We need capitalism with restraints, checks and balances. This includes reallocating taxes through welfare schemes for the poor and paying attention to economic sectors that stop growing or die due to market forces.  Retraining redundant labor in new jobs in growth areas is crucial. A capitalist system should focus on self-sufficiency and empower people towards this goal. This also helps redundant labor needing retraining and is also a lifestyle choice for some.

Correcting the Misplaced Shareholder Value Perspective

The undue focus on shareholder value needs correction to ensure fairness to employees. As a society we do not want people obsessed with materialism. Studies reveal that materialistic people are more likely to have low self-esteem, be unhappy, and struggle to maintain healthy relationships. There is a negative association between materialism and well-being. 

‘Shareholder Value’ is now a reviled term. Shareholders with greedy expectations epitomize a materialistic system. Forbes states “A sole focus on shareholders is financially, socially and economically wrong.” Even Jack Welch himself—the idea’s leading exponent—in 2009 had come to call it “the dumbest idea in the world.” This mindset has created a vicious circle of pressures on employees. The resultant cost-cutting and redundancies have caused immense social distress. It’s plain mean.

Minimalism, Self-Sufficiency, and the Keynesian Transformation

In an evolutionary context, minimalism and self-sufficiency relate to economist John Keynes’ 1930 prediction that by 2030, capital investment and technological progress would raise living standards eightfold. He believed people would work as little as fifteen hours a week, devoting the rest of their time to leisure and “non-economic purposes.” According to Keynes, the pursuit of affluence would fade, and “the love of money as a possession… will be recognized for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity.”

Although this Keynesian transformation has yet to occur, Keynes’ ideas remain relevant. For example, GDP per person in the US has increased more than sixfold in a century, and there is now a vigorous debate on the “feasibility and wisdom of creating and consuming ever more stuff, year after year.” Moreover, concerns about climate change and other environmental threats have led to the emergence of a “degrowth” movement, which calls on advanced countries to embrace zero or even negative GDP growth.

The pinnacle of Keynes’ end state of leisure is material saturation. This article suggests achieving the same state through minimalism and self-sufficiency.

Self-Sufficiency – A Human Rights Perspective

“Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life”, Chinese Proverb.

Self-reliance is an important social and economic idea. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) defines it as “ the social and economic ability of an individual, a household or a community to meet essential needs (including protection, food, water, shelter, personal safety, health and education) in a sustainable manner and with dignity.” Self-reliance, as a programme approach, refers to developing and strengthening livelihoods of persons of concern, and reducing their vulnerability and long-term reliance on humanitarian/external assistance.”

In November 2005, the UN Economic and Social Council General discussed the “Right to Work,” stating that “the right to work is an individual right that belongs to each person and is at the same time a collective right.” The UN puts the onus on governments to ensure this right to work without discrimination. “The national employment strategy must take particular account of the need to eliminate discrimination in access to employment. It must ensure equal access to economic resources and to technical and vocational training, particularly for women, disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups, and should respect and protect self‑employment as well as employment with remuneration that enables workers and their families to enjoy an adequate standard of living.” The UN 1994 comment states “The ‘right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts”.

The Emory Law Journal published a 2015 paper titled “An International Human Right to Self-Sufficiency”. It stated “Various phrases in past treaties, recent developments in human rights law, and the rising need for the new/emerging right’s recognition lead to the conclusion that there is an emerging international human right to self-sufficiency. All people have a right to live in a community where they are free to take whatever steps they feel necessary in order to thrive in a self-sufficient manner if they choose to, especially in times of need, and state governments worldwide have the duty to create the atmosphere where self-sufficiency can flourish.”

Therefore, people have the right to choose minimalism and self-sufficiency as their lifestyle. If they do, it is the government’s responsibility to support this way of life without discrimination and with access to economic resources and training. This is important, as discrimination can naturally occur when the new model challenges the old one. Governments must understand how the two models – old and new – fit together.

The Backpacker’s Secret: Minimalism and Self-Sufficiency

International backpackers know the secret to being self-sufficient: minimalism.

Minimalism is deliberate. We choose to live with only the things we need – those items that support one’s purpose. It does not mean renouncing all materialism for a difficult life of discomfort.

Minimalism requires a series of smart and independent choices, free from  social pressures to ‘keep up with the Joneses’. For example, why buy an expensive car when your office is only two km away from home, the grocer is on the ground floor of your house, and public transport is fantastic? Or why should a single person buy a 3000 sq ft house and spend their time cleaning it or hiring expensive helpers, when their real need is likely a small New York style Studio of 550 sq ft? Is there a need to clutter your house with stuff that you rarely use? Do you need a wardrobe with 30 shirts when you only wear 3?

By keeping  our needs to a minimum, we need to work less to earn less to support this way of life. We also avoid the adverse mental effects of the debt trap of rampant consumerism.  Like the backpacker, we can then be one with nature or whatever is our true calling. Minimalism is a recurring theme in my other SSRN working paper “Post-Religion – A Charter of Religious and Human Values”. We should combine minimalism with gratitude. This can be a formula for tremendous personal power and happiness.

We need to spend time doing the things we want to rather than what life forces us to do. A Harvard Business Review (HBR) 2018 article states that “9 out of 10 people are willing to earn less money to do more-meaningful work”. It reflects the frustration of people caught up in the spider web of capitalism. Capitalism can exploit factory workers in third-world countries, leaving their conditions often little better than slaves.

The International Backpacker Is a Free Trainer

At a philosophical level, there is some truth to Ayn Rand’s thinking. A degree of selfishness is necessary in the pursuit of one’s personal happiness. Let’s take the example of the lifelong backpacker. He or she rejects conventional roles in organizations, opting for ad-hoc roles to make money for their next trip instead. They reject conventional marriages and prefer short-term relationships as part of their journey. And they may even reject parenthood. This is a very different life with lessons that organizations cannot teach.

Less is more. Backpackers are modern day gypsies. They know how to live in smaller places and manage their health on the road. They make new social bonds on each trip and contribute to that place with new ideas and ways of working. Then they move on without attachments. Their whole goal is to be happy living a life of minimalism.

Backpackers are often the most open, liberated, and spiritual people. They love offbeat authentic tourism, in small villages and homestays. These are often in remote rural scenic areas. They bring with them international ideas. The locals also learn English over time, and they transfer so many other life skills that help build local economies.

Self-reliance (Aatmanirbharta) and Social Acceptance

Self-reliance, or self-sufficiency, is not only from an individual’s choice perspective. It is also important for social and economic policy. Society must accept people who adopt alternative ways of life, treating them with respect and without disdain or reprimand.. According to the UN, the government has an important role in providing the economic resources and training to support those seeking self-sufficiency.

The backpacker is only one example of self-sufficiency and minimalism. We must explore the idea in more detail.

There are three critical ideas that any government exploring self-reliance or self-sufficiency ought to explore:

1. Food Self-Sufficiency

Reducing poverty starts with education. People should not have to work for food when it is basic and simple to grow it at home. They can even trade the surplus for spare cash. What they need is training to give them this choice.

A family of five can be self-sufficient in as little as 5,500 sq ft. It may surprise some, but there is an economic surplus from selling the excess produce. This helps them cover other needs, such as buying grains, insurance, clothing, and entertainment. A family in California seen on www.urbanhomestead.org proves this to us.

Governments need to provide financial and training support to facilitate family farming. A focus on intensive farming using hydroponics with cash crops would be helpful. It is important to adopt this high-yield approach and keep it pesticide and GMO free using organic compost. In particular the Kratky method is very low-maintenance, saving money in equipment, electricity, nutrients and water. My earlier SSRN Working paper on New Economics (see its annexure 1) provides details on intensive farming and hydroponics focused on cash crops. 

The state must provide cheap land in the rural hinterlands, albeit in scenic places. This will help attract international backpackers and create a secondary income stream. We need at least natural water, low-cost (e.g., gravel) roads for car access, and some subsidies for solar power. A country like India, rich in natural beauty, can use this model to develop its rural hinterlands.

2. Housing Self-Sufficiency

Many people spend 30 years of their career saving and paying off the mortgage for the house they retire in. That is their life’s only real aim. That’s a huge waste of a lifetime. They could have enjoyed their life doing the things close to their heart if they had the time and resources. So, let’s explore how we can empower the next generation to do more with less.

We live in amazing times with amazing construction technology. Both revisiting ancient technologies, such as mud and inventing modern futuristic technologies. We need to focus on empowering the next generation with these basic skills. For example, to construct with Auroville-style natural (mud, stone, straw/thatch) and waste material (glass, plastic, rubber, stone (e.g., marble chips), AAC/concrete, fly ash). Or with CalEarth style earthbag architecture. Or with dramatic modern techniques that can much reduce costs. We discuss two here.

Binishell inflatable concrete houses offer a permanent design at a “very low cost, instant construction, easy implementation, and resistance to natural disasters”. We can construct Binishells in a fraction of the normal time and cost. The specifics will depend on the systems used, the project size and other conditions, including site and geology. Replacing steel rebar with GFRP (Glass reinforced FRP) rebar can also reduce costs. State governments can help to spread related knowledge,  skills training,and encourage private players to rent out the reusable inflatable balloons needed.

There is also a Concrete Canvas Shelter inflatable version, like Binishells. This offers an almost instant construction (one hour) with a lifespan of 10 years. Earth Berming is also possible i.e., covering with sand or earth fill to improve insulation. We need to take this technology to the next level to construct basic houses that last 30 years or more.

State governments must help to create basic construction standards for one level houses, and structural approval processes, albeit these are not needed for concrete canvas shelters. They must encourage awareness of such low-cost housing and even help the creation of online websites for commercial job bidding. After all, once trained, the same skill has commercial value.

3. Skills Self-Sufficiency

Our schools and college system creates workers for factories, clerks for offices, the occasional manager, and leader. This education system meets the needs of modern-day economics. The focus is on GDP as opposed to Gross National Happiness (GNH), a measure used in the Kingdom of Bhutan.

The Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) states that “The (GNH) concept implies that sustainable development should take a holistic approach towards notions of progress and give equal importance to non-economic aspects of wellbeing.” The GNH Index includes nine domains – psychological wellbeing, health, education, time use, cultural diversity and resilience, good governance, community vitality, ecological diversity and resilience, and living standards.

To align with GNH, we must adopt the self-sufficiency and minimalism concepts. We need the next generation to have the necessary skills for self-sufficiency. We want them to think minimalism. Start them young. Teach them intensive farming, Do-It-Yourself (DIY) construction, and homestay management for low-budget international backpacker tourism.

Governments need to create an alternative Secondary School four-year applied training path. This is from the 8th to the 12th standard. It would use local language online videos and live training, and apprenticeship (in all areas) to allow a certification program. This alternative schooling should be available to whoever wants it.

Governments currently do not recognize self-sufficiency as a human right. Doing so can provide an alternative economic model. We need to look at self-sufficiency in conjunction with international backpacker tourism. This will help to develop remote yet scenic places in the rural hinterlands. It would bring new skills to local populations through their interactions with outsiders. Self-sufficiency is not a challenge to existing economic models. In fact, it reinforces these developing, often ignored remote areas. This will also reflect in new demand for goods and services and in taxes. Hence, governments need to provide the necessary ecosystem for self-sufficiency to thrive.

[Tasheanna Williams edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post New Economics: The Backpacker, Capitalism, and Self-Sufficiency appeared first on Fair Observer.

In 1947, India and Pakistan gained independence. Until then, both of them were a part of British India. Since the partition, Pakistan has indulged in cross-border terrorism. In 1947 itself, Pakistan sent Pashtun tribesmen to fight jihad and conquer Kashmir.

As per the BBC, these tribesmen “shot everyone who couldn’t recite the kalima – the Arabic-language Muslim declaration of faith. Many non-Muslim women were enslaved, while many others jumped in the river to escape capture.” Had these jihadis not stopped to rape nuns, women and girls in Baramulla, they would have captured the capital Srinagar and Kashmir would have been in Pakistani hands.

Taliban Takeover Will Further Radicalize Pakistan and Increase Nuclear Threat

Pakistan has used terror as an instrument of state policy ever since. In 1965, it sent Pashtun tribesmen, which led to a war. Then, Pakistan used terror against Bangladesh, perpetrating a genocide that is remembered to this day. Bangladesh won its independence from Pakistan in 1971 thanks to Indian support. The loss of Bangladesh, which was known as East Pakistan, led the Pakistani military to double down on terror. As per Pakistani dictator General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the goal was to bleed India “through a thousand cuts.”

Unfortunately, as retired Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) chief Vikram Sood has pointed out, India “never ever retaliated” in the manner it should have. This reticence came from India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s pacifist policies. He worried more about a military coup than a foreign invasion. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Nehruvian reticence is a thing of the past. India has adopted a more robust foreign policy, which includes cross-border military strikes at terror targets. For long-term peace, India must continue to follow its great classical philosopher Kautilya and be tough with Pakistan until it makes a bona fide gesture of peace.

Police Reforms and Cross-Border Strikes

Over the years, India has been caught with its pants down during terror attacks. Police forces have done too little too late. Such is the endemic corruption in the police force that low-level constables have acted as accomplices for terrorists. 

It is an open secret that cross-border smuggling occurs with the collusion of the police, especially at the lower levels. The 1993 Mumbai attacks were facilitated by corrupt policemen who were sold out to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) for the proverbial thirty pieces of silver. Corrupt policemen are also said to have facilitated the 2016 Pathankot attack. Police corruption is now a national security issue in India.

Above All, India Needs Rule of Law

There were technical deficiencies in responding to the 2008 attacks indicating institutional weaknesses. In 2008, terrorists were able to hold local policemen at bay for three days. Starting in Pakistan, they were able to enter Mumbai easily in local fishing boats. The 2008 “attacks exposed the utter inadequacy, inappropriateness and incompetence of Indian security responses.” It is an open secret that Pakistan’s ISI masterminded these so called 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

Suffice to say, Indian police organizations are in serious need of reform. Recruitment at the lower entry levels is corrupt. So, policemen have to recoup their investment. Pay is low, the hours are long, the weapons are outdated and the equipment is inadequate. As per one survey, 73% had signs of poor psychological health and a third are on the verge of quitting. The budgets are low and auditors have found that the funds allotted are often left unutilized. 

The litany of woes that affect Indian police do not need a full description here. Suffice to say, the police system does not work. Yet it is important to remember that the system is not as broken as in Pakistan. Some Indian states do better than others. India has the lowest number of deaths from terrorist attacks despite being in the top ten countries affected by terrorism.

The police are the first line of defense for India. The policeman walking his beat or driving around neighborhoods gets the first whiff of trouble. Therefore, police reforms are a top priority. The government could begin with implementing the recommendations of the 2007 Second Administrative Reforms Commission. It recommended independence of the police and an end to ministers using police forces for personal and political reasons. The police need autonomy in law-and-order situations and when conducting investigations. The colonial 1861 Indian Police Act is outdated. India needs new legislation to underpin policing nationally. It also needs independent oversight authorities that are accessible to the public and address police misconduct. India’s Supreme Court and parliamentary bodies have also come up with specific suggestions for police reform.

India’s central police organizations also need reform. These are paramilitary organizations such as the Border Security Force, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police and the Central Reserve Police Force. Officers in these organizations are facing major morale issues and the government must address them. 

National Security: The Sikh State of North America

Both Sun Tzu and Kautilya ask the king not to use the army on a whim to achieve the state’s goals. Open warfare could be very destructive, expensive and unpredictable. Kautilya favored secret warfare that included intelligence, spies, deception and honey traps. Sun Tzu asks us to avoid strength, strike weakness. Pakistan uses non-state actors to unleash terror on India. They are a weak link. India must strike these actors decisively even if that means crossing the border.

