CIHS – Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies

Date/Time:

‘India deserves a much higher, deeper, wider profile & global role’

Prime Minister Narendra Modi harps on ‘unprecedented trust’ as he emplanes to US for showcasing India’s smart and soft power prowess. By Rajesh Roy, Brendan Moran and Gordon Fairclough NEW DELHI—Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said ties between New Delhi and Washington are stronger and deeper than ever as India moves to secure what he sees as its rightful place on the world stage at a moment of geopolitical turmoil. “There is an unprecedented trust” between the leaders of the U.S. and India, Modi said in an interview ahead of his first official state visit to Washington after nine years in office. He hailed growing defense cooperation between the two countries as “an important pillar of our partnership,” which he said extends to trade, technology and energy. In Washington this week, Modi is expected to complete deals to manufacture jet-fighter engines in India to power advanced light combat aircraft, and to purchase high-altitude armed Predator drones from the U.S. in a multibillion-dollar agreement to boost surveillance efforts over the Indian Ocean and near its disputed border with China in the Himalayas. As the West squares off against Moscow and, increasingly, China, New Delhi stands to gain. Washington has courted India hoping that it will be a strategic counterweight to Beijing. The U.S. has moved to deepen defense ties even as New Delhi makes large purchases of Russian oil at discounted prices, providing financial support for Moscow as it wages war in Ukraine. Modi—who gives many speeches but fewer news conferences and interviews—spoke with The Wall Street Journal about India’s foreign policy, its efforts to build a more modern and sustainable economy and a range of other topics in a nearly hourlong interview in his office at his sprawling official residence in the heart of New Delhi. Overall, Modi’s message was that—from India’s role in global politics to its contributions to the world economy—the country’s time has come. He sought to portray New Delhi as the natural leader of the global South, in sync with and able to give voice to developing countries’ long-neglected aspirations. “India deserves a much higher, deeper and wider profile and a role,” said Modi, wearing a yellow kurta and light-brown jacket. Peacocks squawked in the garden outside. The 72-year-old leader called for changes to the United Nations and other international organizations to adapt them for an increasingly multipolar world order and to make them more broadly representative of the world’s less-affluent nations and their priorities, from the consequences of climate change to debt reduction. Unlike the vision of nonalignment advanced by Indian leader Jawaharlal Nehru in the early years of the Cold War, Modi’s foreign policy is one of multiple alignments, seeking to advance India’s interests in partnership with a range of global powers, including those in conflict with each other. Modi is one of India’s most popular prime ministers. He and his Bharatiya Janata Party won nationwide elections in 2014 and 2019 by comfortable margins. With national elections due next year, Modi’s approval rating is high. Political opponents and human-rights advocates have accused Modi’s party, which has roots in Hindu nationalism, of fostering religious polarization and democratic backsliding, pointing to issues such as restrictions on the press and removal of the special status of Indian-administered Kashmir to more closely integrate the Muslim-majority region into the country. Modi said that India not only tolerates but celebrates its diversity. “For thousands of years, India has been the land where people of all faiths and beliefs have found the freedom to coexist peacefully and prosper,” he said in a statement. “You will find people of every faith in the world living in harmony in India.” On the economic front, Modi has won praise for eliminating bureaucracy, relaxing rules and opening the way for more foreign direct investment. The country has surpassed China as the world’s most populous. What’s more, its population is young, promising a significant demographic dividend. The government has invested enormously in education and infrastructure, and it is poised to gain as multinationals look to diversify manufacturing and supply chains in an era of geopolitical tension. A new Apple store drew a crowd in Mumbai in April as the company expanded its investment in India. PHOTO: DHIRAJ SINGH/BLOOMBERG NEWS Apple is among the companies making significant new investments in southern India, with supplier Foxconn Technology Group planning new facilities in the states of Karnataka and Telangana and expanding iPhone production in the state of Tamil Nadu. “Let me be clear that we do not see India as supplanting any country. We see this process as India gaining its rightful position in the world,” Modi said. “The world today is more interconnected and interdependent than ever before. To create resilience, there should be more diversification in supply chains.” One thing India and the U.S. share are relationships with China that have grown increasingly fraught in recent years, marked by deepening military and economic rivalries. For India, that challenge is at its doorstep, with rising tensions centering around its decadeslong dispute with Beijing over the 2,000-mile border separating the two countries, known as the Line of Actual Control. The countries have been building infrastructure and deploying more troops in the region since a deadly 2020 clash in the Himalayas. Indian officials have blamed China for violating border agreements, and the two countries have held 18 rounds of military talks since 2020 aimed at preventing the dispute from spiraling into wider conflict. “For normal bilateral ties with China, peace and tranquility in the border areas is essential,” Modi said. “We have a core belief in respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity, observing the rule of law and peaceful resolution of differences and disputes. At the same time, India is fully prepared and committed to protect its sovereignty and dignity.” China’s Defense Ministry didn’t respond to a request for comment sent via the State Council Information Office. In drawing closer to Washington, the Indian government has had to overcome deep skepticism about the U.S. that dates back to the Cold War, when New Delhi became more closely aligned with Moscow after Washington declined to supply arms to India in 1965. The U.S. instead became a military backer

