic desserts – flavours that take you to Europe. Along with prioritizing flavour, quality and regard for tradition, it also celebrates seasonal produce.
Chef Rhea
Chef Rhea
OPULENT DESERTS: Torte by Chef Rhea
OPULENT DESERTS: Torte by Chef Rhea
OPULENT DESERTS: Torte by Chef Rhea
OPULENT DESERTS: Torte by Chef Rhea
OPULENT DESERTS: Torte by Chef Rhea
OPULENT DESERTS: Torte by Chef Rhea
OPULENT DESERTS: Torte by Chef Rhea
OPULENT DESERTS: Torte by Chef Rhea
OPULENT DESERTS: Torte by Chef Rhea
OPULENT DESERTS: Torte by Chef Rhea
OPULENT DESERTS: Torte by Chef Rhea
OPULENT DESERTS: Torte by Chef Rhea
Nirupama Rao is a career diplomat who served as India’s Foreign Secretary from 2009 to 2011, as well as being India’s Ambassador to the United States, China and Sri Lanka. She is one of the foremost China experts among the diplomatic corps of the country. On 2021 end she has authored a detailed book on the India – China dispute with reference to India, Tibet and China. Her book, ‘The Fractured Himalaya’ India Tibet China – 1949 to 1962 traces the entire history of India’s relationship with its neighbouring China in the said period and the role of Tibet which is vital in understanding the India – China relationship. The author draws upon numerous documents regarding the stand which was adopted by India, China, USA, UK, Soviet Union among other countries with reference to Tibet and its issues with China. Excerpts from a detailed interview with Nirupama Rao on the basis of her book. INTERVIEW: Nirupama Rao, Interview by ABHISH K. BOSE
ABHISH K BOSE: As an Ambassador to China and involved in several rounds of discussions with the Chinese leadership. What is your take on the future of India-China relationship?
NIRUPAMA RAO: My book ‘The Fractured Himalaya’ is aiming to enlighten the public about the complex nature of the dispute between India and China. I have studied the issue in close proximity and I also present an understanding of all the issues and the policy factors involved in this very complex narrative. As far as the present and the future of the relationship are concerned, I think we first have to understand the past. If you are not understanding the past you are condemned to repeat it, as they say. The nature of the issue is extremely complex and there is no solution to it other than patient negotiations. A solution cannot arrive through conflict from either side or confrontation. Unfortunately, at the present moment we have a lot of tensions at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) between the two countries, both in Ladakh, and now in pockets along the Arunachal Pradesh border with China. China is engaged in various activities leading to more tensions in the area. Now both countries are in touch with each other through their military commanders and diplomatic establishments to sort out the tensions, to achieve some disengagement and some de-escalation. So there are two aspects related to this, one is to reduce the tensions along the border that is the (LAC) and that effort has to continue and we have to see the reduction of tension first of all. India has been very firm that China must return to the status quo, and that the new transgressions as they are called are removed especially in Ladakh. So we have to achieve a return to the status quo since first of all the relations were affected by what happened in Galwan last year. We lost 20 soldiers. There was a lot of tension for the first time in the last 45 years along the border which is very unfortunate. This affected the whole structure of the relationship. First, we have to deal with that. As far as resolving the border is concerned it requires a concentrated effort by the leadership of both countries. It is not an easy matter as each country has its positions and claims and we have to see a reduction of differences on the issues to reach some agreement. Thus there are two aspects to this problem. At the moment the focus and concentration are on how to reduce the tension along the Line of Actual Control.
ABHISH K BOSE: In your book, you are quoting the diary of the Soviet ambassador in Beijing, PF Yudin, who records a conversation with Deng Xiaopeng – the then general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, in 1959, June. While referring to the Dalai Lama, Deng told Yudin ‘ Nehru calculated that the Dalai Lama would play a huge role in the Indian plan and that chaos would begin in Tibet without Lama. According to the conversation this prompted Nehru to give asylum to Lama. Quite the opposite, in Tibet, things are going without Lama. The Lama had turned out to be a burden. Is there any other historical document to prove this thought prevailed in Nehru’s mind and whether the Dalai Lama was given asylum on the basis of this assumption? What is your view on this?
