Translate

Friday, January 01, 2021

India and the Malacca conundrum

1. Until the 1990s, when people spoke of the Asia-Pacific, they usually excluded India. Whether it was security policy, academic discourse or economic agreements, “Asia-Pacific” ended at South-East Asia. Just how much has changed is evident from the emergence of the term “Indo-Pacific”, deliberately situating India in the new regional dynamic. But, whether it is “Asia Pacific” or “Indo Pacific”, at the core of the concept has been the vast region comprising of the 10 nations of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), who form a vibrant economic community bridging east and west Asia.


As its western flank, India occupies a crucial position in the Indo-Pacific. This is evident from the fact that the bulk of the maritime traffic going through the Malacca Straits passes through, or proximate to, India’s maritime contiguous zone. Indeed, a great deal of traffic that reaches here comes from the Persian Gulf, sails past the tip of peninsular India to reach the Malacca Straits.


Geography and geopolitics play a significant role in India’s approach to the region which has several layers— history, cultural links, trade, security, investment and economic development. India’ connect to Southast Asia comes in two ways: it is linked overland through its 1600 km land border with Myanmar. Further, through the Andaman and Nicobar Island chain, India shares maritime boundaries with Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. Fortunately, all these boundaries, including the one with Bangladesh are settled and there is no dispute on account of them.


Flanked by the Indian mainland and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, lies the Bay of Bengal which is also the north-east quadrant of the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). India’s eastern seaboard hosts its Eastern Naval command, as well as its premier submarine base. It is also the site of the main testing facilities for its ballistic missiles. Given this location, India aspires to be the dominant power in the region and exert influence on its littoral.


Its major challenge comes from China, which is not on the Bay of Bengal littoral, but one that borders Myanmar, India and Thailand. As a major economy and a trading nation, China seeks secure maritime and land communications to and through the region. It is a major trade partner and investor in many of the countries of South-East and South Asia. It also has significant arms transfer ties with Sri Lanka, Thailand, Bangladesh and Myanmar. It has built and operates Hambantota port in Sri Lanka, and is building one in Kyaukpyu in Myanmar. There has been talk of grander plans of building a deep sea port at Melaka in Malaysia to undermine Singapore, or cutting a canal through the Isthmus of Kra to bypass the Malacca Strait.


Neither of these in themselves will reduce the physical salience of India in the adjacent seas of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.


2. Indic culture, or the Southeast Asian adaptation of Indian culture, was widespread—ranging from Vietnam to Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand and Myanmar. The decline of Buddhism in India and the rise of Islamic political power cut the links between the region and India. Indian traders, scholars and adventurers were followed by the Dutch, Portuguese and the British who established political control over the region. India was transformed from an exporter of manufactured goods to a supplier of raw materials for Britain and the Europeans took over the trade in spices and textiles. Under the British Empire, India, Myanmar, Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong were viewed as a single strategic entity though they were run by two different Secretaries of State in London.


India was made aware of the importance of the region to its security when Japan invaded the region in 1941, over-ran Malaya and Myanmar and arrived at the gates of India. Simultaneously, Japanese submarines and raiders came through the Straits of Malacca and began to operate in the Indian Ocean.
India played a key role in shaping the post-colonial architecture of the region. India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru articulated the vision emphasising Asian unity, advancement of decolonisation, anti-racialism and rejection of great power competition. This was done through the two Asian Relations Conferences in 1947 and 1949 and culminated in the Asia-African Conference at Bandung in 1955. Though India had “introduced” the People’s Republic of China to the Afro-Asian nations in Bandung, the two soon fell out. India’s military defeat at the hands of China in 1962, sent its stock plummeting in the region.


In the ensuing decade both India and China moved away from the region. China was feared because of its support the Malaysian insurgency, the national liberation movements in Indochina, and its links with the powerful Indonesian communist party. India went through wars with Pakistan, insurgencies and economic turbulence. Its pro-Soviet orientation kept it removed from the grouping called the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) which had been shaped as an anti-Communist grouping in 1967. The market-orientation of the ASEAN economies and India’s persistence with “socialistic” policies kept the two regions apart in the 1970s, as did their contrary positions in relation to Vietnam and its intervention in Cambodia. But things changed thereafter as the Malaysian insurgency was defeated, the Indonesian Communist Party decimated in a pogrom and Communist states like Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia admitted into the Association.


3. The collapse of the Soviet Union and a deep economic crisis compelled India to rejig its economic and foreign policies. On one hand, there was a rapprochement with the United States and on the other, an opening up of its economy. India inaugurated a “Look East” policy and has developed a strong institutional relationship with ASEAN as an organisation and its individual countries ever since. India was invited to become a “sectoral partner” in 1992, a Dialogue Partner in 1996 and a Summit-level partner in 2002. Linkages relating to security were established through the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the ASEAN Defence Ministers Plus Meetings (ADMM) and organisations like the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific CSCAP.


