The recent One Belt, One Road (OBOR) conference in Beijing was noticeable for India’s absence. The Indian media which revels in scoring own goals went into overdrive, lamenting India’s decision to stay away when the good and great of the world were in close attendance to bless the ambitious Chinese project to girdle the globe with a massive inter-linked communications of railways, roads, bridges and ports. For instance, the economic land corridor through Pakistan terminates at the Baloch port of Gwador on the Persian Gulf, thence to Middle East, the Mediterranean and the European Union. China has established a passage across the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean to reach sub-Saharan Africa.
China claims the venture is designed to promote international trade and investment, goodwill and mutual understanding between nations.
By staying away India had shot itself in the foot, was isolated and going nowhere, Cried a bevy of media gurus. That is not how it is perceived by the Indian public. An opinion poll on the subject showed 67 per cent were in support of the government, 12 per cent were opposed and around 20 per cent were undecided. For starters, therefore, the Indian media, much given to preening that they are in large measurein accord with the people’s voice is a parody of the truth. They speak for no more than 12 per cent of the population.
The most coherent article, written by Zorawar Daulat Singh, and critical of the government’s stand appeared on the edit-page of the Hindu (May 18). Mr Singh pointed to the participation of countries such as Russia, Vietnam and Japan, the last two have serious differences with China on a range of issues. True. Their presence could simply be a watching brief rather than a willingness to participate in the Chinese venture. The hospitality of Russian space allows China to construct a rail network for the carriage of goods from China to Europe and vice versa. Top Russian businessmen state that there is little of tangible value for Russian companies, although the government earns handsome transit fees. Does the limited cargo carried across 10,000 miles from Europe and back justify the financial investment? The greater bulk of ships would surely suffice at far less cost.
Anyway, India’s decision must surely be determined by perceived Indian interests and not by the preferred choices of other powers, some, admittedly, with close ties to India.
Mr Singh pooh-poohs the notion that the Chinese venture reflects neo-colonialism. Japan and Vietnam are too proud of their identities to be entrapped; Russia, likewise, has no such fear, being militarily formidable. Correct again. China muscles in on softer targets. Take Mongolia, for example. By inviting the Dalai Lama to the country it aroused Chinese wrath and a crippling economic blockade followed for infringing ‘China’s core interests.’ Normal relations were resumed when landlocked Mongolia issued an abject mea culpa. A similar minatory note was addressed to India demanding that it prohibit the Dalai Lama from visiting Arunachal Pradesh, to which Beijing has laid claim. Its resolute opposition to Indian membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and its blocking the UN Security Council name the Pakistani jihadi Mahmood Azhar, believed to be the mastermind behind the terror assault on Mumbai in November 2008, tells of a Sino-Pakistan axis to tame India into submission.
As for for classic neo-colonialism, witness China’s renditions in Nambia and Zambia whose natural resources are being plundered with a rapacity not seen since the 19th century when European empires partitioned and looted the continent.
A recent panel discussion of experts organized by the Chennai International Centre concluded that China behavior was that of a regional hegemon. The most critical voice was that of M.K. Narayanan, the former National Security Advisor to the Manmohan Singh government and subsequently Governor of West Bengal.
‘Hide your strength, and bide your time,’ advised the late Deng Xiaoping to his younger colleagues in Beijing. China’s rivals should do so too. Perhaps India is doing so – which surprises and alarms the country’s self-flagellating media.
International Court stays Jadhav execution
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague to which Indias had lodged an appeal against the death sentence imposed on Kulbhusan Jadhav, an Indian naval officer arrested in Baluchistan province for espionage, has issued a temporary stay order to Pakistan. Jadhav was tried in camera by a Pakistan military court and denied access to an Indian consul during his imprisonment, in violation of the Optional Protocol of the Vienna Convention of Human Rights. Justice Ronny Abraham issued the judgment.
The Government of India’s appeal to the ICJ has paid off, if only temporarily. Pakistan is a garrison state with scant regard for the norms of international law or natural justice. The military calls the shots. Nafees Zakaria, spokesman of the Pakistan Foreign Ministry said Islamabad would contest the ICJ’s right to try a case in which ‘involved national security.’ However, Pakistan is expected to point out that Jadhav has the right of appeal for clemency by the President.
The issue is not simply legal. Its political dimension is likely to be more telling. The knives are already out for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. As head of the civilian administration he is vulnerable to the pressures of the Army which insists that relations with India are its exclusive prerogative. Opposition parties accuse the government of poor preparation for the ICJ hearing. The most vitriolic attack against him has been launched by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf of cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan.
The party has accused Sharif of being hand in glove with Indian intelligence agencies. It charged him with sending unprepared lawyers to the Hague, hence botching Pakistan’s case. Clearly, Nawaz Sharif is under fire. He has been defended by his aides, most notably by Sartaz Aziz, his adviser on foreign affairs.
Mr Jadhav has won a reprieve until August – such is the assurance emanating from Pakistan’s official sources. It would be the utmost folly to make the case a party political affair in India. It would be the height of irresponsibility to do so. Mr Jadhav’s life is at stake, and nothing said or done should expose him to greater risk. The blame game is best avoided, for no party can boast an effective Pakistan policy. Knee-jerk reactions, futile peace journeys, incessant, infantile chatter on the need for closer sporting ties and much else in absurdity is what the Indian public have got down the years. It is certainly not manna from heaven. Past failures present-day realty.
Tory no-change manifesto
British Prime Minister Theresa May has released her party’s election manifesto. Those hoping for a measure of change in emphasis on immigration and related issues of visas, students and skills will be disappointed. These issues are of special interest to India. But her message is one of business as usual.
Non-EU migrants will have to pay more for care under the national Health Service. ‘It is right that we want to bring net immigration down to sustainable levels because of the impact uncontrolled immigration has on public services. We want to increase the ‘Skills Charge’ because that money can be put into training people here to be able to take these jobs while we still have a system that brings the best people into the country,’ said Prime Minister May. ‘Skilled immigration should not be a way for government or business to avoid their obligation to improve skills of the British workforce.’
‘We will increase the earning thresholds for people wishing to sponsor migrants for family visas. We will toughen the visa requirements for students,’ said the Conservative party manifesto. ‘We will expect students to leave the country at the end of their course unless they meet new, higher requirements that allow them to work to work in Britain after their studies have concluded,’
No country in this day and age can afford ‘uncontrolled immigration, The question that has not been answered is that in this day and age, labour moves in tandem with capital across national borders for reasons that are mutually beneficial. Educating the population to the desired level of skill lies within the province of government and is not an obligation for companies to shoulder.
The peremptory demand of students to depart without ado almost sounds like an expulsion order. They do contribute much to the life of the universities they study at, and surely deserve a measure of courtesy; instead they are seen as milch cows, important only for the fees they bring in.
