Category: Journalism

(News reports, analysis, editorials, commentary, interviews, features etc from India and the world)

Categories
Foreign Policy Association (US) Indian Subcontinent Journalism

Muslim Refugees and a Muslim (Host) Nation in South Asia

Men walk at a Rohingya village outside Maugndaw in Rakhine state, Myanmar October 27, 2016. REUTERS/Soe Zeya Tun

U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive orders with regards visa restrictions for people from seven Muslim-majority states has generated heat across the globe. At the same time, Bangladesh—a Muslim majority state in the Indian subcontinent—is planning to send refugee Rohingya Muslims from neighboring Myanmar to a low-lying island in the Bay of Bengal that critics say is ‘unlivable’.

According to available records, nearly 70,000 Rohingyas from Myanmar’s Muslim-majority areas in the north have fled to Bangladesh ever since the Myanmar military launched a fierce crackdown last October that led to the killings of over 100 Rohingyas and widespread damage to their protests.

The government action was aimed at nabbing unidentified Rohingya insurgents who were alleged to have killed nine Myanmar police personnel on October 9th at three border posts in the district of Maungdaw.

About 2,500 Rohingya families have since taken refuge at a makeshift camp in eastern Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar near the border with Myanmar—taking the number of Rohingya in Bangladesh, both the old refugees and the current ones, to an estimated 500,000 as per some estimates.

But in January, Bangladesh brought out an old and much-maligned 2015 plan from the cold storage and proposed to move all Myanmar refugees, old and new, to the island of Thengar Char, which is totally isolated and gets easily flooded on high tide days.

Defending the move, Shahriar Alam, Bangladesh’s junior foreign affairs minister, said that the “move is temporary, as Myanmar would eventually take back its citizens”.

News agency Reuters quoted him saying, “After considering all aspects, we have taken a firm decision to shift them to the island.”

The move, however, does not have a clear timeframe currently—and might begin after proper shelters are in place on the island. But one thing that Alam was adamant upon was this: “Myanmar will have to take them back.” Read ‘soon’ between the lines.

More than the current place of residence, it is the question of their identity itself that has placed the Rohingyas between the rock and a hard place. The Myanmar authorities often call them ‘Bengali Muslims’, thereby inferring that they are actually (illegal) immigrants from Bangladesh. Bangladesh, in turn, refers to them as ‘Muslim nationals of Myanmar’.

Compare it with the global umbrage directed at non-Muslim nations for identifying refugees by their religion.

Giving a sense of déjà vu with regards the turmoil in the developed world about the issue of refugees, Bangladesh is resisting the prospects of the Rohingya refugees ‘mixing with Bangladeshi citizens’.

In a January 26th release on a Bangladesh government website, it was informed that several panels were being set up by the government to examine the influx of Rohingya Muslims, which the country fears could lead to law and order issues as they mix with residents.

“There’s a fear that the influx of Rohingya Muslims from time to time will lead to a degradation of law and order situation, spread communicable diseases … and create various social and financial problems,” the notice elaborated.

Going a step further, Alam said to Reuters in an almost Donald Trump style, “They are getting involved in drugs and other unlawful activities. If we could have confined them in the camp, it would not have happened.”

Apart from Trump, many of the nationalist leaders of Europe have said something similar. The outrage directed at them has been soul-numbingly deafening. Maybe it would have helped if they were all spokespersons of Muslim nations too.

Meanwhile, Myanmar says it is “ready to talk” about the repatriation of Rohingyas—but only of those who left the country after October 9th, 2016. It says it cannot take Bangladesh’s word about all the refugees being Myanmar nationals.

In other words, a certain group is being allegedly persecuted by its native administration. But when that group tries to seek refuge in another country, it finds itself unwelcome there. But then, there is no way back home either.

Sounds familiar?

And therein lies the point. This writing is neither about the actions of Bangladesh and Myanmar, nor the current and historical state of affairs of the Rohingya Muslims. It is about requesting all of us to stop being both savage and (savagely) holier-than-thou on the issue of refugees. It is a matter of a monumental human challenge, and taking sides blindly and fanatically would not be, well, human.

