Sunday, April 5, 2026
Home Blog Page 350

The UN @75-PM’s relevant speech

0

As a matter of fact, the United Nations as an Organisation is ageing. With the age degeneration starts, unless some reinvigorating steps are taken. Undoubtedly, the UN was formed in 1945 i.e in the analog-age. Now, it is the digital-age. So, re-imagination and reform are needed. To its credit, for seventy-five years, the UN has worked better than its predecessor: The League of Nations, which was formed after the first world war. The League of Nation was unable to prevent the immediate Second World War or the animosities prevailing among the powerful nations in the world. The UN initially came into existence with four main purposes: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to achieve international co-operation in the solution of economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems; and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common aims.

To accomplish these aims, it has set-up a number of bodies through which it can act. For quite some years, it has performed well, prevented World Wars, famines, catered to health and educational needs through WHO and UNESCO and other such wings. However resilient the UN as an Organisation is, it is subject to change, as change is the fact of life. In these three, four months of Corona-virus-spread and Chaos in the world, the UN almost disappeared, barring some activity at the fringe.

Like any other aged Organisation, the UN has become plateaued i.e at a stage of stagnation, as it has not reformed according to time. For this, there are various reasons. After the World War-II, the victors i.e allied forces: the US, the UK, France, Russia along with, one Asian giant -China added up, formed as permanent members in the Security Council with veto power. They are all status-quoits. So, the prime minister, Shri Narendra Modi ji’s saying that (in his speech in the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) held on 17 July) “The UN was originally born from the furies of the Second World War”, is understandable.

However, China has no role in WW-II, yet it obtained a permanent seat in the Security Council from the Asian region. Ever since China entered, it has been curtailing India’s growth in the region, being a powerful member. Indisputably, India is the largest liberal democracy in the world. And is also from Asia like the China. When it comes to choice, China, a Communist country with an authoritarian rule, often violating Human Rights (which the UN envisages), is kept on the pedestal. None questions the UN for this anomaly. India has a legitimate right to have the permanent seat in the Security Council, as it has been a member of the UN, right from its inception in April 1945 i.e when Organisation had started with only 50-nations.

Now, the UN has 193 member countries. In the present day world, the complexities have grown. China being the biggest beneficiary of the globalization and modern technology, its assertive power is on the rise. It’s unstoppable on land-grabbing from its territorial contiguous countries and in the South China sea, which the UN is unable to contain. So, the UN’s role has also become questionable.

Reforms in the UN & Options for the Change: Right now there are three-different options for the change (of the UN) floating around. The first and foremost is: a hard-core realistic perspective of the powerful states (the US, the UK, France, Russia & China) to be at the helm of affairs i.e as they are exactly, right now. The second is to have the present UN with certain modifications/inclusions. Third is a complete revamp, as the current institutions in the UN are getting weaker. For, there is no structure available in the UN, for the contemporary needs such as: climate change, big-data, epidemic-pandemics etc and also on the ungoverned places that needed to be addressed like: the digital, cyber, solar energy and polar regions. Hence there should be a full revamp of the UN.

After the pandemic (Covid-19) domestic issues largely mattered to all countries. Nations started looking inward/endogenous. Liberals’ wish of Liberal-Market and Internationalism failed, is the thinking. There is another view: that is based on interconnections. In Coronavirus time countries need to support each other. In science and technology, countries need inter-connectedness. Health care is of primary importance. Liberal International- Order would be the solution. Which options fits for India in the above, is the question. For India, international co-operation is necessary. This inter-connectedness is necessary for science and technology. This is for India’s intrinsic development. So, the second is needed.

Reasons for the UN to depend on powerful nations: The UN gets finances mostly through voluntary contributions. They become a major source of sustenance for the Organisation. It is said, in the UN everything is equated to: what is your (member countries’ financial) contribution! The US and China being the big financiers to the Organisation, their opinion prevails in many ways. Many countries see this polarity and question it. India has been pushing for reforms in the UN, including in the Security Council, stating that the composition of the UN, doesn’t reflect the current realities and is not representative enough. Whereas, the status-quo suits all permanent members of the Security Council at present! Among them all, China is the only permanent member opposed to India’s inclusion into the powerful group.

However, India’s concern has been taken into cognizance by the US. So, there is a good signal emanating from the US. The former American diplomat to India, Richard Verma said (on July19), the democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, if elected to power in November elections, will help shape the UN, so that India gets a permanent seat in the Security Council. That shows, India got the recognition for its worth. Recently, India got elected as non-permanent member (once again) in the Security Council for the term of 2-years starting from 1st January 2021. But India’s fight for a permanent seat in the Security Council should continue (as a patient civilizational country) in the changed scenario of post-Covid-19.

All aspirational countries in the world are seeking reforms in the UN. Accordingly, the Indian prime minister has also sought for multilateralism. He in his address to ECOSOC said, “Only reformed multilateralism with a reformed United Nations at its Centre can meet the aspirations of the humanity. That is in fact human-centric globalization”. So, India is not in support of a uni or bi-polar world-order, where a single super power or two dictate: what other countries should be doing. India aspires for a reformed-UN, that has the approach of multilateralism.

Online education is farce; time to move beyond textbook education and make it practical

0

Suppose, the rise in corona cases continues unabated, and numbers don’t subside, what are we going to do? We will have to live with the new normal, isn’t it? Anyway, wearing masks, maintaining social distancing, sanitizing and washing hands regularly, have become new normal. Few more things can be added to it.

Government is pushing online education for school children and college students, as educational institutions are still not allowed to open, as a part of lockdown measures announced by the government to contain coronavirus. At the same time University Grants Commission (UGC) and Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) are pushing for final exams of the university students to be held, when it had already cancelled remaining papers of CBSE board exams. Irony, isn’t it? Few state governments, mostly ruled by opposition parties, are opposing this move, however, let’s not get into that right now. 

