Resolving the Ukraine Crisis Peacefully

In the fast-unfolding events it is difficult to predict which exact course the US-Russia standoff over Ukraine will take, but war as a means to resolve the conflict will be too expensive and deadly.

From a domestic point of view, it is not the best time to engage in a military confrontation. The US recently ended its long war in Afghanistan. The economy is not in good shape though there are faint signs of recovery. Issues such as consumer goods shortages, inflation, unemployment, pandemic weariness are all affecting the polity and economy, and in this backdrop engaging in another military confrontation perhaps is not the best policy decision. Internationally, a war with Russia in distant lands, closer to the Russian border, might further help realize Russian strategy to drain America’s resources. It might also provide China, the increasing assertive power in Asia, an advantage to realize its foreign policy goals in the Asia-Pacific.

Afghanistan should be instructive to the leaders who call for military confrontation. Though the US went to Afghanistan with the goal to rout Al Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden, it stayed in the mountainous country a decade after Laden was killed. The US spent more than two trillion dollars in Afghanistan.

The Congressman from Florida, Michael Waltz, after his recent tour to Ukraine recommended stronger actions in terms of sending lethal weapons to Ukraine to stop Russian advances. Waltz said, “I would love to see – and would encourage and demand – the White House to take stronger moves now.” He further said, “If Putin invades, I want him to know he’ll have trouble buying a soda from a vending machine in the next five minutes.” True, America and its allies are capable enough to stop Russian advances in Ukraine and give it a befitting reply for its undemocratic and aggressive moves.

From a larger context, the confrontation can be seen as a battle between the values of democracy, represented by the US and its allies, and the values of authoritarianism, represented by countries like Russia and China. The Cold War saw the world divided along the lines of liberal capitalist democracy and communism, resulting in a victory of liberal ideas. The new Cold War may see the repetition of such a war. But in the globalized world with advanced means of communication, social media, and cyber warfare, the battle will not be fought only on the ground but also in other spheres. The deadly weapons will not only ensure the defeat of Putin and its maneuvers, it will also cause civilian casualties, environmental damage, economic underdevelopment, and other spillover effects.

President Eisenhower, who as a military commander played a key role in the victory of the allied powers in the Second World War, said in 1953, “The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities…We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.” On another occasion, while making a case for peace by peaceful means, Eisenhower said, “The peace we seek and need means much more than mere absence of war. It means the acceptance of law, and the fostering of justice, in all the world.”

A robust diplomacy must be pursued to address the ongoing conflict. There are already multiple rounds of meetings between the diplomats of the US and Russia, and these meetings need to be continued without giving up. Putin must be made to understand through diplomacy that a war will devastate Russia, which is already suffering on many fronts.

While war can be an option, the US and its allies must listen to the wise counsel of President Eisenhower and explore all means of dialogue and diplomacy to avoid war, while ensuring a safe and secure future for Ukraine. While agreeing with Waltz that Putin understands the language of strength, that strength does not necessarily mean only military strength. It also implies convincing the Russian leader through the means of dialogue, deterrence, and sanctions, that any aggressive move will increase the suffering of Russia. War only proves one’s power of destruction is stronger, and the goals which can be realized through the means of dialogue need not be realized through the weapons of war.

While not rejecting war as an option, the American leaders must use all ingenuity to avoid military confrontation while realizing the goals of peace. There are instances when the US leaders pursued dialogue in times of crisis. President Kennedy, who despite provocation of military confrontation from some of his advisors, addressed the Cuban Missile Crisis with wisdom and astute diplomacy. Perhaps it is time to reenact Kennedy diplomacy.

(Another version of this article was published in Florida Times-Union on February 5, 2022.)

Kabuliwala: Reflections on India-Afghanistan

Recently the US President, Joe Biden, announced the withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan by 9/11, typically reminding the day when the attack on the World Trade Center in New York happened two decades ago. The president visited Arlington crematory and pointed to the stone marks around and lamented that so many lives were lost in the past. The major goal of the US – the end of Osama bin Laden and decimation of Al Qaeda – is now realized, the US has no reason to sacrifice the lives of more Americans, the administration reasoned. The announcement expectedly received mixed reactions. While the democrats in the US and many of the US allies support it, some of the republican leaders at home are skeptical that the withdrawal would help the US goal of peace and stability in Afghanistan. Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, was in Kabul recently to engage the Afghan leaders for the withdrawal process and for assuring them of the US support after the withdrawal.

The announcement has sent jitters across the region. Fear of the rise of Taliban, and its support to forces like Al Qaeda and Islamic State, and Islamic extremist groups from all over the world including from Pakistan, has gained ground. Pakistan has a major influence in Afghan politics, due to its geographic proximity, religious and ethnic affinity, and it is known to use these forces as strategic tools against India. The withdrawal of the Soviet forces led to rise of terrorism in Kashmir as Pakistan mobilized these forces to destabilize India, and those memories are still fresh in the mind of the Indian leaders and strategic thinkers. General Rawat’s concern that the withdrawal will give a boost to the ‘disruptors’ makes sense in this context.