Listen to the opposing voices of the host nations too. It is not always merely about xenophobia/’religio’phobia.

Categories
Foreign Policy Association (US) Indian Subcontinent Journalism

‘Eastward Ho’ for India-led South Asia?

Trade blocs across the globe have often been just as much, if not more, instruments of geopolitics as they have been about commerce. A gradual but definite swell in cooperation between the South Asian nations east of Pakistan currently is playing witness to the age-old truism.

With South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) currently lying comatose due to the India-Pakistan conflict, India is now citing the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) as an alternative that may potentially isolate Pakistan in South Asia.

India’s increased activities within and with BIMSTEC nations is a clear warning by India to Pakistan over the current deadlock of dialogue between the two countries because of the terror attacks on Indian soil, almost all of which emanate from Pakistan.

After pulling out of the 19th SAARC Summit in Islamabad in November 9-10, 2016, which led to pull outs by all the remaining member nations too, India – along with Bangladesh – did not attend a three-day regional conference held in Islamabad beginning December 19 to  promote innovation for sustainable development and discuss strategy of the Asian and Pacific Centre for Transfer of Technology (APCTT). The conference, significantly, was held under the aegis of the United Nations.

On the other hand, India went out of the way to promote BIMSTEC at the 8th BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) Summit in Goa, India on October 15-16. Dubbed as one of the highlights of the Summit by many in India, the host nation facilitated a BRICS-BIMSTEC Outreach Summit, where the BRICS leaders met the heads of government of the BIMSTEC countries.

The selection of BIMSTEC for engagement with BRICS was both significant and deliberate by India.

While it fits India’s long-term Act East Policy, which aims at strengthening trade and bilateral relations with the South-East Asian nations, with India’s northeast region as the transit base, the October invitation to BIMSTEC to the BRICS summit also suited India’s immediate concerns.

In a major victory for India against Pakistan, BIMSTEC Leaders’ Retreat 2016 Outcome Document reiterated its stand:

“We strongly believe that our fight against terrorism should not only seek to disrupt and eliminate terrorists, terror organisations and networks, but should also identify, hold accountable and take strong measures against States who encourage, support and finance terrorism, provide sanctuary to terrorists and terror groups, and falsely extol their virtues. There should be no glorification of terrorists as martyrs.”

The statement was a near replica of the one released later by the boycotting SAARC member states at the time of pulling out of the Summit in Islamabad in November.

In other words, by trade or by trick, India had managed to get all the South Asian nations—and indeed Thailand and Myanmar—together to send a message to Pakistan to put a lid on terror activities emanating from its soil.

It was as much a diplomatic victory for India as it was an expression of exasperation of the other nations with regards the comatose nature of cooperation in South Asia via SAARC due to the conflict between the two biggest member states of the Association.

The boycott of events and the pointed nature of joint statements is not an ad-hoc development. As stated earlier, it is India taking a lead out of the general exasperation of the South Asian nations – particularly India and Bangladesh—with the issue of Pakistani-originating terror completely bringing to halt any future-looking trade and development issues of the region.

To that effect, India in September 2016 approved $1.04-billion for constructing and upgrading 558 km of roads to link it with Bangladesh, Bhutan, and Nepal and ease the movement of passengers and cargo within the region.

Funded equally by India and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the primary purpose of the Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal (BBIN) road initiative is to increase the intra-regional trade by over 60%.

A much more expansive project than BBIN is the  Mekong-Ganga Cooperation (MGC), which though was established way back in 2000 in Laos, is receiving renewed attention. Named after Ganga and Mekong, the two of the largest rivers of the region, the grouping is about building tourism, culture, education and transportation linkages between India, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.

While MGC might not be moving as well as the promoters would’ve liked it to, there are other examples that actually are.

The Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project has been identified for special focus by the BIMSTEC Transport Infrastructure and Logistics Study (BTILS). It will connect the eastern Indian seaport of Kolkata with Myanmar’s Sittwe seaport by sea in the first phase – and then link Sittwe to Paletwa in the same country via Kaladan River route, before connecting Paletwa to the Indian state of Mizoram by road. Originally scheduled to be completed by 2014, it is running behind schedule, but moving well now.

Another one identified by the BTILS is the India–Myanmar–Thailand (IMT) Trilateral Highway, an under-construction highway that will connect Moreh in India with Mae Sot in Thailand via Myanmar. The road had a trial run in November 2015 itself, with Indian vehicles traveling to Naypyidaw in Myanmar via the Imphal-Mandalay-Bagan-Naypyidaw route and back. Myanmarese vehicles had joined the Indian vehicles on the return journey.

With a clear view of expanding the India-ASEAN Free Trade Area trade, India has proposed extending the highway to Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.

The most interesting one, however, is the Bangladesh, China, India and Myanmar (BCIM) Economic Corridor. The multi-modal (road, rail, water and air linkages) corridor will be the first expressway between India and China and will pass through Myanmar and Bangladesh—covering a total area of about 1.65 million square kilometers.

This is interesting because it brings together two traditional and intense rivals, India and China—and also because China has put all its eggs in the Pakistani basket in the longstanding India-Pakistan conflict, the very reason for which India is looking and leading other nations eastwards.

There remain many miles before all the mentioned projects lay the final brick. But it is amply clear that the terrorism emanating from Pakistan—and indeed the steadfast refusal by the Pakistani government to both stop supporting the terror groups and acknowledging their presence on its soil—has led to a steady rise in activities on the east of South Asia. At the moment, it is indeed ‘Eastward Ho’ for the India-led South Asia.

Categories
Foreign Policy Association (US) Indian Subcontinent Journalism

The Tattered Mirage of a South Asian Union is Dying Fast – Pt. 3

This commentary was first published here.

The Stealth Disruptor

With most South Asian nations sharing a history that is marred by ethnic, religious and geographic disputes, forming a seamless Union of cooperating members was not going to be easy even in the best of circumstances. Increasingly dwarfing, however, all intra-SAARC issues is the escalating India-China rivalry in the region.

For the purpose of brevity, let’s restrict ourselves to the rivalry between the two giants with regards the three South Asian nations mentioned in the previous section.

Landing a blow to the recently growing bilateral relations between the two countries, Chinese President Xi Jinping on September 6 cancelled his scheduled visit to Nepal in October.

What was not lost upon the region’s analysts was the timing of the decision—coming as it did around the three-day India visit of the new Nepalese Prime Minister Mr Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda.

While the ostensible reasons for the move appear to be the Chinese disappointment with Nepal’s apparent lack of preparedness and commitment to joining ‘One Belt, One Road’—a project connecting China with the rest of Eurasia – and the Nepalese administration ‘not implementing the agreements and understandings’ agreed upon between the two countries during former Nepal prime minister Mr. K P Oli’s visit to Beijing in March, it is understood that the Beijing is upset about the recent turn of events in Nepal that lead to the ouster of Oli, considered to be pro-China.

This, Beijing feels, after China quickly transported about 1,000 metric tonnes of petroleum to Nepal to allow it to tide over the severe shortage of fuel and other essential commodities during the Madhesi blockade of entry points with India. The Chinese government had also gone out of its way to pledge support to Nepal’s ‘geographical integrity and sovereignty’ during the crisis.

The Beijing-friendly Oli, shortly after resigning just before a trust vote that he was expected to lose, said that the opposition parties “hatched a conspiracy for narrow interests, and I am stunned by that”. The ‘conspiracy’, China believed, was the handiwork of India.

His ouster and Prachanda deciding to choose India for his official visit, even though a norm in the Indo-Nepalese context, is seen as a victory of sort by the Indian establishment, which expects Nepal to move closer to India again.

Meanwhile, the impoverished nation of 28 million awaits reconstruction and rehabilitation after the deadly 2015 earthquake.

