Search

By Prof. (Dr.) Gulshan Sachdeva A trade pact with the EFTA nations — Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland — might serve as a template for India's potential trade agreements with the European Union and the United Kingdom. Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/india-efta-trade-pact-indicates-potential-for-larger-agreements-with-europe-2930904 Originally Published : Deccan Herald, 11th March' 2024 https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/india-efta-trade-pact-indicates-potential-for-larger-agreements-with-europe-2930904 Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. (Dr.) Gulshan Sachdeva is a Professor, at the Centre for European Studies and Coordinator, at the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

By Prof. (Dr) Srikanth Kondapalli Beijing’s continuing efforts to soften up Canberra and the latter’s predicament has implications for the emerging regional order, including for India Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/china-s-efforts-to-soften-up-australia-test-canberra-s-steadfastness-2899468 Originally Published : Deccan Herald, 18 February'2024 https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/china-s-efforts-to-soften-up-australia-test-canberra-s-steadfastness-2899468 Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. (Dr.) Srikanth Kondapalli is Professor at the Centre for East Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. Sameena Hameed By upholding the spirit of universalism and harmony epitomised by the BAPS temple in Abu Dhabi, India and UAE have made great strides towards peace and progress in today’s turbulent world Read More at : https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/india-and-uae-weave-universalism-and-harmony-in-abu-dhabi-hindu-temple-13737652.html #WestAsia #UAE #India Originally Published : The FirstPost, 17th February'2024 https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/india-and-uae-weave-universalism-and-harmony-in-abu-dhabi-hindu-temple-13737652.html Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. Sameena Hameed teaches at the Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

By Prof. Bharat H. Desai This short preface seeks to provide an update on the SIS Faculty Wall of Honor that was unveiled on January 27, 2024 by Santishree D. Pandit (SIS alumna and V-C of JNU). We have two parts of the Faculty Wall of Honor: Part – I: The Origin: From ISIS to SIS (1955 to 1970); and Part – II: The SIS Era (from 1970 onwards). For Part – I, replicas of two key legal-historical documents still need to be installed. It will be done as soon as they are procured from respective official archives. As regards Part – II, in the first row, there is still a vacant slot for S. Jayashekara. I am trying best to find his photo. No one has so far come forward to provide/find his photograph. It speaks volumes about the lack of institutionalized memory for former SIS faculty members. In turn, it vindicates the role of the Faculty Wall of Honor in filling-up this crucial gap. On both sides of the Faculty Wall of Honor, large size plaques have been installed in English (Dean Office side wall) and in Hindi (School Office side wall) as well as a combo plaque at the Centre-point. These plaques are self-explanatory (see below). The primary rai·son d'être for the SIS Faculty Wall of Honour is to: “collectively help the School to have a Wall of Honour to memorialize all the past faculty members whose contributions have made the SIS. In fact, all of us stand on the shoulders of those who sow the seeds and did the groundwork to the best of their abilities. By honouring these past SIS faculty members, the School would honour itself. As a pioneer of International Studies in India, we need to continue the SIS legacy of resolute scholarship, consistent traditions and empathy” (Desai note to CASR; April 19, 2023). On the right-side panel (SIS Era), 107 portraits show an unbroken chain of superannuated faculty members (year-wise) over a period of 50 years (1973-2023). That would, in effect, make a total of 120 plus portraits depicting the history of ISIS-SIS as a pioneer institution for International Studies in India. Hopefully, the pictures would speak themselves (res ipsa loquitur) both to the successor (current and future) SIS faculty members, the doctoral students and the alumni. By invoking their positive vibrations, legacy, energy and spirit, I hope and pray that the Wall of Honor would serve as a guide and inspiration for the bright future of SIS as a ‘think tank as well as a knowledge hub for International Studies in India. It is a modest effort, within all human limits, to bring to life the formidable legacy of all the scholars who built the ISIS-SIS. Hence, it is humbly dedicated at the altar - भूमि; भू: - of SIS. This article, an original contribution to the SIS Blog, is a part of the author’s new SIS Blog series on ‘Know the Pioneers’. Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai is Professor of International Law and Chairperson of the Centre for International Legal Studies (SIS, JNU), who served as a member of the Official Indian Delegations to various multilateral negotiations (2002-2008), coordinated the knowledge initiatives for Making SIS Visible (2008-2013) and the Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020) as well as contributes as the Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam)