But the India of 21st century is not the India of the 20th century. India must play its cards astutely. India’s Foreign Minister, S. Jaishankar, said at the ‘Heart of Asia’ Conference in Tajikistan recently, probably anticipating the withdrawal, that “India has been supportive of all the efforts being made to accelerate the dialogue between the Afghan government and the Taliban, including intra-Afghan negotiations.” During the visit of Afghan foreign minister to New Delhi last month, India’s foreign ministry emphasized “on peaceful, sovereign, stable and inclusive Afghanistan”, which could be realized through “democratic constitutional framework.” India needs to use its rising economic and military clout in the region, and its soft power to gain a leverage in Afghanistan. And this can be possible through astute diplomacy and engaging India’s neighbors Pakistan and Afghanistan and ally Russia. India has contributed to Afghanistan’s development, and it can play a creative role to adjust to the new reality.

It is not that India will not face challenges while initiating peace measures in Afghanistan. Pakistan will play all its cards including Kashmir and Islam to undermine India’s initiatives. It has been established many times in the past how Pakistan inspired terrorist groups target Indian facilities in Afghanistan. China will try to ensure that it fills the vacuum left by the US, and as a major economic and military power, it will try its best to keep democratic India out of the equation. Pakistan, inspired by political Islam, and authoritarian China will not feel comfortable to welcome democratic India’s aspirations in Afghanistan.

But that is not and should not be the end of the tunnel. India’s foreign policy establishment needs to navigate through this complex scenario and explore all possible diplomatic options to engage both China and Pakistan to have its due place in Afghan peace process. Besides engaging these states, India also needs to engage Taliban. As a pragmatic policy, it needs to engage Taliban leaders and motivate them for a peaceful solution of the conflict. Contrary to some beliefs, Taliban would likely be more amenable to India’s soft power attractions. In contrast to Pakistan hard core anti-India policy, it is possible that Taliban, a majorly Pashtun community group, will be interested to develop closer relations with India. Such a scenario will not be easy as Pakistan will play all tricks to keep the Taliban away from India, but India needs to use its hard and soft diplomacy to win Afghan Taliban to its side.

The cultural relations between India and Afghanistan are deep. Unlike Pakistan, Afghanistan as a state has no history of hostility and rivalry with India. Kautilya’s Mandala theory would aptly describe Afghanistan as a natural ally of India. Tagore’s story of Kabuliwala, in which Abdul Rehman Khan from Afghanistan sees his daughter in Mini in Calcutta is not just a creation of the Nobel Laureate’s mind, but a true reflection of deep sociocultural and historical ties between the two countries. Besides reviving these ties, India must capitalize the withdrawal of the US forces to increase its presence in Afghanistan. In this, the US and Russia can support India’s aspiration, and India, with Pakistan and China, can be part of a multilateral and multinational process for peace and stability in the region. The withdrawal is portrayed as a challenge for India, but it can be an opportunity.

This article of mine was published in TOI blogs:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/kabuliwala-reflections-on-india-afghanistan/  

Resolving Conflict on the Himalayas

The Himalayas, known as the rooftop of the world and considered an ecological wonder, are also a contested geopolitical landscape hosting three nuclear-weapon states. Conflicts involving China, India, and Pakistan are not new, but as the recent developments demonstrate they have assumed new forms with far-reaching implications.

Take, for example, the case of Kashmir. The erstwhile princely state got embroiled in a conflict between India and Pakistan after their independence in 1947. Pakistan considered the Muslim majority state a part of its Islamic identity and India considered it a part of its multiethnic identity. The conflict led the two neighbors to three wars, a limited war, and myriad border skirmishes. It got murkier in the 1980s with the support of Pakistan to militant movements within the Indian side of Kashmir. The internal violence led to the killing of thousands of people. As both countries acquired nuclear weapons in the late 1990s, a fear of a nuclear war grappled the region. China took control of a part of Kashmir during its war with India in 1962 and Pakistan handed over a part of its controlled Kashmir as a gesture of friendship in 1963.

Moving fast forward, the surgical strikes by India in recent years to destroy terrorist camps in Pakistan side of Kashmir and the withdrawal of special status accorded to the troubled region have been challenged by Pakistan, which in turn announced a new map declaring whole Kashmir as its part. This is a departure from its traditional position. While India has claimed whole Kashmir as its integral part from the beginning, Pakistan while controlling a part of it claimed it supported the right of Kashmiris to self-determination. The saber-rattling has intensified from both sides. Some analysts fear that the protracted conflict may witness a two-front war involving the two countries with China playing an active role. Early this month China raised the issue of Kashmir at the UN Security Council to internationalize it, but the move was opposed by the other members of the Council including the United States.

The proliferation of radical networks such as the Taliban, Haqqani Network, Lashkar-e-Toiba, and Jaish-e-Mohammad makes the situation further volatile. These networks with bases in the fragile border areas of Pakistan shape regional politics by acting spoilers of peace.

Like the border between India and Pakistan, the border between India and China is disputed since the drawing of the McMohan Line in 1914. The signing of Panchsheel or the five principles of coexistence, in 1954, which emphasized on territorial integrity and non-interference in internal politics, generated hopes for peace. The hopes, however, remained short-lived, as the two countries fought a war in 1962. China expresses discontent as India provides shelter to the Tibetan leader, Dalai Lama. India views with concern the increasing bonhomie between China and Pakistan. However, despite the continued border conflict and uneasy bilateral relations, India and China refrained from major violent engagement since the 1962 war, but until recently. In June 2020, while the world was busy with the COVID-19 pandemic, the soldiers of the two countries clashed at Galwan river valley, resulting in the death of 20 Indian soldiers. The clash drew international attention. In reference to China, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, “You can't threaten countries and bully them in the Himalayas.”

