Search

By Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit Last week marked a pivotal moment as Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated a groundbreaking initiative titled “Viksit Bharat@2047: Voice of Youth”. This initiative sounded a resounding call to action for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and students, providing the youth with a platform to contribute their ideas to the vision of Viksit Bharat@2047. This initiative stands out as the most thrilling and ambitious among all the endeavours in the recent decades. The palpable excitement, keen interest, and burgeoning hopes since its launch in less than ten days ago attest to its significance. This is indeed an excellent example of participatory democratic development by involving all the stakeholders. One might enquire about the reasons fuelling this fervour, and the answer lies in several compelling factors. However, three stand out and demand our utmost attention: First, amid the multifaceted transformations that India, as a nation and a civilization, is currently undergoing on both local and global fronts, this is the time, the right time (Yahi Samay hai, Sahi Samay hai) for such an initiative. Deliberately acknowledging the profound significance of “Amrit Kaal,” the initiative resonates with a compelling sense of urgency and opportunity. PM Modi underscored that India now stands where the world observes it with awe and scrutiny as it ascends the ladder of achievements and approaches its independence centenary. This reality adds a layer of responsibility to every citizen, particularly the youth. The explicit encouragement to the youth to actively engage in the Viksit Bharat initiative and share their suggestions through the Ideas Portal reflects a deep commitment to inclusivity and incorporating diverse perspectives. As the Prime Minister rightly emphasized, the vision for Viksit Bharat should be a collective effort shaped by every citizen. The success of this initiative hinges on the combined endeavours of all, aptly encapsulated by the mantra, “Sabka Prayas” (everyone’s efforts). Second, this vision is not just a superficial aspiration, as we have seen with numerous plans since India’s independence. It is a meticulously crafted strategy with precise details and modalities that are genuinely actionable, significantly increasing the likelihood of its promises turning into successful outcomes. How can one discern this? Consider the stakeholders involved; it is not a random assortment like students or teachers, as seen in many past government policies. Instead, the initiative identifies four key stakeholders: administration, academic institutions, teachers, and students. While the onus rightfully rests on the shoulders of the youth, the recognition of administration and academic institutions as stakeholders signifies the government’s understanding. It acknowledges that to bring about a substantial difference in the conduct of students and teachers, fostering innovation and excellence requires mechanisms, processes, and, most importantly, a platform. This might appear as a simple or intuitive observation to some, but a closer examination of higher education policies and legislation reveals how rare such comprehensiveness in planning has been. Another testament to the excellence of this initiative is the launch’s adherence to Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) prepared for universities, colleges, and students. This ensures that it is not all rhetoric and platitudes but a call to action. Universities and university-level institutions are designated as anchors, serving as the focal point for the government. They must appoint a dedicated team to promote, organize, disseminate information, and mobilize students for this initiative. The government outlines four clear interventions: They are firstly, raising awareness through workshops, organizing fests involving debates and events, and leveraging existing alumni networks and networked engagement through email groups for swift dissemination. Secondly, developing the requisite infrastructure through dedicated feedback loops in libraries and labs, establishing “Viksit Bharat Ideation Centres,” and allocating specific slots for students to submit feedback. Thirdly, ensuring holistic participation through wide circulation of forms, recognition of student clubs, including NCC and NSS, and certification. Lastly, tracking progress through daily reports and implementing monitoring and accountability measures. This comprehensive approach sets Viksit Bharat@2047 apart, promising tangible and impactful results. Third, the initiative underscores a crucial yet underemphasized facet—elevating higher educational institutions to unprecedented prominence and ambition. Throughout the post-Independence era, successive governments have endeavoured to introduce structures, regulations, and initiatives within the higher education sector. However, the limelight has consistently eluded higher education, overshadowed by the pressing concerns of primary and secondary education. While the dearth of attention on primary education may explain this discrepancy, it has persisted for decades without serious rectification. This oversight led external observers to infer that higher education did not hold a prime position on India’s list of priorities. Enter the Modi government and a paradigm shift in perspective occurs. This administration not only comprehends but boldly asserts that higher education is a challenging yet integral cornerstone of the country’s development as a global juggernaut of ideas, innovation, and strength. Whether it is the establishment of AIIMS facilities nationwide, representing the apex of medical education, or the proliferation of IITs (engineering) and IIMs (management), the government’s impetus and vision are crystal clear—higher education is paramount for India’s growth as it aspires to ascend to the mantle of a world leader. To conclude, the launch of Viksit Bharat@2047 marks a transformative initiative bringing students and higher learning to the forefront of India’s developmental landscape. With an explicit call to action for higher education institutions (HEIs) and students, this strategic and actionable plan resonates with urgency and opportunity, symbolized by the acknowledgement of “Amrit Kaal.” The comprehensive approach, involving critical stakeholders like administration, academic institutions, teachers, and students, demonstrates a profound commitment to inclusivity and innovation, positioning higher education as a pivotal driver for India’s ascent to global leadership. The Prime Minister has taken us from rule-takers to be ruleshapers, and in 2047, India will move from rule shapers to rule-makers. #ViksitBharat@2047 Originally Published : The Sunday Guardian, 24th December'2023 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/viksit-bharat2047-a-clarion-call-for-institutes-and-students#:~:text=This%20initiative%20sounded%20a%20resounding,endeavours%20in%20the%20recent%20decades. Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

By Prof. (Dr.) Srikanth Kondapalli In 1910, China’s warlord Zhao Erfeng dreamt of controlling the five Himalayan states of Tibet, Bhutan, Ladakh, Nepal and Sikkim. China’s current leadership has stepped up efforts to fulfil that dream, with the latest inroads being made in Bhutan. Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/bhutan-under-chinas-shadow-2794475 Originally Published : Deccan Herald, 3rd December' 2023 https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/bhutan-under-chinas-shadow-2794475 Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author. Prof. (Dr.) Srikanth Kondapalli is Dean of School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit Unfortunately, the social sciences have refused to take a thinker like B.R. Ambedkar seriously. Any discussion on law in India and outside must include and begin with one of the strongest proponents of the rule of law, the father of our Constitution, B.R. Ambedkar Imagined histories produced agenda setting and biased interpretations. Caste has been used and abused as a word and a category of analysis. Caste is not just in one faith but in every faith, especially in South Asia. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Are we more casteist for getting political and economic benefits? The dream of the greatest Indian, Babasaheb Dr B.R. Ambedkar, who was marginalised by the powers that be until 2014 is one we need to take very seriously today. The Left and Liberal academia avoided him for he was very critical of their hypocrisy. At best they praised a selected few who were in power and helped them to exercise power without ever winning elections. There are major gaps in the writing of Indian history where by design or on purpose there has been a clear attempt to agenda set in favor of a Republican dynasty, where its name continued to fill textbooks and publicly funded institutions. Are we saying that only one family won us freedom and all the others who sacrificed their lives have been marginalized? One such historical icon, B.R. Ambedkar critically analysed and fought for the annihilation of caste. He, by pursuing true and original thinking, followed Brahma-vidya and as per the scriptures was a true Brahmin in the Vedic sense, a person who pursues and produces knowledge. There is enough proof that the seminal Hindu texts were written by Valmiki (Ramayana), Vyasa (Mahabharata), and B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of our Constitution and a lot of his writings. On 26 November we all celebrated the Constitution Day and reaffirmed our faith in its Preamble which embodies liberty, equality and fraternity to all. On 6 December is Mahanirvana Diwas the day we lost this great thinker, the tallest Indian and Modern India’s icon. It is in the idea of Dissent that Lord Gautama the Buddha was the first Dissenter of the Bharatiya tradition to Babasaheb. We celebrate Dissent and Diversity in our Bharatiya tradition through “Ekam Sat Vipraha Bahuda Vadanti”. They warned of the social evils that has crept in into an inclusive and diverse parampara or tradition. All political parties in India are caste ridden, even the Left. Left liberals among the academia practise it more vigorously, though do a lot of doublespeak. Unfortunately, the social sciences have refused to take a thinker like B.R. Ambedkar seriously. Why? Any discussion on law in India and outside must include and begin with one of the strongest proponents of the rule of law, the father of our Constitution, B.R. Ambedkar. B.R. Ambedkar, a visionary leader and the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, held a nuanced perspective on the intersection of law and economics, particularly in pursuing social justice and uplifting marginalized