NIRUPAMA RAO: The Dalai Lama was given asylum since he had to leave Tibet in 1959. There was a Tibetan revolt at that time, The Dalai Lama’s life was in danger and he had no option but to leave Tibet and to seek refuge in India. India’s position was quite clear at that time. We did not want to interfere in the Tibetan issue. We had recognized Tibet as a part of China. Nehru told the Dalai Lama that he should adjust and come to terms with realities and work with the Chinese. But that did not succeed as the Chinese introduced new reforms in Tibet, which the Tibetan people were unhappy with and there were a lot of disturbances and revolt that ensued and the Dalai Lama had no option at that time but to leave Lhasa. At that time I do not think that his intention was to seek refuge in India, but as the situation worsened he had no option but to cross the border and come to Arunachal Pradesh, and that way he entered India. It all happened because there was a cause and an effect; I don’t think there was any interference from the part of India at all in the Tibetan situation. But the affection the Indian people always had for Tibetans and especially for the Dalai Lama I think was foremost in Nehru’s mind – he saw the difficulties that the Dalai Lama was facing and India offered refuge to him.
ABHISH K BOSE: It was after the Dalai Lama was given asylum in India that the relations with China deteriorated. It was after this that the Chinese supreme leader Mao Zedong had written an essay in the People’s Daily on May 6, 1959, in which he would emphasize how Nehru and his government had sought to block political reforms in Tibet and harboured territorial ambitions towards Tibet. Do you think that the decision of Nehru in giving refuge to the Dalai Lama was a well-thought-out decision giving adequate bearing to its long-term political ramifications?
NIRUPAMA RAO: It was not political asylum but refuge on humanitarian grounds. I think at that time India had no option but to act on humanitarian grounds. Because public opinion in our country and a majority of the people apart from the Communists did support Nehru’s decision to give refuge to Dalai Lama and the Tibetan refugees. So it was a popular decision and I don’t think Nehru could have acted otherwise. I don’t think Nehru could have denied the Dalai Lama’s entry into the country because it was a humanitarian question. Dalai Lama’s life was in danger, his life was at risk let us say and it was the correct decision to allow him to come to India. Of course, the Chinese had their own interpretation of it, but that is the Chinese outlook. But as far as India is concerned India acted correctly and in the best humanitarian interests to offer refuge to the Dalai Lama. It was very clear from the beginning that the Dalai Lama should not engage in any political activity while he was in India. That he was here as a guest of our people, of our government and we see him as a religious figure, not as a political figure.
ABHISH K BOSE: Which means you are refuting the conversation PF Yudin had with Deng Xiao Peng. While referring to the Dalai Lama, Deng told Yudin ‘ Nehru calculated that the Dalai Lama would play a huge role in the Indian plan and that chaos would begin in Tibet without Lama.
NIRUPAMA RAO: That’s not absolutely the case. I don’t think Nehru had any plan or any plot or there was any Indian conspiracy. The Dalai Lama has to leave Lhasa, his life was in danger and I said it was a popular decision supported by all the political parties to offer him refuge. . It was not something that the opposition questioned Nehru about. This was one issue on which there was a national consensus in India that we offer asylum to the Dalai Lama and whatever the Soviets or the Chinese were saying that was the Communist point of view. From the beginning, the Chinese wanted to establish a Communist order in Tibet. I don’t think the Chinese were interested in promoting religion or the culture of the Tibetan people and that I think was the root cause of the problem. The Tibetans were uneasy with all the reforms the Chinese were introducing there and if you read the Soviet papers very carefully what the Soviet leaders were saying at that time, they were faulting the Chinese leadership for all the wrongs they made in Tibet. The Soviets were not blaming Nehru or India but were blaming the Chinese for having created a situation which had led to all these complications.
ABHISH K BOSE: Did Prime Minister Nehru take the Chinese transgressions into Indian territory with the required seriousness? There are options on his behalf to raise these Chinese transgressions before the UN. However, he didn’t make use of any of these forums. When he raised the issue of the continuing depiction of Indian territory as Chinese in its official maps with Chinese PM Zhou Enlai during his October 1959 visit to China, Zhou Enlai said that the maps in question were based on the old Guomindang maps which had not yet been revised by the people’s government. This is perceived to be a tricky stand. In fact, this is also pointing to the expansionist agenda inherent in the Chinese establishment. How do you explain the Chinese tactics?
NIRUPAMA RAO: The Chinese were waiting to consolidate their claims. As you know in the early part of our history, up to 1957 or so the Chinese were studying the issue, they were making the plans, they were improving their infrastructure, and by 1957, 58 and 59, that is when the whole border problem became evident, especially to India, India had assumed that the Chinese were not going to make these claims. That I think is the time we should have understood Chinese intentions more correctly. I don’t think there was ever a question of taking it to the United Nations. Even to this day, regardless of the changes in the government and the political parties assuming power in New Delhi, the approach has always been that both countries should work this problem out and solve it bilaterally, not by referring it to the United Nations. So there was no question of referring it to the UN. That never arose. As far as the border is concerned throughout all these decades the approach from both sides is that we have to sit and resolve these issues through patient negotiations and in a fair and reasonable way. That continues to be our stand to this day.