The Modi government has done so. It has launched three surgical strikes on Pakistan terror camps. Yet the government can do better. It must learn from Israel, the US and the UK. They have long carried out military operations across borders. Recently, the US assassinated Qassem Soleimani with Israeli support. Israel’s Mossad assassinated Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh after eight months of surveillance, using a one-ton gun smuggled in pieces. Both operations leveraged intelligence and technology to spectacular effect. Kautilya would have approved.

Since the horrific events of 9/11, a significant change has taken place in the law of self-defense. It is now accepted that countries can exercise the right against attacks or threats posed by non-state actors. Criminal defendants enjoy protections in the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). And in constitutional guarantees. Non-state actors do not enjoy these traditional protections as they are ‘unlawful combatants’. For legal cover, we cannot direct attacks against civilians or against state actors. However, India has limited legal risk when taking actions against armed non-state actors. Hence, eroding the leadership capability of these actors based in Pakistan must be an integral part of India’s defense strategy. By eroding their leadership on a regular basis, India can pressure Pakistan to take a more mature and sensible approach at the negotiating table.

India has failed to build a top-class intelligence agency. Its ability to conduct cross-border operations or even set honey traps is limited. As the birthplace of Kautilya, India must improve its informational, influence and kinetic operations. The time has come for India to behave as a major power and hit its enemies at a time and place of its choosing.

Peace in Kashmir, Economic Cooperation and Tolerant Sufism

The Modi government abrogated Article 370 and 35(A) of the constitution in 2019, ending Kashmir’s special status. This provision was unfair to the people of Jammu and Ladakh. India has also been subsidizing Kashmiris for decades. Since the 2019 decision, the security situation in Kashmir has improved. Nevertheless the situation is not entirely normal and terrorists continue to target Kashmiri Pandits and migrant laborers.

India has to address the root of the problem. It cannot treat Kashmir as an expensive security issue forever. In an earlier article, this author recommends a range of measures for peace, including economic development and tourism.

The Solution to the Kashmir Conflict

India needs better engagement with its neighbors. For years, smaller countries have regarded India as a patronizing big brother and even old friends like Nepal have turned resentful. Since its inception, Pakistan has feared military conquest by India and has looked for what Pakistani scholar Ishtiaq Ahmed has called “strategic depth.” Hardly anyone in India now seriously pursues the idea of Akhand Bharat (greater unified India). Yet it still scares Pakistanis.

India has to convince Pakistan that the future lies in coexistence. India can neither absorb Pakistan nor does it want to. Instead, India should propose economic cooperation. In turn, Pakistan should let bygones be bygones and forgive India for the defeat of 1971. In 2023, Pakistan is facing runaway inflation, a debt crisis and economic collapse. It is clear that trade, not conflict, is the way forward. The South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) envisaged in 2006 is the way forward. Intraregional SAFTA trade represents just 5% of the total trade. By comparison, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations intraregional trade makes up 25% and the European Union figure is 75% of the total. For millennia, people in Pakistan and India have traded with each other. There is no reason the two countries could not return to the historical mean. Intraregional merchandise trade in South Asia can easily triple from $23 to $67 billion.

I am in favor of an even bolder idea. India should work towards an economic and monetary union (EMU) in South Asia. If France and Germany can get together after fighting on opposing sides in two world wars, there is no reason why India and Pakistan cannot be part of the same EMU. At the moment, Pakistan and Sri Lanka are facing grave crises but, after requisite reforms, they could join a South Asian EMU. Nepal already has a fixed exchange rate with India. Others could follow. A South Asian EMU would boost trade, investment and employment. Like their European counterparts, South Asians could one day even have freedom of movement of people, not just of goods, services and capital.

Finally, Sufism in South Asia is key to a peaceful region. For decades Saudi Wahhabism has spread from Pakistan to Bangladesh, Kashmir to Kerala. This has been toxic for the region. Instead, India must back the beleaguered Sufis who personify the syncretic nature of South Asian Islam. 

Kautilya’s guidance for a vijigishu (victorious king) is to use psychological influence or what Joseph Nye has termed soft power. India will need to win hearts and minds in Pakistan. Today, many Pakistani commentators acknowledge that India is miles ahead of their country and seek to emulate their eastern neighbor. Others question the wisdom of falling into China’s debt trap diplomacy.

India must convince ordinary Pakistanis about the advantages of trade and economic cooperation. It must be able to win them to the more tolerant and pluralistic form of Sufism that allows for music and artistic expression, which the Pakistanis enjoy. Over 50% of Indian Muslims worship at Sufi shrines. The World Sufi Forum was held in March 2016 and in February 2022. In January 2023, an international conference on Sufism took place in Srinagar. Sufism is a draw for Pakistanis too. If New Delhi can champion Sufism effectively, then India will win hearts and minds tired of the fanatical, puritanical and repressive version of Islam that is a foreign import into Pakistan. To be magnanimous, ecumenical and far-sighted for peace requires greater toughness than waging war. India needs this toughness to embrace big ideas and then sell them for a peaceful and prosperous South Asia.

[Here are Part 1 and Part 2 of this three-part series.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post India Now Needs Kautilyan Toughness With Pakistan appeared first on Fair Observer.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi inherited a Nehruvian defense policy that was flaccid. India did not have a clear strategy against an aggressive China and a hostile Pakistan. Furthermore, there was corruption in defense imports. 

Modi has a chance to change that Nehruvian legacy. He must modernize India’s defense policy. COVID-19 and the Russia-Ukraine War have been expensive to the Indian economy. So, India has to be efficient in its defense expenditure and use modern technology to counter its two nuclear-armed neighbors.

India’s Defense Strategy Has Evolved Since 2020

Post-independence India’s defense policy lacked teeth. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister, declared, “We don’t need a defense policy. Our policy is ahimsa (non-violence). We foresee no military threats. As far as I am concerned, you can scrap the army – the police are good enough to meet our security needs.” 

Nehru had a rude wake-up call in 1947-48 when Pakistan invaded Jammu and Kashmir. Yet he ignored this warning and continued to neglect the military. In fact, Nehru chronically feared a military coup. He kept the military out of the national foreign policy framework and decision-making loop. Nehru’s principle of non-alignment was to have no military alliances with superpowers. The 1962 India-China War destroyed Nehru’s childlike ideas about national security. It appears Nehru was unfamiliar with the great Indian political philosopher Kautilya.

Under Modi, India has changed and is finally letting the military take a central role in driving defense diplomacy. In January 2020, the Modi government created the office of the chief of defense staff (CDS). Its mandate is to unify the military services and improve their effectiveness. Joint theater commands created over three to four years would partly help achieve this. Admiral Arun Prakash called this move “the most significant development in the national security domain since Independence.”

The Modi government seeks to build up the domestic defense industry in its policy of import substitution. It also seeks to improve defense exports through joint ventures with US and Israeli defense companies. A key goal of these ventures is transfer of technology to India. In May 2020, India’s foreign direct investment (FDI) limit rose to 74% under the automatic route in the defense sector. Despite opposition from labor unions, corporatization of India’s state-owned highly inefficient ordnance factories has already begun and indigenization of niche technologies is also underway. The Make in India and AtmaNirbhar Bharat (Self-Reliant India) policies are helping this effort. These include artificial intelligence, blockchain, quantum communications, unmanned systems, and other directed-energy weapons. 

India’s Border Roads Organisation (BRO) has been building critical roads, bridges, and tunnels along the Chinese border. The country is also eliminating fencing gaps in its borders with Pakistan and Bangladesh. It is adopting all available land, water and space technologies, i.e. radar, sonar, laser and drones, to secure the border. It is also emulating Israel’s smart fencing, quick response teams and CCTV control rooms on its borders. Israel now has an airborne laser system to shoot down hostile drones, which India seeks to adopt. 

India’s porous border with Myanmar is also being fenced and sealed to manage northeast insurgents who engage in arms and drug trafficking from the Golden Triangle that includes parts of Burma, China, Laos and Thailand. 

The Modi government is also launching the National Cyber Security Strategy of 2023.

The Times Have Changed and India Must Change Too

India’s supply chain dependency of 85% on a much-weakened Russia is no longer tenable. In the Ukraine war, Russian arms and platforms have been found wanting against NATO’s superior firepower. Russia is also strapped for resources and would be unable to supply spare parts to India, were a conflict to arise. It is true that some Russian arms are effective and they are much cheaper than their Western counterparts. Moscow has also been flexible on technology transfer and royalty waivers. Yet India has no option but to diversify its supply chain. Indigenization and diversification of its military supply chain are the need of the hour. Future defense procurement is likely to come from the US, France, Israel, UK and Italy.

The Ukraine war has also shown how corruption is now a national security issue. Part of the reason the Russians did poorly early in the war was because of rampant corruption in procurement, maintenance and all aspects of their military. India has a history of corruption in defense deals too. Middlemen from four or five important families dominate this space and the defense ministry is trying to sideline them. This is a matter of national importance.

The Ukraine war has also demonstrated the importance of new technologies such as drones, advanced hand-held missiles and cyber warfare. Closer to home, the Ladakh crisis highlighted the importance of such technologies. Artificial intelligence, big data, and autonomous vehicles including aircrafts and ships will play an increasing role in war as will quantum computing.

As of now, India is using  drone jamming technology to counter drone-based smuggling and terrorism in Punjab and Jammu. India must disseminate this technology better to security forces around the country to improve national security. India needs to manage its border with Myanmar better as well. As stated above, insurgents can be a menace in that part of the world and the current porous border has to be monitored better.

It is also time for the Modi government to implement the Agnipath scheme. Most of India’s defense budget goes into salaries, pensions and benefits. This four-year tour of duty scheme frees up resources for weapons, modernization and new technology.

India Needs Institutional Reforms

A two-front war may find India “resource-constrained, overstretched, and vulnerable.” Therefore, India must improve its operational readiness and reform its institutions. The prime minister recognizes the need for reforms. To his credit, Modi advocated for a CDS in 2017 and introduced the post in January 2020. The position of the CDS was first mooted after the 1971 India-Pakistan War. Inter-services rivalry and a fear of domination by the army delayed the introduction of the CDS. Even the 1991 Kargil War did not change things. 

Similarly, joint theater commands have been pending. They are a complicated process and can take a lot of time. The US military took almost 50 years to fine-tune these commands after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet India does not have the luxury of the US with two oceans providing security from foreign threats. Long borders with Pakistan and China make joint theater commands a priority.

It is high time for the government to reform the civilian bureaucracy that acts as the military’s overlord. Unlike the Japanese, French, Israeli or American military bureaucracies, India’s defense ministry is run by generalists. They can be in the ministry of textiles one day and be in charge of India’s navy the next day. India needs domain specialists, not generalists from India’s so-called elite Indian Administrative Service (IAS) running its defense. Nehru established the IAS stranglehold on the military, which Modi must end soon.

India also needs a thorough overhaul of its professional military education. This will help to “meaningfully work [in] the new structures that are taking shape.” India also has to improve its military R&D expenditure, which lags behind that of China and the US. It also has to improve its research institutions, many of which are bureaucratic and sclerotic. Autonomy, accountability and professional management of these institutions would improve India’s national security tremendously.

Improve the Balance of Power and Make a Deal with China

Kautilya teaches us that the enemy of our enemy is a friend. The US fears China’s ascendency. India also needs to enhance its balance of power equation with China. A deeper economic and security arrangement with the US is in India’s national interest. 

India must attract manufacturing away from China. It must compete to be the manufacturing hub of the world. China’s increasing tensions with Taiwan give India a unique opportunity. It must emulate key elements of the Chinese manufacturing model. Improving infrastructure, power generation and labor laws would give Indian manufacturing a great boost. 

Kautilya regards wars as expensive. The key driver of war with China is a boundary dispute. India claims the British boundary as legitimate, while China upholds the Qing dynasty. After 18 rounds of negotiations, both countries have been unable to end the impasse. 

From New Delhi’s point of view, China occupies 38,000 square kilometers of Indian territory in the Union territory of Ladakh. This includes the Shaksgam Valley (5,180 square kilometers) gifted by Pakistan in 1963 and Aksai Chin, which was a part of Jammu and Kashmir, that China occupied in the 1950s. Aksai Chin is a largely uninhabited cold high-altitude (4,200 meters above sea level) desert but it is of strategic value because this plateau links Tibet and Xinjiang. The Chinese have built an all-weather road in Aksai Chin. They have also built another road through Shaksgam Valley connecting China to Pakistan.

For China, militarizing both Aksai Chin and Shaksgam Valley is highly expensive. The same is true for India in the case of the Siachen Glacier. Both countries must accept facts on the ground and move on. In 1959, Chinese premier Zhou Enlai proposed maintaining “the long-existing status quo of the border” and that is what India should propose. Once India and China can define the border, the risks of war will plummet, freeing up valuable resources for both nations.

A creative way forward for India might be to seek compensation for its territory that China occupies. India could ask for 100,000 rupees, i.e. $1,216 per acre. This would amount to $11.59 billion, less than 0.07% of the 2021 Chinese GDP. Of course, the amount of money India claims could be higher and China would bargain hard to lower the price. But India must think creatively and pragmatically to end its border dispute with China. This modern version of the Alaska deal would be a win-win for all parties involved.

India must pay attention to Sun Tzu as well. He states that the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. Besides new military alliances with the US and the West, India must recognize the power of its market. China is currently benefiting from trade with India with its trade surplus surpassing $70 billion in 2021. China accounts for no less than 40% of India’s total trade deficit. This also gives India negotiating power on border disputes. India must threaten to reduce its Chinese imports during negotiations. 

At the same time, India must reduce sensitive Chinese imports such as pharmaceuticals and mobile phones over the longer term. India’s high dependency on China is unacceptable from a security point of view. As a result of the Ladakh conflict, India shut down some foreign investments in April 2020. It banned Chinese apps like TikTok. 

[Here are Part 1 and Part 3 of this three-part series.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Kautilyan Perspective on How India Should Sort Out China appeared first on Fair Observer.

China and India have many similarities. India has been shaped by Hinduism and China by Buddhism. Buddhism originated in India and has a similar value system to Hinduism. The roots of many systems considered Chinese are actually Indian, including martial arts, acupressure and acupuncture. China is also emerging as the new yoga superpower after the US. Logically, India and China should be friends, although China’s ambitions do not allow this.

India is a nuclear state with two nuclear-armed adversaries in China and Pakistan on its borders. China seeks to deepen economic relations with Pakistan via its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It has followed a “string of pearls” strategy to encircle India and makes constant revisionist claims about the India-China border.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that China had not supported Pakistan in the 1999 Kargil conflict. However, China’s assistance to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon and missile programmes, and its BRI investments in Pakistan threaten India. Therefore, India faces the risk of a two-front war.

A Power-Hungry China Seeks to Dominate India

China only respects hard power. Money and military might are the operative metrics. Beijing is seeking to wrest the mantle of global leadership from Washington. India has traditionally played a passive role with China. New Delhi has consistently demonstrated reluctance to confront Beijing or take the initiative of proposing new solutions to sort out its border disputes. Indian foreign policy, influenced by Hindu philosophy, including ahimsa, has traditionally seen leadership as an exercise of soft power, moral pressure, and diplomatic negotiations.

This soft “head-in-the-sand” foreign policy of unending talk and little action is further aggravated by India’s inability to reduce import dependence on Chinese electronics and pharmaceutical intermediates. Thus, China’s authoritarian regime believes that it has a free pass to bully India. The Chinese test this periodically through persistently revisionist border skirmishes and aggressive rhetoric in different forums. 