communities. Many of his insights, while not always captured verbatim in quotes, can be extrapolated from his extensive writings and speeches. He famously noted, “Political democracy cannot last unless there lies at the base of it social democracy. What does social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life.” Dr Ambedkar’s concern for economic inequality was deeply ingrained in his philosophy. He went beyond guaranteeing political rights, advocating for legal frameworks that would actively contribute to addressing economic disparities. In his vision, a just society required not only political and social equality but also economic parity. In pursuit of this economic equality, Ambedkar championed the cause of land reforms. He recognized that the equitable distribution of land was pivotal for empowering the marginalized sections of society. His conviction lay in the belief that without addressing economic disparities at the grassroots, the lofty ideals of democracy would remain incomplete. One of Ambedkar’s notable stances was his emphasis on labour rights and fair wages. He saw protecting workers’ rights as a fundamental step towards achieving economic justice. For him, the toiling masses—those who tilled the soil, cultivated raw materials, and created goods—were indispensable contributors to the production and distribution of wealth. Ambedkar’s vision of a just society was intricately woven with the fabric of economic empowerment. He recognized that the quest for social justice would be incomplete without dismantling exploitative labour practices and ensuring fair economic opportunities. While specific quotes capturing these sentiments directly may be limited, delving into his seminal works, such as “Annihilation of Caste,” and examining his contributions to the framing of the Indian Constitution provide a richer understanding of Ambedkar’s profound views on the symbiotic relationship between law and economics in the pursuit of a fair and inclusive society. Today some people are asking for a caste census, which is so ironic given that our history is full of people who fought and struggled to make caste disappear from society. What never ceases to captivate me is the resilience and foresight embedded in our Constitution, a testament to the brilliance of its creators, including the visionary B.R. Ambedkar. In an era witnessing myriad changes across sectors, including the emergence of previously non-existent ones, our Constitution continues to adapt and keep pace with the evolving times.Emerging concerns, such as environmental issues and sustainability have now assumed central importance. Surprisingly, the concept of sustainability, championed in recent decades, finds its roots in the foresight of Indian lawmakers, including the visionary B.R. Ambedkar, dating back to the 1950s. This early endorsement highlights the enduring relevance of sustainable principles, demonstrating a remarkable prescience on the part of Ambedkar and his contemporariesPromoting diversity and inclusivity within the legal sphere, encompassing jurisprudence and law practice, are paramount. Such inclusivity ensures a more comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted challenges posed by evolving technologies, fostering a legal landscape that is not only adept but also reflective of the diverse society it serves. As underscored in his extensive writings, Ambedkar illuminated a crucial truth: a nation’s development remains incomplete until every individual, irrespective of their station in life, reaps its benefits. The recent milestone achievement of India, soaring to a $4 trillion economy, is undoubtedly cause for celebration. Successes like these are not just the triumph of economic numbers but a testament to a society embracing a more inclusive and equitable distribution of resources—a journey championed by many stalwarts over the years. #BRAmbedkar #Imagination #History #India #Constitution Originally Published: 3rd December'2023 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/imagined-histories-in-independent-india#:~:text=Imagined%20histories%20produced%20agenda%20setting,faith%2C%20especially%20in%20South%20Asia. Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author. Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

By Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit Kissinger’s academic and intellectual journey shaped his conviction that personal beliefs, ideologies, values, and moral considerations often take a back seat when dealing with intricate actors on the world stage. The most controversial US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, passed away last week. Kissinger celebrated his 100th birthday in May earlier this year and held the rare distinction of counselling successive American Presidents since the 1960s. The statesman’s legacy is larger than life and varies incredibly depending on whom one asks. He personified the American ideal during the turbulent Cold War era. His endeavours in fostering peace with the Soviet Union, evident in disarmament treaties and détente, resolving the Vietnam War (earning him a Nobel Peace Prize), and notably, the diplomatic opening to China, are hailed as achievements that positioned Washington advantageously in the Cold War. However, critics point to his flouting of international law, human rights abuses—especially in Cambodia—and the forceful manipulation of American power. As a result, Kissinger remains a controversial figure in international politics, leaving a lasting impact on how he navigated the complexities of his time. A brilliant academic and professor who was a realist, many professors would aspire to be as powerful as he was and many professional diplomats would love to have his academic brilliance and well-studied writings. In the context of India, Kissinger’s narrative was often tinged with negativity, primarily stemming from his role during the 1971 war with Pakistan. This conflict, a pivotal event in South Asian history, resulted in the creation of Bangladesh and significantly altered the regional power dynamics in India’s favour for the subsequent three decades. The animosity toward Kissinger in Indian strategic circles is multifaceted. The US decision to deploy the USS Enterprise in the Bay of Bengal was undeniably a source of tension and concern for India during that critical period, which is attributable to Kissinger. There is also the personal language of Kissinger aimed at Indians as a populace and against Indira Gandhi. Another source of resentment lies in the perception that he played a role in integrating China into the global community. Critics argue that Kissinger’s policies allowed China to emerge as a formidable economic force on the world stage. As such, he is viewed as accountable for enabling China’s partnership with the US that invariably left India on the sidelines vis-à-vis the US. Therefore, the suspicion and disdain directed at Kissinger in Indian strategic circles are rooted in the belief that his actions ultimately undermined Indian interests. By fostering ties with China, Kissinger inadvertently contributed to a geopolitical landscape where India found itself in a precarious position vis-à-vis the United States. The repercussions of this perceived neglect continue to reverberate, shaping India’s stance on global affairs and its diplomatic relationships.Kissinger’s enduring legacy casts a profound shadow over the annals of international politics. Whether one deems his actions virtuous or misguided, the repercussions are destined to echo across the corridors of global power for years to come. Despite dissenting voices that downplay his impact, a closer examination underscores the magnitude of his influence, especially in the ongoing discourse surrounding China’s role in world affairs. Detractors may dismiss the notion of Kissinger’s far-reaching effects but consider the contemporary conversations on China’s ascendancy in global politics. The debate intensifies as analysts ponder the consequences of Kissinger’s pivotal encounter with Mao Zedong. Speculation arises: Without that historic meeting with Mao that Islamabad enabled, would China wield the same geopolitical influence it does today? The implications extend to its ominous spectre over the South China Sea, China’s expansive reach into the Indo-Pacific region, military interventions abroad, and the controversial Belt and Road Initiative. While some may question the validity of such hypothetical scenarios, it is imperative to confront the reality before us. Embracing the principles of realism in international relations, Kissinger navigated the complex terrain of diplomacy with an unwavering commitment to perceiving things as they are. His application of realist theories in practical diplomatic scenarios has given rise to what is commonly known as realpolitik—a legacy that continues to shape the course of global affairs.Acknowledging the negative impact of Kissinger’s actions on India, especially during the 1971 war with Pakistan, is crucial. At the same time, it is important to recognize the nuances of Kissinger’s approach and the strategic lessons embedded in his realpolitik philosophy. While his actions may have had detrimental consequences for India in certain instances, they also provide valuable insights into the pragmatic application of realpolitik—the pursuit of national interests through practical and realistic means. Indeed, Kissinger’s academic background plays a pivotal role in understanding the foundation of his approach, as highlighted in Niall Ferguson’s book “Kissinger: 1923-1968: The Idealist”. The core tenet of Kissinger’s scholarly and later policy endeavours revolves around the centrality of power in global politics. His emphasis on power dynamics underscores a realist perspective where self-interest serves as a fundamental guiding principle for state actions. Kissinger’s academicand intellectual journey shaped his conviction that personal beliefs, ideologies,values, and moral considerations often take a back seat when dealing with intricate actors on the world stage. The pragmatic realization that pursuing a national interest is a driving force in international relations is a key takeaway from his academic insights. This perspective influenced his policymaking, where a clear-eyed understanding of power dynamics and the prioritization of self-interest guided his approach to navigating the complexities of global politics. Kissinger’s pragmatic and calculated approach can serve as a valuable tool for India in navigating complex strategic matters, complementing the empathetic elements introduced by the Modi government. Whether addressing issues related to Hindus or facing scrutiny over citizenship policies, Kissinger’s thoughts and ideas provide a framework for advancing national interests with a resolute focus. Countries like Israel have successfully employed a similar approach by blacklisting, denying or even withdrawing investments from the groups and institutions associated with anti-Semitism, showcasing the efficacy of strategic assertiveness. In India, figures like K. Subramaniam have championed a mindset that places national interests as paramount, indifferent to sentimental considerations. Subramaniam’s influence is particularly evident in shaping India’s nuclear policy, a decision that defied conventional wisdom and mainstream opinions, including reservations from figures like Nehru. In conclusion, while delving into the discourse on Kissinger provides insights into the complexities of statesmanship, it is essential to critically approach his practices in diplomacy and realpolitik. Adapting such strategies to India’s diplomatic endeavours requires a nuanced understanding, acknowledging the need for a foreign policy that is both assertive and self-reliant. Striking a balance between pragmatism and a commitment to being a force for good in international politics is the key as India charts its course on the global stage. #HenryKissinger Originally Published: 10th December'2023 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/henry-kissinger-academic-and-diplomat Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author. Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