China’s Belt and Road Initiative has emerged as a point of major contention between the two countries. The proposed road passes through the disputed Kashmir. While China has emphasized that the project is a vector of its ‘peaceful rise’ and aims at regional economic integration, India has viewed it as a strategy for hegemony. India’s non-participation in the project is viewed as a challenge by the Chinese leadership. India also views the recent assertiveness of its neighbors such as Nepal as a Chinese ploy to undermine India’s influence in South Asia.

The conflict on the Himalayas has global implications. The democratic ‘quad’, comprising the US, India, Australia, and Japan, has expressed concern at the rise of authoritarianism and aggressive foreign policy in Asia. The United States has in the past decade changed its policy focus in the Asia-Pacific and termed the region Indo-Pacific, emphasizing the role of India in its Asia pivot. The conflict that has emerged at the rooftop of the world will have a spillover effect unless it is addressed through a spirit of democracy and dialogue. Violent conflict in the region has the potential to unleash humanitarian and ecological disaster beyond the Himalayas.

(Another version of this article of mine was published in Orlando Sentinel on August 25, 2020. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/guest-commentary/os-op-india-pakistan-china-conflicts-20200815-ltrch3rpkrbjtdfbticbweg5py-story.html)

New Dispensation in New Delhi

The absolute majority of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), under the leadership of Narendra Damodar Modi, in the lower house of Indian parliament has made international news. It is the first time since 1947 when India got independence that a political party other than the Congress secured absolute majority in the lower house.

The media mostly reminds Modi, the Prime Minister-designate, of the 2002 riots and offers advice. Some of the writings have expressed doubt whether Modi will rise above his association with a Hindu organization, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and put India before his religion and party.

Modi emerged from a humble background. His father was a tea seller. He does not speak British or American English, and not a regular in Delhi elite circles. He was a RSS pracharak. But the membership of RSS does not make one fundamentalist. RSS is guided by Hindu philosophy, which is eclectic. Also, one can not club all RSS members into same mould. Modi’s mentors, Vajapyee and Advani, are known for their association with the RSS. Vajpayee is known as a moderate in politics. The point is association with RSS does not make one fundamentalist.

Barring the scar of 2002, Modi has no taint. Though sections of people believe his complicity in the communal riots in Gujarat when he was the chief minister, the judicial system in India has not found fault with him.

Modi has strong views, unlike Manmohan Singh who preferred to remain silent on many crucial issues. Whether Telecom scam or Commonwealth Games scam, Singh did not exercise his power his office bestowed on him. It was but natural as he had not the real command. The party high command had the baton of power. Modi will not have that handicap. The elections were fought under his leadership. Manmohan Singh did not rise as a politician from the grassroots; rather the prime ministership was thrust on him, while in case of Modi it is different. Manmohan Singh, a celebrated economist known as father of India’s economic reforms left office of PM in ignominy. This is sad for his political legacy, but certainly he will be remembered as one of India’s best brains, which could have been used more effectively.

I remember the famous debate between the two well known economists – Amartya Sen and Jagdish Bhagwati. Bhagwati was a protagonist of Gujarat model of development, while Sen was not. The first one prioritized rapid industrialization and private sector development, while Sen’s model focused on a society-oriented inclusive economic growth. Both models have their merits and demerits. The point is that Congress government under Singh followed Sen’s advice and launched welfare programs (marred by massive corruption), but the electorate of India preferred to vote for Modi.

It is yet to be seen how Modi will replicate the Gujarat model for the country. The people of India, particularly the youth, have high hopes on him.

Some of the great Indian leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel were from Gujarat, the home state of Modi. Some of the great saints like Narsinh Mehta, who wrote famous Vaishnav Jana to Tene Kahiye (Gandhi’s favorite) were from Gujarat. Mehta and another saint-poet Kavi Jayachandra, also from Gujarat, had influenced Gandhi and shaped his life philosophy.  Modi particularly talks about Patel, and is apparently influenced by him. Patel was known as Iron Man of India as he played a key role in assimilating disparate regions of India into one single federal union during early years of India’s independence. Will Modi follow Patel’s footsteps?

As Prime Minister, Modi will lead India, not a particular community or religion. Hence, he is not only a leader of Hindu, but also of Muslim or of any other community in India. Pessimists will always bring back the specter of Godhra and paint him black. But, I am not in a hurry to see Modi in that way. I am an optimist, and will prefer to wait and watch.

Modi has the advantages which some of his predecessors lacked. He does not have a dynasty to promote, or not an immediate family to bestow largesse. In that sense, he will be more like Vajpayee who once commented that it is good that he has no family. He said this as a retort to corrupt politicians who put family before the country. Modi will not fill the seats of his official aero plane a la Deve Gowda who flew whole family with him during some of his official trips. Modi will not have to pay bribes to parliamentarians to support his party during no confidence motions as he enjoys absolute majority in the lower house of the parliament, the decisive body for no confidence. He will not have to indulge in horse-trading (a code name for breaking other parties to win majority), nor he will have the need to engage in scams and forgeries.

Modi is known as an effective administrator in Gujarat. One hopes that he will be an effective administrator in New Delhi. His lack of aristocratic mien will be to his advantage.

Modi’s years in New Delhi will be challenging. Any Mumbai style attack coordinated by hardliners from Pakistan will be a big headache for him. While his Pak counterpart, businessman-turned politician, Nawaz Sharif will prefer to work with him, the hardliners in Pakistan will do everything to scuttle the process. They will plan to orchestrate terrorist attacks to generate a violent response from Modi to further paint him anti-Muslim.