A similar contest between the dragon and the elephant is active in Bangladesh too.

China has a deep interest in and is heavily invested in Bangladesh. It is, in fact, Bangladesh’s largest trading partner. It has bagged a $705 million contract for a two-lane tunnel under the Karnaphuli River and the $4.47 billion Padma Bridge rail link project. The Beijing-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) recently granted a $66 million loan for two power distribution projects and the improvement of transmission lines in Bangladesh.

China is also Bangladesh’s main supplier of military hardware, supplying five maritime patrol vessels, surface-to-air and anti-ship missiles, 16 fighter jets, 45 tanks and two corvettes in the last five years. The new Ming-class Chinese submarines are likely to be added to the Bangladesh naval fleet later this year.

However, China has recently suffered two stunning setbacks in the country.

India’s state-owned Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) bagged a $1.6 billion power station construction contract in Bangladesh after undercutting its Chinese rival, the Harbin Electric International Company. The 1,320MW thermal power station will be the largest foreign project by an Indian power company. The Indian government’s external lending arm, the Exim Bank, would provide more than two-thirds of the funding at the low soft interest for the project.

The deal is seen as the ‘second big win’ by India over China in Bangladesh, after the cancellation of the long-deliberated China-Bangladesh deal to build the huge Sonadia deep-sea port near Chittagong, the country’s major port.

The Sonadia port was seen in India as a part of China’s ‘string of pearls’, a network of Chinese military and commercial facilities in the Indian Ocean region. New Delhi views these ‘pearls’ as a Chinese strategy to encircle India. The port would have been dangerously close to India’s Andaman and Nicobar Islands, a strategically important archipelago of 572 islands that houses a military base and surveillance and monitoring stations.

The Indian government has now expressed interest in building a $15.5 billion deep-sea Payra Port project, to the west of Bangladesh’s choked Chittagong port, and very close to the Indian coastline.

The Indian response to the Chinese presence in Bangladesh extends to other areas of cooperation too. Indian Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi, during his visit to Dhaka in June 2015, signed 22 agreements with the Sheikh Hasina government – including deals on ending a four-decade border dispute between the two countries, maritime security and the establishment of special economic zones in Bangladesh.

India and Bangladesh have also agreed to India building a transit route to its northeast region via Bangladesh by rail, road, and waterways.

At the Bangladesh Investment and Policy Summit in Dhaka on 24 and 25 January 2016, an Indian team of businessmen and investors promised over $11 billion for infrastructure projects in Bangladesh, including an LNG power plant and a gas pipeline from India to Bangladesh.

The last is yet to be written in the India-China geopolitical rivalry in Bangladesh.

But the biggest and the most volatile geopolitical theatre for the bitter contest between the two giants is the proposed $46 billion (41 billion Euros) China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).  The corridor is devised to link Pakistan’s southern Gwadar port on the Arabian Sea to China’s western Xinjiang region.

But it passes through what India claims is its territory illegally occupied by Pakistan (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, or PoK).

The area also serves as the home to two of the many Pakistan-based groups that the US and the European Union have designated as terrorist outfits – Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM). Beijing’s refusal to designate JeM chief Masood Azhar at the UN Security Council in April 2016 had greatly irked India.

In a one-to-one meeting on September 5 with Chinese President Mr Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hangzhou city, Indian Prime Minister Mr Narendra Modi is said to have conveyed that New Delhi and Beijing “would have to be sensitive to each other’s strategic interests“.

Prior to the G20 Summit in China, Indian prime minister’s public mention of Balochistan during his Independence Day speech to the nation on August 15 had triggered a wave of alarm both in Pakistan and China.

A rather innocuous statement thanking the people of Balochistan (and not Pakistan, its parent nation) for good wishes to him was noted because CPEC, on the Pakistani side, ends in that restive province.

During a seminar in the Paroon area of Panjgur district on September 2, activists of one such group, the Balochistan Republican Party (BRP), said Islamabad wants to build the CPEC in the region “on the dead bodies of Baloch people with Beijing’s help“.