I see few problems with the online education system. I’m no way against the technology, but we should be making judicious use of it. In the name of online education, schools have started conducting online classes on video calling platforms like Zoom, Google Duo etc. This has increased screen time for children, as if what they were already spending in front of the screen wasn’t enough. We all know and have read about ill-effects of increased usage of screen, especially on children. So, I’m not going to preach you again. Online classes have given legitimate reason to children to be in front of the screens. Though MHRD has come up with PRAGYATA guidelines to limit screen time for students, other problems still persist.

Then there is a question of affordability and digital divide. Basic requirement of online classes is to have a smartphone, more preferably a tab or a laptop and data connection. While data has become affordable in India in the last few years, the same is not the case with mobiles, tablets and laptops. Many people, especially from lower income groups, have mobile phones for personal use, they can’t afford to purchase another two or three mobile phones for their children for online education. There are already few cases of student/parent suicides for not able to purchase a new gadget to keep it up with online education. In India, where the central government still has to distribute free food grains to around 20 crore families (80 crore individuals out of 135 crores), this reality is more starking.

Do these people have affordability to purchase new gadgets for their school going children? According to a recent survey by Maharashtra State Council of Educational Research (MSCERT) and UNICEF, only 60% parents of school going children have smart phones with most parents owning a single smartphone. Therefore, it becomes difficult for children, especially if there are two – three children in the family to pursue online education. This way we are making education exclusive and not inclusive. Imagine, if this is the state of affairs in Maharashtra, which is the richest state in India, what the parents and children of poorer states would be going through. A survey done in early April also throws up similar findings.

In the current situation, many people are struggling with reduced incomes, barely making their ends meet. How justifiable it is to force online education on such people? Delhi High Court has ruled that schools have right to block students from online classes, if their parents haven’t paid school fees. Can this be justified in the current situation? No matter how big proponent of the free market I’m, I find this move anti humanity. Will this not further create the gap in society? Who will be responsible, if a student/parent takes an extreme step tomorrow, distressed by this?

This is on the student side. Picture isn’t rosy on teachers’ side too. Teachers, especially the old ones, like into their 40s and 50s aren’t so adept at using technology. Human psychology makes it very difficult to learn new things in that age. Making a powerpoint presentation might be a small thing for younger people but a tedious one for old teachers. There are examples of older teachers losing their jobs due to their technological limitations. Teachers are also being bullied online, by the very students, whom they are supposed to teach.

Why can’t we think of an alternate system and out of the box solution. After all it is said that the necessity is the mother of invention. It is increasingly clear that we have lost one semester to the pandemic and may lose this educational year. Instead of forcing students for online classes, why can’t practical projects be given to them depending upon their age. For boards we would need a different approach and experts can brainstorm over it. Also imbibing practical education shouldn’t be limited to this year and should be continued in future, like European countries, which focus more on practical education than theoretical/textbook education.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi always says that he comes from a very poor family and knows the pain of poverty, and therefore he is able to take the decisions which benefit the poor. It is high time than he should intervene and stop this façade of online education, at least for the school children. 

(This article is written by Keshav, a media graduate who left journalism for an alternative career. Aviation entusiast. Indian, Marwari, Marathi- in that order.)

Hindus today are Arjun of Kurukshetra, confused and without confidence. They should remember Shrimad Bhagwad Gita and fight for their rights

0

Shrimad Bhagwad Gita is one of the holiest books for Hindus. It is a conversation between Bhagwan Shri Krishna and Arjun, where Bhagwan advices Arjun on how a man should deal with situations in his life as and when they occur, on the backdrop of the great war of Mahabharata, where cousins Kauravs and Pandavs fought for the kingdom.

The great warrior Arjun, who was the best archer on the entire earth, was confused before the war, about fighting against his own family elders, cousins, teacher, and other relatives. He had no heart to fight to this war, thinking about bloodshed, and the idea of killing his own family members, friends, and other relatives. He was thinking of the end result of the war which was he would lose by paying with his life, or if he wins, that victory would be over thousands of dead bodies of his near and dear ones. By indulging in such massacre, he would never be in peace, and enjoy his kingdom. That’s when Bhagwan Shri Krishna who was Arjun’s charioteer in the war, guided Arjun about his duty (dharma) to fight the war, even if the opponents were his family members, because he was fighting for his rights and for the truth. This conversation in the form of questions and answers, between Bhagwan Shri Krishna and Arjun is known as Shrimad Bhagwad Gita.

Hindus today are Arjun of Kurukshetra, who are similarly confused about their rights, in their own country. They are unwilling to fight against hegemony of Abrahamic religions. Instead of thinking that they’ll live in peace after this war, if they decide to take on them, they are shying away from it exactly like Arjun, thinking how I’ll fight my fellow countrymen, or even friends from the other religions? Won’t they be offended by my thoughts, and what I speak for the Hindu rights? Please don’t take the literal meaning of ‘war’ and ‘fight’. Asserting Hindu rights doesn’t mean that you have to go, and physically fight like Mahabharat war, and kill the people from the other side. Hindu scriptures teach us adaptability with the time, unlike Abrahamic scriptures. Today, we live in a rule of law, and therefore it is not permitted to kill anyone for whatever reason, except for self-defense. Even Quran mentions the war against infidels like Gita does against your adversaries. However, we Hindus, know that it doesn’t mean going and killing someone unlike Muslim terrorists, who believe that Quran is final word of Allah, and should be implemented literally, and that is why we see killings happening across the world, in the name of Allah.