For India, Look East and Act East have not turned out to be the kind of economic dynamo that they were expected to be. ASEAN is India’s fourth-largest trading partner and accounts for 18 percent of the investment flows into India since 2000. But a lot of this is an outcome of India’s ties with just Malaysia and Singapore. The latter accounts for over 90 percent of India’s in and outbound investment from the region. (1) On the other hand, China has built huge economic links in South-East Asia, despite the issues that several ASEAN members have with the country on account of its exaggerated maritime claims in the South China Sea.


For the ASEAN nations, China looms large as a neighbour, trading partner and investor. As for India, its imprint is much weaker. One indicator of the difference has been the Indian decision to stay out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), an agreement between ASEAN and its free-trade partners – China, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea. The agreement which could come into force in 2021, has been pushed by China since it will gain enormously in influence as well as economically.


But India has developed important security ties with the region. It began in 1995 with hosting the Exercise MILAN which took place in the Andaman Sea and saw the participation of major ASEAN navies. Since then India has held bilateral and trilateral exercises with various nations of the region, such as the Simbex with Singapore and the Sitmex with both Singapore and Thailand. (2)
ASEAN states like Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia are happy to have India into the role of balancing China.


So far exercises are more confidence-building events featuring search and rescue and countering piracy operations rather than purely military episodes. India also has bilateral CORPATs (Coordinated Patrols) with navies of Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh and Myanmar.In 2018, India sought to become part of the Malacca Sea Patrol through which countries that bordered the Malacca Straits—Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia— carry out coordinated aerial and maritime patrols through the straits. New Delhi had to be politely informed that under UNCLOS only states bordering the straits can patrol them. (3)


India and Singapore have one of the most consequential relationships in the region. Both have similar institutions inherited from Britain, as well as the use of English as an official language. They have a healthy economic relationship and close ties on security issues. They have an annual ministerial and official level dialogue on security issues, as well as staff level talks between the three wings of the armed forces. Singapore Army and Air Force use Indian facilities for training. The two countries have also signed a pact to access each other’s bases and provide reciprocal logistics support for warships.


4. In the Bay of Bengal quadrilateral, the Indian mainland and the Straits of Malacca form one diagonal and Myanmar and Sri Lanka the other.
India has the added advantage of having forward location in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands at the western entrance of the Strait. These are a group of 572 islands, of which 37 are inhabited and were the only territory of India occupied by Japan in World War II. They are spread some 850 km in a north-south orientation adjacent to the western entrance of the Malacca Straits, a major Indian Ocean choke point. The northern-most point is just 40 km from Myanmar and the southernmost 170 km from Indonesia.


In many ways, the islands are the hinge on which India’s Indo-Pacific strategy swings between the Indian and the Pacific Oceans. Recognising their importance India established its first joint military command, known as the Andaman and Nicobar Command headquartered in Port Blair in 2001.


The islands have three roles in India’s defence strategy. They are, first, an advance outpost to monitor ingress of hostile vessels from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. Second, they are the flank of a vast and deep portion of the Bay of Bengal where India will maintain its nuclear-propelled ballistic missile submarines in a bastion mode Third, they are the springboard upon which India expand its strategic space and project power into the western Pacific Ocean, with a view of balancing China’s role in South-East Asia.


But a lot of this is work in progress. As of now the force levels of the Andaman and Nicobar joint military command are not very significant. They are aimed at surveillance, more than anything else. But India has the potential of building up a significant military presence there. While the Indian Eastern Naval Fleet is a substantial one, it is still primarily aimed at controlling the ‘near seas’. As for the nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines, they are in the process of being developed. At the moment, the lone Indian submarine INS Arihant hosts short-range missiles with little strategic significance in the Chinese context. As for the western Pacific, though India participates in military exercises with Japan and US there and is a member of the Quadrilateral Grouping or Quad along with Australia, its deployments there are not significant.


Myanmar is a key country for India. It is the land bridge that connects the country to South-East Asia. India has a 1600 km land border with Myanmar and a 725 km maritime boundary as well. Insurgent groups from the northeastern part of India have often found sanctuary in Myanmar, while the latter also suffers from several separatist insurgencies.


But relations between the two countries are good. They have carried out joint military operations against insurgents in their border region and in 2018, have had their first bilateral naval exercise. India also sold a refurbished Kilo-class submarine to Myanmar in 2017 and is helping train the Myanmar navy. (4)


But Myanmar has equally good relations and an even deeper economic engagement with China, which has built an oil and gas pipeline connecting its landlocked Yunnan province with the Indian Ocean. China is deeply engaged in Myanmar and is a major supplier of military aid including jet fighters, armoured vehicles and naval vessels. But Naypitaw is careful to maintain an even-handed approach with both New Delhi and Beijing and seeks to leverage its location to its own benefit even while jealously guarding its autonomy.


