Tag: Perspective Opinion EDITORIAL

It must reopen the discussion on balancing the global intellectual property system with development

Global trade and intellectual property are at a crossroads. In a time when multilateral consensus is languishing on a large number of issues, the Trump administration is considering pulling the U.S. out of most free trade agreements on the ground that it needs a more favorable environment for its companies and its people. Much will be written about the carnage as far as jobs, wages and national sovereignty that the current American onslaught on trade deals brings to the fore. Here, I focus on a critical issue — how trade deals are becoming the new Trojan horse to ensure stronger patent protection and continued profits to global companies.

Problem with trade deals

A bit about the historical trajectory of events. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) embodied an international regulatory regime for the first time, in 1995. Although it represented a major compromise for most developing countries, it was only the starting point for many other nations, which have since then promoted excessive protection of private investor interests through bilateral trade agreements, often at the expense of wider public interests. Corporate libertarians, riding high on increased market power, continue to lobby their governments for absolute protection of intellectual property (IP) rights of corporations.

For the U.S., which has never made any qualms about the importance of its domestic corporate interests, trade agreements are a prime vehicle to supplant its strong domestic standards of IP protection in partner countries, in a bid to ensure the same level of privileges for its companies abroad. Over the past 20 years, the American strategy has been a neat one: to pursue bilateral agreements with individual countries one by one to ensure stronger IP protection across markets, by sidestepping the multilateral regime.

Gaming the system

 In an inter-connected and highly globalized world, what goes around comes around quite fast and often with drastic consequences for all. In this case, the crux of the matter lies in how these stronger rules are changing the global corporate landscape. For years now, while patent protection is getting stronger in all sectors in a large number of countries, the conditions for its grant are becoming greatly relaxed. Not only do such lax patenting requirements allow companies to claim patents more broadly — or consecutively, with little show of original effort as in the case of evergreening — but also patents can be claimed on all possible inventions (and discoveries) that are of relevance to the present, and even to the future. A large number of countries have already foregone many degrees of policy freedom by signing up to ‘TRIPS-Plus’ standards of protection. This, in conjunction with other trade measures, is disintegrating existing markets and rigging established rules of the game. A superstar firm today is not necessarily one with the greatest technological breakthroughs or the largest research and development labs, but surely is one that has a large IP portfolio, engages in extensive litigation on patent issues, and thrives on licensing revenues. Noting the gravity of the situation, The Economist in 2016 produced two short opinion pieces on how corporate profits and returns on capital are at near record levels in the U.S. and what might be wrong with it. It argued that established companies are “becoming more entrenched” in existing markets worldwide, and made the case that high profits may be a sign of a sickness rather than growth and called for reining in IP rights.

At the global level, these sectors are stratified, with profits neatly split up between large corporations and new kinds of non-innovator firms that simply amass patents speculatively in upcoming, promising technologies for spurious returns. The non-innovator companies are the patriciates of the system: when they hit the technology jackpot, they control the market and have the power to shift wealth and control competition. An example that beautifully captures the situation is Qualcomm Inc., an American company that is the legal patent holder of thousands of patents that are considered critical to build mobile phones with wireless technologies, accounting for a total profit of $5.7 billion through intellectual property licenses in 2016 alone.

Stemming the tide

For India, the fate of its pharmaceutical and software sectors swings in the balance, and guaranteeing fair and unfettered competition will be critical to ensure that we do not lose more ground to global companies abroad and at home. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)’s recent Trade and Development Report calls for stronger measures to protect domestic sectors against the undue domination of large companies, particularly in high-profit sectors such as pharmaceuticals, media and information and communications technology (ICT), where foreign companies still account for most of the transfer of profits across borders. Warning against trade deals that seek to protect the status quo, the report identifies patents as an instrument of unfair market power across markets. The report uses data for U.S. multinational companies (MNCs) and their foreign affiliates in India to show that patent reforms have led to significant increases in the rates of return to affiliates of American companies by enabling monopoly profits when compared to publicly listed and locally headquartered companies, which are increasingly being left behind. In the pharmaceutical sector, for example, the analysis that ranges 20 years (from 1996) shows that profits of domestic companies are in sharp decline since the late 2000s while those for the American MNC affiliates operating in the Indian market are rising steeply. A similar trend is visible in the ICTs sector as well.

It is important to take these findings in the broader perspective of what India’s growth drivers will be in the years to come. Our high-technology sectors are already taking a beating because they operate in a volatile global environment. Supporting IP standards that simply follow a ‘winner takes all’ ideology without emphasis on technological advancement and competitive markets will be a regrettable mistake. What India needs right now is a clear and tough stance on intellectual property both in domestic policy and at the multilateral level. At home, support for innovation has to be accompanied with instruments that guard against the misuse of market power, coercive bargaining and aggressive merger and acquisition strategies if local firms should survive and flourish.

Heated negotiations in the run-up to the upcoming WTO Ministerial Conference in Argentina already show that these issues will be central: there are ongoing attempts by big business to push for new rules in areas such as e-commerce to slice up profit-making opportunities of the future. Other proposals being made will largely limit the ability of governments to constrain corporate behavior in the public interest even if they succeed partially. In such an international context, we need to stop soft-peddling on these issues in the pretense that we aspire to be a major IP player in the same vein as the U.S. What we need is a return to old-fashioned pragmatism that clearly shows the West that India recognizes the fallacy of the current IP system and leads the way to broker a global new deal. This new deal should not only call for a return to business in the WTO by tackling the forgotten issues of the Doha Round but also firmly reopen the discussion on balancing the global IP system with development. That way, even if we don’t win in Argentina, we will have made an ambitious start in redefining the global trade and IP agenda.

(The author is a policy expert at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, is one of the authors of the Trade and Development Report 2017)

 

 

 

 

“Notwithstanding the carefully structured discussions between the two leaders — and while Doklam did not figure in the discussions — relations between India and China are unlikely to show any marked improvement in the near, and perhaps even in the medium, term. For the present, avoidance of a conflict will remain the principal objective on both sides, with China no doubt looking for an expansion of opportunities for trade. The key watchwords would, hence, be peace and tranquility”, says the author.

