Due to the globalisation and liberalisation of global economies coupled with the rapid advancement in science and communication technologies, there has been an intensification of their socio-economic, political and cultural ties with their countries of origin. Diasporas have attained due importance at the international level as well as in the domestic political and economic affairs of home countries in the present scenario. They have started acting as an ‘inevitable link’ between their home and host lands resulting in major political and economic implications for both.

Diaspora as a Tool of Diplomacy in India’s Foreign Policy

The use of diaspora as a tool of diplomacy in Indian Foreign Policy is a relatively new phenomenon. The Indian diaspora is a major component of these concomitant worldwide and has increasingly become more influential over India’s foreign policy, becoming a highly strategic asset for India in the recent decades. India has been making concerted efforts to engage and leverage upon its diaspora estimated to be about 25 million, the second largest in the world, ranging from a mere 20 in Albania to over 2.2 million in the United States, dispersed in 136 countries.

The efforts of PM Modi regarding Diaspora Diplomacy and in cultivating the relationship with Indian diaspora signifies the importance of soft power in the foreign policy initiatives of the present government. To be fair, diaspora cultivation is not exactly a new phenomenon in IFP; the former governments had also invested a good amount of capital in resolving the underlying obstacles in the implementation of effective interaction between Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) with the Indian government.  

The union government in the year 2000 established a high-level committee on Indian diaspora to review the status of People of Indian Origin (PIOs) and Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) looking at the laws and rules that are applicable to them. This was an initiative to look at the role NRIs and PIOs may play in the social, economic and technological development of India.  Better rules favouring the PIOs like the ease of travel and stay were implemented and new categories created amongst its diaspora in 2006 for the NRIs, PIOs and Overseas Citizen of India (OCIs). The Indian parliament in August 2005, passed the amendment of Citizenship Act of 1955, allowing certain sections of the diaspora to gain specific citizenship rights. Eventually, there is a growth in outreach activities for the Indian diaspora like conferences and seminars, Pravasi Bharatiya Divas (Day of Indians Abroad) amongst other initiatives which show a concerted effort by the Government of India to showcase India as a place that is welcoming of its diaspora.

Diasporas: Effective Instrument in India’s Foreign Policy

The importance of diasporas does not end with remittances alone. It extends to knowledge transfer, the sharing of resources, diasporas acting as unofficial Indian ambassadors and pushing for India’s interests abroad. The diaspora has also helped in improving India’s image globally and they undoubtedly have considerable stakes in India’s development.

Diaspora is the oxygen to PM Modi’s foreign policy. Since day one, he has addressed concerns related to the Indian diaspora and makes it a point to address a gathering of Indian diaspora at any foreign visit. The task of such an interaction is to convince the diaspora that they can engage as effective stakeholders in the problems faced by India and that their contribution is imperative for India’s economic development and its rise as a global power. This also acts as a subtle but powerful message to the governments of the host countries. This “Diaspora Diplomacy” is a classic example of how the diaspora can act as an effective instrument of diplomacy in international affairs in the era of globalisation. The diaspora can greatly contribute to domestic economic development and attract FDI to India. Modi’s idea of diaspora diplomacy is to ensure a collective Indian voice in the host countries where they are simultaneously loyal citizens. While the diaspora certainly do not determine policy, they can effectively shape it and act as “bridge-builders” between their home and host countries.

While looking at the effect of diaspora Diplomacy in Indian Foreign Policy, some examples can be cited as diaspora plays a decisive role in the improvement of India’s foreign relations. Historically, India has benefitted from its diaspora. Two instances stand out: lobbying for the US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement Bill in 2008 and their remittance inflow. The Indo-American community had a significant role to play in improving the image of Indians in the American minds as well as the Indo-US rapprochement. The lobbying efforts of the US India Political Action Committee (USINPAC) helped to get the Indo-US Nuclear Deal passed by the US Congress. While Bollywood films since Independence have enjoyed great popularity in the Middle East, the development of geo-economics has made the Indian diaspora as an important instrument, interest and indicator of India’s soft power in the region. The Indian expats working in the region contribute significantly to the remittances India receives. PM Modi has capitalised on the need for Middle Eastern countries to look for large markets because of the Shale Revolution and US Retrenchment, increasing India’s engagement with the region. The most important tool for PM Modi’s Middle East adventures has been the Indian diaspora.

However, certain political developments taking place within India do sometimes negatively impact the diaspora, for example, the negative impact of the diaspora is that there are also groups and individuals within the diaspora who continue to support various insurgent groups operating within India, while lending them both moral and material support through hawala operations, money laundering etc. and this can prove to be a colossal security threat for the nation.

Nevertheless, India has a pivotal role to play in world affairs as it is a rising power and a key stakeholder in the security dynamics of South Asia and Southeast Asia. Its role in East Asia is taking shape and while India is still not an economic power, its military capabilities, shared interests and willingness to explore beyond its rhetoric have raised expectations banking on its capabilities and the role India can play as an Asian power, in the region and globally. The large populations of Indian expatriates in countries like Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia provide India with an opportunity to develop nurturing and more cooperative relations in the region. In the past, diaspora policies have been inconsistent and often poorly implemented, to say in the least. Over the years, however, the diaspora populations have become an increasingly important factor in international relations and politics. The Indian diaspora have a direct engagement and influence on the economies and polities of both the origin country and the host country. This provides for a ripe environment for India to tap on the potential they offer.

Conclusion

However, the present foreign-policy strategy of a strong outreach to the Indian diaspora stands out and must be nurtured. The diaspora can provide the requisite strategic impulse and strengthen strategic relations.  In the present times, the global reach of media and revolutionary changes in communication has helped create diaspora networks and instant connectivity with the motherland. It is important to constantly engage the diaspora and develop policies as the destinies of India and the diaspora are intertwined. Therefore, it serves the interest of both to develop a mutually beneficial relationship and is an important tool for India’s soft power diplomacy which would help India in achieving its aspirations to be a developed country and a knowledge superpower in the international arena.

References

Chaudhury, D. R., & Duttagupta, I. (2020). India steps up Gulf diplomacy for its diaspora. The Economic Times.

Haider, S. (2020). The ambit and the limits of ‘diaspora diplomacy’. The Hindu.

Ok, Y. E. (2018). “DIASPORA DIPLOMACY” AS A FOREIGN POLICY STRATEGY. IFAIR.

Rana, K. S. (2009). India’s Diaspora Diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy.