Jawaharlal Nehru signing the constitution
ABHISH K BOSE: The double standard adopted by the Chinese establishment to Nehru regarding the continuous depiction of Indian territories was that the maps were prepared on the basis of old Guomindong maps not revised by the Chinese establishment. Wasn’t it a tricky stand?
NIRUPAMA RAO: Yes it’s true that the Chinese wait to strike at the opportune moment, there is no question about it. The Chinese adopted an expansionist approach to the territory all across their borders. You had the incidents in the India – China border, you have this happening in the East and South China Seas, and they had a war with Vietnam. So the Chinese have border problems with all their neighbouring countries. In the case of India, it is a very long border, an unsettled border and that continues to generate tensions between the two countries. The Chinese had made these claims in the territory from the 1950s onwards and at that point in time we should have been more alert to what they were doing along our borders, and secondly, there was an opportunity at that point of time since positions on both sides had not crystallized fully to sort out these problems, to come to some conclusion where both sides would sit down and work out a border settlement that would safeguard the national interests and the security of both sides. That opportunity definitely existed in the 1960s as for example when Zhou Enlai came to Delhi in April 1960. So those opportunities I think could have been used to settle the issue.
Xi Jinping, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, waves to journalists at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, Oct. 23, 2022. (Xinhua/Pang Xinglei/IANS)
ABHISH K BOSE: Was Nehru’s non-alignment policy a burden for India while India faced a number of crises in its immediate neighbourhood as a result of the presence of China and Pakistan? Nehru’s non-alignment policy was a bit idealistic taking into account the territorial disputes with China and Pakistan. The book says that Nehru was against the view of his colleagues in the cabinet that if China is allying with the Soviet Union, India should move closer to the US. However, Nehru was apprehensive that if India moved close to the US it would have disastrous consequences in its relations with China. Nehru was the proponent of a balanced relationship with China and the US thereby not hurting or moving close to both of them. Could India block the aggressive moves of China at the border by allying with the US? What are your views on this?
NIRUPAMA RAO: I don’t think the US could come to our rescue regarding our issues with China. I think history teaches us that we have to have a policy of multi-alignment when it comes to dealing with such situations. We have to create balancing factors whereby we can deal with these threats better. This includes strengthening our defence forces, it also includes reaching out to other countries with whom we can form partnerships which can balance the threats from others. These countries may not fight our battle for us, but they can augment our resources whether they are security, or economic. In the fifties and sixties of the last century, India was a very young, new nation, and as individuals when you are young, and when you are inexperienced in life you do make mistakes that you regret in later years. But I think Nehru’s intentions were honourable. Nehru did not want to be part of either block, east or west. He thought China as a country could not just be categorised as a Communist country, that China is a civilizational state that China and India could build a partnership that could promote the interests of the developing world which would be of positive contribution to the cause of peace in Asia. So these were the intentions Nehru had in his mind. But I think in retrospect maybe we should have been more flexible in our approach with the US at that time. History teaches us that. But you cannot reach an assumption based simply in isolation. Every decision is in a specific context. We should see it in that light and there are no absolute truths in history.
ABHISH K BOSE: In his autobiography, former Foreign Secretary of India MK Rasgotra reveals that China’s war on India could have been stopped if Nehru accepted the proposal from then-US President John F Kennedy for transferring nuclear bomb technology to India. It was in the 1950s when Kennedy was the president. However, Nehru declined this offer after consulting with his advisors. If Nehru had accepted this proposal do you think it could rein in the territorial ambitions of China? Are there any documents or other evidence in your research to prove that Kennedy put forward a similar proposal and Nehru declined it. What is your view?