Pakistan has long accused India of creating trouble in the region via funding and arming insurgent groups that are fighting for independence for the region.

Talking to India’s leading news daily The Times of India recently, South Asia expert Hu Shisheng said:

“My personal view is that if India is adamant and if Indian factor is found by China or Pakistan in disrupting the process of CPEC, if that becomes a reality, it will really become a disturbance to China-India relations, India-Pakistan relations“.

In other words, one of the most serious global military escalations could just be a corridor away.

There is a heated game of one-upmanship going on between India and China in Sri Lanka and Maldives too. But about that at a later time.

Clearly, after being grounded by India-Pakistan tensions for the most part of its two-decade history, the Association has now been completely turned into a sideshow of the India-China geopolitical one-upmanship.

The contest, I’m afraid, is between two very ancient civilisations and current global powers. Everything suggests that it would outlast the India-Pakistan rivalry by a civilizational distance. And that can have far-reaching consequences for the utopian idea called the South Asian Union.

Note: This piece was written prior to a deadly terror attack on an Indian military facility on September 18, which killed 17 Indian army personnel. All the four killed terrorists belonged to the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad terror group. This led to India and five other nations pulling out of the 19th SAARC Summit, leading to the cancellation of the same.

Categories
Foreign Policy Association (US) Indian Subcontinent Journalism

The Tattered Mirage of a South Asian Union is Dying Fast – Pt. 2

This commentary was first published here.

“Cooperation within the framework of the Association shall be based on respect for the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, political independence, non-interference in the internal affairs of other States and mutual benefit.” -Point (1) of the ‘Principles’ subset of Article II of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) charter.

‘Respect for territorial integrity’ and ‘non-interference in the internal affairs of other states’, really?

The Indian subcontinent is chequered with a history of border and territory disputes. If there is no shared border, there are prickly issues related to shared ethnic and religious groups in each other’s territories.

Two very topical, and yet, off the cuff, examples here illustrate the intertwining and conflicting interests of the South Asian nations, whether or not with a shared border, and the consequent impact of the same on the functioning of SAARC.

Bangladesh expressed its strong protest against Pakistan’s reaction to the execution of Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) leader Mir Quasem Ali on September 3.

Ali, a prominent member of the pro-Pakistani militia during Bangladesh’s war of independence from Pakistan in 1971, was found guilty of torture and mass murders. Bangladeshi accounts say that the Pakistani army and its supporters in JeI had killed about three million people, though the number varies in other accounts.

Pakistan termed the trial as a ‘flawed judicial process’.

“The act of suppressing the Opposition through flawed trials is completely against the spirit of democracy,” Nafees Zakaria, Pakistan’s foreign office spokesman told the international media.

Quick to retort, Bangladesh called Pakistan’s acting high commissioner in Dhaka, Samina Mehtab,  and handed over a strongly-worded note verbale.

“By repeatedly taking the side of those Bangladesh nationals who are convicted of crimes against humanity and genocide, Pakistan has once again acknowledged its direct involvement and complicity with the mass atrocity crimes committed during Bangladesh’s liberation war in 1971,” read the communiqué.

The trial of Islamist leaders who took a violently pro-Pakistani stance in the 1971 war is going on for a while now—and the two countries have sparred all along.

In a different setting, the historical friction between the two nations had taken the turn of a very contemporary fight after the terror attack in Dhaka in July this year.

During the Muslim holy month of Ramzan, gunmen had entered a chic restaurant in the city’s diplomatic enclave on July 2 and killed 21 hostages and two police officers—before the Bangladesh security forces raided the restaurant and ended the standoff. Four terrorists were killed and one was captured alive.

Those killed were from around the globe, including one Indian, nine Italians, seven Japanese, one American and two local Bangladeshis.

Amid talks of the ISIS connection, while Bangladesh blamed the home-grown Islamist terrorists belonging to JeI group for the worst-ever terror attack in the country’s history, it also talked about the radical group’s connection with Pakistan’s spy agency ISI.