As Prime Minister, Modi will have to take decisive actions on matters home as well as abroad. He should not only be acting above religious bias, but also needs to be seen so. Perhaps he needs to be apprised by his officials the messages from The Prince, written by Machiavelli. The key message – the King (read the person in power) must not only be benevolent towards his subjects, he must also be seen benevolent. Already the Godhra aligned with him, any utterance of M word, will be interpreted differently. To address this, he may have to be innovative. He may have a ministry on communal harmony led by Muqtar Abbas Naqvi, or a cell in his office on it led by religious leaders of all communities. Learning from other models may be useful. Akbar’s Din-E-Elahi is perhaps a good model. Modi can take a cue from it. Even otherwise, there is ample guidance from Sanskrit texts: Sarva Dharma Sambhava and Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam are two messages which any leader wishing to rule multiethnic and pluralistic societies needs to learn.

India has poverty, unemployment, environmental pollution, population explosion, rising Maoism, communal violence, extremism and terrorism, women insecurity and many other problems. Modi knows all these problems, and has promised to address them. It will take time. It is naive to expect that he will successfully address all these problems in one month. One important thing that Modi needs to do is to appoint persons of merit and vision, not sycophants nor corrupt, to high offices. There is no lack of talent in India, and Modi will be able to find enough merit in India to assist him in the mission to raise India to new heights.

Here, I remember the Indian philosopher Sri Aurobindo who on the eve of India’s independence in 1947 had articulated his five dreams. The fourth dream was India’s role as moral and spiritual conscience of the world. Sri Aurobindo had in his mind the cultural and spiritual capital of India and its transformative power to reshape the human society. It needs emphasis this cultural and spiritual capital is not purely Hindu or purely Muslim, but Indian, rising from thousands of years of India’s rich historical and cultural heritage despite all its deformities. Modi may take a leaf from Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Swami Vivekananda. Both had argued India is a pluralistic society, and emphasized on synthesis. One of them had talked about the need of Hindu intellect and Muslim valor.

Modi can also prove Maulana Azad and Nehru right. Jinnah argued that Hindus and Muslims are different nations; hence they need to have different nation-states. Nehru and Azad had argued differently. They had strongly argued that India is a multicultural and pluralistic country in which Hindus and Muslims can stay together. Modi’s policies need to reflect this pluralistic ethos. During his electoral campaigns Modi promised to take all Indians together along with him. And he needs to fulfill that promise while in office.

Whether dealing with internal or external challenges, Modi will have to tread cautiously. Pakistan will be a big challenge. China will be another one. China-Pakistan nexus has not always proved beneficial for India, and Modi has to keep in mind that. While Russia has proved a traditional friend of India, Modi has to devise strategies to balance relations with Russia with that of the USA. Though the USA denied visa to Modi earlier, now it will be interested to deal with Modi, the leader of the largest democracy and also of one of the fastest rising economies. He may also revive the campaign for India’s claim for permanent membership at the United Nations Security Council, the highest and most powerful international body.

Modi will have a better tool in his hand to lift the nation from the morass of poverty and unemployment – two biggest internal challenges. With a strong determination, and by combining the visions of Patel, Shastri and Vajpayee, Modi will be able to trudge through difficult terrains while keeping his mission high.

I wish Modi good luck!

Multiethnic and Pluralistic States have to Stay

Development in Ukraine is a matter of concern as it has implications not only for Ukraine but also for other multiethnic and pluralistic states in the world. I am strongly in favor of multiethnic and pluralistic states. I had argued after the Kosovo independence that the Kosovo may not be a very good model for the disgruntled regions around the world. I remember after the Kosovo independence the separatists in Kashmir called for referendum in Kashmir, over which India and Pakistan are locked in a bitter rivalry. In case of Kashmir, the referendum may appear more logical than Kosovo as in the case of the former the United Nations had recommended the procedure to which both the rivals had agreed. Now, they have different positions on the issue.

Can a state be monistic (I am using the word ‘monistic’ – primarily a theological and philosophical term – in a broader sense, implying the basis of state is only one identity traditionally defined – religion, race, ethnicity, etc.)? Or, rather – should all states be monistic? In the modern, globalized world, can a state’s identity be related purely to one race or one religion or one ethnicity? One of the political leaders in the 20^th century opined, pure race is a myth – there is no such thing as a pure race. The matter may seem different in case of religion (though every religion has many sects, factions, etc), but this may not be possible in case of ethnicity.

Somewhere I came across a viewpoint that if we restructure the existing states on the basis of monism, we will have hundreds of new states on the international scene. The counter argument may be true. The question is – is it possible? And how far will it help better organize human life?

The answer is not that simple. Identities clash. Some religions may believe that religion should be the sole basis of state formation and state boundary – other identities are subsidiary to religious identity. The application of this kind of logic is far-reaching. Take the case of India. It has population belonging to all religions. India has Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jainas – it has hundreds of languages though its constitution gives official status to about two dozen languages – it has people of many ethnicities. Due to these myriad diversities some analysts prefer to refer India a multinational state. If we apply the logic of monistic state, then India needs to be divided to dozens of states. One of the founders of the modern India, Jawaharlal Nehru was fond of arguing that though India is diverse it is united. This is famously known unity in diversity.

