Search

By Prof. (Dr.) Gulshan Sachdeva Despite being primarily ceremonial, Macron visit highlights the growing camaraderie between India and France amid rising uncertainty in global geopolitics French President Emmanuel Macron is starting his state visit to India today from Jaipur. He will be the chief guest of 75th Republic Day celebrations in Delhi tomorrow. This is just after Prime Minister Narender Modi’s visit for Bastille Day celebrations in Paris in July and Macron’s  attendance at the G20 summit in New Delhi in September. Despite the visit being likely to be primarily ceremonial, it underscores the deepening bonhomie between India and France amid escalating uncertainty in global geopolitics. Growing India-France Convergence Last year, both countries celebrated 25 years of their strategic partnership. There is already a strong institutional mechanism for cooperation in defence, space, civil nuclear, renewables, cyber space, digital technology, counter terrorism, maritime security and the blue economy. Together, they have launched the International Solar Alliance and formed India-France-Australia and India-France-UAE trilaterals. There is a growing convergence on issues such as reformed and effective multilateralism, international terrorism, Climate Change, sustainable development, and the Indo-Pacific. All of these issues have already been captured under Horizon 2047 Roadmap agreed by both nations in July 2023. Despite being situated in different geographies and at different stages of economic development, Indian world view seems to have converged with France.  France is central to Europe’s economic and security architecture, which is based on European economic integration and trans-Atlantic alliance. However, the core of French foreign policy has been national identity and strategic independence. Macron’s Challenges President Macron aims to establish the European Union as a third significant force in global affairs, alongside the United States and China, by fostering strategic autonomy and emphasizing European sovereignty. These views align with India's inclination towards a multipolar world and the pursuit of strategic independence. Besides, France has now emerged as the second largest exporter of defence equipment to India. 36 Rafale fighter jets have already been delivered. A number of deals including more Rafale jets, submarines, joint development of combat aircraft engines and helicopters are being finalised. The Macron visit may accelerate some of these deals. At the moment France and Europe are worried about a possible second Trump presidency. Amid conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, coupled with a resurgence of the far right within the country, Macron's leadership in both France and Europe has also seen a diminishing of its earlier shine. Domestically, he is weakened by not having a majority in parliament. He has also faced criticism for adopting a more lenient stance towards both Russia and China, as well as for his comments on Taiwan. The conflict in Gaza has divided the already polarised French society. In an unfolding situation, the policy makers are struggling to determine a position on the issue. Ahead of EU elections, Macron has recently reshuffled his cabinet and tightened immigration rules. Macron is also visiting India when the consecration of Ram temple in Ayodhya and India’s shift away from secularism is keenly discussed in French media. The outcome of his India trip will impact his image at home. So the French side would like to see some new defence deals finally announced in Delhi. Making Macron’s Visit More Substantive The economic partnership needs some focus. Most large French companies have a presence in India and they have invested about $10 billion in India.  Bilateral trade was stuck at about $10-12 billion in recent years. Last year, it reached about $14 billion. We can definitely have much bigger trade with the second largest EU economy. As a key member of the EU. France is keen on an FTA with India. While the seventh round of India-EU FTA negotiations will begin next month, any early breakthrough is unlikely. Larger professional and student mobility as well as stronger civil society linkages are crucial to bring both countries together. A migration and mobility agreement is already in place and a target of 30,000 Indian students in France by 2030 has been set. While France is keen to attract Indian students and skilled professional, the  new immigration rules including student deposits and political mood in France and Europe may not be very conducive for attracting mobility While India-France partnership is old, the Rafale deal and Indo-Pacific narrative have made a qualitative difference in recent years. Differing perceptions on the Ukraine crisis has not dented ties. While Macron's visit is likely to reaffirm the significance of camaraderie between India and France; announcement of any new initiative or defence deal will add substance to the visit. #IndoFrench #IndiaFrenchPartnership #Macron #Modi #India #France Originally Published : The Money Control, 25th January' 2024 https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/opinion/emmanuel-macron-visit-reaffirms-indias-unique-and-trusted-partnership-with-france-12122581.html 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.) Bharat H. Desai Majesty of International Law As India celebrated her 75th Republic Day, on January 26, 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ; The Hague) pronounced its order for the Provisional Measures (January 26, 2024) in the Genocide case (South Africa v. Israel). The ICJ emphatically ordered that “The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention” as well as “ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts” and “take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide”. Thus, the beginning of January 2024 – alike 2023 – came with a glimmer of hope for the beleaguered Gaza Strip, a part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). The ICJ unveiled public hearings on January 11-12, 2024 in the case brought on December 29, 2023 by South Africa against Israel concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel). This contentious ICJ case ostensibly arose on the ground of ‘genocide’ even as another advisory proceeding on the OPT, on the request of the UN General Assembly (UNGA), is pending before the Court (see author’s SIS Blog Special; January 26, 2023). The fact that Israel chose to join the ICJ proceedings underscored the majesty of International Law. Israel has so far refused to comply with two back-to-back resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council (UNSC) [see resolution 2720 of December 22, 2023 (N2342487.pdf (un.org) and 15 November 15, 2023 (N2335902.pdf (un.org)] as well as the two resolutions of the UNGA [see resolution A/RES/ES-10/21 adopted on 27 October 2023 and resolution A/RES/ES-10/22 adopted on 12 December 2023].  After the oral hearings concluded (January 11-12, 2024) at the ICJ, the Court went into huddle to ponder over the proverbial provisional measures. It was coincided by thousands of protesters coming to the streets of Washington DC, London, Paris demanding an end to brutal war and the humanitarian catastrophe. “No one, not even The Hague, can halt war,” the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in response to the ICJ proceedings, said. (Indian Express, January 14, 2024 at 16). The ICJ Provisional Measures Order South Africa had sought provisional measures in relation to the Palestinian people as a group protected by the 1948 Genocide Convention (signed December 9, 1948; entered into force January 12, 1951; Parties: 153, as of April 2022).  Among the specific pleas, South Africa urged the Court to indicate “provisional measures” on nine counts that included: “The State of Israel shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in relation to the Palestinian people as a group protected by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, desist from the commission of any and all acts within the scope of Article II of the Convention”. Thus, the ICJ order in letter and spirit ordered Israel that it “shall” “prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this Convention, in particular: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group” [paragraph 86 (1)]. It reflects, verbatim, all the clauses except clause (e) of Article II of the Genocide Convention. For the total six counts of the Court’s order, all 14 regular judges including the President, outgoing US Judge Donoghue, took unanimous view. Only regular judge who voted against the Court’s order remained, Judge Julia Sebutinde (Uganda). Her Ugandan nationality immediately brought repudiation from the state of nationality (Uganda). “Justice Sebutinde ruling at the International Court of Justice does not represent the Government of Uganda’s position on the situation in Palestine,” the ambassador of Uganda to the United Nations said. Israel nominated Judge ad-hoc Barak also voted in favor of the Court’s order on two counts: (3) “take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide in relation to members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip” and (4) “take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip” (Provisional Measures Order; January 26, 2024). As a result, the stage is set for compliance with the ICJ order. Genocide as an Odious Scourge: 1948 Convention In the aftermath of the Second World War (1939-45), crime committed by the individual came on to the global radar screen. In effect, it brought a paradigm shift wherein International Law recognized ‘individuals’ as a subject (as compared to prevailing notion of the States being the only and exclusive subjects). As a result, the UNGA, by resolution 96 (I) of December 11, 1946: The Crime of Genocide, affirmed that “genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world”. The Assembly called upon the UN Member States to “to enact the necessary legislation for the prevention and punishment of that crime” as well as requested the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) “to undertake the necessary studies, with a view to drawing up a draft convention on the crime of genocide”. As desired by the ECOSOC, the UN Secretary General (UNSG), with the assistance of the Division of Human Rights and a group of three experts (Henri Donnedieu de Vabres, Raphael Lemkin and Vespasien Pella), prepared a draft convention along with a commentary (E/447, 26 June 1947). It was followed by special ECOSOC resolution 77 (V) of 6 August 1947 that proposed to proceed as rapidly as possible with the consideration of the question of genocide. The UNGA gave further guidance to the ECOSOC vide resolution 180 (II) of 21 November 1947 to continue its work on ‘genocide’. As a corollary, the ECOSOC by resolution 117 (VI) of 03 March 1948, established an Ad Hoc Committee on Genocide. It comprised national representatives (the USA, the Soviet Union, Lebanon, China, France, Poland and Venezuela). The Ad Hoc Committee prepared a second draft convention with commentaries (E/794, 5 April-10 May 1948). The 1948 Genocide Convention was adopted through the vehicle of the UNGA resolution 260 A (III) of December 09, 1948. It came into force on January 12, 1951 on the ninetieth day following the date of deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession (Article XIII). It graphically described genocide as an “odious scourge”. The preamble chillingly reminds that “all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity” and hence its primary rai·son d'être is to “liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required” (Preamble, para 4). In an interesting co-incidence, the global International Law discourse on the crime of genocide has returned to haunt the humankind in three recent contentious cases before the ICJ: (1) South Africa v. Israel (Provisional Measures; January 26, 2024); (2) Ukraine v. Russian Federation (Provisional Measures; February 25, 2022); (3) Gambia v. Myanmar (Jurisdiction; July 22, 2022); Provisional Measures; November 11, 2019). Tightrope Walk by the ICJ: Sifting through Political v. Legal In the above mentioned context, in the three ‘genocide’, the ICJ has sought to do a tightrope walking on the political and the legal sides of the cases. Still, it has expressed grave concerns on the systematic act of both State actors and non-state actors in carrying out violent acts in the conflict zones. For instance, in the South Africa v. Israel case, the ICJ observed that “It is gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups, and calls for their immediate and unconditional release.” (Provisional Order, paragraph 85). It shows that the Court has sought to steer clear of the role of the non-state actors (Hamas and others) in stoking global conflicts as well as their patrons. The primary obligation for the prevention of the crime of genocide remains with the State actors. Ironically, as seen in the three genocide cases, every State actor (Israel; Ukraine; Myanmar), has emphatically denied all allegations of ‘genocide’ cases. As the South African legal counsel sought to portray vivid description of both an ‘intention’ and the actual conduct in the conflict impinging upon the essential ingredients of the “crime of genocide” listed under Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Piecing together the evidence presented, the ICJ prima facie seems to have construed various actions of Israel as falling under the definition of ‘genocide’. The Provisional Measures Order (January 26, 