In recent years, China, India and Japan have undertaken large-scale connectivity schemes in Myanmar. The Chinese ones aim at opening up its land-locked southeastern regions, while those through India such as the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway project, are aimed at linking India to the rest of ASEAN. From the maritime point of view, China has helped Myanmar upgrade its ports and is building a new one at Kyaukpyu. India has also chipped in with the construction of the Sittwe port and is in the process of completing its ambitious Kaladan Multi-modal project aimed at linking Kolkata to its eastern Mizoram state, via a road and river link in Myanmar.


Sri Lanka is just about 30 km from the Indian mainland, separated by a shallow Palk Strait which ensures that Indian maritime traffic goes around the island. The main sea lanes of communication going to the Malacca Straits go through the island’s contiguous zone. Its port of Colombo is a major transhipment hub for India. India has a long cultural and ethnic connect with Sri Lanka and between 1987-1990, it sent an expeditionary force to fight the terrorist Tamil separatist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The fear of domination and the support the LTTE got from India has made the Sri Lankan leadership, who are overwhelmingly Buddhist and of Sinhala ethnicity, wary of India. India’s refusal to get involved in the last phase of the Sri Lankan civil war against the LTTE, led to China assisting the Sri Lankan government in the mid-2000s.


Subsequently, Beijing increased its presence on the island. Besides providing loans for infrastructure construction, China built a port at Hambantota, the extreme south of the island, making it the closest port to the sea lanes between the Malacca Straits and the Straits of Hormuz. In addition, China is funding a huge reclamation scheme on which it will build a new financial centre adjacent to Colombo.


Since 2014, Chinese interest in the Indian Ocean has increased including growing naval traffic and submarines visiting Sri Lankan ports. This was a matter of concern for New Delhi and it reacted by supporting an opposition grouping to displace the then Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajpakse. Though the Rajapakse family is back in power, they are more careful about unnecessarily stirring up Indian concerns. Especially now since the US has also indicated its concerns over the Chinese activity.


South of Sri Lanka, in the middle of the Indian Ocean, the US maintains a powerful naval base in Diego Garcia. In recent years, worried about Chinese influence in the island state, the US has been seeking to enhance its military presence on the island. Since it has a major base in Diego Garcia, south of Sri Lanka, it does not want a base, but to use Sri Lankan ports and airports as logistics hubs.


India is now seeking to work along with another existing initiative which has implications for the South-East Asian region. This is the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) established in 1997. Five of the seven states that make up BIMSTEC are rim countries of the Bay of Bengal—India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Thailand and Myanmar. Bhutan and Nepal are two landlocked states which use its maritime links for their trade. (5) India is the lead country in dealing with the sectors of transportation and communications, tourism, environment and disaster management and counter-terrorism and transnational crime.


In 2019, Prime Minister Modi invited all the leaders of BIMSTEC to attend the swearing-in ceremony for his second term. Considering he had invited leaders of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) for his first swearing-in ceremony in 2014, this was a signal of India’s determination to double down on its Act East policy. Note that barring India and Bhutan, all other countries are also participating in China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI). The challenge for New Delhi is to find the resources to underpin the grouping, if not on the scale of China, but somewhere near it. Relations between the countries of BIMSTEC are generally good, but its core country, if we can call it that—India— has a continental, rather than maritime orientation. (6)


5. India lacks the capacity of taking on China by its own in the Southeast Asian region. However, over the years, it has been building ties with the US, Singapore and Japan which have important implications for the region. In addition, India has its own important bilateral ties with Indonesia and Sri Lanka.


To balance the Chinese in Hambantota, Sri Lanka has asked India to develop Trincomalee in eastern Sri Lanka. SKIL Infrastructure has assessed the potential of the port and says that it would require a $ 1 billion investment. Japan has also evinced interest in participating in the project. (7)
There is considerable potential in India-Indonesia relations. Despite claims that Indonesia has no disputes with China on the maritime border issue, the two countries have clashed in the Natuna Islands. Jakarta has good economic relations with Beijing, but its vast archipelago with key choke points makes it a key player in any Indo-Pacific strategy.


Two key achievements of Modi’s visit to Indonesia in May 2018 were a document on a “shared vision of maritime cooperation in the Indo-Pacific” and a Defence Cooperation Agreement. As part of this, India would not only gain access to the north Sumatran port of Sabang, at the head of the Malacca Straits, but also help to develop it. (8)


Japan is an important player here as well. It has been a major investor as well as funder of infrastructure projects in the ASEAN region as well as India. In fact, despite the BRI, Japan-backed projects are worth one and half times more than those of China in South-East Asia. (9) Tokyo is also seeking to establish important ties with New Delhi, based on their mutual antipathy to China. As part of this, Japan is a major provider of Overseas Development Assistance to India and is also associated with the country in a larger scheme called the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor. This project aims at developing connectivity and trade in an arc from South-East Asia to India and Africa and seeks to compete with the BRI.