Go to the north east of India – we have China, full of diversities. Whether Tibet in the south east or Xinjiang in north east – the people inhabiting these regions are different from the Han Chinese. One of my friends told me that differences persist within Han Chinese – there are differences between the Chinese of the south and the Chinese of the east. Go to the north of China – we have Russia. Though the Slavic Russians rule the country, the population belonging to different religions and races has grown tremendously. Some reports suggest that cities like Moscow may have a Muslim majority population in 30 or 40 years. I do not know how far this prediction will be true. But Russia has vastly diverse population, belonging to diverse races, religions, languages and ethnicity. Russia has Chechens, Tatars, Ingush ethnic communities, and has besides Orthodox Christianity have people practicing Islam, Buddhism, and even Shamanism.

Across Bering Strait from Russia is the United States of America – perhaps the most diverse country in the world. All kinds of religions, practices, identities, cultures, and what not are found in USA. Perhaps that is its beauty, and keeps it young, dynamic and developed. People migrate to the country every year, mingle with the people and its richness, and in turn enrich it. I would say the founders of the country were great visionaries and could foresee that to develop and prosper the country must adopt diversity and pluralism, instead of monism. Hence, when one says the identity is American, or the US identity, it embodies in itself diversity, multiethnic and pluralism. When we say America or the USA – it does not imply any religion, race, color or ethnicity. Barack Obama before becoming President told the audience (in Chicago in 2008 as I remember) that it (implying the USA) is not Black America or White America; it is the United States of America. Arguing in a Durkheimian way, America has welded a new identity –a multiethnic and pluralistic identity.

We know Europe champions multiculturalism and pluralism despite noises from some quarters. In fact the European Union is an embodiment of pluralist values.

I have nothing against the existing monistic states. The question is – How many more monistic states? Is it possible to have more monistic states in a globalized interconnected world? Will the attempts to create monistic states lead to more violence as seen in some parts of the world? Multiethnic and pluralistic states have to stay. Rather they should be the hallmark of the 21^st century globe. Religion, ethnicity, color, race, and other identity markers may have utility in human life, but they do not give all meaning to a peaceful and happy existence. And particularly in the context of state building, arguments favoring monism have increasingly proved obsolete, even devastating.

I know it is a complicated formulation. One may argue what about oppression of a minority community by a majority community in a state, which calls itself pluralistic and multiethnic? This is a valid question. I have hopes on both minority and majority communities within a state to resolve the differences. The majority community needs to come forward to address the concerns of the minority community. The developments in some conflict zones in which minority protests were crushed violently is unfortunate deplorable. There should be a fair law to apply against unlawful activities conducted by any person – whether belonging to majority or minority. I emphasize the law must be fair. The international organizations – particularly the United Nations – can play a meaningful role in reinforcing multiethnic and pluralistic values. But for that its politicization must stop, also must stop the power rivalry in its decision making bodies. There should be some global norms, reinforced by the global body. For that there needs to be consensus among the big powers. That can be possible when the big powers do not transgress the laws of the UN when it suits their national interests and enforce the international laws when they suit their national interests.

A modified version of this article was earlier published at www.opendemocracy.net

Contending Visions of Development in India, more Political than Economic

As India’s general elections will take place in less than a year to elect a new government in New Delhi, political parties with support from noted economists have ratcheted up rival visions of development. Though this trend could be visible in all general elections, the forthcoming election has witnessed an unprecedented uptick of participation by noted economists.

Intense debates about India’s growth are not something new as such debates have taken place since independence. While India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru called industries as ‘temples of modern India,’ his political mentor Mahatma Gandhi was against industrialization and believed in village swaraj (self-rule). Post-independence India had witnessed the influence of Gandhi’s ideas. Nehru followed a middle path, called ‘mixed economy,’ under which heavy industries remained under state control, while small scale industries were left to private initiatives. The impact of Soviet five-year plans was evident on Indian economic strategy in those years. The preamble to India’s constitution also proclaimed India to be a ‘socialist’ country. Nehru’s thinking led to the establishment of many heavy industries and particularly under the second five-year plan, also called the Mohalanobis model, many heavy industries were established in different parts of India.

This mixed economy model was largely pursued till the late 1980s. Both India andChina followed socialist models of growth. China’s opening of its economy for private sector and foreign investment in late 1970s under Deng Xiaoping led it to grow at a faster rate, while India’s economic growth tottered at a lower single digit level with slogans such as ‘garibi hatao’ (eliminate poverty) occupying center stage in policy making.

It was only in the early 1990s when India underwent an acute financial crisis that it opened its economy. It was under the stewardship of then Finance Minister, currently Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh that India invited foreign capital, provided incentives to private sectors, ended quota-permit raj, and as a result in a span of one decade India’s growth story was not only India’s story, but also a story of a rising power with Indian companies like Tata, Reliance, Bharti, etc making names and investments around the world. While in 1991 India’s foreign exchange reserves stood at $1.2 billion, in 2013 the number was more than $280 billion. India’s growth story, however, was blighted by massive corruption, indecisiveness of its leaders and internal problems.

Ahead of the forthcoming elections noted economists have argued about the most appropriate model for the country and hence have deliberately or inadvertently are linked themselves to the ideology of one or the other political party. Amartya Sen, Nobel laureate and professor at Harvard University, argued in his book Development as Freedom that development does not merely imply the building of industries or foreign exchange reserves but also the penetration of fruits of development to all layers of society including the poor and marginalized. He further argued that unless human capabilities are developed, a state cannot attain levels of just and fair growth. His academic rivals Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya, professors at ColumbiaUniversity, may not disagree with Sen on this point, but they sharply disagree as to how to achieve such a goal.