By Md. Muddassir Quamar (Ph.D.) Signs of the potential widening of the conflict are visible with Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Ansar Allah (Houthis) in Yemen occasionally targeting northern Israel and Red Sea shipping, respectively Read More at : https://www.financialexpress.com/business/defence-the-crisis-in-the-middle-east-is-symptomatic-of-a-bigger-malaise-3365211/ Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Originally Published : The Financial Express, 15th January' 2024 Md. Muddassir Quamar (PhD) is an Associate Professor at Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

By Dr. Mahesh Ranjan Debata The claim that China 'gives equal weight to safeguarding the basic rights of citizens' and provides a 'guard against discrimination based on geographical area, ethnic group, or religion' is just the opposite of its actions against Uyghurs in Xinjiang and Tibetans Read more at : https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/how-china-persecutes-uyghurs-in-the-garb-of-countering-terrorism-13667032.html Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Originally Published : First Post, 29th January'2024 Dr. Mahesh Ranjan Debata is Associate Professor at the Centre for Inner Asian Studies School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Dr. Vaishali Krishna India's engagement with Russia's Far-East, which is rich in oil, gas and minerals, will become the bedrock of a strong India-Russia tie for decades to come. Read More at : https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia/vladivostok-to-chennai-between-india-and-russia-timeless-bond-exists/ Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author. Dr. Vaishali Krishna is Assistant Professor at the Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit The erasure of the INA and Bose’s contributions to India’s Independence is a wilful desecration of their memory and sacrifices. India is gearing up to celebrate the 127th birth anniversary of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose [23 January 1897], a leader whose contribution is central to India’s independence, but unfortunately neglected. Even more is the role of the Azad Hind Fauj or the Indian NationalArmy, which really fought the might of the British Empire. The INA fighters were given a very raw deal by the Nehruvian state. We are also commemorating the 75th Republic Day. This occasion serves as a moment for reflection and remembrance and a source of pride forevery Indian. Every such occasion of national celebration is an opportunity to honour our history and the sacrifices of the INA freedom fighters. It is these fighters who gave their all to fight militarily for India’s freedom. In an interview to the BBC in February 1955, Babasaheb Ambedkar elucidated the reason why the British left India in 1947. Subsequently, Richard Attlee agreed Netaji was the toughest challengethe empire faced. Several defence and intelligence experts agreed, too. This has been again substantiated by Ardhendu Bose: “It was not Gandhi’s peace movement that brought independence to India. The activities of Azad Hind Fauj and Netaji brought independence to this country and it was admitted by the then PM of England Clement Richard Attlee.” While it is true that history is often written by the victors, the danger arises when the narrative is incomplete. An incomplete history breeds ignorance; more importantly, it disrespects and insults the sacrifices of those left behind. The history of India’s Independence Movement is a grim tale of this reality and the dangers it brings. The omission of the Indian National Army (INA) and Subhas Chandra Bose’s contributions is not just a such perspectives to prevail could lead to the articulation of an alternative vision. What unnerved opponents further was how receptive these ideas could be to the masses. The Indian National Army cardinal error but a wilful desecration of their memory and sacrifices. Despite the INA’s remark able achievements, post-Independence India witnesseda deliberate sidelining of the INA and its charismatic leader, Subhas Chandra Bose. Disguised under the exigencies of nation-building and the imperative to forge a unified identity, their stories and successes were suppressed. Their narratives did not align with the chosen historical narratives that emphasised non-violence and political negotiation while eclipsing the significance of armed struggle and military prowess in securing freedom. As such, the exploits of the INA were relegated to the background as an inconvenient truth. Yet, why were INA and Bose relegated to the peripheries of historical discourse? Bose’s evident charisma and appeal caused apprehensions among the emerging post-British elites. However, attributing his influence solely to charisma and tactical skills would be an oversimplification. The crux of the matter lay in the divergent vision of India held by Bose and his contemporaries compared to the ruling dispensation. It is well known that figures like Sardar Patel had a different vision, illustrated in the consolidation of unitary bodies into independent India into the Bharat we know today. However, like Bose, these voices were sidelined due to the fear that allowing (INA), built by Subhas Chandra Bose on the broad frame work given by Rash Behari Bose, was the military arm of the League. Although Mohan Singh had angered the Japanese Army Command through his actions, they relented to form a second Indian National Army. Mohan Singh himself recommended Subhas Chandra Bose for the leadership role. His reputation as a committed nationalist was known to both the Indian diaspora of South East Asia and the Imperial Japanese Army. As such, they were more open to the idea of a nationalist army led by Subhas Chandra Bose. The activities of Subhas Chandra Bose in