Home Blog Page 335

Tanveer Ahmed in critical condition at Mirpur Central Jail, ISI plotting his murder

Tanveer Ahmed, a well-known senior journalist and researcher from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK), was arrested by the Pakistani forces along with another journalist Safeer Kashmiri on August 21 from Maqbool Butt Square in Dadyal, POK. After arrest, Tanveer Ahmed has been shifted to the Mirpur Central Jail and has been kept in cell reserved for prisoners before being sent to the gallows.

Tanveer Ahmed has been actively protesting for the independence and sovereignty of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK) from Pakistani occupation for the last several years and was arrested for pulling down Pakistani flag from Dadyal in POK.

“On Tuesday, I went to meet Tanveer Ahmed sahib at Mirpur Central Jail where I was surprised to see his condition. Tanveer Ahmed was kept in the police station from August 21 to September 4 and transferred to jail on September 4. In eleven days, his condition has become as if he has been in the prison for eleven years. The reason is that Tanveer sahib has been kept in a death cell, where those sentenced to death are kept after the final decision for their execution has been made. This cell contains numerous insects and their bites have left marks on Tanveer sahib’s hands and other parts of his body. This is the state of our freedom in POK. I am convinced that there is a plan to kill my husband. Therefore, I, my youngest daughter and son appeal to human rights organizations and patriotic compatriots around the world to please do something and save Tanveer Ahmed sahib’s life. Please also send as many curses as you can to this so-called base camp and its leadership,” said Frazim Ahmed, wife of Tanveer Ahmed.

Frazim Ahmed said that the only crime of Tanveer Ahmed sahib was that he pulled down the Pakistani flag from so called “Azad Kashmir” and gave speeches for the rights of Kashmiris. “What else did he do?” asked Frazim Ahmed.

It needs to be noted that Tanveer Ahmed was arrested by the local administration in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir when he lowered the Pakistan’s flag at Maqbool Butt Square, Dadyal POK on August 21, 2020.

However, before pulling down the Pakistani flag Tanveer Ahmed went on a 52-hour hunger strike demanding that the administration take down the Pakistani flag from Maqbool Bhatt Square, Dadyal. The local administration admitted that it was not right to fly a foreign (Pakistani) flag in Dadyal POK. The local administration said that the administration would take down the Pakistani flag in two days. Even after that the administration did not take down the Pakistani flag, after which on August 21, Tanveer Ahmed himself took down the non-state flag. Soon after Tanveer Ahmed was arrested and severely tortured.

Tanveer Ahmed soon after his arrest on August 21, 2020. His health has deteriorated since then. Tanveer Ahmed was arrested by Pakistan after he pulled down Pakistani flag at Dadyal, POK (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) on August 21. (Photo: News Intervention)
Tanveer Ahmed soon after his arrest on August 21, 2020. His health has deteriorated since then. Tanveer Ahmed was arrested by Pakistan after he pulled down Pakistani flag at Dadyal, POK (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) on August 21. (Photo: News Intervention)

Tanveer Ahmed’s bail was rejected on September 12 by the High Court of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK). An official from the local administration of POK told News Intervention that the cell in which Tanveer Ahmed has been lodged is reserved for those prisoners who have been sentenced to death and the condition of this cell is beyond the imagination of human thought. Speaking strictly on condition of anonymity the local official said that there was a plan to kill Tanveer Ahmed in jail. “The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI had a hand in the process, even earlier several unidentified men who had been jailed, were killed inside the jail compound,” the local administration officer told News Intervention.

Kashmir’s youth are deeply saddened by the Pakistani occupation and a wave of independence is gaining momentum across Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Several geostrategic experts believe that if something happens to Tanveer Ahmed, then this could prove dangerous for the Pakistani occupation in Kashmir, because now the Kashmiri youth is refusing to take diktats from Rawalpindi and Islamabad.

Click on the YouTube link to watch the news analysis

A Kashmiri student from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK) told News Intervention that Kashmiri have suffered enough and it’s high time Kashmiris assert themselves. “Pakistan incites us Kashmiris against India and occupies us in the name of Islam. Now we have understood the tricks of the state. Yes, now it is necessary to show our strength. Pakistanis forces are armed and do not respect any international laws, so now is the time for Kashmiri youth to respond with bullets,” the Kashmiri student told News Intervention, requesting anonymity.

Another student leader from POK told News Intervention that if something happened to Tanveer Ahmed, then the blood of Kashmiris will drench entire Pakistan.

Armed struggle is already on in Balochistan to counter the Bangladesh-style barbarism of Pakistan Army, and now the idea of an armed struggle against barbarism and human rights violations by Pakistan Army is gaining momentum in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK). In fact, if Bangladesh-style barbarism of Pakistani Army continues unabated, then just as Balochistan has turned into a pile of dynamite for Pakistan, so too will Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK).

UK MP Jonathan Gullis condemns Hayat Baloch’s murder in Balochistan

UK government has strongly condemned instances of extrajudicial killings or enforced disappearances in Balochistan. British MPs have vowed to speak out about the human rights abuses, including the brutal murder of Hayat Baloch on August 13 in Balochistan.

Dr Naseem Baloch, organizer of the Baloch National Movement (BNM) Diaspora Committee, explained that Jonathan Gullis, the British Member of Parliament (MP) and Conservative Party MP had asked British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about Hayat Baloch’s assassination. Responding to Jonathan Gullis’ query, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Minister of State for South Asia and Commonwealth said that the British government strongly condemns any extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. We call on all states to investigate such incidents, bring those responsible to justice and provide justice to the oppressed and their families, Lord Ahmad said.

Dr Naseem Baloch added that the BNM Diaspora committee had urged the members of their UK Zone to contact their local MPs and ask them to raise their voice against the murder of Hayat Baloch and other serious humanitarian and human rights abuses in Balochistan. “Since then, many members of the British Parliament have assured us that they will raise the issue with the Foreign Office and hold it accountable,” said Dr Naseem Baloch.

Naseem Abbas Baloch, a UK zone member, contacted the Stoke-on-Trent (North) MP Jonathan Gullis and informed him of these issues. In response to which Jonathan Gullis wrote a letter to the Foreign Office expressing his concerns. In response, the Foreign Office said, “The death of Hayat Mirza Baloch on 13 August was extremely troubling.”

According to a letter from the Foreign Office, they have condemned the August 13 murder of Hayat Baloch. It has now also been condemned by Pakistani politicians and some arrests have been made. “We hope there will be a full investigation,” he added.

Dr Naseem Baloch further said that the Baloch National Movement (BNM) Diaspora committee has been pursuing its diplomatic programme globally raising issues of Baloch nation’s quest for liberation and the serious human rights violations across Balochistan. He said the BNM would liaise with parliamentary members of political parties not only in the UK but also in other European and American countries and ask them to support the Baloch national struggle for independence.