Read More

India, smart power in the making!

G-2 – US and India – super power grouping may not work for either side. Emerging and critical tech at fulcrum of bilateral engagement K.A.Badarinath The very talk of stitching up G-2 super power group between US and India during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s state visit is rather an unforgettable moment. In a fluid global situation, whether G-2 would finally be reality or not is something for geo-strategic experts to analyse, separate grain from chaff and derive the implications. US press has been abuzz with possibility of President Joe Biden ably assisted by secretary of state Jake Sullivan to bring focus to the idea of G-2 – US and India – forming a super power group. This is akin to what was talked about in early ‘80s by the US security establishment that attempted such a grand grouping with the then reluctant and recalcitrant China. Later, there were reports that President Barack Obama had revived this G-2 grouping with China when Hu Jintao was the powerful general secretary of Chinese Communist Party and country’s President. This grand idea of US – China group gained popularity after two major think tanks, Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Peterson Institute for International Economics had revived the conversation in 2011. Pomp and show that surrounds Prime Minister Modi’s visit as globally most popular leader, forming a G-2 – US and India – is something that needs deeper understanding and analysis. US, world’s largest economic power and strategic powerhouse thinking of India as a G-2 ally is elating. Jack Sullivan is reported to be harbinger of this idea, if at all it works for both sides. As G-2, identifying common rivals, partners and competitors, may not after all be a good idea for both US and India in an ever evolving world order. From US perspective, depending heavily on its allies like Japan, Australia and India to checkmate China in Asia theatre and elsewhere including Asia Pacific is a calculative move. At the same time, complete breakdown of relations between China and US is not a feasible preposition. In fact, this complex security matrix explains why democratic white house under President Joe Biden is interfacing with all the three – Japan, India and China – this week to finalize its Asia strategy. US being a great ‘strategic ally’, the first to go to, may continue to work for India. That does not allow Indian foreign affairs establishment under Subrahmanyam Jaishankar to shed the ‘independent policy’ stance that has come to smart focus in recent past. India’s independent policy stance gained credence for New Delhi’s stand on Russia – Ukraine conflict, Covid-19 management, multi-faceted engagement as G-20 President. Not becoming part of a military alliance has been stated policy of India and there’s little or no scope for a change in this stance. It’s in this backdrop that India not joining NATO forces should be viewed notwithstanding the standing invitation from US. In the Russia – European Union standoff, India refused to side with one group or the other unlike China and US taking respective sides. As G-20 President, batting for African Union’s full membership speaks volumes. At the same time, engaging with Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Quad with equanimity brought was recognized by world powers as a responsible way for the 1.4 billion strong India as the largest growing economy for two consecutive years and hat trick to be hit. In this backdrop, emerging and critical technologies, removing export controls on transfer of this knowhow by US to its most trusted partner India could be the starting point to taking bilateral relations one notch above. Artificial intelligence, quantum computing, space, semi-conductors, dedicated telecom infrastructure for strategic heft, biotechnology, aerospace are among areas where export controls may have to be lifted and shared with India. For instance, buying ‘predator’ drones to enhance surveillance and ‘jet engines’ must make technology transfer integral to the two governments level defence deal. Refurbishing and servicing the US Naval ships in India should become more of a common practice rather than one off events. Areas like education, affordable healthcare, vaccines, medicines; solar energy and green hydrogen as well as joint defence production deals can be the next big step for the two large democracies that are open, flexible and transparent in their relations. Independence in foreign policy engagement at bilateral level and multi-lateral issues is something that India takes pride in. And, this independence in policy will have to be assiduously protected, cherished and propagated for India to play a larger, responsible and compassionate power to reckon with. Smartness with soft power image of India goes well to realize her dreams of ‘Vasudaiva Kutumbakam’, world as ‘one big happy family’ that’s humane. (Author is Director and Chief Executive, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies, non-partisan think tank based in New Delhi)

