Search

By Md. Muddassir Quamar (PhD) While it is difficult to suggest how the war might pan out, the likelihood of any immediate ceasefire appears remote given the anger and public sentiment in Israel, which wants to take revenge of extraordinary proportions. Hamas’s attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023 is reminiscent of the surprise attack against Israel by Egypt and Syria in October 1973, which led to the Yom Kippur or Ramadan War. Hamas—Harkat al-Muqawama al-Islamiya or Islamic Resistance Movement—has controlled the Gaza Strip, a conclave of 365 square kilometers and a population of over 2 million, since 2007. Hamas fought an armed battle with the Fatah—Harkat al-Tahrir al-Watani al-Filastini or Palestinian National Liberation Movement—in 2006-07 to take control of the Strip after Fatah refused to hand over the power of the Palestinian Authority (PA) to Hamas despite its victory in the 2006 Palestinian Council elections. Since then, Hamas and Fatah, the two major factions in the Palestinian movement, have shared an acrimonious relationship. Since the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2007, the enclave has remained blockaded by Israel and Egypt and cut off from the world and the other Palestinian territory of the West Bank. Israel and Hamas have also fought several wars, with numerous intermittent clashes between them. The first war between Israel and Hamas erupted in 2008-09, which caused severe loss of life and infrastructure damage in the Strip. Since then, Hamas and Israel have fought on and off, with significant clashes in October 2012, July-August 2014, and May 2021 before the ongoing phase of the Hamas-Israel war started. The 7 October attack on Israel by Hamas was different because of its scale, ability to breach the border walls, and state-of-the-art surveillance system installed by Israel. Reportedly, thousands of Hamas fighters and ordinary Gazan residents crossed into southern Israel and mounted sieges of several Israeli neighborhoods, causing the death of nearly 1,300 Israelis while also taking dozens of hostages, including elderly, women, and children. Simultaneously, Hamas fired thousands of rockets indiscriminately targeting residential and civilian buildings to inflict maximum damage. Undoubtedly, the attack of such a proportion was launched to evoke an extraordinary Israeli response and underline the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’s continued relevance to the world. Expectedly, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), after recollecting itself from the initial jolt of the surprise attack, launched an immediate response. Within 24 hours, it took back control of the borders and freed southern Israel of any siege by Hamas. The IDF then began the bombardment of Gaza while simultaneously planning a ground incursion. On 13 October, the IDF released pamphlets in northern Gaza directing its over 1 million residents to leave as it prepared a ground incursion. The Israeli action bombardments in Gaza have already led to over 2,000 Palestinians, including civilians, children, and women losing their lives. While it is difficult to suggest how the war might pan out, the likelihood of any immediate ceasefire appears remote given the anger and public sentiment in Israel, which wants to take revenge of extraordinary proportions. At the same time, there are fears of the war expanding to other regional countries, especially Lebanon, Syria, and even Iraq and Iran, given that Hezbollah in Lebanon has carried out some rocket launches in northern Israel while Israel has attacked locations inside Syria. The probability of an expanded regional war mainly depends on the actions of Iran and its regional proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. At this point, Iran has denied any direct involvement in the planning and execution of Hamas, and Israel and the US, too, have until now not held Iran directly responsible for the attack by Hamas. Hence, given the situation at the time of writing, the likelihood of a major regional war appears limited. As far as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is concerned, the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, and in hindsight, the earlier wars the two sides have fought since 2007, leads to two primary conclusions. One is that Israel’s continued occupation of the Palestinian territories is untenable, and the world community and regional actors in the Middle East, including Israel, cannot wholly ignore the Palestinian issue. Conversely, it can be argued that maintaining the status quo in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip will incur huge humanitarian costs on both sides. Secondly, the terror tactics by Hamas against Israel are unlikely to resolve the conflict. If at all, it only delegitimizes the Palestinian cause and underlines Hamas’s brutality and war crimes against its targeted Israelis and against innocent Palestinian civilians who are used as human shields or become the victim of the attacks and counterattacks between Hamas and Israel. Hence, both occupation and terrorism cannot be justified by any means. Notwithstanding the immediate repercussions on the Israelis and Palestinians and whether the war escalates into a broader regional crisis, the ongoing crisis will have regional implications. The first question it raises is about the regional trend of normalization of relations between Arab countries and Israel. While the process of Gulf Arab rapprochement with Israel started earlier, the Abraham Accords signed in September 2020 among UAE, Bahrain, and Israel, and later joined by Morocco and Sudan, underlined the possibility of normalization between Arab countries and Israel without necessarily taking the Palestinian view into account. The Abraham Accords were followed by discussions between Saudi Arabia and Israel, mediated by the US, to normalize relations. Notably, Saudi Arabia, during the negotiations, continued to highlight the need for taking the Palestinian view into account and held some discussions with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and other representatives. For the time being, the Hamas-Israel war has halted the discussions on Saudi-Israel normalization, and Saudi Arabia has announced that it is no longer engaging in negotiations on normalization with Israel. The possibility of resumption of the normalization talks will depend on how and when the war ends. The process will be delayed if the Hamas-Israel conflict expands to Lebanon and further into Syria and other regional countries. Some have suggested that the ongoing Israel-Hamas war is a death knell for the Abraham Accords and all the regional geopolitical and geo-economic developments it had ensued. Such a narrow understanding of the regional situation is fallacious, at best. The reversal of all the gains made after the Abraham Accords, including the I2U2 and IMEC, cannot be assured. The fate of both will depend on a multiplicity of factors. I2U2, for example, is a joint forum of four regional and extra-regional countries focused on food and energy security, and the economic projects announced under it will likely continue despite the ongoing war. Similarly, the IMEC is a multi-nation partnership for infrastructure development and cross-border trade. Although it depends on the relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, both important IMEC constituents, none have made any statements against it. For Saudi Arabia to continue with the IMEC is vital, given that it aligns with its Vision 2030 program. It fits in its quest for an economic transformation in preparation for a post-oil economy. Moreover, the three primary components of the IMEC are India, the Gulf Arab countries, and Europe and the European Union, and Jordan, Israel, and Greece are critical nodal points. One must also consider that the Saudi-Israeli secret political and security engagements predate the Abraham Accords. And, there remains the possibility of economic contacts and connectivity projects despite the disruption of the Saudi-Israel normalization. Hence, the Hamas-Israel war likely will delay the regional geopolitical reconciliations and normalization rather than announcing its death, and therein lies the need for continuing diplomatic efforts towards normalization as well as infrastructure development and economic integration. What is essential, however, is to recognize the significance of the Palestinian issue in seeking normalization for Israel and economic integration among the regional states. #WestAsia #IsraelHamasWar #IsraelPalestineConflict Originally Published : The Financial Express, 16th October 2023 https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/implications-of-the-hamas-israel-war/3273409/ Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Md. Muddassir Quamar (PhD) is an Associate Professor at Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. (Dr.) Gulshan Sachdeva The IMEC holds promise but it must contend with West Asian politics, and demonstrate a clear cost and time advantage over the Suez Canal and the INSTC routes The Hamas-Israel war and shifting geopolitical dynamics in West Asia could potentially cast a significant shadow over the much-discussed India-Middle-East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). The IMEC was announced on the sidelines of the G20 Summit just a month ago. United States President Joe Biden called it a “real big deal”. The European Commission President labelled it as the “most ambitious project of our generation”. Given India's robust economic ties with both Europe and West Asia, the proposition looked attractive. Prime Minister Narendra Modi asserted that the IMEC “is going to become the basis of world trade for hundreds of years to come, and history will always remember that this corridor was initiated on Indian soil". The proposed multi-modal corridor will link India to Europe through the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel and Greece. While the economics of the IMEC route compared to the tested Suez Canal route is still not clear, it made a lot of geopolitical sense to most observers. Currently, the IMEC seems to be off-track even before the intricate land, sea and railroad corridor details have been fully developed. The Israel-Palestine conflict is going to impact the broader process of normalisation between Israel and many Arab states. While the US-led IMEC initiative is based on the new dynamics in the region, the Hamas-Israel war has rekindled the relevance of traditional regional politics. The inclusion of 'Middle East' in naming the corridor suggested that this was more in line with a US design rather than a connectivity strategy originating from New Delhi. So far, the US has not committed any funding for the project. The idea has been to mobilise funding from the partners, private sector and multilateral organisations. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar called the US a “guarantor partner of the project” . The US was trying to build upon the successes of the Abraham Accords of 2020, India-Israel-UAE-US (I2U2) grouping and reconciliation efforts between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Although many analysts clubbed the IMEC with the Delhi G20 Summit outcomes, it is actually an outcome of the G7 initiative called Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), announced in the United Kingdom in 2021 and launched in Germany in 2022. The PGII is also being aligned with the EU’s Global Gateway Strategy as well as other Western initiatives viz Build Back Better World (B3W) and Blue Dot Network. Without waiting for the IMEC details, many enthusiastic analysts have declared it as a counter to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Both these initiatives have different logics and timelines. The BRI is now 10 years old. Close to 100 countries will be participating in the third BRI Forum in China later this month. Chinese officials claim that they have already established 3,000 projects and galvanised $1 trillion investments. Moreover, many of the IMEC partners are not looking at it as an alternative to the BRI. Some of them are already participating in the BRI. China has also established strategic partnerships with Greece (2006), Jordan (2015), the UAE (2018) and Saudi Arabia (2022). Riyadh and Abu Dhabi are also now members of the BRICS. The IMEC is the second US led connectivity project in which India is participating. Incidentally, the New Silk Road (NSR) strategy project was also announced on Indian soil by the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2011. The idea was to develop trade and energy corridors linking South and Central Asian economies via Afghanistan. While US never put any serious money behind the NSR, India wholeheartedly embraced the narrative until the US’ withdrawal from Afghanistan. Now China and the Taliban have agreed to link Afghanistan with the BRI. Despite the current phase of globalisation being significantly shaped by connectivity designs, India has yet to unveil a comprehensive connectivity strategy. Over the years, the International North-South Trade Corridor (INSTC) initiated by India, Iran and Russia was considered a key component of India's connectivity strategy. Additionally, joint initiatives like the India-Japan Asia-Africa Growth Corridor and the India-EU connectivity partnership were announced. However, to date, none of these projects have really taken off. The IMEC holds promise, primarily owing to existing trade volumes, but it must contend with West Asian politics, and demonstrate a clear cost and time advantage over the Suez Canal and the INSTC routes. #Israel #Hamas #IMEC #War Originally Published : Deccan Herald, 11th October' 2023 https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/israel-hamas-war-what-happens-to-imec-now-2721745 Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. (Dr.) Gulshan Sachdeva is Professor at the Centre for European Studies and Coordinator, Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai On October 10, 2023, the United Nations Secretary-General (UN SG) Antonio Guterres addressed the Fifth Committee (Admin and Budget) of the General Assembly (GA). “Inequalities are growing wider and the prospects of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals are growing more distant. And climate disasters are becoming more frequent, more deadly, and more costly. One in three countries is at high risk of a fiscal crisis, and almost half of those in extreme poverty live in countries with severe fiscal problems. The role of the United Nations has never been more vital – and we are stepping up our efforts”, the UNSG said. The above mentioned prognosis of the UNSG corroborates what this author underscored as “world we live in” in three of his 2023 talks: (i) Prof. R. P. Anand Memorial Lecture; Sept. 14, 2023; (ii) India’s G20 Presidency Lectures at SIS, Sept. 05, 2023; and (iii) Indian Society of International Law, Valedictory Address, March 04, 2023, It is this graphic reality that haunts us as the human driven global challenges (along with nature driven processes). Ironically, the latest ferocious Israeli air pounding in civilian areas of Gaza in response to Hamas strikes in Israeli civilian areas (UN News, Oct 9, 2023), as violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949, has vindicated the grave concerns about more than 2 billion people (out of global population of 8 billion) living in conflict zones. With this grim scenario, the chances for realization of 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are practically bleak. It found an explicit echo in the G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration (Sept. 9-10, 2023) noted with “deep concern immense human suffering and the adverse impact of wars and conflicts around the world” (para 7) as well as “adverse impact that conflicts have on the security of civilians thereby exacerbating existing socio-economic fragilities and vulnerabilities and hindering an effective humanitarian response” (para 12). It presents an ideational challenge – as global solution provider – for the potential Indian leadership through the concrete plank flagged by the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for “dialogue and diplomacy” as well as “today’s era must not be of war” (para 14, G20 Declaration). UNGA: Conductor of a Grand Orchestra Along with its six committees, the UNGA has played a pivotal role in norm-setting, organizing international law-making processes and institution building on a variety of global problematique. It has resorted to a remarkable engineering skill to engage a host of actors in contentious issues from the past (colonialism, racial discrimination, slavery, apartheid), existing global problems (climate change, SDGs, violence against women, conflicts) and future challenges (artificial intelligence, planetary crisis, future generations). Notwithstanding the legal quibbling due to the limits placed by Article 11 of the UN Charter on the UNGA’s principal instrumentality of resolutions as “recommendations” has never per se come in the way of making the resolutions work or their legitimacy. As a corollary to the UNGA’s consistent engagements to address some of the global challenges as a “conductor of a grand orchestra” [Bharat H. Desai (2004). Institutionalizing International Environmental Law, Chapter 5, 144. New York: Transnational], the President of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), Csaba Kőrösi, invited (program; letter of July 17, 2023) the Heads of State and Government (HoS&G) for the 2023 High-level political forum on sustainable development under the auspices of the UNGA’s 2023 SDG Summit (September 18-19, 2023). It became significant mid-point (2015-2030) event. The 2023 SDG special edition report provides graphic account of the utopian goals in the troubles world we live in. They were adopted vide UNGA resolution 70/1 of September 25, 2015 with a mission for Transforming Our World. The 2023 SDG Summit could be considered as a last-ditch effort to address the “impact of multiple and interlocking crises facing the world”. The SDG Summit coincided with the commencement of the UNGA 78th session (2023-2024). It took place exactly one year ahead of the forthcoming Summit of the Future (September 22-23, 2024) that will provide yet another chance in quick succession for further review and push for realization of the SDGs in the remaining seven years (2023-2030). The New York SDG Summit: Outcome The 2023 SDG Summit can be construed as a ‘stitch in time’ as one of the crucial processes to save humankind from the planetary level crisis that has set in. The Summit sought to respond to the consequences of multiple and interlocking crises that the world is facing. The deliberations and the resultant outcome document – Political Declaration – supported by the UNSG’s Stimulus Plan (Feb. 2023), may yield high-level political guidance on transformative and accelerated actions to usher in a new phase for attaining SDGs in the remaining seven years of the current cycle (2015-2030). As the UNSG underscored, the SDG Summit was “to provide a renewed impetus and accelerated action for reaching the SDGs” and was “expected to reignite a sense of hope, optimism, and enthusiasm for the 2030 Agenda.” However, a “great finance divide” threatens the SDG targets since ability of a large number of poorer countries, reeling under mountains of debt, has been sharply curtailed for investment in recovery, climate action, and sustainable development. As a consequence, the Zero Draft of the Political Declaration (June 08, 2023), prepared for adoption at the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF), under the auspices of the UNGA mandated 2023 SDG Summit, underscored the ominous ground reality that: “The achievement of the SDGs is in peril. At the midpoint of the 2030 Agenda, we are alarmed that only 12 per cent of the SDGs are on track and 30 per cent remain unchanged or below the 2015 baseline. The progress on most of the SDGs is either moving much too slowly or has regressed”. Interestingly, the final Political Declaration, adopted as an outcome of the 2023 SDG Summit, chose to eschew the uncomfortable reality of the “world we live in” contained in the in the chilling figures (“12 per cent of the SDGs are on track and 30 per cent remain unchanged”; Zero Draft). As already mentioned, the mounting debt burden due to high borrowing costs is one of the principal factors that cripples fragile economies of most the developing countries. It reflects deep rooted inequitable international financial and monetary system. In the end, the SDG Summit’s Political Declaration vowed that: We will act with urgency to realize its vision as a plan of action for people, planet, prosperity, peace and partnership, leaving no one behind. We will endeavour to reach the furthest behind first. As a result, the Political Declaration chose to give a priority to implementation of the 2030 Agenda and committed to upholding all the principles contained therein. (i) Shared Commitment It has been emphasized that eradication of poverty including extreme poverty is the biggest global challenge and one of the indispensable requirements for sustainable development. It was reaffirmed that the 2030 Agenda is universal in nature and comprises three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social, and environmental (see Figure: three dimensions of sustainable development agenda). The empowerment of women “to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls.” are crucial pillars of the SDGs as it emphasized. It reaffirmed that the 2030 Agenda was guided by the UN Charter including “respect for international law” since it is “grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights treaties, the Millennium Declaration and the 2005 World Summit Outcome. It is informed by other instruments such as the Declaration on the Right to Development”. Moreover, climate change has been regarded as one of the “triple planetary crisis” (here, here) of our times. As greenhouse gases (GHG) continue to rise globally, and with all countries, the special vulnerability of the developing countries has been addressed. It emphasized that climate change mitigation and adaptation are an immediate priority. Increased inequality due to poverty, hunger and malnutrition have become more prevalent, humanitarian costs are rising (339 million need assistance), and the impacts of climate change, etc. weaken international solidarity and the trust deficit mars collective efforts to overcome these crises. Cumulatively, it appeared clear that an effective and global cooperation is a sine qua non at all levels to realize the 2030 SDGs. It was, in turn, reflected in a political vow that we “will promote a systemic shift towards a more inclusive, just, peaceful, resilient and sustainable world for people and planet, for present and future generation”. The Declaration has recognized that many countries are facing challenges in pursuing SDGs. It mostly comprises developing countries including African countries, landlocked countries, island countries and least developed countries. Most of these countries are middle-income countries and countries in conflict and post-conflict situations. The gender agenda emerging at the top of the list as women's empowerment, the elimination of violence against women and girls would require concrete policy, legal and institutional responses at global and domestic levels. Some other strands in the global concerns and discourse include discrimination based on race, hate speech, stigmatization, xenophobia and related intolerance etc. These can be addressed only through cooperation, partnership, inclusion and respect for diversity. There are cross-cutting actions comprising quality education, universal health and related issues like food etc. that would provide long-term cohesion, sustenance and peaceful future. As a corollary to the urgent steps required for planetary level crisis, the SDG Summit sought to address several other pillars to conserve and sustainably use oceans and seas, freshwater resources, as well as forests, mountains and drylands and protect biodiversity, ecosystems and wildlife. It would need concerted commitments through global, regional, national and legal partnerships for sustainable development to achieve the 2030 Agenda. (ii) Identified Gaps and Challenges The challenges and gaps identified and reflected in the 2023 SDG Summit and its outcome instrumentality of Political Declaration, are mostly based on the world before and after COVID-19. Climate change, poverty, forced displacement, economic issues like cost-of-living, conflicts, gender inequality, the problems relating to migration, increased SDG financing gap, problems of landlocked countries, etc. have been identified