NIRUPAMA RAO: I have not come across any other sources to prove this. Ambassador Rasgothra, of course, has pointed out this in his book. I have not addressed this in my book. I have dealt with the India – China relationship in my book and what resulted in the conflict of 1962. The point is that in the 1960s, the Chinese and the Soviet Union fell out and what the record suggests is that the Soviet Union had begun to help China in building its nuclear weapon capability with some exchange of blueprints. We don’t know the full truth of this, but the inference is that the Chinese received a lot of help from the Soviet Union in building nuclear weapons. At that time, you are right that the options were available for India also. But Kennedy died in 1963, and Nehru died in 1964. Nehru was very clear in his mind that he did not want India to become a nuclear weapon state. He was a proponent of universal nuclear disarmament, he was of the view that nuclear weapons can cause unwanted destruction that could even eliminate the human race. He did not want a third world war, and that was Nehru’s philosophy and his ideology as we can call it.
ABHISH K BOSE: Do you think that Nehru was more often idealistic in his foreign relations?
NIRUPAMA RAO: I don’t know if he was entirely idealistic. He was knowledgeable of the ground situation. We have to study the issues in more depth and see what lessons history has taught us. But we cannot indulge in this quarrel with the past. If we continue yo do so, it will affect our present and it will affect our future also. We have to learn from these lessons and understand this is what history has taught us and how we must safeguard our interests and utilize our resources better. Indulging in a constant quarrel with the past will drag us down. Understanding the past should liberate us.
ABHISH K BOSE: Do you have any suggestions to reach a permanent solution to the disputes with the Chinese? Is dialogue a way ahead?
NIRUPAMA RAO: Dialogue is the only solution. It is the solution. The Indian government is very clear that we are not for conflict, we do not want tension. But if the other side creates these tensions we will defend ourselves. We are very clear that our territory will be defended. We will take whatever means to prevent any taking of what we consider as our territory by the other side. This has been the approach of every government in power in Delhi. So while we are supporters of a peaceful solution at the same time on the ground we are clear that our territory will be defended and we will not barter away the nation’s interest.
ABHISH K BOSE: As the relations with China deteriorate countries such as India and the US should need to focus on how the identity of the Tibetan people as a distinct cultural community, can be safeguarded and fostered as the current Dalai Lama is advancing in age and China increasingly asserts her right to name a suppliant successor while clamping down further on the human rights of Tibetans and their communication links with the outside world. How can Tibetan interests be protected?
NIRUPAMA RAO: I think from both the US side and from our side also, our approach has always been to support the religious and cultural identity of the Tibetans. India has given refuge to hundreds of thousands of Tibetans since 1959 onwards and new generations of Tibetans have grown up in India. Today if you visit the Tibetan settlements, if you go to Dharamsala you see that Tibetan culture is alive in India. I think it is the greatest contribution that India has made to the Tibetan cause. We have not interfered politically in Tibet, whatever the Chinese say. It is absolutely untrue to suggest that India has in any way caused the problems that they face in Tibet. That is totally an assumption from that side that needs to be rejected unequivocally. India is not indulging in any such activities. I think the world supports India and appreciates what India has done to foster and to preserve Tibetan culture, to preserve the religious and cultural identity of Tibet. The Dalai Lama is a respected spiritual leader who is respected not only by the Tibetans but also by the Indians. Now the question of his succession, obviously India cannot interfere nor the US. We have not interfered in these issues. If you talk to the Tibetans anywhere they hold the Dalai Lama in the highest respect. They worship him. I hope that he lives as long as possible, and his welfare is our uppermost concern. What happens hereafter, we hope that a solution is found that will be in the interests of the Tibetan people.
ABHISH K BOSE: On Tibet, India’s primary concern were that her frontiers with the region should be regarded as fixed and determined, and not open to alteration. But the implicit acknowledgement by India of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet after 1950s without ensuring as a quid pro quo, that China would affirm and endorse the traditional Indo – Tibetan frontier had fateful repercussions. Is it a diplomatic lapse from the part of India to ensure that China adheres to the Indian interests?
NIRUPAMA RAO: I have laid out the facts in my book. If we had raised the issue of the India-China frontier at the time of negotiating the Agreement on Tibet in 1954, history would have been different. Let us put it in those terms
ABHISH K BOSE: Despite India – China tensions the trade between the two countries has grown over the years to an unprecedented level. Due to the mutual financial ties between the two countries the India – China relationship needs to be revamped for the benefit of the two countries. How do you evaluate this contradiction in its relations with China?