Read More

‘Hatred against Hindus does not shock people’

Treated as ‘oppressors’, British Hindus face bullying, hatred, bigotry & slurs. Teaching on Hinduism with prejudice & colonial mind set Charlotte Littlewood Research I conducted last year for the Henry Jackson Society study found a 173 per cent increase in anti-semitic incidents in UK schools over the past five years. With the more general rise in anti-semitism a regular headline, what was almost more shocking than the research was just how little it shocked people. This year, we have looked into the experiences of Hindu pupils and found that 51 per cent of Hindu parents surveyed said their child had faced anti-Hindu hate in schools. Where are the protesters against this intolerance? Why is it that in an age of supposed anti-racism, attacks on both the longest standing victims of race hate and a people held under British colonial rule for hundreds of years draw so little concern? David Baddiel’s thesis rings true: Jews don’t count because they are not the right kind of victim. Contemporary anti-semitism draws on centuries-old bigotry that depicts them as “too rich” and “too powerful”. Now it seems this idea has barred another group of victims from victimhood: Hindus. For sections of the left, the world is divided into the “oppressor” and “oppressed”. Should you fall into the oppressor class you are everything that should be opposed and can never be a victim? Jews are viewed as white and powerful, imperialist and establishment, therefore deemed not able by definition to face racism and incapable of being victims. Hindus, it seems, have joined them. Last summer, more than 600 people took to the streets of Leicester in violent protest against alleged “Hindutva”, a term unfamiliar to many. To some it means Hindu nationalism, to others simply outward expression of “Hinduness”. While Muslim and Hindu youths had fought in what looked like gang-style territorial violence, there was little evidence of any political nationalist allegiances with India. Instead, concern over Hindu extremism lead to threats to find Hindus and “chop them up”, to “chase Hindus out of Leicester like they were chased out of Kashmir”, vandalism of vehicles and homes that displayed Hindu symbols and attacks on Hindu temples — all while the majority of mainstream media seemed to comment on any aspect other than Hindu-hate. Despite the evidence pointing towards youth gang violence dressed up as “Hindtuva” terrorism, reporting on the unrest in Leicester either endorsed the notion of “Hindutva” by giving a voice to key Islamist activists, or ignored the specific issues in Leicester by discussing nationalism on the subcontinent. Mohammed Hijab, for example, who declared at a pro-Palestine rally in 2021 that “we love death” and rallied the crowds in Leicester with anti-Hindu slurs, referring to them as “violent vegetarians” and declaring he was leading a Muslim patrol, was interviewed on Channel 4. The reporter described him as an influencer with conservative views. The results of our study showed parents reporting their children to have experienced anti-Hindu hate, with cases ranging from having beef thrown at them to physical assaults, being held accountable for politics in India and the caste system and being told the bullying will stop when they convert to Islam. But despite such harrowing case studies, less than one per cent of British schools have reported any form of anti-Hindu bullying incidents in the last five years. This particular form of hatred appears poorly understood and is at times fed by teachers with substandard and prejudicial colonialist teachings on Hinduism. Similar accusations have, of course, been made on teaching about Israel and Palestine in schools and a lack of consistent understanding and approach to defining antisemitism. The British Hindu community has joined the Jews in not being fit for victimhood. The perceived economic success of the community, the relative lack of engagement in issuing critiques against the West — indeed, enthusiastic embrace of it with a Hindu prime minister — bars Hindus from the class of the oppressed. India’s growing relationship with Israel has led far-left activists to associate Hindutva with Zionism, the death knell for leftist victim support. It is an uphill battle but we must challenge at every opportunity this narrative of “oppressed” and “oppressor” classes, which underlie antisemitic and anti-Hindu frameworks of thinking — or risk seeing intolerance and extremism continue on their upward trajectory. (Charlotte Littlewood is a researcher at the Henry Jackson Society. This article was first published in London-based The Jewish Chronicle)

Read More

Foreign Contribution Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2020 And Examining The Role Of NGOs.