as the most important challenges in the implementation of the 2030 SDGs that especially affecting developing and least developed countries. Thus, they welcomed the UN Development system to implement reforms championed by the UNSG and endorsed by the UNGA to support the countries in realizing the 2030 Agenda. The importance of sustainable funding has given priority to the UN development system and its programmatic activities. Moreover, voluntary national reviews have been regarded as suitable mechanism to monitor progress and integrate the SDGs into national policies and plans. (iii) Moving Forward to Achieve Agenda 2030 As the SDG Summit and speeches at the 78th UNGA opening high-level segment (late Sept. 2023) showed, most of the States have renewed their commitment for taking an urgent action at all levels to achieve the goals that would be fundamental and transformative for the planetary future. The SDG Summit has identified States that are doing well and to support those who are left behind. The needs of “all children, youth, persons with disabilities, people living with HIV/AIDS, older persons, indigenous peoples, refugees, internally displaced persons, and migrants have been duly reflected in the Agenda. In fact, the need for a concrete global partnership has emerged as one of the important tools to achieve the SDG targets by 2030. In this wake, the Political Declaration has zeroed in on prioritization of digitalization in the developing countries. There have been serious concerns for global water scarcity and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all as well as identifying gaps for addressing issues like global pandemic and the global health coverage so that no one is left behind. Similarly, implementation of the ‘New Urban Agenda’, global sustainable consumption patterns and zero-waste initiatives would matter most in the saga of realization of 2030 SDGs. Some other important tasks flagged as important targets comprise: renewable energy, full implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030), implementation of all the provisions of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), call for ‘climate action’ for the implementation of the 1992 UNFCCC and the 2015 Paris Agreement as well as implementation of the strategic objectives of the 1994 United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). The Declaration has reiterated “the need to accelerate the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed”. Similarly, the need for funding SDGs related research and innovation and address the emerging challenges of global regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). It pledged to act on international, national, and local data systems efforts that should be based on high quality, timely, relevant, disaggregated and reliable data on SDG. The outcome also sought full implementation of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and take further actions to scale up financing to sustainable development and provide the means of implementation to the developing countries. It appears good omen that through the SDG Summit Declaration, the UN member states renewed their commitments to multilateralism to find ways of working together and ensure that multilateral institutions deliver results. Similarly, they swore by peaceful settlement of disputes, respect for international law and the principles and purposes of the UN Charter including the right to self-determination, territorial integrity and political independence of the States. As an icing on the cake, the SDG Summit Declaration finally vowed and as the UNSG has emphasized (Sept. 18, 2023) that: “We pledge to act now, for present and future generations, turning our world towards a sustainable and resilient path by 2030, and leaving no one behind”. This final sentence crystallizes the essence of what will it take for the UN member states to pursue in the remaining seven years of the current SDG cycle (2015-2030). In fact, walking-the-talk would hold the key to the rescue plan for 2030 SDGs. Audacity of Hope In the midst of a “planetary level crisis” [see Bharat H. Desai, SIS Blog Special – I and II (March 29, 2023); Green Diplomacy (Feb. 14, 2023)], it is audacious to hope that the resolve of the 2023 New York SDG Summit (September 18-19, 2023) would pay heed to the emergency button pushed by the UNSG (Stockholm+50; June 02, 2022) and ensure that the SDGs do not remain “hot air” and we decisively “end our senseless and suicidal war against nature”. The 2023 SDG Summit outcome would also impinge upon the prospects for the 2024 New York Summit of the Future (UNGA Reso. 76/307: here, Our Common Agenda, para 125: here) to be held during September 22-23, 2024. Hopefully, notwithstanding the graphic reality and challenges of the “world we live in”, the key mantra for the UN member states will need to be “leaving no one behind”. This solemn declaration of the SDG Summit’s outcome document of Political Declaration provides a beacon of hope for bold, ambitious, accelerated and transformative actions for a sustainable world for people and planet. It is indeed an audacity of hope (and possibly a miracle) to expect realization of all the 2030 SDGs in the coming seven years (2023-2030). If the UN member states can walk-the-talk, it would set the stage for concrete action plan for saving the planet Earth at the 2024 Summit of the Future. #UNSG #UNSC#UNGA #MEA #PMOIndia #WEF #2023 SDG Summit The Article is a sequel to Blog Special -I posted on 12th August 2023 on the SIS Blog. This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai is Professor of International Law, Jawaharlal Nehru Chair 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 (i) Making SIS Visible (2008-2013) and the (ii) Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020) as well as contributes as the Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam)

By Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit This episode shows how even developed countries externalise domestic issues by transforming a bilateral partner into an adversary for domestic electoral gains. In a recent development in India-Canada relations, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s statements have sparked diplomatic controversy that breached diplomatic decorum and indicated his immature leadership. Just to keep himself in power, he is ready to go to any lengths to appease terror and people involved in hate speech, human and drug trafficking. His choice of language and actions have jeopardised bilateral ties and the safety of Indians (especially Indian Hindus) currently residing in Canada. To gain insights into how Canada, traditionally a favoured foreign destination for Indians, became a source of anger and frustration, four key observations warrant attention. First, Trudeau’s hubris and romanticised commitment to woke values of hate speech and Hinduphobia injure relations with India and expose his divisive politics—not only of domestic politics but also as a disruptive instrument of foreign policy. One can better understand Trudeau’s actions in the context of his political career, which embraces identity politics and divisive policies. Trudeau has sought to promote what appears to be disingenuous empathy stemming from his ideological commitments towards woke politics. His approach has frequently worsened divisions in Canada rather than solving them. Whether one looks at his vaccine mandate or his handling of the trucker protests (earlier this year), he leaves no room for doubt regarding the potential dangers and authoritarian tendencies accompanying far-Left politics. Furthermore, it is essential to recognise that Trudeau and his supporters mistakenly yet regularly conflate his persona as synonymous with Canada. Second, Trudeau’s approach illustrates how not to handle a diplomatic situation. The episode seemingly emerged following Trudeau’s visit to India after the G20 Summit. His decision to present information regarding a still-investigated killing, where crucial facts remain elusive, within the Parliament was both deplorable and irresponsible. The utilisation of terms like “credible allegations” and “potential link” to implicate the Indian government without providing evidence or engaging in discussions with Indian representatives demonstrated not only an immature approach to this sensitive matter but also endangered the substantial Indian diaspora in Canada. Canada is no longer a safe and prosperous nation with low crime rates. Instead, akin to many Western countries like France and Germany, Canada faces growing concerns related to organised crime networks, hate crimes and anti-immigration sentiments against which Trudeau is not only ignorant but also ideologically blinded. For instance, the significant number of individuals involved in criminal activities who seek refuge in Canada under the guise of political asylum should have garnered the attention of the self-proclaimed proactive Prime Minister of Canada. However, his actions and policies remain misguided due to ideological bias, reflecting significant irresponsibility and a lack of diplomatic finesse. Third, the episode shows how even developed countries externalise domestic issues by transforming a bilateral partner into an adversary for electoral gains. Trudeau’s handling of the situation strongly suggests a primarily political motive driven by domestic concerns and a blunt pursuit of self-interest, illustrated vividly by his coddling of pro-Khalistan groups, notably Jagmeet Singh and his New Democratic Party. This must also consider his waning popularity in his re-election campaign, poor handling of the economy and disparaged vaccination policy. At this juncture, let’s also analyse the allegations against India. Senior researcher and former Pentagon official Michael Rubin eloquently articulated two scenarios. First, if India was not involved, Trudeau acted without much foresight and damaged diplomatic relations that could take years to mend. Second, if substantial evidence points to Indian involvement, it would signify a grave lapse within Canada’s security apparatus that harboured a known terrorist, a matter that India repeatedly urged it to address. Both of which demonstrate poor leadership by PM Trudeau. Moreover, this also implies that the Trudeau government is not a reliable ally in the fight against organised crime and terrorism. Instead, it seems inclined to protect these elements under the guise of free speech. It is worth recalling that this is the same Trudeau government that introduced bill C-16, which aimed to penalise certain forms of speech as legal offences without substantial evidence, potentially undermining the concept of free speech it professed to uphold. Many observers of this incident have also speculated that Trudeau’s sentiments may be linked to his perception of treatment during his visit to India. In all fairness, he was accorded respect and protocol due to a Head of State. When his plane encountered technical issues, India even extended the gracious offer to use the Air India One aircraft for his travel. However, any perceived snub that Trudeau and his supporters may have felt was largely of his own making. It’s crucial to harken back to his previous visit to India in 2018, during which a dinner hosted by the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi extended an invitation to Sikh extremist Jaspal Atwal, who had been convicted of attempted murder. Extending such an invitation to a Sikh extremist for an embassy event in a foreign nation implies a calculated mischief designed to elicit sympathy and publicity from a particular voter base back home. Fourthly, the incident illustrated India’s mastery of diplomacy. India’s response to Trudeau’s politically motivated actions showcased a diplomatic masterclass. India effectively defended its position and presented its narrative in the face of Trudeau’s assertive behaviour, demonstrating diplomacy at its best. This was further emphasised by the support from the United States and the United Kingdom, as reports indicated that Canada had sought their help against India but was denied. The amicable interactions between India and other Western nations during the 78th UNGA session underscore this point. Furthermore, India’s response made it clear that it will not tolerate finger-wagging or condescending attitudes reminiscent of the Cold War era. It sends a strong message that the world order is evolving. Trudeau should consider this reality and rise beyond the notion of a “White Man’s Burden” to educate the Global South. Above all, Trudeau should understand that promoting supporters of terrorism, organised crime, and secessionist movements is something no government appreciates and is detrimental for an inclusive democracy. Any phobia cannot be legitimized, whether Islamic, Jewish or for that matter Hindu. Ultimately, such irresponsible actions by the Canadian Prime Minister have yielded negative consequences for everyone. It has undermined the years of collaborative efforts and diplomacy and adversely impacted ordinary citizens, particularly India’s sizable diaspora residing in Canada. This situation starkly revealed the hypocrisy and pretence inherent in Trudeau’s professed inclusivity and social justice values. Essentially, it serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting how ideology and hubris can sorely damage the amicable relations between K-anada and the largest democracy and emerging power in a highly polarised world. #Canada #India #ForeignPolicy Originally Published : Sunday Guardian, 1st October 2023 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/trudeaus-domestic-politics-masquerades-as-foreign-policy#:~:text=First%2C%20Trudeau's%20hubris%20and%20romanticised,disruptive%20instrument%20of%20foreign%20policy. Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli Inscrutable China The US-China technology Cold War and China’s quest to expand indigenous capacity and self-reliance, as the US denies seeks to deny China hi-tech components for military use, are all shaping recent dynamics. The US restrictions on semiconductor components and technologies to China is a gathering storm, with retaliation and counter-retaliation measures spilling over into the supply chains and geopolitics. The ominous signals of the US restrictions on China are visible of late. It began with the Trump administration’s tariffs on China’s exports. A second sign was the semiconductor export controls imposed by the US in April 2018 on China’s telecom giant ZTE (Zhongxing) for repeatedly violating US laws on exports to Iran. A third sign was the arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the daughter of Huawei chief Ren Zhengfei. Meng was taken into custody by Canadian authorities at the behest of the US, for her alleged links to Iran. China retaliated by arresting two Canadian citizens not linked to this episode. Meng was finally released in a “hostage swap” deal, only for it to intensify the semiconductor war. The US restrictions are expected to constrain China’s expansion programmes, specifically in AI-enabled military applications, but also trigger intensive indigenous efforts. China’s vulnerability is reflected in the fact that it imports half of global chip sales, estimated at about $500 billion. China undertook two countermeasures. It retaliated by banning export of germanium and gallium to the US, essential for the production of semiconductors. Beijing also took the complaint to WTO. Previously, China banned the export of rare earth metals to Japan citing historical issues between the two countries. In another measure, it began subsidising domestic IT industry with more than $150 billion. China had assiduously built its domestic industry under Party-State dominance and priorities. Yangtze Memory Technologies Corp, Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, HuaHong and other companies have expanded substantially in enhancing semiconductor capacity. However, despite many successes, the industry is wracked by its dependence on State subsidies, lack of R&D investments, rampant corruption, and being copycats. The Chinese countermeasures appear to be counterproductive. While China put up a brave face by announcing a 7-nanometer chip (compared to its predominantly 24-nm capability) and Huawei released the 5G-capable Mate-60 Pro. But this appears to be for demonstrative effect. The US, Taiwan and South Korean companies produce 3- and 4-nm chips already. In March this year, the US cobbled up a multilateral pact with Japan and Netherlands to stop chip-making technology from going to China. Beijing has been assiduously pursuing measures to acquire such technologies from the US and Netherlands. With ambitions of becoming a “digital superpower” and sourcing 70% of integrated circuits and other parts through the ‘Made in China 2025’ campaign launched in 2015, China wanted to seize the opportunity but with initial US support. That dream has become an uphill task now. Beijing seems to have opened its cards too early, especially at a time when it is still recovering from the Covid pandemic, with declining economic growth and restrictions on its own big businesses. China had imposed restrictions on the US company Micron and even arrested its employees last year on espionage charges. Many US tech companies are toying with the idea of relocating from China to other green pastures in Southeast Asia and India. These technology and geopolitical issues occur alongside China’s threat to invade Taiwan, the major semiconductor exporter in the world today. Taiwan invasion scenarios have created tensions in the US and Taiwan and brought back options of relocating the semi-conductor industry to other markets. Taiwan’s TSMC has agreed to open a plant in Arizona and explore other markets. Despite public postures of openness, transparency, WTO-compliance and level-playing field, China is a highly restricted market for the US, European, Japanese or even Indian products. For instance, none of the Indian software products are allowed in China’s State-owned enterprises, not to mention extensive restrictions and firewalls embedded in China’s IT platforms. The US-China semiconductor war could be an opportunity for India in terms of relocation of the global industry in a phased manner, upgradation of India’s capacities, and supply chain reorganisation. Already, Micron, which was victimised in China, is setting up a testing and packaging centre in Gujarat, with over $830 million in investments. Taiwan’s TSMC and Foxconn companies are actively in talks or have established their presence in the semiconductor industry in India. #SinoUS #TechRivalry #ChipWar #India Originally Published : Deccan Herald, 8th October' 2023 https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/us-china-chip-war-is-indias-opportunity-2717261 Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author. Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli is Dean of School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit The biggest challenge for Jawaharlal Nehru University is to include the multiple intellectual narratives in India, without excluding any The goal of becoming a vishwaguru in the knowledge society requires transformational reforms in education. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, is indeed a unique framework, for it brings in continuity with change, and merges specialisation with a holistic approach. The stress on interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of knowledge introduces a balance between science, technology, social sciences, humanities and languages; between the local and the regional, the national and the international, as well as the universal. The State’s role in education is very important, for it is public education that bridges the gap between social, economic and regional disparities. Private players can never replace the State as the autonomy of educational institutions is guaranteed by democracies such as India. The weighty yet indispensable responsibility of fostering education and driving innovation is intricately tied to the architecture of our education system. Within this framework, the role of higher education institutions, particularly exemplified by institutions such as Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), assumes an outsized and pivotal significance. This calls for a higher investment in education by the State to more than 10 per cent of the GDP. The role ascribed to institutions of higher learning, including JNU, is to facilitate education, foster innovation, and contribute to the construction of a society characterised by openness, diversity, compassion, self-reliance, self-dignity and high-calibre competitiveness. Since its inception, JNU has been a vital chapter in India’s narrative of higher education. It has functioned as a nurturing crucible for emerging leaders across diverse domains and sectors, from politics to bureaucracy to the armed forces. It has also produced a Nobel Prize winner. Moreover, JNU has championed inclusive, democratic and creative spaces for discourse, deliberation and discussion, significantly influencing the trajectory of public debates. While we rightfully take pride in many aspects of JNU, its history, and the institution itself, some challenges demand our attention. The first challenge confronting higher education institutions in India, including JNU, revolves around enhancing their outcomes and outputs. Subsequent challenges, though relevant, complement or augment this central concern. The primary objective at JNU is to extend its impact by assuming a heightened social responsibility — cultivating a workforce that is not only characterised by parity, equity, diversity, and enhanced competitiveness but also one that wields the agency to influence and guide the global future. JNU nurtures a workforce that not only conforms to prevailing global paradigms but also possesses the capacity to shape and lead them. Failing to fulfil this pivotal mission would render JNU’s identity as a university and higher education institution incomplete. The second significant challenge is extending our outreach to marginalised and underrepresented segments of society. JNU has steadfastly positioned itself as an institution that fosters an environment conducive to the progress of women and marginalised groups. In doing this, JNU has not only propagated and extended the concept of “nari shakti” (women-led development) but has also served as an embodiment of it. In a remarkable stride, the institution has witnessed appointments of women as chairpersons and deans over the past one-and-half years as well as an increase in the number of women students during the period — a historical precedent that resonates with its commitment to equity and women’s empowerment. The third challenge revolves around infrastructural limitations. Financing remains an enduring struggle for higher education institutions worldwide, presenting fluctuations in resource availability. Though JNU faces fiscal constraints, it has adroitly harnessed technology and alternative sources of revenue to mitigate a range of deficiencies. Pioneering the landscape, JNU is set to become India’s first higher education institution with a fully operational 5G-enabled campus, exploring private-public collaboration in infrastructure development. This transformative step underscores our resolve to recalibrate ourselves and bolster competitiveness and efficiency. Such adaptations equip us to effectively address contemporary issues and anticipate the challenges of tomorrow to enable us to yield tangible outcomes. The fourth imperative is to link tradition with modernity, excellence with empathy, equality with equity and inclusion with integrity and innovation. This transition necessitates a concentrated emphasis on fostering and advancing Indian knowledge systems. The setting up of Vidyaranya Institute of Knowledge and Advance Studies (VIKAS) is a step in this direction. This includes various aspects, including the promotion of Indian languages. JNU envisions a School of Indian Languages, Culture and Civilisation to foster better understanding of each other. Under this initiative, a Centre for Tamil Language Studies has been established in JNU, and this will be followed by centres for Assamese, Odia, Kannada, and Marathi languages. While JNU is not the only entity engaged in this endeavour, it aims to assume a leadership role to actualise the visionary NEP 2020. The challenges elucidated thus far are indeed formidable, but they are not insurmountable. Nonetheless, amidst these considerations, there is also a new-found sense of optimism. We find ourselves fortunate to have access to the guidelines outlined in NEP 2020, which furnishes us with a robust blueprint. What is remarkable about NEP 2020 is that it straddles the