Dr. Christian Sorensen, A Comedic Bris: Uncovering Jewish Humour

0

Christian is a Philosopher that comes from Belgium. What identifies him the most and above all is simplicity, for everything is better with “vanilla flavour.” Perhaps, for this reason, his intellectual passion is criticism and irony, in the sense of trying to reveal what “hides behind the mask,” and give birth to the true. For him, ignorance and knowledge never “cross paths.” What he likes the most in his leisure time, is to go for a walk with his wife.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I love much of Jewish culture. One for its longevity, akin to the Chinese or the Navajo. Another for the emphasis on the most demarcated exceptional trait of the hardy species Homo sapiens – bookishness, as a marker of verbal capacity, linguistic fluency, and rapid and agile mathematical ability. Something pointed out about being reached out to become a rabbi (for you). Or the short of it, literacy and numeracy, Jewish culture, in general, values these. For one reason or another, Jewish people have been and continue to be a deep part of life for me, in all domains. Another admirable factor is the resilience of the cultural values with humour. What characterizes Jewish humour?

Dr. Christian Sorensen: I would say, that with Jewish humor, the joke is to complain. I think that one of the distinctive characteristics of this humor, is that the Jews, unlike what occurs with the other types of humor, generally laugh at themselves, nevertheless and also unlike the other humors, I believe that deep down, they never accept that the rest, which are not Jews, dare to laugh at them, in other words, they will only accept that only another Jew, can laugh at a Jew, since otherwise they will always consider it offensive, and may even qualify it as anti-Semitism. Jewish humor also tends to be critical of itself as such, in fact it is said that the worst listener of a Jewish joke, is another Jew, since most likely he will say that he already knew the joke, or that he has a more humorous variant of it. I think that Jewish humor, from a critical point of view, is the only one that due to its intellectual subtlety, has an effect on the unconscious, because it makes laughter something impossible to contain, and induces what I will name as the après-quo understanding time of the joke, which means that it’s after the moment of laughter, that its meaning is fully comprehended, question that from a purely logical point of view, is difficult to explain.

Jacobsen: Jewish humour is multifaceted too. There is a part focused on a recovery from direct trauma or reflection on historical traumas, e.g., the Shoah or the Holocaust, biblical purported catastrophes, exiles, anti-Semitism as a factor in ancient and modern politics, etc. Why is humour in this manner important for individual and collective healing and resilience-building?

Sorensen: Because the fact that they are able to laugh at their own defects and misfortune, demonstrates that they have been able to assume them as such. In turn, I think that the act of laughing at themselves as they do, is always an effect or consequence of already knowing the answer or solution to a certain problem. In consequence, it could be said, that both factors respectively, that’s to say the consciousness and the resolutive capacity for solving problems, linked in turn, with the ability to laugh at one’s own defects and difficulties, is a form of social catharsis, and all this together, is the essence of the sense of resilience.

Jacobsen: Other parts make fun of Jewish culture and people themselves, e.g., Jewish grandmother jokes, making fun of the various kinds of foods, making fun of stereotypic mannerisms or health issues, etc. Why is this a brand of joking?

Sorensen: Because all those expressions, that represent a certain idiosyncrasy, can be labeled as strange, grotesque, and extravagant, therefore since they can be labeled as ridiculous and absurd, then they may be cause for mockery or laughter.

Jacobsen: Another one is the one grounded in a long-term reality of Jewish intellectual achievement. Anyone with a brain can see the statistics and acknowledge this fact. Whether innate, cultural, or both, as the reasons, that’s what anyone dealing reasonably with this is arguing over. There are terms like “goyishe kop” or non-Jewish head to talk about mental sluggishness, doltishness, of the gentiles, goyim, or non-Jewish peoples compared to Jewish peoples. What are some examples of humour in this manner?

Sorensen: I’ll give examples of short jokes without lining. For example, God will give the Gentiles longevity. Why? Imagine someone’s donkey dies, they would lose their money. Or why are the goyim dummies? Because they talk about what they know. Or perhaps, what do you say to a goy with two black eyes? Nothing, someone already tried to explain him things twice.

Jacobsen: What are some other genres, let’s say, in Jewish humour?

Sorensen: I think religious and assimilation themes, are two other typical genres. Regarding the former the classic is the conflict between Ashkenazis and the Sephardim, since the first ones always make fun of the latter because they consider them intellectually inferior, and due to the fact that they estimate that their customs, are overloaded and lacking in sobriety, while the latter says that they give too much importance to study and neglect spiritual development, or that there is no food more insipid than the Ashkenazi’s. The aforementioned, occurs to the point that usually because of the quarrels between both, they say things like, Ashkenazis parents prefer that their daughter get married with a goy before than with a Sephardic, or that when an Ashkenazi and Sephardic are discussing religious topics, actually they’re three Jews instead or two doing so, since they never reach an agreement on anything. Likewise, assimilation is another humorous topic, but from an apprehensive perspective, due to the fact, that there is always the latent fear within the community, that the Jewish population will decrease more and more, because of mixed marriages, which is the reason why they tend to make jokes of converts, such as when it is said, that if you want to identify them inside a community, it is easy, since they are the only normal ones.

Jacobsen: What are the differentiating factors of Jewish humour compared to other forms of humour?

Sorensen: I think that it is an humor, that fundamentally acts as a medium, to vent the enormous historical burden of sufferings and frustrations of the Jewish people. I also consider, that in its self-criticism, carries within, a strong sadistic and projective unconscious streak, since I believe, that subtly through that criticism, what they are doing is referring more to others than to themselves.

Jacobsen: What are the overlaps, non-differentiating factors, of Jewish humour compared to other forms of humour?

Sorensen: I think that its character of black humor, and the linguistic ability to play with words, was inherited from the style of humor characteristic of Eastern Europe, especially before and after the Second World War, and which later moved with the immigrants to America. There is also a burlesque aspect, which was typical of Jewish humor before the expulsion from Spain, but that was actually inherited from the troubadour way of making humor of the society at the time.

Jacobsen: Who are the greatest Jewish male comedians?

Sorensen: Actually, eighty percent of the best-known comedians in America, are of Jewish origin. Some of the most notable, I think that have been Jerry Lewis and Woody Allen, however there were others such as Morey Amsterdam and Charles Chaplin, or more currently like Tom Arnold, and Hank Azaria. In my opinion recently, the comedians that have become recognized for their sparkle and freshness to make people laugh, are Simon Amstell, Ben Stiller and the Israeli Roberto Moldawsky.

Jacobsen: Who are the greatest Jewish women comedians?