In the immediate term, however, it is not India’s economic heft that could play a role, but its military capabilities. Though India has a large military, resource problems are affecting its modernisation. The Indian Navy, for example, has been left with important gaps in its force structure. Last December it was announced that instead of a 200-ship force, they would only be 175 by 2027. Given the COVID-19 induced economic contraction, even that figure looks optimistic. (10)


In the longer term, India may like to see itself as the dominant power in the north-east Indian Ocean, but in the immediate, it must cope with issues like piracy, maritime terrorism, separatist movements within its boundaries as well as in Thailand and Myanmar. And, of course, it must keep an eye on China which has strong ties with the countries of the region and whose navy has now begun conducting regular forays into the Indian Ocean, entering mainly through the Malacca Straits.


In the past few years, despite its resource problems, India has laid the groundwork for a more active role in the region around the Straits, using its important bases in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The ties it has developed with the US and its strategic partners, Japan and Singapore have been a key asset. India has emerged as a new entrant into this relationship. The Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) that the Washington and New Delhi have signed is a signal of the larger role India can play. The country also has similar agreements with Singapore, France and South Korea, and is negotiating one with Japan.


India had been using American-made P-8I maritime reconnaissance aircraft for some years now. But after India signed the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) in 2018, it will be able to get communications equipment used by US platforms and seamlessly communicate between other users of the platform. Already, the two countries have been collaborating on information sharing relating to the movement of Chinese ships from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean via the Malacca Straits. In the future, there is talk of India becoming part of the Fish Hook network that the US has established to track Chinese submarine movements. Underwater sensors along the Andaman and Nicobar chain to Indonesia would be linked to an existing chain in the western Pacific, would effectively track all Chinese submarine movements. (11)


But a lot of this remains a work in progress and depends on the policy choices that New Delhi makes. In recent years it has become more active, besides the steps outlined above, it has also agreed to increase the level of its Quad commitment. The fallout of covid-19 could see an India weakened further and this, in turn, could encourage it to reach out more strongly to the US and aid its agenda in the Indo-Pacific. This could result in a serious effort to give teeth to its Andaman and Nicobar Command which will hold the key to any significant Indo-Pacific commitment that New Delhi is willing to make.


1. «Strengthening Asean-India Partnership: Trends and Future Prospects», Export-Import Bank of India, Jan. 2018.
2. «India, Singapore strengthen military ties», New Strait Times, 26/11/2019.
3. D. Mitra, «Indonesia Told India Its Quest to Join Malacca Strait Patrols Isn’t Feasible», The Wire, 31/5/2018.
4. H. Siddiqui, «Act East Policy: India gives Myanmar Kilo Class submarine and trains their sailors», Financial Express, 16/12/2019.
5. B. raMachandran, «India’s BIMSTEC Gambit», The Diplomat, 31/5/2019.
6. C. Xavier, «Opinion – India needs to walk the talk on Bimstec», liveMint, 28/8/2018.
7. «India frm’s interest in Sri Lankan port upgrade advances», Joc, 17/9/2018.
8. A. Beo da coSta, «Indonesia, India to develop strategic Indian Ocean port», Reuters, 30/5/2018.
9. «Japan still leads in Southeast Asia infrastructure race, even as China ramps up belt and road investments: report», South China Morning Post, 23/6/2019.
10. V. thapar, «Budget crunch forces Indian Navy to cut down on its plan for a 200-ship Navy by 2027», Sp’s Naval Forces, 3/12/2019.
11. A. Singh, «India’s “Undersea Wall” in the Eastern Indian Ocean», Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, 15/6/2016.


Italian Geopolitical Review Limes  August 13, 2020
https://www.limesonline.com/en/india-and-the-malacca-conundrum

101 Out! Can This Embargo Transform India’s Defence Industry?

A broad rule of thumb in news rooms is that “news” announced on a Sunday is often suspect, aimed at garnering headlines on what is usually a slow news stream.

Even so, it certainly took some gall for the Defence Minster Rajnath Singh to make a big pitch for Atma Nirbhar Bharat in a period when foreign acquisitions have been raining on India. Last month, Boeing completed the delivery of 22 Apache attack helicopters to India, the first five of 36 Rafale fighters arrived and New Delhi announced the procurement of 21 Mig 29 and 12 Sukhoi 30 MKI aircraft from Russia. In May, India had signed a $ 1 billion contract to equip the Indian Navy with 24 MH 60 R helicopters.

The ministry of defence embargo on the import of 101 items in phases between 2020 and 2024 is strictly for public consumption. As former Finance Minister P Chidambaram put it, “ The only importer of defence equipment is the Defence Ministry… What the Defence Minister said in his historic Sunday announcement deserved only an Office Order from the Minister to his Secretaries!”

Instead, a headline grabbing announcement has been made of banning products which were, in many cases, already being made in India.


Snapshot
  • The ministry of defence embargo on the import of 101 items in phases between 2020 and 2024 is strictly for public consumption.
  • It includes things we weren’t importing any way.
  • Sufficient room has been left for yet another round of imports here.
  • What the country needs first is a blueprint of an industrial policy which will deliver results, not by the next election but a decade plus from now.
  • The DRDO should not be able to make unsubstantiated claims to block an acquisition, something it has repeatedly done in the last half century.
  • Just how successful the process will be depends on the honesty with which the Ministry implements it.