delicate balance between a structured framework on the one hand and the flexibility to effect adaptive changes on the other. The 15 schools, 10 special centres, and our 140 affiliated defence, research, travel and tourism institutes are implementing many features of NEP 2020. The biggest challenge is to include the multiple intellectual narratives in India, without excluding any. We aim to cultivate a proficiency that attracts the world to us rather than us seeking validation from the world. Looking ahead, our strategy encompasses leveraging the prowess of our alumni network and building upon our notable achievements. Concurrently, we are committed to forging new avenues, exemplified by our emphasis on Indian knowledge systems. Our Indic civilisation State is a feminist and a nature-centric one. We celebrate the Six Ds in JNU — democracy, difference, debate, dialogue, dissent and development. They are very much a part of our values. We have students and faculty from all parts of the country working for the nation’s progress in peace and harmony. Our mission at JNU involves promoting equity with equality, intertwining tradition with modernity, seamlessly transitioning between continuity and change, harmonising the universal with the regional, and bridging the gap between theory and practice. Critics might argue that pursuing such an ambitious agenda is rife with inherent contradictions. Yet, in light of India’s current aspirations and trajectory, these ambitions are plausible and desirable. Indeed, time will substantiate the veracity of these ambitions. For such reasons, our goal is clear: We wish to become an integral contributor to India’s success story as the country inches towards its Independence centenary through innovation, inclusion, diversity, respect, and responsibility. #JNU #IndicCivilisation #NEP2020 #Diversity #Inclusion #Education Originally Published : The Indian Express, 22nd September'2023 https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/seek-world-not-its-validation-8950579/ Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. (Dr.) Gulshan Sachdeva As Ukraine's counteroffensive falters, potential for India's peace initiative emerges The war in Ukraine has again entered a new phase, with both Russia and Western powers actively reevaluating and adjusting their strategies. Despite some minor periodic gains, the widely discussed Ukrainian counteroffensive initiated in early June has not yielded significant results thus far. Russia has been able to consolidate and defend most occupied territories. In the meanwhile, Russian forces continue to target Ukrainian assets with drones and missiles. Some leaked US intelligence reports indicate that Kyiv will not be able to achieve one of the key objectives of the counteroffensive – severing Russia’s land bridge to Crimea. Numerous leaked reports and analyses offer a range of explanations for the counteroffensive's lack of success. These factors include Ukraine's overly optimistic expectations for a rapid breakthrough, insufficient Western support in terms of weaponry and training, and overly enthusiastic reports by Western media. West Tempers Its Expectations The idea of Russia’s “strategic defeat” is still alive in the Western policy circles and media. It had two major dimensions. First, isolating Russia diplomatically and squeezing Moscow economically through sanctions. Second, providing military, financial and diplomatic support including the promise of European Union membership to Ukraine. The success of the strategy depended on Ukrainian military breakthroughs on the ground and Russia’s economic isolation and collapse. On both these counts, the strategy has not been proved very effective so far. With the expectation of a quick military breakthrough fading, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg now says that “we must prepare ourselves for a long war in Ukraine”. The American strategist Edward Luttwak also asserts that the war in Ukraine “has entered its "grin and bear it" period”. It is not clear, however, if Ukraine’s Western allies are really ready for a long war. Aid To Ukraine Will Remain Generous At the moment, the Western support to Ukraine is still strong in terms of military, financial and humanitarian assistance. So far, the United States has provided $77 billion which includes $47 billion in military aid. The EU and its member states have committed altogether $140 billion including military aid since the war began in February 2022. This encompasses the Euro 50 billion new Ukraine facility announced in June and to be implemented by 2027. Military aid from Germany and the UK is about $18 billion and $7 billion respectively. Despite some signs of weakening support in a few countries like Hungary in Eastern Europe, overall European support to Ukraine is likely to continue. Only last week, Germany announced $428 million additional military support for Ukraine. President Biden has been pressing the Congress to provide an additional $24 billion aid for Ukraine. During his recent visit to Washington, Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was promised additional $325 million aid including advance air defence systems. There are also discussions on providing Army Tactical Missile Systems. However, due to domestic politics and the election cycle, things are going to be less certain in the United States. Moreover, without any solid military success in Ukraine, the war fatigue may easily spread among allies. What Russia Wants Learning from its initial mistakes, Russia seems to have consolidated military gains, even amid the counteroffensive. In a changed situation, Moscow is not in favour of a ceasefire. Instead, it has provided some hints regarding how to bring an end to the conflict. During the recent press conference at the UN, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mentioned that 10 point peace plan prepared by Kiev is not realistic and conflict would be resolved at the battlefield, if the West sticks to this plan. But he also asserted that Russia recognised Ukrainian sovereignty way back in 1991. Apart from respect for minorities, he argues that the 1991 declaration also mentioned that “Ukraine would be a non-bloc, non-alliance country; it would not join any military alliances. In that version, on those conditions, we support Ukraine’s territorial integrity”. Put simply, Russia is willing to respect territorial integrity of Ukraine provided it promises not to join NATO. Still, there was no mention of Crimea. Obviously, these are early days for any serious discussion on the resolution. India As Mediator These developments, however, do indicate that there is a potential for a fresh diplomatic initiative to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. Amidst a changing global order, New Delhi has shown that it has the capacity, both in terms of diplomatic skills and personal relationships, to shape a compromise. This was clearly evident at the recently concluded G20 summit. Despite the world being geopolitically divided, a consensus declaration was produced. Along with some key Global South leaders, this may be an appropriate time for New Delhi to launch a fresh initiative to resolve a major geopolitical crisis of our time. #UkraineCrisis #India #GlobalSouth Originally Published : Money Control, 29th September' 2023 https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/opinion/time-for-a-negotiated-peace-in-ukraine-11448951.html Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. (Dr.) Gulshan Sachdeva is Professor at the Centre for European Studies and Coordinator, Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Md. Muddassir Quamar (PhD) A simultaneous foreign policy recalibration focused on economic considerations resulted in ‘Look East’ and ‘Look West’ policies For long since independence, India’s external approach revolved around geopolitical considerations. Decolonization, Asianism, and non-alignment defined New Delhi’s foreign relations and policies. While leaders made periodic attempts earlier, a clear shift came about only after the end of the Cold War when Prime Minister Narasimha Rao began the process of economic liberalization. A simultaneous foreign policy recalibration focused on economic considerations resulted in ‘Look East’ and ‘Look West’ policies. With trade and business taking center stage, India’s foreign relations moved away from non-alignment to multi-alignment. Nonetheless, domestic and international compulsions often led New Delhi to tread cautiously, balancing economic interest with political messaging. In relations with the Gulf and West Asia, while trade, business, and energy gradually took center stage since the 1990s, several domestic and external factors compelled New Delhi to remain cautious and, at times, indifferent to the economic potential in relation to the region. The proximity of the Gulf States to Pakistan, fascination with Iran, the lack of trust vis-à-vis the United States and European Union, strategic risks due to political instability, and security challenges meant that despite growing economic ties, India did not make efforts toward realizing the potentials in relations with the Arab Gulf countries. In the 2000s, besides trade, business, energy, and expatriates, the two sides witnessed limited issue-based cooperation, such as in fighting piracy, enhancing maritime security, and combating organized crime and terrorism. It did not, however, translate into strategic partnerships with the regional countries. In some cases, such as with Oman and Saudi Arabia, India took essential initiatives—still, these needed follow-ups, which could not be done due to domestic preoccupation or political ineptitude. Further, the obsession of the strategic community and decision-makers with Iran meant that much energy was invested in developing the Chabahar Port, which took almost a decade and a half to become functional and became mired in troubles due to US-Iran problems. Projects such as the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline were stillborn due to geopolitical challenges and inflated assumptions of economic potential. And, though New Delhi took initiatives to expedite economic engagements with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) States, such as signing the framework agreement on India-GCC free trade agreement (FTA) in August 2004, these got interrupted due to domestic problems or external factors. The India-GCC FTA negotiations stopped after two rounds in 2006 and 2008 due to differences in economic priorities. Moreover, the Middle East faced unprecedented political upheavals since 2011, resulting in New Delhi’s somewhat dispirited approach towards the region. The change of government in New Delhi in 2014 brought a shift in approach towards the Gulf and West Asia. Building on the groundwork done over the two decades, Prime Minister Narendra Modi undertook a diplomatic blitz to engage the Arab Gulf countries and Israel while also adopting a friendlier approach towards the United States, European Union, and Japan. The deterioration in relations with China due to border skirmishes (Doklam and Galwan) and the increased focus of the United States in the Indo-Pacific due to the rise of China brought a convergence of Indian interests with the United States and Japan. Economic disruptions caused by COVID-19 highlighted the need for greater economic cooperation among like-minded global powers. In the meantime, the Gulf countries, especially Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, expedited their quest for economic transformation, partly motivated by the events of the Arab Spring. The gradual change of approach towards Israel, the eventual breakthrough in the form of the Abraham Accords in September 2020, the decision to end the altercation with Qatar in January 2021 through the AlUla Declaration, and Saudi decision to renew diplomatic ties with Iran indicated the intent to focus on economic revival and avoid political instability and conflicts. The India, Israel, United Arab Emirates, and the United States (I2U2) quadrilateral initiative indicated a change in India’s approach to the Middle East, complementing bilateralism with minilateralism. Improvement in relations with Egypt and Greece underlined that India’s economic interest extends beyond the ‘extended neighborhood’. The announcement of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEEEC) during the G20 summit in New Delhi