Sorensen: I think there are notable women comedians, such as Gabriela Acher, Lisa Arch, Joan Rivers, Bette Midler and Bea Arthur, nevertheless, personally the Argentines Alicia Steimberg, Silvia Plager and Ana Maria Shua, they surprise me with their narrative of humor throughout the twentieth century, particularly regarding the topic of definition of gender identity and roles, as a means to understand the cultural hybridity. Besides, I think it’s remarkable the fact that they visualize humor, as a resource of catharsis regarding conflicts, which at the same time, is a way to problematize the relationship between one’s own and that of others, through a questioning of reality, in other words they see with this medium, a form by which women may manifest themselves in relation to their feelings of concern, responsibility and critical commitment.

Jacobsen: What the most famous Jewish jokes (non-anti-Semitic) outside of the Jewish community?

Sorensen: I like these ones. A Jew goes to the newspaper to put an advertisement about his wife’s death, and says: I’d like a death announcement.

What’s the ad going to say? Rachel died. Sir, says the newspaper clerk, the rate is the same for two or eight words … Worth the same? Then put: Raquel died, I’m selling cheap women’s clothing.

The bride tells her Jewish boyfriend:

These shrimp are delicious, do you want to try them? Thank you, but you know I’m Jewish …

Don’t worry, they are free.

Two Jews fly over the Vatican and one says to the other, dead with envy:

To think that these started with a manger …

What is used to disperse a protest in Israel?

A piggy bank.

Jacobsen: What are the most famous Jewish jokes inside of the Jewish community?

Sorensen: I like these both. A Catholic priest, a Protestant pastor and a rabbi make a bet because they want to know which of them is better at his job. They decide that the best way to do it, is to go separately into a forest, full of bears, and they try to convert each one of them to their religion. Said and done. Afterwards, they meet in the same place to assess what happened:

When I found the bear, says the priest, I read him the catechism and sprinkled him with holy water. Next week he will make his First Communion.

I found a bear, says the Protestant pastor, and I preached the word of God to him. The bear was so surprised, that he let me baptize him. They both turn in unison to ask the rabbi, who lies on a stretcher, and has his whole body in a cast.

On second thought, the rabbi exclaims, before they asked him, maybe, I shouldn’t have started with the circumcision.

A Catholic priest invites a rabbi to dinner. They sit down at the table and each one is served a plate of pork in sauce. The rabbi excuses himself by saying:

I’m sorry, my religion doesn’t allow me to eat pork …

The priest looks at him mockingly and says:

I’m more sorry; you don’t know what you are missing.

At the time of leaving, the rabbi says goodbye saying: Please say hi to your wife …

I’m sorry, I don’t have a wife. My religion doesn’t allow me to have a wife … Says the priest.

The Rabbi looks at him mockingly and says:

I’m more sorry, you don’t know what you’re missing!

Jacobsen: What defines an anti-Semitic joke and differentiates such a joke from a non-anti-Semitic joke?

Sorensen: They differ in that the anti-Semitic joke, regardless of who says it and who hears it, and therefore independently of a perceptual or subjective question, has undeniably a second intention and a second message, that evidently and explicitly intends to aggress the addressee to whom that joke was directed when it was formulated, while the non-anti-Semitic joke, manages to relativize its connotation, depending on the perception that the listener has of the intention of who says it, and regarding the context in which it is said by the latter.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the insight, Christian.

Sorensen: I hope it’s well understood outsight.

India’s endgame in Ladakh must be about Delineation & Demarcation of LAC

Orientation and Background to the India-China Boundary Issue Colloquially, the terms boundary and border are used interchangeably, but a boundary is the line between two states that marks the limits of sovereign jurisdiction. In other words, a boundary is a line agreed upon by both states and normally delineated on maps and demarcated on the ground by both states. A border, on the other hand, is a zone between two states, nations, or civilizations. It is frequently also an area where people, nations and cultures intermingle and are in contact with one another.

Three distinct steps are involved in boundary making. The first step is to have an overall political understanding of the basic boundary alignment. This step is referred to as allocation. The second is to translate this general understanding to lines on a map and this process is called delineation. The third and final step is to transpose the lines drawn on a map to physical markers on the ground[i]. This step is called demarcation. Quite clearly therefore a boundary settlement is not a simple drawing of lines on a map or a demarcation on the ground.It is a significant political act. The Principle of ‘uti possidetis juris’ enshrined in international jurisprudence was invariably followed when it came to settling boundary claims. This principle states that whenever a state becomes independent, it automatically inherits colonial boundaries and that any effort to occupy or violate state territory after it became independent would be considered ineffective and of no legal consequence.

This principle was recognised by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as legally valid in the Burkina-Faso vs Mali (1986) case. Further, if a state acquires knowledge of an act which it considers internationally illegal, and in violation, and nevertheless does not protest; this attitude implies a renunciation of such rights, provided that a protest would have been necessary to preserve a claim[ii]. This appears the only logical reason that Prime Minister Zhou en Lai rejected Nehru’s offer of taking the boundary issue to the ICJ out rightly as conveyed in his letter of January 1, 1963.

Standoff at the LAC in East Ladakh
The Chinese have occupied Indian territory (our perception of the LAC) in at least two strategically important locations, viz, Depsang Plains and Area Fingers North of Pangong Tso lake. India and specially our Army has bewildered and shocked China with her resolve, bravery and professionalism. On night of 14/15 Jun 2020, our tactical acumen and physical bravery at Galwan set the stage, and firmly conveyed to China that ‘it was not business as usual of continued soft salami slicing’, and repeat doses frequently. The Indian Army followed it up by occupying pivotal defensive positions on night 29/30 August 2020, astride the Kailash range in the Southern Bank of Pangong Tso in the Chushul Sector on own side of the LAC, making the Chinese deployment on the Northern bank vulnerable, and pre-empting any further adventurism by them in the strategically important Chushul sub-sector.

Chinese Deception Strategy: Keep Talking
Concurrently, while all the action was happening on the ground, Chinese as is their practice of subterfuge, continued engaging in talks at the military, bureaucratic, diplomatic and political level with Indian counterparts. There is absolutely no ambiguity on the following aspects regarding the LAC.

  • China has unambiguously violated all Peace and Tranquillity Agreements and CBMs (confidence building measures), and changed the status quo on ground. Chinese troop positions in beginning of April 2020 and mid-May 2020 simply gives the game away unequivocally.
  • After so many years of ‘salami slicing’ and inching forward along the LAC; it just cannot be ‘business as usual’, as repeatedly clarified by our External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaiashankar. Belligerent actions along the LAC cannot be de-linked from other matters like economic cooperation, trade etc.
  • There is a complete breakdown of trust as far as the Indian Armed Forces are concerned. China has repeatedly spoken with a forked tongue, talks one language while simultaneously acting contrary to its assurances.
  • The outstanding act of valour displayed by our troops at Galwan, and our operational initiative of preempting the Chinese and occupying decisive and dominating heights on the Southern Banks of Pangong Tso on night of 29/30 August 2020, have handed over the initiative to the Army and India, and provided the leverage for our diplomats and political hierarchy to speak from a position of strength.
  • Our soldiers on ground should not be expected to adhere to the existing protocols any more. The rules of engagement have changed, and needs to be revisited forcefully (already done and orders passed by Army HQ).
  • Even as I write, the five-point agreement signed by the two Foreign Ministers is being re-interpreted to suit Chinese interests (Chinese Foreign Ministry, media).
  • The Indian Armed Forces are fully prepared to hunker down and spend the winter in the harsh, desolate environment of Ladakh, and face all challenges thrown at them and take the fight to the adversary, if necessitated.