The post DIASPORA DIPLOMACY AND INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The strategic importance of the Korean Peninsula has enacted as the bridge between Asia mainland and Japan. It was believed that dominance over the Korean Peninsula signified influence over East Asia. It was during 1876 that diplomatic ties between both the countries were established. The Sino- Japanese War fought during 1894- 1895 must be analyzed from the perspective of Japanese imperialism or ‘Empire of the East’ countering the notion of western imperialism. However, the latter is not the only form of imperialism. Clearly, the aim of the Japanese government was to exercise political and economic control. Public opinion supported this action and clearly believed that Japan should play a pivotal role in helping Korea to free itself from the clutches of China. On the other hand, Qing China during the 1880s espoused the necessity to dominate over Korea. It is indeed true that nationalism and the trajectory of civilization have an intimate relationship as can be clearly seen by the case of Japan. Both the countries emphasized on their narratives to point out the righteousness in their actions (Sook, 2011, p: 39-74). Clearly, the Japanese government had manipulated the public opinion towards its aggressive foreign policy. Japan engaged in the discourse of civilization or bunmei kaika to present itself as a progressive nation which saw the light of Westernization (Darua, 2001, p: 99- 130). This altering contour emerged during the reign of the Meiji Restoration (1868-1912).  However, Russia’s emergence as a threat to Japan pushed the latter to be protective about Korea which led to the Russo-Japan War in 1905. 

Colonization of Korea (1905- 1945): Etched in Korea’s Collective Memory

Russia’s defeat was the stepping stone for Japan as Korea was formally annexed and become a part of the Japanese empire in 1905. Korea remained colonized till 1945 after which she was freed from Japan’s clutches with the latter’s defeat in the Pacific War. It was in 1912 that the Japanese Governor-General propagated laws that allowed the Japanese people to have ownership of land in Korea. A resettlement program was introduced by the government wherein many Japanese families settled in Korea before the end of the First World War. A large scale displacement took place. Additionally, 724,777 Korean workers had been sent to mainland Japan and Sakhalin as labourers in industries for mining, shipbuilding and construction. The Koreans were treated as second-class citizens and the Japanese government attempted to erase their culture by drawing up policies that would lead them to speak in the language of the colonizers. It was believed that Korean history and geography books were burned down by a nationwide search as well as confiscation of books of its independence and biographies of its national heroes was conducted by the government.

Not only that, gender-based violence on the Korean women was emerging as a disturbing issue during the Second World War. 20,000 Korean and Asian women were trafficked in military brothels to serve as ‘comfort women’ to the Japanese soldiers during the Asia-Pacific war. Comfort stations had been established in Indonesia, Indochina, Thailand, Okinawa, Korea and Taiwan. The women were treated as forced sexual slaves and must be analyzed from the perspective of gender-based violence. On the other hand, Japan had been the signatory of the International Convention for the Suppression of Traffic in Women and Children of 1921, yet Korea and Taiwan did not come under its purview. (Min, 2003, p: 938-957) The terminology of jugun inafu or comfort women was coined by the Japanese Government officials to cloak the reality of sexual slavery. Women who rebelled were brutally beaten up, raped and tortured.  It took 20 years before the former Korean President, Park Chung- Hee had agreed to normalize ties with Japan as collective memory etched on to its horrifying history.

Changing Contour of Republic of Korea and Japan Ties

The relations between South Korea and Japan can be examined from the point of view of a former suzerain state and colonizer since the 19^th century. Japan had argued that by the treaty of 1965 with South Korea, the former has provided compensation of $9.5 million for its sexual slavery as well as apologized in 1993. It was in 1952 that the first territorial dispute emerged between South Korea and Japan. Although Tokyo came under the jurisdiction of Korea, it had been administered by the latter for 41 years.  Kim Young- Sum’s Government declared the construction of a wharf facility in 1996 which was protested by the Hashimoto Government of Japan. However, on the face of North- Korean Teapeo- Dong Missile Crisis, Republic of Korea, President Kim and Japanese Prime Minister, Obuchi in 1998 signed the Joint Declaration and Action for a New Korea- Japan partnership in the 21st century. It was in 2015 that the former Foreign Minister of Japan, Fumio Kishida offered a formal apology and the Japanese Government stated that it would establish a Reconciliation and Healing Center which would care for the victims of sexual violence.  As Korea was in the process of democratization, civic organizations such as the Association of War Victims and Bereaved Families of Korean’s and Citizens Coalition for Economic Justice insisted that their Government must bring out a resolution to the colonial problems faced in South Korea. However, it cannot be denied that Japan was heralded as an economic partner. The post- Cold War period witnessed shifts in Korea- Japan relationship as security cooperation between USSR, North Korea, China and on the other hand, Japan, Republic of Korea and the USA broke down. Nonetheless, it cannot be forgotten that Japan and South Korea have espoused an anti-community narrative which is significant in their alliance as constructivism argues. These countries distinguish themselves from the other or Communism in this regard which is rooted in the perception of the self and other. The alliance is established when North Korea emerges as a common threat that leads them to shift from friction. It is imperative that the norms or a common ground must be shared for cooperation to flourish. Adding to that, the alliance did not last very long when in 2010 South Korea recalled the ambassador to Tokyo to protest against the approval of the Japanese Government of middle school textbooks written by the Society for Making New History Books, a Right- Wing intellectual group that aimed to conceal the atrocities of Japan’s wartime history. (Cho, 2008, p: 2-117) It clearly glorified Japanese militarism and fueled anti- Japanese sentiment in Korean public opinion. South Korean domestic policies have the impact of post-colonial history. The General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) had been signed in 2016 which allowed Seoul and Japan to exchange information on North Korean missile which was supposed to expire in November. Ties experienced a downward spiral after the Supreme Court of South Korea in 2018 had ordered Japanese Firms to pay reparation for mobilizing Korean men and women as forced labours. Japan responded in July by removing South Korea from its list of trading partners as well as curbing exports namely fluorinated polyamides, photerists and hydrogen fluoride which are pivotal to the former’s semiconductor industry. The decision of not renewing the GSOMIA was upheld by Moon Jae’s government. The trade war that had been declared by both the countries has been perceived as a warning sign for USA and fear looms of the trilateral alliance breaking down.  

Portrayal of Japanese Media House Towards the Issue of Comfort Women

Journalism plays a pivotal role in bringing the truth to the public, yet this is determined by the coverage of the issue and if its portrayal is influenced by Government representation. ‘Sorrowful Homecoming’ was a Documentary which was released by the Korea Center of Investigative Journalism in 2016 that contained interviews of Korean women who were treated as sex slaves. This documentary had been created to raise awareness of the brutality done by the Japanese Imperial Army on Korean women and reconstruct the past human abuses. This has played an important role in building the collective memory of South Korea.  (Runquist, 2020, p: 2-17) On the other hand, Hirayasu Minzo, the Executive Editor of the Japan Times had criticized Reuters for not taking into account Japan’s viewpoint of colonization and refused to call comfort women as victims neither did he view Japan’s annexation of Korea as brutal.  Clearly, the Japan Times had refused to portray the horrifying Human Rights Violations that had occurred under the Meji regime in fear that it would be perceived as anti- Japanese by Shinzo Abe’s Government as it needed revenues from companies to survive and therefore had utilized the usage of such terminology. Although, Minzo had denied that his stance had altered due to external pressure, the fear of Abe’s Government ceasing the functioning of the paper could be viewed as one of the motives behind such an action. Indeed, the banner was, “All the news without fear or favor” has proved to be a farce as the truth has been denied. This has played a pivotal role in accentuating differences between the two countries. 