We need to fight the war of misinformation unleashed against us, and at the same time, proactively fight against those, who insult us without any instigation, within the rule of law. Left liberals and Islamists have adapted one strategy very effectively, which is raising voice against any perceived insult in hoards, which forces law enforcement agencies to act. Why can’t we do the same? Our silence emboldens them. We need to confront them on every platform. While they can force entire world to go for Halal certifications, a FIR is lodged against bakery owner in Chennai, whose advertisement said that they don’t employ Muslim staff, or a complaint is filed against poor fruit vendors in Jharkhand, for merely putting saffron flags on their stalls? How that is even crime?

If this was not enough Islamists sitting in India, have started targeting Indian Hindus living abroad, particularly in the Gulf countries. Liberals like Harini Calmur declaring that she won’t buy anything from shops having saffron flags; alright that’s her choice, but at the same time she gleefully labels Hindus denying delivery from Muslim delivery boy as bigots? If you can exercise your choice, why can’t others exercise their choice? You have no rights to call other person a bigot when you do exactly the same. You will find such double standards all across the liberal space, however that is not the point of discussion here. Point is we have to give them back in their own language.

Whenever you see an insult hurled against the country, Hindus, gods, other religious symbols, immediately file a FIR, which should be a physical FIR. Currently there is a fad among right wingers to file online FIR sitting in from the comfort of your home. Remember our country is still not at that stage, where online FIRs would be taken seriously, and acted upon. Unless you sweat it out, and move out of your home, you can’t win this. Fight the battle in legal way. Inundate habitual offenders like Rana Ayyub, Kunal Kamra with FIRs across the country. Be united in your fight. We Indians, and more particularly Hindus, have an historical problem not being united, and being selfish for petty gains, and that is the reason, why Abrahamic religions spread in India. Even Arjun was being selfish looking at the prospects of killing his own clan, and thought of taking sanyas before the war, however Bhagwan Shri Krishna took him on a right path. Since there is no Bhagwan Shri Krishna around to guide us, we need to awake the Shri Krishna within us and fight this war.

Be like ISKCON, which has decided to file, and pursue a case against standup comedian Surleen Kaur and Shemaroo Entertainment for hurting sentiments of Shri Krishna bhakts. Another comedian Alokesh Sinha was forced to apologise for cracking jokes on Hanuman Chalisa. Sad part is those insulting Hindus and Hinduism are mostly Hindus themselves, who are hopelessly unaware of our cherished past. While it is important that one shouldn’t always live in past counting previous achievements, it is equally true that one shouldn’t also forget them. People who don’t learn from past mistakes are bound to be doomed. Don’t repeat the mistakes of your forefathers. Once you make this a habit, other side would be forced to be careful before uttering a single word against your religion and country.

(This article is written by Keshav, a media graduate who left journalism for an alternative career. Aviation entusiast. Indian, Marwari, Marathi- in that order.)

Despite ban, Tiktok is still available to download in India

It’s been a month since the Government of India banned 59 Chinese apps over privacy concerns and other issues. In this list, the short video sharing app “TikTok” was the most discussed app in Indian Media. Before the government banned these apps, the very controversial (unofficial) battle of YouTube vs Tiktok was the top trending topic in India.

Recently, it came to notice of a few users, that “TikTok” is still available to download in the Google Play store. Several users Reported it thorough social media that they are able to download “TikTok” (with the date mentioned in it). According to some users, Tiktok was not shown on the list while searching “TikTok” in Google play store, but it was shown in the list while searching for other Miss-spelled keywords of Tiktok i.e. takitok , tikktok, ticktock, etc. It was shown as a Recommended app while searching it on the play store.

In addition to that, Tiktok was found in a similar apps list while searching for Instagram in the Play store. It was in the first position in the list. we can see the screenshots below.

According to some users. They were able to download TikTok after the ban and removed from the play store and app store. Screenshots for the same can be seen in the above photos.

Google play store is available on Mobiles and also accessible from computers. we can install or update any apps in our Mobile (Android Mobiles) with Google account (Also known as Gmail account) associated with our Android Mobile. In the web version of the play store, TikTok was shown with its details, but upon clicking on Install button the error message saying “This item is not available in your country” popped up. screenshots can be seen below.

In the past, Google deleted nearly 7 million negative reviews to improve its rating, and now it adds the TikTok via backdoors. Which raises many questions among us.

PS: The TikTok was successfully installed in phones but it was showing network error as reported by the users. and it shows the same error while using VPN apps.

Politicians-Criminals-Bureaucratic nexus: Saga of crime – punishment, political administration of UP

Our bureaucratic system breeds corruption and as a result, is born a criminal who is fed by the political affiliations and keeps himself safe with the sold rice bags of our delayed justice system and administrative negligence/overpowering.

The roots of Gundaraj in UP can be traced back to the times of 1980’s and 90’s when sand mafias, coal mafias were on upsurge. Their political affiliations were secondary affairs, primary being their enhanced fletching of muscular and monetary power At that time, gross inequality dominated the society, certain factors such as – class intersectionality where upper class and Bahubalis used to influence administration and governance in an unparallel way, disparity in income level, poverty and hunger crisis lead to the rise of a system where many chose the illegal ways to fight the prevailing situation or voluntarily became a part of it and then fell prey to the labyrinth of power-play.

For power game, money was as essential as connections in administration, as a result of which auctions and tenders became very susceptible to the deep-rooted corruption where staircase followed from district departments to Delhi offices. In the due process, regional aspirations were suppressed under the garb of politics, money and power, which marked the saga of Purvanchal politics which then followed to the other parts of UP as well. Toppling of successive governments over administrative failures and caste issues were among the foremost reasons behind the uprise of these mafias which later found the refugee in active politics through the backstage entry.