China has crossed Indian Red Lines: Even Status Quo Ante to April 2020 Not Enough
How can our Army trust the Chinese on any future agreement like pull back, or maintain current status quo, create buffer zones (talk in some circles) and the ilk? It also comes with tremendous challenges for implementation on ground on such a long LAC even within East Ladakh, by our commanders and troops on ground. There is lot of talk in open channels on the way forward.

There is also a deep worry especially amongst the veteran community and defence experts, that gains ‘made on ground’ should not be frittered away in the altar of quick peace, establishing stability, for political expediency, especially in view of significantly important upcoming elections, and agree to a compromise solution on ground. Given the Chinese repeated perfidy, deceit and deception along the LAC, and blatant violations of all protocols year after year, even a reversion to status quo ante of April 2020 should not be acceptable, and our soldiers and commanders may balk at the idea.

Withdrawing from the Kailash Range heights is NOT RECOMMENDED at any cost, as it has strategic ramifications, and occupation by the Chinese in future by stealth, will have grave consequences, and very costly to retake. The option of reviewing and coming up with fresh protocols/agreements does not provide any level of confidence that they will be adhered to by the Chinese.

Recommended Workable Solution for Long Term Peace and Stability
First and foremost, the political policy makers (PM, CCS, NSA), diplomats, bureaucrats and most importantly the senior military commanders (CDS and the tri-services Chiefs) MUST be on the same page and reach a consensus on the best ‘way ahead’ which does not compromise on India’s sovereignty and aspirations. To my mind the most workable solution is for India and the Armed Forces to insist on delineation and demarcation of the LAC with China. While to achieve it is challenging, it is the best option to provide at least temporary peace and stability, and provides a fillip and direction to the permanent resolution of the India-China boundary issue.


[i] ‘India-China Boundary Issues: Quest for Settlement’, by Ambassador Kalha, Pentagon Press, 2014; also used in paper written for USI of India as part of yet to be published book on the ‘India-China Boundary Issue: the Way Forward’, by the author.

[ii] Oppenheim. International Law: A Treatise (London: Longman, Green & Co 1955), pp. 874-5.

Ladakh: Beijing is still playing games, New Delhi must be wary

The good news about the Ladakh standoff is that both New Delhi and Beijing have agreed not to allow “differences to become disputes.” The bad news is that while both countries have settled to “expedite work to conclude new confidence building measures to maintain and enhance peace and tranquillity in the border areas,” surprisingly, the onus to “quickly disengage, maintain proper distance and ease tensions has been passed on to “border troops of both sides.” To facilitate this, both foreign ministers have recommended that the Indian Army and PLA “should continue their dialogue.”  

On the face of it, the proposal to allow the two armies to resolve differences in perception regarding the alignment of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) appears to be a good idea since it would enable military commanders on the spot to localise contentious issues and settle them amicably. This in turn would prevent minor perceptional disagreements taking an ugly turn, getting ‘physical’ and ending up snowballing into a major crisis. But while it looks good on paper, even a layperson would realise that there are certain glaring fundamental infirmities in the proposal due to which its practical implementation is well-nigh impossible.

Firstly, in order to resolve differences regarding alignment of the LAC locally, the concerned military commanders on both sides must first arrive at an agreement and this is possible only if they are able to define an alignment that’s mutually acceptable. This arrangement may suit communist China which has a convoluted military hierarchy (remember seeing snaps of the Chinese Defense Ministry team teaming with military officers, while there was not even a single military representative in Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s team?). But in democratic India, the constitution doesn’t empower the military to take any decision that involves adjusting the LAC alignment by even an inch. So, to expect that Indian military commanders can go about realigning the LAC in order to resolve perceptional differences is a laughable idea!

So, while the Indian Foreign Minister and his Chinese counterpart may have “had a frank and constructive discussion on the developments in the India-China border areas as well as on India-China relations,” but in the joint statement issued after this meeting, there are no specific and well-defined or time-bound initiatives at government levels mentioned to resolve the current crisis. Au contraire, return of normalcy along the LAC is being directly linked to dialogue between military commanders with the expectation of it culminating in quick disengagement, maintaining proper distance as well as easing of tension. Therefore, these recommended measures not only give a creepy feeling but also a lingering sense of unease.

The above mentioned actions would surely work wonders under idyllic conditions. Unfortunately, the current situation in Ladakh is anything but that. In the first place, how can military commanders go about effecting a “quick disengagement” without having resolved the currently differing perceptions on alignment of the LAC? Secondly, how does a military commander decide what “maintaining proper distance” translates into in terms of measurement units? Lastly, with PLA maintaining that they are well within their own territory and Indian Army hotly contesting this claim, how does one adjudicate as to who’s right and who is wrong?

Till the current crisis erupted, peace and tranquillity prevailed along the LAC despite differing perceptions on the LAC alignment since both armies patrolled upto the point which they claimed was their territory. For example, in the Pangong Tso area, while the Indian army patrolled upto ‘Finger 8’ (Indian claim line), PLA patrols came upto ‘Finger 4’ (Chinese claim line) and the same was true for other areas too. However, it was the PLA which started physically blocking the movement of our patrols in these areas which then led to brawls and it was failure of the Chinese military hierarchy to arrest the provocative trend of their rank and file that culminated in the bloody Galwan incident on June 15!

There’s no doubt that PLA has transgressed into Indian territory and New Delhi’s decision to play down the same may have been influenced to a great extent by political considerations. But this was also a very mature decision from the diplomatic point of view as it gave both sides a fair chance to resolve the issue amicably without being compelled to take incongruous positions due to domestic pressures. It goes to New Delhi’s credit that it kept the window of diplomacy open for three months and it was only after realising that Beijing wasn’t inclined to restore status quo ante that it decided to payback Beijing in the same coin by acceding to the army’s recommendation of occupying key dominating features on our own side of LAC that provided a tactical advantage.

The patience and restraint displayed by New Delhi during the current crisis in Ladakh has been well appreciated by the international community. Furthermore, its proactive decision to enhance the army’s defensive posture all along the LAC has not only thwarted any further intrusion plans of the PLA but has also put the Indian Army in a dominating position. That Beijing considered it urgent to hold meetings with New Delhi at the Defence and Foreign Ministers level after Indian Army had taken up forward positions along the LAC is certainly not incidental nor coincidental.