Rising powers attempt to dominate their “near abroad” and this reflects clearly in China’s string of pearls, debt trap diplomacy and hexiao gongda—uniting with the small to counter the big—strategies. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, came up with five Panchsheel principles, which included the principle of non-aggression. Yet the 1962 India-China War broke out at the height of Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai.

China has no problem with deception. Through the millennia, the Chinese have been guided by The Art of War, the classic penned by Sun Tzu in the 5^th century BC. He argued that “warfare is a way of deception” and the 1962 war serves as a good example of the application of this principle. China uses Sun Tzu’s psychological techniques to achieve its political goals. In the case of Uyghur Muslims and Tibetans, China has practiced cultural genocide. China is aggressive, persistent, and unpredictable in its constant attempts to redraw the borders. Even 18 rounds of border negotiations with India have yielded no results.

China’s BRI initiative through Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) to Gwadar port creates a super link through which military equipment can be moved. China is weaponizing BRI and this is detrimental to India. In a future scenario, Chinese military bases in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Pakistan, acquired through debt trap diplomacy, would jeopardize Indian national security. Beijing is also cosying up with both Nepal and Afghanistan. In Nepal, China has had much success and the country even elected a communist government. In Afghanistan, success has been harder to come by because the Taliban runs a hardline Islamist regime.

India has to respond to Chinese aggression. It will only achieve peace when the country achieves adequate military and economic power. India could also turn to its very own political philosopher known as Chanakya or Kautilya who wrote Arthaśāstra in 300 BC.

Nuclear Pakistan’s Economic Woes Can Unleash Jihadism

The 1971 India-Pakistan War still scars the Pakistani psyche. India liberated Bangladesh, which until then was East Pakistan. Since then, Pakistan has been obsessed with India. As revenge it sought to “bleed India with a thousand cuts.” It funded and supported insurgencies in India. In Punjab, it led to a campaign of terror for Khalistan. Pakistan has always dreamt of annexing Kashmir and has persistently fomented trouble there since 1947. India and Pakistan have fought three major wars, one minor one and engaged in countless border clashes. So, a Pakistan-China nexus worries India.

India and US in the New World

Pakistan describes its friendship with China as being “higher than the mountains, deeper than the oceans, sweeter than honey.”  Pakistan is the biggest recipient of BRI money. Chinese debt is $30 billion—30% of its external debt—and continues to grow. Because of this debt, Pakistan has lost its ability to be an independent voice for Muslims. Pakistanis speak about Kashmiris all the time but dare not mention fellow Muslim Uyghurs. So beholden is Islamabad to Beijing that Pakistan would have to follow China’s lead and could lead to a two-front war for India.

After years of military rule and a pseudo-democracy, Pakistan’s economy is in tatters. Both economic mismanagement and natural disasters have brought the country to its knees. The poverty rate has increased dramatically. Inflation has spiraled out of control. Thousands of madrassas have churned out tens of thousands of jihadis since the 1980s when Saudi money flooded into the country. Then, the goal was to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now, jihadis could cause civil war and the implosion of Pakistan. Since Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state, an implosion poses tremendous security risks for India. Fostering a peaceful Jihadi-free Sufi-believing Pakistan is in India’s direct security interests.

India Must Heed Kautilya’s Wise Words

Kautilya recommends that states strive for a balance of power and prevent rivals from becoming too powerful. He asks the king to become the most powerful among his peers (vijigishu) to achieve peace and security. He includes conquest, psychological influence, physical domination, seduction and assassination as tools of state policy.

Kautilya also speaks of security alliances as a key tool of foreign policy. The combined military spending of Pakistan and China was $263 billion in 2020. This was nearly 3.6 times India’s defense budget. China alone outspends India by $180 billion. China spends less than 33% on personnel costs, while India spends about 60%. Hence, China can spend much more on modernization with better combat potential. 

Needless to say, the Indian Army needs to focus on technology-driven modernization. Indian foreign policy wonks must deepen the country’s security arrangement with the US and Japan, which has just doubled its military spending.

The Chinese army has an edge over the Indian Army, but India is better prepared in high-altitude warfare and has more experienced troops. The Chinese air force is stronger than India’s in terms of fleet and strategic inventory, but India has more reliable platforms. China’s navy is the largest in the world. Its naval build-up outscores India’s by almost four times. The US still has the most advanced navy though. India needs closer naval ties with the US and greater expenditure on its navy.

India’s military spending of $76.6 billion is ranked third highest in the world after the US and China. It is one of the largest importers of arms. Indian armed forces are projected to spend around $130 billion in capital procurement from 2022 to 2027. Such large imports highlight repeated failures in indigenous defense production despite transfers of technology to the public sector companies. India must modernize and privatize this sector to lower its import bill and prepare better for war.

In Dec 2020, the government authorized the armed forces to raise their weapons and ammunition reserves so as to be able to  sustain 15 days of high-intensity conflict. Until then, Indian forces could have only sustained such a conflict for ten days. Once, India’s reserves could sustain 40 days of war. This dropped to 20 days in 1999 and further dropped to 10 days. The current 15-day reserves must go back up to the 40-day mark.

In a nutshell, India has to build up its military strength again. It also has to embark on the Kautilyan exercise of developing alliances with countries wary of China. Not only the US and Japan but also Vietnam and Australia are potential partners. Peace will come only through strength, not supplication.

[Here are Part 2 and Part 3 of this three-part series.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Can Kautilya Help Look at India’s War Risk Differently? appeared first on Fair Observer.

During India’s freedom struggle from English colonization, Sikhs contributed magnificently. As per writer Kartar Singh Duggal, 93 of the 121 patriots hanged by the British were Sikhs and 2,147 of the 2,626 sentenced to life imprisonment were Sikhs. Although Sikhs formed just 1.5% of the population, they made 90% of the sacrifices. Their contribution to Indian independence stands unrivaled.

Sikh History and Psyche: Justice Above All

Between 1800-1850, Maharaja Ranjit Singh created both the first and last Sikh Empire. However, the first Sikh kingdom—a state within a state—was established 200 years earlier with the coronation of the sixth Sikh guru in 1606. That year, Guru Hargobind ascended the throne in the Akal Takht, marking the beginning of Sikh statehood. His father—Guru Arjan—had suffered a cruel death at the hands of the Mughals. He advised his son to “sit fully armed on his throne and maintain an army.” As a result, Guru Hargobind adopted the principle of Miri-Piri, which combines both temporal power and spiritual authority. 

Guru Hargobind’s father’s tragic death had a lasting impact on the Sikh psyche. It enshrined the concept of martyrdom in the Sikh tradition. Taking an “implacable stand against injustice and the vagaries of tyrannical rulers” is almost a Sikh duty. The beheading of Guru Tegh Bahadur, the ninth Sikh guru, and the cowardly attack on Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s life, the tenth Sikh guru, strengthened this resolve to stand up to tyranny. Sikhs have faced three long periods of active persecution and massacre: the Chhota Ghallughara (1746), Wada Ghallughara (1762), and the genocide of 1984-1994 under the rule of India’s Congress Party.

Sikhs have a dogged stubbornness in their pursuit of justice, which is clearly reflected in their history. Hitting back oppressors is fundamental to the Sikh psyche. This explains the 1710 sacking of Sirhind, the 1940 assassination of Micheal O’Dwyer in London by Udham Singh, the 1984 assassination of India’s then prime minister Indira Gandhi as well the 1986 assassination of retired army chief Arun Vaidya. Sikh extremists killed Gandhi and Vaidya for the 1984 Operation Blue Star in which the Indian Army entered the Golden Temple, the holiest Sikh site.

Sikhs participated with great gusto in the farmer agitation of 2020-21 against the Modi government’s farm law reforms. Eventually, Modi had to repeal these laws and offer a contrite apology, which many Sikhs viewed as a gracious act.

These lessons of history are important for any policymaker dealing with Sikhs. Any injustice, real or perceived, invariably leads to blowback. At the same time, an apology often leads to forgiveness and embrace. Sikhs still have bad memories of the 1980s and 1990s. Therefore, some radicals have demanded a separate independent state of Khalistan. Yet this demand is not exactly in keeping with the Sikh tradition.

The Khalistan Movement Is Not Supported by Scripture

As stated earlier, Sikh Gurdwaras are open to people of all religions and all castes, male or female. Rich Sikhs do voluntary work in the langars and joota ghars (shoe store). In the langar, people of different religions, castes, sex, and income status, sit on the ground to eat together. Guru Gobind Singh Ji says, “recognize the whole human race as one” and “I’ll tell the truth, listen everyone. Only those who have loved, will realize the Lord.”

Radical Sikhs today hark back to the tenth guru’s desire for an independent state. Yet they forget that Guru Gobind Singh Ji made this demand over 300 years ago when faced with Mughal religious persecution. His state never excluded Hindus. The original Panj Piare (the Five Beloved) who joined the Khalsa were from different castes and different regions of India. Even the great Sikh hero Banda Singh Bahadur was not from Punjab. Clearly, the tenth guru had a pan-India philosophy, which excluded no one. Even Muslims, including a Sufi group, joined his army and fought by his side. Importantly, most Sikhs were originally Hindus and many Sikh families still intermarry with Hindu ones. Some Hindu families had a tradition of the eldest son embracing Sikhism.

Guru Gobind Singh Ji was very clear when he appointed the Shri Guru Granth Sahib (SGGS) as the 11th and eternal guru of the Sikhs. In fact, his own sayings are in the Dasam Granth. The SGGS does not support the idea of a Sikh theocratic state. Guru Nanak, the first guru and founder of Sikhism, says clearly in Ang (page) 6 in the SGGS, “See the brotherhood of all mankind as the highest order of yogis; conquer your own mind and conquer the world.” This is the key to Sikhism and no Sikh can contradict this core teaching.

Guru Nanak’s concept of state can be inferred from his concept of God’s state: the whole universe. It puts forth the ideal state governed so that people live in prosperity and happiness. He loved the Sufi life of good deeds, truth and good actions. Sikhism is about inclusion and equality. Guru Arjan, the fifth guru, says in Ang 1299, “No one is my enemy, and no one is a stranger. I get along with everyone.”

As stated earlier, Sikhs militarized with their sixth guru who combined the role of guru and king. Yet his first preference was always for peaceful coexistence. Guru Teg Bahadur, the ninth guru, states in Ang 1427, “One who does not frighten anyone, and who is not afraid of anyone else… call him spiritually wise.” Guru Gobind Singh Ji says in verse 22 of the Zafarnama (his iconic letter to fanatical and cruel Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb): “When all means for solving a conflict or problem are exhausted, only then placing your hand to the sword is legitimate.” This is in the specific context of tyranny where all legal means (e.g. petitions, protest marches, discussions etc.) to solve a conflict fail. 

In India, there is currently no state-sponsored agenda against Sikhs. Therefore, scripture does not allow for violence or military action against the Indian state. The rigid Khalistani idea of a theocratic state runs contrary to the Sikh cosmopolitan idea of a welfare state for all.

Guru Arjan expounded this idea of “Halemi Raj”—also known as Khalsa Raj—that envisions a society full of love and respect for each other. In a nutshell, the guru was advocating a welfare state: “Now, the Merciful Lord has issued His Command. Let no one chase after and attack anyone else. Let all abide in peace, under this Benevolent Rule” (Ang 74). Bhagat Ravidas, a lower caste shoemaker, defines peace in Ang 345, talking of an idealized city of Baygumpura—a town without worry—where there is no suffering or fear, there is peace and safety, and all are equal:

Baygumpura, ‘the city without sorrow’, is the name of the town.

There is no suffering or anxiety there.

There are no troubles or taxes on commodities there.

There is no fear, blemish or downfall there.

Now, I have found this most excellent city.

There is lasting peace and safety there, O Siblings of Destiny.

God’s Kingdom is steady, stable and eternal.

There is no second or third status; all are equal there.

That city is populous and eternally famous.

Those who live there are wealthy and contented.

They stroll about freely, just as they please.

They know the Mansion of the Lord’s Presence, and no one blocks their way.

Says Ravi Daas, the emancipated shoe-maker:

Whoever is a citizen there, is a friend of mine.

From the lines above, it is clear that a rigid rule-based interpretation of the Sikh religion would never lead to Baygumpura. A theocratic Khalistani state would be against the very teachings of the revered Guru Arjan and other venerated Sikh gurus. Such a state is likely to focus more on its outer form, such as  unshorn hair, instead of the spirituality and charity championed by the gurus. Khalistanis forget that many Hindus donate generously to the coffers of gurdwaras—Sikh places of worship—and venerate their gurus. Cutting them off would not only be going against a shared history and their gurus’ principles but also short-sighted and economically unwise.

The Memory of 1984 Refuses to Go Away for Sikhs Outside India

In 2023, radical Sikhs still remember Chhota Ghallughara, the grim 1746 massacre of an estimated 7,000 men and 3,000 women and children. According to Majid Sheikh of noted Pakistani newspaper Dawn, the Muslim butchers of Mohallah Qabasan slit throats not only of men but also of women and children inside Lahore’s Delhi Gate when they did not accept conversion to Islam. 

Unsurprisingly, these radical Sikhs have not forgotten 1984 either. They believe that the Government of India and the Indian Army defiled the Golden Temple. About 800 people died in Operation Bluestar, which many have called an “avoidable tragedy” that lives on in Sikh minds to this day. This was followed by Operation Woodrose, which led to 8,000 going missing. When Indira Gandhi was assassinated, rioters killed 8,000 Sikhs, 3000 in Delhi alone. During counter-insurgency operations, killings continued until 1994 and Sikh organizations talk of “tens of thousands” killed in the 1984-94 ten-year period.

The Misra Commission on the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, had the harshest criticism for the police. It found them guilty of “total passivity, callousness and indifference.” The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) told the Delhi High Court that Delhi Police removed incriminating evidence. In March 2019 during the Sajjan Kumar hearing, according to the CBI: “The murders witnessed during the 1984 Sikh genocide fell under the category of crime against humanity…targeted by spearheaded attacks of dominant political actors… and duly facilitated by law enforcement agencies”.

Countless women were raped, children killed, and livelihoods destroyed. About 50,000 Sikhs were left homeless as mobs burned their houses to the ground. Countless Sikhs were forced to cut their hair. Thousands left India. Unsurprisingly, the survivors and their descendants are filled with negativity and a lifelong mistrust of Hindus.

The justice delivered was too little and too late. Senior politicians of Indira Gandhi’s Congress Party and senior policemen escaped punishment. Only 400 of the accused were sentenced by courts. Only one high-profile senior politician was given life imprisonment and just one of the accused was given the death sentence. Many convictions were upheld as late as 2018 by the High Court, 34 years after the riots. The legal system allowed for further delays via appeals to the Supreme Court.

This bizarre and frustrating lack of fast-track mechanisms for delivering justice has fueled the historic Sikh quest for justice and forms the foundation of the Khalistan Movement. Victims of 1984 and their families living in Canada, UK and the US are the staunchest supporters of this movement. It is these Non-resident Indians (NRIs) of the Sikh community who want Khalistan. Yet these secessionists are much removed from on-ground realities and the pulse of the people in Punjab. The state and the nation have moved on from 1984 but these NRIs have not. They are still stuck in a time warp. 

In 1984, the massacre of Sikhs occurred because of political, not religious, reasons. Modi’s Hindu nationalist party—the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—resolutely opposed the Congress Party’s actions. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was then the towering BJP leader and he stood between a mob and Sikh taxi drivers, saving their lives. Notably, the BJP had a close relationship with the Sikh party Shiromani Akali Dal for decades.

NRI Sikhs fail to recognize this fact. They conflate the Congress Party with the Indian state. In September 2022, Sikhs For Justice (SFJ) held a second Khalistan referendum in Brampton, a town on the outskirts of Toronto in the Canadian state of Ontario. As per unofficial estimates, about 110,000 people participated in the SFJ referendum. Note that Canada is now home to 800,000 Sikhs. Referendums have also been held in the UK, Geneva, Italy and Australia. 