USA’s Role in South Korea-Japan Ties

The USA had perceived South Korea as its bulwark against Communism during the Cold War era. Yet, it cannot be denied that she built the foundation for democracy and it was the path that the Republic of Korea walked on. It was in 1953 that the Mutual Defense Treaty between the USA and the ROK was signed when Korean War had come to an end. The fervour to renew this alliance was pushed by George Bush’s Government during the 2000s. The USA, Japan and the Republic of Korea have been entangled in trilateral cooperation as North Korea’s advancement of nuclear missiles and China’s growing aggressiveness have led to the development of this alliance as these three countries share the standpoint of security. Nevertheless, this alliance has been embedded in the USA’s foreign policy. Nonetheless, an agreement between the Korean President, Park Geun- Hye and Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe was reached on 28^th December 2015 which could not have been possible without the pivotal role played by Obama’s administration which focused on the policy of “Rebalance to Asia”.

Conclusion

It is imperative for the Trump administration to sustain the trilateral cooperation as the ties between The ROK and Japan experience significant shifts due to the disturbing colonial past and atrocities embedded in the history of South Korea. As China’s aggressiveness becomes a warning sign for the USA as the ever so globalized world witnesses a re-emerging dawning Cold War era, the alliance can become the foundation for resistance if the economic partnership is facilitated. However, it must be kept in mind that the relationship of the Republic of Korea with Japan has been defined by the history of colonialism and collective memory.

The post DIPLOMATIC TIES BETWEEN REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND JAPAN: HOW JAPANESE COLONIALISM INFLUENCED THEIR POST COLONIAL RELATIONSHIP appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Historical Context

Observations have shown that with the onset of the Age of Discovery in Europe, increased interest of Russia and China in Central Asia somewhat led to the breaking away of India’s connections with the region. Even after Independence, India’s foreign policy majorly focused on its immediate neighbours, or solidarity-based relations with the African countries, or even robust economic ties with Russia — but, the partitioning of the Indian subcontinent and the distancing of the region geographically did play a role in the deterioration of the relations with the region from India.

Further, in the post-Cold War era, after the Soviet Union split Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in the 1990s, India took upon the task of developing its relations with the resource-rich region while also undertaking its own domestic economic reforms of bringing about liberalisation, privatisation, and globalisation. Former Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao visited four out of the five republics – Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in 1993, followed by Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan in 1995. In addition to the collective values that India shared with the countries, collective development and economic growth, as well as formulating approached to combating common threats such as terrorism, religious extremism, and crime that these nations shared with India. A few experts also believe that the stage which was set by these conversations was even reflected in India’s Look North policy of recent times. 

Despite the historical links with the Central Asian Economies and India moving quickly to establish diplomatic ties with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan after their emergence as independent countries almost three decades ago, trade has not grown beyond $2 billion, with them. In recent years, foreign-affairs analysts have begun observing what they call the “New Great Game” in Central Asia — Russia, the US, European Union (EU), China, Turkey, Iran and India are all trying to assert their power and hegemony in the region. Not only does the region provide for a large market, but it also has prospects for developing hydropower, fossil fuel resources, and other lucrative prospects. According to experts, India, for its part, has so far chosen to take the ‘constructivist’ approach. This entails a strategy of, interests are not solely based on economic or strategic benefits but attempt to involve an intersectional and even culture-oriented involvement.

Current Developments

India’s continued interest in Central Asia can be attributed to the geopolitical relevance of the region due to three factors — Chinese presence and influx in the region through its expansionist infrastructure projects like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a continued historical context of Russia’s dominance in the region, and the overall regional security dynamic. Keeping these in mind, India had unveiled its Connect Central Asia Policy in Bishkek in 2012 in order to draw attention to the expansion of the region’s economic interests in congruence with India’s plans of integrating its external neighbourhood.

The lack of connectivity of India with the region of Central Asia has been a long withstanding issue in this context. For instance, the long-delayed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, backed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), was first proposed in the mid-1990s and all four actors officially signed an intergovernmental agreement in 2010. But, since then, the project has been stalled due to the status of Afghanistan and mistrust between India and Pakistan.

To combat this connectivity gap, India has undertaken positive action in the past as well quite recently. India, Iran and Russia signed the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) agreement which aimed to offer connectivity between India and Central Asia through Iran. As is noted by this resource, while the INSTC is routed via Iran’s Bandar Abbas port, India has also explored the possibility of connecting with Central Asia via Iran’s Chabahar port and thereafter overland corridors passing through Afghanistan. The importance bestowed by India to the Chabahar port, despite the uncertainties which the US-Iran tensions bring to the conversation, can be accorded by the budgetary allocation to the project, which is amounting to INR 1 Billion in 2020-21 announcement.

Way Forward

Since China has been able to leverage its geography, finances and population to ensure that its projects can contribute toward making its dream of a new and improved Silk Road a reality, India is also committed to expanding the scope of its economic relations with the region. India has immense potential in developing small and medium scale industries in the region which is presently being provided through India’s program of ITEC (Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation). The ITEC programme covers information technology, management, journalism, diplomacy, entrepreneurship, and banking. New Delhi also signed the Strategic Partnership Agreements (SPA) with three of the five nations of the Central Asian Economies — Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan — in order to stimulate defence cooperation and deepen trade relations.

As a report in a Russian newspaper observed, “Indian presence in the region should balance the growing Chinese influence and prevent it from becoming the region of Beijing’s undivided dominance.” This idea can be brought to effect by India by leveraging its membership at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

India and the Central Asian Economies can prioritize energy, pharmaceuticals, automotive, agro-processing, education, urban infrastructure and transport, civil aviation, IT and tourism sectors to strengthen economic links. The Central Asian economies and India have had a long history of association which can be efficiently revived to mutual benefit by the means of strategic and economic cooperation and connectivity, both notions that can be leveraged by the stakeholders in a post-pandemic world.

The post INDIA’S TRYST WITH CENTRAL ASIAN ECONOMIES appeared first on WISER WORLD.

CULTURAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL LINKS

As vast the relationship between India and Maldives is, there are a few special characteristics which define the relationship in a summarized sense. First, talking about the cultural relationship, mention has to be made of the immense use of soft power by India to advance its relationship with the Maldives. The cultural development between the two countries has come from various forms of capacity building. India has assured a good relation with Maldivian students and provided them with a high level of skills training and capacity building. Scholarships and easy access for them is a key positive in the relation between the two countries. The Maldives has based its economy highly on tourism and India has not shied away from help. The Indian Cultural Centre was established in July 2011 in Male and it has brought the countries much closer than before. The Indian diaspora in the Maldives forms a crucial part of the population in the Maldives with a population of around 26,000. Around 30% of the doctors and 25% of teachers are of Indian origin.