On contrary to the general notion that politicians harbor criminals, my readings and observation makes me conclude that criminal is never dependent on political shade but interdependent on the three-round circles: politicians-criminals-bureaucratic nexus. Some facts are hard to swallow but some are even harder to think of and therefore it is said: facts don’t care about feelings, one such is: “Our bureaucratic and administrative divisions create a nexus b/w legal and non-legal entities to solidify the groundwork; and do what is necessary but can’t be done in a administrative-legal manner as it requires time and resources which is scarce in the fast-paced administrative race”. To call these mafias as OGW and UGW of administrators won’t be surprising. From using them as human surveillance (mukhbir) to accessing their influential power in order to extort money from complainants and quash investigations to avoid hullabaloo has been a normal scenario, especially in lower rank offices/departments.

Successive governments have been giving safe passages to the criminals for they are the one who use them for personal wrangle during their term in state assemblies and then at the time of elections to strike the balance with opposition forces and get funding for party electoral campaigns.

Long-drawn police reforms then and now are very much in the hands of political statures. This safeguard passage to the criminal is provided through the lanes of bureaucratic means.

Taking the example of recent encounter of Vikas Dubey where it was reported that he had been an active criminal since 1990, from his college days. Hailing from the city he belonged, I often heard how Vikas used his influences against the police as he was in a very dear alliance with them, in a two-way manner. His connections in secretariat offices and Vidhan Bhavan in Lucknow weren’t new, but dates back to the early phases of the 2000’s when he was known for his political and bureaucratic syncretism. All the cases he had on his heads were either unreported or if they were, then later he was found to be a non-guilty on the bases of lack of evidence, take into cognizance the murder of then BJP MLA Santosh Shukla in 2002 where more than 15 cops eye-witnessed the murder at the police station but refused to acknowledge in the court. Testimonies of his fear were rumored to be so strong that MLA’s & MP’s of the areas, irrespective of political parties they belonged, were his pawns.

In many cases summons and reports were issued on his name but his strong influence and connections helped him to ward them off. His style of land grabbing was a clear cut example of political-criminal-bureaucratic nexus where he was never reprimanded and despite his multiple complaints of extortion, he was never on the list of most wanted criminal let alone be ‘wanted’.

His connections with SHO, SI, SSP, and MLA & Pradhan of the village are an example which empirically proves the existence of this tricycle.  

He was until very recently, an epitome of affright, his residential neighbors were helpless of his powers and were systemically denied the justice, anyone who dared to speak against him was maltreated by police and their plight was unheard by politicians under the support radar of Vikas.

This all concluded with the ambush where 8 policemen sacrificed their lives to this tri nexus. With this authorities realized the consequence of ignoring the rule of law and not taking adequate measures in response to the demand of the situation.

But then again when internal fiasco arose because of nexus b/w senior officers, politicians and Vikas, everyone sidelined their connection with him and started blaming each other for allowing him to blossom. Trapped were the administrators/senior officers who were under the radar of suspicion, many of whom were either suspended or transferred let alone be booked for conspiracy and backbiting.

While his close aides were being eliminated in encounters, he was running from states to states to seek the shelter under the past connections he had made. After this, he was caught and strategically eliminated in the name of old fictitious, classical and filmy narrative: escaping-hitting-encountered. Many called it justice meanwhile many were suspicious of the incident and called it cover-up to hide the background story: “Making of Vikas Dubey”.

Before Vikas Dubey’s encounter, Pintu Sengar who was a close aid of BSP supremo was killed in unpredicted circumstances which later on the investigation were found to be police backed murder.

Vikas Dubey was not alone; caste and religion politics have created long list criminals who are backed by the respective parties, claiming to be the guardian of law and order, for their influence over the vote bank and respective castes.

Whatever the media portrays or police claims, everything is now annihilated with Vikas. They say justice delayed is justice denied, but what about justice achieved through unjustified means? Isn’t it injustice and mockery of rule of law?

Vikas was doomed to suffer his fate what about those who made him Vikas Dubey, a dreaded criminal? What about this politicians-criminals-administrative nexus that breeds such crimes? Will, it ever end or it will go on eternal recurrence mode?

धर्म – कर्म

कर्म जीवन का श्रृंगार है। यह ठीक उसी तरह है जैसे अनिश्चित आकार के पत्थरों को एक शिल्पकार अपनी कला से सुन्दर मूर्तियों में सृजित कर देता है, जैसे चट्टानों को काटकर सुगम पथ तैयार किया जाता है, जैसे माली एक बीज रोपित करता है तो एक छायादार वृक्ष का निर्माण होता है और ऐसे अनेकों उदाहरण है जिसमें कर्म करते हुए परिणाम तक पहुंचा जा सकता है। इस प्रक्रिया में समय लगता है, एक साधना की भाँति, खुद को समय के हवन कुण्ड में आहुत करना पड़ता है तब कहीं जाकर एक सुन्दर सृजन होता है। लेकिन विषय यह है कि वह क्या है जिससे सद्कर्म की प्रेरणा मिलती है? कौन है जो जीवन को दिशा प्रदान करता है? किसे पढ़, सुन और देख मनुष्य अपने कर्म निर्धारित करता है?