Those organizing and participating in these referendums have been fed a secessionist diet. Some have ulterior motives to keep the Khalistani flame alive. It allows them to siphon funds from naïve sponsors. Still other NRI Sikhs return to Punjab with these secessionist ideas to stir the pot.

Of the 26 million Sikhs worldwide, 24 million, i.e. 92%, live in India. In Punjab, Sikhs comprise 57% of the population. The opposition Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has recently won elections in this state, promising change, rapid development and clean governance. The previous government was deeply discredited, creating a desire for something different. This allowed pro-Khalistani elements to get some public support and one leader won in the constituency of Sangrur. Note that the AAP, not Khalistanis, won the vote. This demonstrates that the democratic process is working and that Punjabis and Sikhs have voted for better governance, not secession.

Yet pictures of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, the radical Sikh leader who holed up in the Golden Temple and caused Operation Bluestar in 1984, are now freely displayed. Karas—metal bracelets that Sikhs are supposed to wear as per their religion—with AK 47s engraved on them are now back in fashion. Tensions are simmering again and radical Sikh NRIs are attempting to kick off insurgency in Punjab again.

How could we avoid a violent Khalistan Movement this time around?

The Sikh State of North America – the 100 x 100 Solution

NRI Sikhs fail to realize that, except for a tiny minority, most Indian Sikhs do not want Khalistan. In fact, many would prefer to leave Punjab and immigrate to Canada instead. So, NRI Sikhs are barking up the wrong tree in trying to create a Sikh state in Punjab. 

Instead, they could channel their efforts to create a new Sikh state in Canada. Already, the country has large numbers of Sikhs (800,000) as do Australia (210,000), the UK (500,000) and the US (520,000). Canada has 10 million square kilometers of land with a population of only 38.25 million. Arguably, the Canadian government already has pro-Khalistan leanings and the country already has some powerful Sikh politicians. NRI Sikhs are a wealthy community. Supported by gurudwara collections, they could buy some land for a new Sikh state. This would be a peaceful and non-violent movement as authorized by scripture.

Singapore offers a good model for the Sikhs. Here, about 5.5 million people now live in 730 square kilometers. For 26 million Sikhs, they would need 3,500 square kilometers, a 60 kilometers x 60 kilometers area. The National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi covers an area of around 1,500 square kilometers. So, Sikhs would only need 2.4 times the NCT area. If we allow for population growth and non-Sikh migration, we are looking at a 100 kilometers x 100 kilometers area, a relatively small 10,000 square kilometers, only .001 (0.1%) of Canada’s area.

Why Canada?

Khalistan is a pipe dream unless India fragments. Prospects of that are low. Furthermore, India’s fragmentation is undesirable because it could lead to tragic bloodshed. We only have to cast our eye back to the partition of the country in 1947 to realize the horror of any further partitions in the 2020s.

India is a complex EU-type entity formed by the merger of 565 princely states. Till 1947, they covered 40% of the area of pre-independence India. With such diversity, secessionist tendencies have existed in numerous states including Kashmir, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Nagaland, and Mizoram. India has also faced a homegrown communist insurgency in the form of the Naxalite Movement. With increasing urbanization and internal migration, pan-Indian nationalism has strengthened and the country is in no mood for fragmentation. Any talk of secession will only lead to violence, bloodshed and suffering.

Remember that Khalistan is associated with a decade of pain in India. So, a new Sikh State of North America (SSNA), which is part of the federal model in Canada makes more sense. Quebec already provides a template for SSNA. This state would have the same currency, passport, foreign relations and security arrangements as Canada. They would function under stable and professional economic and foreign policy institutions in a bountiful state blessed with natural resources.

Of course, Sikh NRIs would have to win the Canadian people and the government to their cause. The days when states sold off territory seem to belong to the era of the Louisiana and Alaska purchases. However, SSNA could transpire given Canadian sympathies for the Sikh cause.

The SSNA could gradually have more control over immigration and taxation. An Overseas Citizenship of SSNA passport could one day be given to Sikhs around the world. The route to immigration via reasonable investments as already offered by many countries could be a good model for the SSNA. 

In keeping with Sikh scripture and Canada’s multiculturalism, the SSNA could not be theocratic. Given the large number of Sikhs in the US, it could share a border with Canada’s southern neighbor to facilitate trade, commerce and investment. The formation of SSNA will take the steam out of the Khalistan Movement. It will lead to less anger in Sikh NRIs and more peace in Punjab. In the long run, a prosperous SSNA could emerge as the biggest investor in Punjab, creating a win-win for all concerned.

[Bella Bible edited this piece.]

[You can read the full paper, “National Security: Blueprint for the Sikh State of North America,” here.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post National Security: The Sikh State of North America appeared first on Fair Observer.

In 1923, Savarkar published his canonical work, Essentials of Hindutva, in which he outlined the principles of Hindutva and his vision of a Hindu Rashtra (translated as Hindu Polity). He stressed social unity amongst the Hindu people and the unequivocal protection of Hindu people and Hindu culture. 

(Click here to read Part 1 and Part 2 of this three-part series.)

A Hindu Rashtra would establish India as a Hindu, rather than a secular, state. Hinduism would be the state religion, though other religions would still practice freely. Importantly, For Savarkar, political power is defined as ‘the power of law with an organized military force,” and is critical for Hindus. Hindu Rashtra does not include a legal system derived from Hindu scriptures. In fact, the BJP wants a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) with a single personal law irrespective of religion. 

M.S Golwalkar’s version of a Hindu Rashtra excludes Muslims and Christians from citizenship. Hence minorities fear that in a Hindu-majoritarian polity, they would be adversely impacted. They believe that minority groups will have their freedoms threatened, and constitutional rights stripped. Patriarchal notions of marriage as a social contract in which duties between men and women are clearly demarcated, may reemerge too. However, such moves will surely engender heavy opposition and are also unlikely to succeed. 

The following article examines current issues and debates around Hindutva; challenges certain assumptions about the BJP and the RSS; and offers prescriptions moving forward. 

Grassroots Movements, Democracy, and India

In December 2019, the BJP passed the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The bill opened an expedited path for Indian citizenship for non-Muslim migrants who had arrived from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan before December 31st, 2014. 

The BJP said that the bill will give sanctuary to religious minorities fleeing persecution. Non‐​BJP states refused to support it. Critics argued that the bill will be used in tandem with the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC) – an official census that would identify legal citizens of India and irregular immigrants- in order to further disenfranchise Muslims. 

The register, they argued, would put millions of Muslims at risk of arbitrary detention and statelessness. The BJP later clarified that the CAA and the NRC are designed to control the influx of illegal migration of Bangladeshi Muslims, not to strip Indian Muslims of their citizenship. Every sovereign country has the right to regulate its borders. Further, given that millions of Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims voluntarily left the country in 1947, the BJP is fully justified to offer refuge only to persecuted non-Muslims. 

In 2020, widespread protests erupted after the CAA was passed. Dalits and Muslims, and left-leaning Hindus demonstrated together in solidarity. The sheer size of the demonstrations is evidence of a formidable social and political alliance in the making. Dalits (untouchables) comprise around 25% of the Indian population across various religions. 75% of Muslims are Dalits. In response, the BJP convened a historic meeting with Pasmanda Muslims (i.e., Backward, Dalit, and tribal Muslims).

The farmer protests in North India, similarly, led the BJP to repeal the farm reforms just before the Punjab elections. The protests, which lasted for sixteen months were led by the Sikhs, who are less than 2% of the population. 

The two demonstrations yielded attention and concessions from the ruling party. Legislative victories may be easy to acquire for the all-powerful BJP (the abrogation of Article 370/35(A) on Kashmir, for example), but the party did only win 37.36% of the votes cast in 2019 (INC only 19.5%). This was the highest-ever national vote share for the BJP. However, this also means that a good 62% did not vote for them. These numbers do not include alliances (NDA versus UPA). The numbers highlight the potential street power that could be unleashed by a contentious bill.

In September 2018, the RSS chief reiterated that Indian Muslims will not be excluded under a Hindu Rashtra, nor is there any proposal to change the constitution to do so. “Hindu Rashtra doesn’t mean there’s no place for Muslims. The day it becomes so, it won’t be Hindutva. Hindutva talks about one world family.” “The words secular and socialist were added later, but now they are there.” 

In the midst of the ruling party’s efforts to calm tensions, the Varanasi-based Shankaracharya Parishad collected votes for a draft of their own Hindu Rashtra Constitution. Their constitution granted equal rights for people of other religions but not the right to vote. Varanasi is the proposed capital of the country. It is doubtful that it will succeed for the reasons given above.

Do What’s Possible Without Pain and Drama

There are immediate solutions to protect and spread Hindu culture and values. School textbooks should be revised to properly chronicle India’s cultural past, its Hindu kings and heroes, scientific discoveries, and the 1,200-year period under colonization.

Renaming roads and cities to remove colonial vestiges should be considered, although it is an expensive exercise. There are far more pressing priorities to manage such as smart fencing of India’s borders. Where essential, it is best to do this as one single project.

Hindu values of Dharma (leading a just and good life), Bhaichara/Bandhubhav (brotherhood/ fraternity), Samjhota (reconciliation), Namrata (kind/soft-hearted behavior), Karuna (compassion), Seva (service to society), Dana (charity), should be integrated into the school moral science course. It’s best to do this based on common values across religions and with proper referencing. Yoga should be encouraged for its physical aspects and global prominence. 

The rights of women and the conventions of marriage must also adapt to a modern, digital age. Men and women have to jointly contribute financially to meet the high costs of living. Women can no longer be confined to the duties of the house. The RSS is aware that times have changed. In October 2022, Mohan Bhagwat, the head of the RSS, addressed the party’s view on gender equality. He spoke of the need to give women independence to work and equal rights in all spheres.

Akhand Bharat needs an Economic and Monetary Union

The appeal for a greater, unified India, an Akhand Bharat, has been a part of the country’s psyche ever since the end of Ashoka the Great and his colossal empire. It would include, in varying versions, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and portions of Afghanistan, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. 

Akhand Bharat would reunify India with her neighbors but it would also heighten existing fears of Islamic radicalism and an Islamic State. Currently, the Muslim population in India is 14%; under Akhand Bharat, the number would rise to over 30%.

India’s military advantage compared to the rest of the subcontinent is substantial. But military conquest over an unstable nuclear state such as Pakistan is a highly risky proposition. Mutual destruction is a greater likelihood than a triumphant takeover. The RSS clarified that Akhand Bharat is a cultural construct, not a political program.

Akhand Bharat, like Hindu Rashtra, is a difficult ask for the immediate future. In the meantime, India should develop an economic and monetary union between the members of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). Relations between countries will be re-established, thus strengthening regional security and integration. 

Regional security will be a bulwark against Islamist threats. Smaller countries will benefit from a larger, combined market as well as the stability of the rupee. Special travel cards for large businesses, investors, and families would help to integrate the region also. 

What Drives the RSS? Integral Humanism or Brahminism?

The RSS has been accused of promoting Brahminism but this is a false accusation. In reality, the RSS are proponents of integral humanism, a philosophy and political program developed by Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya. In 1965, it was adopted as the official doctrine of the Jan Sangh and later the BJP. 

Upadhyaya acknowledged the merits of both Western capitalism and Marxist socialism but was critical of its excesses. Integral humanism sought a middle ground between both systems. For Upadhyaya, politics was a means to serve people. He advocated for an indigenous economic model that is inclusive and empowering to the masses. 

According to Upadhyaya, humankind has four attributes: body, mind, intellect, and soul. In his view, capitalism, and socialism only considered the needs of the body and mind (i.e., based on the materialist objectives of desire (kama) and wealth (artha)). It ignores the intellect (towards dharma or moral duties) and the soul (towards moksha or total liberation or ‘salvation’). 

As an example, a medical model of health focuses on biology, while an integrated approach looks at the body, mind, intellect, and soul. The practice of yoga is an example of this. 

Integral humanism fosters wealth creation and redistribution, equal rights, equal opportunity, and social justice. Brahminism, on the other hand, has many traits that are antithetical to human equality. Many even view it as a racist philosophy.

Brahmins were largely responsible for keeping both Sanskrit and the Vedas away from common knowledge. According to Dr. Jacqueline Suthren Hirst, the Vedic hymns were not translated until the late 19th century as “Brahmin reciters were reluctant to break millennia of tradition that restricted the transmission to qualified Brahmins.” Adding to the complexity of caste equations, some have argued that the “Dalit-Bahujan religion and Brahminism are two distinct and mutually opposed religio-cultural formations, two completely different religions.

Brahminism is a religious and social system that is based on the Vedas and other priestly writings. They make up around 5% of the Hindu population. Many RSS chiefs were Brahmins and many have argued that the RSS promotes Brahmanism and vegetarianism in order to preserve the caste system. This is currently unlikely. 

In October 2022, Bhagwat stated that concepts like varna and jaati, which forms the basis of the caste system, should be completely eradicated. Bhagwat, arguably, shares affinities with Sikhism, which has no caste system. Savarkar- to return to the beginning – also insisted that untouchability should be abolished in his 1931 essay, ‘Seven Shackles of the Hindu Society’. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, himself, was born into a lower class.

To completely erase the myth that the BJP promotes Brahminism, the ruling party should allow the entry and appointment of women and lower castes as priests to temples. Such was the case in Tamil Nadu in 2021, which the BJP welcomed. Furthermore, while abstaining from beef is stressed in contemporary Hinduism, the party should support one’s right to make their own food choices (other meats). Bhagwat talks of restrained non-vegetarianism, albeit it’s clear that the preference is for vegetarianism. However, this is unlikely to reflect in any policy shift.

But more broadly, we need to recognize the dignity of labor. Class prejudice in the United States is not as potent as it is in India. In the US, it is not unusual for people from different social and economic classes to mix and socialize. Hopefully, in due time, this will change in India. Bhagwat sees the lack of dignity for labor as the main reason behind unemployment. 

The Hindi Debate

Currently both Hindi and English are the official languages of India. There is no national language, despite the fact that Hindi is spoken as either the first or second language by nearly 55% of the population. Hindi is the 3rd most spoken language in the world after English and Mandarin. In contrast, English is spoken by over 10% only; followed by Bengali (8%), Marathi (7%), and Tamil (6%). 

Given its prevalence, it is a no-brainer that Hindi should be the national language. English was introduced only to raise Indian administrators (“Babus”) in order to serve their colonial masters. An alien language had now estranged Indians from their cultural roots and Vedic knowledge. Uniting the country under a vernacular language can help bridge the country’s many cultural and regional challenges.

Racism No Way describes language as being, “intrinsic to the expression of culture,” which serves, “an important social function and fosters feelings of group identity and solidarity.” “The suppression of the languages of minority groups,” it continues, “has been used as a deliberate policy in order to suppress those minority cultures.”

In 1835, Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay delivered his Minute on Education, a treatise that argued for the funding of English language education, as well as European learning, in India. The Minute became policy a month after its circulation. For Macaulay, the native culture, particularly Hindu, was an inferior one. Macaulay wanted to create “a class of persons, Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.” 

Macaulay contributed to the demise of Sanskrit. Sanskrit was once the language of religion, philosophy, law, and science. Much of ancient Vedic knowledge was in Sanskrit. Eventually, texts were translated by Western scholars but they were marked by prejudices and ignorance. Today, most of India’s population cannot access these texts due to their limited, or complete lack, of understanding of Sanskrit. This makes it important to preserve mother languages like Sanskrit, and ancient sister languages like Tamil. 