This sustenance of Indians in the Maldives has increased the spread of their respective cultures. Even though cultural relations have been always on the rise, the economic and political relations are also to be considered. Politically talking, India has always stepped up whenever there is uncertainty within the Maldives. The 1988 Operation Cactus was the biggest example of Indian aid in times of a crisis. Back in 88, 80 armed militias from the PLO of Tamil Eelam had landed in the island country and had been working on taking over the government. India sent troops and was able to eliminate the threat. This brought the two countries closer than ever. After that, in 2014 during the water crisis in Male, India sent its ships to help produce freshwater. The most recent political crisis was back in 2015 when the first democratically elected president of Maldives, Mohammed Nasheed was arrested on terror charges. India along with the US voiced their displeasure on the arrest. The new President Abdulla Yameen had strained the relations with India, claims the current foreign affairs minister of Maldives, Abdulla Shahid. After Yameen’s defeat in 2018, the political relations were again restored. Maldives FM says that he is confident of the positive relations and this restoration was visible during the COVID crisis.

India, at the very start of the crisis, provided 6.2 tonnes of medical-aid to the Maldives, followed by constant medical and pharmaceutical help.  The economic relations are even more in-depth and have been helpful for both countries. The 1981 Comprehensive Trade agreement has helped the Maldives prosper in the years. Annually, bilateral programmes have been agreed upon where development of infrastructure, health, communication and labour has prospered in the Maldives. Coming back to the 1981 agreement, the export of essential commodities, which was initially modest, have now reached new highs. In 2014, trade stood at 677 Cr Indian Rupees and in 2019 India’s export to the Maldives stood at 212 Million dollars, which clearly shows how trade has developed in the past few decades.

COMPLICATIONS WITH THE ENTRY OF CHINA

In the friendly relationship with India, China entered as a wild card, with the exceptional claims of helping the Maldives grow, economically and infrastructure wise. Once, Yameen came into power in 2014, he made sure that there was a lack of cooperation with India and an inclination towards China. The successive government has accepted that Yameen tried to play both India and China but failed spectacularly. This connotation is partly true. Back in 2014, as a part of its Belt and Road Initiative, China offered loans to the Maldives to help them develop infrastructure. The lack of foresight has come back to haunt the Maldives who had created a huge debt. Currently, the government says that they still owe $600M and with an economy highly dependent on tourism, in the time of a pandemic, find it very difficult to pay the debt off. Reaching this position was difficult as well. It was Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi who had put his ‘Neighbour First’ policy into good use by providing the Maldives $1.4B in financial assistance. The situation of Maldives can be seen in parallel to that of Sri Lanka. India’s southern neighbour also took a loan from China to increase its infrastructural capabilities but when it was unable to pay back the loan, China got a 99-year lease over a  crucial Lankan port.

One could say that India has saved the Maldives from a similar situation but the future is known to none. The current Maldives Foreign Minister has said that they will be reconsidering their current agreements with China.  Nonetheless, he has also at times stated that Beijing has been very generous in social development projects, mainly in the housing sector. In terms of rethinking, Maldives wants to bring China to the negotiation table to find a way out and pave the way for future partnerships. Keeping in mind the previous agreements playing highly in Chinese favour, such future partnerships do not sit well with the Indian government who has expressed concerns. Nonetheless, the Maldives foreign minister has always claimed that India is the closest friend of Maldives. At this point, it can be inferred that China is a short term partner of Maldives, whereas India has always been considered a long term ally. India cannot throw caution in the wind and start diplomatic cold war with the Maldives to force its way out of Chinese relations. For a country like the Maldives, having strategic partners in the geographical proximity is the way forward. They also claimed that the Maldives will be looking to develop relations not only with India and China but also the USA and UAE. India will need to keep Maldives’ natural growth in mind in its future endeavours with the Maldives.

CONCLUSION

India’s relationship with the Maldives has been a natural one for decades and except for a few hiccups in between, it is widely claimed that India is the most crucial partner of Maldives. India needs to realise this and assure long term stability with them. India also needs to keep in mind that the Maldives will be growing in terms of diplomatic power by trying to increase its bilateral partnerships. At this point, India needs to continue doing what it has been for the past few decades and sustaining a long term partnership won’t be difficult. The Indian government needs to keep in mind what Maldives FM thinks the relationship is based on. He says, “It is not a relationship based on size or economy, but one based on ideas and principles.”

The post INDIA AND MALDIVES: A NATURAL RELATIONSHIP appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Relations Post COVID Pandemic

The ongoing pandemic has created a time of uncertainty, but one certain thing is that once the pandemic ends, there will be an air of distrust in the global market towards China, and their economic, as well as political prowess, will take a hit. This is seen as an advantage for India and a favourable condition for the USA in a cold conflict which has been going on for the better part of the last two years. This has been fueled further by Donald Trump who has continuously referred to COVID as the ‘Chinese Virus’ in his official briefings.  Trump has been asking his allies within Europe to take a similar stance of blaming China for the health and economic distress. India has played the ball with caution and not followed suit by joining America’s call for blaming the situation fully on to China. Rather, India had been in close contact with health officials from both China and the USA during the early stages of the pandemic. This aligned with India’s long-existing value of international cooperation.  Nonetheless, some things need to be kept in mind when India will be forming their policy about the two countries after the pandemic ends, or possibly slows down. First of all, one needs to expect that the relationship between China and the USA will remain sour. This comes from a simple deduction that China has ambitions that go far beyond India, Russia or South Asia for that matter. China is trying to take up the position of a superpower in the international community as is understood by the international community. Further, the USA has already noticed this ambition and has been trying to keep it in check. Whether it is in the form of a trade war or simple political jargon, the USA is trying to retaliate. India, in this scenario, needs to keep its patience. There is no doubt that India has economic interests in both countries, but it will not be hard to argue that India tends to side with America, when it comes to making a choice between the two. An important aspect of post-COVID relations is the economy. For now, we see that China has already started recovering from the pandemic in economic terms as China has started recovering the losses it incurred during the early months of the pandemic. The same cannot be said about India or even the USA. Even though it is clear that the two countries are still going through the pandemic and have not reached their respective peaks, the current signs show that it won’t be soon that they start to recover economically. As Modi has always claimed that the purpose of foreign policy will be to achieve economic prowess, it can be argued that India needs to make use of its foreign policy to economically recover from COVID. A point for worrying is that India will not be able to compete with China in terms of economic recovery on its own because of the simple lack of skill labour capacity. China’s labour socialism has developed labour skill at a level which India, at this point cannot compare with, statistically speaking. Global economists agree that national labour capacity will be the key for recovery post COVID. Even though Modi’s use of the term ‘Atma-Nirbhar’ may be good for showing a certain national self-dependence, on the ground, India cannot compare with China. Similarly, the USA is in a stronger position in terms of labour capital than India, but it is too early to judge that against China. On the other hand, various international politics scholars also believe that India’s bargaining power will increase in a more than likely limited cold war between USA and China, post-COVID. This stems from the simple fact that India has a huge consumer market in which both countries would want to invest in. Therefore, India needs to make use of its market. Lastly, in a post COVID world, India needs to focus on the global flow of labour and capital, with its established strategic partners in Europe, Middle East and South-East Asia. The USA might not be as equally dependent but they too will need to foreign cooperation. A few days back PM Modi invited American investment in India and that is a positive move. Since India has been trying to move away from China, in terms of economic dependence at least, Modi makes the right move by inviting increased cooperation and investment from America.