By Dr. Ankita Dutta The opening of accession talks with Ukraine and Moldova appears to be a key agenda item for the EU leadership during their annual Summit in December 2023. Enlargement has been a critical issue for the member states with opinions ranging from “yes to not yet to outright no”. With the EU leadership agreeing to begin formal membership talks with Ukraine and Moldova, and to grant candidate status to Georgia - the process of enlargement is at the forefront again. The EU had defined the criteria for the inclusion of new members in 1993. The Copenhagen criteria laid out three critical conditions to be fulfilled by the candidate country – ”first is the political criteria which included stability of institutions, democracy, rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities; second was economic criteria which required a functioning market economy and the capacity to cope with competition and market forces; and third was administrative and institutional capacity to effectively implement this Acquis and ability to take on the obligations of membership”. Along with this emphasis was also laid on the bloc’s ‘capacity for absorption of new member, while maintaining the momentum of European integration’ and that the bloc reserves the right to decide when the candidate has met the criteria and the Union was ready to accept the new member. So far, ten countries in the EU’s neighbourhood are either official or potential candidates for accession to the EU, including seven Western Balkans states - with the process beginning as early as 2003 (at the Thessaloniki summit where the EU committed towards integration of the Western Balkan countries within its structures). However, the Ukraine crisis brought with it a sense of urgency into this process of approving new member states as the EU worked towards fortifying its own eastern borders. With the outbreak of conflict in Ukraine, Kiev signed the application for the EU membership on 28 February 2022, which was followed by Moldova and Georgia submitting their respective applications. In June 2022, the EU Council granted both Ukraine and Moldova status of candidate country, while recognising the European perspectives of Georgia. The process of affirmation as among fastest measures taken by the EU member states. However, it raised certain critical questions over the fact that there were several other countries which have been waiting in sidelines for the process to pick up pace and if there was no conflict, was there any question that Kiev would have received the candidate status? This is primarily because there were two key roadblocks for Ukraine in its quest for membership -- first, territorial conflict with Russia - with Moscow annexing Crimea and occupying parts of Donbas along with lack of implementation of Minsk agreement by both Kiev and Moscow; and second was the poor governance structures and rampant corruption in Ukraine. Therefore, the EU needs to assess whether the conflict and the granting of candidate status to Ukraine as well Moldova has somewhat improved the situation with respect of territorial integrity or issues of governance. No doubt, efforts have been put by both countries to meet the EU criteria, however, the question is are they enough to open the accession talks. Moreover, Europeans remain divided on the benefits of EU enlargement and have mixed feelings towards the potential admission of Ukraine or of any other country. According to the EU Barometer Survey of Spring 2023 of Spring 2023, while there is an overall support for the EU enlargement (53%) - there are substantial divisions among the member states. The prevailing view in Austria (60%), Germany (49%), France (55%) is that the EU should not add new members any time soon, while there is widespread support for enlargement in Poland (67%) and Lithuania (77%). On the subject of Ukraine’s accession - according to the ECFR Polls - while the Europeans are open to the idea of Ukraine joining the EU, there are concerns relating to the security and economic impact of accession - “45% believe that Ukraine joining the EU would have a ‘negative impact’ on the security of the EU, against 25% who see it as having a ‘positive impact’ and 39% believe Ukraine’s accession would have a ‘negative impact’ on the security of their country – while only 24% expect a ‘positive impact’.” While the public opinion represents the fluctuations on the issue - there are also political concerns over possible integration of Ukraine - whose GDP is far below the EU’s smallest economies. This has raised concerns among the member states over the potential destabilisation of the Union budgetary structures as well as many member states becoming net contributors from net beneficiaries. While Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban had earlier expressed reservation on the accession talks for Ukraine raising concerns over its the issue, the way in which the decision was reached was interesting. The Hungarian Prime Minister walked out of the room - thereby voluntarily giving up his vote, so that the decision could be taken unanimously. However, this did not stop him from criticising the agreement adding that “Hungary did not want to be part of this bad decision” Herein lies the paradox of the situation - while the Western Balkans have waited for over a decade for the accession process to move effectively, Ukraine’s progress towards accession has created negative ripples within the region. The delays and vetoes on the part of the EU and its member states has undermined the Union’s credibility in the region. While, the Western Balkan countries, with their years of reforms and agenda-setting, have been unable to sway the EU to move forward, on the other hand with Ukraine, there appears to be a sense of urgency to move forward. This disillusionment was very much visible in the Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama’s statement that “the Ukraine example shows that war can accelerate membership”. This dichotomy has further led the Western Balkan countries to question the enlargement process as well as the political will and preparedness within the EU to support them. #EU #Enlargement This Article is an original contribution to the SIS Blog. Dr. Ankita Dutta is Assistant Professor at the Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

By Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit When the discourse on human rights is swayed by political expediency rather than an unwavering commitment to justice, the very essence of the term is compromised. The intellectual class often takes pride in their commitment to humanity, frequently emphasizing their advocacy for human rights. However, this commitment remains selective, myopic and politically influenced. For instance, Hamas’ brutal attacks on civilians, including children, women, and the elderly, failed to elicit their concern. Only when Israel responded to what is considered the most severe attack against the Jewish population since the Holocaust did human rights become a focal point. Same thing happened with the humanitarian crisis involving Afghans in Pakistan. These individuals faced atrocious and inhumane expulsion by Pakistan. Yet, the intellectual class’ response to this crisis has been noticeably muted. This raises questions about the genuine commitment to humanity and whether such concerns are driven by political motivations rather than an unwavering dedication to human rights. But can these two be isolated examples? Let’s take another case of Sudan. Africa has been a neglected continent despite its rich heritage and natural resources. It has faced the worst effects of colonialism and genocide and now we are watching like mute audiences the replay of another such genocide. In the recently concluded G20 under India’s Presidency, Prime Minister Narendra Modi took the courageous step of including the African Union as G20+1 member at the New Delhi summit. This was indeed once again informing the international community of the voice of the Global South especially Africa. Sudan is grappling with a severe humanitarian crisis and one of the worst human rights situations in its history. The Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2023 presents a sombre depiction of widespread abuses and attacks against civilians in Darfur, compounded by the lingering aftermath of the October 2021 coup. To comprehend the gravity of the situation, one must consider the humanitarian crisis detailed by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA). In 2023, a staggering eight million people in Sudan will require assistance, with seven million internally displaced individuals, including over 350,000 displaced in 2022. The funding shortfall, currently standing at US$862 million out of the required US$1.9 billion, starkly underscores the inadequacy of the international response to address the urgent needs of the Sudanese people. A majority Muslim country, Sudan is entangled in a complex web of ethnic and religious tensions that have persisted for decades. The current struggles the nation faces are not solely a contemporary crisis but rather a legacy of past conflicts that have left an indelible mark on its landscape. The enduring repercussions of conflicts in Darfur, South Kordofan, and Blue Nile, as well as the scars of the civil war in South Sudan, contribute to the simmering tensions. In addition to the militia violence that has escalated