English should still remain an official language, given its universality and India’s growing international reputation. It is especially important for continuity in legal judgments, and scientific research/studies to keep India connected to the world. But the government should direct more provisions towards spreading Hindi, amongst its citizens as well as foreigners. In South India, however, this will be a particular challenge. 

In August 2020, Tamil Nadu was the first state to reject the BJP’s three-language formula. Tamil Nadu had been following the two-language formula of English and Tamil. The state viewed the proposed policy as another attempt to impose Hindi, which they had kept at arm’s length. We should also consider the stress it places on young children to learn an additional language on top of English and their regional language. 

The academic Hindi standard in Hindi speaking states is very high. This level of proficiency is not even in use on the streets of North India. To impose this standard unilaterally on non-Hindi states or to move college level scientific education to the Hindi medium would cause other issues. What we want is national integration and for Hindi to be used as a tool for this. A competency for everyday conversation (communicating with people at shops, restaurants, asking or giving directions, etc.) is sufficient.

In non-Hindi states, a basic Hindi language course should be required beginning at the 6^th standard through the 10^th standard. They need basic written and spoken skills. They will already know a smattering of Hindi thanks to Bollywood. There is no need to teach poetry and sophisticated literature in Hindi. After the 10^th standard they should be freed up to focus on their 12th standard exams to apply to college. 

This approach is far likelier to be accepted as a means for national integration rather than linguistic imposition. Therefore, it will likely gain support from states such as Tamil Nadu. It may still be resisted for political reasons, but it is far more likely to succeed.

The Modi government is rightfully proud of India’s glories, cultural achievements, and scientific contributions. India not only needs spiritual and cultural leadership but one that produces better economic outcomes for all. The BJP has proven itself already in issues as diverse as culture, infrastructure, technology, and national security. Arguably, they are the right party to lead India.

(Click here to read Part 1 and Part 2 of this three-part series.)

[Naveed Ahsan edited this article.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Hindu Rashtra Faces Street Power in India’s Vibrant Democracy appeared first on Fair Observer.

(Click here to read Part 1 and Part 3 of this three-part series.)

How to Make India’s Secularism Work

The idea of secularism enshrined in the Indian constitution is admirable. It means that all religions are treated equally under the eyes of the law. Secularism does not, however, imply that all philosophies are equal. Jihadism obviously cannot be accepted as it poses serious threats to the way of life of the Hindus, the Sufi Muslims, and all other non-Muslims. Legally it falls under “hate speech”, “sedition” and likely even “treason”. 

It needs to be monitored and nipped in the bud wherever it rears its ugly head, particularly in mosques and madrassas. In this regard, AI-based monitoring technology should be utilized, including online tools. Wahhabism/ Salafism has nearly eradicated Sufism from the Kashmir valley. This needs immediate attention as well. Select Indian Sufi saints should be recognized as ‘Cultural Icons’ and Sufism should be recognized as “India’s Islam”. YouTube videos on Indian Sufism, incorporating Rumi and Imam Ali’s teachings, should be disseminated freely.

Both Shia and Sunni have Sufi traditions. Hence, it should be compulsory for Islamic preachers to pass an online certification that obligates them to integrate in the teachings of Sufi saints. Further, they must sign a charter in which they agree to adhere to the laws of the country. Fatwas have no legal status and must be centralized online and monitored for consistency with fundamental (legal) rights in India. Foreign funding to promote Wahhabism and Salafism is now banned, although this has not stopped many madrasas, nonetheless. Preachers in these extremist mosques/madrassas must be retrained in the beliefs of Sufism or be barred from preaching forever. If needed, their movements must be tagged also.

Secularism must also embrace ideas enshrined in the constitution such as the freedom of religion. In Hinduism, as practiced by the masses, Lord Ram and Lord Krishna are two avatars of God. Their birthplaces are regarded as holy sites. Hence, the abiding demand for a temple at the believed birthplace of Lord Ram is only natural. The Supreme Court’s judgment on the disputed site is correct overall, especially given the significant documentary and oral evidence presented. Mosques can be moved in Islam.

Also, the Supreme Court has ruled that politicians cannot use religion or caste to seek votes. This is secularism in practice. Similarly, the exchange of confidential matters of the state (if at all) between the unelected RSS and the elected BJP, would be legally incorrect. Compliance can only be achieved if it is self-enforced by both parties. 

Secularism needs to evolve in other respects also. For example, all mosques need to be open by law to practitioners of other faiths, including women and lower castes, just as Sikh Gurdwaras are. And it needs to be enforced at temples and churches where this is not the case. The government should also consider incentivizing other faiths to adopt a model akin to the Sikh Langar system (community kitchen), at least in cash-rich shrines. Places of worship would then offer some practical value to the poor. 

Hinduism and Islam are often viewed as incompatible with one another. Yet a 2013 comparative study by Abid Mushtaq Wani, challenges this perception. Wani states that “monotheism is at the core of the two religions. When talking of a Unitarian concept of Godhead there is only one Supreme Deity in both the metaphysical worldviews. Be it the Brahman of Vedanta or Allah of Islam, it is one and the same thing.” Sikhism’s definition of God in Ek Omkar is taken straight from the Upanishads. The definition of God in Islam also exactly matches this. Hence, the two major religions in India have no real philosophical difference regarding the nature of God. This is encouraging for the idea of secularism. From a spiritual perspective, these religions also support each other. Hinduism provides a robust philosophy while Islam offers lessons about society and relationships. And Sufism explains these lessons beautifully through poetry.

Equality, brotherhood, charity, hard work, truthfulness, and kindness, are just a few values that undergird the world’s major religions. For secularism to prosper, the government should codify a list of these common values and institute them into school curricula. Keep out esoteric religious teachings. Akbar’s syncretic Din-i-Ilahi could be a starting point for this exercise, as could Sikhism.

Ultimately, a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), in line with Article 44 contained in part IV of the Constitution, is the best device to preserve secularism. Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Parsis are currently governed by their respective personal laws regulating marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, and succession. Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs are included in the Hindu personal law. But these personal laws can create injustice. For example, marriages with more than one wife can bring inequality in inheritance laws across religions. Adopted children can also have different treatments as inheritance is concerned. These issues would be resolved with a UCC. In fact, the Supreme Court in various judgments has called for the implementation of a UCC.

The Tricky Issue of Conversion and Freedom of Religion

Religious conversion has always been a sensitive topic in caste-ridden Hindu rural India. According to Article 25 of the Indian constitution, “all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.” In 1977, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that the “right to propagate” refers to a right to transmit or spread one’s religion but not a “right to convert.” This has been the standard since. 

In 1999, Graham Stuart Staines with his two young sons were gruesomely murdered in Odisha. According to right-wing activists, Staines and his family were allegedly converting Adivasis to Christianity under the guise of his missionary activities. He had been working in India since 1965. 

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to commute his killer’s sentence to life imprisonment in Jan 2011. Fearing criticism from the media, the Supreme Court later retracted the following comments: “Our concept of secularism is that the State will have no religion. The State shall treat all religions and religious groups equally and with equal respect without in any manner interfering with their individual right of religion, faith, and worship.” The Court also said, “It is undisputed that there is no justification for interfering in someone’s belief by way of ‘use of force’, provocation, conversion, incitement or upon a flawed premise that one religion is better than the other”. These comments give one a unique insight into how secularism is interpreted by the highest court.

There are two separate legal judgments that concern reconversions. The first precedes the current BJP government. In a Dec 1983 judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that a person whose parents had renounced Hinduism, reconverted, and was accepted by Hindu society, could get the benefits of reservations for scheduled castes. In March 2015, it extended this principle to any forefathers who were Hindus. In 1950, independent India instituted its Reservation Policy for Hindus. The text was amended to include Sikhs in 1956 and Buddhists in 1990.

Hence, conversion from Hinduism to Christianity and Islam is disincentivized (this may change), whereas reconversions are incentivized. These judgments provide the legal basis for the RSS Ghar Wapsi program. The RSS Chief has advised his RSS workers to take reconversion as a challenge and to propagate and protect Hindu culture and values. “We will have to ensure no one leaves the Hindu religion, and those who have left, will be brought back into our family,” he said. In 2015, the Ministry of Law and Justice announced that anti-conversion laws were the purview of individual states.

Love Jihad (also known as Romeo Jihad) is a conspiracy theory developed and spread by followers of Hindutva. The theory claims that Muslim men purportedly target Hindu women for conversion to Islam through means of seduction and feigning love. However, “According to India’s National Investigation Agency, there is no evidence for “love jihad”, nor is it reflected in India’s population data, where Hindus continue to make up about 80% and Muslims 14%.” 

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) led a major investigation into Love Jihad cases in Kerala. As of Nov 2022, the BJP UP’s anti-conversion law had been in effect for less than two years. So far, 507 accused have been detained, 291 cases have been registered, and only one conviction. This approach needs to be scaled down.

According to an annual report by the US-based Freedom House, India’s political and civil liberties have deteriorated since 2014. The report downgraded the country’s status from “free” to “partly free.”  

This is primarily due to: a crackdown on prominent NGOs for their failure to comply with FCRA (foreign funding) regulations; the CAA/NRC (citizenship amendment) protestors, journalists, and activists; and the pandemic lockdowns that punished the poor. The UN Human Rights Review 2022 asked India to dilute AFSPA (armed forces special powers) and look after minorities.

Nonetheless, India is far ahead of other countries like Russia and China on human rights and freedom of expression. Rapid development, for China, as well as India, is a high aspiration. And the US has serious issues around racism towards African-Americans and other minority groups. Also, on pandemic management, an IMF Working Paper gives the Indian government a clean chit overall. Increasing the food support (rations) was the right response and both extreme poverty and LMI (lower middle-income poverty) would have increased significantly without it. 

In March 2020 the Supreme Court upheld government power stating that organizations of political nature are prohibited from receiving foreign contributions under FCRA. In April 2022, it upheld amendments stating no fundamental or absolute right to receive foreign contributions.

Muslims in Secular India Need to Change

For secularism to be effective, it needs two hands to clap. Muslims in India must come forward, embrace the Sufi beliefs of the subcontinent, reject ghettos and divisive ideas, come down firmly on Jihadism, adopt modern education, and compete openly for the top positions in India’s corporations. Currently, the Muslim community, 75% of whom are Dalits, lags on every socio-economic development indicator, especially in the Hindi heartland. It is true that with partition the political and intellectual elite class of Muslims mostly migrated to Pakistan and there is a real scarcity of leadership. As a result, Madrassa-educated clerics with a limited worldview have ruled the roost.

K. Rahman Khan, a member of the Indian National Congress, says in his book, Indian Muslims: The Way Forward, that Indian Muslims have “an emotional, rather than a rational,” approach to issues. Many suffer from “superficial religiosity” and have an “uncompromising attitude and lack of an accommodative approach”. “Religious superiority” is a feature among some. Certain sections uphold “exclusivist and narrow thinking” that is completely unacceptable, especially in a plural society. 

Khan comes down heavily on Muslim clerics for wasting two decades defending Triple Talaq. He makes the point that “Muslims cannot progress if they remain wedded to some centuries-old interpretations, notions, and practices that are not in accordance with the spirit of Islam and that impede their creative presence in the contemporary world.” He asks Muslims to adopt genuine spirituality with a focus on humanity and human values. He asks Muslims to learn about democracy and duties as a citizen in a plural society and to set up interfaith dialogues.

Hence, a focus on modern education and achievement is necessary for the progress of any community. Instead of opening new mosques and madrassas, let Muslims open schools and colleges and reserve seats to empower the community. The Madrassa education curriculum is in desperate need of modernization and the Singapore experience should be studied and emulated. The state will also have to do its part to prevent ghettoization. This has been successfully prevented in Singapore through state housing rules requiring demographic representation. Muslims have a hard time renting or buying houses in Hindu-dominated areas. Further, Muslim ghettos are a breeding ground for Jihadism and insular thinking. If the Indian government wants to prevent Jihadism, it needs to ensure that Muslims have an equal right to rent and acquire property.

Muslims should ask themselves what makes small minorities like the Sikhs and Parsis so successful in India. Sikhism is also a very conservative religion. Yet Sikhs are openly felicitated for their contribution to nation-building. The Parsis survived for over 1000 years and built modern India. These are extraordinary stories worthy to study and emulate. At the core of both these stories is the message of service to society irrespective of religion. Islam has always had that tradition. It’s time that Muslims adopted it.

Lastly, to help dispel fears that the RSS is a Hindu supremacist and patriarchal body, it would do well to actively recruit prominent Muslims into its Muslim wing and prominent women into the women’s wing. They should be given a seat at the table to chart a common course for Indian society based on shared values. Let some of these discussions be telecast live so that Indians can see the synergies.

(Click here to read Part 1 and Part 3 of this three-part series.)

[Naveed Ahsan edited this article.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post India’s Secularism Needs Better Interpretation to Retain Relevance appeared first on Fair Observer.

(Click here to read Part 2 and Part 3 of this three-part series.)

The RSS shapes the ideological direction of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the current party in power in India. The RSS is the world’s largest voluntary NGO with substantial grassroots appeal in India. They have been present in relief efforts during natural disasters. With over 100 affiliates, no NGO has the size, scale, and impact that RSS has. Every Hindu family (79% of the population) along with their relatives, likely has at least a few members or believers in the RSS. Hence, it plays a substantial role in the electoral outcomes of the BJP.

Evolution is Determined by Necessity

Hindutva’s emergence coincided with the ascendency of the current BJP government in 2014, now in its second term. Unlike Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, earlier BJP ones have failed to provide the RSS with an adequate platform to implement its agenda. In any case, practical constraints will always impact how Hindutva evolves and is executed.

Hindutva has been variously accused of fascism, pro-Brahmanism, and intolerance towards Muslims and Christians. Followers envisage the building of a Hindu state (Hindu Rashtra) and a greater, politically unified India (Akhand Bharat). Adherents are supremely proud of India’s contributions to science and culture. They regard Islam in particular, as a non-Indian faith and largely irreconcilable with its beliefs and culture. To them, Muslims are lower-caste Hindu converts who need to be brought back into the Hindu fold. The RSS was against the partition of India and they believe that Muslims (14%) should have left the country afterwards. Moreover, India should be a society created based on traditional Hindu culture and values. It pays a lot of emphasis to daily exercise and drills, and even paramilitary training, as part of mental and physical discipline. In terms of language, it sees Hindi as the rightful national language spoken by the majority of Indians.

These ideas originated before 1947. It was not until 2014 that the tenets of Hindutva found political momentum and burgeoning recognition. But by then, India had already seen 67 years of a secular democratic republic that had fashioned India as an inclusive, secular, and pluralistic society. India’s English language focus in business had made skills marketable globally and people mobile cross-border. This attracted foreign investments and pushed the country to build international credibility. Isolationism and cultural nostalgia are untenable in 2023. Hence, the Hindu-Hindi agenda must be open to the world, to technology, and to modernization.

Indian History Is Relevant to Understand Hindutva

Islamic Sultans have ruled many parts of India for nearly 1000 years, but the percentage of Muslims in South Asia is only around 30%. It clearly underscores the resilience of Hindus and Hinduism. Towards the end of the Mughal Empire, there was much intermingling of Hindu blood in the rulers. In fact, Akbar’s syncretic Din-i-Ilahi drew elements from Hinduism, Islam, and Zoroastrianism, among others. Many Diwan positions were held by high-caste Hindus as a practical necessity for the Empire.

With the support of Islamic Sufis, Sikhs (a Sufi faith with mixed Hindu-Muslim roots) helped to protect Hindus from conversion by sword under bigoted Sultans like Aurangzeb. As Sufi Bulleh Shah confirms: “I talk about today. Had Gobind Singh not been there, They would all be under Islamic sway.” Islam has spread in the hinterlands where Sufism was present, not in the capitals. The Chishti Sufi Langars (community kitchens) certainly helped and were the source of the idea for Sikh Langars adopted later by Guru Nanak.