Defence Alliances Post the Galwan Clash

The ‘Boycott China’ movement of Indians may reflect that Indians might want to move towards self-dependence but such transformation is to be considered as a long term solution. The crux remains that India needs to maintain its economic relation with China as long as it practically can. If things boil beyond control, India needs to think of an economic plan while at the same time it thinks about its border measures.

Conclusion

India, China and the USA will become a much more interesting international dynamic in the coming years with China’s growing ambition. Nonetheless, India’s priority has to be to economically recover from COVID. Improving economic ties with the West is the clear cut answer to that along with an increased focus on entrepreneurial self-dependence. Moving on, a closer defensive relation with the US also seems to be the way ahead, without severing economic ties with China, for as long as possible. India needs to be more vigilant on the border if it doesn’t want to be walked over by China again. Such strategic partnerships will help India to grow economically, as well as maintain its existing influence over South Asia and possibly expand upon it, in the years to come.

The post INDIA, USA AND CHINA: A COMPLICATED TRIAD appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The US-China Dispute

The Red Dragon and Uncle Sam have a lengthy history of being at loggerheads. The US initially refused to recognise China as a sovereign state and indulged in many ministrations to displace the latter’s communist roots.  It was only in the 1970s that diplomatic relations took flight with the US acceptance of One China Policy. Still, their relations were fraught with friction, especially over human rights. When China entered the world economy and began opening up its economy, its engagement enhanced, with China going on to become America’s largest trading partner. With a few hiccups, the relationship seemed to be aiming for cooperation. However, it all radically changed in 2018 when the Trump government’s tariffs targetted China, setting off a vicious trade war that is still ongoing. What started out as a trade dispute couple of years ago has now turned into a full-blown show of might, branching into other areas as well.

In late 2018, the US signaled its hardline approach towards the eastern giant. The Huawei issue only intensified the same, and the US has done everything in its power to kick the Chinese MNC out of the 5G race on charges of spying. By 2019, the trade war had intensified, with both countries levying hefty tariffs on the other, and placing various other sanctions as well. Early 2020 saw the signing of a trade deal which provided a brief breather for the economic world, but the respite period remained short. The onset of the Covid-19 pandemic sent the global economy tumbling. America faced multi-faceted effects: its capitalist system suffered a downfall and the health system was brought to its knees. This tension had the hegemon accusing China of mismanaging the pandemic and causing harm to the world, eventually pulling out of WHO due to the latter’s support of China. China obviously, did not take the accusations well. But it was the new security law imposed in Hong Kong that proved to be the last nail in the coffin. Trump went on to strip the city of its special status, reducing its credibility as a world economic and financial hub. China accused America of interfering in its domestic affairs, and everything has been downhill since.

The Asian Playground

Due to the deterrence that comes with two giants battling each other, the countries are unlikely to engage in an all-out war, even if relations have diminished to a new low. Their historical animosity played out in the Asian region much like the proxy wars that dominated the global landscape during the Cold War. Both nations have tried to expand the ambit of their influence by espousing Asia-centric policies. Obama’s presidency saw a more active role in the region coupled with an enhanced military presence. China on the other hand relies on its geo-economic power to bind Asia to it. The Belt and Road initiative, the String of Pearls approach, ADB Bank and increasing economic investment promises financial advancement for the region. South Asia in one of the most populous regions in the world, yet intra-regional trade is quite fragmented (just 5%), which reduces the economic benefits it can reap. Thus China’s meteoric economic rise has proved to be a fundamental driver of economic growth. 

US security cover coupled with economic benefits from China has helped in the advancement of many countries, resulting in the expectation that Southeast Asia will become the fourth-largest economy in the world, overtaking the European Union and Japan by 2050. Therefore for Southeast Asian nations, especially the ASEAN market is a key area for both America and China. The US is now frantically looking to shift Asian loyalties to its side as it perceives the rising Chinese aggression and economic strength as a threat.  That is why it has taken a strong position against China’s assertions in the South China Sea and has tried to play on the insecurities of the latter’s neighbours regarding the same. This ‘harbinger of justice’ role has helped the nation gain influence in the region, which was a difficult task because of China’s proximity to it. America is also banking on its military and technological investment to gain the region’s unequivocal support. 

Since the beginning of the Sino-American trade war, Southeast Asia has been an undisputed winner on account of the benefits it is reaping. The high American tariffs on Chinese goods have led to a shift in manufacturing processes to the region. In 2019 Chinese acoustics manufacturer Goertek announced that it will shift its Apple’s Airpods wireless headphones production to Vietnam because of the ongoing trade dispute. Similarly, Cambodia has bagged bicycle production for a high-value US firm, and Thailand has become a hub of vehicle assembly plants. According to Forbes, a survey of U.S. firms manufacturing in China found that 18.5% had either moved production to Southeast Asia or were considering it.

Usually, ASEAN countries have been able to maintain a delicate balance between American geopolitics and Chinese geo-economics. But as both countries increase the heat, it is difficult to predict if the future will force the region to choose sides. For now, Southeast Asia is having a good ride!

The Indian Factor

India has been facing a sudden increase in tensions with China too. The border dispute has led to a fresh impasse, the first one since Doklam. But this time the costs have been higher, with multiple skirmishes and martyred soldiers lining the situation. In response, India, akin to America, has tried to economically isolate China by banning 59 Chinese apps and making calls for being ‘Aatmanirbhar’. But it is easier said than done, for the mammoth amount of trade between the two is skewed in China’s favour. Some would think it is natural for India to lean on the US, especially in view of the latter’s vocal support of India in the afore-mentioned border dispute. It is to an extent true too: India has gained around $755 million in US exports since the trade war disrupted relations. India is also the only country capable of countering China’s influence in a disintegrated Asia. It also has a large youthful population capable of rapid mass production which it could use to its advantage in view of the trade war. 

But the path is not as smooth as it looks. There are multiple factors that weigh India down as compared to Southeast Asia when it comes to being business-savvy. The country has a massive supply of cheap labour but lags glaringly in other areas. Poor infrastructure to accommodate foreign production, inadequate technology, complicated labour laws and red-tapism of a sloth-like bureaucracy have tainted the country’s hopes of attracting foreign investment. That is why despite improving its Ease of Doing Business rankings by 37 places, it still is only the ninth-largest trading partner of the USA. Its tedious land-acquisition laws coupled with hostile neighbourhoods have not done much to attract investors. In addition to this, India’s decision to not be a part of the trade agreement with ASEAN called Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) has put it on the back foot. It passed up on a chance to economically seal the deal with the fastest growing economic region and its markets.

In view of these shortcomings, Southeast Asia proves to be a better region to direct investments to. In fact, India is not extremely affected by the trade war as it has not gained much from it. 