over the past two years, existing government institutions are proving inadequate in delivering justice. Individuals are subjected to ill-treatment within judicial proceedings, underscoring the alarming nature of the human rights crisis in Sudan. This crisis demands urgent attention, yet the global response has been insufficient, clouded by political considerations and diplomatic manoeuvring. The plight of the Sudanese people, particularly the violation of religious freedom and the erosion of justice, calls for a more concerted and principled international effort to address the unfolding human rights tragedy. Compounding the suffering, outbreaks of malaria, hepatitis, measles, and dengue fever in 2022 have further burdened a population already grappling with the consequences of conflict and political instability. It is disheartening to acknowledge that, often, human rights violations only seem to capture attention when they pertain to a specific religion. This trend is, once again, observable in the case of Sudan. Earlier, in 2019, the removal of President Omar al-Bashir sparked optimism for an end to the persecution of Christians in Sudan, as the transitional government committed to abolishing discriminatory laws. However, since the 2021 coup, a distressing reality has unfolded, marked by the attack and confiscation of church properties, harassment, and detention of leaders. The once-promised religious freedom has crumbled under the weight of political turmoil. Yet, amidst these dire circumstances, a pertinent question arises: will this grave situation awaken the conscience of intellectuals and the global community to protect the vulnerable? The enormity of the crisis demands a collective and conscientious response to alleviate the profound suffering experienced by the Sudanese population. The trend among self-proclaimed intellectuals in India is to incessantly question and critique India’s responses through their news articles. The Palestinian issue has dominated recent parliamentary and public discourse, subjecting MEA responses to microscopic examination. Doubts are cast on the human nature of India’s policy and its commitment to the Palestinian cause, with questions raised about whether India has abandoned Palestine. Strikingly absent from their discussions is any notable concern or awareness about Sudan, except when they wish to criticize the handling of the crisis by the MEA. Also missing are the marches or extensive opinion pieces one might expect in the face of such a grave crisis. Instead, the discourse is relegated to smaller pieces on the margins of editorials, often questioning India’s perceived inadequate response. It is worth mentioning that such an indifferent and, in some cases, ignorant attitude demeans India’s proactive actions. The successful Operation Kaveri, which saw the evacuation of over 3,000 Indians from Sudan, received little attention. A case in point is India’s recent hosting of the G20 summit. In its rare opportunity to host the event, India actively collaborated with the Global South, advocating for the inclusion of the African Union as a G20 member. However, those viewing the world through ideological lenses dismiss these accomplishments as irrelevant and inadequate. Ultimately, the glaring hypocrisy surrounding human rights violations in Sudan highlights the selective attention and subdued responses of the intellectuals. When the discourse on human rights is swayed by political expediency rather than an unwavering commitment to justice, the very essence of the term is compromised. It is incumbent upon the global community to confront this hypocrisy and translate rhetoric into meaningful action to alleviate the profound suffering of the Sudanese people. Unfortunately, this disparity is particularly notable in India, where the intellectual class, often quick to criticise the government and institutions for human rights violations, appears indifferent to the plight of Sudan. Essentially, this underscores the need for readers to approach discussions on human rights with caution, as they may often be characterised by selectivity and lack of objectivity. The imperative lies in fostering a more just and compassionate world where humanity takes precedence over political considerations. #SudanCrisis #HumanRights Originally Published: 26th November'2023 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/sudans-human-rights-crisis-and-an-exercise-in-global-hypocrisy Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author. Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

By Anshu Kumar Since 2006, all Chinese Defense White Papers have mentioned that China’s composite national strength, international standing, and influence are increasing. China’s growth as a global power has been accompanied by its influence operations abroad. With the growth in economic wherewithals, China has invested a vast chunk of resources to shape opinions and policies beyond its borders. China invests heavily in controlling its narrative by influencing international media outlets, using economic bait to lure politics and academia abroad to emphasise Chinese ‘interests’, and using Confucius Institutes to promote the Chinese language, culture, and propaganda. One of the finest examples of Chinese influence abroad was the US Congress’s decision to renew the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) Trade Status for China in the immediate aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre. This was surprising given that the American ‘engagement policy’ was a strategy to exploit the Sino-Soviet Chasm and rally Chinese support against the Soviets. By 1994, around 800 major firms and trade associations were involved in ‘one of the “largest lobbying efforts ever” mounted by American business’ to pursue Washington in renewing MFN status. At Boeing’s headquarters in Seattle, Jiang Zemin’s warning was explicit- if they could not do much to influence Washington, China would move its businesses elsewhere. Apart from American firms’ economic rationale, the continued ‘Chimerica’ in the unipolar world was a manifestation of Chinese influence. The United Front Work (UFW), under Xi Jinping, has been instrumental in fostering China’s influence operations by cultivating overseas Chinese communities, personnel overseas or returned, business persons, and political individuals to promote Chinese propaganda and suppress anti-Chinese Communist Party (CCP) activities. Xi has provided the UFW with elephantine resources to ensure China’s domestic stability and the extension of its national power globally, by endeavouring to co-opt ‘politically non-communist forces at home and abroad’. For this pursuit, Xi nominated IT talents (such as opinion leaders in cyberspace or IT entrepreneurs), competent personnel having studied abroad, and successful younger business people. Suzuki argues that the Chinese authority is of the view that by mobilising Chinese people they could persuade several foreign believers of the mutual benefit of, say the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). One of the countries that woke the globe up to the Chinese influence on domestic institutions was Australia. China's vast influence can be seen in Australia in the political parties it donates to, the Chinese-language media it controls, the way it cultivates some people while intimidating others, and the dominance of its Chinese community and student organizations. In a one-of-a-kind event, Australian senator Sam Dastyari defended China’s illegal claims in the South China Sea (SCS) during the 2016 Australian federal election campaign. Dastyari having illicit links with Huang Xiangmo (a major financial donor to large Australian political parties and a Chinese citizen with close connections to the UFW department) remarked: ‘The Chinese integrity of its borders is a matter for China’. Notably, here ‘borders’ meant all portions of the SCS claimed by China. This was against the policies of his own opposition party as well as the government of Australia. Likewise, in 2019, anti-CCP protestors voicing Hong Kong concerns in Australia were overwhelmed by pro-CCP Chinese students who flooded Australian city streets and university campuses with support and encouragement from Beijing to brace CCP’s interests. This incident brought to light how Beijing-friendly media outlets, including radio and newspapers with CCP ties and Chinese-language social media, distort the narrative in Beijing's favour. On a similar note, Yang Jian, who has spent fifteen years in China’s military intelligence sector and had links with the UFW department, was elected to New Zealand’s Parliament in 2011. During his tenure in a high-ranking legislative position pertaining to China policy, he was accused of softening New Zealand's stance towards China. Not surprisingly, China is heavily involved in politics, media, and the movie industry of its systemic rival— the US. According to the Justice Department’s reports, under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), china spent around $280 million in the second half of the 2010s to influence US politics. In recent months, Meta took down the ‘largest’ Chinese influence operations in the world, where a network of fake accounts (7,704 accounts, 954 pages, and 15 groups), linked to Chinese law enforcement, were praising China’s policies, denigrated U.S. and Western foreign policy, and attacked journalists and researchers engaged in criticising the Chinese government. However, these endeavours to influence foreign governments are not only confined to industrially advanced democratic countries. China is equally involved in influencing states in Southeast Asia, such as Malaysia, the Philippines, Cambodia, and Myanmar. Cambodia and Myanmar are particularly significant as China is eyeing a naval base and a deep-water seaport in these states, respectively. China engages in influence operations to shape a more favourable setting for achieving its ends and reinforcing division within and among American allies and partners. Greece’s vetoing of a European Union condemnation of China’s human rights record at the UN is a case to look at. It is a reminder that merely hard power does not constitute national strength and states can employ covert and soft power means, that complement and reinforce hard power, to their ends. Albanese’s recent visit to China to mend ties in a favourable hue may be a matter of concern to the US and its allies. Though the support from Chinese-Australian voters may not be a causal factor in such a reset of ties, it could ‘well be a byproduct of stabilising the relationship with Beijing’. #China #Beijing #InfluenceAbroad Anshu Kumar is a Master’s Student at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He has worked at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi, India.

By Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai On November 25, 2023, in a very powerful message from Antarctica, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres said: “What happens in Antarctica doesn’t stay in Antarctica” and the world must wake-up since Antarctic is being awoken due to climate chaos. The symbolic message of the UNSG came just five days ahead of the 28th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP28) to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Dubai COP28 (November 30 to December 12, 2023), is yet another annual gathering of the state Parties in the long line up of COP meetings that have mysteriously been unable to address the “climate change conundrum”, as this author described [Preface: EPL 52 (5-6) 2022], over a period of 31 years (1992-2023). The UNSG was on a three-day official visit to Antarctica. He was accompanied by the Chilean President Gabriel Boric to visit Chile’s Eduardo Frei Air Force Base on King George Island. “We are witnessing an acceleration that is absolutely devastating,” Guterres said while reflecting on the unprecedented rate of ice melt in Antarctica. Dubai COP28: Unrealistic Expectations Today (November 30, 2023), as the COP28 (UAE) commences work, the air will be heavy in Dubai due to unrealistic high expectations and increasingly bleak prospects for realization of 1.5 °C GHG emission target. The vital question remains as to what the UNFCCC parties will decide on the phase-out of fossil fuel in the face of climate emergency that has emerged as one of the most prominent drivers of the “planetary crisis”. This author has extensively examined the gravity of the planetary level crisis, implications for the humankind and the planet Earth and explored options for invoking the instrumentalities of International Law to make them work (here, here, here, here). It is widely accepted that, in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C, GHG emissions must peak before 2025 at the latest and decline 43% by 2030. In the absence of a major trigger-event and a planetary miracle, at the current rate and in view of dithering by the state Parties, all indicators show that the goal set is unrealistic and unattainable. It raises the frightening prospects of a literally burning planet. It has led the conscientious UNSG running from pillar to the post and speaking up through a series of ‘whistle-blowing’ speeches ranging from Stockholm+50 Conference (June 02, 2022) to the ‘cry-out’ from the Syangbpoche (the Everest Region of Nepal) in the Himalayas (October 30, 2023) to the latest visit to Antarctica (November 25, 2023). Making International Law Instruments Work With 198 Parties, the UNFCCC has been designed as a ‘framework convention’. It became one of the first global instruments that designated climate change as a common concern of humankind. The COP of the multilateral environmental agreements [Bharat H. Desai (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010], provides a platform at a specific periodicity (one, two or three years) to review work of the Convention in question. The UN provides ‘secretariat’ support to the UNFCCC, hence the usage of prefix ‘United Nations’. It is called a ‘framework convention’ since it was adopted with a bare skeleton on May 09, 1992. The UNFCCC necessitated ‘fleshing out’ with required elements to make it work for realization of the “‘ultimate objective” (Article 2) of “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. It led to the adoption of the “related legal instruments”: 1997 Kyoto Protocol and 2015 Paris Agreement. The global climate change regime now comprises these three legal instruments. On March 20, 2023, the IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report explicitly underscored that “Average annual GHG emissions during 2010–2019 were higher than in any previous decade on record” and observed: “Global net anthropogenic GHG emissions have been estimated to be 59 ± 6.6 GtCO2-eq9 in 2019, about 12% (6.5 GtCO2-eq) higher than in 2010 and 54% (21 GtCO2-eq) higher than in 1990, with the largest share and growth in gross GHG emissions occurring in CO2 from fossil fuels combustion and industrial processes (CO2-FFI)”. In view of this, the near future regulatory goal has been pegged at the 1.5 °C global warming by 2050. The UNSG, in his address at the Stockholm+50 Conference (June 02, 2022) gave a clarion call for addressing climate change as one of the “triple planetary crises”. The UNEP’s 2022 Emissions Gap Report (October 27, 2022) reinforced the global concerns that “the international community is falling far short of the Paris goals, with no credible pathway to 1.5°C in place. Only an urgent system-wide transformation can avoid climate disaster”. This prognosis and the projections, have set the stage to explore possible options for averting the climate change catastrophe. What lies in store at the Dubai COP28 (Nov. 30-Dec. 12, 2023) and beyond? Whereas COP27 (Sharm El-Shaik; Nov.06-21, 2022) was known for adoption of the decision on “loss and damage” funding for vulnerable countries hit hard by climate disasters, COP28 is likely to conclude the first global climate ‘stocktake’ mandated vide Decision 19/CMA.1 (2018). It will be a comprehensive assessment of the progress in climate change action since adoption of the 2015 Paris Agreement. The Dubai COP28 will take place on the heels of 2023 UNEP Emissions Gap Report (November 20, 2023) that issued a warning that the “world is heading for a temperature rise far above the Paris Agreement goals unless countries deliver more than they have promised”. The UNEP report has predicted that by 2030 the GHG emissions must “fall by 28 per cent for the Paris Agreement 2°C pathway and 42 per cent for the 1.5°C pathway”. Thus, the task is cut out for the assembled states Parties in Dubai COP28 to walk-the-talk, seriously. The Dilution: From Differentiation to NDCs Over the years, the primary legal bulwark for addressing the issues of equity and climate justice in the global climate change discourse has been the criteria of differentiation (CBDR&RC; Preambular para 7 and Principle 3.1 of UNFCCC). It was a negotiating masterstroke amidst rush to adopt the UNFCCC prior to the Rio Earth Summit (UNCED 1992). It emanated from razor-sharp clarity and strategizing by some ace negotiators of the developing countries. However, efforts were quickly underway to blunt the edges and dilute the core of this fundamental criteria of differentiation for affixing state responsibility for harm (adverse impacts) caused to the global atmosphere (“largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries”; Preambular para 3). Many scholars, bureaucrats and civil society groups of the developing countries were co-opted in this process. As a member of the Official Indian Delegation, this author vividly saw such subtle efforts in various COP meetings, other intergovernmental processes and on the sidelines. It culminated, after a decent burial was given to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (as none of the Annex – I countries complied with their legal obligations), in the 2015 Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement brought in a new voluntary criterion of “nationally determined contributions” that requires “all Parties are to undertake and communicate ambitious efforts” (Article 3, Paris Agreement). The direct effect of NDCs was to knock-out principle of equity that required only equals can be treated equally (since developed and developing countries are not equal in their contributions to the atmospheric harm caused). As a corollary, the UNFCCC’s basic premise was also sidelined that required “per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low and that the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs” (Preambular para 4). Notwithstanding the fact that responsibility for global climate change was “common” yet it was to be given effect in a differentiated, stratified, and staggered way. As this author contended, the leadership principle was also crucified that required the “developed countries Parties should take the lead” (Article 3.1) as a condition precedent (Article 4.7: “extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention”) before the developing countries were called upon to reduce their part of the GHG emissions. As a result, the stage has never come to work out the criteria and elements for determining if any such “lead” was in fact taken by the developed country Parties. The Road Ahead In view of the above legal stratagems and crafting of tools and techniques to stabilize GHG emissions enshrined in the instruments on the global climate chessboard, the regulatory approach appears to be somehow floundering. It has brought in fatigue effect, proliferation of national climate change litigations and an exasperated effort by the UNGA (vide resolution 77/276 of March 29, 2023) to seek an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ, if accepts jurisdiction and agrees to provide an opinion to the UNGA, it will be required to provide an answer to two specific questions: (i) What are the legal obligations of the States under International Law for protection of the climate system from emissions of GHG? and (ii) What are the legal consequences for States under these obligations? The Court has affixed January 22, 2024 as the last date for filing of the written statements. What can the principal legal organ of the UN do to nudge the states and the UNGA to resolve the global climate change riddle? Since it adopted the famous