It cannot be denied that, culturally, India is a Hindu state. With a Hindu majority of 79%, the people largely prefer reconciliation (Samjhota) and kind/soft-hearted behavior (Namrata) to conflict. Hindus have been colonized for about 1,200 years in the 5,000-plus years of civilization. If there is any land in which Hindus have the natural right to freely express their views and worship in their chosen style, it is India. If there is any land that should be the natural refuge for persecuted Hindus and Sikhs, including those from Pakistan, Afghanistan & Bangladesh, it is India.

On the other hand, Islamic Sufism, based on the teachings of Turkey’s Rumi, Imam Ali (called the Father of Sufism; 1^st Imam of Shias, 4^th Caliph of Sunnis), and India’s own Chishti school (includes Sikh patron saint Baba Farid), fits naturally with Hinduism. Many Hindus worship at the Dargahs of Sufi saints. The Ajmer Sharif Dargah of the revered Sufi saint, Moinuddin Chishti, is visited by thousands of Hindus daily. There was recently a 70% drop in visitors after a radical cleric delivered a series of anti-Hindu hate speeches. These numbers show the continuing draw of Sufism with Hindus.

Hindutva versus Hinduism

For Savarkar, ‘Hindutva’ refers to the ‘quality of being a Hindu’ in ethnic, cultural, and political terms. He argued that a Hindu is one who considers India to be his motherland (matribhumi), the land of his ancestors (pitrbhumi), and his holy land (punya bhumi). This includes Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains but excludes Christians and Muslims. Savarkar asserted: “Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, a part of Hindutva.” His vision of Hindutva saw it as the animating principle of a Hindu nation rooted in an undivided India based on the Mauryan Empire’s coverage.

Hindutva has been described by many left-leaning commentators as having nothing to do with Hinduism. Whereas Hinduism is described as naturally inclusive, Hindutva has been described as a nationalist ideology with Nazi leanings. The best example of inclusivity is the survival of the Zoroastrian or Parsi community. They have survived in India for 1,000 years with their faith intact. In Feb 2020, the RSS chief distanced himself and said that the term nationalism alluded to Hitler, Nazism, and fascism. It does not mean the same thing in India as the “nation is built on its common sanskriti (civilization).”

Hindutva’s assertiveness can certainly be traced back to Hindu texts. Its fight against Jihadism is very much in line with the Mahabharata. Elements of Modi’s defense policy, such as the use of surgical strikes, have their roots in this single epic and the works of Kautilya’s Arthashastra as well. The Ramayana similarly stresses personal autonomy and fighting evil. 

Mahatma Gandhi’s principle of ahimsa, better suited to personal relationships, pacified Hindus over the next 65 years. It led to a toothless Nehruvian defense policy until the 1962 India-China War with China. According to Babasaheb Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, independence was won thanks to the efforts of the Indian National Army (mainly a Sikh regiment) led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. It had nothing to do with ahimsa. The PM of England Clement Attlee is said to have confirmed this view.

The contribution of Sikhs in India’s freedom struggle is revealing: “Out of 121 patriots hanged 93 were Sikhs. Of the 2,626 awarded life-imprisonment, 2147 were Sikhs.” At just 1.5% of the population their sacrifices were 90%. We must also note that the greatest contributors to the original martial Sikh Khalsa cadres in 1699 were Hindus. They were supported by select Islamic Sufi groups, against the Mughals (Aurangzeb in particular). Yet it was only in 2018 that the RSS recognized Sikhism as a separate religion, largely for political reasons.

Hence, the idea that Hindus are both meek and passive is not borne out by history. India would be an Islamic state if meekness and passiveness were true. It’s a stereotype that suited the British Raj. Savarkar also talks of “Hindus… fed on inertia-producing thoughts… one of the causes of the continuous enslavement of our Hindu Rashtra for centuries”. The British, in fact, recruited Sikhs for their military prowess. Sikhism’s Sufi roots aside, the Sikhs were almost all Hindus in the first place. The Sikh idea of Dharam Yudh (ethical war) is very much a Hindu idea.

The RSS’s position on security is arguably influenced by the Sikh Khalsa. Its shakhas (branches for morning drills) “recite the names of great people — sons and daughters of India — right from the ancient times to modern India”, very similar to Sikh preachers who recite the names of Sikh heroes out of respect. This is reflected in the training camps for Bajrang Dal, VHP, (both spawned by RSS), and RSS activists in the hinterland (not new). In modern times it also means potentially taking law and order into one’s own hands. 

Without a strict Code of Conduct like the Khalsa Sikhs who also take an oath, it is impossible to adopt a military philosophy without the presence of rogue elements at the grassroots. This has resulted in cow vigilantism and other anti-Muslim incidents in India such as the Delhi riots. These incidents cause irreparable damage to society. The RSS supremo adopts the Sikh belief of “neither threaten nor gets threatened” in his conception of self-defense. This is not likely to fully permeate the grassroots. It may also be the case that more and better-trained riot police are needed where Hindu-Muslim fault lines are known to exist. The Army should also be called out wherever a riot cannot be controlled in say 4-6 hours.

Sufism has a 1,000-year history of evolution in India. Over 50% of Indian Muslims worship at the shrines of Sufi Saints. Both Shia (13%) and Sunni (85%) have Sufi traditions. Sufism is one of several reasons keeping Indian Muslims largely out of the Islamic State. At the World Sufi Forum in March 2016, Modi made clear that the common enemy are jihadis, not Sufi Muslims. 

Modi said “At a time when the dark shadows of violence are becoming longer, you are the noor or the light of hope. When young laughter is silenced by guns on the streets, you are the voice that heals.” This was followed by a February 2022 event in which Modi said: “Sufi saints are an integral part of Indian ethos and Sufism contributed significantly to the creation of a pluralistic, multicultural society in the country.” This is a welcome development which surely has the endorsement from the RSS. Interestingly, Shias, under Imam Ali, the Father of Sufism, have a history of being helped by the Hussaini Brahmins in the historic battle of Karbala.

The Modi government’s stance on triple talaq — a practice that “allows a husband to divorce his wife by repeating the word talaq (divorce) three times in any form, including email or text message — on regulating and funding Madrassas for educational quality, on promoting Islamic Sufism, on clamping down on terror groups and funding, is spot on. In fact, the Modi government has won two straight terms in Deoband in the state assembly elections, both in 2017 and 2022. Deoband has a 70% Muslim population and is the ground zero of conservative Islam in India. After all, it was established as a seminary to bring back “pure Islam” after the formal end of the Mughal Empire in 1858. The BJP’s victory in the heart of Islam in South Asia is telling.

(Click here to read Part 2 and Part 3 of this three-part series.)

[Naveed Ahsan edited this article.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post 100 Years On: Can Hindutva’s Assertiveness Replace Hinduism’s Ahimsa? appeared first on Fair Observer.

From a man’s perspective, the typical story would run like this: the romance and intimacy are long gone, the wife nags, he remains interested in sex, while the wife seems to have lost interest after childbirth. Initially this may be due to hormones and later, the distractions of a growing child. Eventually a communication gap descends on the relationship. Conversation with other men seems much more interesting, especially when discussing politics and sports, while the wife becomes a source of bother- someone with constant demands and criticism. Women are also actively exiting what they see as dead relationships. Their thinking has shifted, and new questions on happiness and self-fulfillment occupy center stage. Their economic independence and longer lives take precedence.

When two people get married they are likely attracted to each other and believe that they are compatible. What could explain this degeneration into an almost dull and empty existence?

Lets begin with biology

Before we talk about hormones, it is important to understand that sexual desire is shaped by many variables including physical and mental health, and religious beliefs and practices. Any person can consciously repress their natural sexual urges- for example, through following ascetic practices.

Evolution and biology created two different people fundamentally. A man’s testosterone ranges between 280 and 1,100 nanograms per deciliter (ng/dL) for adult males, and between 15 and 70 ng/dL for adult females. This represents an evolutionary necessity for a man’s dominant role as a hunter-gatherer, needing more muscle and bone mass, and to make split-second fight-or-flight decisions. Testosterone is key to both a man and a woman’s sexual desire, albeit estrogen also plays a key role for women.

Mayo Clinic states that “…most men maintain at least some amount of sexual interest into their 60s and 70s” when their testosterone decline from age 30 catches up. Their interest in sex is fuelled by the easy availability of porn and supplementation, and regular exercise. 

For a woman the menopausal transition begins between 45 and 55 years. “The loss of estrogen and testosterone”, leads to changes in her body and sexual drive. The North American Menopause Society states that “In general, sex drive decreases gradually with age in both men and women, but women are two to three times more likely to be affected by a decline in sex drive as they age.” Johns Hopkins Medicine adds “more than a third of women in perimenopause, or who are postmenopausal, report having sexual difficulties, from lack of interest in sex to trouble having an orgasm.” They attribute this to estrogen taking a nosedive.

The Debate On Transgender Athletes Is Fundamentally About Fairness

This difference in biological clocks sets the foundation for future trouble as a woman heads into menopause and a man continues to want sex and intimacy (assuming he is physically healthy).  However, a 2017 British study found that “Women are more than twice as likely as men to lose interest in sex in a long-term relationship” but they state that this is not because of menopause and instead largely because of “…poor physical and mental health, a breakdown in communication, and an absence of emotional closeness.” A 2020 US US study showed that only about “a quarter of women rate sex as very important, regardless of their age.” 

Of course, beyond these studies on sexuality, which can be biased, nature provides us answers to a direct male-female comparison. The biological clock ticks differently for men and women. A physically fit man can father children into his 90s. A woman cannot do so post-menopause without modern fertility treatment. The biological clock ticking differently increases tensions between men and women. 

For men, their feelings of closeness to a woman are directly derived from both sex and intimacy. To put it simply, in a relationship, most men cannot love a woman who denies them sex. Dr. Lindsay Gibson states “Women naturally create connections in their lives, so they have other sources of emotional fulfillment that men may only attain through their sexual experiences.” 

These basic biological differences also create big differences in thinking. Men rely a lot on intuition and naturally take more risks, while women are more risk-averse and studied in their approach. These differences exacerbate with time and can often lead to divorce.

The social institutions of marriage and divorce

Marriage is an institution created by man for man. The first marriages can be traced back to 2350 BC in Mesopotamia. Back then, marriage was meant to bind women to men and to guarantee that “a man’s children were truly his biological heirs.” It is clear that through marriage, “a woman became a man’s property.” Men who brought home agricultural produce or monies were allowed to have more than one wife or sex interest. In contrast, women were expected to be faithful, give their love and body to their husband, and tend to the house and children. Soon, religious rituals sealed the woman’s role by supposedly divine order.

These days, marriage rates are going down and divorce rates are going up. In four decades, divorce rates around the world have more than doubled. Women now work, make their own money and, as a result, have their own independent identity and ego. Often, they no longer need their husbands economically.

Marriage often tends to put strain on women. Working women in the US contribute more to the housework than men: about 22% more on a weekly basis. Yet attitudes about the traditional role of women in marriage are changing dramatically, especially in Asia. Close to nine out of ten Singaporeans agree that household chores should be shared equally by husband and wife. In Asia, working women are developing a new set of expectations from their spouses. In practice, women still play a greater role in cleaning, cooking and child caring. Men not participating in household chores increasingly causes marital dissatisfaction among women. Many, especially in Asian countries, still hold traditional ideas while women have adopted more modern ones.

New expectations from men are arising not only within marriage but also within other realms of social life. Men may or may not be able to deliver on these expectations. For example, many argue that women are better teachers for children in the primary years. Yet the expectation that men play an equally important role in teaching children increases marital tensions, especially when they fail to step up to the plate. The COVID-19 pandemic and work-from-home imposed new strains and worsened some long-term issues, “causing spikes in break-ups and divorces.” 

A Conversation on Child Marriage With Amnesty International

For decades, poverty has been associated “with domestic abuse as both a cause and a consequence.” Furthermore, “discrepancy between education, income, or occupational status between partners” also increases women’s risk of getting abused. With increasing education and modern expectations women are less willing to put up with abuse and walk away from toxic relationships. 

With greater social freedoms in modern society, infidelity has increased. More interaction between men and women, especially at the workplace, has led to a rise in extramarital affairs. Around “15-20% of married couples cheat,” and 20-40% of divorces are caused by cheating. 

What marriage counselors advise

Marriage counselors ask couples to keep their expectations realistic, to avoid comparisons with their parents, to avoid unnecessary criticisms, and instead try to draw out the best in their spouse. For example, splitting the housework by what the spouse is good at, in a mutually agreed upon manner, and not keeping score afterwards helps. If a couple aim for a precise 50:50 split then they would have to constantly keep score.

Couples are advised to give their spouse space to allow them to continue to grow and achieve their full potential based on their unique interests and skills. This includes being mutually kind and respectful through active listening. Offer your spouse encouragement rather than criticism. You are advised to be intentionally gentle, listen intently, and validate your spouse. 

Accepting one’s spouse as they are and encouraging them to do the best they can is important. Counselors advise against bringing parents into marital issues, but of course this does not cover situations of psychological intimidation, violence, crime, or infidelity. Conflict-mongering friends are best left out of social events.

Woman-for-Blood Marriages Persist in Iraq

Counselors ask us to share our feelings with our partners, to be assertive but avoid being angry and hurtful in such exchanges, to control our anger and make up in a reasonable timeframe, e.g. 24-48 hours after a clash. Avoidance by sleeping separately could lead to long term, or even permanent distance between couples. Furthermore, the “silent treatment” is not a viable stage in a relationship, for research has shown that “the act of ignoring or excluding activates the same area of the brain that is activated by physical pain.”

Another common area of conflict is differences in parenting styles. Counselors recommend moderation of different methods, and to set up “family rules” to which everyone can agree, including rules for disciplining the children. Avoid undermining the spouse. Each person is good at different things and parenting should not become a competitive sport.

Counselors urge us to maintain the allure of sex and intimacy, to take the trouble to dress up and be charming, to avoid getting too comfortable or taking each other for granted, and to check in with each other as a friend and confidant every single day. They ask couples to go on dates and make their anniversaries special. They advise couples to plan time for sex even when energy is low. The sweet spot is sex once a week for healthy relationships. 

With advancing age, intimacy is much more than sex. Holding hands, hugging, caressing, mutual massages, and even just sitting close together, all add value. It also includes emotional intimacy, i.e., a deep feeling of closeness and trust. Intimacy is important for good sex. It is also important to avoid porn addiction in order to ensure true intimacy. Couples that stop being intimate run the risk of love being replaced by anger, resentment and eventually hatred. 

An Ordinary Marriage: Russia in the 19th Century

Along with intimacy, a couple must have a deep friendship based on shared values and interests. True friendship lasts a lifetime and brings with it an emotional connection said to be five times more important than physical intimacy. Where friendship does not exist, the underlying risks to a couple’s marriage easily come to the fore. For example, men and women differ in their thinking. Men take excessive risks and often miss emotional cues. Women hold grudges for longer. If a lack of communication enters this already wobbly man-woman equation, there is little hope for the continuation of a relationship.

Little things matter. Being grateful for things that your spouse does is important, including saying “thank you” for the small stuff. Gratitude promotes a cycle of generosity. Warm, smiling “good mornings” and greetings on meeting at the end of a hard day’s work, keep up the feeling of being wanted. Small gestures, such as making a drink for your tired spouse, enhances that bond. Connecting with and showing concern for your spouse’s family is always a good idea. Cooking together also helps to strengthen relationships.

