India's options in the changing nature of the Gulf region

It was 3rd January 2020, when the US's drone struck the Baghdad International Airport killing one of the most coveted men of Iran, Kasim Soleimani, the commander of Iran Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, which has created a splinter effect throughout the gulf region. Iran, which was facing the heat due to the collapse of JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action), turned rogue against the US and in retaliation struck two Iraqi military facilities of the US, with no casualties. What started as minor bottlenecks from the Trump administration turned into brinkmanship that has infiltrated the Gulf region ushering in the new deals in the form of Abraham Accords between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco, providing a thaw to the long-held animosity between Israel and the gulf.

However, things are not as simple as they look. The recent killing of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Farikhzade, allegedly by Israel, has turned the events to a point of no turning back. The recent legislation in the Iranian parliament regarding the breach of nuclear stockpile restrictions up to 20%, way up than what was agreed upon in JCPOA at 3.6%, has exacerbated the matters. Further, the feud happening in the Iranian politics between Ayatollah Khamenei supported by hard-liners and incumbent President Hassan Rouhani supported by moderates, with the looming elections to be held in mid-2021 has impeded the process of amelioration of ties with the US. 

Whilst all that is happening is worth noting, one thing which could set the trajectory of the Gulf either to moderation of ties or a situation on the brink of war, is the Abraham accords. Two things are worth considering when we talk about these accords. First, this accord has emerged as a clear anti-Iranian accord to capture the rise of Iran in the Gulf region and has nudged both Israel and the Gulf to clear out the differences. Second, this accord is a face-saving deal by the Saudis and the Emiratis due to their losing position in the Muslim world with the projected resurrection of Turkey, as a neo-ottoman empire, trying to project itself as the leader of the disintegrating Muslim world.

The Abraham accords are pushing the gulf to be the major flashpoint for years to come at a time when the world is facing challenges on various fronts from an archaic world order unable to contain an assertive China to the worldwide spread of a pandemic. With the changing scenario in the gulf, speculations are rife over what might be the stance of India in the future, which has welcomed the accords but concomitantly supported the Palestinian cause.

Whilst pondering over this issue is imperative for Indian policymakers, four things need to be taken into consideration before taking a major step ahead:

First, India is facing a catch-22 situation whereby it cannot backtrack from its long-held position on Palestine and ignore its traditional-ally Iran on the one hand while supporting the accords on the other. However, given the numbers of the diaspora (approx. 31 million) working in the Gulf region and India's burgeoning military and technological partnership with Israel, New Delhi has no other choice but to recalibrate its options and make some hard choices.

Second, whilst the hype over traditional ties with Iran looks alluring, the alleged coalition forming between China, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan, coupled with a belligerent China poses a threat to Indian interests in the gulf region. The recent incident of Chinese intelligence agents colluding with Pakistani agents and the Taliban, and Chinese meddling in Nepalese politics are some cases in point. New Delhi has two options either to defenestrate the accords and become vulnerable or to work in the direction of standing up for its interests.

Third, India's ailing economy which has been facing headwinds due to COVID is in a need of a major overhaul. Whilst the west and other regions are attractive players to invest in the Indian economy, the gulf countries which are in the need of diversifying their economic interests away from hydrocarbons sees India as a major market and destination to invest in. Juxtaposing these two scenarios of debilitating Indian economy and investment-willing Gulf, the salience of the gulf for India is an undeniable fact considering Indian needs.

Fourth, the gulf could be a partner for India in fighting against the problem of terrorism which have been hampering Indian interest for a long-time. Further, Israel and the gulf's partnership could be a major force for India in capturing the growing influence of radicalisation in the Indian subcontinent on the behest of few countries like Pakistan, while making it a more peaceful and amicable place.

Given the fact that there is a change of administration in the US which could become a major force for further turbulence in the region, things are becoming more alarming with the way they are proceeding. However, one thing which ought to remain constant is that India needs to be cognizant of its interests in the region and its steps should align with its interests on the ground even if it will have to make some hard choices or reposition some of its long-held ideas.