“They (Pakistani establishment) are openly supporting war criminals. So, politically they are with Jamaat-e-Islami, politically they are with the militants. So, that is a sad thing in the regional politics,” said Bangladesh Information Minister Hasan-Ul-Haq Inu a day after the attack.

“And recently few diplomats, who were working undercover at the Pakistan Embassy, were thrown out of the country because they were involved in armed networks,” he added.

The issue in his later statement relates to the two Islamic countries expelling each other’s diplomats in a tit for tat fashion in late 2015.

Following the Dhaka attack and the continuing strained relations, the home minister of Bangladesh ‘skipped’ the SAARC Home Ministers Conference held on August 3 and 4 in Islamabad.

This was followed by the finance minister of the country too opting to ‘skip’ SAARC finance ministers meeting in Islamabad on August 25, citing ‘domestic compulsion’.

On the other hand, and even before these latest snubs by Bangladesh, countless experts on Pakistani news channels have dubbed the former, a part of Pakistan for the first 24 years of the latter’s existence, as a colony of India. The view reflects the growing relationship between India and Bangladesh ever since the Sheikh Hasina government has come back in 2010.

That described the current relationship between two SAARC members who were once the same country. Today, leave aside a common goal, they don’t even share a border!

An equally telling example of churning with SAARC relates to two nations that do share borders—India and Nepal.

India’s Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi had the Nepalese lawmakers, and the people of Nepal, eat out of his hands during his rockstar-like visit in August 2014 to the Himalayan nation, and his address to Parliament.

“We have not come here to interfere with your internal matters, but we want to help you develop,” Modi said to his hosts.

His popularity hit the stratosphere when he said that India was open to accepting a revised version of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed by the two countries in 1950: “Kathmandu had only to bring forth the amendments and New Delhi would sign on the dotted line since it implicitly trusted Nepal“.

At that time, Nepal was busy framing a new Constitution, which was to take into consideration  the concerns of all communities of the nation.

The coming together of all parties for Modi’s speech and the surplus warmth towards the visiting leader suggested an era of good times for the two nations.

The bond of warmth got a shot in the arm after India reacted faster than all to provide expertise and relief material within a matter of hours after a massive earthquake hit Nepal in April-May 2015.

At that time the only sour note seemed to be local Nepalese’s anger towards a section of the Indian media for being patronizing and meddlesome during the rescue operations.

Problems started taking a serious nature after the adoption of a new Constitution by the parliament, followed by a 16-point agreement between the Government and the opposition, which spelled out the roadmap for the new Constitution.

There was an instant and violent rejection of the new Constitution by the various Madhesi (an ethnic group living in the Nepalese south) parties and Janjatis (essentially tribals) because of, what they called, non-representation of their aspirations.

At the same time, India felt that the outcome was contrary to Mr. Modi’s advice for a consensus-driven rather than a numbers-determined approach towards finalisation of the Constitution.

Nepal, on the other hand, viewed India’s reaction to the promulgation of its new Constitution, and a hurried visit by India’s foreign secretary, as a brazen attempt by India to meddle in Nepal’s internal matters.

The new Constitution was formally adopted in September 2015.

The Madheshi groups responded by blockading the border points between India and Nepal. Kathmandu saw it as Indian handiwork and accused its southern neighbour of deliberately worsening the embargo by not allowing vehicles to pass through even those check-points where no protests were held—a charge that was quickly, and predictably, denied by the Indian government.

A four-month border blockade by the Madhesis ended only after amendments to the constitution that sought to address their concerns about ‘rightful’ representation in Nepalese political framework were made.

India welcomed the amendments. It remains to be seen what kind of welcome Modi gets on his next Nepal visit, whenever that happens.

Is there any greater ‘interference in internal affairs’, whether real or perceived, than interference in matters related to judiciary or constitution of one nation by another—as highlighted by the squabbling SAARC members in the two examples?

In an atmosphere of such mistrust and misgivings, it is barely surprising that 95% of  trade of SAARC nations is with non-SAARC nations. The corresponding figure, for example, for the Southeast Asian nations within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region is about 25%.