By intruding across the LAC and refusing to budge, the PLA has made its intentions absolutely clear and since it has violated existing border agreements, Beijing is solely responsible for creating a ‘trust deficit’. Accordingly, New Delhi should now be extremely cautious when it comes to believing any assurances emanating from Beijing and must think a thousand times before taking any steps to pull back the Indian Army from forward areas, especially where it is dominating PLA positions. This is because now that Beijing has reneged its own commitments, where is the guarantee that PLA won’t occupy the dominating heights on Indian side of LAC once these are vacated by the army? Moreover, with China being a permanent UNSC member with veto powers, in case PLA does make fresh incursions, to whom will New Delhi complain?

Permanent deployment of armed forces in inaccessible areas comes at a prohibitive cost and that’s why no developing nation would ever like to exercise this option-unless it’s imperative. So, even though India has been the victim of China’s betrayal in 1962, successive governments have all along found it expedient to discount any military threat from China in order to cut defence spending. Furthermore, except for 1967 when Indian Army and PLA clashed at Nathu La in Sikkim, aggressive actions by PLA were limited to shallow incursions across the LAC followed by subsequent withdrawals, and this coupled with Beijing’s sweet-talk seems to have lulled an already complacent New Delhi into a deep stupor.

Let’s not forget that unlike Pakistan which often acts without thinking, its ‘all-weather’ friend Beijing does just the opposite. So, New Delhi needs to accept two realities- One, that the present incursions in Ladakh are neither aberrations nor temporary in nature, they are part of a well-considered strategy taken by Beijing after due deliberation. Two, the five point ‘formula’ enunciated after the foreign ministers’ meet is nothing but an exercise in rhetoric and typical of Beijing’s diplomatic craftiness to obfuscate the core issue of PLA’s intrusions and instead trying to make it appear as if it’s India that has precipitated the current crisis.

In our characteristic exuberance to mend fences, let’s not forget that peaceful resolution of territorial disputes the world over is the sole preserve of governments and not armies and as such, there seems to be much more in Beijing’s attempt to delegate responsibility resolution of the current crisis to Indian Army and PLA, than what meets the eye. Given the fact that Indian Army-PLA talks have yielded no results whatsoever in the past, couldn’t passing the buck of resolving what’s essentially a political issue onto the army be part of Beijing’s game plan of putting the core issue of Chinese intrusions into a ‘military induced’ coma?

Kashmir: Self appointed, self serving leadership now in self preservation mode

0

In the wake of the bifurcation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and abrogation of Article 370, the political structures in Kashmir that were aligned with separatism and soft separatism have been left without viable agendas.

Articulation on the subject can draw a lead from the “Gupkar Declaration” of August 4, 2019. The declaration, named as such since it was taken at Gupkar, Srinagar residence of Farooq Abdullah, and it was made by the senior Kashmiri leadership. The big names present were Mehbooba Mufti and Muzaffar Hussain Beg of PDP; Sajad Lone of JKPC; Taj Mohiudin of JKPCC; MY Tarigami of CPI(M) and the Abdullahs among many others. All participants resolved to protect and defend what they termed as “the identity, autonomy and special status of Jammu and Kashmir.”

Once the new status was put in place, it was insinuated, especially by Pakistan, that the political voice in Kashmir had been stifled by detention of the senior leadership. Now, all leaders, except for Mehbooba Mufti, have been released. Farooq Abdullah was released on March 13, this year and Omar Abdullah on March 24. Even so, the inherent contradictions within the Kashmir leadership are palpable.

National Conference (NC) is witnessing an internal churning with its president Farooq Abdullah and vice president Omar Abdullah giving different versions of the party’s strategy. “Now if you are asking me whether the NC will take this battle to the streets, I think the time for that has passed. When in the immediate aftermath of what happened on August 5, 2019 the battle didn’t go out into the streets, why would it go down to the streets one year later. So we will fight it politically, legally,” Omar Abdullah said on June 30. “I have been leader of the assembly of the state. In its time the most empowered assembly. I cannot and will not be a member of what is now one of the most disempowered assemblies in the country. It’s as simple as that,” Omar stated about a month later in July.

National Conference President Farooq Abdullah with his son and former Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir, Omar Abdullah. (Photo: PTI)
National Conference President Farooq Abdullah with his son and former Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir, Omar Abdullah. (Photo: PTI)

Omar has earned the ire of his party through his aforementioned statements, whereby he has confirmed that he would not be contesting elections till J&K is not given statehood and not mentioned restoration of the special status of the state under Article 370 as an essential caveat of the same decision. His father, Farooq Abdullah, is now in full damage control mode. An opportunity came his way as he prepared to attend the monsoon session of the Parliament in his capacity of being a Member of Parliament from the Srinagar constituency. Before entering Parliament he has reiterated the “Gupkar Declaration” as the basis for launching what he called, “a struggle for the restoration of the special status of J&K.” How he puts his words into action in Parliament remains to be seen. Notably, Abdullah has said that he does not expect anything from the Parliament on Jammu and Kashmir and has pinned all hopes on the Supreme Court where the revocation of Article 370 has been challenged by the National Conference and other parties. It is an indication that his interventions will be rather muted.

This disarray is quite visible in the Hurriyat too. Syed Ali Geelani resigned from all posts in June, 2020. He listed a number of grouses against the organisation as reasons for his resignation. Significant among them was an inability to get together a movement against the above mentioned change in the status of the state in August, 2019.

Syed Ali Shah Geelani's resignation letter quitting from Hurriyat Conference
Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s resignation letter quitting from Hurriyat Conference

It was against the backdrop of Geelani’s resignation that some Hurriyat leaders met in July under the chairmanship of Mirwaiz. These include Prof Abdul Gani Bhat, Maulana Abbas Ansari, Bilal Lone and a few others. Post the meeting Hurriyat stated that the Kashmir dispute has to be resolved peacefully among the three stakeholders – India, Pakistan and the people of J&K. What is significant here is that immediately after the resignation of Syed Geelani the Hurriyat has rid itself of his rigid stands on Azaadi (freedom) and amalgamation with Pakistan. The Hurriyat now realises that coming out of the existing morass of political irrelevance is possible only through a conciliatory approach that keeps open an option of dialogue with the centre at some time in the future. Hence, theAzaadi movement is all but history so far as the Hurriyat is concerned. There is also no talk of restoration of Article 370.

The reality is that some segments of the Kashmiri leadership have been busy selling the very soul of Kashmir for the last 70 years. The elements have been acting as agents of forces that had inimical designs towards the region and its people. They leveraged the environment of violence created by foreign sponsored terrorism to retain control over the people. They fed a doomsday narrative to successive governments in the centre and paralysed them. As a result, hard decisions that were so essential for the complete integration of the state with the nation and very much in the good interest of the people were not taken. They further used the special status to keep the people away from India and in the absence of accountability bred the worst form of corruption in the state. The lack of good governance kept the people in a constant state of agitation.