Lastly, with economic downturns and rapidly changing technology, retrenchments are becoming more common. It’s important for couples to face such situations jointly, to discuss and deal with important financial issues including the monthly mortgage, school, food and utility bills. To “do the numbers,” evaluate different scenarios, come up with a disaster plan and take joint action improves bonding.

Marriage can be a wonderful institution, leading to a happy family across generations if handled right. When both partners are committed to a thriving marriage, it has a fair chance of survival. However, both divorce rates and remarriage rates are bound to go up. So will live-in relationships and single parents. Perhaps it is also time for society to legalize commercial sex and regulate it effectively. In an increasingly complex and busy modern society, different models need to coexist.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Marriage: What Value Does It Add In a Busy Modern Society? appeared first on Fair Observer.

In contrast, Russia’s neighbors do not harbor such warm feelings. The Poles are still traumatized by the Katyn massacre of 1940. Hungarians remember Soviet tanks rolling into Budapest in 1956. The Czechs can never forget how Moscow crushed the Prague Spring in 1968. After years of brutal Soviet rule, 14 former Soviet and Soviet-aligned republics joined NATO to seek protection against Moscow.

The Russia-Ukraine War is an unprovoked act of aggression. Historically, India has been close to Russia, including offering an Indian rupee trade settlement mechanism, but the time has come to put more daylight between New Delhi and Moscow.

The Russia-China dynamic is cause for worry

India often hides away from the memory of the 1962 war with China. In the war, Russia suspended the sale of military aircraft to India and dictated that India compromise on its border. Russia also told India that if it raised the matter with the UN, the USSR would be forced to support China. 

2023 presents a tectonically different picture. Russia is now subject to more targeted sanctions than Iran, Venezuela, Myanmar and Cuba combined. Forced to tie the rouble to gold, the Russian economy is in a crisis. Although the Russian Central Bank sought to ban cryptocurrency in 2021, the country has now accepted crypto legitimacy in order to evade US sanctions. Also, Russia and Iran are investing an estimated $20 billion in a new 3,000 km trade route starting from Russia-occupied territories in Ukraine.

Han and Hindu Nationalism Come Face to Face

Russia’s financial system is now tied to China. It has its own domestic alternative to SWIFT — the System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS), a Russian ruble-based system — which could become integrated with China’s much larger payment system, the Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS). Russia has the Mir card system for domestic payments and seeks to integrate Brazil, India, China and South Africa’s payment systems to promote use of rouble payments. China is also Russia’s largest trade partner in both exports and imports. Russia has prioritized the use of the Chinese renminbi for international trade and payment purposes. As Visa, Mastercard and Amex exited Russia, Russian banks found a lifeline for their credit cards in the Chinese-owned UnionPay. Furthermore, Russia has also passed a law to allow violation of patents of “unfriendly countries”. 

The link between Russia and China is evident. This is a source of concern for India, which has a stagnant, if not deteriorating, relationship with China. 

Outdated Russian military technology is also a worry

The Russia-Ukraine war has been an eye-opener for India. A war which was expected to last a week has drawn on for months, with no end in sight. This has brought with it another aspect of concern: arms. 

India relies on outdated Russian Technology. NATO weapons (mainly US) and technology (e.g. AI, Big Data),  have proved to be extremely resilient against outdated Russian weapons. The US states that Russia has a failure rate as high as 60% for some of its precision-guided missiles. This is a problem for India, where the share of Russian-origin weapons and platforms across armed forces is as high as 85%. This creates a serious supply chain issue for India, which the US claims they can help replace.

It is only logical that if India is to buy arms in the future, it should be from the US, Israel, UK, Italy or France. These present a better alternative to outdated Russian weapons, especially since Russia is lacking resources to back its supply chain. Alternatively, India could produce its own weapons in line with Prime Minister Modi’s Aatmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) policy. Regardless, it is evident that India needs to move its military supply ties away from Russia.

Russia-China v the West

While we see that the China-Russia dynamic has strengthened, the US-China relationship is precarious. The US fears Chinese ascent via the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and is attempting to counter it via a similar G-7 infrastructure initiative. Ironically, the US is planning this while outsourcing its manufacturing including pharmaceuticals, electronics, plastics, automotive and textiles to China.

China accounts for one-fifth of global manufacturing and is the largest manufacturing nation in the world. China also requires US firms to transfer their technologies to Chinese companies for market access. Moreover, the benefits of trade have disproportionately accrued to senior corporate management and large shareholders, at the expense of US workers. Arguably, outsourcing manufacturing to China endangers US security which three US administrations have enabled. With the deteriorating US-China relationship, perhaps India can step in. 

Is China’s Belt and Road Initiative Strategic Genius, Arrogant Overreach or Something Else?

India is vastly different from Russia and China. India is a secular democracy, the largest by population. There is a sharp contrast between the way Indians run their country and the way the Chinese and Russians run theirs. While India is a little politically chaotic, the freedoms that individuals in India enjoy are far above those experienced by individuals in Russia and China. China’s approach to the Uyghur Muslims and the Tibetans is nothing short of cultural genocide. China does not respect religion, while India is deeply religious. These aspects make India a more desirable political partner to the US. 

China’s aggression on its borders with rival nations like India is matched by Russia’s aggression on its borders with Ukraine. Both nations want to restore the glory of their past. Russia is tied to its recent history as the USSR, wanting to bring back its former greatness. Similarly, still imprisoned by the legacy of Imperial China, China’s populist nationalism is inspired by its glorious memories. These remnants of the past are evident in Chinese and Russian foreign policy, which differ greatly from India’s. 

The world is increasingly splitting into two economic and financial factions, one of Russia, China and its client states, and the other of the West. Russia’s clear friends at the UN voting with them include China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria and Vietnam (also in numerous border disputes with China). India scarcely has a choice of going with this motley lot versus the West, which for all its imperfections and double talk, still embodies the same humanitarian values as the Indian state. 

Tawang Is the India-China Battleground for Tibetan Buddhism

India has to give up its sentimentality toward Russia, fix the supply chain issues for its armed forces, and consider how it can extract the best possible deal from the USA. India already has a dumbed-down “Asian NATO” type alliance called QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) with the US, Japan and Australia doing joint naval exercises. It seeks to expand this to Quad Plus including South Korea, New Zealand, Vietnam, Brazil and Israel. However, this is not enough. What India needs with the US is a boots-on-the-ground agreement to supply US arms and forces in case of a war with China. This explicit security arrangement can be on a reciprocal basis. This would be a full-fledged Asian NATO equivalent.

Can the US be a viable alternative? 

Indians do not trust the US or the UK. While distrust for the UK stems from 200 years of colonial rule, the US distrust is based on its geopolitical track record of sham wars in the Middle East. The US’s policy of starting wars to sell arms is also a contributing factor. 

The US and its CIA have a track record of perpetuating evil, from selling Saudi arms to turn Yemen to dust, to sponsoring jihadi textbooks to Afghan kids to create fighters for Afghanistan. The US also has a history of spectacular failure in both Vietnam and Afghanistan achieving nothing in exchange for decades of war sponsored by American taxpayers and debt. The US is manipulated by its Arms and Israel lobbies, both wanting persistent war leading to the death, injury, and displacement of millions in the Middle East. It is incredible that Shia Iran supports Sunni Hamas, reflecting a hatred of the Muslim world to American politics in the Middle East. India has a prime reason to not trust the USA – US support for Pakistan in the Afghanistan War.  

Furthermore, the US is no longer the superpower it once was. The US has sought to weaponize the USD, blocking off Russia’s access to its USD balances. A recent move by Saudi to sell China oil in RMB highlights the upcoming decline of the petrodollar. Countries no longer trust the US the way they used to, so why should India? 

Nonetheless, in 2023, Indians appreciate US capital. The benefits of outsourcing seen in small Indian cities are manifold. Furthermore, in the US, Indians have succeeded spectacularly in CEO positions, underscoring the credibility of American meritocracy. India is a post-colonial country where the idea of a glass ceiling for Indians living abroad is very much entrenched. The success of Indian CEOs in America disproves this idea. 

To make matters easier, the legal foundation of a US-India bond is already in place owing to the efforts of the Modi government. The Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA), the last of the key foundational agreements between India and the US, was signed in October 2020. Two other military agreements have also been signed: the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) which was signed in 2016 and the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA), signed in 2018. “BECA enables supply of high-end equipment as well as real-time intelligence and information, which will allow India to piggyback on American geo-spatial information to hit enemy targets with pinpoint accuracy.” Under US law, the signing of these agreements is mandatory for the US to enter military alliances related to the export of sensitive equipment. 

The geopolitical environment is conducive to the strengthening of the US-India dynamic, but the time to act is now. 

India could be a new manufacturing power

India has a lot to gain from a war between the US and China around a Taiwan invasion. The US would pass sanctions and withdraw all its outsourced manufacturing, likely moving most of it to India. Nonetheless, an early genuine Asian NATO formation would find India engaged in an expensive war in the South China sea, which is undesirable given the cost of post-COVID recovery. It also remains to be seen if the Ukraine war can be stopped and Russia can be reintegrated into the global financial system and world order. For example, Russia without Vladimir Putin would be another story altogether. These factors overhang India’s decision to enter into a long-term security arrangement with the US.

As US and China Clash, Taiwan Moves Closer to the Brink of Disaster

Regardless, India has to negotiate for an economic package to draw away manufacturing outsourcing from China to India’s smaller cities and towns which could offer similar cost advantages. India offers a skilled English-speaking working population and like the Chinese, it has fine engineering minds that can easily be upskilled. The US is already India’s largest trading partner. So deepening this economic relationship makes sense.

At the beginning of 2022, Russia’s share in India’s overall oil imports was 2% but, by Nov 2022, it was 12%. India has been accused of acting opportunistically for buying cheap Russian oil but the country still has a relatively low per capita income and needs to control inflation. Over time, there is no reason why this cannot be eventually replaced with oil imports from the US. The US can also help India sort out its supply chain issues for Russian weapons and platforms held by it. India’s need to reduce dependence on Chinese imports such as active pharmaceutical ingredients or API, smartphones, automobile components and telecom equipment is significant.

It is true that India has so far not succeeded in manufacturing. It still depends on China for up to 90% of ingredients for certain drugs. Although anti-dumping duties on some Chinese products like aluminum and chemicals have helped, India needs US help to emerge as a key part of the global supply chain.

What India needs to do

India’s success in developing infrastructure will prove key to its plans to replace China as the US’s manufacturing hub. Getting labor laws and logistics right to support special manufacturing zones/industrial clusters that provide the exact same competitive advantage that China currently provides, will also be of use. India’s state governments must provide subsidies like Chinese provincial governments do to promote manufacturing. These could “include free land, cheap capital, loans one may not have to pay back if things go wrong, guaranteed government purchasing and tax holidays.” 

Chinese shipping is also heavily subsidized by the government allowing many high-volume sellers to ship small items free of charge all over the world. This creates a huge competitive advantage, and India needs to emulate some of these policies to compete and emerge as a manufacturing hub that rivals China. The US and Europe are trying to decouple from China. The West wants to de-risk supply chains and India must step up.China is the US’s only real competitor for global leadership. Therefore, the US has to commit to a deeper security and economic arrangement to counter China’s ascendency. With Pakistan’s economic implosion, China is now India’s Enemy Number 1. Therefore, the US and India have a natural strategic alignment. Both have to deal with China and have economic, military and geopolitical synergies that India must exploit judiciously.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post India and US in the New World appeared first on Fair Observer.

Let’s take the example of two landlords, A and B (India and Pakistan), first cousins, both very powerful, with large families who cause confusion because everyone has a different opinion. In between their lands live two farmers, C and D (Kashmir), whose land has been respectively claimed by both A and B. In fact, they have divided C and D’s land with a fence. C and D are brothers who are not allowed to cross over this fence or talk to each other and are told that they have no real rights to their land; if they want to stay there, they better shut up and do as they are told.

Both A and B don’t really talk to each other because of their oversized egos, and they occasionally put up an act of trying to sort out the problem without any real intention. They sometimes fire their guns at each other to keep the issue alive.

The question to be answered is: If we really want to solve the problem of these two landlords, what do we need to do?

The first solution is for A or B to kill each other and take over the land of C and D completely. This is very difficult to do because both sides have guns and bombs, and it is likely that both A and B, along with their families, would be completely annihilated.

The second solution is for A and B to split the territory, telling C and D that the fence running through their land is permanent and to beat them up whenever they open their mouths. But C and D won’t accept this solution because they are real brothers.

The third solution is for A and B to allow C and D to live peacefully, giving up their respective rights. But this is unworkable because of the strong views of their families and their own personal egos.

The fourth and only real solution is for A and B to stop firing at each other and let C and D live in peace, meet and talk to each other, while taking some of their farm’s produce in taxes. They also help these farmers so their farm yield — and so their taxes — are higher. Everyone benefits. This is the only long-term solution to the Kashmir problem.

BACK TO REALITY

Let’s start with acknowledging the truth that most Kashmiris want independence (azadi) from both Pakistan and India, whether openly or secretly, even if they don’t admit this to the media. This is the third (and not workable) solution of a Kashmiri plebiscite under United Nations Security Council Resolution 47, which requires Pakistan to first withdraw from Kashmir. India would also never give its consent for this because it would be politically unacceptable in the country and disastrous for any election, aside from legal issues of secession needing careful management.

At least some Kashmiris acknowledge that this is never going to happen, albeit youngsters cling on to their pipe dream of independence, with many losing their lives in this quest. There is no doubt that the youth of Kashmir hates both India and Pakistan because of the loss of their basic freedoms as human beings. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Indian-administered Kashmir.

The Indian Ministry of Home Affairs states in its annual report for 2017-18 that, since the start of militancy in 1990 and up to December 31, 2017, in India-administered Kashmir 13,976 civilians and 5,123 security personnel were killed in various incidents. Separately, it confirmed that 21,965 militants were killed from 1990 to March 31, 2017. However, human rights groups, such as Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, put the number of civilian deaths from 1990 at a much higher figure of 100,000. According to the UN, the Kashmir conflict “has robbed millions of their basic human rights.”

The reality on the ground in Indian-administered Kashmir is that India has deployed one soldier for every 12 Kashmiri (Jammu and Kashmir) civilians — an estimated 700,000 security forces consisting of the army, paramilitary forces, Jammu and Kashmir police and other security agencies — to fight around 250 to 300 freedom fighters.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus’ counterinsurgency field manual says that experts recommend ratios close to 25:1,000 residents, which the US has never met in Afghanistan. Compare this to India’s 59:1,000 ratio, bearing in mind that the US Army is better trained and has better weapons and equipment.

Pakistan faces similar charges of human rights abuses in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, ranging from political repression, electoral fraud, forced disappearances, torture and suppression of freedom of speech. Neither country has allowed the UN high commissioner for human rights unconditional access to their respective protectorates.

The “Other”

Both India and Pakistan, first cousins and nuclear states, are currently in a quagmire of the first and second solutions, fluctuating between them depending on which government is in power and, particularly in Pakistan, how much the army chief or the head of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) exercises power over the civilian government. The genocide of the Partition and the 1971 Bangladesh War, along with other conflicts, have institutionalized hatred toward the “other” within the government.

This is reflected in the armed forces’ and intelligence services’ approach, even if Indian and Pakistani civilians get along perfectly well and are the best of friends abroad. It may be stated that the Kashmir issue is an intricate web that serves the interests of all in power and that nobody is actually interested in a permanent negotiated solution in which they compromise on their stated positions. Religious radicalization, nationalism and territorial ambitions have together created a bloodbath in Kashmir.