 

The Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa grouping (BRICS) has since long ceased to be of material significance as multilateral institutions go. The recent BRICS Summit in Xiamen (China) only seemed to confirm this. It suggests that BRICS may be going the way of quite a few other organizations.

Inconsequential declaration

Little of consequence appears to have happened, or to have emerged, from the latest summit. The Xiamen Declaration is proof of this. Considering that this meeting was taking place in the shadow of significant global events, notably North Korea’s nuclear provocations and the U.S. response, other serious developments in Asia, including Afghanistan and West Asia, apart from issues of consequence elsewhere, the absence of any reference to these events in the Summit Declaration suggests that BRICS is clearly out of sync with current realities.

Much has been made by the media about the inclusion of Pakistan-based terrorist groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed among the many terrorist groups active in the region. It, however, needs to be understood that this was merely a reiteration of something already mentioned in the declaration of the Heart of Asia Conference held in India in December 2016.

The Heart of Asia declaration had highlighted the ‘gravity of the security situation in Afghanistan and in the region, drawing attention to the high levels of violence caused by the Taliban, terrorist groups including the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the Haqqani network, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, Jundullah and other foreign terrorist groups’. To attach special significance to the inclusion of this passage in the Xiamen Declaration, and view it as China administering a resounding slap on its ally, would be a profound mistake.

The BRICS declaration is perhaps more significant for what it did not include. Absence of any mention of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) — even though Beijing sets such great store by it — is one. At this point, one can only speculate on the reason. It is possible that China may not have wanted to introduce a discordant note into the proceedings — knowing India’s reservations regarding the project — of a conference that it was presiding over. Or perhaps, China does not think that BRICS could make a material contribution to the achievement of its objective.

BRICS’ limited scope

One takeaway from the conference also could be that China sees little use of BRICS to achieve its geopolitical and geo-economic objectives across Asia and beyond. BRICS as a body can hardly help China in dealing with a knotty problem like North Korea. It has no need for BRICS to deal with problems such as the South China Sea and freedom of navigation on the seas. From its point of view, BRICS is an outlier as far as pressing problem in the region and beyond are concerned.

BRICS suffers from other infirmities as well. Brazil and South Africa are increasingly becoming peripheral to BRICS’ aims and objectives. Russia is currently more preoccupied with establishing its supremacy in Eurasia, and its interest in BRICS is not of the same order as in the past. This leaves only India, and limits the scope of BRICS to issues and regions such as Afghanistan that have featured in previous BRICS meetings.

The summit, however, provided an opportunity for leaders to meet and conduct business. For instance, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s intervention at the BRICS Business Council helped highlight India’s emergence as one of the most open economies on the globe. At the BRICS Emerging Markets and Developing Countries Dialogue, Mr. Modi highlighted India’s long tradition of partnership with fellow developing countries. Among the ten commitments he listed was that of creating a safer world by “organized and coordinated actions on at least three issues: counter-terrorism, cyber security and disaster management”. The Prime Minister also called for a skilled, healthier and equitable world, as also the critical importance of sustainable development goals.

Bilaterals, Beijing détente

Considerable significance attaches to the meetings held between Mr. Modi and the Russian and Chinese leaders on the sidelines of the summit. The emphasis during his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to have been on the restoration of ties between the two countries to levels that existed in the past. Discussions also centered on ways to boost bilateral trade and investment, especially in the oil and natural gas sectors.

The meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping acquired particular significance coming as it did after the over two-month-long stand-off at the Doklam Plateau. The convergence between the two countries on international terrorism at the BRICS Summit seems to have led to a thaw for the time being. Assurances emanating from the meeting, and the adoption of a low-key approach, were aimed at enhancing mutual trust. The intention seemed to be to establish ‘new ways’ to prevent future incidents such as Doklam, and concentrate on essentials needed to establish better relations.

Notwithstanding the carefully structured discussions between the two leaders — and while Doklam did not figure in the discussions — relations between India and China are unlikely to show any marked improvement in the near, and perhaps even in the medium, term. For the present, avoidance of a conflict will remain the principal objective on both sides, with China no doubt looking for an expansion of opportunities for trade. The key watchwords would, hence, be peace and tranquility.

The road after Doklam

It would take much longer for trust to return; as it is, trust between the two countries had begun to be affected as India moved closer to the U.S., strengthened its relations with countries like Japan and Vietnam that were not too well disposed towards China, and participated in multilateral defense exercises which appeared to have an anti-China slant. In the circumstances, restoring trust is not going to be easy.

In Astana in June this year, when the Indian and Chinese leaders met on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit, the emphasis was on not allowing “differences to become disputes”. This was reflected in the so-called Astana Understanding. Doklam effectively put paid to this. While Mr. Modi is possibly willing to put Doklam behind him, the Chinese are unlikely to do so and are more likely to moderate their response keeping the Doklam incident in mind. China may continue to reiterate the obvious and talk of ‘peaceful co-existence and mutually beneficial cooperation to strengthen bilateral relations’, but India needs to be cautious. China is likely to view India’s actions with even greater suspicion than hitherto.

The kind of language employed by the Chinese side in the context of the meeting of the two leaders is an index of this. Mr. Xi observed that China and India are “each other’s opportunities and not threats”; India and China “need to show to the world that peaceful co-existence and win-win cooperation is the only right choice for the two countries”; China would like to work with India to uphold the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence (Panchsheel), advance political mutual trust, mutually beneficial cooperation and move forward the development of bilateral relations along the right track. This might sound like accenting the positive in Sino-Indian relations and moving to a more calibrated approach, but it does not necessarily reflect any greater willingness on the part of China to see the other side’s point of view.