The Question of the China challenge for India

  

The world which has undergone considerable change during the Pandemic from the way we used to interact to the way we think, has impacted the nation-states as an actor of international politics to use means that were ought to help these very nations in preventing any future wars. The World is facing a grave danger today, not of conventional wars, but unconventional wars through the means of economic threats and technology. The starkest example of these changes is the wave of anti-globalization around the world, which is present in the idea of “Us V/S They”, to fight the Pandemic. Whilst the virus is a global threat, the actions against it are local with minimum collaborations. The most legitimate actor who is the perpetrator of this growing global tumultuousness in the US, which has orchestrated an agenda against multilateralism, the same country that was once a poster-child of the multilateral and liberal order. Then there are actors like China, which are presenting a threat to this liberal order on one hand and trying to present an alternative to it on the other. To exacerbate the matters, the rise of one-upmanship among the world leaders helps us to discern the present situation.

Whilst as all these things are happening, one thing presents the answer to many of our questions regarding the change in world-order i.e., the 5th plenary session of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) which had hosted the top echelons of the CCP to discuss the 14th five-year plan (2021-25). Chinese President Xi Jinping while addressing the session reiterated the need for a self-sufficient China, an idea that didn’t match the multilateral narrative of China, to better deal with international situations which will make China economically powerful to be neglected and technologically powerful to be threatened. In his speech, Xi Jinping specifically recognized the challenge which the “Few Countries” pose to China and opined the idea of self-deterrence capabilities, which is an idea diverging from the past belief of a rising global-power to better deal with the conditions of interference by foreign powers in Chinese backyards. Further, the legitimacy of CCP was being upheld during the session by referring to the challenge which can only be curbed by CCP. Two things come out of this session, first, China is fully aware of the looming danger over the Chinese head about its alienation in the global economic order. And second, China is trying to change its options at hand to be better able to deal with the repercussion of its past actions.

Two things come out of this session, first, China is fully aware of the looming danger over the Chinese head about its alienation in the global economic order. And second, China is trying to change its options at hand to be better able to deal with the repercussion of its past actions.

Whilst the US bears the credit to escalate the matters, China is credited for its all-out agenda in exacerbating this problem. Chinese narrative proposed by Deng Xiaoping in 1989 of “Hide your strength, bide your time”, has been defenestrated by President Xi Jinping thinking that China would stand up to the challenges posed by its adversaries and that China would be able to change the world order on its terms. However, things that were imagined didn’t materialize. The global coalition which is forming against China, be it the resurrection of the Quad or the Clean network initiative by the US, points out one thing i.e., cognizance of the China challenge. Even the upcoming Biden administration, which might not be as staunch as the Trump administration was, recognized the need to curb this problem. Further, the clashes between Indian and Chinese forces along the LAC has furthered this feeling to stand up to the China challenge. In these hard times, we are seeing China trying to bring the temperature down a notch. China’s recognition of the imperatives of self-sufficiency and self-deterrence points out the fact that the time which had been chosen by the Chinese leadership to fulfil The China Dream, is wrong. It is for this reason that the testimony of the china challenge is looming large on China to cut the bud in the nip and prove its hard-gained legitimacy in the international order again.

Chinese narrative is given by Deng Xiaoping in 1989 of “Hide your strength, bide your time”, has been defenestrated by President Xi Jinping thinking that China would stand up to the challenges posed by its adversaries and that China would be able to change the world order on its terms.

But the question is, what this China challenge brings to the table for India? India’s intransigence to understand the China challenge even after the Doklam clashes of 2017 and reaching back to China through Wuhan and Mamallapuram spirit, is lurking in the shadow as a demon for India. However, the very fact that India is now ready for an issue-based alliance by defenestrating the archaic thinking of non-alliance  (the resurrection of Quad, Australia's inclusion into Malabar and rethinking of the Taiwan question), brings to the fore the changing diplomatic considerations of India. Further, India’s actions against the danger of Chinese 5G technology and Chinese mobile applications, shows the precedence of where India will be moving in the future. But could we be able to capture the rise of China by these actions? Not. India needs to be an economic powerhouse to leverage its position and increase its bargaining power in the world. For that to manifest, India needs more (not less) closer integration with the world for its developmental needs and its apprehensions for openness are then to be get rid of by analyzing the cost and benefits of it in the medium to longer-term. China has been able to stand till yet is only due to the fact of the economic leverage it has, not due to its military robustness, and that should be taken into consideration to make any future decisions.