resolution 43/53 of December 08, 1988, the UNGA has been the principal conductor of the grand climate-change orchestra, invoked normativity of ‘common concern’ and triggered the process for the UNFCCC negotiations (1990-1992). Therefore, it is high time for the UNGA after full three decades, to rise to the occasion and possibly elevate common concern to the higher pedestal of a planetary concern to provide future direction to the 1992 UNFCCC and 2015 Paris Agreement processes. This author has put into place a series of successive scholarly processes including 2022 special issue of the global journal [EPL 53 (5-6) 2022], 2023 IOS Press book on Regulating Global Climate Change, a special EPL landing page for Dubai COP28 and moderation of the forthcoming global webinar on Averting the Global Climate Catastrophe (December 10, 2023). Cumulatively, they aimed to sow some ideational seeds to try to find answers to the global climate problematique. Premised upon the principle of state responsibility and differentiation, it will necessitate earnestly walking-the-talk by those states who caused the climate change problem in the first instance with all legal obligations, consequences and requirements. Making the architecture work remains the biggest challenge to secure our planetary future. #PlanetaryCrisis #COP28 #Dubai #ClimateChange #TriplePlanetaryCrisis This Article is a sequel to Global Climate Change as a Planetary Concern – Part I. This Article is an original contribution to the SIS Blog. 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 Prof. Bharat H Desai As the 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) commenced annual work in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt (6 to 18 November 2022), there are warning signs about “shifting weather patterns that threaten food production, to rising sea levels that increase the risk of catastrophic flooding, the impacts of climate change are global in scope and unprecedented in scale”. By 2030, the adverse effects of the climatic crisis in the new geological epoch (Anthropocene Working Group (21 May 2019), are expected to push more than 100 million people back into extreme poverty as well as displace some 200 million people. It portends a planetary scale upheaval. The inaugural remarks of the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on 2 June 2022 at the Stockholm+50 Conference [based on the UNGA enabling (75/280 of 24 May 2021) and modalities (75/326 of 10 September 2021) resolutions] about “climate emergency” has brought to the fore the planetary crisis: “We face a triple planetary crisis. A climate emergency that is killing and displacing ever more people each year. Ecosystems degradation that are escalating the loss of biodiversity and compromising the well-being of more than 3 billion people. And a growing tide of pollution and waste that is costing some 9 million lives a year. We need to change course – now – and end our senseless and suicidal war against nature”. The UNSG’s warning has vindicated this author’s audacious scholarly prognosis (“Threats to the World Eco-system: A Role for the Social Scientists”, Social Science & Medicine, vol.35, no.4, 1992), exactly at the time of adoption of the UNFCCC text at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit that: “much of the developmental process in the world today does not appear to be sustainable…the human quest to conquer nature through science and technology has brought us on to the present brink. The threats to our eco-system essentially emanate from human activities in almost every sector.” Thus, the humankind has acquired an ability to transform the earth’s essential ecological processes. As observed in preface to this author’s 2022 curated ideational work (Envisioning Our Environmental Future), we need to “ponder on the rapidly depleting time we have left for remedial action to safeguard our future amid warnings of impending environmental catastrophe”. The root cause of many of the present-day ecological upheavals (Social Science & Medicine, vol.30, no.10, 1990, pp.1065-1072) lay in planetary scale environmental disequilibrium. From Common Concern to Planetary Concern With 198 Parties, the UNFCCC has been designed as a framework convention. It was one of the first treaties to designate climate change as a common concern of humankind. With subsequent two treaties, 1997 Kyoto Protocol and 2015 Paris agreement, the regime now comprises three legal instruments to address the global climate problematique. The passage of three decades (1992-2022), provides a unique opportunity to look back to look ahead for attainment of the scientifically desired goal of 1.5 C global warming by 2050. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (April 2022) drew a grim scenario thus: “Net anthropogenic GHG emissions have increased since 2010 across all major sectors globally…as have cumulative net CO2 emissions since 1850”. Now UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report on 27 October 2022 has reinforced the global concerns that “the international community is falling far short of the Paris goals, with no credible pathway to 1.5°C in place. Only an urgent system-wide transformation can avoid climate disaster”. These scenarios and designation by the UNSG of the “triple planetary crisis”, has elevated the UNFCCC’s raison d'être of a common concern to a planetary concern. However, the current regulatory approach has been afflicted by the developed countries reneging from taking an effective lead due to their historical responsibility for GHG emissions. The play of narrow national interests came to the fore in the hold-out flip-flops (2019 withdrawal and 2021 rejoining of the Paris Agreement) by the largest emitter, the United States. It reflects vulnerability of a treaty process even as the climate crisis assumes the form a planetary concern. Now the global regulatory framework appears floundering due to the (i) side-tracking of the UNFCCC’s sacrosanct principle of CBDR&RC (ii) grounding of the Kyoto Protocol applecart of Annex I legal obligations and (iii) the legal trick of pushing the developing countries into the NDC trap through the 2015 Paris Agreement. As argued (26 July 2022) by veteran Indian diplomat, T.S.Tirumurti, the developed countries have been “backtracking on almost every commitment made by them at the various Conference of Parties.” Making International Law Work The consistent “backtracking” by the developed countries flies in the face of the UNFCCC’s emphatic declarative criteria of “the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof” [Article 3 (1)]. It is sine qua non for the “ultimate objective” of the UNFCCC to achieve “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere” (Article 2). This original legal basis requires the criteria and a verifying mechanism that the developed countries “should take the lead”. The full compliance with the commitments by the developed countries under Article 4 (2) (a) and (b) remain sine qua non. In the absence of a miracle or a trigger event, the words and actions of the leading GHG emitter developed countries leave little prospects for a decisive course correction at COP27 and beyond. As a result, the developing countries may soon realize the futility of undertaking NDCs without the developed countries in effect carrying out their part of the legal commitments - the cornerstone of the climate change regulatory juggernaut. The UNGA Needs to Take Direct Charge Since 1988, the UNGA has been the original conductor of the grand climate change orchestra. It is high time the UNGA rises to the occasion to normatively place a common concern on the pedestal of a planetary concern. It needs to adopt an appropriate resolution during the 77th session and beyond to provide future direction to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. It remains to be seen as to how far the COP27 process at Sharm El-Sheikh rises to the occasion. As we look ahead, the future trajectory of the climate change regulatory process remains uncertain. It presents an ideational and normative challenge for the international law scholars, the UN General Assembly and the UNFCCC regulatory process to earnestly make it work by expanding the ambit of climate change regulation as a planetary concern. #ClimateChange #Cop27 #UNFCCC Professor Dr. Bharat H. Desai is Jawaharlal Nehru Chair and Professor of International Law at the Centre for International Legal Studies of SIS, JNU. He served as a member of the official Indian Delegations to various multilateral negotiations (2002-2008) as well as coordinated the Making SIS Visible initiative (2012-2020) and Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020). He is the Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam).