India had forced the British authorities to impris on him, but he escaped and reached Berlin in 1941. In essence, the apprehension of the INA as a potent military force frightened opponents to condemn it through unfounded charges lacking both merit and moral grounds. The INA and Bose, among the masses, were given less attention so that the role of those in power afterwards could be glossed over while their role was cast out. The INA embodied another vital element of Indian ethos—the value of sacrifice for the nation, a sentiment deeply ingrained in the Indian military tradition. It appeared that there was a particular disdain fora robust sense of nationalism and military strength, a sentiment that the Nehru government ironically supported and admired in other countries across the globe. What’s more regrettableand condemnable than the sidelining of the INA is their post-Independence treatment. The fact that the disrespect and persecution during the infamous Red Fort Trialswere never revisited until recently highlights the deep seated apprehensions within the post-British dispensation in honouring their legacy and contribution. The marginalization of figures like those from the INA and Bose reflects a broader trend in post-independent India, where numerous revolutionaries and even historians who dared tell their stories faced marginalisation. This alienation can be attributed to two primary factors. Firstly, although celebrated in their villages and small towns with statues and busts, many local freedom fighters struggled to gain recognition beyond their immediate locales. Their sacrifices and contributions remained confined to the local narrative. Secondly, and more significantly, those who played prominent roles in the fight against the British often found themselves at odds with emerging power hier archies post-Independence. Whether due to their lack of homage towards the selected few or their open criticism of the ruling dispensation, these individuals were systematically sidelined, discarded, and sometimes even demonised. The last decade has been a course correction and a resolute and unapologetic affirmation and acknowledgement of the contributions of INA, Subhas Chandra Bose, and many freedom fighters from Manipur to Kutch. The government’s efforts have ensured that the sacrifices made by these individuals are finally receiving the long overdue recognition they deserve. Even in his “defeat”, Netaji delivered a massive blow to the British rule inIndia. And then when India needed him the most, he “disappeared”. Today as we reflect, one may feel solace in the realisation that this legacy and history are not entirely forgotten but are being revived and celebrated. It is necessary to get the Russian archives opened to know what really happened to Netaji after 1945. The statue of Bose on Kartavya Path and the release of Netaji Papers stand as a testament to col lective efforts to rectify historical oversights and foster a more comprehensive and inclusive narrative of India’s struggle for Independence. #Netaji #INA Originally Published : The Sunday Guardian, 21 January'2024 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/omission-of-ina-and-netaji-a-tale-of-political-expediency-over-historical-legacy Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

By Prof. (Dr.) Srikanth Kondapalli President Xi Jinping has repeatedly asserted that unification is China’s “core interest” and it is increasingly seen as likely that he will make an attempt before 2027, the 100th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army. When Taiwan’s President-elect Lai Ching-te takes the country’s reins in May, he will inherit the onerous task of planning for the defence of the island against China’s plans to invade it and unify Taiwan with it – but with an intensity and urgency that his predecessors did not face. President Xi Jinping has repeatedly asserted that unification is China’s “core interest” and it is increasingly seen as likely that he will make an attempt before 2027, the 100th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army. China extensively used coercive diplomatic, military and economic tools to influence the election result. While Lai needs to address economic stagnation, growing generational divide, income inequality, housing price rise, ageing of the population of his island of 23 million people, uppermost in his mind will be how to counter China’s invasion plans, diplomatic isolation efforts, and economic coercion. China has become a strategic uncertainty for many countries. Lai especially needs to address China’s ferocious military drills around Taiwan, including live-fire exercises, naval deployments and air incursions. China’s diplomatic isolation of Taiwan seems to be working, with the latter now recognised by only 12 countries. Nauru switched recognition from Taiwan to China on January 15. “Chequebook diplomacy” threatens to raze through Taiwan’s economic and cultural arrangements with 59 countries. One scenario Taipei faces is of China-imposed trade restrictions and boycotts on not only Taiwanese but also global companies to weaken Taiwan’s economy and break its ties with other countries. Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/how-will-taiwan-cope-with-china-s-invasion-plans-2867775 #China #Taiwan Originally Published : Deccan Herald, 28th January' 2024 https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/how-will-taiwan-cope-with-china-s-invasion-plans-2867775 Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author. Prof. (Dr.) Srikanth Kondapalli is Dean of School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Dr. Sudeep Kumar Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has steered India-Japan relations to new heights through his transformative foreign-economic policy and diplomatic initiatives. Under the Modi era (2014 onwards), the bilateral relations have flourished into a "Special Strategic and Global Partnership". This achievement serves as a testament to the profound vision of Prime Minister Modi. At the core of this transformation lies three interconnected pillars: personal diplomacy, shared values, and strategic convergence. The driving force behind this partnership lies in the power of personal connections. Modi cultivated a warm rapport with Japanese leaders, including Japan’s longest-serving prime minister, Shinzo Abe. Abe's historic visit to Ahmedabad in 2017, and Modi's significant participation in the “G20 Osaka Summit” and “G7 Hiroshima Summit” fostered mutual trust and strengthened multifaceted cooperation. This personal connection also resonated at the people-to-people level through educational & cultural exchanges and joint business ventures. Indian culture and cinemas further solidified this human connection, creating a common ground for creating a bridge between the two ancient civilizations of the world. Beyond personal ties, a shared vision for a “Free, Open, and Inclusive Indo-Pacific” (FOIIP) cemented their partnership. Both India and Japan uphold the principles of “liberal democracy”, “freedom of navigation” and the “rule of law” for maintaining peace, prosperity and stability in the region. This shared vision led to collaboration on crucial issues like maritime security, counter-terrorism, and regional stability. Both militaries have actively cooperated in safeguarding the maritime routes by conducting joint naval exercises, sharing intelligence, and promoting freedom of navigation in the region. The alignment of national interests further solidifies their mutual concerns regarding the Chinese assertiveness in the region, which resulted in deeper cooperation in crucial areas like defence, intelligence sharing, and maritime patrols. The 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue format, established in 2019, has become a key platform for strategic coordination, while joint military exercises like “Dharma Guardian” and “Malabar” demonstrate the growing operational synergy between them. India and Japan signed the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) on the 9th of September, 2020, which facilitates logistical support for military cooperation, which enables their armed forces to extend supplies and services during joint military exercises, and disaster relief operations. This military cooperation ensures regional stability and empowers both nations to play a more important role in shaping the future of the Indo-Pacific. The economic engine of this partnership has been remarkably successful. Despite the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), there was a stalemate in bilateral trade. In 2016, the signing of the India-Japan civil nuclear pact eliminated Japan’s resistance to the Indian nuclear program, which triggered a surge in bilateral trade, exceeding US$21 billion in 2022-23. Japanese investments soared in sectors like automobiles, electronics, and infrastructure. Prime Minister Modi's focus on infrastructure development resonated with Japan's expertise, leading to projects like the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor, the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail Corridor, and the Dedicated Freight Corridors. These projects signify a milestone in connectivity for India's economic growth and development. India-Japan relations, as a partnership of the century, extend beyond bilateral interests and actively engage with regional and global issues. India and Japan are key players in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), alongside the US and Australia, advocating for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific. Both nations cooperate on climate change, disaster relief, space security, and cyber security, showcasing their commitment to tackling global challenges. Moreover, the collaboration in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, robotics, autonomous vehicles and renewable energy holds immense potential for both economies, driving innovation and sustainable development. Prime Minister Modi's proactive foreign policy and diplomacy acted as the catalyst for a transformative change in India-Japan relations. The personal touch, shared values, and strategic convergence have fueled a robust partnership that extends far beyond trade and investment. As both nations navigate the complexities of the 21st century, their cooperation will remain a vital force for stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. This partnership stands as a shining example of showcasing the shared vision for shaping a more secure and prosperous future. #IndoJapan #Modi #IndianForeignPolicy This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog Dr. Sudeep Kumar has worked in the capacity of Research Fellow at the Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi. He is a certified Japanese speaker and can negotiate texts in Mandarin. He completed his doctoral studies from ECNU, Shanghai and holds a Masters degree in Politics (International Relations) and a MPhil degree in Chinese Studies from Centre for East Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.  His specialization is in the field of International Relations and Area Studies particularly Japanese Studies, Chinese Studies and India's relations with East Asia.