वह धर्म ही है जो कर्म का बोध करवाता है इसलिये कर्म को समझने के लिये धर्म को जानना जरूरी है। कर्म सदैव धर्म से जुड़ा रहा है। आम जीवन में इससे जुड़े अनेकों उदाहरण है। किसी भी परीक्षा में बैठने के लिये हम पहले उसकी नियमावली व दिशा निर्देशों को पढ़ते है और उसके अनुसार ही उत्तरपुस्तिका में प्रश्नों का उत्तर देते हैं। तो यह नियमावली धर्म है और उसके अनुसार परीक्षा देना कर्म। इसलिये जो लोग यह तर्क देते हैं कि धर्म को पढ़े बिना कर्म को समझा जा सकता है तो ऐसे लोग दिशाविहीन होकर रह जाते हैं। अतः धर्म मान्यताओं का हवाला देकर खिसक जाने वाला विषय नहीं है। यह प्रायोगिक, सत्यापित और सदैव प्रासंगिक रहने वाला सार्वभौमिक सत्य है और इसलिये इसे सनातन कहा गया है।

राहुल गाँधी ने की interview में कॉमेडी

0

अभी हाल ही में राहुल गाँधी का एक इंटरव्यू सामने आया है जिसमें वह भारत और भारत की कुछ गतिविधियों की बरमे बात कर रहे हैं। राहुल गाँधी ने भारत की इकॉनमी और पडोसी देशो के साथ भारत के मौजूदा सम्बन्धो के बारमें बात की है। राहुल गांधीजी का इंटरव्यू, इंटरव्यू कम और ‘स्टैंड-अप कॉमेडी’ ज्यादा लग रही थी।

राहुल गाँधीजी यह कहना हैं की एक देश को रक्षा आर्मी नहीं देता बल्कि लोगों की ‘Feelings’ देती है। ‘Feelings’ कैसे एक देश को रक्षा देती है वह राहुल गाँधीजी ने नहीं बताया। राहुल गाँधीजी का यह कहना हैं की भारत के सम्बन्ध ‘रूस’ से बिगड़ गए है। जबकि रूस ने साफ-साफ कहा है की अगर भारत और चीन में युद्ध होता है तो हम ‘भारत’ को साथ देंगे।

आगे राहुल गाँधीजी कहते हैं की चीन ने श्रीलंका का ‘पोर्ट’ ले लिया उसकी वजह है ‘BJP’. जब चीन ने श्रीलंका के साथ ‘पोर्ट’ डील साइन की थी २००८ जब Congress की सरकार थी। फिर राहुल गाँधी कहते है की ‘मालदीव्स’ के साथ जो सम्बन्ध ख़राब है उसकी गलती भी ‘BJP’ की है। हलाकि जब २०१२ में मालदीव्स के प्रेजिडेंट को जबरजस्ती हटाया गया था तब भी भारत में सरकार congress की थी। 

भारत ने ‘भूटान’ में एक हाइड्रोपावर प्लांट बनाया है। भारत ने बांग्लादेश के साथ इतने अच्छे सम्बन्ध बनाये है की दोनो देश में एक ‘ट्रीटी’ साइन हुई है की अगर कोई भी आतंकवादी बांग्लादेश में छुपेगा तो बांग्लादेश उस आतंकवादी को भारत को सोप देंगे। 

एक बात गौर करने वाली है की राहुल गाँधी ने ‘पाकिस्तान’ का नाम नहीं लिए। क्योंकी यह हम सबको पता है की जब congress की सरकार थी तब पाकिस्तान की मौज चल रही थी। लेकिन जबसे BJP की सरकार आयी है तब से ही पाकिस्तान को करारा जवाब मिल रहा है।- ‘URI’ का करारा जवाब हो यह फाई ‘पुलवामा’ का करारा जवाब हो। 

बात करे इकॉनमी की तो भारत की GDP ७.६ तक चली गए थी वर्ष २०१७-१८ में। और अगर बात करे congress की तो उनको तो सिर्फ एक ही चीज़ करनी आती है यह है देश को लूटना और देश में नफरत फैलाना। राहुल गाँधीजी का यह इंटरव्यू काफी मनोरंजक था और उम्मीद है की आगे भी राहुल गाँधी हमें ऐसे ही चुटकुले सुनाते रहेंगे। 

Indo-China relations: Case for a change in India’s foreign policy

0

A lot is going on at India’s northern borders. Arguably the worst stand-off between the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Indian forces in decades in Ladakh has entered its 11th week. While de-escalation has happened at a few points following several rounds of talks, there is still heavy military build-up by both sides near the border. Then there is Pakistan, China’s all-weather friend and a perpetual source of nuisance at India’s north-western borders, committing frequent ceasefire violations. Interestingly, a new neighbour has started creating trouble for India. Nepal has unilaterally changed the status-quo of three disputed areas by altering its map to include them. In doing this, Nepal has disregarded all previous talks and has sent a strong signal to India at a time when it is engaged in a serious stand-off with China.

China has a long-standing history of territorial disputes with as many as 17 countries, on land and water. It has been an aggressor ab-initio. India itself is not new to border stand-offs with China. Every time it has hoped that the economic interdependency will dissipate the short-term flare-ups. However, the situation India faces today is somewhat different. It is facing border tensions with 3 out of its 7 land neighbours, and at the centre of all this aggression against India is China and its hegemony in the region. China is also trying to woo Bangladesh by offering lucrative trade deals. Opportunistic as China is, it has already announced multi-billion dollars’ worth of investments in Myanmar in the face of Myanmar’s recent fallout with the West. That makes it 5 out of 7 land neighbours for India! Then there is Sri Lanka where China has made huge investments in Hambantota Port for its maritime silk route initiative. And let’s not even get to the influence that China exercises on non-neighbouring countries through its debt-trap diplomacy. Regional dominance aside, China has routinely advanced the anti-India narrative at the global stage and has cooperated with Indian adversaries at various levels.

The billion-dollar question then arises – whether India has failed in its Foreign Policy, particularly its China Policy? In the ensuing paragraphs, let us try to answer this question. A brief history of India-China relations in the next few paragraphs would do well to set up a context.