By Ayadoure S. Stalin Coup d'état is not a new element in Myanmar’s polity since its independence from British colonialism. Coup d’état is not a new element in Myanmar’s polity since its independence from British colonialism. A coup throws out the democratic polity to set up a military dictatorship. Such unilateral transfer of power would require legitimacy from a sovereign state, which often leads such an authoritarian state to be a satellite for the great power nation in its quest for survival that, in turn, carves a path for bloc politics. With the military taking over Myanmar’s democratic polity in 2021 through a coup d’état, the democratically elected President – Aung San Suu Kyi, was arrested on 1 February 2021, and the whole world witnessed the return of Tatmadaw (Myanmar Armed Forces) as Junta Government took control with State Administration Council led by Min Aung Hlaing. With such developments in Myanmar, many political leaders from the political party – National League for Democracy (a party led by Aung San Suu Kyi) were arrested with a total lockdown on civil and human rights. Nevertheless, a few ousted political elites from the National League for Democracy led by Duwa Lashi La, with the support of other disparate groups, formed a parallel government opposed to the Junta Government called the National Unity Government (NUG) and constituted a defence force called the People’s Defence Force to call for ‘defensive war against Junta by National Unity Government’ in September 2021 brought the Cold War loop of Authoritarian versus Pro-Democracy conflict back to Southeast Asia. The Authoritarian versus Pro-Democracy division in the state system of Southeast Asia is the pattern observed during the Cold War-induced conflicts in the State of Kampuchea (erstwhile) and Vietnam into North and South Vietnam, which kept the map of Southeast Asia in flux. During the Cold War, the junta rule of Myanmar survived without any changes in their map, and the other authoritarian regimes faced the formation of new States. Fortunately, the nascency of ASEAN survived such flux in the Southeast Asian States during the Cold War and accommodated new states under its fold. However, the current state of internal strife in Myanmar has, unlike earlier Junta rule, two groups claiming legitimacy and fighting for claim over Myanmar, which may have two recourses – a division of Myanmar into two states or one China dilemma reflection in Myanmar with NUG carving a territory leading to the ‘China-Taiwan’ scenario. In either of the two recourses, such development would yield great powers like The USA and China’s intervention in the region that would trickle to the escalation of regional conflict. Such escalation of the regional conflict would see the polity of other Southeast Asian States permeable to the crisis, probably escalating conflict in mainland Southeast Asia and eventually fracturing the ASEAN consensus. Hence, to deescalate the internal strife and bring enduring peace in Myanmar, ASEAN’s immediate response to the crisis in Myanmar was the adoption of Five Point Consensus – immediate cessation of violence in Myanmar, constructive dialogue among all stakeholders, a special envoy of the ASEAN Chair shall facilitate mediation of the dialogue process, humanitarian assistance through the AHA Centre, and special envoy and delegation shall visit Myanmar to meet with all parties concerned. However, the Junta Government headed by Min Aung Hlaing, after two days of adopting the Five Point Consensus, in his speech with the State Administration Council, announced “visits to Myanmar proposed by the ASEAN will be considered after stabilizing the country”, and the Junta Government have announced ceasefire but followed by an increased crackdown on civilians. Such developments attracted sanctions on the Junta Government by The United States, followed by Canada, the UK, the EU, and Australia. LOOMING ASEAN’s INEFFECTIVENESS In three summits since Tatmadaw took over Myanmar in 2021, the annual summit of ASEAN, every chair following Brunei chose not to invite junta leader Min Aung Hlaing but has opted to have a ‘non-political representative’ from Myanmar. With the denial by the Myanmar Junta, the 2021 ASEAN summit proceeded with no participation from Myanmar. However, the Cambodia Chairmanship witnessed the first-ever in-person summit following the COVID-19 crisis. As a chair of ASEAN in 2022, Cambodia followed the same pattern as its predecessor to have a non-political representative from Myanmar. Such successive developments have dented the legitimacy crisis of the Junta Government. Even the current chair of 2023 to ASEAN – Indonesia followed the same precedence of the previous chair not to invite the Junta Leader. A paradox emerges in the choice of ASEAN not to invite the Junta State Administrative Council leader Min Aung Hlaing, to secure the legitimacy required to be a Sovereign State. At the same time, ASEAN has not engaged till now with the NUG. Every summit since 2021 for Myanmar’s non-political representation, ASEAN’s chair has sought the Junta Government to send a non-political representative, depicting a paradoxical approach as the NUG was never given representation in ASEAN. Hence, the East Asia Summit, which sets off along with ASEAN’s Summit for 2023, has “lost momentum as an agenda-setting institution for the region due to intractable differences between its biggest members such as the United States, Japan, China and Russia.” Critics of failed consensus through ASEAN-led solution to Myanmar’s crisis have found reflection from Indonesia, the current chair of ASEAN, whose President Joko Widodo commented that “there has been no significant progress in the implementation of the five-point consensus” directly indicating the ASEAN has failed to act appropriately on Myanmar case. INDONESIA AS ASEAN CHAIR FOR INCLUSIVE NATIONAL DIALOGUE Indonesia’s ASEAN Chairman commenced on January 2023 amid three major challenges – recovering the regional economy from the COVID-19 crisis, the emergence of ‘minilateral’ security arrangements, and the 2021 Myanmar Coup. With such challenges, the Indonesia chairmanship was themed “ASEAN Matters: Epicentrum of Growth.” Two out of three challenges have an outlook for regional growth, but the conflict due to Myanmar does not. In its publication on Regional Economic Outlook on Sub-Saharan Africa, IMF explicates, “Growth tends to be lower in conflict cases across all country groups.” Spillover effect due to conflict in Myanmar on the economic growth of Southeast Asia would impact healing from downfalls due to COVID-19. So, the only way out for ASEAN’s chair, for the current and successor member countries, is to set the path to an Inclusive National Dialogue in Myanmar. ASEAN’s mechanism is based on non-interference in the internal matters of member countries, but the issue of human rights abuses and excess arrests committed by the Junta required sensible action. As one purpose underlined in ASEAN’s charter states, “to ensure that the peoples and Member States of ASEAN live in peace with the world at large in a just, democratic and harmonious environment.” ASEAN charter demands peaceful resolution and enhanced consultation on matters concerned with common interest. A question may be propounded: What does Myanmar conflict have a common interest for ASEAN? Myanmar conflict, if not resolved, would open the Southeast Asian Polity for great power games induced due to the evolving Indo-Pacific rivalry between China and The USA, the migration induced due to displacement caused by the Junta’s crackdown on civilians is pushing more burden on the healing economies of Southeast Asia due to COVID-19 pandemic, the regional trade agreement concluded by ASEAN – Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership would be least effective when Myanmar facing sanctions by major western countries thus making Southeast Asian good and services uncompetitive markets, and the intra-regional investments sourced to Myanmar by other ASEAN countries – Thailand and Singapore has invested into Myanmar’s natural gas imports would draw no returns thus hindering intra-regional flow of goods and services. By understanding the perils of the Myanmar conflict, Indonesia, the ongoing chair for ASEAN, has undertaken a rational approach to this conflict by demanding an Inclusive National Dialogue. Inclusive National Dialogue is “used as an instrument to resolve political crises and pave the way for political transitions and sustainable peace.” Conflict-driven nations from Tongo to Yemen, National Dialogue have paved the way for the “political reforms, constitution-making, and peacebuilding” for a successful political transition. Indonesia has brought “180 engagements with the stakeholders in Myanmar since it assumed the ASEAN chairmanship in January” 2023. The two sides – Junta and NUG, were brought to dialogue in various formats by Indonesia. However, the engagement does not mean National Dialogue would immediately kick off, and conflict would stop. Because the national dialogue does not initiate only when two parties in conflict come to the table. The participation in National Dialogue has broad stakeholders – “civil society, women, youth, business, and religious or traditional actors.” National dialogue succeeds when incorporated with the following principles – “inclusion, transparency and public participation, a far-reaching agenda, a credible convener, appropriate and clear rules of procedure, and an implementation plan.” Indonesia sensibly propounded a Troika mechanism with Malaysia, Indonesia, and Laos (the other two nationals will take up the ASEAN chair in the succeeding year), thereby creating a continuity in this process of initiating National Dialogue Myanmar, which would lead to the resolution of conflict and reduce the current volatility in Southeast Asia. #ASEAN #Myanmar Originally Published : Modern Diplomacy, 14th November' 2023 https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/11/14/inclusive-national-dialogue-only-respite-for-aseans-solution-in-the-ongoing-myanmar-strife/ Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author. Ayadoure S. Stalin is a PhD Candidate and a UGC Junior Research Fellow (Research Scholar) at Centre for Indo-Pacific Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru Universty, New Delhi, India.