The debate between the noted economists can be characterized by the dilemma as to which came first, egg or chick? The Bhagwati-Pangariya duo would argue that investment in industries, infrastructure, etc. would propel growth with positive impact on the government’s welfare activities, as growth in these sectors will have its trickle down effect. Sen would argue that without development of capabilities in terms of education, health, and the alleviation of poverty, development will not be just and fair. It will lead to asymmetrical development with the rich becoming richer, and poor becoming poorer. Bhagwati and Panagariya have a different view on this. While Sen termed India’s recent growth story as ‘uncertain,’ as reflected in the title of his recent co-authored book Uncertain Glory, an indirect reference to India’s growth story, the Columbia University professors have taken a positive approach to India’s growth story in their recent book Why Growth Matters: How Economic Growth in India Reduced Poverty and the Lessons for Other Developing Countries.

The intellectual debates are politicized or are being appropriated by political parties. The current debate between these two rival groups is about the efficacy of the ‘Bihar model’ (with which Sen has sympathies) and ‘Gujarat model’ (with which Bhagwati and Panagariya have sympathies). Both Indian states have witnessed growth. But, it is not the question of which model of development that has raised the debate to such a charged atmosphere; rather it is the political implications of these debates and their likely impact on electorates. Bihar the north Indian state is ruled by a regional political party called Janata Dal Untied (JD- U), and led by Nitish Kumar, whileGujarat the west Indian state, ruled by a national party called Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The state is led by Narendra Modi. Both JD-U and BJP were allies for the last 17 years till June this year. At present Kumar is a strong critic of Modi and criticizes his secular credentials for the Gujarat riots of 2002 that led to killing of more than a thousand Muslims. Interestingly, Kumar praised Modi’s leadership in 2003 in a speech, within a year of the riots.

Times have changed with changing aspirations. Both Kumar and Modi are now aspiring to play pivotal roles in Indian politics beyond their states. While Modi is seen as prime ministerial candidate of the BJP in forthcoming elections, Kumar has kept his political cards close to his chest though his aspirations are not hidden. The current ruling party in India , the Indian National Congress (INC) is an arch-rival of BJP; hence it has welcomed the separation of JD-U from BJP. While the economists have raised fruitful debates about India’s growth, the politicization of these debates have actually tapered much of intellectual stamina of these debates.

Published in http://blogs.umb.edu/paxblog/ on 30 July 2013

How far can the Multilateral Forums like BRIC Go?

The third week of April 2010 just aftermath of the international nuclear summit witnessed vigorous activities by the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) members in the Brasilian Itamaraty Palace on 15 April 2010. The leaders as the earlier summit meeting at Russian city Yekaterinburg displayed enthusiasm to raise the multilateral platform to play a crucial in the international affairs by widening the international decision making process with the inclusion of members India and Brazil in the United Nation’s Security Council, by widening the ambit of Bretton Woods Structures with the provision of incorporating the increasing clout of these nations, and also equally importantly by expediting the steps towards an international convention on terrorism and mitigating the effects of climate change. And also importantly, perhaps for the first time, the countries insisted on a time frame to meet these issues.

Some of the international news agencies called the deliberations of the BRIC countries ‘baby steps,’ and they easily pointed out ‘huge differences in national goals and tensions in security and economic policy’ in these countries while pursuing common goals. Furthermore they pointed out that the fixing of time frame by these countries, which comprise about 20 per cent of world GDP with the some of the fastest growing economies within the grouping, is something unexpected as it amounted to tactics of ‘greater pressure.’ These observations might carry some weight, but the international climate has never been as complicated as it is now and undoubtedly these baby steps of the grouping can be starting points towards rapid strides in making world politics fair, multipolar and stable. As to the fixing of the time table, for instance for the remoulding the global financial bodies like World Bank and International Monetary Fund by providing greater say to these countries with more voting rights by the time of G-20 Summit in South Korea in November 2010, and to frame and develop an equitable climate change regime at the forthcoming Cancun Conference in November 2010 following United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Roadmap, it might be discomforting for the statusquoist powers but if at all the world needs to accommodate the aspirations of rising powers, then the widening of the international political and economic framework emerges not only as an adjustment but also an imperative. To add, the BRIC leaders also emphasized the role of G-20 as a global economic body which can lay out the future course of actions which the global financial system will need to take. The joint statement of summit declared, “We advocate the need for the G-20 to be proactive and formulate a coherent strategy for the post-crisis (global financial crisis) period.” The grouping also signed a cooperation agreement among the development banks to jointly fund infrastructure works of the members.

Equally crucially for the first time since its inception as an important multilateral body in 2008, the grouping took the issue of Iran as a focal point for deliberation. It believed dialogue and diplomacy bear more value that the sanctions which the US leadership is keen to impose on Iran to bring it to pressure. The grouping will likely emphasize on the role of the international bodies like International Atomic Energy Agency to tackle the nuclear issue in Iran, rather than imposition of sanctions. This emphasis acquires crucial value as it emerged just aftermath of the nuclear summit in the US. As some of the news agencies report the imposition of sanctions will likely be on the government of Iran not on its people, it becomes difficult to comprehend how the imposition on the government will not affect the people. Rather on the contrary, some would suggest, the imposition will have direct bearing on the people and it is the influential people in the government who can face the sanctions without much problem. However, the BRIC countries emphasize that Iran must cooperate with international bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency, and all steps need to be taken by the methods of dialogue and diplomacy to prevent Iran to develop nuclear weapons. But at the same time the grouping considered it appropriate to build nuclear reactors for civilian purposes like clean energy.

