Kim Trumps Meet

North Korean Chairman, “Little Rocket Man”, Kim Jong Un met “Bigger Button”, Donald Trump, at the Capella resort, Singapore on 12^th June’18 &  signed an agreement - on denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. The joint statement, low on specifics, without milestones prompted critics to conclude that Kim won round 1; Trump suspended US- South Korean war games to instil trust while Kim conceded nothing even while Trump proclaimed that Kim has promised to destroy a missile engine testing site though not listed as part of the agreement.  Trump admirers, hyperbolically though, liken the meet, to the Mao-Nixon meet, of 1972, that transformed global geopolitics.  US Vice President, Mike Pence & NSA, Bolton earlier spoke on the “Libyan model” to settle the North Korean issue, clearly, indicating that the US was not keen on talks but was forced into it by its ally South Korea; President Moon Jae In of South Korea, desirous of peace, opened up channels of communication with Kim who responded by agreeing to field a joint Korean team - which marched under a “unification flag” depicting the peninsula, during the Pyeongchang winter Olympics - in Feb’18, & the opening ceremony was graced by Kim’s sister Kim Sol-Song accelerating goodwill.

Brief History of North Korea

North Korea has a military of 1.2 million – comparable to India - & is a nuclear & missile power; at $40 billion, her GDP is lower than the Indian annual military spends & that explains the poverty of its citizens. The “hermit kingdom” thus leads a recluse life with its citizenry denied access to the world in a bid to protect the dynastic regime.

Japan colonized Korea in 1910 & post the loss, in WWII the peninsula was divided, across the 38^th parallel, amongst the victors -  North Korea supported by the Soviet Union & South Korea supported by the US;  Kim’s grandfather – Kim II Sung – the dictator for North Korea, prompted by the USSR invaded the South on June 25^th 1950, to be resisted by the South with US support; the North forces were driven back by the US forces under General MacArthur & as they approached the Yalu river – the dividing line between North Korea & China – Mao’s China entered the war theatre & the joint forces repulsed the Southern forces  to the 38^th parallel when an armistice – not a peace treaty - was pronounced on July 23^rd 1953 creating a 2 mile wise “demilitarized zone” that still exists; thus the two Korea’s are technically at war even today which the Moon-Kim meet has brought to an end on April 27^th 2018 vide the “Panmunjom declaration”;  reconciliation is a first step, perhaps, leading into an association & eventual reunification.

The Key players in the conflict have different strategic goals to achieve & it will be interesting to see how the same pans out

South Korea: President Moon knows that in the event of a war, the South could be the first casualty – due to its proximity to the North – although North Korea can inflict damage much beyond by  launching nuclear tipped missiles that can reach Guam, Atlanta & California in the US or Japanese territories. The US has a military base in South Korea hosting about 28000 US soldiers & installed THAAD missile defence system, in Sept ’17, which led to local protests. The missile defence system is placed on a company - Lotte group - land & China sensing threat from the same has ordered closure of all 74 Lotte stores in China & prompted its citizens to shun South Korean products – impacting trade - banned Chinese tour groups from visiting South Korea - effecting tourism income - & cancelled appearances of South Korean pop & movie stars; this is a signal to all the countries in the region – including Japan – not to get the THAAD system installed in their territories & the economic pain that could be inflicted if her warnings go unheeded.

Moon – the pragmatist – wants peace & is nudging a reluctant US towards his goal & proposed a Noble Peace Prize to imperious Donald Trump as a bait to get his endorsement of the peace initiative; Trump, facing flak for his impetuosity & a downward spiral in approval ratings at home & the Mueller probe gaining stream and desperate for a policy win appears amenable to the same; he could squeeze the issue dry during the mid -term elections poised for Nov. this year.