Money, Math and Mystery

As per the list there will be an near-immediate embargo on 70 products, another ten will be stretched out till 2021 before the embargo kicks in and finally the balance 21 will be targeted between 2022 and 2025. So clearly sufficient room has been left for yet another round of imports here.

The ministry has conjured up fantastic figures like the Rs 4 lakh crore of contracts that the domestic industry would receive in the next six or seven years.

This doesn’t even make for good arithmetic, considering that the current capital outlay budget is of the order of Rs 1.15 lakh crore, a significant portion of which is spent on importing weapons systems and components and sub-assemblies of systems allegedly made in India like the Sukhoi 30 MKI.

No one can quarrel with the effort of the Ministry to develop an indigenous base. National security is one area where it is best to be self-sufficient to the extent possible. This has been a long-standing dream of the country. But we have fumbled so many times that there is need for caution and careful planning. The country needs to learn to walk before it can run.

Quint August 9, 2020

https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/101-items-embargo-list-defence-ministry-make-in-india#read-more

US-China rivalry presages new world order

There is an element of lazy thinking when people describe the situation between the US and China as a new Cold War, thus connecting it with the binary competition between the erstwhile Soviet Union and the United States in the 1950s-1980s.

The US-China relations have been rocky since 2018 when the two sides began a tariff war and the US began to restrict the export of semiconductors to China. And then came Covid-19 and as the situation in the US deteriorated, the level of rhetoric against China began to rise. It has been primarily opportunistic, driven by the hope that attacking China could perhaps make the US electorate overlook the shoddy handling of the pandemic by the Trump administration. After all, consider that at the beginning of this year, the US and China had agreed to a Phase I trade deal which would have made them even bigger trade partners than they are.

But now, as the election approaches, it has become wholly political with a group of anti-China hawks led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo launching a scorched earth policy that will ensure that a Biden presidency is not easily able to alter its trajectory.

This is a moment of great opportunity and risk for India. One of the important features of the current situation is a desire of the US to break some key technology links with China. Steps have already been taken in this direction and we can anticipate some more in the coming months.

Corporations and businesses are scrambling to anticipate the situation and are looking for alternatives. By virtue of its size and political orientation, India fits the bill. Political proximity to the United States is a plus. But the task of creating the physical and human infrastructure to receive this bounty is entirely ours and there are no signs that we understand this.

But there is risk as well. China is a powerful neighbour, belligerent of late, with whom we share a vast land border. In addition, China’s economic and growing maritime power makes it a player in our own South Asian and Indian Ocean region backyard. In that sense, in this ‘new’ Cold War, India is a frontline state and all the dangers that come with that status.

We need to carefully understand what this could entail. For example, while the US will encourage India to play a more active role in the South Africa-Indian Ocean Rim (SA-IOR) region, as well as in the western Pacific, it may not want to get involved in India’s Himalayan quarrels. Through an October 27, 1962 statement, the US recognised the McMahon Line as the international border, but it still views Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh as disputed areas. Whether the US would want to get militarily involved in any Ladakh situation is a moot issue.

Historical analogies are a useful device to understand a situation, but they are not exact. So, while the ‘new Cold War’ is a useful device to understand the situation, we also need to be clear in our own minds that it’s not quite a repeat of that past.

For one, it is not an ideological contest. We have capitalist America taking on a form of state capitalism in China. Neither is there military alliances arrayed against each other on a global scale. China hosts a great number of American industries, it owns a substantial portion of its debt, and in turn, the US hosts hundreds of thousands of Chinese students.

In terms of military power, the US is way ahead of China which does not have the kind of alliance system the US has. China does have substantial military capability, one which is growing, but it is essentially one that has application on its borders only. So yes, militarily, we need to be careful of China’s teeth along the Himalayan frontier and western Pacific, but that’s about it. And let’s be clear about one thing, communist or capitalist, authoritarian or democratic, China would behave in the same way. Like any power, it would be driven by its perception of national interests, not ideology. Pompeo’s claim that the struggle is between the free world and ‘new tyranny’ can hardly resonate in places like Brazil and India where the notion of liberties is increasingly narrowing.

We are actually in an entirely new era, where the old rules and blocs that governed the world order have gone. They were already coming apart before Covid, the process has now accelerated.

For the sake of peace and stability, which everyone needs, we need to reconstitute it. Whether it is arms control, confidence building measures (CBMs), security treaties, trading regimes, they have all frayed. Also, the country that played an out-sized role in creating and sustaining them has signalled that it is no longer interested in assuming the burden of hegemony.

The challenge is, therefore, to come up with a successor world order with new rules of the game. Experience tells us that they will not be simply multilateral regimes, there is room now for plurilateral alliances aimed at providing both security and economic benefits. And yes, Covid has taught us that we need to build in redundancy into the system so that it doesn't come apart the way it nearly did in February this year.

n this process, one set of problems and solutions may require one kind of a coalition, another set an entirely different one. Pompeo’s Manichaean struggle has no place in a world that needs more, rather than less, cooperation and collaboration. This was, if you recall, the very first lesson of the old Cold War.