Evidently, the China-centric world view will continue to prevail. For the moment, China is anxious to maintain peace on its border with India, as China has lately been sensing opposition to its policies from many other countries, apart from a host of problems in its neighborhood. In totality, these could undermine the Chinese Dream of Mr. Xi. North Korea is perhaps the most vexatious of the problems, one that is happening on China’s doorstep. Smaller countries of Southeast Asia such as Indonesia, and even Singapore and Vietnam, are signaling opposition to China’s restrictions on rites of maritime passage and freedom of navigation in the seas around China.

China also faces an ever-widening arc of threats from terrorists of different categories such as the ETIM, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and Uighur separatists to its West. With the critical 19th Party Congress set to take place soon, peace and tranquility on its periphery has thus become an imperative necessity.

(The author is a former National Security Adviser and a former Governor of West Bengal)

Gauri Lankesh, a prominent Kannada journalist and a vehement critic of communal politics of the BJP government, was gunned down at her doorstep in Rajarajeswari Nagar in Bengaluru by some unknown assailants.  She worked as an editor in Lankesh Patrike, a Kannada weekly started by her father P. Lankesh and ran her own weekly called Gauri Lankesh Patrike.

She was known as a fearless journalist and activist who opposed communalization of politics, casteism, and marginalization of minorities in the society. Her forceful advocacy on behalf of Rohingya people is a true manifestation of her deeply held convictions. Death threats or intimidation from any quarters never stopped her from confronting the ever increasing challenges to the freedom of expression by the media, the fourth estate.

Undoubtedly, journalists, opinion makers, and reporters are being increasingly targeted by Hindu nationalists who are on a crusade to promote their hateful agenda. In the last few years, journalists who appear to be critical of Hindu nationalists have been threatened, berated on the social media, while many women journalists have been threatened with rape and assault.

India has just celebrated its 70th anniversary of its independence. The Democratic Institutions that were created under the Nehruvian vision are increasingly under threat from right-wing forces that are closely aligned with BJP. The fundamental right to express one’s opinion is under assault as either sedition charges are filed against the individuals or the institution that exercise those rights or the law enforcement mechanism is being manipulated to intimidate and silence those voices.

Gauri Lankesh’s death appears to be a meticulously planned and executed to silence a powerful voice. The opposing forces could not match her rationale pointing up the dangers of right-wing politics and its possibly disastrous effect on the secular fabric of the nation. Her harsh criticism of prevailing casteism in the society was often directed at Institutions that still harbor those sentiments and made her more of a passionate activist who had little patience for the status-quo.

This is not the first murder of a rationalist and thinker after the ascension of BJP to the power at the Center. A rationalist professor and thinker M M Kalburgi was murdered in the quaint town of Dharwad. In the neighboring state of Maharashtra, rationalists Govind Pansare and Narendra Dabholkar were also shot, and the one thing that united them all was their strident voices against intolerance and hatred of the right wing ideology.

It is no more an exaggeration to say that India is governed under a ‘simulated emergency’ without truly declaring it. Shani Prabhakaran, a television reporter from Kerala, spoke candidly about the treatment of the media by the BJP government at a recent seminar in Chicago sponsored by the India Press Club. According to her, as soon as she finished a television segment analyzing the last three years of the governance by the Modi regime, a questionnaire from Delhi had arrived with a number of questions asking her to substantiate each criticism! Commenting on the recent raids, NDTV’s Prannoy said the following ‘our fight is not against the CBI, I-T or the ED but against politicians who were using these Institutions and ruining and destroying our country.’

The basic responsibility of a journalist is to inform the public free of hype and bias. The fourth estate, as the media is often dubbed, acts as a mirror and a watchdog for the good of the public. However, most of the media in India today are controlled by big corporations whose professional responsibilities of the news outlets they own are intertwined with their business interests. The result is an abject failure in reporting the news with fairness and balance that could prove to be detrimental to a vibrant democratic society.

Never in the history of India, a governing party had made such blatant attempt to eliminate an opposition party (Congress Mukta Bharat), intimidated and scared Media houses from reporting factual news, invoked colonial-era sedition laws to silence student activists from speaking out or created a hostile environment where these killings go unabated.

Through her sacrifice, Gauri Lankesh has woken up our conscience once again. She had recognized the fact that our hard fought freedom and liberty, once again is in danger. In her death, our flailing democracy will be missing one of its strongest defenders. May I salute this brave soul for her true grit and passion for justice!

‘The power to question is the basis of all human progress’ – Indira Gandhi

(The author is a former Chief Technology Officer of the United Nations and Chairman of the Indian National Overseas Congress, USA)

 

The BJP has been courting the Babas because it embodies the concept of religious men leading the country rather than its politicians. After the Gurmeet ‘Ram Rahim’ episode, the RSS is in a dilemma and is simply playing along.

The RSS is still feeling its way to translate its concept of Ram Rajya into reality as it takes time to completely change the narrative.

Beyond the conviction of Baba Gurmeet Ram Raheem Singh leading to mayhem and deaths in Haryana in particular lies a preview of the RSS-inspired BJP scheme of things for a future India.

The Baba, with his cult following, was a figure of considerable importance and politicians of all hues humored him for the votes he could deliver. But there was a deeper purpose for the BJP and its Haryana unit to court the Baba because it embodied the concept of religious men leading the country, rather than its politicians. Putting it another way, politicians would rule the country in concert with religious leaders. This is true despite the homilies of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in radio broadcasts and otherwise.

 It is no secret that the Baba endorsed the BJP in the Haryana assembly elections which tipped the scales in its favor. In gratitude, the entire state cabinet went to the Baba’s headquarters to pay obeisance. Besides, photographs of the Baba with Chief Minister M.L. Khattar sweeping the floor and the Sports minister, Mr Anil Vij, with folded hands in his presence after plying him with a check for lakhs of rupees have become iconic images. Prime Minister Modi himself lauded the Baba for his “Clean India” campaign.

Where does this glimpse of religious leaders at the forefront take India? The RSS itself is confused and seems to be playing the game as it goes along. It is, of course, for a Hindu India or Hindutva as it defines it. Many of the myths it has created about the blissful days of ancient India are common knowledge. We know about planes flying, of heads transposed and plastic surgery as common features of the good old days.