Will the new Biden administration help India for that matter is still hard to tell, but the reiteration of Biden and his Secretary of State Antony Blinken about India’s importance in the administration’s foreign policy provides hope. The reality is wide open in front of India to recalibrate its priorities and own up to the challenge because sooner or later there might again be a new Doklam or Pangong Tso moment in the offing for India.

______________________________________________________

This article got republished in the Eastern Herald.

 

Will it be a final nail in the coffin of a Failing State?

 

            Image source: Reuters

The only word which can define the trajectory of the year 2020 is “turmoil”. From the fissures, it has created and the changes which the world has undergone, the year 2020 is considered a global mess. While the major flashpoints of this year consist COVID virus and fragmentation of the ideas like globalization and multilateralism, it has affected the domestic politics of many countries as well. Though the US has caught much attention of the pundits, Pakistan, which often looks as the bystander in the global political arena apart from matters about India, has caught the attention of analysts for many reasons. 

As the saying goes for Pakistan that” Pakistan is not a state but a military state” or "Pakistan is a state within a state", where the Establishment, a common term for the Pakistani Army and the ISI combined, rules the country under the guise of a Democratic nation ruled by a civilian government. In its independent history of 73 years, it has been ruled for 30 years by military dictators. What is more, the idea of Islamism and linking religion to extremist thoughts, are some of the common ideas prevailing in Pakistan. All this is amalgamating to be a perfect recipe of mayhem, which we know today as modern-day Pakistan. 

As the saying goes for Pakistan that” Pakistan is not a state but a military state” or "Pakistan is a state within a state"

 

Whilst facing an economic crisis, it is now facing a political crisis. The incumbent Prime Minister Imran Khan is in a precarious situation when confronted by the movement started by 11 opposing political parties popularly called the Pakistan Democratic Movement, led by Maulana Fazal-ul-Rehman of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam. Not just this, the negligence of PM Imran Khan has brought two major rival parties Pakistan’s People Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) to form a coalition against him. 

However, this is not the thing that has intrigued many, but the discourse of this movement is directly challenging the legitimacy of the Establishment in Pakistan. In the inaugural session of Gujranwala, the former PM Nawaz Sharif, through a virtual video-link from London, accused the Army of bringing down his government and helping Imran Khan assent to power. Whilst the history of contestation between Military and civilian government in Pakistan is long, this time it has outshone others because the coalition is building on the same narrative and people are supporting this zealously in the time of contagious virus. 

Which started as the wave of protest, now has turned into a movement, covering four rallies of Gujranwala on Oct 16, Karachi on Oct 18, Quetta on Oct 25, and Peshawar on Nov 22, with 3 more in line, and finally concluding this long walk with a march in Islamabad in Jan 2021. However, fearing this power building up, Imran khan who has achieved an epithet of a “Puppet Prime Minister” by the opposition, quelled the protest by detaining 31 people including PPP chief Ali Qasim Gilani. 

Now, this domestic political turmoil will further exacerbate the position of Pakistan which is currently also facing the crisis of identity in global politics. Pakistan is at the losing end due to continuous terrorist activities and its grey-listing by terror watchdog FATF, as well as its failed attempt to taint the picture of India with the help of its friends like Turkey and Malaysia while irking the Saudis and the Emiratis. Further, the inception of Joe Biden as the President-elect of the US, who will continue to pull out troops from Afghanistan given the domestic discourse of the US, will decrease the bargaining power of Pakistan. 

The inception of Joe Biden as the President-elect of the US, who will continue to pull out troops from Afghanistan given the domestic discourse of the US, will further decrease the bargaining power of Pakistan. 

Moreover, the real power bloc of Pakistan, the Establishment, is facing the crisis of legitimacy on the soil which it has been ruling since the independence of Pakistan. Qamar Javed Bajwa, COAS of Pakistani Army, who knows this very fact that this movement has the force to wither away his stronghold on Pakistan, is trying to assuage the opposition leaders to bring down the momentum of this movement and settle the matter behind the doors. With the dichotomy of retaining his clown in the face of Imran Khan on one hand and protecting his power on the other, the future of Pakistan looks very bleak in hands of those who do not understand the need of the common people of Pakistan.