2024) appear to speak for itself since the ICJ has ordered Israel to “take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of this (Genocide) Convention” [paragraph 86 (1)]. Though the vital questions of ‘jurisdiction’ and ‘merits’ are still far away in this case, the Court has rose to the occasion to uphold the majesty of International Law (as the principal judicial organ of the UN) by tying down the State of Israel with all the specific requirements [ paragraph 86 (1) to (6)]. As of now, having decided to appear before the ICJ, there does not seem to be any reason to doubt Israel’s compliance with the ICJ order. It remains to be seen as to how does the ICJ proceeds in the pending advisory proceeding on the OPT case including the Gaza Strip. It has emanated from the General Assembly resolution 77/247 of December 30, 2022 (adopted by 87-26-53 votes). The UNGA resolution explicitly recalled the previous UNGA requested ICJ advisory opinion (July 09, 2004) entitled: Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It has also demanded that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with the provisions of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention (protection of civilian persons in time of war) and cease immediately all measures and actions taken in violation and in breach of the said Convention. The UN Charter has explicitly conferred competence (Article 96) on the UNGA to “request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question”. In turn, the Court has competence under Article 65 of its own Statute to render an advisory opinion. The ICJ has, as the practice show, always provided an opinion sought by the UNGA and, in turn, it has accepted in letter and spirit the opinions rendered by the ICJ. Audacity of Hope In conjunction with and in the context of the Genocide case, State of Israel seems to be encircled in a web of a series of remedies prescribed by International Law. Hopefully, it will see reason by leaving aside the ghost of Hamas and return to the negotiation table with the Palestinian Authority to work out the two-state solution, as per the UN resolutions and as uniformly sought by all including the USA. At one level, it underscores the ‘actual working’ of International Law as well as the UN to bring about sanity and order in a troubled world wherein some two billion people, one-fourth of the global population, live in conflict zones. The connoisseurs of International Law and International Relations need to take positive and constructive approach as enablers by providing concrete ideas and show a beacon of hope for resolution of the root causes of conflicts for a peaceful future of the humankind. #ICJ #SouthAfrica #Israel #Genocide #Gaza #Palestine This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog and is the 9th article in the Author’s SIS Blog Special Series on the ‘Use of Weapons of War’. 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 Pooja Mohanty In November 2023, the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution for the Olympic truce to be observed for the 2024 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games to ensure the safe transit of athletes, office-bearers and authorised people- a tradition revived in the 1990s but dating back to the origin of Olympics in ancient Greece. The International Olympic Committee(IOC) President Thomas Bach speaking at the 78th UNGA session declared its title "Building a peaceful and better world through sport and the Olympic ideal". He pleaded for giving "Peace a Chance!" by embracing the Olympic spirit of non-discrimination, honest sportspersonship and peaceful coexistence with fair competition. The resolution was tabled on behalf of the French government while its Capital hurried to glam up to host the 2024 Summer Games. As French foreign policy under the Macron Presidency shifts gear to 'strategic autonomy', 'European sovereignty' and accelerates its bid to reinvigorate the French leadership of European Union; the 2024 Olympic Games are set to become a symbol of French resilience amidst an era of domestic crisis and global wars. The Paris Olympics Organizing Committee aims to bring the Games out of the conventional stadiums and into the cities. The digital renderings of event venues at iconic sites across Paris are breathtaking. The debutant sport 'Breaking' is scheduled to be held at a major public square Place de la Concorde and 'Beach volleyball' in front of the Eiffel Tower. But both locations have hosted multiple protests against retirement age reforms, pension bills, a rise in attempted femicide and femicide (over 120 cases were recorded in 2023), the new immigration laws and social division and economic decline in general throughout 2023 and into 2024, that led to multiple shutdowns and restrictions of these sites. Paris suburbs tell similar tales of riots. In 2023, the Nanterre police firing killed a teenager. While Macron rushed to condemn the incident, the dominoes of foreign policy and diplomatic repercussions had already tumbled. The USA, UK and China issued urgent warnings for travellers as violence ensued despite heightened police deployment. In the aftermath of the police killing, Macron had to postpone his state visit to Germany and skipped the press conference following the European Council meeting to rush home. Its anxieties remain embedded even today. Thereby, the 2024 Olympics is critical for the French endeavour to rebuild its fracturing image and boost 'Olympic fever' tourism. Sports remain a major instrument of soft power and foreign policy, with the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar being the latest case. When it comes to the Olympics, the entire diplomatic and consular machinery is geared to tend to visa services and host dignitaries including Heads of States and Governments. The French Olympics is estimated to host 15,000 athletes, 9,000 journalists, 1.5 million spectators at venues and 4 billion audiences through media (statistics exclude contingent officials and delegations). France has established a special 'Olympic Consulate' for handling visa processes for the Games. The entire procedure will be online. This is the first time in the European Union's(EU) history that visas have gone digital, and integrated into individual Olympic accreditation cards. This is EU's litmus test before Schengen visas across the EU go digital as agreed upon by EU Foreign Ministers on 13 November 2023. The herculean challenge is to prevent spillover of the war at EU's border into the Olympic Park. The "invader" Russia, for France and the international community, has been pointed as the only violator of Olympic truces, despite other crises continuing across the world. The 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea coincided with the Olympic truce for the Winter Olympics and Paralympics hosted by the Russian city of Sochi. In 2022, the Russia-Ukraine war broke out right before the Beijing Winter Paralympics opened despite the Russian sponsorship of the 2022 Olympic truce. While the Olympic truce is non-binding, diplomatic boycotts and bans have been achieved. Russian and Belarusian athletes were banned from 2022 Winter Paralympics by the International Paralympics Committee. This move that marked a departure from the Olympic values of political neutrality and universality. These sports 'sanctions' (including those for doping scandals) continued and Russian and Belarusian athletes are allowed to participate in the 2024 Summer Games as 'individual neutral athletes' only. Russia's response is reinstating the Soviet era 'World Friendship Games' in 2024. The International Olympic Committee has opposed the 'Friendship Games' for going "against the Olympic Movement's collective aim of maintaining the independence and autonomy of sport". There is no denial of the Games becoming a turf for political contestations, far from the 'autonomous' promise of the Olympic Charter. With memories of 2015 Paris bombings still afresh, non-conventional security is another critical area. 'Paris 2024' decided to move ahead with a new aluminium judging tower construction (with piecemeal design alterations) in Tahiti, French Polynesia where 'Surfing' events will be held despite vehement local opposition. The International Surfing Association has joined the opposition parade by highlighting the environmental menaces of the project and even providing alternatives. At the same time issues of labour exploitation during construction of mega-projects of urban development, Olympic and media villages led to the endangered, unsecured, underpaid and overworked workers (mostly undocumented ethnic minority immigrants such as Turks, Portuguese or Arabs) protesting and striking at event venues. At Porte de La Chapelle, all undocumented migrants were regularised following strikes. However, this is a rare case. The ground reality is at odds with Paris 2024's 'commitments' of economic opportunities, social inclusion, carbon neutrality and 'Legacy and Sustainability'. The UNGA truce resolution urges cooperation among member-states and national Olympic committees to "use sport as a tool to promote peace, dialogue and reconciliation in areas of conflict". The ideals of Olympism can serve as a model of conflict resolution and community building- reaching the negotiation tables 'faster', rising 'higher' than divisive forces and fostering 'stronger' bonds of humanity. But its practice stipulates commitment and trust of all, which is the Achilles heel of global relations. #Paris2024 #2024Olympics #Olympicsprit #Frenchpolitics #OlympicTruce This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. Pooja Mohanty is a Post Graduate student of the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her research interests include energy security, energy geopolitics and contemporary developments in Europe.

This Faculty Wall of Honour has been conceived, designed, built and dedicated at the altar of School of International Studies (SIS) by Bharat H. Desai, Chairperson of the Centre for International Legal Studies, SIS, JNU (Jawaharlal Nehru University) by virtue of the mandate (April 19 and August 25, 2023) given by the Committee of Advanced Study and Research (CASR): “the Committee requested Prof. Bharat H Desai to take lead in the matter and authorized him…for establishment of 'Wall of Honour' in physical mode”. The SIS Board of Studies (December 22, 2023) affirmed it and expressed "deep appreciation for the contribution and dedication". 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; 19 April 2023). The Faculty Wall of Honour comprises photo portraits (organized by the year of superannuation), years of service in JNU and primary area of scholarship of all the faculty members who build the edifice of ISIS (Indian School of International Studies) and its successor – SIS – as the pioneering institution for International Studies in India. It traces the 'origin' of SIS to the ISIS that emerged from the idea mooted in 1951 for pioneering experiment for “post-graduate research” and an “objective study of international affairs in India.” Recommendations of the committee of the Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA) comprising Pandit Hriday Nath Kunzru, A. Appadorai and others gave a concrete shape to the idea. It led to registration of the ISIS as a “society” and its inauguration by the then Vice-President of India, S. Radhakrishnan on October 03, 1955. In March 1955, University of Delhi “admitted the School to the privileges of the University for the purpose of preparing students for the Ph.D. degree” and in September 1961, the Union Government granted ISIS the status of a “deemed to be a University” under the UGC Act 1956. Finally, the ISIS merged with JNU in 1970.  A. Appadorai served as the ISIS founding director (1955-65). He was succeeded by M.S. Rajan as the second director (1966-71), who negotiated the merger of ISIS with JNU to be renamed as SIS. In the wake of its long journey since 1955, the School shifted base from Sapru House (1955-1968) to 35 Firozshah Road (1968-1970) to JNU Old Campus (1970-1989) and, finally, to the current location (since 1989) in JNU New Campus. The Faculty Wall of Honor is a sequel to and in the footsteps of the spirit of the initiative for Making SIS Visible (2008-2013) as well as aims to sensitize the SIS community about the pioneering foundational objectives, impeccable pedigree and scholarly contributions made by a galaxy of outstanding scholars over a period of 68 years (1955-2023) to usher the School into a bright future. It celebrates institutionalized unique Indian knowledge tradition in International Studies to address the global prolematique for India and the world at large. The Faculty Wall of Honor seeks to translate into action on the home front of SIS, the essence and spirit of Sanskrit adage:  विद्वान् सर्वत्र पूज्यते (learned are worshipped, everywhere) as well as gives effect to JNU's new (2023) motto: तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय (darkness unto light). As the existing corpus of SIS faculty members stand on the shoulders of earlier generation of torchbearers, the Wall of Honor seeks to resuscitate the life-time legacy of those scholars of yesteryears by invoking their spirit, energy and heritage for SIS to vindicate its role as the JNU 'think tank' to aid India (Bharat) in Ø addressing the contemporary challenges of international affairs. Ø  Unveiled on December 27, 2023 by Santishree D. Pandit, as SIS alumna & JNU Vice-Chancellor, in the presence of the Dean Srikanth Kondapalli, all the faculty members, staff and students.