Tribune August 5, 2020

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/us-china-rivalry-presages-new-world-order-122259

One Year On, Modi's Kashmir 'Master Stroke' Has Proven to Be a Massive Flop

On August 5, 2019, the Narendra Modi government revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and statehood, dividing it into two union territories. In this series – ‘One Year in a Disappeared State’ – The Wire will look at what the last year has meant and what the region looks like now. 

It’s been a year now that the Bharatiya Janata Party government delivered its Kashmir “master stroke”. Just like the other “greatest hits” – demonetisation, Goods and Services Tax, the Christmas Day descent on Lahore, the 9 pm-9 minute lighting plan to destroy COVID-19 – the Kashmir one has also been a flop, if not disaster.

Yes, militant leaders have been eliminated and public protest and stone-throwing prevented. Figures show that the level of violence has not really come down. Data collected by the South Asia Terrorism Portal reveals that the levels of violence were coming down at the beginning of this decade, with the lowest point reached in 2012 when 19 civilians, 18 security personnel and 84 terrorists/extremists killed. But in just eight months of 2020, 17 civilians, 34 security personnel and 154 terrorists/extremists have been killed.

It is convenient to blame Pakistan for the continuance of violence in the state, but the reality is that the August 5 decision has only increased the recruitment of locals into the separatist militancy. Pakistan, if anything, is playing a waiting game.

It is difficult to describe what happened in Jammu and Kashmir as anything else but political vandalism. A state which was part of the Union under very difficult and dangerous circumstances, was demoted and ripped apart through questionable legal means.

The highest court of the land has yet to hear the urgent issue of the constitutionality of the J&K Reorganisation Act, as well as a slew of petitions relating to the detentions of various leaders, the withdrawal of 4G services and the misuse of draconian preventive detention legislation.

Even today, we have no answer as to why this happened, other than the fact that the BJP’s founding ideology says that Article 370 needs to be removed. But the demotion of a state to Union territory status? Was this not something purely punitive? Manifested by the detention of mainstream Kashmiri leaders ranging from the pro-BJP Sajjad Lone, to the former political ally of the BJP Mehbooba Mufti and the Abdullahs – politicians who have upheld the Indian flag in the state under extremely trying circumstances. In one fell stroke, the entire spectrum of Kashmiri political opinion was declared hostile.

All this happened without any form of consultation with the people of the state, either directly through a referendum or through its elected representatives in the state legislative assembly. The notion that the Delhi-appointed governor somehow represented the 7.5 million people of the state is laughable.

Rajasthan is the latest example of how the combination of the executive and judiciary are working to deprive the people of the country of their democratic rights and processes. On one hand you have the governor preventing the elected state assembly from convening, and on the other you have the judiciary blocking moves to implement the anti-defection law.


And just why did Modi decide on this master stroke? The only answer is narrow political gain. It had nothing to do with terrorism, since all the indicators show that militancy and terrorism had been declining in the state since the mid 2000s. It had nothing to do with Pakistan, whose influence in the affairs of the state, too, had been declining.

But at what cost? The whole state has been imprisoned for the past year, deprived of political rights, modern means of communications, the internet. The reality is that protest has been contained simply because the state has become a large jail. Locking everyone up can be a strategy to fight crime, but with everyone in, on whose behalf are you fighting crime, anyway? Alarmingly, what is happening in Kashmir does have unpleasant echoes of China’s Xinjiang policy.

The army and the paramilitary forces remain a major presence, with their numbers boosted since last August. The media functions under a censorship regime, more draconian than the one that operated in the dark days of the insurgency in the early 1990s. The economy of the state is, of course, devastated. And what can one say about the judicial system when just last week, the J&K administration extended the detention of People’s Democratic Party leader and former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti by another three months – she has been held since August 5 last year – even as her petition challenging the detention has been pending with the Supreme Court since February this year?

Since the mid-1950s, the reality has been that Article 370 was something of a bogeyman. It had been systematically hollowed out by various presidential orders over the years. In the process, J&K became more closely integrated to the country. The process was long drawn out, as it should have been, given the background of the state’s accession to the Union. But the BJP saw the need to remove the article as an exercise in political showmanship aimed at signalling their animus against Muslims in the country. Now, a fraudulent delimitation of exercise is planned to gerrymander the state’s constituencies so that the salience of the Valley, which is Muslim-majority, is reduced, if not eliminated.

The whole notion that the demotion of the state was aimed at promoting economic growth is looking like a cruel joke. But it will be easy to blame COVID-19 for it. All the talk about companies fighting with each other to invest in the Valley is a chimera. In the present situation, Kashmir is simply not a place anyone would want to invest in, with or without the coronovirus.