The real sufferer in this power struggle is again the people of Pakistan, fighting the wave of Coronavirus as well as facing their fate with a battered economy, who are well aware of the nature of Democracy and politics of Pakistan. With their apprehensions against the Chinese in their motherland and the increasing Islamic fundamentalists, they have two options, either to pray for their bright future whilst sitting with this hope or to stand up and fight for bringing about a radical change in their society. They have chosen the Second option. This political struggle might change the fate of the people of Pakistan in the future to come, but will the Establishment concede to this demand, only time will tell.

 

  

 

A Paradigm shift in the Indian foreign policy

  

When Samuel P. Huntington propounded the theory of “Clash of Civilizations” in 1996 he was beyond any doubt that post-cold war battles would be fought between cultures and societies, least he would have anticipated was that the 21st century will change this narrative where the self-interest of leaders prevails and usurp the ideological and cultural battles. The India-China border is one of the many examples of how the self-interest of leaders can overrule other matters. The two Asian giants are currently in a very strained phase of their bilateral relations with the possibility of long-haul in resolving the matters and are vying to make the other agree to the status-quo based on their perceptions. India, which wants to restore the status quo ante of April is being confronted with China, which on the other hand wants to persist on the current positions and nibble away the territory by pressurizing India. 

Whilst, situations in the Himalayan region have changed considerably, the same has happened in the policy rooms of New Delhi. Indian foreign policy has undergone a subtle but much-needed shift marking it as a complete overhaul, for countering the current tumultuousness. Two current trends have emerged to the fore in recent times which signifies this shift.

 

The increasing salience of Neighborhood first policy

India's neighbourhood first policy was first lamented by PM Narendra Modi after assuming office in 2014. Invitees to his sworn-in ceremony were the leaders of SAARC countries, which showed the strategic necessity of India to work in the neighbourhood. It started with much enthusiasm in the initial years but lost its fervour with time. Long-agreed investment projects and bilateral agreements became just a piece of paper instead of the work on the ground. As the political situation of the neighbouring countries changed with time, so does their perceptions. The emergence of Beijing's cheque-book diplomacy coupled with New Delhi’s lax response to the growing needs of its neighbours provided an alternative of New Delhi to these countries and accentuates this process further. However, things have changed now.

As the Pandemic engulfed the region, India became the first country to gauge the momentum and extend its hands for helping the countries by exporting important medicines and essential goods, establishing its presence as a credible actor on the world stage.

India's recent personal interaction through EAM Dr S. Jaishankar in the sixth round of the India-Bangladesh foreign minister's consultative meeting gives a hint of New Delhi's growing outreach to Dhaka at a time of growing bonhomie of the latter with Beijing. The time for the meet seems to be perfect with India and Bangladesh both celebrating a golden jubilee of the liberation war of Bangladesh. When Indian foreign secretary Harsh V. Shringla and COAS Gen. MM Naravane visited Myanmar, the move is construed to improve bilateral relations. New Delhi understands the salience of Naypyidaw at a time when the Naga-peace deal is on the verge of collapsing and is trying to do its best for getting assurances from Naypyidaw given that it is not just a strategic ally of New Delhi due to its geography but the very state which can guarantee peace in the N-E states of India.

Nepal, which criticized India for its hold on the disputed territories, is now being assuaged as a virtual meeting was held between the Indian Ambassador to Nepal Vinay Mohan Kwatra and Nepal's foreign secretary Shankar Das Bairagi, to discuss the matter of disputed territories. And the visit of Indian COAS Gen MM Narvane to Nepal also hints toward New Delhi’s continuous play of balancing the act. Extension of $400 million currency swap facility to Colombo coupled with exports of important medicines to fight the Pandemic and an $18 million line of credit facility to the Maldives for the extension of fishing infrastructure, the recent $500 million assistance for developing a 6.7 km sea bridge connecting Male and Thilafushi, with a post-bridge $250 million budget-support and $800 million airport expansion, are some of the examples of growing emphasis of neighbouring counties in the statecraft of New Delhi.

When AEM Dr S. Jaishankar addressed the intra-Afghan peace process, virtually, and reiterated India's stance on the Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, Afghan-controlled peace process, he was hinting at India's long-held position. But what went unaddressed was India's urge to address a summit wherein the Taliban is a legitimate actor. Reading between the lines, the growing footprints of Islamabad and Beijing in the Afghan process gave an impetus to this process, wherein India is drawing a roadmap and changing its policy towards engaging with a non-state actor I.e. the Taliban.