The dynamic changes that have come about post the restructuring of the state and abrogation of Article 370 have exposed the nexus and the dirty games that were being played by it. The environment has been further invigorated by the almost complete decimation of the cult of terrorism thorough relentless efforts of the security forces with the Indian Army in the forefront.

The fear of their dark web getting totally exposed is now eating up the self appointed, self serving so-called leadership of Kashmir. It is now “clutching at straws.” That the call for restoration of Article 370 is no more than a whispering campaign is something that is not going unnoticed.

Time for UNSC to strike off ‘India-Pakistan question’ as an agenda item

0

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on January 6, 1948 took up an agenda item termed as “India-Pakistan question,” that related with the Jammu and Kashmir issue. It is now more than 72 years and the agenda continues to remain unresolved, mainly because Pakistan is unwilling to accept the reality that it is in forcible occupation of Indian territory that formed a part of the erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir and acceded to the Indian nation in a legal manner post independence from British rule.

The UNSC had set up the United Nations Military Observers Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) sometime after 1949. Its mandate was to maintain sanctity of the ceasefire line drawn between India and Pakistan after the war of 1947-48. India has, since long, ceased to give to the UNMOGIP any report or data but Pakistan does so assiduously. It is so because the country wants the organisation to remain in order to exploit it as and when required.

In September 2016 India formally accepted that it has carried out surgical strikes in POJK as a riposte to the terrorist attack in Uri. Again in February, 2019, India declared that it has carried out air strikes on terrorist camps located deep inside Pakistan as a riposte to the Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack at Pulwama. In both instances there was no reaction forthcoming from UNMOGIP. The situation reinforced the Indian perception, given voice as far back as 2014, that the UNMOGIP had outlived its utility.  It seems that the UNSC is also thinking on the same lines since the budget of the organisation has been slashed by more than 11 percent in recent times.

UNSC’s “India-Pakistan question” has not really seen much movement since 1965. It did come up in UNSC in 1971 as a consequence of the India-Pakistan war but the discussion was mainly on the East Pakistan front and not on Jammu and Kashmir.

It is notable here that way back in November 2010 Jammu and Kashmir was removed from the United Nations list of unresolved disputes. This came as a big setback for Pakistan which moved all diplomatic means, mainly China, to get back in the reckoning.

However, in recent times, Pakistan has resorted to some vigorous invocation of the agenda in the wake of August 2019 constitutional decision taken by the government of India to bifurcate the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories and abrogate Article 370. In this attempt Pakistan is relying on the complete support of its all weather ally, China.

On January 15, 2020, China called for a third meeting on J&K in less than a month. “Because we want to work for de-escalation and work for regional peace and stability, this is out of goodwill. However, if the Indian side interprets it in other way, that will be a wrong interpretation,” said Chinese spokesperson Geng Shuang in defence of this move. The methodology adopted was to raise the Kashmir issue under “other matters” during closed consultations in the Security Council Consultations Room. Other members of the Council did not support China and the country was compelled to use its veto power to push things through. In August 2020, on the first anniversary of the change of status of Jammu and Kashmir, China again called for a discussion in the Security Council under ‘Any Other Business’.

All these meetings have ended without any outcome. It is so because other members of the UNSC hold a firm view that Jammu and Kashmir is a bilateral matter between India and Pakistan and have underlined this viewpoint in all closed door discussions. China somehow is not relenting from its efforts mostly because it is in no position to abandon “good friend” Pakistan.

UNSC has also confirmed in written statements by the Secretary General that the India-Pakistan question has not been considered by the Council in a formal meeting. Yet, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, is taking great pains to assert otherwise. It is quite apparent that Pakistan is making desperate attempts to leverage the UNSC in its attempt to once again internationalise the Kashmir issue and thus change its accepted bilateral character. It is a clear indication of Pakistani desperation.

India has taken great pains to keep its diplomatic channels open with China despite the very disturbing attempts being made by the country to put India on the back foot with respect to the Kashmir issue. Despite a very successful dialogue between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping at Wuhan in 2018, the Chinese chose to call for the aforementioned UNSC briefings on Jammu and Kashmir in 2019; the outcome of the meeting, as explained above, was a considerable source of embarrassment for China. Despite this, India went ahead with another meeting of the two leaders at Mamallapuram only to be stabbed again with  a series of calls for more meetings from December 2019 onward.

It is very apparent that Pakistan will innovate new ways of raking up the “India-Pakistan question” in the UNSC and more so with the assistance of China. The idea is not to find a solution from the forum that has already given its mind in favour of bilateral talks but to keep the matter alive in international circles. Under the circumstances the best option is the permanent removal of the matter from the agenda of the UNSC.

India is conscious of the need to change the status quo in UNSC and has already called for removal of the “question” on grounds of “irrational exuberance” having no takers in a dignified world. So far as Pakistan’s attempt to pressurise UNSC are concerned India has hinted that Pakistan wishes to, “re-brand itself as contributing to international peace, but unfortunately fails to recognise that it is globally known for being the fountainhead of international terror and the hub for terror syndicates.” Experts feel that active pursuance of this line of thought would be a step in the right direction.

Why did Jamaat-ahle-Hadis terrorists attack Baloch & Sindhi protesters at Karachi Press Club?

What happened on September 13, 2020 at the Karachi Press Club? Why did the radical Jamaat-ahle-Hadis terrorists attack peaceful Baloch & Sindhi protesters at the Karachi Press Club?
Watch this news report to understand the full story.

Click on this YouTube link to watch our news report

Pakistan’s war crimes continue unabated in POK

0

The arrest of senior journalists Tanveer Ahmed and Safeer Kashmiri for taking down the Pakistani flag at Dadyal, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK) is not the first nor the last. These tactics of the occupying state of have been going on for seven decades and as long as the occupiers are determined to continue their occupation, the freedom fighters will continue with their struggle.

Our freedom struggle will continue despite occupier Pakistan’s policy to arrest, torture, kill and kidnap the Kashmiris. The worst situation during a nation’s slavery arises when its people silently endure the slavery and let the occupiers plunder their nation’s resources. When voice against looting and occupation begins to be raised, the occupier suppresses that voice with all its might. A ruthless and murderous state like Pakistan, is doing the same in areas of Jammu and Kashmir that are under its occupation.

The looting of Kashmir’s resources by Pakistan continues unabated, but the arrest of Tanveer Ahmed and Safeer Kashmiri is a step further in this state repression and terrorism. In addition, Pakistan continues the brutal killings of young students who are keen to study and dream for the freedom of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK) and Gilgit-Baltistan. Several political prisoners have been sentenced to 70 years in prison and brutal state violence continues against peaceful protesters. The people are beginning to know the real intentions of the occupying state of Pakistan. They now understand that whenever the struggle for freedom is organized, the oppression of the occupying state of Pakistan intensifies.