Though the summit was shifted back by one day as the Chinese leader was to leave due to earthquake in Qinghai in China, and the summit had to be held just after another summit that day itself comprising IBSA nations (India, Brazil and South Africa), which also equally urged for a global order free from domination and discrimination, it is considered the BRIC summit was successful in many ways. Indian Prime Minister observed, “We aspire for rapid growth for ourselves and for an external environment that is conducive to our development goals. BRIC countries have an important role to play in shaping the pace, direction and sustainability of global economic growth.” In the context of imposition of sanctions, the Iran issue will likely figure in the forthcoming days in the United Nations’ Security Council. Brazil is currently a member of United Nations’ Security Council non-permanent member, which assumes significance as it opposes any imposition of sanctions on Iran. Two permanent veto wielding members Russia and China are also opposed to sanctions, and are in favour of dialogue and diplomacy. Interestingly, Lebanon, which is unlikely to support sanctions on Iran, will take the chairmanship of the Security Council in May. In this emerging scenario it will be quite significant and decisive as to how Iran issue is figured in the highest international decision making body, which particularly can not develop a single point of agenda on this issue.

BRIC, in spite of its weakness or differences among members, no doubt will play a significant role in international politics. The coming of the countries together is no mean achievement, and on various issues like Iran, United Nations, Bretton Woods structures, climate change, etc. the grouping has already been vociferous. The clout of BRIC as a significant multilateral body is bound to be reckoned with, However, the grouping will have to develop more coherent and consensual agenda for actions in coming days.

India’s New War Strategy and Tensions in South Asia

Indian Army Chief’s recent statement that India is ready to face ‘two-front war’ simultaneously with Pakistan and China has ruffled the old tensions in the New Year with Pakistan reacting to the statement as usually strongly and with China remaining guarded in its criticism. The Indian Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor in a statement in the last week of December 2009 while reviewing India’s military doctrine, a routine exercise every five years, in the training centre in Shimla announced India’s new strategy to counter the two neighbours in the case of eventual attacks. The timing of the statement, the gravity of the regional situation, and the uneasy situation in the region emanating out of the problems of terrorism have further compounded the regional politics in South Asia.

The regional situation in South Asia has never been peaceful and stable enough to allow the countries of the region to pursue their national policy agenda in a peaceful manner. The differing ambitions of nations at times backed up by the jingoistic attitudes and grandstanding, and the inherent tensions within the borders of these countries coupled with the lack of requisite civic culture have put the countries in the region in the vortex of instability and under development. The regional forums like SAARC have failed to achieve any substantial results for regional cooperation. India’s statement about two-front war at this critical juncture has been questioned by many quarters. Particularly, while India-Pakistan relations are passing through a turbulent phase, and while India-China relations are not at a good shape, it is natural and obvious to raise concerns at Indian army chief’s statement at this juncture.

The first explanation with which most of the Indian establishment will agree is that it is routine exercise of the Indian army, hence there is nothing exceptional or surprise element to it. When the new army doctrine will be devised, or prepared, then only the exact intent of the Indian army in stating this strategy can be comprehended. It is a fact that India has considered China and Pakistan as potential threats. India has fought three wars with Pakistan and one with China. There are also reports how China and Pakistan collude to develop a front which can be probably used against India. The army chief’s statement is a reflection of this concern of Indian establishment which expressed the Indian readiness to fight a possible war simultaneously with China and Pakistan if and when that occurs. The border between India and Pakistan even today witnesses intermittent violence, and between India and China there are thousands of miles of unsettled and contested border. Similar is the case of unsettled border with Pakistan in Kashmir. Hence the argument is India may not be in a mood to go to war with powers China and Pakistan. But the statement may be considered of a deterrence value, which can probably be used as a kind of self-defence formula by India to further strengthen its ‘cold start’ strategy in the event of war.

The opposite view point appears equally forceful. After the terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008, India-Pakistan relations have reached a new low, and India has repeatedly demanded that Pakistan must take action against the culprits of the attack. Pakistan, India argues, has failed in its promise to bring to justice the culprits of the attack. Besides the issue of terrorism, both the countries too have different perceptions in the context of Afghanistan, and also on many other issues. Regarding China, the last year witnessed much acrimonious exchange of statements between India and China particularly on the issue of territorial jurisdiction and on the issue of Dalai Lama. But, the time of tensions does not allow such a provocative statement that may further add to the tensions instead of defusing the same. China was mild but firm in its criticism. Chinese official news agency Xinhua observed that Indian army chief’s statement is not going to ease tensions in South Asia rather it will further aggravate the tensions in the region. Reactions from Pakistan were, however, sharp. Pakistan foreign office spokesperson on 4 January 2010 called this statement ‘absurd and irresponsible.’ He further criticized India as the statement, for Pakistan, ‘betrays a hostile intent as well as a hegemonic and jingoistic mindset which is quite out of step with the realities of our time.’ Pakistan Foreign Minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi observed while Pakistan at home is confronting with radical elements and sacrificing its soldiers for the sake of peace and stability in Pakistan, such a statement is absurd.