By Prof. (Dr.) Gulshan Sachdeva It remains unclear whether India and the UK will be able to conclude a trade deal during Rishi Sunak's upcoming visit to India. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar's recent visit to the United Kingdom became more interesting with the abrupt reshuffling of the British Cabinet that occurred while he was in London. Initially, he engaged with British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly during the reception hosted by the Indian High Commissioner. The following day, he became the first foreign leader to hold a meeting with the newly-appointed Foreign Secretary, former British Prime Minister David Cameron. He once again encountered Cleverly, who had assumed the role of Home Secretary, succeeding Indian-origin Suella Braverman. In fact, during the visit, he met three British Prime Ministers — Rishi Sunak, Tony Blair, and Cameron. His trip primarily aimed to lay the groundwork for Sunak's upcoming visit to India. Despite constant shifts in British political dynamics and sporadic activities of radical Sikhs in the United Kingdom, New Delhi’s ties with London continue to witness an upward trajectory. Somehow, Britain’s post-Brexit ambitions have coincided with India’s economic and strategic priorities. These ambitions and priorities are captured through the upgraded Comprehensive Strategic Partnership and Roadmap 2030. The roadmap covers a broad spectrum of issues spanning trade, defence and security, as well as people-to-people connections. Official statements indicate that apart from bilateral issues, Jaishankar discussed broader issues concerning the war in Ukraine, the situation in Israel and Gaza, as well as the Indo-Pacific region. In addition to the overall positive trend in bilateral relations, two specific issues are being closely monitored. First, developments at the bilateral trade negotiations. Second, convergence of issues and possible co-operation in the Indo-Pacific region, particularly after the British tilt towards the region. The India-UK Enhanced Trade Partnership (ETP) was launched in early 2021 and formal trade negotiations began in 2022. During Prime Minister Boris Johnson's visit to India in April 2022, a deadline for reaching an agreement was set by Diwali of 2022. Even this Diwali has gone. Following 14 rounds of negotiations, five out of the 26 chapters remain unresolved. In fact, critical matters related to intellectual property rights, rules of origin, financial services, work visas, and specific item tariff reductions still require resolution. While bilateral talks commenced only last year, negotiations for a trade deal have been ongoing since 2007, initially within the framework of India-EU discussions. So difficult issues concerning short term mobility for high skilled professionals, investment protection, Indian market access to British legal and financial firms, high Indian tariffs on scotch whiskey and automobiles, non-tariff barriers on some Indian exports etc. have been known for years. During the visit, Jaishankar asserted that both are hoping to find “a landing point” for the FTA that works for both the countries. Braverman may be out of Sunak’s Cabinet, but anti-immigrant rhetoric in British politics will continue. So, it will not be easy for Sunak to link bilateral FTA with some kind of deal on mobility. Many reports suggest that as part of the trade deal, India is now not seeking an increase in student or other visas. Instead, the focus is on facilitating easier intra-company transfers and providing portable pensions for those who contribute in the UK. Even linking these intra-company transfers with the FTA may not be easy. Having refrained from signing any trade deals for years, New Delhi is currently working to alter its image as a hesitant trade partner. After two major trade deals with Australia and the United Arab Emirates, achieving an FTA with the UK could represent a crucial milestone. The last two agreements allow deep access into the partner country’s market, safeguards in case of import surges, and better rules of origin. India is likely to follow a similar strategy not only with the UK but also with the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council. This could pose some new challenges to negotiators. Evolving geopolitical shifts, including the rise of assertive China and closer India-US ties have played an important role in bringing India and the UK together. Still convergence on many foreign policy issues will not happen automatically. On Ukraine, Indian and British perceptions differ. The Israel-Palestine issue is still evolving. Discussions surrounding the Indo-Pacific are currently addressing matters related to maritime security, infrastructure connectivity, and triangular development cooperation. As a Prime Minister for six years, Cameron played a pivotal role in shaping a ‘golden era’ of relations with China. He is now a heavyweight in-charge of the British foreign office. His appointment has already been hailed in the Chinese media. Though as foreign secretary, he faces an entirely different geopolitical environment, his impact on British foreign policy will be visible soon. He has also been very enthusiastic about relations with India. However, the pivotal issue remains unclear as to whether India and the UK will be able to finalise a trade deal during Sunak's upcoming visit to India. #IndiaUK #FTA Originally Published : The Deccan Herald, 16th November' 2023 https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/still-no-light-at-the-end-of-the-india-uk-fta-tunnel-2773151 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 Md. Muddassir Quamar (Ph.D.) The war has divided the global community into two camps—pro-Israel and pro-Palestine—leaving little space for a considered and objective analysis of the situation. As the Israel-Hamas war, that broke out on 7 October 2023 after Hamas and other militant organisations based in the Gaza Strip attacked southern Israel, enters the second month, it is relevant to analyse its geopolitical context and implications. The war has divided the global community into two camps—pro-Israel and pro-Palestine—leaving little space for a considered and objective analysis of the situation. For the supporters of ‘Palestinian rights to self-determination,’ even a terrorist strike against unarmed civilians is justified in the name of ‘resistance against occupation.’ On the other hand, for the supporters of Israel’s rights to defence, even the killing of innocent civilians and children is justified as ‘collateral damage.’ World leaders have also taken stands based on personal preferences and the country’s strategic interests and ambitions, not entirely unexpected. Hence, President Joe Biden and the United States have fully backed the Israeli military action in the Gaza Strip. Similarly, the majority of European leaders and countries have voiced their support for Israel. The same is true for Canada and a few countries in the Global South. On the other hand, most of the West Asian countries, while condemning the Hamas terror attack of 7 October, have been critical of the excessive use of force by Israel and have condemned the targeting of civilians and children. The non-western global powers such as Russia, China and India have taken a more nuanced and balanced position given their intricate relations with both the Israelis and the Palestinians. As the war continues and the casualties rise, the calls for allowing humanitarian aid to reach the Palestinian population have increased, with intermittent appeals for a ceasefire. The political and military leadership in Israel, although they have allowed some humanitarian aid to enter Gaza through the Rafah border with Egypt, have ruled out any possibility of a ceasefire until the twin goals of decimating Hamas and rescuing the nearly 200 Israeli hostages are achieved. Hamas and other Gaza-based militant organisations have ruled out surrendering or releasing Israeli hostages and committed themselves to fighting the Israeli ground incursion. Thus, the threat of urban warfare between IDF and Hamas remains possible. Amidst this, it is important to understand the regional geopolitical setting of the ongoing war. While the festering and unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the primary context, the geopolitical contestation among the regional powers is also important. A key aspect is the position of Iran, which has been engaged in proxy conflicts with Israel and Arab Gulf states, as well as has outstanding problems with the United States. The tensions between Iran and Arab Gulf states have begun to settle down after the March 2023 agreement to restore their diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Some had underlined the possibility of the beginning of a rapprochement between the two Gulf neighbours that can unveil a new era of stability in Western Asia. Alternatively, the signing of the Abraham Accords and the possibility of establishing diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel led to greater discussion on peace and stability in Western Asia, wherein the focus shifted from geopolitics to geoeconomics. Economic interdependence and regional connectivity had emerged as the buzzword in the region since 2020–2021, especially as the Biden administration was trying to encourage greater regional cohesion, unlike the Trump administration, whose policies were fuelling tensions. The rapprochement between Arab Gulf countries and Israel was not necessarily viewed positively in Ankara or Tehran. In Türkiye, the Islamic-nationalist AKP-Erdoğan government has been critical of Israel for its continued occupation of Palestinian territories. In Iran, the Shia Islamist-clerical establishment has continued to refuse the Israeli right to existence based on religious and ideological convictions. Iran is also engaged in a proxy conflict with Israel in Syria and Iraq, wherein it has been able to establish itself as a de facto military power through Shiite-Islamist militant groups that are committed to the revolutionary ideals of the Islamic Republic. Iran is also the chief benefactor of groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ansarallah (Houthis) in Yemen and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza. Iran’s strategy to arm militant groups is based on the idea of offsetting any threats emanating from state and non-state actors because of the ideological fight with Sunni Islamists and the geostrategic battle with the US and its regional allies for dominating the region. In the Iranian view, the regional order should be free from external interference, in which case the leadership of the Islamic Republic assumes that Iran will be able to establish an Iranian-led regional order. Given its ideological opposition, Iran would also prefer Israel to remain tangled in a web of conflicts with non-state actors without Tehran necessarily getting directly involved in the war. Iranian nuclear ambitions and Israeli opposition and actions to deny the possibility of it attaining atomic weapon capability have also become a bone of contention in the fight between the two regional powers. Given this, it raises the bigger question of whether the Palestinian issue has become just a pawn in the proxy war between Iran and Israel. Although thus far, there is no evidence of direct Iranian involvement in inciting or planning the Hamas attack on Israel, the fact remains that the Iranian support and training, along with Qatari aid, have been instrumental in keeping Hamas alive and making it into a potent fighting group albeit with only rudimentary military equipment. As the context is important, so are the implications. One of the key aspects is that the already strong anti-Hamas and anti-Palestinian sentiments in Israel will further harden, and the same can be said about the prevailing anti-Israel sentiments in Palestine, the Arab and Islamic worlds and the pro-Palestinian global community. Secondly, it will become difficult for the Arab Gulf monarchies to justify their relations with Israel, diplomatic or otherwise, given the rise in anti-Israel sentiments. Thirdly, the war may lead to intensification of the ongoing proxy war between Israel and Iran, and at some point, other regional Iranian proxies might join the conflict. Finally, the war also rules out any possibility of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however remote it might have been before the outbreak of the war. It is not clear what the Hamas leadership was hoping to achieve by attacking, killing and abduction of Israeli civilians. If it were to showcase their potency and Israeli vulnerability, they can claim they succeeded. But to attack civilians is unjustifiable and outrightly criminal under any circumstance, and to do this at the cost of the lives of thousands of Palestinians and the destruction of the Gaza Strip is not only ludicrous but outrightly beyond any humanitarian conscience. The 7 October attack on Israel, thus, has not only hardened the regional and global public opinion against Hamas but has also buried any possibility of a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. #WestAsia #IsraelHamasWar #IsraelPalestineConflict Originally Published : The Financial Express, 8th November 2023 https://www.financialexpress.com/business/defence-the-israel-hamas-war-and-geopolitical-contestations-in-west-asia-3301637/ Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Md. Muddassir Quamar (PhD) is an Associate Professor at Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.