The BJP being in power is actually a fantastic opportunity for Pakistan to engage in a fruitful manner while bringing multiple stakeholders within its country to the table. It is virtually impossible to achieve a political solution in Kashmir with a weak coalition government at the national level.

Pakistan is described by academics as being an “ideological state” that is “persistently revisionist,” seeking to acquire territory in Kashmir that it does not need for security reasons, and also to reverse India’s emergence as a global power. The army dominates its foreign and domestic policies and projects its conflict with India in civilizational terms in a face-off between “Muslim Pakistan” and a “Hindu” enemy, with itself as Pakistan’s savior. It has undermined efforts by civilian governments to normalize relationships with India, including through trade and investment.

Further complications occur because of the considerable hold that Pakistan’s army has over the country’s economy. The army controls one-third of all heavy manufacturing in the country and up to 7% of private assets. The Pakistan armed forces run over 50 commercial entities worth over $20 billion. Key appointments and public sector posts normally occupied by civilians are given to senior retired and serving military officers. With this size, scale and power, it needs a constant enemy to define itself in relation to. This complicates problems because India’s traditional approach is to talk to the civilian government on the issue of Kashmir, whereas the army and the ISI — and even Islamists — run parallel governments in Pakistan. If India does not talk to all the relevant people at the same time, then it is simply not talking to the correct people, and the peace process will ultimately be derailed.

Strong Government

While India’s nationalist ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), supported by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, a right-wing, Hindu nationalist volunteer organization), are driving the country toward “saffronization” — a militant Hinduism — partly with political objectives and partly in genuine fear of Islamic militancy, Pakistan is caught up with the problem of Islamic radicalization. Whatever the historical reasons for the spread of Islamic terrorism across Pakistan, it is certainly clear that this is a long dark path that will ultimately implode Pakistan. It is not in India’s interest to have a Pakistan caught up in the throes of militancy because of the risk of it spilling across the border. There is also the risk that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons (in an end-game scenario) find their way into the hands of Islamic militants with disastrous consequences.

Yet in India’s history there has arguably never been as powerful a government as the RSS-backed BJP that, for all its muscular approaches both in Kashmir and in its 2019 electoral strategy, has the right intentions to make a difference in India — whether it is on the right track or not is a different question. Currently, its tough policy in Kashmir — through a political alliance with the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and now in the form of governor’s rule imposed in June — has not wielded the desired results; it is basically solution two from the above example.

India wrongly perceives the Kashmir conflict as a security issue and not a political one that needs a tripartite agreement that would include Kashmiri leaders and separatists. The BJP being in power is actually a fantastic opportunity for Pakistan to engage in a fruitful manner while bringing multiple stakeholders within its country to the table. It is virtually impossible to achieve a political solution in Kashmir with a weak coalition government at the national level. Assuming the BJP gets a second term in 2019, by 2020 it would have a majority in the upper house of parliament, the Rajya Sabha, making a deal with Pakistan easier to pass in both houses.

From 1947 to AK47

It is also important to look at the demographics in India to understand the overall context for a peaceful coexistence between its Hindu majority (80%) and Muslim minority (14%). In history, Islamic fundamentalists have been driven by an ideology of hatred and the desire to convert the “other.” However, India’s Hindus have resisted conversion through 800 years of Muslim rule. Moreover, the bulk of conversions to Islam in India happened in the hinterlands (and not around the capital cities of the Muslim sultans) as a result of the secular Sufi movement that Islamic fundamentalists denounce.

Kashmir was historically a land of Sufi Islam. Sufism is a good fit with Hindu-majority India because of its focus on love and humanity and the fact that almost all schools (barring the Naqshbandi School) do not require or pursue conversion to Islam actively. Mainstream Islam, on the other hand, will find itself in perpetual conflict with a nationalistic and determined Hindu population, particularly in the hinterlands. This fact needs to be accepted by the institutions in Pakistan (civilian government, army, ISI) and respected in order to have any long-term peaceful solution in Kashmir and also to manage its relations with India.

Historically, the bravest warriors in India were Sikhs who were mostly Hindus inspired by the Sikh beliefs of justice, righteous action and martyrdom for a just cause. The current wave of nationalism gripping India is arming and training Hindus in the hinterland for self-defense against Islamic fundamentalists, creating a new breed akin to the Sikh soldiers of the past. The bloodbath of radical Islamic militants facing these Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP, a right-wing Hindu nationalist organization affiliated with the RSS) Dharam Yodhas (religious warriors) head on is left to the reader’s imagination.  

India has followed the same strategy in Kashmir since 1947 — in the words of a Kashmiri “from 1947 to the AK47” — that fits the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Pakistan is no different. Its support for cross-border terrorist attacks in India via proxies have effectively labeled the Kashmiri freedom struggle as a terrorist movement and caused them to lose Western support. People on both sides of the border suffer from fatigue with their governments’ approach to Kashmir. Ordinary civilians in both countries are sick of powerful politicians and generals talking big on nationalism and painting the other as the enemy.

It’s a false narrative, and people are now beginning to understand this, especially those civilians who interact with people across the border. Besides the issue of human rights violations, the amount of money wasted on the armed forces of both countries, the energy expended by its leaders on developing strategy and policy to counter the other, the misuse of the issue to whip up fear and animosity before elections — all these could be avoided if the institutions were more sincere about dealing with the issue through negotiation. They need to focus on growing their respective economies and eradicating poverty both in Kashmir and more broadly within the two countries.

It is important to underscore that India is less of a country and more a subcontinent, where diverse peoples coexist, as do multiple religions. Its diversity is both its strength and weakness, because there have been various separatist movements against the union at different points of time. The Khalistan movement of the Sikhs, insurgencies in India’s northeast states, the far-left communist Naxalite rebellion and the Kashmir insurgency are four key examples of such movements. Whilst some movements are more under control — the Dravida Nadu movement, for instance, is defunct — than others, the Kashmir issue cannot be seen as being anything special or different from other independence struggles, each of which has its own grievances and logic.

Similarly, Pakistan also has prominent ethnic nationalist movements, including the Bengali nationalist movement (which led to the creation of Bangladesh), Sindhudesh, Pashtunistan and the Free Balochistan movement. Realistically, what the Kashmiri people need to expect as an end-goal is a solution within the status quo and a return of peace and economic prosperity to the two Kashmirs. To ask for more is a denial of both the complexities and realities of the Kashmir issue.

Toward a Solution

So let’s look at the key components to construct a tripartite agreement implementing the fourth solution in which India and Pakistan stop firing each other and let Kashmir live in peace while both countries add value and levy taxes in their respective administered Kashmirs. This requires letting go of the past and moving forward in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect, focusing on the future rather than being held hostage by the past.

First, we need to get the engagement model right. There needs to be time-bound engagement on both sides with multiple stakeholders, including the civilian government, army, intelligence, separatist leaders and civil society. This needs to include the resettlement of Kashmiri Pandits in the valley and a cessation of Islamic fundamentalist activities and disarmament.

Ultimately, the land being fought over in Kashmir is not as important as the people and their right to peace, security and to enjoy the fruits of development — to lead a normal life that we take for granted.

Over 100,000 Kashmiri Pandits fled the violence in India-administered Kashmir in the 1990s. Currently, the numbers in India are around 62,000; 40,000 of these live in Jammu, 20,000 live in Delhi and its satellite cities. Kashmir traditionally had a peaceful composite culture called Kashmiriyat, signifying the centuries-old indigenous secularism of Kashmir that demanded religious and social harmony and brotherhood. This needs to be restored to the valley. Interestingly, Muslims in the valley want the Pandits back and not in segregated townships. While ghettos are undesirable in the long term, for reasons of security it is likely that initially a mix of new townships and restoring Pandits to the areas originally inhabited by them is needed.

Second, the powers and constraints placed on the armed forces need review and modification. India needs to address the humanitarian concern around Kashmir by repealing the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act in its current form, replacing it with a version that recognizes and protects human rights of innocent Kashmiris. This is unlikely to offer protection to known terrorists, putting a brake on enforced disappearances of innocent civilians detained for questioning.

However, it also means that new legislation is likely to bring in stronger military and criminal measures to protect the rights of the Indian security forces who have had to face stone-pelting, to bring the stone throwers in line with the law (the law in countries like the US and Israel is far more stringent). The consequences of stone-pelting should be made clear to the civilian population in advance so that if they indulge in this, it would be at their own risk and responsibility. It is also good to involve parents to control their underage children from inadvertently becoming casualties. This should be part of the civilian outreach and is absolutely essential to the long-term success of any peace agreement.

Pakistan also faces charges from Kashmiris that intelligence agencies trap poor Kashmiri youth into a cycle of terrorism and frequent human rights violations, including enforced disappearances of people who live in villages close to the Line of Control (LOC). Hence, on both sides of the LOC, the armed forces would need to have similar powers and constraints imposed by humanitarian law.

Third, India and Pakistan need to issue a joint person of Kashmiri origin card, a 25-year multiple-entry visa entitling Kashmiris (from Greater Jammu and Kashmir) to travel for up to 180 days and invest anywhere in Jammu and Kashmir, whether in Pakistan or India. Controls can be there initially for periodic reporting to the local police stations every 15 days, but this can be dropped as the plan becomes a success and peace is restored. Moreover, where a Kashmiri is buying and selling goods from another Kashmiri across the border, it can be agreed that there would be zero import duties, but other customs checks on the nature of the goods would continue as normal.

Fourth — focus on autonomy alongside integration. India’s Kashmir currently enjoys a high degree of autonomy on paper through Article 370 of the Indian Constitution (except for defense, foreign affairs, finance and communications), and Pakistan-administered Kashmir also has significant autonomy, although actual practice differs in both parts. Specifically, it needs to be examined whether a higher degree of financial autonomy is required for both Kashmirs and how this would work.

It is currently unclear whether Article 370 can be legally dropped altogether or not. Irrespective of that, Indians would want at least limited property rights, such as 99-year leasehold, in India’s Kashmir. Pakistan should do the same on its side. This also helps in national integration with mainstream Indians and Pakistanis. Avoiding ghettos of any sort is necessary for long-term peace, particularly in an Indian context.

Fifth — build focused law and order arrangements. Personal and religious freedom must be protected in both parts of Kashmir. India and Pakistan need to create a joint mechanism that agrees a common minimum plan for the entire Kashmir area including, for example, enhanced monitoring (such as using artificial intelligence) of radical preachers in mosques and madrassas, including publications distributed by them.

A minimum curriculum for madrassa students, including the secular teachings of Sufi Islam on love and humanity, should be introduced, and limitations placed on sharia courts to provide non-binding arbitration/mediation judgments on civil matters related to family disputes such as inheritance or divorce cases, review of fatwas issued on religious matters to ensure that they do not infringe upon the rights of individuals guaranteed under law; training for judges is needed. Websites and chat rooms need to be monitored and/or blocked to curb radicalization, as well as clamp down on the sale and distribution of extremist DVDs. Hawala funding needs to be monitored, including the use of cryptocurrencies on the dark web. Exchange of intelligence information and joint security operations must be undertaken across both sides of the border to flush out any remnant terrorist pockets.

Sixth — eventually, demilitarization is needed. This can be considered on both sides of Kashmir based on a phased approach once peace is firmly established, leaving sufficient armed forces to maintain law and order (including riot control) and counterterrorism on both sides.

Seventh — make investments and expect returns. India and Pakistan need to come out with a plan to invest in Kashmir’s industry, agriculture, services and tourism. There needs to be a budget and a new joint development body to execute these plans through both direct infrastructure investments, building institutions (such as popularizing high-yield agriculture) and lending via existing banks. It should be the same integrated plan with each country’s money being spent on their respective areas. Of course, central governments should recover these investments through taxes. The free ride for Kashmir has to stop in order to deal with the resentment that non-Kashmiris have for their tax money being used in mollycoddling Kashmiris who enjoy autonomy unlike most other states.

Eighth — establish the international border. Of course, the LOC would need to become a permanent international border in the context of the above (including Kashmir territory under Chinese control) legitimizing the status quo and ideally solving India’s other border disputes on its northeastern border with China in the same deal. India would need to make its peace with China on its Belt and Road initiative running through Kashmir, using it to benefit its half of Kashmir and the rest of India economically.

The full list of disputed territories in the area includes Jammu and Kashmir (also Ladakh), administered by India and claimed by Pakistan; Azad Kashmir — Pakistan-administered Kashmir, claimed by India; Northern Areas (Gilgit-Baltistan) part of Kashmir administered by Pakistan and claimed by India; Siachen Glacier, administered by India and claimed by Pakistan; Aksai Chin administered by China and claimed by India (India’s 1962 war with China was fought here); and the Shaksam Valley administered by China and claimed by India.

Ninth — create a role for the UN. In the context of an agreement between India, Pakistan and Kashmiri leaders and separatists, unconditional access needs to be given to the office of the UN high commissioner for human rights on both sides of the new international border. Both countries need to agree to act on any recommendations from the UN commissioner, wherever possible. Jammu and Kashmir has hitherto been treated as a “bilateral issue” under the Simla Agreement of 1972, albeit this only referred to the process of building a political solution.

Tenth — focus on building other bridges. Within Kashmir, engaging with the civilian population to get their buy-in for the peace agreement and to help them alleviate grievances is absolutely essential. A sustained campaign is needed, not a one-off effort, and to work it needs to be well thought through (involving social psychologists) and well managed. Beyond Kashmir, an economically resurgent India also has a role to help eradicate poverty in South Asia. Hence, a similar 25-year multiple-entry visa needs to be issued to prominent businessmen and other prominent persons (artists, writers, musicians) in both countries to cover travel, investment, trade (part of, but not a solution in itself) and working anywhere in India and Pakistan. Automated immigration services could be set up in key cities.

Eleventh — recognize that friends don’t fight. It obviously follows that Pakistan would need to give up its “bleed India with a thousand cuts” policy using proxies, and India would need to stop interfering in Baluchistan altogether. Both would need to release all Kashmiri political prisoners from their respective jails. Pakistan would need to remove extreme messages inciting religious hatred against Hindus from all school textbooks and cease all training camps for Kashmiri freedom fighters.

Twelfth — lead the transition with professional project management. Both India and Pakistan are notorious for their shoddy implementation of otherwise good ideas. What is needed is a systemic approach with a jointly appointed team consisting of professional managers, members of the civilian government, army and intelligence, with proper authorities responsible for information and transparent discussion of policies, identifying all the changes needed and rolling them out systematically. It also needs a high-level project governance committee consisting of the respective prime ministers, heads of the two parts of Kashmir, key central government ministers and army and intelligence chiefs meeting once a month via video conferencing to monitor progress.

The solution is as simple as we want it to be or as complex as we want it to be. It can take six months to agree or 60 years. But certainly without recognizing the existence of multiple stakeholders and having a time-bound negotiation, we can never expect to see peace in Kashmir or in the region as a whole. India’s approach of closing its porous border and treating Kashmir as a security problem is a short-term stop-gap solution that does not recognize the humanitarian cost, nor does it treat Kashmir as the unfinished business of Partition.

Pakistan’s approach of funding cross-border fighters is ultimately a piecemeal and failing strategy that achieves nothing long-term other than trouble for the local Kashmiri population. It remains to be seen whether both countries have the political will, wisdom and compassion needed for an actual solution. Thoughts, words and deeds have to come together for this. We cannot say one thing and do something else. To those who say that peace is never possible, please remember that no one could predict the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

Ultimately, the land being fought over in Kashmir is not as important as the people and their right to peace, security and to enjoy the fruits of development — to lead a normal life that we take for granted.

*[Updated: August 5, 2018, at 16:15 GMT.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Rudra Narayan Mitra / Shutterstock.com

The post The Solution to the Kashmir Conflict appeared first on Fair Observer.