Search

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

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

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

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

By 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