Conclusion

The United States of America and China are the two hegemons that balance the current multi-polar world. This grandiosity of sorts, coupled with their mutual interdependence in terms of trade and technology makes it difficult for them to inflict real-time damage on each other, or indulge in an all-out confrontation. That being said, the current animosity between the two is different from their usual spats. In this pandemic-riddled world their tensions have been aggravated by blame-game, allegations of spying, erosion of Hong Kong’s democratic rights and of course, the rejuvenated trade-war. Many Asian countries have benefitted from this fallout and gained increased investment from the US and more come-hither offers by China. It is now to see how their balancing act will progress. However, India has a long way to trudge before it can fully reap the benefits of the clash and needs to work on its internal infrastructure and policies to attract any advantages.

The post THE SOUTHEAST ASIAN BALANCING ACT appeared first on WISER WORLD.

China is a one-party state with power lying mainly in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party. Moreover, it is one of the five permanent members of the UN’s Security Council and thus possesses tremendous power and reach.

History of China’s Economy

The trade reforms introduced in 1978 have changed the economic position of the country on a gigantic level. 

After the reforms were introduced, the country began to open and its economy has seen tremendous growth. GDP growth averaged over 10% per year, making it one of the world’s fastest-growing-economies.

Recently, however, due to several imbalances, comparatively low growth rate of institutional development and fast pacing economic development, there have been several reform gaps that have kept the GDP growth rate at 6% per year and it has been decreasing continuously. The country has made Innovation its top priority while working on the strategy for the 2020-25 growth model catering to the current scenario.

China’s Strategic Advantage

China is an upper-middle-income country and a major supplier of raw materials to the rest of the world. It observes major investment from MNCs globally. Most of the products that we use in our daily life are labeled as either made in China or assembled in China.

Apple iPhone, which is considered a revolutionary product, gets its product assembling done in China. Low labour costs were considered the main reason initially but there has been a shift in recent years. Since countries like India, Vietnam, etc. can provide even cheaper labour, hence the question arises, what makes China different?

The answer is the quality of labour and the type of skill provided. As said by Tim Cook “You find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, is very important to our business.”

Thus, comparatively low labour costs, highly skilled labour, the ability to produce big consignment daily due to the strong labour force and a large home market make China an ideal country for product assembly. 

Trade Relations with India

Economic relations between India and China date back to ancient times with the Silk Route being the major trade route then. China is a major exporter of raw materials like pharmaceutical ingredients, steel, electronic devices, fertilizers for India, thus making India as China’s biggest trading partner after the US. India too runs a huge trade deficit with China.

The major inability of Indian companies to produce products at low rates arises because of a lack of research and development facilities, poor infrastructure and incompetent labour policies.

In a survey of about 90 people, it was asked: “What is the main reason that encourages you to buy foreign goods?”

The following were the observations:

Due to this Chinese goods gain an edge and find a huge market in India. Moreover, the Indian population forms a large base for many Chinese apps. These do not mainly contribute to revenue but they help in boosting the reach of the product which is even more beneficial for the companies.

However, with the recent clashes and increasing deficits, the Indian government has banned several Chinese applications and has been constantly focusing on promoting the ‘Made in India’ campaign.

Impact of the Current Situation

With the advent of the current pandemic, almost all economies have come to a standstill. While some of the countries have been able to deal with the situation efficiently and have already observed the peaks, others like the US and India are the worst struck and their economies have faced a major shock. 

China has been accused of hiding information about the virus which eventually led to the pandemic. Markets crashed and the price of crude barrels fell to such an extent that they became negative for the first time in history. Many people have been laid off from their jobs, causing them to fall into debt traps.

However, the current border tensions with China have induced an even greater hatred among Indian citizens towards Chinese goods and services. Many Chinese contracts and tenders have been reworked and the suppliers have been changed. These have vastly affected China’s economy.

Nevertheless, the economic interdependence of the two nations is way too important to be ignored. An all-out boycotting of Chinese goods would force people to buy expensive goods in this period of recession. This would just worsen the situation and the governments would have to further moderate the policies to accommodate the situation.

Conclusion

 It can be rightly said that the expansionist and influential regime of the Chinese government is at an all-time high. China might be taking this course of action to drive the attention of the world away from COVID allegations by having disputes with other nations. However, with this course of action, it is losing a huge consumer base in India. Though low priced quality goods might still prevail in the markets as Indians don’t have good homemade alternatives.

India and China have been embroiled in border disputes since 1962 after the Indo-China talks failed. China has always been intruding in the territorial sovereignty of India, this has been very common but the international community never held China liable because of its veto in UN and structural hegemony in international markets but the advent of COVID-19 has led to an international bias against China. The factual matrix has created a situation in which China might be held liable for the very first time for violating the ceasefire agreement on LAC as it has lost support in the international arena and the CCP is facing extreme criticisms for its violations and misuse of authority.

The first step towards the long turn process of improving the efficiency of production in India should be taken immediately. Trade shouldn’t be stopped but the trade deficit needs to be brought to a balance to prevent other nations from exerting dominance in the future.

China needs to take into account the possible isolation by other countries in the long run which might bring down the already decreasing GDP growth and the scenario before 1978 might come into the picture again. China should acknowledge the need of the hour and help its subordinate countries with the current pandemic, help in building their economies to ensure healthy trade relations, the welfare of mankind and stability. History is evident, Wars cease to create any good, rather are a great way to destroy the global economy, loss of life and property and leave the world in a state of regret and despair. 

The post CHINA’S POSITION IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY: THE IMPACTS OF CURRENT TENSION ON TRADE AND WORLD ECONOMY appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The birth of NATO as an organisation of military cooperation was in the backdrop of the Cold War era, which saw a constant power struggle between the two superpowers, i.e, USA and USSR. The Cold war between these two superpowers had practically divided the entire world (except the NAM countries) into two alliances – Western & Eastern. The Western Alliance which was later formalised into NATO was led by the US and joined by most of the Western European countries, as the name suggests. Since it’s the foundation, the policy of “Collective Defense” has been at the heart of the Alliance, the policy being a declaration by its member states that an armed attack on one of them would be considered an attack on all of the NATO countries and therefore, all these countries would be obliged to retaliate. This policy, therefore, brings about a spirit of solidarity within the member countries.       

The Cold war era continued to witness a major military role played by the Alliance, particularly after the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies united themselves by the Warsaw Pact in 1955, as a counter-power to the rising NATO forces in Europe. The formation of the Warsaw Pact was triggered by the gradual enlargement of NATO which was joined by West Germany in 1955 and now constituted fifteen member states, with the original member states of Belgium, Britain, Canada, Italy, Iceland, France, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United States, later joined by Greece and Turkey in 1952. At its height, the tension between the NATO Alliance and Warsaw Pact countries was symbolized by the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961, which was perhaps the greatest physical representation of the Cold War, as it was seen to be dividing East Germany from West Germany, and their respective Western and Eastern European counterparts.  