Equally important is to look at countries like Seychelles and Mauritius, where Indian assistance through "Mission Sagar" helped to foster deep relations. And New Delhi's outreach to Thimphu and assurances of a continuous flow of medical and essential goods in times of need marks the way India has handled its historical ties with Bhutan.

 

 The resurrection of the Quad

The idea of Quad first came emerged in the year 2004 with the onset of a Tsunami in the S-E and

S-Asian countries and a huge cry for humanitarian support, which was jointly provided by India, Japan, The US and Australia. The capabilities of India, however, were a shock to many, and thus started a quest to form a mini-lateral grouping for securing the disaster management capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region.

When Shinzo Abe visited New Delhi on his first bilateral visit, his speech on the 'Confluence of two seas' in the Indian Parliament- taking the cue from the book "Confluence of Two Seas" of Dara Sikoh, a Mughal prince - wherein he pointed out the growing influence of the Asian region and the connection between Indian and the Pacific Ocean in terms of connectivity, sharing of goods, the flow of capital, knowledge, ideas and people. His speech drew a line in the sand when he pointed out the need for joining forces by like-minded countries to secure the future of the region.

Perhaps the initial years of Quad passed in apprehensiveness and ambivalence of its member states who did not want to rattle China at that moment, soon with growing Chinese hedging, what started as an ambiguous idea of a HADR (Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief) coalition starts taking shape of a mini-lateral organization with a military hue. India, whilst acknowledging the need for change, struck in the cobweb of balancing the act and assuaging China’s fears. When PM Narendra Modi addressed the Shangri La Dialogue of 2018, his message of SAGAR (Security and growth for all in the region) hinted towards Beijing of New Delhi's assurance of not joining any Bandwagon led by the US. Interestingly, China has always faced dichotomy vis-a-vis Quad, where it mocked it as an informal and faceless organization on the one hand, inertly it felt apprehensive of its structure and its collusion with the geographical and strategic reach of China, on the other. 

Whilst the Quad has always been construed as an arrangement to balance out China in the strategic circles of New Delhi, that thing has never been materialized. However, as a more assertive China poses challenges to the existing world order, the salience of Quad has come into question. India’s official invitation to Australia to join Malabar naval exercise has made things clear, whilst India’s willingness to sign last out of the four foundational agreements with the US, the Basic Exchange and cooperation agreement (BECA) gives more substance to this speculation. As EAM Dr S. Jaishankar attended the Quad meet held in Tokyo and for the first time used the term " a rule-based world-order" and India's outright support to it, this shows a change in attitude towards Quad and the growing pertinence of this very mini-lateral security grouping in India's foreign policy in managing China, which until now has been overlooked.

 

Conclusion 

 When Ashley Tellis said that “Sino-Indian relations can never go back to the old normal. They will reset with greater competitiveness and in ways that neither country had intended at the beginning of the crisis.”, he was referring to how a small nudge can escalate the differences that will be irreparable. Until now India has tried to balance out multiple fronts at the same time, but now the situation has changed, with the growing emphasis on neighbourhood and institutionalization of the Quad. Bandwagoning will be a possible word in the Indian foreign policy and this compelling force got a boost with a belligerent China along the LAC. As India became cognizant of the looming China challenge, the lack of hard-power and economic power has compelled India to turn towards a soft-power approach. This has culminated in India's old approach of apprehensive diplomacy- by defining strategic autonomy and non-alignment- to more proactive diplomacy of self-interest and threat perception, which is now realigning New Delhi’s choices with the facts on the ground.

Whilst the situations on the ground aren't clear yet, one thing which becomes clear is that the year 2020 marks an important change in the contours of Indian diplomacy vis-a-vis China in the right direction and possibly at a right time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adventurism on the LAC and Indian options going ahead

On the night of 29-30 August 2020, again the agreed-upon status quo was broken down in one another play of adventurism by PLA, which in turn was thwarted by the Indian Army. Since the last clashes between the Indian Army and PLA on 15-16 June, tensions between both sides are brewing, irrespective of parallel military and diplomatic talks.

Tensions are easily palpable considering the statements, like the one of India's CDS Bipin Rawat who was talking of considering military options if diplomatic and military talks do not materialize or the one of Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi's saying that ambiguity along the border is the reason for clashes and his further adding about China's assertiveness over sovereignty and integrity of the Chinese land, which clearly shows the growing apprehension between both sides.