By Prof.(Dr.) Swaran Singh Besides the US and allies, this weekend’s elections are relevant for regional powers like Japan and India As 19.5 million Taiwanese voters cast their votes this Saturday, they will not only be electing a new presidency and a new Legislative Yuan but shaping the future contours of US-China contestations and especially the future of their cross-Strait relations, with deep strategic implications for the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific region. To some extent, this has been the story since early 1990s when Taiwanese saw an end of a long-standing military rule by Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-kuo of the Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang (KMT), ending in latter’s death in 1988. This period had heralded a new era of local leaders and direct elections. However, with the rise of Communist China and its resultant rivalry with the United States, Taiwan has become a ping-pong ball in US-China power politics. The People’s Republic China, which does not govern Taiwan, claims it to be a renegade province and does not recognize any of Taiwan’s institutions. Meanwhile, the PRC’s insistence on a “one China” policy has over the years seen the number of nations that recognize Taiwan as sovereign nation shrink drastically. Currently no more than 13 small nations have diplomatic relations with Republic of China, or Taiwan. But the United States, which switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing during 1970s, remains most committed to ensuring Taiwan’s security. Greater credit, though, lies with the Taiwanese for making historic strides in various fields of technology, ensuring rapid economic growth. It is today seen as a superpower for production of semiconductors. All this makes the outcome of this weekend’s elections all the more determinant for the future of US-China power politics. China-centric electioneering For the last three decades, there has been little change in a clear China-centered divide between Taiwan’s two main political parties, namely the KMT and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The latter was set up in 1986 and propagates independence and stronger relations with the United States. Leaders of the DPP have often accused the KMT of being not just soft toward but aligned with Beijing. Disillusioned by this excessive focus on US-China contestations and cross-Strait tensions, another political party, the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), was set up in 2019 to highlight local issues such as women’s empowerment and the cost of living. In the presidential election, the frontrunner in opinion polls at this writing is the outgoing vice-president, Lai Ching-te of the ruling DPP. Lai promises to carry forward the work of the outgoing president Tsai Ing-wen and propagates sovereignty and democracy. Understandably, he is deeply distrusted by Beijing. Tsai’s eight years in power witnessed suspension of dialogue with Beijing, with the August 2022 visit of then-US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi marking the peak of their saber-rattling. Pelosi’s visit saw China unleashing its largest ever military exercises in the Taiwan Strait including four days of blockade showcasing its capabilities. This, however, made no dent in Tsai’s policies, with the last leg of her tenure marking her visit to Latin America with well-publicized stopovers in the United States that included interactions with American leaders. Upping the ante as part of his election speeches, Lai now explains China’s alleged interferences in the Taiwan election as nothing but an experiment that China may later repeat against other countries in the region. By comparison, Hou Yu-ih of the main opposition, the KMT, who is reported lately catching up with the DPP candidate, favors closer ties with mainland China by further strengthening their economic partnerships. On the issue cross-Strait relations, Hou advocates that Taiwan and the mainland belong to one China but with each side being free to interpret what that means – a view that is acceptable to the PRC, which has always propagated the template of “one country, two systems” for Taiwan. Then there is a third candidate, a former mayor of Taipei, Ko Wen-je, of the TPP. He focuses on local issues and seeks to find his space by appealing to young voters who may be disillusioned by the excessive China-centric rivalry between the DPP and KMT. He also appeals to increasing emotions of indigenization of politics with focus on issues of reviving the economy and reducing taxes and housing prices. Indeed, many Taiwanese believe that doomsday scenarios of a cross-Strait war have been exaggerated by US-China contestations and by Chinese and American commentators. US-China contestation The PRC, which treats Taiwan as a renegade province, has also evolved its narratives from liberation to integration of Taiwan, if necessary with use of force. China’s 2005 Law of National Succession, for the first time, officially authorized such use of force and it was reiterated most recently in Beijing’s August 2022 white paper on “The Taiwan Question and China’s Reunification in the New Era” that describes reunification being inevitable for realizing China’s national rejuvenation. President Xi Jinping’s speeches have reiterated it multiple times. The United States, on the other hand, only “acknowledges” (rather than recognizes) “one China” and does not endorse the PRC’s sovereignty over Taiwan. Indeed, at the time of its formal diplomatic recognition of Communist China, the US Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 promised ensuring the security of Taiwan. More recently, the Donald Trump presidency, which saw a ratcheting up of US-China trade and technology wars, initiated a new Taiwan Policy Act that was finally enacted in 2022. This act designates Taiwan as a non-NATO alliance partner, pledging long-term military aid of $4.5 billion during the next five years. Moreover, it upgraded the US Taiwan Economic and Cultural Representative Office to just Taiwan Representative Office, giving it a ring of a normal or quasi-formal US embassy. This period has also seen the US leading narratives and initiatives for reframing Indo-Pacific geopolitics and increased naval patrolling by the US and its alliance partners, though the Ukraine and Israel wars have partially distracted media attention away from this flashpoint. The current US administration of President Joe Biden has increased its support for Taiwan, approving new arms sales, sending high-level officials, and conducting joint military exercises. The US likely hopes that the Taiwan election will result in a peaceful and democratic transition of power, and that the elected leader will uphold Taiwan’s autonomy and dignity, and maintain constructive dialogue with Beijing. Washington also expects the elected leader to cooperate with the US and its allies on regional and global issues, such as countering China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea and in promoting human rights and rule of law, and addressing climate change and public health issues. Regional implications This weekend’s elections remain relevant for regional powers like Japan, which ruled Taiwan for five decades before, at end of World War II, returning it to Kuomintang-ruled mainland China. Even today, Japan remains Taiwan’s strategic partner, and Tokyo sees it as vital part of the larger regional security architecture. Japan has often expressed concern over China’s military activities near Taiwan, and supported Taiwan’s participation in international organizations. Japan has also enhanced its cooperation with Taiwan in various fields, such as trade, technology, culture, and defense. Japan likely wants to see the Taiwan election resulting in a stable and friendly government, and that the elected leader will respect Japan’s interests and values, and work together with Japan and the US to safeguard regional peace and prosperity. India has also expanded its partnerships with Taipei, with the opening of a third representative office of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Centre in Mumbai in addition to one in New Delhi and a second one in Chennai that were opened respectively in 1995 and 2012. This is where a DPP victory for a third consecutive term may see China intensifying its coercive measures against Taiwan resulting in more military drills, cutting off trade and tourism, and diplomatically isolating Taiwan. Western media have already accused China of influencing public opinion in Taiwan by spreading disinformation and propaganda. This will push a re-elected DPP presidency further toward the US, Japan, and other like-minded nations and become more suspect in Beijing’s eyes. If the KMT wins, which is not completely unlikely, it is expected to pursue a more pragmatic and conciliatory approach toward Beijing, thus putting an end to mutual provocations. At the least, it may resume dialogue and exchanges with Beijing hoping to ease tensions, and China may allow it an expanded market access and even reduce tariffs, to entice the KMT to accept the one-China principle and move toward unification. But the KMT exploring a balanced relationship with the United States and its Western partners will have its challenges. #TaiwanElections Originally Published : AsiaTimes, January 11th' 2024 https://asiatimes.com/2024/01/regional-implications-of-taiwan-elections/ Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorization of the Author. Prof. (Dr.) Swaran Singh is Professor of Diplomacy and Disarmament at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Dr. Monika Gupta Introduction The year 2024 is expected to be a year of possibilities, opportunities and huge geopolitical and geo-economic benefits for India. 2024 not just coincides with India's domestic political churning but also India's ever-significant positioning amidst global geopolitical challenges. As India gears for its 18th Lok Sabha elections in 2024, the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is yet again eyeing a firm electoral victory. This has been boosted against the backdrop of momentous victories for the party in the three major Hindi-speaking states-Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan in December 2023. If the BJP comes to power again in 2024, India's Foreign Policy can continue to pick up on the momentum it has achieved since the arrival of PM Modi in 2014. However, in case of any political shifts, which although appear rare, India's Foreign Policy will witness sharp turns and upheavals and could reverse the expected geopolitical benefits that India is aiming at. Looking at India's foreign policy in 2023, it has been an exceptional year of opportunities and challenges. With India successfully concluding the Presidency of the G20 summit in Delhi to India outrightly shining in sports, technology and space, 2023 has been a great year of opportunities. However, challenges have equally resurfaced from time to time for India's foreign policy in 2023. From India negotiating a balanced stance in the Ukraine-Russia conflict to India's positioning in the Middle- East over the Israel-Palestine conflict that was triggered by Hamas's attack on Israel, Indian Foreign policy has faced the constant brunt of global scrutiny. As these two global conflicts are likely to continue in 2024, it brings with it even greater dynamics of both challenges and opportunities for India's foreign policy. On one hand, India would want to build on the momentum it has picked up in 2023 under the Modi-Biden duo and strengthen its ties with the United States; on the other, India would continue to embark upon touching newer heights in India-Russia relations. However, China's proximity with Russia will remain a cause of concern for India. In the case of Middle-Eastern conflict, India has strongly condemned the terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel. At the same time, India has sent humanitarian assistance to the people of Palestine affected by the conflict. This is a pattern which will continue in 2024, reiterating India's stronger stance against terrorism and its consistent advocacy for promoting peace and brotherhood in global politics. India's Foreign Policy vis-a-vis countries due for General Elections in 2024 The year 2024 will witness the world's powerful and influential countries going for general elections, including India, the United States, Russia and a few European countries. The internal political dynamics in these countries and any change within, are likely to have an impact upon their foreign policy approach especially vis-a-vis India. In 2023, India's relations with the United States (US) touched newer heights under the Modi-Biden duo. PM Modi's state visit to the US in June 2023 was historic in terms of the impact it rendered on strengthening the bilateral ties. In 2024, the same is expected to continue owing to mutual vested interests of both countries revolving around trade, defence, innovation, the Indo-Pacific, countering China's influence in the Asian subcontinent, security dynamics, growth of the semi-conductor ecosystem etc. However, the return of Donald Trump to power in the US would impact India-US relations especially in the light of Trump threatening India with a 'reciprocal tax' policy and his anti-immigrant