Click on the YouTube link to watch this news analysis

Arif Shahid, president of the Liberation Front National Liberation Conference, was shot dead in the neck by occupying forces in Rawalpindi using silencer weapons. Sarfraz Ahmed was shot dead by Pakistani Rangers at Clifton Chowk, Karachi. The officers were arrested after the video went viral, but on August 14, the President of Pakistan ordered the release of the officers, although the case was still in court. Similarly, Moaz Ali’s body was found in Lahore by Ashiq Hussain.

Dozens of students on their way to Islamabad for their education were either found dead or publicly murdered. Last year Hamza Imtiaz was killed by the son of an army general. These incidents clearly point to the fact that the intentions of Pakistan is to stop the students of Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan from getting acquainted with the glorious history of the state. If the students of POK and Gilgit-Baltistan know the history of Kashmir then the protests against Pakistani’s illegal occupation will multiply manifold.

The occupying Pakistani forces forcibly abducted some youth in Neelam and Khowai Ratta areas adjacent to the ceasefire line, but left them in an unknown location due to public protests. These incidents expose the ruthless state’s intentions. If a national liberation movement starts in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir then a series of enforced disappearances will also start here like it happens in occupied Balochistan.

In the areas near ceasefire line, women are also subjected to sexual harassment but the media does not approach it. Such incidents do not come in the limelight due to the fact that the people in these areas are forced to live under military pressure. Last year, a young girl was raped by soldiers at Holar Kotli. The brave young girl raised her voice against the rape. The military post was then removed from Holar as a result of mass protests.

Over the past five years, there has been a sharp rise in violence in POK against the people and political organizations that have raised their voice against slavery and for basic people’s democratic rights through peaceful political struggle. This only suggests that grip of occupier’s nation on POK. As the movement becomes more organized and strong, the repression of the occupying state will intensify.

A horrific demonstration of state violence was staged in Muzaffarabad-Rawalkot-Mirpur against students who raised their voice for student rights. Students were beaten, tortured and charged with tear gas shells. In addition to the baton charge, bullets were also fired at the JKLF’s peaceful march in Rawalpindi, seriously injuring dozens of peaceful protesters and martyring the long-time JKLF activist Naeem Butt.

In October 2019, thousands of people had gathered in Muzaffarabad on the call of People’s National Alliance (PNA). The peaceful march from the university to the assembly was stopped, protesters were charged with batons and clashes between the protesters and security agencies continued throughout the day. Bullets and shells rained down, seriously injuring dozens of people and martyring one civilian. Three dozen workers were arrested and subjected to inhumane torture. Around 80% of the occupying Pakistan Army soldiers came in police uniforms and inflicted inhuman torture on the peaceful protesters. In the darkness of the night, when the PNA leadership was holding a press conference, the Pakistan military commandos carried out a murderous attack. The brave journalists stood firm and became the shield of the leadership, otherwise the entire leadership present there would have been killed that day.

The occupying forces of Pakistan have laid siege to every city in the ten districts of Pakistan occupied Kashmir from all sides. At the beginning and end of each city, there are military brigades and checkpoints, which indicate heavy occupation aimed at any city. All these military forces are to suppress the voice of common people against the occupier Pakistan.

In addition, the agency is still in power in Gilgit-Baltistan. Violence against those seeking rights is commonplace. Iftikhar Karbala Baba Jan and a dozen of his associates were arrested in the name of the struggle for civil rights and false and baseless cases were lodged against them. Baba Jan has been sentenced for seventy years. He is being denied access to medical treatment and hospital.

Other liberal leaders and activists are completely banned from political activity under black laws such as Schedule IV and cannot leave their district without the permission of the DC.

Pakistan’s brutal state has no qualms about crimes such as massacres, enforced disappearances, dumping of mutilated corpses, but there is no such protest movement within the state that raises its voice and all dissenting voices are easily suppressed. If the occupier’s occupation is hurt, the occupier will increase the intensity of repression and violence, and this occupier Pakistan is so filthy, cruel and painless that it does not bring any international law to mind. In the past Pakistan has committed atrocities in Bangladesh and is now committing atrocities in Balochistan and Waziristan, so we have clear examples of this, from which we need to learn. The people of the state of Jammu and Kashmir have to learn from the Baloch movement and organize themselves, because from the assassination of Arif Shahid the state terrorism of Pakistan has continued to grow. This will only increase with the passage of time and the common people of POK need to raise their voice against Pakistan.

COVID has awakened sleeping EU: ‘Real Politik’ will dictate Indian Relations

Prelude
Europe has been a geo-political non-entity since the 1990s. With the largest economy in the world, 450 million people, and defense spending comparable to Russia’s, the continent could be a colossus. Yet Europe has never come close to equaling the combined clout of its constituent countries. Beset by chronic economic, political, and institutional limitations and crises, the European Union (EU) has for the last three decades exerted remarkably little influence on global affairs.

Europe’s most powerful member states, meanwhile, have either seen their sway diminish, as France has, or, like Germany, resisted taking up the mantle of international leadership. Analysts have come to see European fecklessness as a given. Not only has Brussels disappointed by refusing to share more of the burden of collective security but it has punched well below its diplomatic weight on matters of global import. The EU for geo-political observers has always been fragmented, and restrained by a hybrid political system; part federal state, part multilateral organization. The main weakness in the organization was that EU Head Quarter was not empowered. Once empowered (rarely did all 27 members agree unanimously) they were effective like playing a big role in regulating the global markets, but consensus vital to respond to a global/European crisis including foreign policy decisions, was always missing. 

Uncharacteristic Posturing Post-COVID
The COVID-19 pandemic appears to have awakened the continent from its decades long economic and political slumber and reinvigorated the EU integration project. Jean Monnet, one of the founding architects of the European Union, famously said that “Europe will be forged in crises.” A more confident and assertive EU wants her legitimate place on the world stage. After a disastrous start, EU and its member states largely handled COVID effectively, and started speaking in one voice. In recent months, EU has made a series of uncharacteristically assertive moves; condemned China unequivocally by calling China’s new national security law on Hong Kong ‘deplorable’[i], banned exports to Hong Kong of all sensitive technology and equipment specially those usable for surveillance; in July 2020, imposed cyber-sanctions on China, Russia, and North Korea; in August, condemned the fraudulent election in Belarus and are pressuring Russia aimed at forestalling Russian intervention.