Also read: A Year Without High-Speed Internet Has Been a Nightmare for J&K’s Entrepreneurs

Having put the entire Kashmiri political class on the other side of the pale, the government is now left with no alternative but to carry on with its repressive policies. An effort to create a new level of political discourse through panchayats has been a failure. The reality is that we have an angry and sullen population in the Valley.

Notwithstanding its hollowing out, the Kashmiris were content with the fig-leaf of “specialness” that Article 370 provided. Wanting to feel special is not something unusual in India. Several states in the north-east get special treatment under Article 371.

Actually, the issue is about the idea of India. It is one thing to celebrate the diversity of the country and encourage the self-esteem of the people by celebrating their uniqueness, and quite another to iron out all the differences into one uniform Hindi-speaking Hindutva nation with one history, one culture and one leader that the BJP seems to be wanting to do.

The Wire August 4, 2020
https://thewire.in/politics/narendra-modi-kashmir-master-stroke

Tuesday, December 22, 2020

Japan-S Korea rift worsens

Is the US-Japan Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) strategy coming apart from the very top? Unnoticed in India, and not commented on by our Foreign Ministry officials, is the serious crisis that has erupted between South Korea and Japan that is escalating by the day.
Both countries are important friends of India and have a major economic presence in the country in a range of areas relating to technology. They are also key military allies of the US and as such part of its ‘security network’ aimed at containing China.
It began with the Japanese imposing restrictions on three key products and has now escalated to both countries declaring that they will impose a wider set of restrictions on technology exports to the other.
At the root of the problem lies the old issue of forced labour and sexual slavery during Japan’s colonial rule of the Korean peninsula between 1910 and 1945. South Korean Supreme Court rulings in 2018 reopened what Tokyo thought was a closed issue after the agreement of 1965 through which South Korea had been given $500 million in financial aid.
In early July, Japan said it would restrict the exports of three critical materials needed in the manufacture of semiconductors and display panels for smartphones and TVs. Japan said this was aimed at preventing their illegal diversion to North Korea, but this was clearly aimed at the court decisions relating to forced labour.
Instead of using his electoral victory in the Upper House elections in July to get over the quarrel, Abe doubled down on the confrontation and has now revoked South Korea’s preferential status as a trusted trade partner. In early August, Abe’s Cabinet passed an order excluding South Korea from a ‘white list’ of 27 countries that are able to buy Japanese products that could be diverted for military use. Both these measures would have a severe effect on South Korea’s world-class technology industry. Semiconductors made in South Korea are used in Chinese and Japanese branded smartphones and displays are used by iPhones and TV sets of various brands.
In turn, Seoul removed Japan from its own list of preferential trade partners relating to strategic materials management which comprise of Japan and 28 other countries.
An anti-Japanese movement has emerged in South Korea where consumers have organised a boycott of Japanese products and services. Its leaders have been invoking nationalistic rhetoric to declare that they would not allow Japan to defeat the country again.
Even while the two squabbled, Russian and Chinese jets carried out their first joint patrol in the airspace near an island that is contested between South Korea and Japan. That same week, North Korea conducted a test of short-range missiles as a warning to the South, accusing it of acquiring new weapons like the F-35 fighter and planning military exercises.  
And what of the US? Washington is the security provider to its military allies Japan and South Korea and ought to be the go-to country to resolve issues between them. But Washington seems to be strangely disinterested. Trump says he would act if both asked him to do so, and Secretary of State Pompeo made a perfunctory effort at mediation at an ASEAN meeting last week.  
In all this mess, the US is creating its own complications and seems to be more focused and getting Tokyo and Seoul to shell out more money to pay for the non-personnel costs of stationing American forces in their country.
According to a report, the US has sought a five-fold increase in Tokyo’s contribution,  a figure that could actually exceed the cost of stationing the forces in the first place. The US is also putting the squeeze on the Koreans. It wants South Korea to provide $5 billion for stationing American troops in the country, a steep hike of over $4 billion from the $920 million that the Koreans currently pay.
In recent weeks, the bemused South Koreans and Japanese have been confronted with a situation where a US President not just condones a set of missile tests conducted by North Korea in violation of UN sanctions, but says everything is going fine in his dealings with Kim Jong-un.
The US is worried now that the two may cancel an intelligence-sharing agreement they reached in 2016. The General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) aids three-way intelligence sharing and is important for the US and its security posture in the region.  
Just by the way, the US has also opened up another front with the South Koreans and the Japanese in the Persian Gulf. After ratcheting up tensions with Iran, it has been pushing them to join the naval coalition to safeguard their oil supplies.
The bigger question perhaps is whether Trump himself has bought into the FOIP. By his words and deeds it would seem that he is not particularly interested in fulfilling the traditional American role of a global leader, leave alone a security provider. Sure American officials like Mike Pompeo periodically tour Asia and speak about the importance of the Indo-Pacific strategy. But their boss is following his own drum and they are doing little when one of its principal architects, Shinzo Abe has adopted a course that will undermine it.
Both countries are important partners of India. Japan is our principal source of official development assistance and the technology firms of both countries are important for our consumers, as well as any putative ‘Make in India’ strategy.
The Tribune August 6, 2019

Friday, December 18, 2020

For China, Pullback Is ‘Done’. Will India Raise Diplomatic Costs?