By Dr. Rahul Mishra With the signing of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework supply-chain agreement in November last year, on the sidelines of the APEC summit in San Francisco, the United States took a major step towards establishing a regional economic architecture under its leadership, despite the initial hiccups that followed the IPEF’s announcement more than a year ago. By fostering collaboration among IPEF member states, the agreement aims to enhance the resilience, efficiency, transparency, diversity, security and inclusivity of supply chains in the Indo-Pacific. Washington has asserted that this will not only bolster the competitiveness of the region’s supply chains but also reduce costs, all while ensuring a stable supply of critical goods in times of crisis. The agreement encourages the parties to explore diversification strategies, streamline trade through regulatory enhancements and optimise logistics. The aims of the agreement are to pre-empt, prevent and proactively manage disruptions to global supply chains. Given the supply-chain problems witnessed during the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, which significantly affected the US economy and led to inflationary pressures, this is a prudent move. Economists have argued that around 60% of the surge in US inflation in early 2021 can be attributed to supply-chain constraints. However, the agreement’s implications extend beyond addressing supply-chain disruptions. It’s evident that the IPEF seeks to reduce member countries’ dependence on specific sources, prompting parties to assess their level of reliance on individual suppliers, countries, regions and geographic locations. While some commentators have viewed this as a US attempt to shift regional trade away from China, it can also be seen as a bid to secure US access to the Asian regional supply chain. Some also speculate that it could be a strategic move in anticipation of strained US–China trade relations. The IPEF’s emphasis on transparency and institutionalisation, and the ensuing commitments and obligations, is designed to safeguard the US’s economic interests, particularly in critical sectors and essential commodities. The agreement establishes a Supply Chain Council tasked to ‘assess capabilities, map supply chains, identify bottlenecks, and explore options for diversification of concentrated sources of supply for sectors and goods of shared interest’. It also sets up a Supply Chain Crisis Response Network requiring partners to establish channels and mechanisms to prepare for, prevent and ‘respond to, mitigate, and recover from the impacts of a supply chain disruption’. These measures are designed to ensure that the US retains access to vital sectors and goods, regardless of unforeseen circumstances. Setting these reasons aside, the drive to strengthen supply chains and engage various stakeholders—including industry, academia, the public sector and non-government organisations—should be viewed positively. These efforts are poised to result in more competitive and resilient supply chains. In addition, the agreement incorporates provisions to institutionalise the protection of labour rights. It establishes a tripartite IPEF Labor Rights Advisory Board, comprising government, worker and employer representatives, tasked with identifying and addressing labour rights shortcomings. Arrangements of this sort are present in countries like Singapore and Malaysia, thus making it more acceptable than the usual route for addressing such concerns under a traditional free-trade agreement. While much of the agreement employs broad language and non-binding terms (for example, the word ‘intend’ appears often), several commitments and obligations mirror those found in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, to which many IPEF member countries are signatories. Notably, there’s no mention of a dispute-settlement mechanism, a feature that could alleviate concerns about the agreement’s enforceability. Nonetheless, the creation of the three governing bodies implies a level of discipline not typically associated with APEC’s more relaxed