In building a new India of their dreams, RSS leaders and their BJP followers needed an inventive narrative. The Mahatma was, of course, immediately appropriated. And the BJP raided the Congress repository of heroes on a mass scale. The Congress, after all, was the leader of the independence movement, with the RSS often ambivalent, if not complicit with the British rulers.

Thus, in addition to the Mahatma, felled by an RSS sympathizer, the BJP appropriated Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and many others, as the need arose. Its main target was the maker of modern democratic India, Jawaharlal Nehru. He was too cosmopolitan, too influenced by the West for the BJP’s liking, vociferous as it was in striking the nationalist and native pose. The BJP is now in the process of writing a new narrative of modern India in which the towering personality who shaped the country is to be dismissed as one of many former prime ministers, his memorial to be shared by all.

By all indications, the RSS is still feeling its way to translate its concept of Ram Rajya into reality. The Constitution is one impediment, the judiciary another, and above all the very diversity – in religious, ethnic and other terms – in governing the country. The last task falls into the lap of the Prime Minister, himself brought up in the cradle of the RSS but conscious of the pitfalls of running the country on narrow nationalist and religious lines.

With the general election of 2019 already looming on the horizon, the contest between the RSS, the legitimizing authority of the Sangh Parivar, and a practicing politician of Mr Modi’s stature is likely to increase. In the end, there must be a compromise between these two poles of power while the larger ideological issue is sorted out.

What to do with babas and their transgressions is another matter. There are swamis and great religious leaders who lead exemplary lives and do good. But the field has become crowded with charlatans and conmen of various kinds who trade on the gullibility of the poor and their superstitious beliefs to live well and exercise influence on politicians in search of votes. The BJP is particularly susceptible to their wiles because of its own myths and the status it accords to its own concept of a Hindu rashtra.

Sober thinkers in the Sangh Parivar must realize that it takes time to change the narrative of nearly a century of the independence movement and the glorious decades of Congress rule after India won independence. We still live in a country shaped by the giants of the independence movement, almost all of them belonging to the Congress. Yes, textbooks are being revised to rewrite history to obliterate the long decades of Muslim rule. The beautiful Taj Mahal stands uneasily in the Uttar Pradesh of Yogi Avidyanath.

The Sangh Parivar is not the first conglomerate to rewrite history.  The Communists in Russia and elsewhere were quite proficient in demolishing old heroes – in Moscow lodged in a park of old curiosities – while Ukraine has also archived its Communist past and the United States is seeking to demolish statues of Confederate greats in the shape of statues of slave owners after they lost the civil war. The Parivar is repeating history with a twist by making Jawaharlal a non-person.

Future developments in a changing India will depend upon the Parivar leaders in bringing about their revolution of a Hindu India. Like all ideologues, they are men in a hurry – women never play a leading role in their scheme of things – but here again the conflict is between ideology and governance.

Two people above all will influence the outcome: RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat and Mr Modi, the latter in his political garb. They are unified in their ideology but divided in their responsibilities. We shall not have to wait for long to find out.

(The author is a renowned journalist)

 

The affinities between Trump and Modi are striking, but none of them bodes well for democracy.

NO two persons are exactly alike. But Narendra Modi and Donald Trump resemble each other to such a degree that one might as well call them Donald Modi and Narendra Trump. The affinities are striking in their range and depth; and they are disturbing in their potentiality for harm to the national good. This comes out in sharp relief as one lists their traits one by one.

1. A monumental ego is the most conspicuous quality which Narendrabhai shares with Donaldbhai. From it follow most others.
2. Demand of loyalty. Trump was clumsy enough to sack the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Director James Comey because he failed to extract from him a pledge of loyalty; itself a highly improper demand. Modi, unable to fire heads of statutory bodies, hand-picked loyalists in advance for sensitive posts. He planted his man Friday Amit Shah as party chief and set up a cabal of fawning Ministers. Never before was the country treated to a daily dose of Ministers praising their chief. Sushma Swaraj stooped so low as to proclaim that Jawaharlal Nehru merely promoted his own image while Modi raised the prestige of the nation. To think that this is the man who sits on the chair on which Jawaharlal Nehru once sat. Not to be outdone by Sushma Swaraj, Rajnath Singh rushed to praise Modi’s Independence Day speech the very next day (“patterns emerging from his address, which reflect his concept of governance almost like mantras”); Ravi Shankar Prasad’s tributes to his master are as regular as they are sickeningly fulsome. As with Trump’s men, Modi’s stooges suffer from acute insecurity.
3. Both revel in demagogy, laced with fierce personal attacks on opponents and critics. They believe in Balfour’s dictum—speak often and speak for long; and you will acquire the contempt for his audience which every bore has.
4. Both are coarse and crassly vulgar, in their strict dictionary meaning. They do not care for censure. Modi set the tone with his speeches in Gujarat.
5. Both spread group hate with abandon.
6. Both are exclusivist ideologues owning a narrow world view and a narrow concept of nationalism. They regard themselves as the very personifications of their visions.
7. Insecure as they themselves are, Trump and Modi conduct their pantomimes with obedient advisers. Professionalism is scorned. Uneducated, except in the formal sense, the duo is also uneducable as well. They will not grow.
8. Egotism breeds ambition. Each, in his own style, seeks to recast the polity anew.
9. But neither cares to be specific about his program. If reading brings pain to the lips, reflection gives a headache.
10. Flamboyance in style and escapist vagueness on substance. Slogans pass for policy statements: America First and Sab ka Saath, Sab ka Vikas; Modi fears parliamentary debates and press conferences. He dislikes questions and abhors precision. So does Trump.Such persons find institutions stifling. Trump attacks the United States Congress; Modi plants favorites as heads of cultural and educational bodies in order to bend them to his will.
11. To be sure, the two adore business and will go all out to make life easier for Big Business, for favorites.
12. You know the club bore or the dinner party pest who tells any who gives him an ear, “I may not have studied economies; but my first principles are sound. I can fix the system.” Trump and Modi belong to this class.
13. These “experts” in economies are experts also in foreign policy. Modi and Trump believe in highly personalized diplomacy based on one assumption and one calculation. The assumption simply is that they know better and can manage men and matters. Within weeks of being sworn in as Prime Minister, Modi hosted President Xi Jinping, with results that are there for all to see. Trump went to Saudi Arabia to egg it on in its wild schemes—isolation of Iran and humiliation of Qatar. The calculation is a crafty one. Excursions abroad will impress sceptics at home.
14. Most remarkably, our arrogant partners in daring enterprises share a love and also a hate. They love Israel. They hate China. In 2013, when he was Chief Minister of Gujarat, Modi denounced China as “expansionist”. Simplistic to the core, they believe that the world would join them in their attempts to isolate the chosen victim, be it Iran or Pakistan. But states follow the national interest; policies of isolation have a short shelf life.
15. Both are ruthless. Modi lost no time in putting veterans like L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi in their place though they had run out of steam and posed no danger. Trump has shattered all records of presidential sackings of officials; Stephen K. Bannon, the “Chief Strategist”, being the latest.
16. A leader’s egotism, dangerous always, becomes a real menace when it is married to a narrow and exclusivist nationalism. Modi never conceals his brand. It is Hindutva “cultural nationalism”. He told the Press Trust of India (PTI) “I am a Hindu nationalist”, frankly and bluntly. Trump flaunts his brand of nationalism, which Charlottesville revealed.
17. Since the hard core of the constituency is what it is, neither Trump nor Modi can afford to be anything but selective in their censures of wrongs, no matter how grave. Trump’s infamous remarks of August 15 on the outrage at Charlottesville will outlive his Presidency: “You also had people that were very fine people on both sides.” The best comment came from Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May on August 16: “I see no equivalence between those who propound fascist views and those who oppose them. I think it is important for all those in positions of responsibility to condemn far-right views wherever we hear them.”