Looking at the issue from a broader perspective, it is yet difficult to decipher the exact intentions behind the statement of the Indian army chief. In international politics it is said that retaining the deterrent capability is more difficult than fighting war. Perhaps the statement reflected India’s intention to retain its deterrent capability without any recourse to war. If the intention is defensive then it might have some value. But if the intention is offensive, it will only add to tensions in the region. The final draft of the military doctrine will likely take into account all these factors into account. However, for the time being, the fact remains that the statement has made the South Asian regional politics further complex. With the Pakistan army chief’s statement that Pakistan is ready to face Indian onslaught, the situation has become further uneasy. The initial days of the new year, it can be safely said, have augmented the tension in South Asia with three nuclear powers at loggerheads, an alarming situation not only for the region but for the world as a whole.

Emerging Paradigm in Asia-Pacific

The meeting of Asia-Pacific leaders at Istana, Singapore on 14th and 15th of November 2009 called for a ‘balanced, inclusive, and sustainable growth.’ Under the theme of ‘sustaining growth, connecting the region,’ the 21-member body including the powerful economies of the world vowed at the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting (AELM) to coordinate policies towards ushering in a free trade regime, which will operate in a climate without restrictions. However, the meeting that took place in the midst of global recession appeared to have ended up in high scale rhetoric without much substance. But the summit in its utterances and proceeding brought into focus certain new developments that are likely to shape global economy in coming years.
Broadly speaking, the summit brought into focus two broader but incipient developments of the emerging global economy. The first is global in character and more pertains to economy, while the second dimension pertains to the domain of regional politics in the Asia-Pacific. At least from a symbolic point of view, the summit called for an inclusive, balanced and sustainable growth of the global economy. The recession has unveiled the fractured nature of global economy, subordinated by protectionism and other trade barriers. As a result when the economy stumbled in the US, the effect was felt throughout the globe. Interestingly while the West particularly the US suffered heavily due to the recession, the east Asian countries like China registered high economic growth in these periods. But, the point is that due to the skewed global financial system with unbalanced tariff measures, protectionism, trade restrictions, the global economic rules and practices have become unfair. The APEC leaders in a statement emphasized on a ‘strategy that supports more balanced growth within and across economies, achieves greater inclusiveness in our societies and sustains our environment.’ Hence, the call for an inclusive global financial system makes sense especially in the height of global recession.
Protectionism is another issue raised by the participants in the summit. Chinese President Hu Jintao pointed out how the protectionist measures by the developed countries like the US needs to be revoked, to allow the operation of free market economy as per the rules of the market. The US recently imposed tariffs on Chinese goods like glossy papers, phosphates, steel pipes and tires. Currently there is no global regime that oversees the free run of the market economy in the world, which as a result restricts development of developing economies. The Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who chaired the summit, called for the need to open markets and lower tariffs and restrictions to allow fair competition in Asia. The members also agreed on the need for structural reforms for operation of free market economy. Hence, the APEC voice on curbing the protectionist measures is a welcome move in the direction of balanced global economic growth.
One of the most pressing global issues of the climate change was, however, relegated to the backburner in the summit. Though an earlier draft emphasized that the summit will take up the issue of climate change towards evolving a common agreement, it could not take place. The participants failed to give any commitment to reduce emission of green house gases to a particular target. The supposed common agreement on climate change was left halfway to be further deliberated at Copenhagen summit on climate change. It is doubtful whether Copenhagen summit will help evolve a consensus on the issue.
Besides these broader issues the summit meeting needs to be analyzed in view of some prominent trends in the region. China is going to be the most important player in the region. In the current trend of development, China is going to replace Japan to be the second largest economy in the world. And also due to its military might, geographical proximity, bilateral trade in surge with other countries, China will likely be in an advantageous position in comparison to the US in the region. Some of the attempts by the US to salvage its downward economy came starkly into the picture during the recent ASEAN+US summit. The US President Barack Obama’s call to ASEAN countries to export US goods in order to create jobs in the US, his appeal to join the Trans- Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP, currently comprise Singapore, New Zealand, Brunei and Chile), and to China to strengthen its yuan with dollar, indicate the attempt of the US to boost its badly hit economy. Reportedly, China has kept yuan at about 6.83 per dollar since July 2008. The US has argued an undervalued yuan contributes to imbalances in bilateral trade. Interestingly due to China’s opposition the monetary issue was not deliberated upon in the Asia-Pacific summit. In an attempt to maintain cordial economic relations, Obama visited China on 16 November 2009 reportedly to assuage Chinese apprehensions about the US restrictions on trade and to boost bilateral economic relations.
The recent Obama tour of east Asia is an indication of the US attempts to reverse the diminishing clout of the US in the region. The south east Asian nations are implementing the free trade area agreement in January 2010, which may likely expand to ASEAN+3 (China, Japan and South Korea) in near future. Similarly, as some analysts observe, it may further lead to free trade between ASEAN+6 (besides +3, India, Australia and New Zealand), which may further dent the US influence in the region. China’s trade with the ASEAN has grown almost 20-fold since 1993, with its share of total ASEAN commerce rising to 10.5 per cent from 2 per cent.
The latest summit meeting of APEC, which currently accounts for about 55 per cent of global output and 40 per cent of the world’s population, in itself did not pronounce something substantial but the overall scenario in which it took place is indicative of the new paradigm emerging in the scene of Asia-Pacific with global ramifications.