It is now a matter of the fact that India's continued reluctance to acknowledge the threat from growing China has caught New Delhi off-guard in a situation like the one now, but it is equally worth considering that the way things are getting heated up now in areas where contestation has never been materialized before (Pangong Tso and Galwan valley), shows that things are changing faster than what has been anticipated by Indian policymakers.

India and China have held five rounds of border talks to de-escalate the matters but to no avail. As China has further added to the deployed forces since the start of the stalemate in April, so does India, leading to mirroring of each other's positions. Reports show that China has deployed layers of heavy artillery, tanks, heavy machine guns, and aircraft on bases in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). To add more to this, China has started deploying surface-to-air missiles near Kailash-Mansarovar, a sacred site for Hindu pilgrimage, which clearly shows the intent of China to provocate and worsen the matters. In addition, the missile base also hosts the Dong-Feng-21 (DF-21) ballistic missile with a range of 2200 km and sits at the mouth of the transboundary rivers that include the Brahmaputra, Sutlej, Indus and Karnali, making matters worse for India.

A growing force tilting in favour of China has prompted it to adopt a punishment-based strategy along the LAC, which in turn has made India ambivalent. Taking a cue from the 2013 Depsang clashes where a punishment-based strategy by the Indian side to cross the LAC and occupy to negotiate with the Chinese, the time slot for this strategy is now over for India. Whereas in the 2017 Doklam standoff a denial strategy was adopted by holding onto the grounds which helped India to negotiate, but this time around this strategy does not seem to be working in the Indian favour. 

Taking a cue from the 2013 Depsang clashes where a punishment-based strategy by the Indian side to cross the LAC and occupy to negotiate with the Chinese, the time slot for this strategy is now over for India. Whereas, the 2017 Doklam standoff denial strategy was adopted by holding onto the grounds which helped India to negotiate, but this time around this strategy does not seem to be working in Indian favour.  

 

With the furtherance of this stalemate and the Chinese strategy of nibbling away Indian territory with small and swift actions, commonly known as Salami-slice tactics, India is in a treacherous position to balance between ongoing confrontation and Economic destabilisation due to COVID-19. Adding to these woes, China is using sugar-daddy Diplomacy to win brownie points in the Indian neighbourhood to counter the diplomatic threats from India and its western allies.

 As matters become worse along the LAC, deployment and seriousness will mirror that of the LOC, which demarcates the boundary between India and Pakistan, and will truly rise to the aspirations of "Iron brotherhood" between China and Pakistan to destabilise India. Indian options are very limited but a threat from the prospect of a two-front war is an opportune time for India to consider some asymmetric options to clearly show the intentions and demarcate a red-line whose crossing will lead to unparalleled actions from the Indian side. 

Indian options are very limited but a threat from the prospect of a two-front war is an opportune time for India to consider some asymmetric options to clearly show the intentions and demarcate a red-line whose crossing will lead to unparalleled actions from the Indian side. 

 

Equally important is to seize the opportunity to strengthen support against China and form coalitions to add diplomatic strength to the Indian salvo. The Indian path to be "Atma-nirbhar" needs further consideration to back it with a policy-led initiative to inflict a cost on the Chinese economy and give a befitting reply in the future. More military-led actions are needed to procure and strengthen the contingent to close the growing gap, concomitantly, Naval power is something that can be harnessed to further this effectiveness.

Chinese intentions to stabilise and destabilise border on its own will, are indicating a long-haul in the matters along the LAC which has accentuated the threat perception globally from China, but it has also given a chance to India to take a look into India's foreign policy vis-à-vis China with a different paradigm to change the currently existing models and make them more India- centric. It is now worth considering what John F. Kennedy puts by saying, "Domestic policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can kill us". Gauging the need for reconfiguration is very important when things are changing very fast, and this is where Indian foreign policy, as well as its visions, needs careful reconsideration to pose threats to adversaries when and where required.

From peaceful State to a Global bully: Story of modern China

In 2004, the idea of "China's peaceful rise"  came into the mainstream with the then Chinese premier Hu Jintao - who embraced the idea and presented it- which sought to assure the international community that China's growing political, economic, and military power would not pose a threat to international peace and security. 