The remarks by China’s ambassador to India, Sun Weidong, in New Delhi on Thursday, 30 July, and those of the official spokesman of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Wang Wenbin, in Beijing on Tuesday, suggest that in China’s view, the ball is firmly now in the Indian court.

Speaking at a webinar organised by the Institute of Chinese Studies on Thursday, Ambassador Sun declared that China’s troops were on its side – ‘traditional customary boundary line’ – on the north bank of the Pangong Tso. Ergo, he seemed to imply, where was the question of ‘disengagement’?

Also Read


What’s The Broader Import Of The Chinese Statements?

On Tuesday in Beijing, the foreign ministry spokesman had said that its troops had “disengaged in most localities” and were preparing for the fifth round of the Corps Commander-level meeting “to resolve outstanding issues on the ground.”

Responding almost immediately to the Ambassador’s remarks, the Indian official spokesman, Anurag Srivastava, said that while there had been some progress, “the disengagement process has as yet not been completed.”

The broader import of the Chinese statements are difficult to miss.

From their point of view, disengagement is an almost done thing, and if New Delhi thinks otherwise, the onus is on it to do what it can.
For China, Pullback Is ‘Done’. Will India Raise Diplomatic Costs?
(Photo: Google Earth / modified by Manoj Joshi)

Sun’s description of the background of the Galwan Valley clash can only heighten concerns in India, that Beijing is seeking to alter the LAC, no matter what it formally says. Following the meeting of the Corps Commanders on 6 June, the Chinese ambassador said, “the Indian side committed that they will not go… across the water mouth of Galwan Valley to patrol…”

He said on 15 June, that the Indian troops ‘disregarded’ the 6 June ‘consensus’, and “went across the LAC again”.

This is then another example of an expanded Chinese claim, considering that the LAC is a good 6-7 km from the mouth of the Galwan or the Galwan estuary, as the Chinese have been putting it.

For China, Pullback Is ‘Done’. Will India Raise Diplomatic Costs?



Clearly, The Chinese Are In No Mood To Go Back

By China’s own 1960 description, its ‘traditional and customary’ boundary should pass through Finger 5. Chinese officials said that their boundary crosses the northern shore of Pangong at 78° 49’E, 33° 44’N, and the southern shore at 78° 43’E, 33° 40’N.

Instead, it is staking a claim till Finger 2, which is a good 15 km from the present claimed LAC, and another 5 km or so from where their original claim ran.

Traditionally, though maps like Google Earth show both the Chinese and Indian versions of the LAC, the fact is that till now, both have patrolled to their extent of the LAC. Now, the Chinese have created blockades at Finger 4, preventing the Indian troops from patrolling up to their claim line.

The same is true of another area which somehow evaded discussion at the webinar – Depsang. Here, a Chinese blockade at bottle-neck or Y point has prevented Indian troops from patrolling tens of kilometers of territory that India claims in a very sensitive area.

For China, Pullback Is ‘Done’. Will India Raise Diplomatic Costs?
(Photo Credit: The Quint)

Clearly, the Chinese are in no mood to go back. What they want, as they once did earlier in 1960, is to insist on status quo, studiously avoiding any move towards status quo ante.


  • From the Chinese point of view, disengagement is an almost done thing, and if New Delhi thinks otherwise, the onus is on it to do what it can.
  • What the Chinese want, as they once did earlier in 1960, is to insist on status quo, studiously avoiding any move towards status quo ante.
  • The choices before India are obvious.
  • We can persist with diplomacy, and by raising the diplomatic costs to China, persuade Beijing that a return to the positions of April 2020 is in its interests as well.



The Choices Before India Are Obvious. What Are They?

Just to make sure that we have actually had the door being slammed shut, Ambassador Sun also rejected the notion of clarifying just where the LAC runs. This, he said, somewhat disingenuously, could “create new disputes”.

He seems to have completely forgotten that China committed itself to clarifying the LAC through no less than three solemn agreements — the Border Peace and Tranquility Agreement of 1993, the 1996 agreement on CBMs in the Military Field, and the 2005 Agreement on the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for settling the boundary issue.

The choices before India are obvious.

We can persist with diplomacy, and by raising the diplomatic costs to China, persuade Beijing that a return to the positions of April 2020 is in its interests as well. 

After all, it did take several years before we could get China to vacate Sumdorong Chu.


The other and somewhat uncertain option is to use force. The problem before India is that none of the areas affected are so important that it can contemplate war for them easily. At the same time, it is confronted with the classic dilemma of an adversary using salami tactics, where each cut seems minor, but at the end of the day you end up losing something significant.

The Quint July 31, 2020   https://www.thequint.com/voices/opinion/india-china-disengagement-process-galwan-clash-line-of-actual-control-indian-diplomacy-options?#read-more