Modi practices his brand of moral equivalence as his speeches during the election campaigns to the Lok Sabha in 2014, in Bihar and in Uttar Pradesh, revealed. Not once has he censured attacks on Muslims specifically, nor has Trump attacked the Klu Klux Klan. Modi dare not censure the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS).

18. If the polity is to be recast, it is essential that history is rewritten and national heroes are replaced with votaries of the ideology of hate. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) takes pot-shots at Nehru. Trump plays the same game on George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, as if there was nothing else to them besides ownership of slaves. Modi has sought to rewrite history systematically to exclude Nehru’s role in nation-building, very much as Stalin had history rewritten to wipe out Trotsky’s record. A nation is known by the men it lauds as its heroes. Modi and his BJP-RSS mentors prefer to laud S.P. Mookerjee, Deem Dayal Upadhyaya and V.D. Savarkar.

The top leadership of the state has it in its power to promote its ideology and to create an atmosphere. In every democracy, the media has sympathizers of both, the ruling party and the opposition. Modi’s regime has created a new class of active supporters in the media on whom it lavishes its largesse. These are noted columnists who never deviate from the party line and have prospered in Modi Raj. TV is as faithful, bar exceptions. They mould a climate. On August 15, the National Public Service announced that the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., had been defaced by obscene writings drawn with spray paint. A Smithsonian Museum map on Constitution Avenue had received the same treatment.

19. Besides these dozen and odd affinities lies one which bodes ill for the political system. It is the leader’s belief that he stands apart and above the party. The party derives strength from him; not him from the party. Trump’s recent attacks on the Republicans will soon pass. The party system is strong though the divides are not as sharp and Trump cannot last long. His ratings are abysmally low.

The RSS is disturbed by Modi’s antics but shrewdly reckons that it has more to gain by him being Prime Minister than by ousting him. Modi’s ratings have suffered, but they remain encouraging enough for him. The opposition has not crafted an alternative and attractive program, nor acquired an inspiring leadership. Modi developed an image of himself as one who will deliver and laced it with Hindutva. Any alternative must meet him on both.

It saddens one to note that two of the world’s great democracies are led by men intolerant of dissent; driven by a tunnel vision; and made of poor quality fiber, coarse and outmoded.

“Ye gods, it doth amaze me, /A man of such a feeble temper should/So get the start of the majestic world, / And bear the palm alone.”

Shakespeare had a conspirator say this of Julius Caesar. What a scornful portrait he would have drawn of sawdust Caesars Trump and Modi.

(A.G. Noorani, author of a number of books, is a leading constitutional expert and political commentator and contributes regularly to various publications the world over)

Source: Frontline

Post comments

The issue of women’s safety comes under the national limelight with shameful regularity. The recent incident of a woman being pursued at night by men in a car in Chandigarh is a reminder that neither law nor public odium is a sufficient deterrent to such crimes. Two men, one of them the son of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Haryana State unit chief, have been booked for stalking the woman. They have been released on bail; Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to stalking, is a bailable offence. This has attracted the criticism that the police did not invoke more stringent provisions. It is believed that the police had originally sought to include sections relating to an attempt to kidnap the woman, but dropped the idea. The use of a particular section depends on whether the ingredients of the offence are present in the actions of the accused. The onus is on the Chandigarh police to show that available evidence is limited to the offence of stalking. The claim that there is no closed-circuit television footage from anywhere along the entire route needs investigating. The victim’s presence of mind to call the police in time foiled her pursuers’ designs, but not every woman may survive such an ordeal in the same manner. This is one reason why the police, as well as family and friends of the victim, ought to take complaints of stalking seriously, and act at an early stage.