NIRUPAMA RAO: In the last few decades, the relationship between India and China had grown in several areas including trade and economic ties, people-to-people contacts, communication links between the two countries, leadership-level dialogue, a whole architecture of the relationship was built up over the last 30 years. It is true that there is an unbalanced trade between the two sides with Chinese exports to India being much more than Indian exports to China. This has always been a cause of concern. Now after what happened in Galwan, there is a lot of talk on how to reduce our dependence on China. But we can’t do it that easily. Because it is not something that happens overnight. A lot of steps have to be taken to safeguard the supply chain, to diversify our sources of imports, to build more ‘aatmanirbhar’ as the government says within the country. It is a process that is ongoing and will take some time. The relationship with China has developed in many areas in the last 30 years. It is much more developed than it was in the 1960s when we did not have much trade with China. The economic relationship between the two countries as it had evolved over the last few years cannot be broken overnight.
“Is art just for art’s sake?” This question provoked artist Rouble Nagi’s very personal journey into Asia’s largest slums. Developing this initiative with a clear focus of uplifting the lives of the local slum dwellers, led to documentation of her own journey in her inspiring autobiography ‘The Slum Queen’ ….
By Soniya Kirpalani; Images Santosh Rai
There is a notable dichotomy in the title “The Slum Queen”, but this does not detract from the ethos of Rouble Nagi, nor the impact her work has on India’s largest slums and remote villages. An award-winning, internationally acclaimed artist-turned-social- activist, Nagi’s book is a refreshing departure from the norm of self-praise autobiographies. Taking the readers on a journey into one of Asia’s largest slums, Nagi’s vivid memories string up stories, to build a magical connection between the readers and her protagonists.
Rouble Nagi – ‘The Slum Queen’
Divided into 11 chapters, ‘The Slum Queen’ follows the life of Rouble Nagi, from her growing years, then across India as she backpacked with her military family. Recounting her childhood experiences, where she was imbibing diverse cultures, she reflects on how intuitively these experiences have guided her mindset as an artist, a human being and a communicator. With over 800 murals and 150 exhibitions worldwide to her credit, Nagi became the first woman artist to be invited to exhibit at the Rashtrapati Bhavan Museum Gallery. Going from being an artist into an author and social worker, every page from ‘The Slum Queen’ reveals her trajectory with subtilty.
“The slums’ beautification via art is merely a stepping stone for addressing issues concerning the people living in the slums and villages. Filled with includes wonderful anecdotes of the hopes and dreams of people who live in these communities, their struggles, and the challenges we first encountered when trying to establish our first ‘Misaal’ campaign,” explains Nagi. With every chapter the writer weaves a chord of empathy, in a poignant and prolific manner, even as she chisels out the harsh realities, provoking raw emotion, but the visual descriptions of humans rising, sparks inspiration.
Sharing her trajectory, through her memories, she develops a colourful canvas of delightful experiences reflecting on the various ‘Misaal India’ workshops and skill centres that have been started in the slums and villages across India and how their inhabitants see their dreams being fulfilled. Peppering her stories, with philosophical questions, her pen provokes the readers to introspect and question the purpose of their lives. Without fabrication, sans drama, she highlights what led to the development ofRouble Nagi Art Foundation (RNAF) and how continues is transforming slums and villages with creativity across Mumbai, Delhi, Kashmir, Jammu, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, and Telangana.
A book that provokes introspection and makes an exciting addition to any bookshelf, was currently launched during Nagi’s whirlwind tour to Dubai. Between book signings, she delivered a heartwarming speech at the India Consulate. Hosted at the Consulate Auditorium, Consulate General of India, Dubai, this was a very well-attended session, by leading businessmen, socialites and intellectuals from both Arabs and Indians.
The recent revelations only reinforce the view of the rot within the Pakistan Army. Senior Generals and officers have been at the receiving end of state largesse in the form of fat salaries and other perks and yet, they have acted in a corrupt fashion that does not behove a military force. Sadly, that is the reality of the Pak military today … writes Dr Sakariya Kareem
Lt. Gen. A.K.K. Niazi, the general who commanded Pakistani forces in East Pakistan and surrendered to Indian forces in Dhaka on 16 December 1971 was known for many other things than his military service. He was a well-known womanizer and rapist, as highlighted in the supplementary report to the Hamoodor Commission Report (1974).
General Bajwa
Moral lapses of this kind have been common in the Pakistan Army. Therefore, it comes as no surprise to read reports that leaked tax records of General Bajwa’s family show that all of them became billionaires during his tenure as Pakistan’s Army Chief. Corruption runs deep in the Pakistan Army and Gen. Bajwa is no exception. The recent revelations only reinforce the view of the rot within the Pakistan Army. Senior Generals and officers have been at the receiving end of state largesse in the form of fat salaries and other perks and yet, they have acted in a corrupt fashion that does not behove a military force. Sadly, that is the reality of the Pak military today.