The continuous economic growth of China, a country that fought poverty with sheer determination and came out victorious by becoming the second-largest economy in the world, has served as a model to look upon with envy by countries around the world. With the continuous economic rise, Chinese aspirations for the military might have been accentuated further.

Today when we look at Beijing we can sense desperation and a craving for what they have never got, to remove the stain of "Century of Humiliation", and to again stand as the "Middle Kingdom" of the World. The recent actions of China in the South China Sea, Hong Kong and along the LAC, has forged an ideological bandwagon around the world to see China's rise, not peaceful anymore. For years, China worked to assure the international community that its rise was peaceful, that it would not try to overturn the status quo. A more assertive China has emerged under Xi, one more willing to confront its critics and brave damage to its reputation.

The major takeaways from the current situation are: First, China's reluctance to care about her external image globally, or to put it in another way, her mindset of getting more than giving away in the current situation. The current situation is an indication of China getting relieved from a fear of Global image, or it can be a situation amidst the pandemic in which China is considering more gains than losses from her current course of actions.

"China's reluctance to care about her external image globally, or to put it in another way, her mindset of getting more than giving away in the current situation."

 Second,  China's thinking of sufficient power differential to handle multiple fronts at the same time. The way the current situation is being construed is a perfect example of the perception of taking on the US and other countries at the same time, whilst others are engaged in a fight against the Pandemic.

"China's thinking of sufficient power differential to handle multiple fronts at the  same time."

And Third, China's ability to manipulate and her unpredictability of actions. The turn in the actions of China from Wolf-warrior Diplomacy to social media campaign for changing the narrative of COVID' origin, is in itself a show of unpredictability which was never seen before in such a vociferous way like the current one from Beijing's side.

"China's ability to manipulate and her unpredictability of actions."

The Statement of the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, " We are making it clear: Beijing's claim of offshore resources across most of the South China sea is completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying and controlling them", has drawn a red line for Beijing against her pursuit in the South China sea.

Recently India and the United States have conducted a Passage Exercise (PASSEX) between the American aircraft carrier group USS Nimitz and Indian Navy battleships around the archipelago of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, a few hundred kilometres from the mouth of the Malacca Strait and within an actionable distance of major trade sea routes that service China. The hints from India to include Australia into Malabar Naval exercise being conducted between India, the US and Japan, could be marked as the resurgence of the Quad as a counter to the Chinese rise, and with that, an open and free Indo-pacific has become much more relevant than ever. This, indeed, is direct finger-pointing onto China and her actions in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

This marks a major shift into India's Indo-pacific policy, which until now was a manifestation of an inclusive model of all the countries in the Indo-pacific region, as emphasized by Indian PM Narendra Modi during the Shangri-La dialogue of 2018, to an Indo-pacific which is more of a theme to counter Beijing by forging alliances, a clear indication of unity due to Chinese actions.

This policy shift is music to the ears of the Policymakers in the Whitehouse, but it is equally soothing for the countries of ASEAN who were bearing out the brunt of Chinese belligerence in their backyards. China not surprisingly has accused Washington of “interfering in the region’s issues and on unnecessarily escalating the situation and sowing discord between China and the Southeast Asian countries.”

The ASEAN countries, for their part, might appreciate the external players and especially the US finally circumventing its attention to this region, statements showing all-out support for the US’ new policy from the side of the ASEAN countries appears difficult at the moment. As noted by Collin Koh, a research fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, “many of the rival claimants are also heavily reliant on China for trade and investment and wary of angering the dominant power in the neighbourhood. Their silence on the U.S. statement suggests they don’t want to get ensnared in U.S.-China tensions. For some of them at least, making an official statement in support of Pompeo’s statement could potentially put them in a spot.”

With the news of Iran and China's strengthening a new angle has been added to this already ambivalent situation. The animosity between The US and Iran is not new, and India's intricate position in between is equally known to everyone. The increasing bonhomie between China and Iran has added a new chapter to the woes due to the high stakes of India in the chabahar port and Afghanistan.