Note: This piece was written prior to a deadly terror attack on an Indian military facility on September 18, which killed 17 Indian army personnel. All the four killed terrorists belonged to the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad terror group.

To be continued…

Categories
Foreign Policy Association (US) Indian Subcontinent Journalism

The Tattered Mirage of a South Asian Union is Dying Fast – Pt. 1

This commentary was first published here.

The latest round of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan threatens to add the 19th South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit, scheduled to be held in Islamabad, Pakistan, in November 2016, to the long list of failed attempts at cooperation in South Asia.

But there are enough signals suggesting that reasons apart from the historical animosity between the two nations are now pulling SAARC apart.

The Raging Fire

The Association, often accused as a stillborn by its various critics because of the lack of appreciable progress towards stitching together a South Asian Union (à la European Union) by means of trade, diplomacy, and infrastructure, has always been an unfortunate recipient of the tensions between its largest two member nations.

The current round of hostility between the two nuclear-armed neighbours began with the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) terrorist Burhan Wani by the Indian army in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).

The 21-year-old militant was a ‘self-proclaimed commander’ of HM, designated as a terrorist organisation by India, the European Union, and the U.S. He was the poster boy for anti-India people and groups in the Kashmir valley of J&K, and openly defied and challenged the Indian state for war, via social media.

Wani’s killing led to widespread protests in the Indian Kashmir. Adding to the temperature was Pakistan’s open and steadfast support to the slain terrorist. Prime Minister of Pakistan Mr. Nawaz Sharif “expressed shock” at the killing of Wani, and called him ‘martyr’ and a ‘Kashmiri leader’. Pakistan even observed a ‘black day’ on July 19 in solidarity with the victims of violence in Kashmir.

India, predictably, responded quickly and sharply, asking Pakistan to stop “glorifying terrorists”, saying that it makes it abundantly clear where Pakistan’s sympathies lie.

But neither Pakistan’s official support nor the angry protests in India’s Kashmir valley saw any abating even after a month of Wani’s killing. For weeks, the belligerent crowd made up of angry local youth pelted stones at Indian security forces. In response, the men in uniform used pellet guns, causing over 50 deaths and countless injuries among the protestors.

At the same time more than 3,300 security personnel were injured, many seriously, in about 1000 incidents of violence. A few of them later succumbed to the injuries.

As a result, the entire Indian Kashmir valley region was put under curfew for over 50 days in the July-August period. After lifting it for a couple of days, curfew was re-imposed on many parts at the time of writing this report because of further violence.

India continuously accused Pakistan of fanning the trouble by sending financial, logistical, political, and armed support to the protesting crowds.

With Pakistan going all out to support the violent protestors, India, for the first time ever in its history, chose to officially respond in kind to Pakistan’s long-running commentary on the issue of self-right of Kashmiri people in India.

Addressing the nation on its Independence Day on August 15, India’s Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi mentioned the support and good wishes of people of Pakistan’s largest province Balochistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) areas of Kashmir. Balochistan, it may be noted, is home to many political and extremist groups that is demanding independence from Pakistan.

Pakistan was quick to call Mr. Modi’s speech as the vindication of its charges of an Indian hand in the violence in the restive province of Balochistan.

Both India and Pakistan have since upped the ante.

The Indian government approved a proposal to air programs in Balochi and Sindhi (the primary language of Pakistan’s second biggest province, Sindh, where, again, some groups demand an independent Sindhu Desh) via its official radio service.

Taking the clue, the Indian media is currently flush with news about and views from Balochi rebels sitting in the UK and elsewhere. Talks of political asylum to leaders fighting the ‘Balochistan Independence’ battle with Pakistan—in line with that to the Tibetan spiritual guru HH Dalai Lama—are heard with increased frequency in news outlets.

Beyond the talk, the Indian government also approved Rs. 2,000 Crore ($ 300 million) package for displaced people of Pakistan’s Gilgit-Baltistan and PoK regions living in the country. 36,348 such families have been identified for distribution of the package.