The Pakistani website FactFocus revealed details of financial dealings of various members of Bajwa’s family, including his wife Ayesha Amjad and his daughter-in-law Mahnoor Sabir. The report, written by a journalist by the name of Ahmed Noorani, claimed that family members of Bajwa had acquired assets amounting to PKR 12.7 billion during Bajwa’s term. The leaked tax records of the family also revealed the assets of Ayesha Amjad went from zero in 2016 to PKR 2.2 billion (declared and known) in six years. As noted Pakistani scholar, Ayesha Siddiqa writes Bajwa’s family also benefitted in other ways.
“From getting his sister-in-law Asma Bajwa the position of a highly paid human resource consultant for the national airline to helping his 70-year-old brother retain a cushy Pakistan International Airline (PIA) job in the UK, there is so much that Bajwa must answer for”, writes Siddiqa.
Finance Minister Ishaq Dar
Finance Minister Ishaq Dar ordered a probe into the ‘illegal, unwarranted’ leak of the COAS’ family tax records and directed the Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Revenue, Tariq Mehmood Pasha to personally lead the probe, affix responsibility, and submit a report within 24 hours. Following the announcement of the probe into the leak, Ahmed Noorani posted on his Twitter account that the government had confirmed the accuracy of his article. This news of military officials amassing this kind of wealth and acquiring capital is however, not new to Pakistan.
In August 2020, journalist Ahmad Noorani had investigated the alleged offshore properties and businesses of Lieutenant General Asim Saleem Bajwa (Retd), former head of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Authority. Usman Manzoor, also an investigative journalist from FactFocus, had previously published a report showing the tax records of former PM Imran Khan and alleged that he and his wife hadn’t declared the value of the foreign gifts they had retained at ‘throwaway prices’.
“The growth of the Bajwa family’s business empire in the United States, and later in Pakistan, directly matches the rise in power of General Asim Saleem Bajwa, who is now chairman of the country’s massive China-financed infrastructure project and a special assistant to the Prime Minister,” the report published on Fact Focus stated. General Bajwa’s family becoming wealthy under his watch as Army Chief has to be seen in the context of the role that the Pakistani military plays in the nation’s economy. It runs a huge commercial empire, an internal economy estimated to be billions of dollars, all outside the purview of the formal economy.
Siddiqa, in her book Military Inc: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy, identifies two of the military’s biggest business conglomerates in the country: The Fauji Foundation and the Army Welfare Trust. This kind of ‘military capital’ does not follow protocols and norms of accountability that government institutions follow or even a military project or programme financed by the public sector. The corruption reaches the highest levels of the army with former Army Chief General Ashfaq Kiyani’s brothers being reportedly involved in a multi-billion Rupee housing scandal in Islamabad. Similarly, a Quetta Corps Commander Lt Gen Asim Saleem Bajwa gained notoriety as “General Papa Jones” or “General Pizza” after an expose of how his family had invested tens of millions of dollars in the Papa Jones Pizza chain in the US and his sons were given lucrative contracts when this General was serving as the head of the ISPR.
Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif meets Chinese President Xi Jinping.(photo:facebook.com/ShehbazSharif)
Despite the furore, no action, not even an inquiry was ordered. Just a few months ago, data leak from Credit Suisse, (Economic Times, 5 March 2022) an investment banking firm registered in Switzerland implicated General Akhtar Abdur Rahman Khan, a former ISI chief for having diverted funds for the CIA/ISI war against Russia to his sons (The Dawn, 21 February 2022). This again brought to light the extent to which greed and corruption run amok in the Pakistan Army, especially among its Generals. The report lists several examples of scandals and corrupt deals that Pakistani Generals have been involved in over the past few years, including running extortion networks, and protecting and partaking in smuggling networks in Balochistan, leasing out government properties at extremely low prices and even taking bribes in defence deals. The rot within the Pakistani Army is thus deep.
Little do people realise that more than their fighting capability, the military machine has become an expert in siphoning off money from multiple sources. The latest instance of General Bajwa is thus no exception and one can find several such instances in the past. A reading of his recent farewell speech at GHQ and suggestion to the ranks to remain out of politics is well taken. However, the timing of the leak showing his family’s wealth showed that the political war between the army and politicians could well go deeper in the months to come as Pakistan approaches elections.
One aspect of Pakistan’s current situation is corruption within the Army. As Lord Acton once said, “Power corrupts and corrupts absolutely”. That is the lesson learnt from General Bajwa’s family story becoming wealthy overnight.