Evolution of Indo-China Relations

Historically, the Indo-China relationship has been that of co-operation and conflict. There have been issues, most pertinent being the territorial issues at multiple borders, but largely the countries have cooperated. After India attained its independence in 1947, the leaders were quite clear in their strategic priorities. Centuries of British exploitation had left the country poor and vulnerable. Development became the priority and the Indian leadership recognized the need for Western support if India were to emerge as a formidable power. At the same time, the importance of a stable neighbourhood could not be underestimated. Relations with communist China had to be maintained and nurtured. After being dominated for so many years, there was also an underlying will to remain independent from foreign powers and influence. This marked the genesis of an independent foreign policy of India. To their credit, the Indian leaders recognized the opportunity to absorb the best practices of the east and the west, and benefit from positive relations with both. Under the leadership of Pandit J.N. Nehru, India, along with a few newly formed countries, decided to follow ‘the policy of non-alignment’ in the backdrop of a growing cold war.

India and China started on a good note. India became one of the first countries to recognize the newly formed People’s Republic of China and establish its diplomatic relations there in 1950. India also supported China at various international fora and even favoured its admission in the United Nations at a time when most of the countries held a negative outlook towards China. As years passed, India saw the growing US favouritism for Pakistan and felt the need to develop better relations with this powerful neighbour. The countries signed the historic Panchsheel Agreement in 1954, emphasizing mutual non-aggression and peaceful co-existence. In this agreement, India accepted Tibet, which was annexed by China in 1950, as an integral Chinese territory.

In 1959, there was an uprising in Tibet which was brutally crushed by the Chinese. The Dalai Lama fled to India, which gave him refuge. This was followed by a period of violent skirmishes at disputed border areas until 1962, when the Chinese army attacked and invaded India. Nehru was shocked as his stance against China was betrayed, and the Panchsheel, the Bandung spirit received an irreparable blow. Completely unprepared, India was run over by the Chinese army in a matter of weeks. The war lasted for a month and ended with a new Line of Actual Control in place. An important outcome of this war was birth the of China-Pakistan friendship, as Pakistan ‘gifted’ thousands of disputed Kashmir areas to China in a 1963 agreement.

Understandably, there were not many developments in the post-war period. In fact, there was another Chinese infiltration, this time in the Sikkim area in 1967. This time, India got the better of China as it successfully pushed it back. This was a big psychological win for India and it was the last time that there were casualties in an Indo-China border tussle, until the skirmishes in Ladakh in 2020. Meetings between India and China resumed on various issues when Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the then External Affairs Minister visited China in 1979. Then in 1986, the Chinese made incursions into the disputed areas of Arunachal Pradesh and there was another stand-off. Nevertheless, India granted statehood to Arunachal Pradesh in 1987 to the displeasure of the Chinese. It was a bold decision given that China had acquired nuclear capabilities by then and India had lost a war with China not very long ago. The tensions ended after several bilateral visits and rounds of talks.

Indo-China relations continued on a positive trajectory after that. Several agreements– such as the 1993 Agreement on Peace and Tranquillity on borders, the 2003 Strategic Partnership, the 2010 Border Defence Cooperation Agreement – were signed to bring peace and stability to the region. An important milestone worth mentioning was when China recognized Sikkim as an integral part of India in 2005, in exchange for full Indian recognition of Tibet as a part of China.

India’s Foreign Policy in the backdrop of Modern Indo-China Relations

Before the ongoing Galvan valley stand-off in Ladakh, there had been no major border issues between the two countries in the 21st century, except the Doklam stand-off. Even the Doklam stand-off was resolved peacefully. However, India has been continuously facing new kinds of challenges in its dealing with China. Beijing has been actively using its soft power against India and its sovereign interests at various international fora. China has raised the Kashmir issue (on behest of Pakistan) in the UN multiple times, attempting to embarrass India by advancing a false, anti-India narrative. China has repeatedly blocked the UN Security Council’s 1267 Committee’s proposal to ban Masood Azhar, the alleged mastermind of 26/11 Mumbai attacks. Since 2009, China has blocked four such proposals to ban the Jaish-e-Mohammad chief.

As a part of its One Belt One Road initiative, China ambitiously planned to build the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), passing through the disputed POK in utter disregard to India’s objections. China does not even shy away from using its economic might to clutch smaller countries into its debt-trap, and then influence their foreign policies in its favour (and against India). What better example to consider than Nepal’s. It is no secret that the sitting PM in Nepal (belonging to the Nepal Communist Party) is heavily influenced by China and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Nepal’s fragile government was reportedly saved from collapse by the intervention of the Chinese Ambassador to Nepal.

Post this, the Nepal PM has attacked India on multiple issues, ranging from blaming Indians for the spread of COVID in Nepal, to passing anti-India legislation. The state of maturity of the Chinese diplomacy becomes evident as China bullies India and other nations by routinely issuing threats through its state-owned media outlets such as the Global Times. The Chinese wolf-warriors make irresponsible statements on Twitter and other social media platforms disregarding the basic courtesy that diplomats must exhibit.

While China continued to take such steps against Indian interests, top leaders of both the countries regularly visited each other and cooperated at various multilateral Institutions like the SCO and the BRICS. What was remarkable during this time was the two-faced nature of China and India’s unwillingness to acknowledge or address it. Indian foreign policy remained extremely defensive. Even when China was raising the issue of alleged Human Rights violations in Kashmir at the UN Security Council, India did not hit back by coming out in support of Taiwan, Tibet, or Hong Kong. It strictly adhered to the One China Policy and restrained from interfering in what it considered as China’s internal matters.

India even turned a blind eye towards the alleged genocide of the Uyghur Muslims in the Chinese Xinjiang province. While the Western powers came out openly in the support of human rights of people in China and the areas it claims to be its parts, India kept mum to avoid angering the dragon. Even during the pandemic, India did not officially blame China for COVID when the rest of the world was doing so. To avoid crossing China, India did not support Taiwan’s entry into the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May 2020.