approach. Leadership under the agreement will be critical, since the process will be driven by a rotating chairmanship. While the current US administration appears committed to this initiative, there’s no guarantee that this position will be maintained. Donald Trump has already vowed to kill the deal if he wins the presidential election in November. There are also questions about the level of commitment of other member nations. They may not show it, but for those IPEF members that are also parties to the CPTPP, having the US involved is advantageous. The main reason for some of them joining the IPEF was the hope that it would lead to the US rejoining the CPTPP. The challenge now lies in making trade a compelling domestic issue for them—a problem that the US itself faces. Some have suggested that the recent U-turn by the US on the IPEF digital trade negotiations reflects a retreat towards nativist protectionism. The US decision to abort plans to announce a partial trade agreement on enforceable trade rules is also seen as a sign of ‘the great American no-show’. But we shouldn’t set off the alarm bells prematurely. Washington’s reluctance to discuss some key digital trade aspects and its postponement of talks as a result doesn’t signify a withdrawal from IPEF. The provisions in question, some of which have faced criticism for potentially granting unrestricted authority to large technology corporations, might find favour among several members of the IPEF, especially those that seek the ability to oversee these corporations and manage data transfers. Similar measures have been implemented within the World Trade Organization as well, indirectly indicating that the current regulations in the e-commerce agreement are considered satisfactory. This seems to attest more to support for the existing architecture than a critique against it. Nevertheless, we can be forgiven if we have held such suspicions thanks largely to the US’s own actions in recent years. Whether the IPEF will cement the US as an important stakeholder in the Asian multilateral regional economic order will be determined primarily by the level of sustained interest and commitment from Washington. The Trump administration’s inward-looking policies and decision to pull out from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, mirrored in many ways by the Biden administration’s reluctance to join the CPTPP, have raised questions about the US’s credibility as a champion of free and open multilateral trade. The IPEF has the potential to address such concerns. The successful conclusion of the ASEAN-led 15-member Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which also involves China and Japan, put China in a more confident position vis-à-vis the US in the region. With the IPEF still at a nascent stage, it would be challenging for the US to mould its fine print and wield it directly against China. However, the IPEF stands a good chance to position itself as one of the key pillars of the Asian multilateral regional economic order in a scenario where China adopts more insular trade policies under its ‘dual circulation’ strategy. While that strategy may not be entirely inward-looking, its goal of protecting China from global economic headwinds by making it more self-reliant could entail localisation of supply chains within China. This could be the IPEF’s (and the US’s) moment to rechampion free and liberal trade values—provided Washington walks the talk. #IndoPacific #US #IPEF Originally Published : 15th January'2024, The Strategist https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/is-the-us-committed-to-strengthening-the-indo-pacific-economic-order/ Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Dr. Rahul Mishra an Associate Professor at the Centre for Indo-Pacific Studies, School of International Studies, JNU. Prior to this, he was Director of the Centre for ASEAN Regionalism Universiti Malaya (CARUM), and Coordinator, the European Studies Programme at the Asia-Europe Institute, Universiti Malaya. His previous stints include Foreign Service Institute, East-West Centre in Washington D.C., IDSA, ICWA, and R.S.I.S. Singapore.

By Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit Congress and Communists came together to manipulate the defeat of Babasaheb in the 1952 Lok Sabha elections from North Bombay. We are celebrating 75 years of the Indian Republic and the Constitution of India, especially its greatest modern icon, Babasaheb Dr B.R. Ambedkar, his life and work. Thinking of the way the Nehruvian State treated him is indeed an eye-opener. This makes any objective student ask if the Nehruvian State practise the cancel culture. It did when it came to Dr B.R. Ambedkar and many others. The reasons being several as we read from books written about him and especially the autobiography of Savita Ambedkar, “Babasaheb: My Life with Dr B.R. Ambedkar”. It is heart-rending to read how the Congress and the Communists came together to manipulate the defeat of Babasaheb in 1952 Lok Sabha elections from North Bombay. It took the seventh Prime Minister Vishwanath Pratap Singh to confer the Bharat Ratna in 1990 on Babasaheb. It took the Indian State 43 years after Independence and four decades after the Indian Republic to honour the man who gave it all. This is indeed cancel-culture of the Nehruvian State at its best. Babsaheb did not fit the Congress-Left definition of secularism. For them and the Dravidian parties it is only those whose criticise Hindus who are secular. Babasaheb did not fit that hegemonic definition of who is secular. Babasaheb was not only a strong critic of Hindus in his writings but was equally critical of all religions especially that of Muslims. He wrote, “The allegiance of a Muslim does not rest on his domicile in the country which is his but on the faith to which he belongs. Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin.” This was not acceptable to the Nehruvian State and he had to be cancelled, for he was really secular and intellectually a giant. Another thing that Babasaheb was critical of, was the Congress and its role in uplifting the Dalits. The “What Congress and Gandhi Have Done to the Untouchables” is a book-length study of the politics of the Indian National Congress by Dr B.R. Ambedkar, which was first published in 1945. The book undertakes a detailed investigation of the results of the elections to the Provincial Legislatures which took place in February 1937 under the Government of India Act 1935. Dr Ambedkar offers an insightful account of the lack of political privileges enjoyed by the Scheduled Caste candidates (over the course of the election) in stark contrast to the powerful, bourgeois-dominated Congress party. The work also aims at dismantling the misconceived popularity of Mahatma Gandhi as a “benefactor” of the Dalit population. Dr Ambedkar challenged the pretensions of the Congress Party as fundamentally representative of a unified India that accords equal respect to all the caste groups by citing the election results of 1937. According to Ambedkar, Gandhi’s social ideal was based either on the model of a caste system or that of Varna. Throughout his career as a political activist championing the cause of the downtrodden, Ambedkar remained strongly opposed to the victory of mysticism over pure reason. He straightforwardly advocated the emergence of modern machinery as tools that would liberate mankind from the brutish condition and open up a world of possibilities for those who have inhabited recesses of darkness and deprivation for the greater part of their lives. The five reasons as to why Babsaheb gave his resignation from the Council of Ministers of Prime Minister Nehru on 27 September 1951 were, one, the promises made by PM Nehru while handing him the responsibility of law minister was that the planning department would be given, which was not, neither was he appointed to any committee of the Council of Ministers. Two, the government was indifferent to the question of the Dalits or their status. Three, his opposition to Nehru’s handling of the Kashmir issue. Four, Nehru’s faulty foreign policy as he predicted India would end up with more enemies than friends. And five, Nehru did not live up to his word on the Hindu code bill. Babasaheb felt let down, for Nehru didn’t show the enthusiasm and the determination to get it passed. The worst way to cancel a strong leader who is a formidable intellectual was to manipulate and defeat him in the 1952 Lok Sabha elections from the reserved constituency of North Bombay. The Congress made this into a prestige issue and PM Nehru was personally monitoring through S.K. Patil and the communist leader Shripad A. Dange to see that Babasabeb be defeated by an unknown Narayanrao Kajrolkar. The Congress placed its reputation at stake and left no stone unturned that they played all the tricks of Congress and the Communists to defeat the Constitution maker and cancel his legacy. An inconsequential person who was no match in strength or ability managed to defeat the creator of India’s Constitution by a narrow margin [Babasaheb got 123,576 votes against Kajrolkar who got 137,950 votes]. In the defeat of Babsaheb, the Nehruvian hegemonic state in no uncertain terms stated that there was no place for critical, colossal scholarship, calibre or abilities. His role in modern India is unparallelled and yet he had to be cancelled by the hegemonic Nehruvian state. The Nehruvian State and its cancel culture tried to cancel all those who threatened their hegemony and one such leader was Babasaheb B.R. Ambedkar, a legend who finally wrote the book, “The Buddha and his Dhamma” and died in his sleep on 6 December 1956. No one could cancel him, he rose like a phoenix from the ashes of the Nehruvian State. On the occasion of the celebrations of the 75 years of the Indian Republic, it is time for every Indian to strive to fulfill his dreams of a. casteless and equitable society as enshrined in our Constitution to become a reality for a truly inclusive and innovative Vikasit Bharat in 2047. #Ambedkar #CancelCulture Originally Published : The Sunday Guardian, 28th January'2024 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/how-the-nehruvian-state-tried-to-cancel-ambedkar#:~:text=The%20Nehruvian%20State%20and%20its,sleep%20on%206%20December%201956. Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.