To counter India’s communication blitzkrieg, Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on August 27 nominated 22 parliamentarians as special envoys who will ‘highlight the Indian brutalities and human rights abuses in the occupied Kashmir’ in key parts of the world.

And there stands currently the ‘peacetime scenario’ in South Asia.

Can it change in the next 60 days for a fruitful SAARC summit in Islamabad? Well, 69 years of history doesn’t suggest it.

Note: This piece was written prior to a deadly terror attack on an Indian military facility on September 18, which killed 17 Indian army personnel. All the four killed terrorists belonged to the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad terror group.

To be continued…

Categories
Huffington Post (UK) Journalism Sport

Chelsea And Conte Need To Transfer Faith, NOW

For the second consecutive game, Chelsea lost points due to a disjoint performance by an ill-equipped defence. That that would be the opening line about a Chelsea performance even in the new season reveals how little has changed in that department for the team; and how much the stagnation threatens to repeat the 2015/16 season.

Unlike their visit to Swansea, where Chelsea clearly were the better side and should have won despite the two comical goals against them, the game against Liverpool was more a tale of two halves. Chelsea simply did not turn up in the first half. Though it dominated possession in the second half, it just could not make the final kill. That would, in all fairness, mean that Liverpool were the better team in the first leg of the meeting between the two giants.

And yet, Liverpool did not win just because they were better; they also won it because Chelsea continue to be so poor in defence and organisation that they allow every ‘better’ to look ‘much better than actual’.

Unfortunately, that truth is a consequence of the bigger truth: Chelsea have been miserly in the transfer market and suffer from a dangerous fixation with the backline that looks eminently unreliable – after having served the club superlatively for the most part of the last decade.

While it might sound harsh to hold the first line of argument against Roman Abramovich, especially after the $1bn that he has spent on the club in the last decade, the truth is that Chelsea did indeed baulk at the transfer market prices for the second consecutive year – in comparison to, say, a Manchester United that was not afraid to break the bank for a single midfield player. So, in a way, it is indeed about buying new players too.

But the bigger reason, it seems, is the longstanding love relationship with the trio of John Terry, Gary Cahill, and most importantly, Branislav Ivanovic.

All three of them seem to be past their best years – at least in the Chelsea colours. Ivanovic was so off the pace and poor in the 2015/16 season that the social media was full of ridicule heaped upon him by fans, including Chelsea supporters. He no longer seems to be able to make telling crosses, nor can he make his long throws count anymore. On the wrong side of 30, he is not the quickest on the field too. Never renowned for technical craftsmanship, it is really surprising how he manages to hold his place so regularly in a team that is desperate for defensive robustness.

Ivanovic’s extended run probably owes to the fact that he generally does not catch the eye for what he does. That misfortune seems to prefer Cahill recently. Even though the referee missed a trick and did not call the foul on Cahill in the match against Swansea that cost Chelsea their second goal, the fact remains that he was less than assured in the game. Repeating his performance, his meek clearance push outside the box resulted in Jordan Henderson getting acres of space just outside the box, and scoring a sumptuous goal. Cahill too, like Ivanovic and some others in the Chelsea team, does not have the speed to handle the likes of Philippe Coutinho, Raheem Sterling et al.

John Terry is the only one amongst the three that could still be in the team – purely for his organisational skills. He is the ‘voice’ in the box. He is naturally wired to continuously have a look over his shoulder to get the ‘larger picture’, and direct his troops accordingly. It seems improbable that in Terry’s presence Chelsea would have left four Liverpool players open for a cross. Simply unthinkable.

But that is not to say that he is NOW not indispensable. If Chelsea had made the correct buys in the transfer market, Terry might not have started all the games. At his age, it would not have been the most insulting thing to happen either.

Yes, Chelsea and Conte need to now transfer faith. Maybe David Azpilicueta on the right, David Luiz in the centre, and Marcos Alonso on the left is not such a bad idea to start the next game with.