These are just a few examples of Chinese diplomatic aggression against India and India’s defensive posture. China has routinely acted against Indian interests whenever it has got a chance. And India has just tried to appease China by giving in to its desires and requests. Being inferior to China both militarily and economically, India always believed that it had limited diplomatic space and tried to avoid confrontation to the maximum extent possible.

India’s China Policy

India’s foreign policy towards China can be described as an appeasement. Britannica encyclopaedia describes ‘Appeasement’ as a foreign policy of pacifying an aggrieved country through negotiations to prevent a war. In the Indo-China context, it essentially meant never angering China and giving in to whatever it desired and requested, hoping to keep it calm. The appeasement policy dates back to China’s invasion and annexation of Tibet in 1950, and the subsequent signing of the Panchsheel Agreement in 1953-54. According to this agreement, India accepted Tibet as an undisputed part of China to advance peace and stability in the region, without negotiating for any border concessions in return. China subsequently disputed most of the peace agreements signed between India and Tibet and laid claims on thousands of kilometres of land on the Indian side.

Has the appeasement policy against China run its course? The fact that the Chinese have acted against the Indian interests and even continue to do so today indicates that it most certainly has. The most skeptical lot would also concur after looking at the developments in Ladakh today. The more India has tried to appease China, the more China has taken its advantage and increased expectations from India. It also appears to view the unsettled border as a leverage against India. China has been pushing India for far too long, and India has been ceding to its desires almost every time.

It is high time that India realizes this and rethinks its onerous foreign policy. Appeasement would have been an appropriate policy in a different time, perhaps when India was relatively less powerful, or if India had a sensible neighbour in China. Today, India may be an inferior military power to China, but nonetheless, it is a military superpower. And there is no reason to fear and accept the unjust Chinese terms. True, economically India stands far behind and has a huge trade dependency on China, but one should remember that the Indo-China trade is a mutually beneficial one and China benefits immensely from its trade surplus in exporting to India.

The appeasement policy is not only detrimental to Indian interests but also flies right in the face of Indian sovereignty and national pride. Inherent in such policy is also a risk – a risk of degrading the diplomatic ties with those countries at whose expense India supports China. The dilemma is that while India is reaching nowhere with China in appeasing it, Indian diplomatic ties with other countries are getting sabotaged. This shows explicitly when India does not support Taiwan in its bid to reserve a seat at the WHA despite the small island nation’s magnanimous gesture of sending face-masks to India and explicitly requesting for support. The allies such as the US have repeatedly requested India to stand up to China, which India has so far been reluctant to do. And there can be several other examples.

Even after getting so many wake-up calls in the form of Chinese aggression, New Delhi refused to wake-up. China has run over India and its interests again and again, and no change in this pattern has been observed since last many years. Given the Galvan valley stand-off in Ladakh and the events that have transpired since its beginning, the government seems to have finally realised the pressing need to change India’s China policy. There has been huge public anger over the killing of Indian soldiers at the border and this has translated into a bid to punish China economically. People are actively boycotting Chinese products.

While the longevity of such a movement is uncertain, the government has taken a hint and made some policy changes against the Chinese economic incursion in India. In a series of actions, the Indian government has put in place restrictions on investment from Chinese companies, and has banned 59 Chinese apps from the Indian markets on national security grounds. Following in the footsteps of several Western powers, it has banned state-run telcos from using Huawei and ZTE products for 5G rollout and trials. Some state governments have also suspended contracts with Chinese firms.

Way Forward

At a time when anti-China sentiments are at their all-time high in the country, a swift change in India’s China policy would go a long way in serving Indian sovereign interests. India needs to come to terms with the new geopolitical realities of the world. Appeasement of China should certainly stop and India should consider following an aggressive posture, mirroring that of China’s. An aggressive China policy would also send a strong message to China. If terror and talks cannot go hand in hand with Pakistan, why should Chinese aggression and Indian concessions to China go hand in hand?

India has more than sufficient avenues for exercising an aggressive China policy. It could start with the most obvious, i.e. raising voice against the Chinese aggression against its own people and the rest of the world.  India could join the rest of the world in raising concerns for genuine issues such as human rights violations in Xinjiang, HongKong, and Tibet at important forums such as the UN. Recognizing and supporting Taiwan and Tibet as independent countries should also be explored. The US has already passed legislation in support of both Tibet and Taiwan and India can follow in its footsteps.

India should actively try to cut trade ties with China. Replacing China with its neighbouring countries like Vietnam, Indonesia and other ASEAN nations, which are equally tired of Chinese aggression, would serve a dual purpose. It would reduce India’s dependence on China and at the same time, empower disgruntled Chinese neighbours. This can be supplemented by actively pursuing and completing the stagnated weapons-sale to Vietnam and other Chinese adversaries. China keeps threatening India against making such sales as it could ‘create disturbance in the region’ when it itself makes huge weapons sales to Pakistan regularly. India needs to stand up for its interests, and take steps to ensure a proper balance of power in the region.

There is also a need for India to set its own house in order. When the Chinese are banning Indian news networks in China, Chinese diplomats in India are writing editorials and columns in leading national dailies. The media freedom in India to the Chinese should be accorded on a strict reciprocity basis. Appropriate restrictions need to be in place to prevent the Chinese media from spreading lies and propaganda in India. The role of Chinese investments and firms also need to be limited and discouraged in building up of Indian infrastructure. Knee-jerk reactions such as non-clearance of Chinese imports by customs should be avoided. Instead, India needs to live by the principles of self-reliance. Economic assistance should be provided to boost manufacturing in the country. Huge dependence on China accords limited flexibility to Indian foreign policy. Economic dependency on China must be reduced as the foreign policy of a country is not independent of its economic policies. India needs to hit China where it hurts the most. If data is the new oil, the ban on 59 Chinese apps for alleged violation of data privacy is a good start. Similar steps in this direction are bound to affect China and its ambitions.