As crimes against women go, stalking is far too often dismissed as harmless. However, it is important to understand how traumatic and inhibiting it is for a woman to be pursued with unsolicited interest, and for such stalking to be considered ‘normal’. There are times when stalking contains the seed for a bigger, often violent crime. It should not be forgotten that murders and acid attacks have had their origins in stalking. It became an independent offence in 2013, when the country’s criminal law was amended in the wake of the horrific gang rape of a woman in Delhi in December 2012. The hope that expanding the rigor and scope of penal laws would bring down crimes against women has, unfortunately, been belied often since then. The Chandigarh incident reveals that a sense of privilege, flowing as much from gender as political influence, permeates the offenders’ actions. The victim’s father is a senior civil servant, and it may not be easy to give this case a quiet burial. However, there is another, in fact quite familiar, element: the attempt by quarters close to the accused to cast aspersions on the victim. One can only hope that society has advanced sufficiently to call out such victim-shaming. Stalking tends to dominate the public discourse only when it relates to well-known people or results in violence — this episode should compel a deeper understanding of how widespread this offence is, and how rarely offenders are brought to justice.

(The Hindu)

Reports say North Korea has developed nuclear weapons that can hit US.  Experts, however, say the world is not on the brink of a Third World War.  They say if any war were to happen, it would break out by accident, not by design.

Donald Trump has said he will launch “fire and fury like the world has never seen”. North Korea has promised to get its revenge “a thousand fold” on the US for any attack. But is the world really on the brink of a Third World War? Experts say probably not, while pointing out that it is easy to see how we might get there. A general consensus is that the US President’s statements are just bluster, although many emphasize the fact that bluster has an unfortunate history of leading to war.

The new escalation is the latest in an ongoing ratcheting up of tensions between Pyongyang and Washington, and came after a report that claimed North Korea had developed nuclear weapons small enough that they could be flown all the way to the US mainland and detonated there. After that came what prominent arms control expert Jeffrey Lewis has described a “carnival of bellicosity”.

Trump’s “fire and fury” statement is unprecedented in US relations with North Korea and markedly similar to the kind of rhetoric that emerges from Pyongyang. North Korea appeared to call the US leader’s bluff within hours of his statement, announcing it was exploring the possibility of attacking Guam, a US pacific territory that among other things houses strategic bombers.

Crucially, this statement appears to have been formulated in response to the US flying two B1-B bombers over the Korean Peninsula on Monday, a repeat of a similar operation carried out in July — and therefore not in response to Trump’s warning. Rex Tillerson, the President’s foreign policy chief, moved to calm the situation and advised the US public not to worry.

The message of de-escalation appears not to have influenced Trump, however, who woke up and tweeted that the US nuclear arsenal was “more powerful than ever before” — though adding that he hoped never to use it. Nevertheless, the US leader’s shift to outright belligerence towards North Korea has given rise to widespread fears around the prospect of a major global nuclear conflict, the fallout from which would inevitably see the destruction of large parts of the world.

  My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before….

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 1502279793000

…Hopefully we will never have to use this power, but there will never be a time that we are not the most powerful nation in the world!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 1502280201000

So, is the world about to get destroyed by a nuclear war?

No, probably not, according to experts contacted by The Independent. Trump’s comments offer a significant and meaningful change in the rhetoric being exchanged between North Korea and the US — but they appear to be just rhetoric, for now.

“The first thing I would say is that I’m not sure that Trump’s comments change the fundamental calculus on the Korean peninsula, in the North or in the South,” said James Hannah, assistant head of the Asia program at Chatham House. “What’s obviously changed is the Trump factor and he has in a way emulated the North Korea bellicosity approach.”

Even the President’s voice is just one among many — albeit that of the Commander in Chief — in the White House, and is by far the most aggressive. Rex Tillerson said there was no “imminent threat” and that “Americans should sleep well at night”, while explaining that the President had adopted such a confrontational tone because this was language that Kim Jong-Un could understand. That does not mean there was no reason to be concerned.

“Having followed North Korea for a long time, I am getting more worried,” said Aiden Foster-Carter, honorary senior research fellow in sociology and modern Korea at Leeds University. “I worry about rhetoric getting out of control on either side and this leading to a miscalculation of some sort.”

Professor Foster-Carter stressed that he was not suggesting Trump’s comments or the US approach was anything like that of North Korea, only that there was an increasing degree of public enmity between the two sides. North Korea demonstrates better than any nation that bluster is important.

“I worry about loose rhetoric,” said Jeffrey Lewis, an adjunct professor at the James Martin Centre for Nonproliferation Studies. “Because I worry that allies or the North Koreans won’t understand that it’s just bluster. But having said that, I don’t believe that it’s evidence that the US is going to attack the North Koreans. In a strange way, it’s reassuring because it’s clear he doesn’t know what to do; if he had some plan to attack them, he wouldn’t be talking about his plan to attack them.”

Could conflict break out at some point in the near future?

Perhaps the most terrifying thing about the situation is how impossible that question to answer; there are simply too many disparate elements, each of them unpredictable on their own and amounting to a situation in which almost anything could happen.

“If the calculus hasn’t changed, what is being introduced is a greater level of unpredictability and rhetorical tension,” says Hannah. “Which has a number of knock-on effects. If the US is unpredictable, Trump supporters might see that as a pro — taking a harder line and putting pressure on the North and conceivably on China, by eventuating the threat. But equally, that unpredictability doesn’t wash well with US allies in the region, like Japan or South Korea. It creates a sort of echo chamber of inflated rhetoric.”

And with Trump in power, rhetoric tends to dominate the debate — and often become the debate. “If you do raise the rhetoric then I suppose there’s a greater worry that the chance of action in some quarters is increased,” adds Hannah.

It all really comes down to whether North Korea thinks that Trump’s statements actually mean anything. If he is just blustering — an activity they know well — then very little has changed; if they think that the rhetorical stance is something that puts them in danger, then conflict could arise.

How might war break out?

If any conflict were to happen, it is likely that war would break out by accident, not by design. Trump’s comments might be mostly powerful as rhetoric — but wars have been fought over similar rhetoric before. It’s worth noting that, of course, most people are still against the idea of nuclear wars. That is a fairly safe assumption and means that, whatever is said, nobody is going to choose to drop an atomic bomb on another country happily.