China: The People Republic of China had proposed a “freeze” for a “freeze” – freeing of North Korean Missile & Nuclear tests in lieu of the freeze of the South Korean – US joint military exercises. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, North Korea lost its ideological mentor & was propped up by China to checkmate US & its allies – Japan & South Korea – by surreptitiously offering them missile technology just as they supported Pak – by offering them nuclear technology – to constrain India. Benazir Bhutto, in 1993, then Prime Minister of Pakistan, exchanged nuclear designs for missile blueprints with North Korea completing the proliferation picture.  

Surprisingly, Kim did not demand that the US vacate the South Korean military bases despite Chinese prodding in a bid to expand her geopolitical ambitions post the US withdrawal. Clearly, Kim does not want to depend on one benefactor – China- alone & wants to open up to the West – especially the US to enhance his options even while President Xi of China has forced Kim to meet him twice before the Kim- Trump meet & by making arrangements for Kim to fly to Singapore in an “Air China” flight reiterated that China cannot be side-lined. China is wary of the warming US- North Korean ties & the possibility of the US using North Korea as a strategic balancer in the region to hedge against the rise of China; she is however, chary of the possibility of the North Korean citizens crossing the borders into China in the event of a Korean conflict. In short China desires peace in the Korean peninsula with US withdrawal & North Korea continuing to remain a vassal state.

US: The sole superpower signed agreements in 1994 during Clinton’s presidency & in 2005 under POTUS George Bush only to see them dissipate because of non-compliance.  In 1994, when North Korea threatened to exit the NPT, the Clinton administration’s “agreed framework” promised aid in lieu of nuclear freeze only to see it unravel by 2002 & North Korea moved out of the NPT in 2003 to restart its nuclear facilities thereby inviting sanctions again. 6 party talks involving the US, China, Russia, Japan, North Korea, South Korea followed & a deal was struck in 2005 only to break down by 2009 with disputes on verification.

The US is now insistent on a “Complete, Verifiable, and Irreversible Denuclearization” (CVID) & having annulled the Iran deal struck by President Obama has denied North Korea a similar deal & might not offer them a deal offered to India, in 2006, either.

North Korea: In an opaque regime, Kim is viewed as paranoid character who got his mentor, uncle Jang Song Thaek, executed, in 2013 & his half-brother Kim Jong Nam, killed, in Malaysia, in 2017,in a nerve agent attack as punishment for plotting with China to topple his regime; that explains his distrust of China. He carried his own lavatory to Singapore since he did not want to leave even his poop in foreign shores & the presence of his sister switching Trump’s pens to his own while signing the agreement buttresses the assessment. That he replaced 3 of his senior generals seen as hardline with youngers moderate ones indicates that he aspires to genuinely open up to the west to expand his options beyond China & wind down sanctions. His nuclear test site at Punggye Ri was destroyed in May’18 while testing & he blew up the entire site in front of world reporters to accomplish a fait accompli in a bid to buttress his credentials.

It is possible that post the US invasion of Iraq, in 2003, that led to Saddam Hussein ouster on the illusory pretext of the presence of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) & NATO forces killing Muammar Gaddafi, of Libya, in 2011,post his agreement to freeze the nuclear ambitions, the North Korean regime is wary & will stop at nothing to protect the regime. It will be interesting to see how the US reconciles to Kim’s likely demand to retain at least some nuclear weapons with delivery systems for regime preservation; mere "security guarantees" might not suffice. 

Conclusion:

Kim would want to maintain some nuclear arsenal with delivery systems as insurance for his regime & Trumps public pronouncements on “phased denuclearization” at variance with Pompeo’s CVID could help in taking the talks forward. Kim has initiated reforms at home in agriculture & industry & perhaps would be keen to follow the fellow Communist countries – China & Vietnam - model of reforms but with a single party dominance & western nations could help with investments going forward. The US shall not vacate the military bases in South Korea even as she gets a foothold into the North due to the mistrust between North Korea & China on the coup issue.

As Trump conceded that the process of achieving the objective would take close to a decade. Reality TV relies on attracting eyeballs & the Trump-Kim surreal show did just that bringing two tempestuous unpredictable characters to shake hands even while their deputies wring their hands to arrive at a consensus that satisfies conflicting aims of several nations.