and the enthusiastic response from the partnering countries, including Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Israel, Greece, Italy, Spain, and other members of the EU underline the significant of the proposed corridor. The possibilities of economic growth and regeneration for the three regions are notable. There are also speculations on how it can prove a competitor to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Simultaneously, the historic significance of the Gulf and West Asia region as the trading hub connecting Asia to Europe and Africa is noteworthy. In that respect, the IMEEEC represents the possibilities of reviving the centrality of the Indian Ocean region as the center of global trade, business, and mercantile activities. The trading route passing through the western Indian Ocean has a historical significance. The IMEEEC proposes an eastern corridor connecting India to the Gulf and a northern corridor connecting the Gulf to Europe. This will be complemented with a rail network connecting the east coast of the Arabian Peninsula to the Eastern Mediterranean region. The intent is to use the logistics and supply chain infrastructure coming up in the Gulf and West Asia to revive the historical trading connections between India, West Asia, and Europe. Undoubtedly, there remain challenges regarding political and security risks, the financial viability of investments in mega infrastructure projects, and the broader question of environmental hazards. However, the countries involved have already discussed these challenges and will undoubtedly examine and fine-tune them as they go forward. The resumption of India-GCC FTA negotiations is significant in this context. India and UAE signed a comprehensive economic partnership agreement in March 2022, and in November 2022, after a gap of 14 years, India revived FTA talks with the GCC. After some hiccups and a change in chief negotiator from the GCC’s side, the talks have resumed, and the sides are likely to sign a comprehensive economic partnership agreement soon. The preferential trade agreement would mean greater trade, business, and investments with the GCC countries. Notably, the Gulf and West Asia region is already the biggest trading block for India, with a US$240 billion bilateral trade in 2022-23. There is robust commodity and services trade, and with an FTA, it will likely get a boost. Thus, both the IMEEEC and India-GCC FTA are interlinked and will contribute to the success of each other. Indeed, the economic feasibility of these economic and connectivity projects are yet to be tested. These, nonetheless, show the intent of India’s economic aspirations and globalized outlook. In West Asia, it means boosting economic activities with business, trade, and investments, and connectivity projects underlining a nuanced shift in India’s approach to the region. The geopolitical risks remain but they no longer inhibit New Delhi from exploring economic possibilities and interests. The growing degree of trust and confidence between India and the Gulf countries, a sense of urgency towards economic rejuvenation at the highest level among the regional governments, and a show of intent on the part of the United States to facilitate the realization of Gulf economic visions has brought a change in how India is engaging the Gulf and West Asian countries. This is indeed the beginning of India’s geoeconomic pivot to West Asia. #WestAsia #IndianForeignPolicy #IMEEEC #NewDelhi Originally Published : The Financial Express, 18th September 2023 https://www.financialexpress.com/business/defence-indias-geoeconomic-pivot-to-west-asia-3247038/ Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Md. Muddassir Quamar is an Associate Professor at Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit Lord Shiva as Nataraja as the main symbol at the Bharat Mandapam shows the unity and continuity of our unbroken civilization. The roof of Peace rests upon the walls of Understanding Thiruvalluvar Through the G20+1 the Delhi Declaration, PM Modi heralded a clarion call for Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam of one earth, one family, one future—a presidency of hope, harmony, peace and stability. But here in Bharat one saw a chilling testament constructed by the colonial discourse built by Bishop Robert Caldwell, a big mentor of the Dravidian Movement, who used his knowledge of Tamil grammar to further his agenda of his evangelical mission to convert the Tamils. The same arguments put forward by him have been repeated by a young dynast Udhayanidhi, whose motto seems to be ignorance is bliss. What is a surprise is the attempt to repeat the colonial and conversion mindset that still exists, and to try and insult a faith that is practised as a way of life by 80% of the people of the state. Is this a way to dent the cultural unity of this civilizational state that has entered the fourth Industrial Revolution and declared its arrival on the world stage? The unity of ideas can be seen in that we have been one people, as reflected in the Sangam literature poem 192 in Purananuru, it gives a glimpse on the richness, maturity and wisdom of the urban culture of Tamilakam and beyond. “Every city is your city, Everyone is your kin.” This is by a people who for centuries followed a Hindu way of life. This colonial evangelical constructs being repeated by the neo-converts bring a dangerous conspiracy of creating a false reality that all other faiths are equal, when none are. One agrees that the caste system is a social evil that exists among all South Asians, irrespective of faith. It needs to be eradicated, but not by spreading militant hatred. The Keeladi excavations of the Vaigai river civilization have challenged the so-called Aryan invasion, as well the Tamil-Sanskrit divide, thereby underlining the Dravidian-Aryan divide as an ideological construct. These excavations seem to predate the Indus Valley Civilization and there is a similarity between the Tamil Brahmi and Indus Brahmi scripts. This substantiates the unity of this great civilization. Initially, it was constructed with the purpose of the 19th century evangelicals to convert during the time of Bishop Caldwell. Later it was used by the Dravidian Movement and the Dravidian political parties and are the latest post-colonial manifestation of the British colonial policy of divide and rule. Why are the same arguments constructed by Bishop Caldwell being repeated verbatim today? Are the same forces of divide-and-rule still at work owing to the failure to convert the majority in the state? The revisionist attempt to use Caldwell’s construct and mindset in free India will not work for vote bank politics. Their attempt to strip off Hindu practices in order to construct a so-called secular (in fact, an anti-Hindu) Dravidian Tamil identity seems to have failed. One such example at this continuous efforts is to depict the Hindu Tamil festival on Makara Sankranti as Tamil new year day failed, as the festival is closely rooted with the culture of the state. Likewise, attempts by international NGOs to ban Jallikattu also failed. Jallikattu is closely intertwined with Pongal and the farming community. Are the Dravidian parties blindly following the colonial evangelical construct that failed to eliminate Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma as a way of life that has no beginning or end unlike the Abrahamic faiths that are based on revelation and not through a process of evolution. Is it old wine in a new bottle to break this synergistic trinity of religious practices British colonial rule tried to do by divide and rule? They cleverly divided temple events into religious and secular functions. Then they usurped the secular functions from the temples, the centres of Hinduism to debilitate its social welfare contribution across India. Hindus are still grappling with reality and the hypocrisy of secularism in Independent India, which followed the post-colonial agenda of dividing and controlling the Hindus as the British did. Hope Bharat will give up this hypocrisy and discrimination and create a true Amrit Kaal for the 80% at both the levels of de facto and de jure. Now let us put the facts together that the divisive construction of Bishop Caldwell was done to divide and rule. Conversion was a major agenda. To further this, Caldwell constructed the divisive narrative based on Brahmins as Aryans and ethnically as foreigners who invaded from outside and ruled over the low caste indigenous Dravidians who are religiously different from high-caste Brahmins. Caldwell cloaked his conversion and divisive agenda with his unmatched scholarship of the Tamil language. He invented a new identity by coining the term “Dravidian” in his ground breaking work “A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages”, that paved the new assertion of the superiority of Tamil, independent of Sanskrit; this agenda-driven narrative inspired and continues to inspire the Dravidian movement and parties. Does the Church of South India hold the same construct by Bishop Caldwell, who as a Christian missionary wanted to prove the superiority of the Western civilization as a White man’s duty? Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma has always been a fragmented, federated religion that allowed local communities to develop and maintain their own sets of Gods, agamas, rituals, customs and worship patterns. Tamil Hindu culture is no different. Hindu society was organized around local temples with spirituality, social welfare and social practices interwoven together. The symbol of Lord Shiva as Nataraja as the main symbol at the Bharat Mandapam, where the recent G20 summit was held, brings in this unity and continuity of our unbroken civilization. Shiva’s dance has three significances, aptly brought out at the G20—the oneness of one earth, one family and one future. It is the image of Nataraja’s rhythmic play as the source of all movement within the cosmos, which is represented by the arch. The purpose of his dance is to release the countless souls of human beings from the snare of illusion. The place of the dance, Chidambaram, the centre of the universe, is in the heart every Hindu or Sanatani. The philosophical dimensions of Shiva’s dance, stands at the Amrit Kaal of Bharat, interpreting the icon of Nataraja to be the perfect combination of the mystical, philosophical and aesthetic aspects of Indian culture. The dance of Shiva relates to its cosmic significance, symbolizing the creation, maintenance and destruction of the universe and ultimately its rejuvenation. All this is symbolic of what the G20 has achieved trying to rejuvenate a polarized and divided world towards consensus. It is the signifier of cosmic activity envisaged in the five aspects [pancakritya]—srishti [creation], sthiti [maintenance], samhara [destruction], tirobhava [concealment] and anagraha [grace]. This symbol of Shiva as Nataraja are the greatest of His names, Lord of Dancers or King of Actors. At the G20 this symbol of the Hindu civilization that the cosmos is His theatre and He himself is the Actor and the Audience. The Lord of Tillai’s court performs this mystic dance and the Unmai Vilakkam, verse 36 tells us, “Creation arises from the drum; protection from the hands of hope; the foot held aloft begives release”. What Shiva creates is the manifest and unmanifest world; what He destroys are the illusory bonds that fetter not only the world at large, but every individual soul in the cosmos. All this truly symbolizes the renewed spirit of the PM Modi and a new confident, inclusive and confident Bharat. #G20 #BharatMandapam #G20India #NewDelhiLeadersDeclaration2023 Originally Published : The Sunday Guardian, 17th September, 2023 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/g20-summit-showed-civilisational-unity-of-bharat#:~:text=The%20symbol%20of%20Lord%20Shiva,one%20family%20and%20one%20future. Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorization of the Author. Prof Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli The debt phenomenon is so significant that nearly half the African Union member states are in debt – mostly to the state-owned banks of China. Countries in South America and Asia are also being caught up in this debt slide. While the New Delhi G20 summit only appealed to countries to address this serious debt issue, that China is now being seen as a part of the problem seems to be hanging over it like a Sword of Damocles. As the G20 summit wound up in New Delhi on September 10, China must be pondering over the emergence of a world order that seems to be slipping from its hands. For, overcoming the tectonic East-West divide and the North-South fault lines, India is trying to bring more inclusive and multilateral regional and global orders in the post-pandemic world. By most indicators, China was at the centre of the G20 processes. Its sheer economic size of over $19 trillion and average growth of 10 percent from 1980 to 2010 and above 7 percent in the last decade have positioned China as a key player in the G20 sphere. It is one of the largest trading partners of many G20 member States, utilising all the privileges offered by the World Trade Organization. In the last two decades, China also began influencing the G20 debates on global trade, investment, financial stability, and sustainable development. China hosted the G20 at Hangzhou in 2016 and used the platform to advocate its policy priorities and interests. At this meeting, it called for financial market reforms, trade liberalisation, infrastructure investment and others. It attracted huge capital, technology and markets in the process. Testing times for Beijing However, this fairy tale seems to be ending as China has frittered away these benefits as it began showing its teeth prematurely. China’s economic growth rates fell to about 3 percent last year, partly due to its domestic economic restructuring from exports to domestic consumption, import substitution Made in China 2025 campaign and the disastrous pandemic that originated in Wuhan. Its largest trading partners began questioning China’s lack of market economy, as promised under the WTO, soft protectionist policies, non-tariff barriers and currency manipulation practices. The Covid pandemic, Ukraine conflict, US-China “decoupling”, and European “derisking” processes, in addition to other geopolitical aspects, are testing China politically. Beijing has not shown any transparent responses to these challenges, thus paving the way for others like India to emerge. Despite many objections from China and other observers, the Delhi Declaration of G20 proved to be based on everyone’s consensus. First, the statement on Ukraine, though watered down compared to the previous Bali declaration, reflected the current dynamics of the Ukraine situation. The Delhi Declaration did condemn any “territorial acquisition against the territorial integrity and sovereignty or political independence of any state” but without naming “aggression by the Russian Federation” as the Bali Declaration did a year ago. As explained by Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, the situation today has changed substantially – referring to the effects of the conflict on the vast majority of developing countries. Besides, despite a beeline of US visitors to China such as Blinken, Yellen, Kissinger and Raimondo, Beijing does not seem to have mellowed down. The Biden administration has to consider this new geopolitical situation developing around an assertive China. Subdued Chinese presence Second, China was represented at the G20 not by its President but by its Premier Li Qiang, who took over in March this year. Li made a brief speech at the G20 summit, mentioning China’s recent initiatives to build a “community of common destiny”, Global Development Initiative, Global Security Initiative and Global Civilisational Initiative, none of which were endorsed by the G20 countries that seem to be beginning to find long-term domination efforts by China through these concepts. Since the 20th Communist Party Congress last year, China’s leaders began criticising the US and others for forming “small cliques” to counter their country. Likewise, Li stated that “we must choose solidarity over division, cooperation over confrontation, and inclusiveness over exclusion”. He also asserted China will “firmly oppose the politicisation of economic and trade issues”. Li’s interactions at the G20 venue were also subdued. Li met U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President Charles Michel, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, while the US President Joe Biden commented that they “talked about stability... it wasn't confrontational at all”. Earlier, China boycotted the G20 meetings held in Arunachal Pradesh and Srinagar and advised that the words “vasudhaiva kutumbakam” (the world is one family) be removed from the logo. President Xi Jinping’s rejection at the Johannesburg meeting of an “expeditious” disengagement of troops in India's western sector and China’s release of a map incorporating vast swathes of lands in Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh, furthered increased the chasm between the two countries. Third, despite a planned third summit meeting of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) next month, it may not be moving so well. The BRI began a decade ago with a unilateral agenda favouring the Communist Party-state apparatuses and businesses, and leaving no effective room for global or regional participation. On the other hand, the declaration for an India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) has public-private partnership arrangements for all the countries on the port, road, railways and hydrogen pipelines, in addition to digital connectivity. Triggers for integration – including trade facilitation, digital tools, logistics, resilient supply chains and infrastructure on a massive scale are being planned. It was mentioned that the process would be inclusive, open, fair, secure, non-discriminatory, and address the digital divide. At the Jakarta meeting of the Southeast Asian grouping, just before the G20 meeting, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced an “economic corridor” connecting Southeast Asia to West Asia through India. These ambitious “spice route” projects may be eclipsing the BRI. The debt crisis Fourth, China at one time supported the Third World concept and recently invested in the developing countries being a part of the BRI. But now that ground seems to be slipping for Beijing. Several Chinese commentators have expressed concern that India is taking over the “leadership of the Global South” through the G20 mobilisation. While China supported activities related to the 55-member African Union in G20 meetings, it is hard for China to digest the fact that India became instrumental in successfully pushing for the AU’s membership in the G20. Fifth, in recent times the G20 began making efforts for the “Debt Service Suspension Initiative” and “Common Framework for Debt Treatments” that aim to provide debt relief and restructuring options for heavily indebted developing countries. This is of concern for China as it has become a major lender to the Global South, often at exorbitant interest rates. For instance, bilateral debt from Chinese lenders accounts for 24 percent of Africa’s external debt, compared to 32 percent from global private sector lenders (excluding China), 16 percent from the World Bank, 19 percent from the International Monetary Fund and other multilateral institutions, and 10 percent from the Paris Club. The debt phenomenon is so significant that nearly half the African Union member states are in debt – mostly to the state-owned banks of China. Countries in South America and Asia are also being caught up in this debt slide. While the New Delhi G20 summit only appealed to countries to address this serious debt issue, that China is now being seen as a part of the problem seems to be hanging over it like a Sword of Damocles. #G20India #China #NewDelhiDeclaration Originally published: SouthAsia Monitor, 15th September' 2023 https://www.southasiamonitor.org/indo-pacific-china-watch/g20-slipping-chinas-grasp Published on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli is Dean of School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Anshu Kumar Introduction The world is 'sleepwalking into a planetary crisis’. With rising sea levels, owing to increased global temperature, multiple coastal cities around the world are headed towards submersion. Small island states in the Pacific and elsewhere are apprehensive about losing their complete existence. The climate crisis is expected to cause more than 100 million people to plunge into extreme poverty and displace more than 200 million people by 2030. Barring Iran and Poland, all the top 20 carbon-emitting countries in the world are members of the G20 grouping. The G20 grouping, comprising 80 per cent of the global GDP, 75 per cent of international trade and 60 per cent of the global population, has the financial wherewithal and material paraphernalia to pioneer a response to climate change. India, which is currently holding the G20 presidency, has the opportunity to shape global climate governance in a manner to address the issues essential for climate action. Being a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), BRICS grouping and the QUAD, India can champion Global North-South cooperation on the issues of climate change. Climate justice and equity are insufficiently incorporated into the global climate governance process at present. India can change this in its presidency. Rationally, none of the G20 members can fight the climate crisis on its own. Each member needs to capitalise on their strengths and cooperate and share the wherewithal and paraphernalia to fight the climate monster. The Majesty of International Groupings ‘International organizations do not exist in a political vacuum’. International organisations are constituted to address the fears and challenges that states face within the international system and reflect the hopes and aspirations of the state. Multilateral fora are instituted on the belief that sovereign states cannot address the crises transcending the political boundaries of the states. In an interdependent and globalised world, the role of interstate forums has been crucial. Over one century, the growth in the number of international organisations— including a journey from traditional security-based international organisations to all sorts of non-traditional organisations— is an indication of how sovereign states have become comfortable with involving a myriad of actors from Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), private individuals, civil societies, Multinational Corporations (MNCs), to business groups to address a labyrinth of crises faced globally. Even when there is no overarching world government, there is a ‘society of states' which, being conscious of certain common interests and common values, 'form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions'. The idea of international society goes against the realpolitik vantage point, which either believes that international organisations are an extension of the hegemonic power or repudiates the working of such international organisations in its entirety. Hedley Bull argues that the idea of international society had always been there in the working of interstate interactions, and at no point in history did it completely disappear. Even at the height of World War II, the Allied powers continued to pay homage to the international institutional fabric to steer their relations between themselves and with other neutral countries. Even when the two superpowers were head-to-head with each other during the Cold War crises, they never broke their diplomatic relations with each other, refuted the idea of working within the ambit of common international law or withdrew recognition of each other's sovereignty. Aaron Friedberg argues that even if political relations between democracies and illiberal regimes go into disarray, there is a ‘genuine convergence of interests’ on discrete issues like climate change. It is equally pressing to assert that there are ‘issue-specific’ areas and no single state, not even the most powerful one, can entirely dominate in every area. Thus, interstate cooperation is required to deal with various issues in a myriad of domains. The idea of ‘Club Goods’ Hathaway and Shapiro recommend the idea of producing 'club goods' instead of bothering to form a universal consensus to address crises transcending political boundaries. ‘Club Goods' are non-rivalrous (like public goods) but excludable (like private goods). Consider a swimming club. Club members can enjoy swimming in their pool at the same time (non-rivalry) and