More simplistic military intervention, of the kind that western governments had hoped for when they went into Iraq in 2003, is also probably out of the question. As soon as North Korea felt it was being invaded, it would likely launch attacks on South Korea; if that happened, the big questions of North Korea’s nuclear range would be less important, since Seoul could be hit by simple artillery. The idea of risking those people for an intervention is all but impossible.

“Worried though I am about Trump I think he would be dissuaded from such a course,” says Professor Foster-Carter. “It would destroy South Korea, it would destroy the alliance; it would be more damaging even than all the conflicts that we’ve sadly grown used to in places like Iraq.”

But it’s not that simple.

“It has become more complicated to the point that concerns of miscalculations are higher, so that’s probably where the danger is,” says Hannah. “In a very complicated situation, I think the fear is of an unpredictable misstep or message that triggers some kind of chain reaction by one party or the other.”

That’s the chief concern about Trump’s comments — that they could be read as a suggestion that something damaging is about to happen, and that they could pre-emptively respond. And with such a swell of aggressive rhetoric swirling around the situation, any individual incident’s importance is going to be far higher.

The breakdown of negotiations and diplomacy between the US and North Korea also means that any minor event could be significant, since there’s no easy way for either country to address or calm any problem. Between 1994 and 2003, diplomatic agreements froze North Korea’s nuclear development and made it easier for diplomacy to go on between the country and its adversaries on other issues.

“What that means is when you have a conflict — when there’s a shoot-out on the maritime demarcation line, for instance — you’ve got a way to defuse tension,” said Professor Hazel Smith, author of North Korean Markets and Military Rule. “Today that doesn’t exist. So, if you have a relatively minor incident on the border, which is still disputed, which is still possible, there is a possibility for it to escalate. That’s how wars start. It is dangerous, the situation we have right now, especially when you have so many states with different interests involved.”

If that war happened, the US would ostensibly win it — that much is obvious, and is a key factor in the US military’s thinking. But that part of the world is surrounded by many of the biggest armed forces in the world, and any conflict would be “very, very bloody indeed”, said Professor Smith.

So, what is Donald Trump up to?

It’s possible that Trump’s comments are part of some master plan, unlikely though it might be. And the very fact that he is talking about the country is an important break from the Obama administration’s commitment to what it called strategic patience — but which really “was hard to distinguish from neglect”, says Professor Foster-Carter.

“Trump to his credit takes North Korea seriously but does it in such an extraordinary manner,” he said. Anyone minded to think of Trump as a strategic genius, may see his latest comments as evidence of a clearly though-through plan.

Those looking to be sympathetic, may suggest he is trying to match North Korea’s often aggressive commentary with similar attack of his own, or that his lack of care is a result of the “madman theory”, whereby a person behaves so bizarrely that they unsettle opponents and gain power from the perception they might do something crazy.

In some ways, it has the advantage of helping both sides. Both Pyongyang and Washington are led by men who are interested in making the other out to be evil and unhinged, both want to look strong and both can benefit from giving the appearance that, if prodded, they could trigger a nuclear Armageddon. Those are perhaps less likely than the theory Trump is simply wading into a discussion that he feels strongly about. Thankfully, the US leader is surrounded by people who are slightly more sensible — even if they’re not always able to stop him speaking.

The idea of the “fantastic, grim scenario” in which the world is pushed to nuclear was is “unbelievably frightening,” says Professor Foster-Carter. “But I don’t think it will happen because I think, hope and pray there’s enough adult supervision — in the military people, like Mattis and McMaster — and there’s no sensible strike option.”

It’s clear that those generals who now surround Trump — secretary of defense James Mattis, and national security advisor HR McMaster — do not want war, precisely because they are the most acutely aware of the damage it might do.

“One of the ironies is that it’s the generals that are trying to prevent the outbreak of military conflict — to look at alternative ways of what’s going on,” said Professor Smith.

Trump’s comments were in part notable because he did not appear to have taken direction on them — and may not have even planned to say it at all. Trump’s unpredictability reflects on the entire situation. The intervention of Rex Tillerson, who is among Trump’s more considered advisors, shows that the White House is still attempting to avoid all out escalation.

The danger depends in large part on whether those more sober heads can keep Trump calm, and quiet. The former reality TV star’s statement isn’t as significant in what he said as that he was able and willing to say it at all. It introduces a new instability to an already fairly shaky situation, in the form of the most powerful man in the world.

Who are North Korea’s allies?

Traditionally, North Korea has received help from countries like Russia and China. It might indeed be China that is at least partly motivating Trump’s recent outburst — playing as it does to his campaign comments about re-negotiating the two countries’ relationship. “I don’t think we’re seeing a US mobilization for nuclear war,” said Hannah.

“But Trump has invested himself heavily in the North Korea issue as an issue to prove himself. It’s also quite central to his approach to China. And China is a big part of his foreign policy, rhetorically at least.”

What does it mean for the UK and Europe?

Very little, both in terms of the immediate danger and the knock-on diplomatic effects. European countries will obviously take a close interest in the latest developments, but they are relatively small players where such matters are concerned. The US is involved because it has become a useful enemy for North Korea, for all sorts of reasons related to the Korean war and events before and since. But the most important countries are generally those around North Korea, including Japan and South Korea — both of which are in easy reach of any weapons and are allies of the US — as well as Russia and China.

How can we stop it?

This could have all been prevented in the 1990s. Then, there was an appetite in North Korea for a negotiated solution, and a desire in the US to acquiesce. Such a relatively straightforward solution may no longer be possible to fix a problem like Korea. The country believes, probably rightly, that its nuclear program keeps other countries from launching regime change, meaning its leadership is unlikely to relinquish its huge, atomic bargaining chip.

So, any security deal — bringing together all of the interested parties, including China, Russia and Japan as well as the US — would have to guarantee that there would be no regime change. That would be unpalatable to the US, since it would mean not only recognizing but committing to perpetuate an oppressive and deadly regime.