India is becoming an increasingly important power for the rest of the world. It is well-placed to counter China’s growing influence in the region and the world at large. The Western world is looking favourably towards India. While India has been restricting itself out of the fear of China’s disapproval, it is high time that India increases its engagement with its allies – be it military or otherwise. Quad, an anti-China bloc consisting of the US, Japan, India, and Australia can be leveraged by India for this purpose. India should increase joint military exercises with various allies especially in areas of Chinese dominance, such as the disputed South China sea. Going a step further, defense partnerships with allies should be deepened with provisions for military technology transfer. India has already taken the right steps in this direction by entering into defense agreements with the Quad countries. India should also leverage its space exploration prowess for joint military reconnaissance and missile development with its allies.

At a time when anti-China sentiments are high worldwide due to the pandemic, India should play a more active role in mobilising opposition against Chinese aggression. The policymakers however need to be careful to not alienate other friendly Eastern powers, such as Russia, in this process. Alignment with Western powers should carefully be balanced as India has strategic interests in nurturing its long-standing ties with Russia. India is dependent on Russia for its defense equipment and there is no doubt that Russia is ideologically closer to China. The future of India’s foreign policy will have China at its core, but the ability to balance relations with the US and Russia will largely determine its success.

Insecurity of the opposition – Ram Mandir

Ram Mandir at Ayodhya has been a big issue for more than 200 years in Indian history. Nationalist forces who favored Ram Mandir and secular groups who opposed the proposal argued, debated and clashed in and out of court for many- many decades. Ultimately highest court of the country gave its judgement and asked the government to go ahead and constitute a body to construct Ram Mandir at national level.

In any normal society this should have ended the controversy. But in India it is not the way. Those who lost the case took the verdict of the highest court as a challenge to their political existence. As it was a long fought legal battle in which they lost they could not publicly take stand against the verdict. More than that it was a politically survival question for them. Because for nearly seventy years after British left the country these groups had the stranglehold over all sections of the society, with political power in their hand. During this period of time when courts delivered justice which went against the political thinking of power that be the verdicts were nullified by extreme step of amending the constitution to appease the vote bank. This happened in Shahbano case during Rajiv Gandhi’s government. But after they lost the mandate to rule the country this option was snatched by the people’s verdict. So, they swallowed the Ram Mandir verdict with a hand full of salt grudgingly.

2014 elections was a bolt from the blue for those who hitherto thought that nobody can replace them. They alleged ballet rigging, malpractice by winning party. But the argument did not get them any benefit. 2019 was even bigger blow. They could not believe. Successive elections proved that they have been totally rejected by the people. Now the frustration made them desperate. They started using every trick from defaming the popular leader to denigrating every measure taken by the ruling Government. So much so, that opposition to leader of the country gradually became opposition to country. Bereft of issues they have now reduced themselves into petty politicians.

Now the construction of Ram Mandir with supreme court directions has rattled them. They very well know that if the constructions are to begin now and COMPLETED early that will be the end of their divide and rule policy and dream of coming to power will be a daydream. Mr. Sharad Pawar objection to Prime-minister’s visit of Ayodhya to shilanyas for construction of Mandir is the clear manifestation of loosing the battle to grab political power for at least another twenty years.

Glocal India

0

On May 12th Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressing the nation coined the term ‘Aatma Nirbhar Bharath’ which means Self Reliant India. The term Aatma Nirbhar may sound new but the voice for Swadeshi Products are dated back to 1907 when under the guidance of Bal Gangadhar Tilak ‘Swadeshi Movement’ was kicked off which encouraged for the consumption of local products at large. Later in 90’s Sri Rajiv Dixit started the ‘Azadi Bachchao Andolan’ to save local producers from MNC’s intervention. PM Modi’s ‘Make in India’ is also a step towards local produce and global consume.

In this mission towards Aatma Nirbhar Bharat, Yuva Brigade, an NGO situated in Bangalore under the mentorship of well known writer and speaker Sri Chakravarti Sulibele has started a website named www.glocalindia.org meaning ‘from local to global.’

Glocal India was launched on July 4th by Hon Minister for Industry and Commerce for Karnataka State Sri Jagadish Shettar in a programme named ‘Fifth Pillar’ organised by Yuva Brigade.

More than 230 products have been listed in the website covering all the 30 districts of Karnataka.

What is Glocal India?

Glocal India, incepted by Yuva Brigade after Sri Narendra Modi spoke of his dream project Atmanirbhar Bharat. This is an effort to become Vocal to Local products to help them become Global. Here one can find the local productions as per its location. Also, an expert team decides the capacity of a production and helps them grow Global and we upgrade them to a global platform on our website once they are capable enough. This is only a platform for locally manufactured products and not an E-commerce. Glocal India is an effort to bridge between seller and the consumer.

What is the difference between E-Commerce websites & Glocal India?

Glocal India is not a platform for commercial activity. It does not take any commission / fixed non-refundable deposits / shares from profit from the producers to list their products. It is maintained by a NGO. Therefore, its sole purpose is to connect the right consumer to the producers and not profit oriented.Another highlight is as all the products may not be feasible to a global competition, it identifies the potential product that has a global standard to compete and promotes it too. It has a blog which suggests the famous places of Karnataka.

How does this Work?

A producer will list his product in the website. Customers who visit the website can search either Category wise or Area wise. Financial transactions or orders has been disabled. The producer would have shared his contact details and price tags with the listing which can be used by customer to order directly. The producer can directly list his products too under ‘Add Listing’ with all the required information filled.

It is a pioneer in non-commercial global level platforms to connect producer and the consumer directly.

More and More of such initiatives need to be taken by the NGO’s/citizens/Companies etc to stand SELF RELIANT