All these actions which are transpiring in the realm of this world point out to a more contested and hot Geopolitical climate in the time to come. The change in the  Chinese attitude from 'panda's peaceful rise' as a status quo power to the ‘dragon's aggressive' ascent as a revisionist power, and her actions to be a world's bully, has become a major inflexion point for the World-order. But will this situation turn into a major contestation between China and the US or will it result in backing-off by Beijing, is still a matter of great mystery. But one thing which is emerging out from the Current discourse is,      

 "China's Peaceful rise is not peaceful anymore"

 

__________________________________________________________

This article was originally published in The Eastern Herald.

Russian angle in Sino-Indian border stand-off

The recent border stand-off between India and China which turned out to be violent inflicting casualties on both sides has escalated the matters to new heights. Consistent diplomatic and Military intervention through regular talks has neither been able to cool down the tensions nor been able to build confidence among each other. 

This situation is a black swan event in the history of International relations where world-over is raging over the Chinese actions in different areas from the LAC to Hongkong, but none have taken actions against China in a major way. The moment is true self-sufficiency or Atma nirbhar moment for India, to deal with belligerent actions of China on the border areas single-handedly.

The current crisis has started a diplomatic war to win the countries to include them in their respective blocs and amid this war, a player has emerged whose importance in the current impasse has been catching the eyes of the spectators around the world: Russia. 

Russia, a time-tested and historic partner of India, has adopted a silence over the border skirmish by PLA at a time when the world is spewing poison on Chinese actions, which shows the growing Bonhomie between Moscow and Beijing. It is a matter of fact that in International relations nothing is permanent, not even enemies or allies. Russia, who was an arch-rival of China in the 70s due to issues for heirdom of Marxist ideology, close relations with India and tensions along the borders, now finds a natural ally in the face of China at a time when western powers are coming onto Russia after Crimean annexation of 2014.

Russia has emerged as the natural peace-maker or mediator between India and China, the hunch of which can be found in the recently concluded trilateral virtual meeting of the RIC (Russia-India-China) grouping on June 22, whose timing after the Sino-Indian border clash is not a coincidence. On June 2, the Russian Ambassador to India Nikolay kudashev  met Indian Foreign Secretary Harsh V. Shringla to discuss “key regional and international issues.” The meeting followed a statement from the Russian Embassy in India that both sides will be able “to find ways out” of the crisis using “dedicated specific mechanisms and tools… including hotlines, special representatives dialogue, and even informal summits.” 

 Moscow’s position was also articulated by Konstantin kosachev, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Federal Assembly, who stated that,

"Russia should not interfere in these kinds of disputes..... and would encourage dialogue and prevent the use of military force."

However, Russia found itself in a state of a dilemma to choose between India and China at a time when the Russian foreign policy hinges on the stability of the Eurasian region, and whose importance is only legitimate with the support of India and China in that process. The process of RIC is to get the support of two big giants sitting in Asia for the success of the Eurasian Economic Union, built on the line of The EU, to better deal with modern-day blockades and sanctions by the US. Russia certainly does not want Hobson's choice to deal with this situation, and to do that Quiet Diplomacy has been adopted by Russia.

The move of India to dispatch its Defence Minister Mr Rajnath Singh to attend the celebration of Victory day parade, postponed due to COVID and celebrated on 24 June in Moscow, shows the clear intent of India to reach out to Russia to win the support. Russia being the biggest source of Indian defence equipment is a major player for India to secure its borders and display Military response on a par with PLA on the LAC.

In a World struggling to revive Multilateral organizations, and where the current narratives signify the hue like the one of the Cold War era, exacerbated by Chinese actions in this time of the Pandemic, Russia has adopted a neo-Non-aligned strategy to deal with the current situation. But given the current scenario where  New Delhi does not want the repetition of the situation like the one of the 1962 Sino-Indian war, where Russia remained silent on the issue highlighting the problems of the Cuban missile crisis unlike the 1971 Indo-Pak war, has been consolidating pressure on Russia. On the other hand, the New strategic partner of Russia, a soulmate to deal with the looming pressure of the US is also penting-up the pressure on Russia to remain silent on the issue.

Stakes are high for Russia in the Current times. The Indian public is closely watching the Russian actions and a lot of questions are there in their minds, at the same time, the politburo of China is waiting for the Russian support as a reciprocating measure in the time of need. We should prepare ourselves for a long-haul on the border stand-off, which can re-shape the global order and have possible consequences for every action Russia takes vis-a-vis Sino-Indian border clashes.