(Source: The Independent)

                                                             

 

 

 

Even as Trump takes the hard line against Pakistan backing certain terror groups, there are many US generals who do not wish to antagonize Afghanistan’s neighbor

“While McMaster is echoing Trump’s hard line, there are many generals, including Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Dunford who do not wish to antagonize Pakistan and doubt whether a punitive approach can alter the behavior of the Rawalpindi generals. Eventually, the hard line could prevail but how it gets operationalized will be worth watching”, says the author.

 

 

The legendary Trump tantrums and tweets have so convulsed the White House that a four-star Marine General, John Kelly, in charge of Homeland Security, had to be transferred to the White House as Chief of Staff to maintain dignity and decorum and keep strategic policy-making insulated from chaos. Take Afghanistan, or Af-Pak. Inter-agency wrangles — between Pentagon, State Department, national security establishment and the CIA — have delayed the Af-Pak policy document. It was due in April but was put on hold as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson wanted to re-hyphenate Afghanistan with Pakistan.

Gen John Nicholson, US Commander, Resolute Force, in Kabul, who was in Delhi last month, had been told to expect the strategic directive latest by July 18. Instead, on July 19, in a stormy meeting of top generals at the White House presided over by Trump, he demanded to know why the war in Afghanistan was not being won even after 16 years, 2,740 US lives and USD 1 tn. According to one insider account, Trump wanted Nicholson sacked and replaced with his National Security Advisor, serving Lt Gen HR McMaster. The President’s NSC has met thrice seeking out-of-the-box ideas. Trump had famously told visiting President Xi Jinping over dinner that he had left the war-fighting to the generals.

At the July 19 meeting, Trump did not encounter any unconventional thinking, but was presented three widely accepted options — status quo, ramping up force levels, investing in a political solution. It seems he is incensed with Pakistan for consistently ‘not cooperating’ — after reviewing punitive policy recommendations made by Sen. John McCain, chairman, Senate Armed Forces Committee, following a brief visit last month to Pakistan; former Congressman Larry Pressler; and Lisa Curtis, Senior Director for South and Central Asia at the White House NSC. Trump is likely to get tough with Pakistan.

The message loud and clear from the White House was conveyed last week by McMaster to Pakistani generals. That Trump will not tolerate any support to terrorists, Pakistan has to change its paradoxical policy of supporting the Taliban, Haqqanis and other groups and has to stop those providing safe havens and support bases to these groups. The bottom line is changing the behavior of the deep state, which no US Administration has been able to achieve. Trump wants to win an unwinnable war hoping a tough and punitive policy on Pakistan’s non-compliance may open the door for better or worse in bringing a chastened Taliban/Haqqani network to the negotiating table. At the last count, the Taliban were in control of 95 of Afghanistan’s 407 districts.

While McMaster is echoing Trump’s hard line, there are many generals, including Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, John Dunford who do not wish to antagonize Pakistan and doubt whether a punitive approach can alter the behavior of the Rawalpindi generals. Eventually, the hard line could prevail but how it gets operationalized will be worth watching.

The security situation in Afghanistan is worsening by the day as Kabul awaits Trump’s Ten Commandments. While at the strategic level there is a stalemate, at the tactical level advantage is with the Taliban and their affiliates. Earlier in the year, National Security Adviser Hanif Atmar, speaking at the IDSA, New Delhi, had said that the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) were losing on an average 29 soldiers a day fighting Taliban, Haqqanis and the ISIS. In comparison, Indian losses in Kashmir for all of 2016 were 95 combatants. Last three months have witnessed the most horrendous attacks ever — biggest truck bomb explosion in Kabul and the largest assault on an army camp in Balkh province killing hundreds of civilians and soldiers. These have sapped the confidence of Afghans who came on the streets demanding security from the National Unity government (NUG) riven with differences and afflicted by corruption. Meanwhile, the NUG has evolved a four-year (2017-2020) roadmap for enhancing ANSF fighting capabilities as agreed at the Warsaw NATO summit this May. The Americans and the West pay almost the entire cost of Afghanistan security and economy.

Pentagon’s latest report on Afghanistan states that India is the most reliable friend of the Kabul regime. Prime Minister Modi has repeatedly said that India will stick with Afghanistan through thick and thin. During last week’s US-India Forum at New Delhi, Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj lauded sacrifices made by the US in preserving the gains of the last 16 years, including peace, security and democracy in Afghanistan. New Delhi’s development assistance for Afghanistan is worth USD 3 bn and is the largest to any country other than Bhutan.

Pakistan is the stick in the mud. Atmar had made plain that defeat of the Taliban was possible only if the Taliban and Haqqani sanctuaries were dismantled. He claimed that the Afghan Special Forces were the best in the world and the war could be taken to the sanctuaries. Senator Ted Poe has listed two legislations, one declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism and the other withdrawing the privileged status of Most Favored Non-NATO Ally. Trump advisers are convinced that only coercion and raising the costs for Pakistan will work. Besides curtaining funding, hard options such as surgical strikes against sanctuaries and targeted drone strikes to take out the Taliban and Haqqani leadership are on the table.

Since 2004, when drone strikes first started against Pakistan, 428 strikes have taken place, the last on July 3 in South Waziristan against ISIS targets. On June 13, US drones struck in Hangu district of Khyber Pakhtunwa, killing Abu Baqar Haqqani, in Pakistan beyond the drone-permissible tribal belt area. This is the second attack outside the agreed drone-strike areas, the last being in Balochistan which took out Taliban supremo Mullah Mansour last year.

It is estimated that approximately 1,200 to 1,600 terrorists have been killed in drone attacks. Will the drone strikes extend to Taliban and Haqqani sanctuaries on Pakistani soil? Will Afghanistan Special Forces assisted by US Rangers conduct surgical strikes against safe havens? A Trump authorization for either or both these options can be a game-changer. While admiring the chocolate cream dessert at the banquet for Xi, Trump informed him that Cruise Missiles had just attacked the Syrian airbase from where chemical attacks were launched by Assad forces in Syria. How far can Trump go to tame Pakistan to get out of Afghanistan? The long-awaited policy directive will conceal more than it will reveal!

(The author is a founder-member of the Defense Planning Staff)