“There are NGOs, often funded from USA & the Scandinavian Countries, which are not fully appreciative of the development challenges that our country faces. But we are a democracy. We are not like China. You know for example, what’s happening in Kundakulum [In Southern India, where local NGO-led protest have stalled commissioning of two 1000-Megawatt nuclear reactors]. The atomic energy programme has got into difficulty, because these NGOs, mostly I think based in United States, don’t appreciate the need for country to increase the energy supply.” [The Then PM, Shri Manmohan Singh in an interview in February 2012.] The Background To FCRA (Amendment) Act, 2020. The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) is a piece of legislation having a long and chequered history. It was first enacted in the year 1976, and the Statement & Object of Reasons of the original Act read as follows: “An Act to regulate the acceptance and utilisation of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality by certain persons or associations, with a view to ensuring that parliamentary institutions, political associations and academic and other voluntary organisations as well as individuals working in the important areas of national life may function in a manner consistent with the values of a sovereign democratic republic, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” One of the original intents of the 1976 Act, brought in by the Indira Gandhi Government at the peak of emergency, was to stop political funding of its rivals, who were starved of funds within the country. The Act was enacted to insulate the sensitive areas of national life like- Journalism, judiciary and politics from extraneous influence from outside the country. Unwarranted Criticism Of The FCRA (Amendment) Act, 2020. Since 1976, much ink has been spilled on paper, and the original Act has undergone several Amendments, including the recent Amendments of 2020, FCRA (Amendment) Act, 2020. The aforesaid Amendment has met with criticism from several quarters on the premises that the foreign aid is not a new concept. Even the mighty US had been a beneficiary. Without appreciating the correct intention behind the Amendments, it was said that the Amendments are meant to crush dissent and concentrate powers in the hands of this Government. Surprisingly, even the United Nations criticised the new Amendments on the premise that access to resources, including foreign funding, is a fundamental part of the Right to Freedom of Association under International Law, standards, and principles, and more particularly part of forming an association. Therefore, any restriction on access to foreign funding must meet the stringent test for allowable restrictions for the right to association developed by the International Human Rights bodies. Given this narrow test, restricting access to foreign funding for associations based on notions such as “political nature”, “economic interest of the State” or “public interest” violates the right because these terms or definitions are overly broad, do not conform to a prescribed aim, and are not a proportionate response to the purported goal of the restriction. Such stipulations create an unacceptable risk that the law could be used to silence any association involved in advocating political, economic, social, environmental or cultural priorities which differ from those espoused by the government of the day. The Formal Response of The Government Of India On The New Amendments.  There is absolutely no justification in the allegations or understanding that these Amendments in any way prevent or impede the inflow of foreign contributions in India. Shri Nityanand Rai, Minister of State for Home Affairs, Govt. of India has stated in the Parliament, that; “FCRA is a national and internal security law with the main objective of ensuring that foreign money does not dominate India’s public life, politics, and social discourse. Internal security, cultural security, national security and protection of Democracy are the utmost priority and specialty of this Government. This amendment is also necessary for Atma Nirbhar India. This government wants NGOs to make their sincere contribution to meet the specific needs of society. They should bring transparency in the expenditure of foreign contributions and ensure that it is spent on the right objectives and the work for which foreign contributions is received. There is a provision of foreign contributions for social education, cultural, religious, and economic activities. These Amendments has not been brought to threaten any political opponents. The only aim behind the Amendment is to ensure that the funds are not misused to throttle Indian democracy and suppress Indian people”. Justification And Necessity Of The New Amendments. It has to be appreciated that India is a vibrant and pluralistic democracy with a robust domestic grievance redressal mechanism, overseen by an independent judiciary and a Category ‘A’ National Human Rights Commission, compliant with the Paris Principles. Framing of Laws is power & prerogative of the sovereign, so long as the new law or amendments in existing law are made for achieving legitimate aims & objective and, inter alia, is in national interest and public order. It is a misconceived notion that the aforesaid Amendments are against NGOs. Had that been the case, a large majority of the NGOs and individuals in this sector would not have already complied with the new requirements of the FCRA (Amendment) Act, 2020. The Indian Parliament, representing the will of the people, has enacted the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act thereby laying down a clear legislative policy of regulating foreign contributions for certain activities in the country. As a matter of principle, there exits no Right to receive any foreign contribution outside the framework designed by the Parliament and implemented by the executive. The existing regime in place, which enables receiving of foreign contribution, envisages certain regulations and procedural preconditions and compliances for accepting foreign contributions. No part of any purported Right to receive foreign contributions can be said to be a part of the Fundamental Rights granted to citizens. There is no question of Fundamental Rights being violated through controls of acceptance of foreign contribution by certain type of organisations as the said organisations or individuals are

Read More
  • 1
  • 2