A Crisis Coalesces EU
EU members have understood the dictum ‘perform collectively or perish individually’ in this multi-polar, multi-domain, volatile and insecure world (especially after USA refused to police the world, and other illiberal contenders like Russia and China emerged to fill the vacuum). They took a momentous step of passing a $2 trillion economic recovery package, which closed the chapter on a decade of crushing economic austerity, which gave rise to populism, reduced support for the EU, and put the euro perpetually on the verge of economic crisis. Combined with the enormous stimulus spending of individual European states, the rescue package puts Europe on course for a strong economic recovery. It will act as the ‘magic mantra’ to ensure expansion of EU’s federal powers. EU can now borrow, tax, and spend like an actual state; and most importantly generate resources to respond to any future crisis.

Flags of China (left) and European Union (right)
Flags of China (left) and European Union (right)

New Frontiers and Opportunities
Leaders especially of the larger nations want to reinterpret EU rules, like seek a ‘qualified majority’ against an ‘unanimous verdict’ hitherto fore required. As Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign policy chief, explained, “It would be better to adopt a strong and substantial position by a majority rather than unanimously adopting a weak position with little substance.” While this has not been formalised, COVID crisis has made it realistically attainable. Germany’s Merkel and France’s Macron are already clamouring for major reforms within the EU.

Its Obvious: EU Needs to Look After Herself
US President Donald Trump unequivocally verbalized the obvious, that USA would no longer protect Europe, which necessitated the implementation of ‘strategic autonomy’ which calls for Europe to defend its sovereignty and advance its interests independently from the United States.

For EU too, China is the Game Changer
Like most nations, EU viewed China through the economic prism and hoped that openness and trade would lead to political liberalisation and even to democratisation. In actuality, China became more illiberal, imposed harsher internal rules, indulged in unfair trade practices; but the decisive turning point was COVID-19. China’s aggressive behaviour using all domains of PDIME (political, diplomatic, intelligence and influence, military and economic operations) needs no elaboration and has put the world on notice. It has certainly alarmed EU and created conflict of interests between economic cooperation and ideological differences, with a looming prospect of an emerging dominant illiberal hegemon who does not conform to established protocols of the existing democratic world order.

Chinese domination could derail the dream of EU converting into a federal union, with fresh internal challenges, impetus to populist politicians and extreme rightists; increasing economic asymmetry between north and south, and encouragement to illiberal policies and mind sets. Concurrently, EU emerging more cohesive post COVID leading to a stronger global player, is good news for the USA, India and the world.

EU will have to play a stellar role for continuance of liberal democratic values (effective diplomacy, largest economy, rising joint military power and influence). President Xi’s actions post COVID may achieve the dubious feat of alienating the Europeans faster and further than even President Donald Trump. China’s strategy is to prevent the European Union and the US from ganging up against China. Xi is hoping to make a breakthrough during the EU-China summit scheduled on September 20, for which he despatched Foreign Minister Wang Yi to five EU nations to do the preparatory spade work. The visit did not proceed as expected (cold receptions compared to platitudes and eager voices for economic reasons), and to top it all, during his stopover in Berlin, he was outraged at the president of the Czech Senate, Milos Vystrcil’s visit to Taiwan on August 30, and thundered in a joint press council that Czech Republic would “pay a heavy price,” and that the Czech’s “betrayal” made him “an enemy of 1.4 billion Chinese people[ii].” The attending German Foreign Minister responded strongly condemning the threats, which was quickly supported by most EU countries.

EU Strives for Strategic Autonomy
The days of looking the other way at Chinese human rights abuses of Uighurs, wolf diplomacy, bullying in world institutions and forums, unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft, Hong Kong law, belligerence in China Seas, is over, as the list had become too long, and EU’s strategic autonomy was at stake. EU like USA, India, Australia and few others have started restricting China. However, ‘real politik’ is the final arbiter, on how far EU is willing to go against China. EU is not yet ready to decouple from China like USA but diversify. EU understands the need for cooperation with China for global common challenges (climate change, disasters) as also bilateral and collective economic benefits. EU ultimately wants to create its own meaningful space in the multi-polar world.

India-EU Relations and EU Reactions on LAC Standoff
As per the Department of Commerce, EU was India’s largest trading partner in 2018-19. India’s bilateral trade in 2018-19 stood at US$ 115.6 billion with exports valued at US$ 57.17 billion and imports worth US$ 58.42 billion. In 2018, EU released a new strategy for cooperation with India, ‘calling it a geopolitical pillar in a multi-polar Asia, crucial for maintaining the balance of power in the region’. Paris and Brussels have been actively pushing Europe to see India as a strategic partner. EU’s statement on the current India-China faceoff calls for peaceful resolution which is crucial for regional and global stability.

Highlights of 15th EU-India virtual Summit held on July 15, 2020
Some of the important takeaways based on a sound relationship being natural partners are–

  • Countering China: EU can be a reliant partner for India to counter China. EU is an important market for China and can effectively use its influence to moderate Chinese belligerence.
  • The EU has its own connectivity strategy, providing around €414 billion in aid globally, and is already partnering with Japan and the US to provide alternatives to BRI. India can form a partnership.
  • India must exploit the opportunity to approach European Investment Bank specially for its growing infrastructure expenditure and expertise needs.

NATO, China and India-China Standoff
NATO’s views will be synonymous with EU’s, and  reacting to Chinese belligerence, NATO’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on June 20, warned about China’s increasing influence in geopolitics that has led to a fundamental shift in the global balance of power, and that China is coming ever closer to Europe’s doorstep, and exhorted NATO allies to face the challenge collectively[iii].” India cannot expect anything substantial from NATO except for calls to de-escalate tensions.

The Way Forward for India: Pragmatism and Realism
Mr Bhanu Pratap Mehta in a recent article[iv] summed up the current realism in global geopolitics succinctly when he said “It is an odd moment in global affairs, where there is recognition of a common challenge emanating from China, but no global appetite to take concerted action.” Though China is currently everyone’s favourite villain, few countries are going to put their money where their mouth is. In all probability the international community will throw platitudes regarding the India-China conflict as they don’t perceive direct stakes. USA and her allies currently want ‘China down and cut to size’ based on their own national interests, and India must exploit this global outrage. The more belligerent China gets or attempts to escalate the LAC standoff, India must not hesitate to collar world opinion in words and deeds to stymie China. India has to handle both China and Pakistan on its own, and must build its CNP (comprehensive national power; all domains to include economic, military, diplomatic) accordingly.


[i] ‘European leaders condemn China over ‘deplorable’ Hong Kong security bill’, The Guardian, 30 Jun 20, Link- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/30/european-leaders-condemn-china-over-deplorable-hong-kong-security-bill

[ii] Europe Just Declared Independence from China; Bloomberg Opinion, by Andreas Kluth, September 5, 2020

[iii] NATO Targets China; Says ‘China Is On Our Radar More Than Ever Before’ in Eurasia Times on June 18, 2020.

[iv]Explained Ideas: Why India can’t depend on the US and EU to counter China’ by Bhanu Pratap Mehta for Indian Express, June 29, 2020.