However, it was almost apparent during this time that neither party had any desire of engaging in serious conflict. Thus, for the entirety of the Cold War era, the two superpowers never engaged in a real nuclear exchange and although a few armed conflicts probably emerged, there are no shreds of evidence and thus cannot account for any major conflict between the two superpowers. In fact, a major portion of the time period when the Soviet Union was still alive, a ‘Detente’ phase, had existed which basically meant that both the blocs accepted the status quo and did not make any attempts to change it by creating newer sources of conflict among each other and their allies. Therefore, in the 1960’s the conventional role that NATO played as a defence organisation had undergone a major reshuffling that began with this new phase of the relationship which saw the rise of the new strategic concept of ‘Flexible Response’. As now the Alliance had greater avenues of military responses in events of the conflict, moving away from the earlier binary provided by the ‘Massive Retaliation’ strategic concept between, a total nuclear exchange or peace.  

Gradually, the Soviet Union began to disintegrate for economic (heavy defence expenditure, lower standards of living among people), political and ideological reasons. Although NATO continued to hold its ground, in the world sphere of military and defence. While the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991, it was not as if, NATO’s transition was smooth sailing post-1991. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, US was the only superpower left in the world, and therefore, this created a sort of political vacuum (US dominance with no strong power to contend it), which NATO sought to balance out by introducing various measures like the establishment of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, the Mediterranean dialogue, etc. It also lent its support to the United Nations in ending wars such as Yugoslavian Civil War but perhaps in its striving for engaging in legitimate and righteous actions, the NATO has often also engaged in some actions, deemed as illegal.

This can be best illustrated by the case of the Kosovar Albanians, when NATO in June 1999, carried out airstrikes so as to prevent the native Kosovar Albanians from going through ethnic cleansing that was being carried out by the Serbian ruling population. What made these actions illegal, despite their righteous purpose was that it was not backed by the UN Security Council’s authorization and also defied the UN Charter, which had declared that NATO can only be activated in case of one of its member countries being under a threat. 

In modern times, the issue of “burden-sharing” within NATO, has become one of great importance and can be considered as a reason for increasing unpopularity of NATO within some member countries like the US. While some observers had raised this issue even in the earlier times, it was most recently brought up by the US President Donald Trump in the July 2018 Summit of the organization. He has put growing pressure on the Eastern European countries within the alliance and more so on those who have consistently failed to meet the two major goals – spending 2% of the country’s GDP in defence (4% according to the July Summit) and 20% of defence spending on equipment purchases. 

Despite its various shortcomings and controversial actions, it would not be an exaggeration to say that NATO has also undertaken various initiatives for the good of the world. The organization which constitutes about 30 member states in 2020, has undergone significant enlargement since it’s the foundation. Although, enlargement has not only been limited to an increase in the number of members but also on an ideological scale. While it started off primarily as a defence organization, relating to matters of security and peace of its member countries, the conventional definition of “security” has also changed. Therefore stimulating changes in the way NATO works to keep maintaining the security not only of its member countries but also of non-member countries. Peacekeeping and Peacemaking have become its priorities, which is not an easy work in any time period and especially not in the 21^st century, which has seen newer innovations in technology than any other age. In lieu of recent events, NATO countries have also played an equally significant role in helping to tackle the global pandemic of COVID – 19 by primarily sending supplies and equipment, where it was required. For instance, the Czech Republic and Turkey sent medical supplies to Spain and Italy, when they requested for help. 

Therefore, the nature of NATO as an organization has changed quite drastically from its foundation days and describes the evolving role played by NATO in the world, in terms of military power, security, peace, etc. 

The post THE EVOLVING ROLE OF NATO: A BRIEF HISTORY & FUTURE CHALLENGES appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The world is facing a severe pandemic which is alleged to be “Made In China”. However, amid a disaster, we see incursions at Ladakh border (LAC) by Chinese troops which projects the objective of Beijing to expand its territory and economy as well, when the whole world is thriving to heal itself from a strike by an “invisible enemy”.

Till now we have seen a series of face-offs near LAC in Ladakh between both the troops. Reports have been mentioning intrusions by the Chinese troops in the Galwan River on the North of Pangong Tso, and perhaps at Hot Springs in Chang Chenmo River (a tributary of the Shyok river), and at Demchok. These Increase in military activities, positioning of helicopters (Chinook Helicopters spotted) along the 3,488 km long LAC have made local villagers as well as citizens of both the sides to speculate something terrifying. We did hear Chinese media putting allegations on New Delhi for blocking People’s Liberation Army (PLAs) patrols whereas, same allegations have been reiterated by Indian media as well as by the spokesperson of MEA Mr Anurag Shrivastava.

Historical Overview:

Amidst 1954, when Panchsheel document was signed proclaiming “Hindi Chini Bhai- Bhai” or one of the principle in the agreement was “mutual respect of each other’s borders” and still the situation worsened when China never walked the talk whereas on the other side it was under this pact where India officially accepted Tibet as China’s integral territory. In 1959 China refuses to accept the MC Mohan Line. 1993 was the year, the then prime minister P.V Narsimha Rao visits China and signs another agreement which was named “Peace And Tranquillity Agreement”. In 2002, both the neighbours signed an agreement to delineate in order to resolve border dispute within a reasonable time frame. Despite having signed number of agreements we had seen a 21 days standoff in Depsang plains in 2013, Doklam standoff in 2017 which was a 70 days long tussle, and now again we have a faceoff near the LAC. So the peaks and valleys betwixt the relations of both nations are distinctly evident.

Autocrat Under Influence :

Well, its crystal clear that President Xi Jinping is directly performing under the coercion of Communist Party Of China (CPC). As the term “China Dream” promoted by President Xi since 2013 which promises to recover and resolve all the territories of China by 2021 does not appear to be accomplished which has brought an immense compulsion over him to convince his performance to the Chinese, moreover CPC. President Xi has been trying to deflect the attention of the citizen of China and pump nationalist notion amongst the people and that’s the reason we see Chinese media, diplomats( who are being termed as wolf warriors, due to their aggressive appearance) even netizens attacking from all the sides.

Other Prospects For Dragon’s Belellicose near Ladakh And Other Corners Of The World:

• The slowing GDP of China and its economy has been descending which plummeted more post COVID-19, though it tried to bring out an opportunity to become an imperium before the world recovers but the descending economy along with disturbances in Hongkong and glaring Taiwan has splashed water over its dreams. India remained the biggest market for China prior to the pandemic but the recent restrictions put forward by the Indian government over FDI rules may turn out as one of the possibilities of China’s retaliation near borders. Anyhow the countries after realizing Beijing’s negligence and non-transparent attitude have started closing their doors for “ Made In China” goods and services. The USA has virtually closed the American market for China, mentioned in its recently released strategic paper on 20th May. Europe is also in bad shape post-pandemic and is not in temper to tolerate China. Chinese themselves have assessed Anti- China global opinions. These circumstances might have made dragon to erase these patterns and put pressure on India and other countries.
• Post Doklam standoff Chinese media has been comparing their equipments, weapons, aircrafts including those being supplied to Pakistan with India. There was an adverse reaction after the Doklam or Dolam crisis when China had two options either to escalate or to back off and it chose the second one. This is still bothering them especially the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
•  After the issuance of India’s new official map depicting POK as our own has also brought the Chinese as well as Islamabad under fury as they have witnessed their finances and hold over the region under threat.
• Speeding up of infrastructure build-up near the Ladakh border (LAC) has brought an inferiority complex within the PLA as they want India to remain on backfoot. Even developing a civilian infrastructure like laying pipelines in Demchok village near Ladakh border (LAC) has also been objected by the Chinese in that area. These situations might have led PLA under CPC to escalate the conditions and intrude in our borders. Conceited China imagines India won’t retaliate after its win in the 1962 Sino-Indo war which was again launched when US and USSR were busy in the Cuban missile crisis. But China must recall 2017 Dolam standoff where it had to step back after Indian army’s staunch resistance. China’s actions are not always rhetoric but it tries to put pressure on the other side and flaunts its growing power over the region. If we analyze its move currently in the South China Sea it has been doing the same by destroying Vietnam’s boat, afterwards representing it as an accident.