Modi Sarkar@4 Years

Chastened by the Karnataka verdict but not subdued, Prime Minister, Narendra Modi led the BJP’s 4^th anniversary celebration at Odisha – a state they have already made deep in-roads & armed with promising plans to make substantial gains in the 2019 Parliamentary elections in a bid to compensate for losses elsewhere.  Modi – not only the chief mascot of the party but also its de-facto propaganda in chief - yet again listed the achievements of his govt. in superlative terms only to be snubbed by his rival Rahul Gandhi who awarded him an “F” grade in governance – “agriculture, foreign policy, fuel prices & job creation” & an “A+” in “slogan creation & self- promotion”. Obviously, the actual achievements of the govt. lie in between the two extreme assessments.

Achievements Modi can be Proud off

Swatch Bharat: Modi launched the Swatch Bharat mission immediately on ascending to power, perhaps, influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s campaign during the freedom struggle. Building of 7.25 crore toilets in villages & schools supported by TVC‘s helmed by influencers – Anushka Sharma & Amitabh Bachchan – to drive behavioural changes, to encourage usage of toilets, in the masses - has the potential to enhance health parameters & enrolment of more girl-children into schools, many of who discontinue education, post puberty, for want of privacy provided by toilets.

Ujala & Ujwala Scheme: Modi sarkar has driven savings in electricity costs by encouraging mass distribution of 90 crore LED bulbs (30 crore by govt. & 60 crore by pvt. sector) under the “Ujala” scheme; likewise, by setting a target of 175 GW of renewable energy by 2022, they have driven solar costs down to Rs 2.46/- per unit; at some point these cost savings should get transferred to the hoi polloi vide a cut in electricity tariffs which is still due.  Similarly, the “Give It Up” campaign - that encouraged people to give up the benefits of subsidized gas cylinders - was followed by delivering 3.8 crore free LPG connections to BPL(Below Poverty Line) families  in rural, thereby delivering twin benefits: Eliminating rich recipients & hence saving on subsidy; & encouraging the poor to shift to a cleaner fuel, thereby, enhancing the health of the womenfolk  who otherwise spent most of the time near smoke emitting chulas inviting heart, lung & eye ailments. These moves enhance environmental protection too & hence highly applauded. The low refill rate of cylinders, though, appears a concern since BPL families perhaps, still find it unaffordable. The govt., meanwhile, has announced plans to increase the BPL LPG connections target from 5 crores to 8 crores.

Achievements Modi can be Partially Proud off /should share credit with his predecessors

Universal Insurance: Attempts to make India an insured society by a contributory funding scheme of Rs 12/- paid by the insuree for an accident insurance of 2 lakhs has benefitted 13.25 crore people & Rs 330/- for a life insurance of 2 lakhs has aided 5.22 crore families; the Atal Pension Yojana for the sexagenarians has benefitted over 1 crore unorganized sector workers & hence welcome.

However, launching “Ayushman Bharat” aka “Modicare” in its last year, that too with a budget of about 2000 crores only, for providing a 5 lakh health cover for 10 crore families (50 cr population) is too little too late. Some of the states like AP, Telangana & Tamil Nadu are already running health schemes & the cost of such schemes is higher than the centre’s budget proposal, leading many to question if this is another “Chunavi Jumla”.

It is pertinent to note that the agriculture insurance scheme has a payout of about Rs 20,000 crores annually (Rs 20,478 cr in 2016-17) to the insurance companies even while payment to farmers is about Rs 5,000 crores (5,650 crores in 2016-17) leading to supernormal profits for the intermediaries.  Hopefully, Modicare delivers a better model.