stance. In Russia, Putin is likely to remain in power due to the support of the state, the media and the majority of the general public. Having said that, India's relations with its 'all-weather friend' Russia will continue to evolve. Closer bilateral ties and enhanced levels of cooperation have been observed between the two countries in 2023 in areas of diplomatic visits, trade and economic growth, technological exchange and culture. The December visit of Foreign Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar to Russia has already set the momentum for 2024. In addition, 2024 will also likely witness intensification of Cold War 2.0 between the US and China on one hand, and the US and Russia on the other. This would be in light of the changing trends observed recently in the Indo-Pacific, South China Sea, Red Sea and the Ukraine-Russia crisis. Within the Indo-Pacific, issues like high chances of an escalating armed conflict between the US and China over Taiwan, the QUAD entanglement, China's growing outreach and aggressiveness in the region etc. could lead to significant geopolitical tensions. Similarly, the emerging China-Russia-North Korea nexus, the military build-up in the Red Sea and the subsequent interests of the global powers including the US, Russia and China etc. will all contribute towards the escalation of Cold War 2.0. Recently, as a consequence of the ongoing war in Gaza, the role of Iran through its Houthi allies has also intensified in the Red Sea, leading to increased US maritime presence in the region. Thus, the 3 C's of global politics- Conflict, Competition and Cooperation are likely to dominate the foreign policies of countries involved in Cold War 2.0. Against this backdrop, India's Foreign Policy towards these countries will be a closely observed calculated approach. Within Europe, elections in the United Kingdom (UK) towards the end of 2024 and the elections of the European Parliament in June 2024, would be of major concern to India. In 2024, India will be willing to seal the much awaited Free Trade Agreement with the UK under PM Rishi Sunak who, since his arrival in office, has fostered a closer India-UK ties. Similarly, elections for the European Parliament are expected to bring the dominance of the right-wing which in turn means a tougher stance on immigration and a less favourable approach towards the India-EU Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA). India's Foreign Policy vis-a-vis neighbouring countries in 2024 With respect to India-China relations, 2023 did not see any major development in relations. Though there was no escalation of border conflicts, there was no detente achieved either. From the Chinese President not attending the G20 summit in Delhi to closer India-US ties, have all impacted Indo-China relations in 2023. Periodic levels of engagements and consultations have been observed between the two countries but more so it revolved around diplomacy and commerce. Can India-China relations go back to where they were prior to the border conflicts of 2019? Can the aggressive outreach of China, particularly within South Asia, be limited in 2024? Can peace, dialogue and diplomacy dominate over competition, conflict and crisis? These are certain questions that are likely to redefine India-China relations in 2024. Within the South Asian region, India's foreign policy approach vis-a-vis its neighbours will depend a lot upon the internal political and economic dynamics of the South Asian countries. India-Maldives relations experienced a setback in 2023 with the election of a pro-Chinese leader in Maldives and with that 2024 brings greater Chinese influence in India's vicinity and the subsequent consequences that may emerge alongside. The recent cold conflict between India and Maldives, over personal attacks rendered by Maldivian Ministers on Indian PM Narendra Modi in the background of his visit to Lakshadweep, is further aggravating the ties between the two countries. With respect to Pakistan, elections are due in 2024 and there are huge chances of a coalition government coming to power. This is so because the two major parties- PTI (Tehreek-e-Insaf Pakistan) and PML-N (Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz) face major challenges in terms of PTI's popular leader Imran Khan being in jail and PML-N does not have a favourable public support despite the backing its leader Nawaz Sharif has from the military in Pakistan. Whatever the electoral outcome, India-Pakistan relations will depend upon the approach of the elected leader in Pakistan and how he balances that without affecting his dynamics with Pakistan's military establishment. The recently concluded elections in Bangladesh saw the return of PM Sheikh Hasina for her fourth consecutive term. Under Ms. Hasina, who hails from the Awami League Party, India-Bangladesh relations have been stable and cordial. Bangladesh is not just a neighbour but India's close strategic partner. The two countries share a long border and have vested mutual interests when it comes to social, economic and security avenues. Infrastructure wise- the road and river connectivity have benefitted both countries. In light of these mutual interests, the return of Ms. Hasina is definitely in India's favour. In 2024, India will be willing to further strengthen this bilateral relationship, thereby ensuring a secured eastern neighbourhood. 2023 for Sri Lanka mostly revolved around grappling with serious economic challenges. India-Sri Lanka bilateral ties towards the end of 2023 have raised hopes of revival especially with respect to the Economic and Technological Cooperation Agreement (ECTA) signed between the two countries. 2024 will witness bilateral relations converging further along these fronts. Meanwhile, relations with Afghanistan are likely to witness slow growth in 2024, as India still grapples to officially deal with the Taliban regime in Kabul. India's Foreign Policy vis-a-vis Global South in 2024 Looking beyond the zone of global powers, India's outreach in the developing world towards the Global South has been significant. From advocating for and admitting of African Union into the G20 to raising the concerns and challenges faced by the Global South on international platforms, India has worked to bring the voices of these countries to the forefront. In November 2023, India hosted the second virtual 'Voice of the Global Summit' (the first was organised virtually in January 2023) wherein the leaders of the Global South pledged mutual cooperation to deal with some common challenges including post-covid consequences, climate change, food and energy security, inflation etc. Importantly, India's leadership role for the Global South has been noted by the world and with that added responsibility, India in 2024 will have to spearhead the solutions to these notable challenges, alongside advocating "One Earth, One Family and One Future" in all its endeavours. Conclusion Having enlisted India's Foreign Policy approaches vis-a-vis different countries of the world, particularly where elections are due in 2024 and with respect to India's neighbourhood, it can be said that India is ready to embark upon a more steady, determined and salient foreign policy. No wonder 'national interest' and 'consistent growth and development' will form the key aspects of India's Foreign Policy, but it is not likely to be an easy ride considering the domestic political confrontations and expected global responsibilities. While entering into the Amrit Kaal, India's Foreign Policy is also likely to take a unique shift towards embracing "Bharat's Foreign Policy" in terms of reaching out to the globalised world by being deeply rooted and intact with its rich traditions, proud culture and ancient heritage. #India #ForeignPolicy This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog Dr. Monika Gupta is an Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Deshbandhu College, University of Delhi. She did her PhD from JNU from the Centre for European Studies. She is also a Commonwealth Scholar to the University of London and DAAD recipient to University of Wurzburg, Germany. She has received the prestigious Inspiring Indian Women Award in the British Parliament for being the Outstanding Educational Role Model. She has presented her views on national and global platforms including University of Oxford and Dublin City University, Ireland.

By Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit That the Ram temple in Ayodhya took nearly 76 years after Independence to build because of the uproar surrounding it, is totally unwarranted. The temples that were destroyed by the Islamist invaders and mosques built on their very site are never discussed nor the lives of the crores who were massacred as the genocide of Hindus. Even today one says the mosque must be rebuilt; but what about the temple that was destroyed and the mosque built over it? While Abrahamic faiths have their holy cities, Hindus have been denied in the name of secularism of the Nehruvian and Left variety their basic rights to have their asmita and aastha restored. For them secularism is the preferential treatment of all except the majority Hindus. By this definition one is secular if one criticises Hindus and is blind to the Abrahamic faiths. If you practise real secularism, that is criticise all, then you are branded a coward and a communal person. It is a moment of civilizational pride for every Bharatiya that the symbol of Ram unites a diverse people across continents. Ram is the symbol of the civilization where unity of Ram in a diversity of interpretations has fascinated us from several centuries. Every civilization is proud of its symbols of pride and identity and who are these detractors to deny that, while they themselves practise all forms of false consciousnesses? These individuals have, for decades, arrogated to themselves the right to define Hinduism as they deem fit and only as they deem fit. Two eminent distortions have the unique distinction of being among the most vocal and unrelenting voices opposing the archaeological results of the excavations in Ayodhya against the backdrop of the dispute over the land demolished at the erstwhile Babri Masjid. Another group are foreigners who do not know the classical languages but wax eloquent positions on Hinduism and Hindutva. Their whitewashing of the temple destructions that took place under Aurangzeb’s rule, their blatant misrepresentations of incidents from the Ramaya a through mistranslations and other important aspects are studied through a careful analysis of their writings. The Ram Mandir movement wasn’t just a movement for any temple. It was a struggle for a temple at the Janmabhoomi of Lord Ram, who is India’s identity. Over 3.7 lakh sacrificed their lives for this movement. This is reassertion of the Bharatiya identity, a pride, an announcement that the Hindus have arrived to be treated as equals with other faiths who have always hegemonically determined as to what they should define as who we are. 22 January 2024 declares we are ready to say what it means to be a Bharatiya and there is nothing to be ashamed of it. It is a reclamation and a reminder for each of us with our age old civilization that has been proven scientifically to be beyond 8,000 years. When the legal battle was won, it was decided that a grand and magnificent temple would be built in Ayodhya. It was also decided that the Ram temple shouldn’t be built by the government or any businessman like the Laxminarayan temple had been and became more popular as Birla temple. The larger society had fought for 500 years for the temple at Ayodhya, so it was decided that they should approach society for the construction of the Ram temple. It was a people’s movement, a democratic struggle against hegemonic interpretations of distorted history. As a grand temple has come up in Ayodhya, it will be a Ram Mandir of the crores of people who gave whatever they could. The masses have a stake in Ram Mandir, which is now their mandir of connecting tradition with modernity, continuity with change, realm with region and myth with reality. It is true that Hindus are not dogmatic. Hindus indeed are decentralised in the sense that Hindu Dharma is more a family of spiritual traditions, than a single path. The family of traditions that is today called Hinduism has a certain rootedness. That rootedness is evident outwardly in the Hindu’s sacred geography. This begins to culminate in specific important kshetras. These kshetras, spread throughout India, are held sacred across spiritual traditions of the country. It has created the very nation of India and it is this movement which is still the civilizational life force of India. When this movement ceases, Bharat as a nation will cease to exist. If Bharat as a nation ceases to exist, then India as a state cannot stand a decade. In fact, the destruction of the holy shrines in kshetras of teertha yatra have a more devastating impact on Hindus as a nation than for the holy shrines of the so-called Abrahamic faiths. For the Abrahamic faiths a holy site is historical. Its recovery or possession is a symbol of victory of the faith. But for Hindus the loss of a teertha kshetra is the very loss of a part of their civilizational life. The Ayodhya movement at its heart not only challenged the Islamist destruction of the temple, but also the neglect and systematic destruction in slow motion of the holy cities themselves by the Nehruvian state. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has become the redeemer of a nation searching for its soul and that is in the persona of Ram. The persistence of this idea reinforced by the imaginations of a people and as a ruler who turns his every working day into a renewal of the pledge and promise of an Amrit Kaal, is democracy’s most compelling story today. Those who are in a state of anxiety and panic will be left by the wayside. It has created the very passion of Bharat and it is this movement which is still the civilizational and national life force of India. Since 2014, PM Modi is the sole spokesperson of a civilizational state in search of cultural justice, his faith in the possibilities of Bharat, where he played the moderniser and the cultural restorer consolidating all social identities into the civilizational unity in the image of Ram the redeemer is a masterstroke and a paradigm shift. #RamMandir #Ayodhya Originally Published : The Sunday Guardian, 7th January' 2023 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/civilizational-connect-of-ayodhyas-ram-temple#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20moment%20of,fascinated%20us%20from%20several%20centuries. Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. (Dr.) Swaran Singh While globalisation is known for heralding faster cross-border movement of capital and people thus expanding their exposure and opportunities, these movements have become increasingly securitised, radicalised, gendered and sexualised. Like most other things, globalisation has pulled issues of human dignity out of their isolated, local spatial or cultural confines into the centre-state of global narratives. This has had both positive and negative outcomes: it has helped universalise various best practices as also exposed human dignity to novel instruments of discrimination and to other previously unknown fault lines. Globalisation has made our world increasingly awake to our interconnectedness and to its shared opportunities and challenges. It has also made sovereign states and international organisations increasingly engaged with ensuring human dignity especially through legal instruments for protection of human rights and humanitarian laws. Global conventions, courts and civil society interventions have made states obliged to meet agreed parameters on ensuring human dignity. But globalisation has also created newer challenges further exacerbating both narratives and initiatives about ensuring human dignity for all. It is in this fast changing backdrop that this paper examines the impact of globalisation on human dignity. It begins by briefly engaging with problems of conceptualising globalisation and human dignity which itself creates formidable challenges. Then second section explores into connection between globalisation and human dignity and how former has impacted the later. The third section looks at major milestones that world has achieved in creating universal standards for ensuring human dignity for all and it is followed by brief outline on world’s largest population country, India, and its challenges and approaches to ensuring human dignity. Finally conclusion section underlines the persistence of binaries of positive and negative spinoffs of globalisation especially those that have impacted human dignity related policies and practices. It recommends constant work in strengthening legal regulatory measures and mechanisms to ensure human dignity against this fast changing tide of everyday newer challenges that need to be identified and address in time and in full measure. Definitional Dilemmas To begin with, narratives and initiatives with regards to both globalisation in general and human dignity in particular remain mired in definitional dilemmas. In short, globalisation entails increasing trends of cross-border transactions, interdependence, integration of processes of exchange of goods, services, information and free flow of people and ideas. But spatial distribution of these trends have had variations of speed, scale and scope with varying acceptance and outcomes. Moreover, these trends have had their proponents (e.g. Jagdish Bhagwati) as opponents (e.g. Joseph Stiglitz) highlighting both their transformative and disruptive consequences. There are contentions on whether or not Western-led globalisation has made it into nothing but westernisation. There are also are contentions on its origins, nature and contours as also what it includes and excludes. Likewise, the mercurial concept of human dignity has also witnessed competing contentions. Varying, value vs. justice or law vs. morality based conceptions of human dignity from ethical, philosophical, political and legal perspectives make adjudication between various connotations frustrating. Most of its narratives have also remained culture specific. Broad western consensus remains around the belief that conception of human dignity had mainly evolved from Immanuel Kant’s ethical position of human beings being an end in itself; possessing inherent dignity. In simple terms, human dignity implies their inherent quality of being honourable and worthy. This leads to the notion that every human being is uniquely valuable and therefore ought to be accorded the highest respect and care to achieve his/her full potential. This Kantian notion of human dignity seek to disassociate itself from any indices of utility though this is where increasing western trends of commoditisation have come to be its most fundamental nemesis. In international relations, Kantian approach has been carried forward and expanded by school of Liberalism built around the axis of individualism that must thrive by creating conditions for liberty, equality, fraternity. Conversely, Liberalism also seeks to explore into conditions that could threaten human dignity or undermine it. Experts have identified four conditions in which a person can be stripped of dignity. These are: humiliation, instrumentalization, degradation and dehumanisation. Fight against such conditions has always been tough but recent trends of globalisation have created multiple new possibilities on how these four conditions can be accentuated and how these must be mitigated. Moreover, globalisation has witnessed these four conditions reappearing in many imperceptive new shapes and styles like internet bullying or ethical hacking etc. Pros and Cons To begin with, globalisation has clearly expanded access to information about diverse practices and perspectives on multivariate challenges as also various best practices and protection measures to ensure human dignity for all. But this has also seen emergence of borderless internet, especially social media, become powerful propaganda and misinformation machine. Likewise, globalisation has heralded a new era of economic empowerment thus enhancing human dignity but at the same time globalisation remains associated with growing inequalities of income and opportunity both within and between nations thereby undermining dignity of those ‘left behind’ while igniting their unfulfilled expectations. Without doubt, globalisation has facilitated poverty alleviation efforts in multiple countries with impressive results yet, at the same time, it has exposed citizens of less developed nations to the economic exploitation by rich industrialised countries. Western multinational corporations are often accused of opting for poorer wages and poor working conditions as they seek to outsource their menial and manufacturing jobs to such distant places. Globalisation has facilitated great cross-country flows of populations resulting in exposure to different cultures thereby reinforcing the naturalness of cultural diversities. But concerns have also been raised about potential homogenisation with loss of cultural diversity with rise of singular dominant globalised, Western-centric, values. Globalisation promoting pursuit for pure material growth has witnessed disregard for nature resulting in widespread environmental degradation and climate crisis. First, this has affected traditional communities’ livelihoods pushing them to the margins; indeed making them victims of market and profit-driven industrialisation and urbanisation models of development. This is where multinational corporations have replaced local crafts, trades and industries that can easily co-exist. Indeed such material pursuits of globalisation have triggered climate crisis threatening life itself. Especially least developed countries, that are least responsible for greenhouse gases as also least capable in addressing climate crisis, have become its main victims with rising sea levels threatening to simply drown small island states. Long promised transfers of technology and finance from advanced industrialised countries — that are primarily responsible for climate crisis — have remain a pipe dream adding a new category of climate refugees or displaced persons in their own country. Cyberspace, that often reflects the realities of extant social structures, has also since 1990s come to be one new arena witnessing instances of both empowerment and discrimination. However, given its excessive focus on State- and data-security or sometimes on right to privacy, there have been hardly any provisions for ensuring human dignity in cyberspace. Result? Cyber insecurities for minorities or marginalised sections like blacks, LGBTQI, even young and women have lately become part of human dignity discourses. Then there are Dalits and Adivasis that was originally an issue limited to Indian subcontinent but has become global with over 25 million people of Indian ethnic origin now living around the world. In absence of global initiatives, cyber platforms have seen a few civil society initiatives that have sought to highlight and address these inflictions on human dignity. CasteistTwitter or International Dalit Solidarity Network provide two apt examples for this. The most promising outcome of globalisation is that increasing global connectivity and consciousness about opportunities and discriminations on the basis of race, colour, class, language, ethnicity, gender etc have become part of global narratives. This has made sovereign states increasingly circumscribed and guided by global benchmarks for ensuring human dignity though there still remain disjunctions given their contestations and their varying interpretations on each of these globally agreed indices of human dignity. Measures taken Evolution of humankind has been a sojourn striving to ensure human dignity in face of persistent and emerging new challenges. It is in this long sojourn that the history of modern nation-states since 17th century saw narratives shifting from religious-ethnical to politico-legal provisions and perspectives becoming the guiding light. Over the years, therefore, legal protections for human dignity have been incrementally enacted by various states and international organisations like the United Nations, its organs and agencies. Also, human rights and humanitarian laws have come to be seen as most agreed instruments that both flow from as also ensure protection of human dignity. But globalisation has also seen rise in formidable new threats to human dignity in terms of gross violations of human rights and humanitarian laws on everyday basis. Ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza provide immediate examples of such dehumanisation. Amongst various measures for ensuring human dignity for all, the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights remains the most powerful central axis for all such efforts worldwide. This declaration had evolved in the backdrop of unprecedented violence against innocent civilians during the first half of 20th century and it had put the onus on nation-states that were now seen primarily responsible for ensuring human dignity for their citizens. Article 1 of this declaration reads: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Similarly from middle of 19th century international humanitarian laws (that resulted from conferences in Brussels, Geneva, Hague etc.) had come to recognise the centrality of human dignity principles though the formal expression of humanitarian laws appeared only in 1950s. Similarly, at the end of Cold War, the June 1998 United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court had adopted Rome Statute creating such a court for this purpose of ending such impunity of national leaders. It was brought into force in July 2002 with 60th country ratification and has since heard several cases against war crimes, genocide, crime against humanity and crimes of aggression. In July 2000, the UN Economic and Social Council set up a Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues. This had brought focus on issues of indigenous people (e.g. First Nations) and minorities and their right to their culture, spirituality, language, tradition, intellectual properties and forms of self-governance to the global centre-stage. But the most revolutionary change in international relations engagement with human dignity came in year 2001. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty that was set up in September 2000 for addressing humanitarian crisis. In its 2001 report it had created a Responsibility to Protect doctrine authorising UN Security Council to militarily intervene if a state was not able to provide security to its citizens facing conditions of ethnic cleansing or genocide etc. This was first time in the history of oder nation-state that human dignity was clearly privileged over the sanctity of state sovereignty. More recently, pandemic also reinforced the inherent shared destiny of humankind as it saw coronavirus undoing man-made territorial borders. While it revealed pious sentiments of world coming together to ensure human dignity, it also betrayed instances of disregard for human dignity with law of jungle prevailing in several locations. Especially, lack of pathogen-specific treatment saw nations, for several months, relying on preventive measures (e.g. lockdowns, travel bans, preventive medicines). This showed how social practices and legal mechanisms for ensuring human dignity had remained skewed and fragile. In several instances, prevention and care were often viewed from the prism of citizens falling into categories based on privilege and hierarchy. India: half glass full With the 21st century global focus shifting to the Asia-Pacific, alternative narratives on human dignity from Asia have become part of the mainstream (read western) comparative dignity jurisprudence and other religious and philosophical discourses. Amongst these comparative narratives on human dignity, writings and experiments of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr B.R. Ambedkar in ensuring dignity for India’s untouchables have drawn great interest of such experts world over. Moreover, India being world’s largest population country, fastest growing economy slated to become world’s third largest by 2030 and a continuing ancient civilisation for 5,000 years that has now witnessed explosive social transformation makes its opportunity and challenges for human dignity even more complex case for scrutiny. India’s unique ancient traditions and fault lines determining state of human dignity even today remain bound by several unique old and outdated legacies like Caste, Dalits, Adivasis etc. Accordingly, during late 1940s debates, the makers of India’s constitution — driven by India’s prolonged freedom struggle against subjugation and discrimination — had anticipated the notion of human dignity in empowerment of their people; especially India’s vulnerable sections like untouchables, tribals, minorities, women etc. As a result, the Preamble of India’s constitution begins with ‘We the People…” and swears to ensure equality, liberty, fraternity for all followed by detailed chapters on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. Last 75 years have seen hundred plus constitutional amendments to make it more inclusive and effective in ensuring human dignity. But like rest of the world India also continues to struggle with challenges in addressing the gaps between its practices and prophecies and with its struggle to resolve various anomalies in its social, political and legal beliefs, practices and institutions. Especially, India’s recent economic rise and rapid social transformation have introduced new divides between rich and poor, urban and rural, elite and folk while the old social segregations based on caste, language, region, religion etc. have not been completely eliminated. This is where the innovative approach of Judicial-Activism of India’s courts and dedicated of some non-governmental organisations has earned them distinctions for their contribution to ensuring human dignity for all. Indian Supreme Courts September 2018 judgement striking down section 377 of Indian Penal Code to decriminalise same sex relations between consenting adults provides one such apt example though this remains but work in progress. Conclusion As change has been the only permanent reality; each epoch of human history has had its own unique story of fights for ensuring human dignity. First phase of globalisation that modern historian believe began with gold rush, slave trade and industrial revolution of early 1800s had surely exacerbated challenges to human dignity policies and practices. Kantian narratives debates on his Theory of Moral Philosophy had coincided around same time highlighting centrality of human dignity in human affairs. Since then, a multitude of broad definitions and legal instruments and arrangements have continued to grow to ensure human dignity mainly through instrumentalities of human rights and humanitarian laws. But ensuring human dignity requires much deeper change and internalising the inherent nature of human dignity while also working for improving existing practices and perceptions. Without doubt, the current phase of globalisation has universalised both recognition of the centrality as also of challenges for human dignity thus making it once more acutely challenging and complicated. While globalisation is known for heralding faster cross-border movement of capital and people thus expanding their exposure and opportunities, these movements have become increasingly securitised, radicalised, gendered and sexualised. While technology has empowered masses, world’s wealth and power have become far more centralised in the hands of global elites resulting in widespread groundswell of grievances of those ‘left behind’ often resulting violence becoming increasingly imperceptive and unending. In many ways these constant and invisible violations of human dignity have further strengthened culture of repression, oppression and exploitation. While overall opportunities and awareness have expanded incrementally yet the gap between the powerful and disempowered has also increased, or at least the awareness about has surely increased, thus keeping goal of human dignity for all in sight yet far. #Globalisation #HumanDignity #HumanRights Originally Published : International Affairs Review, January 3'2024 https://internationalaffairsreview.com/2024/01/01/globalisation-and-its-impact-on-human-dignity/ Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorization of the Author. Prof. Swaran Singh is visiting professor at the University of British Columbia, fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute in Calgary, Alberta, and professor of diplomacy and disarmament at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit Two archaeological excavations, Rakhigarhi and Keeladi, have demolished two major myths of the Aryan invasion/migration theory and the Aryan/Dravidian divide or the North-South divide. “Power is knowledge.”- Michael Focault “The AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory) is based purely on linguistic conjectures which are unsubstantiated.”Klostermaier, A Survey of Hinduism, 2007, p. 21. The National Education Policy (NEP 2020) has raised the aspirations of all stakeholders, calling for a pursuit of a holistic architecture of knowledge. The most important being how the nationalist epistemic community is going to construct the Bharatiya narrative architecture. The Left and Nehruvians cleverly followed the policy of the invaders and the colonials. While the Islamist iconoclasts straightaway attacked temples, looted, plundered and committed rape, the British were more cunning as they systematically lowered the values of these holy cities in the state machinery and in the commercial empire they built. And these false conjectures have been put into textbooks at all levels. Advances in science and the tools it provided exposed the false interpretations. Two such archaeological excavations—Rakhigarhi and Keeladi—have demolished two major myths they constructed. One the Aryan invasion/migration theory and the Aryan/Dravidian divide or the North-South divide. Rakhigarhi is a village and an archaeological site belonging to the Indus Valley civilisation in Hisar district of the Indian state of Haryana, situated about 150 km northwest of Delhi. It was part of the mature phase of the Indus Valley civilisation, dating to 2600-1900 BCE. The Aryan invasion theory of the Left historians has been debunked. Also called the Indo-Aryan migration theory, it is part of a larger theoretical framework of downgrading the Ancient Indic Civilization as being established by invaders. This framework explains the similarities between a wide range of contemporary and ancient languages. It combines linguistic, archaeological and anthropological research. This provides an overview of the development of Indo-European languages, and the spread of these Indo-European languages by migration and acculturation. This was a colonial project. The research—published in Cell, one of the world’s top journals—not only sets aside the Aryan migration theory but also notes that the hunter-gatherers of Southeast Asia changed into farming communities on their own and were the authors of the Harappan population. It demolishes the hypothesis about mass human migration during Harappan time from outside South Asia or before, said V.S. Shinde, an archaeologist at Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute in Pune and one of the lead authors of the study. The Rakhigarhi samples do have traces of genes of Iranian lineage. However, the antiquity of such genes is 11,000-12,000 years, way before the Harappan civilisation. Since 7000 BCE, there is no evidence of the South Asian genes being mixed with the Central Asian genes. “Research showed the Vedic culture was developed by the indigenous people of South Asia,” Shinde asserted. The knowledge of agriculture was indigenous as the pre-historic hunter-gatherer learnt how to do farming. Neraj Rai, a scientist at the Birbal Sahani Institute of Paleobotany, Lucknow, and Rai said the research also pointed towards an “Out of India” theory around 2500-3000 BCE. The evidence comes from a related study by the same set of researchers, published simultaneously in the journal Science on Friday. The Rakhigarhi woman’s genome matched those of 11 other ancient people who lived in what is now Iran and Turkmenistan at sites known to have exchanged objects with the Indus Valley Civilisation. All 12 had a distinctive mix of ancestry, including a lineage related to Southeast Asian hunter-gatherers and an Iranian-related lineage specific to South Asia. The Indus Valley Civilisation, which at its height from 2600 to 1900 BCE covered a large swath of north western South Asia, was one of the world’s first large-scale urban societies. IIT Kharagpur released its 2022 calendar, “Recovery of the Foundations of Indian Knowledge Systems”, in which among the various topics (some of which are controversial and bound to raise some hackles) one is on: “Why an Aryan invasion myth was forged” (September 2022). Some of the reactions on social media were negative about the topics chosen and some “mistakes” were pointed out based more on ideological differences. All those who were completely okay for many years with distortions and false information being fed to children and adults alike in the name of history, are suddenly raising their voices on seeing actual historical data and evidence being presented to the common people. Keeladi could also provide crucial evidence for understanding the missing links of the Iron Age (12th century BCE to sixth century BCE) to the Early Historic Period (sixth century BCE to fourth century BCE) and subsequent cultural developments. The similarity of the Tamil Brahmi script to the Indus Valley Brahmi script shows the Indus valley inhabitants as those who did outward migration instead the reverse being suggested. The great Indian divide along north-south lines now stands blurred. A pathbreaking study by Harvard and indigenous researchers on ancestral Indian populations says there is a genetic relationship between all Indians and more importantly, the hitherto believed “fact” that Aryans and Dravidians signify the ancestry of North and South Indians might after all, be a myth.