Both the countries should respect the agreements signed in the past like Border Defense Cooperation Agreement (BDCA). But on the other side, India’s approach towards China should also be “Resolute On Borders, Reasonable In Diplomacy” which is the accurate move after analyzing the current situation. It’s the duty of our army to stay determined without any unnecessary political interference and simultaneously diplomatic warriors through available channels may play their role behind the scenes. India should also decide its allied partners who are like-minded sharing similar interests must come together against the despotism of a single nation trying to take over the new world order. While for now, India has decided not to back down along the Ladakh border (LAC) protecting the Darbuk-Shyok-Daulat-Beg Oldie bridge which once metalled shall provide as access for military mobilization. PM Modi, Ajit Doval (NSA) and Bipin Rawat (CDS) all the three have been tracking the issue keenly and on a priority basis.

Although recently, a Chinese envoy to India Sun Weidong said “Elephant And Dragon Can Dance Together” but still the situation on the ground remains the same and that’s why China, swerving from an uncaring dragon to a dancing dragon is yet treacherous.

The post LADAKH INTRUSION: SWERVING FROM AN UNCARING TOWARDS A DANCING DRAGON, YET TREACHEROUS appeared first on WISER WORLD.

We saw a major decision taken by the Nepal government to depict Kalapani, Limpyadhura and Lipulekh as its own territory after launching its lately updated official map which was rejected by the Indian government later. The disagreement from Nepal’s side came after India’s home minister Rajnath Singh inaugurated the newly built road with 80 km of distance, connecting Darchula in Uttarakhand to Lipulekh.

The question to be raised now is on the duration of this major stand taken against India’s claim. It isn’t a concomitance that the Nepalese border controversy which was announced on May 20 coincided with the Indo-Sino border conflicts within a narrow time-frame in an area called “Finger-5” on the northern bank of the 134 km Pangong Tso lake on May 5 and another similar clash between Indian and Chinese troops in North Sikkim- Naku La on May 10. (source). This provokes us to raise a genuine question, whether Kathmandu is under the Dragons sway?

Nepal is a landlocked country betwixt India and China with the Himalayas in the north, the plains in the south and this makes it dependent on either of the neighbouring countries for trade which is essential for its economy as being a small nation, geographically as well as demographically and is so far marked as “Least Developed Country” (LDC) following the UN’s list. India is the biggest trade partner to Nepal yet frequent contentions keeps arising between both the countries major one of which has remained unsolved since years.

Roots of Indo-Nepal dispute

Ergo, this Antecedes us to 1816, when the roots of this dispute started mushrooming. The Treaty of Sugauli concluded between British India and the Kingdom of Nepal in this year. The pact maps the Mahakali river as the western boundary with India but different British maps certainly exhibited the source of the tributary at different places which were mainly due to underdeveloped and less defined surveying methodologies utilized at that time. The disparity in locating the source of the river have encouraged Nepal to restructure its official map according to its claims. But In 1962 Indo-China war, Indian forces had occupied Kalapani territory after which India has been controlling it unilaterally and claims it as the source of Kali river. The Indian side had already released its updated political map depicting Kalapani as a part of its territory along with POK as part of newly formed UTs, J&K and Ladakh. New Delhi considers it as a part of Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand.

While in contrast, the recent claims by one of Nepal’s online portal have raised questions, pointing out the technical reports of the Government Of India (GOI) of Garwhal-Kumaon region, was published by the GOI in 1911 AD which distinctly states that “Kuthi Yankti” originates from Kang (gang), which is also called as Limpiyadhura, accordant with the official documents. In the Nepali language here Ku stands for ‘black’ and Thi means ‘river’ which together forms ‘black river’ or Kali Nadi or Kali River as known commonly. Therefore, these documents make them put their claims over Limpiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipulekh.

How is the Lipulekh Pass Important For India?

For Nepal it just being a territorial dispute, India carries strategic importance with respect to Lipulekh pass. Being surrounded by the neighbours, in this case, China, that remains averse to India’s interests and has developed its frontiers with large military troops and developed infrastructure, makes it essential for India too, to advance its border areas (which was realized after the 70-day Doklam standoff), resulting in the increase of mobility in the territory for to and fro of army men and heavy machines like tanks, fighter jets, weapons etc. mainly during wars. These views were also noted by “ The Standing Committee On Defence”, in its 2017-18 report. After the newly constructed 80 km road which goes up to the Lipu Lekh pass on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) have come out as a boon for the yatris (pilgrims) travelling to ‘Kailash Mansarovar’ as it will reduce the time taken to travel to the mentioned home of Lord Siva located in Tibet.

Following all the conundrums regarding the quest for the authority over Kalapani Lipulekh Limpiyadhura, India legally holds the sovereign jurisdiction over the claimed territory. Still, both the countries being a neighbour to each other sharing similar culture need to move ahead of this push and pull rather should find out a mutually welcomed solution through deliberations utilizing bilateral channels and must emerge as strong partners in the region. But the recent steps were taken by the KP Oli Sharma’s regime soon after holding the power like introducing compulsory Chinese language in schools, joining in China’s Belt And Road Initiative (BRI), allowing or rather bearing Beijing’s involvement in the internal politics of Nepal etc. are worrisome and will have to uncover the black cloth over its eyes unless it’s too late. It should not ignore the dragon’s old yet bold policy of debt trapping. Countries like Maldives, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Africa, Djibouti etc. have already got themselves trapped which should perhaps alarm the Nepalese government. They should ally with a pro-democratic regime like India which stands for Sustainability, Equality and Security for all in the region. On the same side, India should keep itself apart from the internal matters of Nepalese and must respect their sovereignty.

Thus, the way newly established bus route from Ayodhaya( the birthplace of Lord Ram) was connected to Jankakpur(the birthplace of Lordess Sita) in 2018 by Modi-Oli government, it should remind both the neighbours to ameliorate its impairing relations, slowly yet steadily and unfortunately not deteriorating it at someone else’s behest.

The post NEPAL CONTROVERSIAL MAP: KATHMANDU UNDER THE DRAGON’S SWAY? appeared first on WISER WORLD.