Foreign Policy: India joined the MTCR (Missile technology Control regime), in 2016 , Wassenaar Arrangement, dealing with conventional arms & dual use goods & technologies, in 2017, & Australia Group, dealing with Chemical & Biological weapons, in 2018  even while NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) proved elusive largely because of China's intransigence in seeking Indian parity with its iron brother- Pakistan.  Likewise, Indian soft power of Yoga has been expanded worldwide when the UN, in 2016, declared 21^st June as the World Yoga day. Similarly, hard power has been expanded vide LEMOA which secures Indian Military access to US bases in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean & Gaum in the Pacific; likewise agreements with France give access to her military bases in Djibouti & Reunion Islands near Madagascar; similar agreements have been inked with Singapore & potentially Indonesia for greater access east of Andamans. Furthermore, India will build its own base at Seychelles & Mauritius amidst pending plans for one more at Oman to access the Persian Gulf - all wise attempts to enhance India’s maritime reach & naval power.

However, India’s “Neighbourhood First” diplomacy is crumbling. Chinese stooge, KP Oli of the Communist Party of Nepal, has secured a landslide majority – fanning nationalism & anti-India sentiment courtesy the Indian blockade of Nepal, in 2015, to force a constitutional change for incorporating the aspirations of the Madhesis. Maldives continues to cock a snook at India & the Sri Lankan govt. is not as friendly as it once was when it came to power, in 2014. Bhutan has refused to be part of the BBIN (Bangladesh- Bhutan-India-Nepal) transport corridor ostensibly to prevent greater vehicular movement in the kingdom that could imperial her ecology. Support to Myanmar on the Rohingya issue & summersault soon thereafter to assuage the sentiments of Bangladesh has ruffled feathers in both the nations leaving India poorer.

Economy: The macros under this govt. look impressive & Modi never loses an opportunity to highlight that India moved away from the despicable tag of the “Fragile Five” economies, of 2013, to become the fastest growing large economy, in the world, & the investor darling during his regime, leading to the highest FDI of $60 billion against $36 billion per annum during the UPA regime. Surprisingly, a jobless growth scenario despite large FDI leads one to wonder if existing capacities are being bought by foreign players without creation of new ones.

The government’s lists the passage of the GST bill as a great achievement without acknowledging its own opposition to the bill, when on the other side on the aisle, as the reason for the delay; the congress should get the credit for initiating the bill & the BJP for passing it.

The government’s renegotiation of the Mauritius & the Singapore tax treaties is laudable for it has foreclosed loopholes even while the previous UPA govt. had dragged its feet.  To handle the “twin balance sheet” problem – companies with stressed balance sheets unable to repay debt thereby impacting the balance sheets of the creditor banks - & the consequent rise in NPA’s - the government passed the IBC (Insolvency & Bankruptcy code) which is truly transformational; the only regret is that insolvency professionals if appointed in the government's 2^nd year of its term would have cleaned the banking system by now.

BJP spokespersons, unfortunately, have a knack of being economical with facts. Indian GDP growth rate, during 2013-14, is 4.7% as per old series & 6.6% as per the new series & is likely to touch 6.6% again in 2017-18 post a peak of 8% achieved midway in 2015-16. Party spokespersons touting growth increase from 4.7% of 2013-14 to 7.2% in Q3 2017-18 is akin to comparing apples & oranges - an intellectually dishonest strategy for propaganda gains. Growth thus has improved but not as massively as claimed & demonetization has effected growth negatively.

Indeed, fiscal deficit of the centre has reduced by 1% from 4.5% in 2014 to 3.5% in 2016-17; states add an additional deficit of 3% leading to a combined national deficit of around 7.5% in 2013-14. Courtesy the “Uday” scheme on power sector reform – that entails state takeover of debt from the state power companies books - state fiscal deficit has upped to about 4%; thus the combined fiscal deficit of the centre & the states continues to hover around 7.5% as in 2014. 1% of GDP is about 1.7 lakh crores; pertinent to note that Centre made 1.35 lakh crores as excise in oil in 2013-14 which increased to 3.22 lakh crores in 2016-17 – an increase of 1.87 lakh crores. Thus the entire drop of 1% in fiscal deficit is funded not by cutting flab or increasing efficiency but merely by denying the common man the benefit of an unexpected drop in international oil prices which is akin to lazy governance. Oil prices are rising now & if domestic oil prices are increased, it would spur inflation & consumer angst while keeping prices stable would entail increase in fiscal deficit unless other tax avenues are suitably explored; clearly, the reduction in fiscal deficit was a result of an unexpected windfall due to a non-recurrable favourable international event & the Modi govt. had nothing to do with it & should not claim credit.