“This paper rewrites history… there is no north-south divide,”’ Lalji Singh, former director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) and a co-author of the study concluded. Senior CCMB scientist Kumarasamy Thangarajan said there was no truth to the Aryan-Dravidian theory as they came hundreds or thousands of years after the ancestral North and South Indians had settled in India. The study analysed 500,000 genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 diverse groups from 13 states. All the individuals were from six-language families and traditionally “upper” and “lower” castes and tribal groups. “The genetics proves that castes grew directly out of tribe-like organizations during the formation of the Indian society,” the study said. Thangarajan noted that it was impossible to distinguish between castes and tribes since their genetics proved they were not systematically different. A holistic and interdisciplinary approach has exposed the Nehruvian-Left lobby, who manufactured history and narratives for some persons and purposes. #NEP2020 Originally Published : The Sunday Guardian, 31st December' 2023 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/how-science-exposes-the-left-distorians Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai On December 27, 2023, the School of International Studies (SIS) of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) witnessed the unveiling of the ‘Wall of Honour’ as an ode to all the former faculty members. The SIS alumna and JNU V-C, Santishree D. Pandit and the SIS Dean, Srikant Kondapalli, joined the faculty on this historic moment. Resembling an ‘art gallery’, the Wall of Honor comprises photo portraits (arranged superannuation year wise) of some 120 faculty members who build the edifice of ISIS (Indian School of International Studies) and its successor – SIS – as the pioneering institution for International Studies in India. It became a touching moment to look back at the past journey of SIS from its ISIS days to look ahead into the future. The ISIS was established as a registered society on October 03, 1955 by the Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA). In the wake of the 68 years long journey, the School has shifted base from Sapru House (1955-1968) to 35 Firozshah Road (1968-1970) to JNU Old Campus (1970-1989) and, finally, to the current location (since 1989) in JNU New Campus. The Wall of Honour: Mandate and Motivation On the basis of the proposal mooted by this author on April 19, 2023, the School’s Committee of Advanced Study (CASR) gave him a mandate to design and install the SIS Faculty Wall of Honor. It was reaffirmed in CASR decision of August 25, 2023 thus: “the Committee requested Prof. Bharat H Desai to take lead in the matter and authorized him…for establishment of ‘Wall of Honour’ in physical mode”. As indicated in this author’s concept note (August 25, 2023), the rai·son d'être for the Faculty Wall of Honour is to: “collectively help the School to have a Wall of Honour to memorialise 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 legacy of resolute scholarship, consistent traditions and empathy”. In the course of my interactions, several colleagues sought ‘exclusion’ of some from the Wall of Honour on the ground that "so and so did this" (in appointments, promotions, refusal to permit leave, not allowing foreign visits, use of false inquiries or use of students as targets etc.).  This author has also personally suffered deep scars caused by some of the SIS colleagues. Notwithstanding all, since we can't undo the past, the author reasoned that such people were only humans (not infallible). It matters that one survives and is still able to make scholarly contribution. It’s a professional hazard faced by all the teachers especially those who do not take vocation as a mundane job (to earn money). In a pioneering institution for International Studies in India, it made great sense to put into place an institutionalized positivity, a source of inspiration and a healing process. Hence, it was a fitting tribute to have the ‘living’ scholarly gallery that displays a photo, duration (years of joining and leaving) and one-line specialization of every former faculty member of SIS (and some from the ISIS) to be on the Wall of Honour. Due to lack of tradition to keep complete faculty records, this author faced a big challenge to procure even a photo and duration of many of the former faculty members. In a similar ideational initiative, the author was engaged in SIS ‘visibility’ initiative during 2008-2013. It comprised an arduous process that gave shape to the idea by curating 46 monthly faculty meetings over a period of full 5 years – Making SIS Visible (2008-2013). Hence, after a gap of 10 years (2013-2023), it made great sense to once again conceive and design the SIS Faculty Wall of Honour. It is a sequel and in the footsteps of the spirit of Making SIS Visible. Hopefully, the Wall of Honour would sensitise the SIS community about the pioneering foundational objectives, impeccable credentials, legacy and contribution made by a galaxy of scholars over a period of 68 years. As this author explained in his remarks (on December 27, 2023 unveiling), the SIS Wall of Honour is a result of that powerful logic and 'audacity of hope' for a bright future for the author’s own home turf – the SIS. In effect, it became an ode to the land - भूमि; भूः – of SIS. From ISIS to SIS: Merger with JNU In the wake of the pioneering experiment for the “objective study of international affairs in India”, it was proposed in 1951 to start the SIS for post-graduate research. A committee comprising Pandit Hriday Nath Kunzru, G.S. Mahajani, D.R. Gadgil, N.V.Gadgil, K.M.Panikkar, B.C. Ghose and A. Appadorai was set up to examine the proposal. The Committee’s recommendations were considered by the ICWA’s executive committee. They were duly processed by the University of Delhi (DU), Ministry of Education and University Grants Commission. It was approved by DU in March 1955 and “admitted the School to the privileges of the University for the purpose of preparing students for the Ph.D. degree”. As a corollary, the pioneering effort for the ISIS became a reality upon its registration as a “society” (under the Societies Registration Act of 1860). The idea, the process and the vehicle used were unique at the time. The then Vice-President of India, S. Radhakrishnan inaugurated the ISIS on October 3, 1955. In September 1961, the Union Government granted ISIS the status of a “deemed to be a University” under the UGC Act 1956. Once again, the status of the School changed when it had to merge, in 1970, with the newly established JNU. A futuristic approach could be seen in the rigorously designed original structure that enabled the ISIS to generate outstanding pioneers. Some contours of it can be visible even today in the successor SIS. In a three-year Ph.D. program, the students were to be given instruction in the first year in courses as follows: (1) International Organization (2) International Law (3) History and institutions of one of the regions: East Asia; Southeast Asia; South Asia; West Asia; United States (4) One language of the selected region for study (5 & 6) Two of the following: Geography; International Economics, International Relations (20th century at the time); Modern Indian History. In the second year, it was followed by preliminary work on the subject selected for thesis. Finally, the third year was to be devoted for completion of the Ph.D. thesis. Apart from study of the language specific to an area study, a field trip was an integral part of the doctoral program. This ISIS tradition for a field trip was carried forward for decades by SIS (when ISIS merged with JNU in 1970) till the funding support dried up. This author vividly recalls the story told by his supervisor (Rahmatullah Khan who joined ISIS in 1965) about (Khan’s) voyage on board a ship (duly facilitated by Khan’s doctoral supervisor Nagendra Singh, ISIS visiting professor and then Director-General of Shipping) to New York for a field trip to the UN headquarters. Since, as an academic discipline, International Studies was new in India and due to paucity of expertise to teach the subjects, ISIS reached out to the best scholars abroad by inviting them for short durations as much as possible. This author learned from his second teacher R.P. Anand (who joined the ISIS as Reader in International Law on October 14, 1965) that the School approached the Ford Foundation (FF) to procure a grant for various purposes including sponsoring the experts for teaching ISIS courses. In July 1955, the FF provided to ISIS an initial four-year grant of US $ 200, 000. Initially, it comprised International Law and then expanded to cover other areas of the ISIS. Therefore, some of the early expert visits (1959-60) comprised International Law scholars such as Quincy Wright (Chicago); Percy Corbett (Princeton); Myres MacDougal (Yale); Julius Stone (Sydney) as well as J.D.B. Miller (Leicester); Morris-Jones (Durham); D.F. Fleming (Vanderbuilt); Max Lerner (Brandeis) etc. As one of the lasting legacies of these scholarly visits to ISIS, the visit of Julius Stone (Sydney) led to introduction of the course on: Legal Controls of International Conflict. For many years, this author has been teaching the said MA (IS 455 N) Core Course that draws exact title from Julius Stone’s 1959 classic text: Legal Controls of International Conflict (London: Stevens & Sons). After a year-long (2023) effort, this author has obtained a copy of the famous Quincy Wright report comprising a blueprint for the expansion of ISIS. It will be addressed in the subsequent Blog Special article. SIS: A Unique Knowledge Tradition In this SIS Blog Special article, the author has sought to provide a bird’s eye-view of the early pioneering effort in the launch of ISIS. From its origin (the Gangotri) at Sapru House, the ISIS and its successor SIS have continued the unique tradition that has generated scores of outstanding scholars and institutionalized the knowledge architecture to address the challenges of international affairs for India and the world at large (especially through an Indian lens). The imprint of SIS (since 1970 merger with JNU) can be seen in numerous scholars who now head and run International Law and International Relations programs both in the public and private Indian Universities. It provides the best example as to how this least-cost efficient SIS scholarly tradition has produced, among others, scholars, diplomats, civil servants, strategic experts and the decision-makers in government (including the current External Affairs Minister and a former MoS for External Affairs). The Wall of Honour, in effect, celebrates this unique Indian knowledge tradition in International Studies. The said quest for knowledge propelled this author to undertake an audacious mission to give effect to the adage ‘charity begins at home’ as well as for walking-the-talk (the Sabarmati Effect on whose banks he grew up). It seeks to translate into action – at least on the home front of SIS – the essence and spirit of Sanskrit adage:  विद्वान् सर्वत्र पूज्यते (learned are worshipped, everywhere). This author ensured that ‘lighting the lamp’ of knowledge at the unveiling ceremony on December 27, 2023 is done by women (Santishree Pandit, the VC as SIS alumna as well as an assistant professor, a student and a staff member). It also gave a powerful symbolic effect to JNU’s new (2023) motto: तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय (darkness unto light). The very idea has resuscitated the life-time contributions of scholars of yesteryears by invoked their spirit, energy and legacy. The existing corpus of SIS faculty members sit on the shoulders of those early torchbearers. The onus is now on the present generation of SIS faculty members to build upon that legacy for the future generations. It is indeed a humbling experience as well as a challenge to step into the shoes of the pioneering SIS teacher-scholars. Let me end this preliminary reflection with the morale and powerful inspirational story of Pandit Hriday Nath Kunzru, Chairman of the ISIS Governing Body. One of the members of the ISIS Governing Body, Zakir Hussain, became the 3rd President of India. The Secretary to President, Nagendra Singh (future President of the World Court), visited Pandit Kunzru on January 25, 1968 to persuade him to give consent for acceptance of the ‘Bharat Ratna’. It was to be announced on the Republic Day (next day). Panditji firmly declined the offer on the ground that it was he, as a member of the Constituent Assembly, who opposed the conferment of such awards in the new Republic of India. When Nagendra Singh persisted with the request and argued that: "Panditji, nobody remembers that you had opposed the institution of awards in the Assembly". To this the feisty Panditji replied: "I remember it, and that is enough" [47 ISQ (2-4) 2010 at 100]. In the wake of questions by some colleagues as regards “why create such a Wall of Honour that no one else would imagine to do”, this author has recalled and drawn inspiration from the above-mentioned powerful message of Pandit Kunzru. Thus, the SIS Wall of Honour is a very modest offering of the author at the altar of SIS as his 'karma-bhoomi'. That is enough. Time will decide the rest. #SIS #WallofHonour #KnowThePioneers This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog and 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 Dr. Sakti Prasad Srichandan Though core engagements are unlikely to be affected, the revival of Gaullism may put certain challenges which India has to deal with very carefully keeping the sensitivities of the French in mind. The year 2023 marks the 25th anniversary of the establishment of a strategic partnership between India and France. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s presence in this year’s Bastille’s Day Parade on July 14 as a Guest of Honour is a recognition of the growing synergies and the importance France attaches to its ties with India. But before Modi, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had this honour in 2009. While Singh’s visit was at a time when France was an integral part of the transatlantic bandwagon with the centrality of the United States, the visit of Modi comes in the backdrop of Macron’s France is seen as reviving Gaullism with a pitch for “European sovereignty” and “strategic autonomy”. While the Cold War strategy was to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”, at present European countries are favouring a strategy to “keep Russia down, the United States in, and China out”. But Macron has thwarted a genuine European global strategy from emerging especially in China and alienated many due to the revival of Gaullism. As for India, the bilateral relations with France may not be affected, but the likely dilution of the French Indo-Pacific approach and diverging strategies in the EU will have an indirect impact on its interests. Revival of Gaullism Founder of the Fifth Republic and former President of France Charles de Gaulle along with former West Germany Chancellor Konrad Adenauer were instrumental in the European integration process that provided a lasting peace to the continent. While the integration process was underway Gaulle also navigated his country’s relations with other powers with a focus on France’s strength, influence and independence. Emphasis on national sovereignty, autonomy and flexibility in international relations, multilateralism, nuclear deterrence, and a pro-European orientation were some of the features identified with Gaullism. Gaulle’s approach restored his country’s primacy in Europe, kept the United States out of European affairs, brought flexibility to build relations with other great powers and made France and Germany the twin engines of the European Union (EU). Macron, while inheriting Gaullism, has warned against France becoming a vassal of any other power with tacit reference to the United States. Just like during Gaulle’s times, Macron’s simultaneous bilateral outreach to countries sitting at different corners of the fence like the US, Russia, Iran, China, and India has confused many. Some even opine that by playing on different sides, France may be reduced to a pawn in the great power game. India France relations There has been consistency in India-France relations, regardless of who comes to power in either country. India and France while accommodating and respecting each other’s sensitivities have a deep engagement that encompasses strategic cooperation, economic ties, sustainable development, cultural exchanges and shared values. The strategic component includes defence, space, cyber security, counter-terrorism, intelligence, civil nuclear energy and a strong Indo-Pacific tilt. In recent years, this strategic partnership has been broadened to include issues like climate, environment, blue economy, ocean governance, clean energy, smart cities, new technologies and health. The bilateral trade touched USD 15.1 billion in 2021-22, double from the last decade. With an investment of around USD 10 billion, France has emerged as the 11th largest foreign investor in India in 2022. France helped India to get out of isolation after the 1998 nuclear tests and even favoured India’s early entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group. France also supports India’s aspiration to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. As India tries to diversify its arms supplier base, France has emerged as the second-largest arms supplier in 2018-22 unseating the US. Challenges ahead Though core engagements are unlikely to be affected, the revival of Gaullism may put certain challenges which India has to deal with very carefully keeping the sensitivities of the French in mind. First, France wants the United States to have less involvement in European continental affairs. While in the past, the United States had arm-twisted many European countries to act against India’s interests (e.g. sanctions after the Pokhran test), the geopolitical realities have changed with India’s rise as a global actor and new thrust in India-US ties. The United States remaining relevant in Europe will check China’s influence which will be in India’s favour. Second, France was the first country in Europe to come up with an Indo-Pacific strategy as it considers itself as a residential power due to its territories spread across from West Indian Ocean to the South Pacific and therefore has a military presence. Many countries including France count India as an essential partner of their strategy. Apart from bilateral engagements, India and France are also developing trilateral frameworks in the Indo-Pacific with countries like the UAE, Australia, Indonesia, and Japan. France, just like India, wants to avoid getting entangled in the US-China binary politics, and seek to diversify partners in the region. But while distancing itself from the EU’s emerging strategic consensus on China, Macron has called for a “close and solid global strategic partnership” between Paris and Beijing which has the possibility of denting its earlier stand on Indo-Pacific. India needs to moderate emerging French posturing on China. Third, India’s Foreign Minister S Jaishankar made a point by saying “Europe’s problems are the world’s problems but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems”. During his visit to China, Macron sparked an international backlash over his remarks that Europe must resist dragged into the US-China conflict over Taiwan, which made Jaishankar right. European leaders can now be reasoned to think twice before nudging India to take sides (e.g. Ukraine war) as they have diverging views on their home turf. Among the European leaders, Modi has the highest number of meetings with Macron which shows the priority leaders attach to the bilateral relationship. After Brexit, for India, France remains a reliable and predictable gateway to the European Union. Modi-Macron chemistry, mutual interests and diplomatic manoeuvring will play important roles in ensuring India is suitably accommodated in the French Gaullist worldview. #IndoFrench Originally Published : The Financial Express, 5th December 2023 https://www.financialexpress.com/business/defence-india-france-relations-in-changing-times-3328873/ Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Dr. Sakti Prasad Srichandan is Assistant Professor at the Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru Universities, New Delhi, India.

By Dr. Surajit Mahalanobis The meeting of the OPEC Secretary General Dr Haitham Al Ghais with the youth in Doha after the COP 28 summit declaration is significant as an aftermath development of the international call for restraining fossil fuels use in development activities. Dr Ghais has called for rejection of any language that targets fossil fuels and not the emissions. Indeed, the OPEC wants that the emission of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) be addressed for worldwide solution, without targeting the production and use of fossil fuels, though these are the sources of the most GHGs. Way back in 2000, at the Caracas conference, the OPEC Summit had already included the environment pollution issues out of the production from fossil fuels in the charter of the OPEC. That has since been in force ardently by the producers. The Arab producers have wasted no time after the Framework Convention of Climate Change’s 28th meeting (COP28) at Dubai that ended on 12 th December last, to speed up their outreach to stress the point that climate change needs to be addressed and not the fossil fuels. This was rather an expected aftermath, considering the fact that world’s 79.5 percent petroleum crude reserves are held by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to which Arab producers are the 67.2 percent contributors. Total West Asian region reserves amount to be 48.3 percent of the entire world reserves. Following 2022 chart (below) of the OPEC explains the minute details: The world’s economy runs on the fossil fuel, an unavoidable reality that stormed the world communities from Stockholm in 1972 to the COP28 at Dubai in 2023. The elephant was always there, but seldom taken head on, until now. Even now the formidable task remains inaccessible. The COP28 Declaration believes the 1.5ºC goal of the Paris Convention 2015 by mitigation, adaptation, and financing are doable. It would be incorrect to think that the move out of the dominating concern is just what the Arab producers of the petroleum crude started alone. In moral support to them are also likely to be the countries enjoying huge fossil fuels reserves, which they profusely use to build up their economies world over. Indeed, it is possible, if only the countries with abundant fossil fuel reserves had options to do away from using them. It is not the petroleum crude alone which is the bone of contention, that the Arab producers of crude oil and also many observers would find out, there are huge reserves of coal and coal-based gases in large countries like the USA, Russia, China, India, Australia, and others, which are used as the principal fuel to generation of domestic electricity. Over 90 percent world’s proven coal reserves are located in twelve countries, USA (22.3%), Russia (15.5%), Australia (14%), China (13.1%), India (9.5%), Germany (3.5%), Ukraine (3.3%), South Africa (3.1%), Poland (2.5%), Kazakhstan (2.5%), Indonesia (2.2%) and Turkey (1.1%) of total world reserves. Phasing out the use of these reserves is not an easy proposition. Besides the supply chain practices, development and maintenance, the reality that the sectors using the fossil fuels are creators of the most jobs world over, thus sustain most people’s livelihood. Therefore, the tension of targeting the fossil fuels is unmitigable. Top of it, anything we dig out from the Mother Earth would create greenhouse gasses (GHGs). There is no escape from it. How then the world should address the climate change issues? The argument proffered by the concerned producers of the petroleum crudes for oils and gasses, and the tacit concern of the world’s coal-bed owning countries to look at the climate change and not at the fossil fuels is futile, because the argument ignores the inherent connect of the two basics: fossil fuels and climate change challenge. What is more important is the fact that manufacturing of new machines in development of novel technologies, that would ensure less production of the GHGs, would again use fossil fuel energies, because the alternatives are not adequate to meet the necessity. Will this necessity mother the new inventions in technologies, is anther queer question dogging the humanity today? International politics apart, for now, the COP28 has four options to speed up the processes of development of alternatives to the fossil fuels: energy generation from Hydro, Solar, Wind and Biofuel sources. Naturally emerges the understanding how much progress have the world leaders been able to trigger for successful efforts in these domains, since the Stockholm promises? Connected with this question is the more dormant one: How much are the national budget financing effectively done for these efforts for transition to the alternatives in member countries? Let us not forget the transition which is being thrust rather too much in this COP, was already advocated in the Stockholm Conference way back in 1972. The GHGs are creating global warming, hence the melting of the icebergs is a natural fall out. With this the rise in water in oceans, seas and rivers is a natural consequence. The COP28 needs 3 to finance as a priority national budget expenditure in all countries for hydroelectricity generation by arresting the surplus water outflow. More and more dams in almost all countries are necessary, sustainably, without causing water crises to neighbouring countries for food production in fields. With these also possible are tidal wave arresting for electricity generation and passing them into the grids of the respective countries for use as alternative power to that created by burning the fossil fuels. International Solar Association (ISA) launched in 2015, considered to be a prospective formidable agency for alternatives to wean away dependence on the fossil fuels, is dogged by challenges, if not already proved an expensive damp squib. The ISA already could have started yeomen’s services to emerge as a formidable alternative to share the transition requirement from the world’s current consumption necessity of petroleum crude of 104 billion barrels a day, which could have been emerged as formidable effort to stop their use. The ISA aims to institute a forum for “an exchange of experiences” for developing sustainable energy technology, which however is dogged because of the absence of adequate funding by countries. The international conferences come and go, the problems remain realistically unaddressed. The ISA was formulated with this goal in its objectives that the conferences and meetings would ensue real-time fruitful action for stopping the GHGs emission, yet it too fails like other COPs. The business models are differed, with political one upmanship in practice not the objectives are tried. The difference of business models can be removed only by developing the clarity about them for all to understand and well explicated. So far, the ISA is experiencing staggard progress toward the objectives. The world affected by global warming wants to know when exactly the COPS’ agreements would fructify in real time successful mitigation of the GHGs, This world also looks forward to seeing the financing enough to save their humanity from drowning. #RenewableEnergy #OPEC #SDGs #COP28 #Energy #EnergyMix #EnergyTransition Originally Published : 20th December' 2023 https://www.news18.com/opinion/opinion-roadmap-for-a-life-under-water-or-above-it-8711512.html Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Dr. Surajit Mahalanobis is an Alumni of the School of International Studies (SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. He earned his PhD degree from the Centre for West Asian Studies, SIS, JNU, India.