can use a gate to keep non-members out (excludability)’. Global clubs are based on the idea that actors (for instance, states) choose to join a club/alliance to benefit from it and in return, they agree to comply with the condition of denying the benefits to non-members. [However, they can also deny benefits to non-compliant members in order to discipline them.] This idea of moving to clubs from decentralising global governance dates back to history. There is a long history of success in harnessing the power of numbers through a global club. In connection with the global crisis of ozone layer depletion, every state was interested in a ban on the use of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that included everyone but them. A global treaty would have been a fiasco with every non-compliant free riding on the compliance of honest states. The Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987) assiduously created a global club. The first condition put forth for aspiring members was to reduce and ultimately phase out their consumption of CFCs. The other and most crucial condition was to trade CFCs-producing ingredients only to club members. It inferred that non-members could not buy ingredients, and thus, the cost of being left out was high. ‘The benefits of membership, and the costs of being a non-member, increased as the club got bigger’. The enforcement mechanism of global clubs requires members to report their data on compliance, and members are also able to report concerns about other members. When members fall short of complying with the conditions, there is an effort to make the pariah state return to compliance. In case of a fiasco, members issue collective sanctions and even terminate the membership of that state. Thus, the pariah state becomes bereft of privileges associated with membership. The G20 grouping, comprised of a small number of economically and politically powerful states, can create a global club to enforce measures to deal with the rising global temperature. The high cost of not being part of such clubs would compel other states to join the club and agree on the conditions to ensure measures that reduce activities, paraphernalia and processes akin to global warming. Since most of the G20 members are the top carbon-emitting countries of the world [The G20 countries alone account for more than 75 per cent of global greenhouse emissions], the most crucial decisions on climate change need to be taken among the G20 members rather than worldwide. Contrary to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) [In the UNFCCC, discarding the criteria of size, all 194 parties have an equal voice and consensus is required for decisions], the G20’s exclusive membership allows for more efficient decision-making. Any action by the G20 grouping could keep the global temperature from increasing by 2 degrees Celsius for several decades. From neorealist parlance, it is the most powerful countries that shape the course of international systems. Thus, once the G20 members, including states from almost every region, set the course of action related to climate change, the rest countries would follow suit. It has become a trend for international organisations to be used as a forum for politicising world events by great powers. India’s G20 presidency has, too, faced such push and pull on the Ukraine crisis. However, it is crucial for the state actors to depoliticise the G20 groupings, at least on matters of 'planetary concerns.' It should be equally pressing for the world powers to look into the non-traditional issues of the day that are slowly eating the natural fabric of the planet Earth. #PlanetaryCrisis Originally Contributed for the SIS Blog. Anshu Kumar is a Master’s student at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. His research interest lie in India’s relations with great powers, the rise of China in the international system, strategic studies, and Indian foreign policy.

By Prof Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit Public education bridges the gap of social, economic and regional disparities. The motto of Excellence with Empathy, Equality with Equity and Inclusion with Integrity and Innovation is even more relevant today. The reason being the spate of suicides by promising young men and women, especially from the marginalized groups—this is extremely distressing to say the least. Higher education institutions need to address this issue urgently for there seems to be a lack of empathy, equality and inclusion. It is necessary that all stakeholders need to build this sense of belonging. We need to learn from each other, especially the best practices in empathy, equality and inclusion. These academic spaces need to be created and strictly practised. The goal of becoming a Vishvaguru, a leader in the knowledge society requires transformational reforms in education. The NEP 2020 is indeed a unique framework, for it brings in continuity with change, realm with region and holism with specialization. The stress is on interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary aspects of knowledge, balance between science, technology, social sciences, humanities and languages. A touch of the local, regional with the national and international as well as the universal. The State’s role in education is very important, for it is public education that bridges the gap of social, economic and regional disparities. Private players can never replace the State, as the autonomy of educational institutions is guaranteed by a democratic state like India. Undertaking the weighty yet indispensable responsibility of embracing the endeavour of learning, fostering education, and driving innovation are intricately tied to the architecture of our education system. Within this framework, the role of higher education institutions, particularly exemplified by institutions like JNU, assumes an outsized and pivotal significance. This calls a higher investment in education by the State to more than 10% of the GDP. Political power without narrative power is like a directionless ship. Science and technology are just instruments, and a narrative architecture built and nurtured by political power with economic and social power will enhance the longevity of any political regime. NEP 2020 is a visionary document that has given HEIs the opportunity to be flexible, experiment and be more inclusive. Once a student is able to gain admission into the top HEIs the feeling of belonging need to be created by the faculty and the seniors, isolation and competition need to be replaced by empathy, learning and mindfulness. Instead of declaring a student a failure in a format of examination, need not be the last word on his/her abilities. The greatest mathematician, Srinivasa Ramanujan failed to clear his higher secondary. It is not only an issue of mental illness, but the environment that creates it. HEIs need to give that ray of hope to all. HEIs need to talk to each other to resolve these issues and create unalienating spaces. The designated role ascribed to institutions of higher learning, including JNU, is to facilitate education, foster innovation, and contribute to the construction of a society characterized by openness, diversity, compassion, self-reliance, self-dignity and high-caliber competitiveness. From its inception, JNU has been a vital chapter within India’s narrative of higher education. It has functioned as a nurturing crucible for emerging leaders across diverse domains and sectors, ranging from the political sphere to the realm of bureaucracy, the armed forces and two Noble Prize winners. Moreover, JNU has fervently championed inclusive, democratic and creative spaces for discourse, deliberation and discussion significantly influencing the trajectory of public debates. While we rightfully take pride in many aspects of JNU, its history, and the institution itself, some challenges demand our attention. The first challenge confronting higher education institutions in India, including JNU, revolves around enhancing their outcomes and outputs. Subsequent challenges, though relevant, complement or augment this central concern. The primary objective at JNU is to extend its impact by assuming a heightened social responsibility—cultivating a workforce that is not only characterized by parity, equity, diversity, and enhanced competitiveness but also wields the agency to influence and guide the global trajectory. JNU’s pivotal role lies in nurturing a workforce that not only conforms to prevailing global paradigms but also possesses the capacity to shape and lead them. This commitment to proactive influence and guidance represents an imperative. Failing to fulfill this pivotal mission would render JNU’s identity as a university and higher education institution incomplete. How to incorporate Industry -University cooperation for skill enhancement. The second significant challenge pertains to extending outreach to marginalized and underrepresented segments of society. JNU has steadfastly positioned itself as an institution fostering an environment conducive to the progress of women and marginalized groups. In doing this, JNU has not only propagated and extended the concept of “Nari Shakti” (women led development)but has also served as a living embodiment of it. In a remarkable stride, the institution has witnessed the appointments of women as chairpersons and Deans over the past one and a half years—a historical precedent that resonates with its commitment to equity and women’s advancement and empowerment. With increase in the number of girl students and women faculty in the last year and half. The third challenge revolves around infrastructural limitations. Financing remains an enduring struggle for higher education institutions worldwide, presenting fluctuations in resource availability. JNU faces fiscal constraints, yet it has adroitly harnessed technology and alternative sources of revenues to mitigate a range of deficiencies. Pioneering the landscape, JNU is set to become India’s first higher education institution with a fully operational 5G-enabled campus and exploring the Private -public collaboration in infrastructure development. This transformative step underscores our resolve to recalibrate ourselves, bolstering competitiveness and efficiency. Such adaptations equip us to effectively address contemporary issues and anticipate the challenges of tomorrow, yielding tangible outcomes. The fourth imperative is how to link tradition with modernity, excellence with empathy, equality with equity and inclusion with integrity and innovation. This transition necessitates a concentrated emphasis on fostering and advancing Indian Knowledge Systems. The setting up of Vidyaranya Institute of Knowledge Advance Studies {VIKAS} as a step in this direction. This includes various aspects, including the promotion of Indian languages. JNU envisions a “School of Indian Languages, Culture and Civilization” to foster better understanding of each other. Under this initiative, a Center for Tamil Language Studies has been established in JNU that is poised to be joined by the Assamese, Odia, Kannada, and Marathi languages. While JNU is not the singular entity engaged in this endeavor, it aims to assume a leadership role to actualize the visionary NEP 2020. The biggest challenge is the existence of multiple narratives in the Indian intellectual horizons with excluding any. We aim to cultivate a proficiency that attracts the world to us rather than us seeking validation from the world. Looking forward, our strategy encompasses leveraging the prowess of our alumni network and building upon our notable achievements. Concurrently, we are committed to forging novel avenues of contribution, exemplified by our emphasis on Indian Knowledge Systems. Indic Civilization state is a Feminist and a nature centric one. We celebrate Six Ds in JNU- Democracy, Difference, Debate, Dialogue, Dissent and Development, very much part of our values. We have students and faculty from all parts of the country working for the nation’s progress in peace and harmony. #NEP2020 #AmritKaal #PublicEducation #6Ds #HigherEducation #JNU Originally Published : The Sunday Guardian, 10th September, 2023 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/challenges-to-higher-education-in-amrit-kaal Posted in SIS Blog with the authorization of the author. Prof Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India