The govt. did keep inflation rate under 5% during its tenure unlike the UPA whose inflation record trended at around 9%; this was achieved by the favourable dip in international commodity prices – on which the Modi govt. had no hold - & by an anaemic increase in MSP (Minimum Support Prices) to farmers; if they do implement the Cost+50% pricing for farmers as promised in the last budget, inflation shall shoot up.

Electrification of Villages: India has 6.49 lakh villages & Modi claimed, in 2014, that it is the inefficiency of the Congress govt. that 18500 villages continue to remain in the dark. Flip the argument & you find that in 70 years about 6.3 lakh villages were electrified at an average of 9000 villages per annum & if the Modi govt. had run at the same pace the remaining villages would have been electrified in about 2years while it actually took about 4 years. Surely, these villages are in remote locations & the delay can be forgiven but running down opponents for the sole sake of propaganda cannot be condoned.

Achievements Modi should be Concerned about

Vigilantism: The hacking of Akhlaq in UP, Pehlu Khan in Haryana & the Hindu Yuva Vahini imposing morality codes in UP, creates a unease & societal schisms which could fuel violence & give space to vested organizations under the guise of “Gau Rakshaks” to become rent seekers. The govt. has till date treated these groups with kids' gloves which could be exploited by organizations like ISIS, Al-Qaeda & inimical foreign powers.

Key Institutions under Attack: Positions like the Lok Pal remain unfilled even after 4 years of the regime – a repeat of what happened in Gujarat when Modi was CM. Likewise, the govt. sought applications for 2 CIC (Chief Information Commissioners) positions in Sept’16 & has not filled the positions even as 2 more CICs have since retired & 3 more of a total of 11 are set to retire in 2018; clearly, these are attempts to weaken the RTI (Right to Information) act which has otherwise helped in enhanced transparency.

The Judge Loya case alludes to the possibility of the Judiciary under duress as buttressed by the 4 senior most judges of the Supreme Court who revolted against the Chief Justice on the issue of "fixing of the roster" - an euphemism for constituting benches favourable to the govt. - & called for an unprecedented press meet. Likewise, the trolling of journalists like Ravish Kumar & sharing of the morphed nude images of Rana Ayub is indicative of a fascist tendency of emasculating press freedom.

Even the decorum of Parliamentary proceedings has been severely compromised. Recently, in Mar’18, the vote of no confidence on the govt. was not debated ostensibly on the ground that the AIADMK & TDP members were protesting in the well of the house; 27 no confidence motions have been raised since independence & none suffered the ignominy of a non-debate. The reduction in the no of days the legislature is in session is another recent malady that denies people's representative the chance to raise an issue of public interest on the floor of the house. These are ominous portends for parliamentary democracy pleading for redressal.

Defence: India saw 4 defence Ministers in 4 years – Jaitley, Parrikar, Jaitley again & finally Nirmala which needless to say effected policy direction. Despite attempts to shift towards a G2G (Govt. to Govt.) contracts to outflank corruption allegations & accelerate procurement, the govt. has failed in its resolve to accelerate the modernization of the forces. Meanwhile, the Rafale deal is cast in a corruption cloud & debate on the same in parliament is stalled; while the UPA negotiated the aircraft at a per unit cost of Rs 526 crores with Transfer of Technology (TOT), the NDA govt. has closed the deal at Rs 1670 crore apiece – without TOT. The BJP claims advanced avionics as reason for the increased fare which is not backed by facts; in-fact the govt. has paid much higher than Rafale’s other clients -Egypt & Qatar.  Another intriguing question: Why are most defence contracts going to one Indian Industrial group whose financial position is precarious?

Surprisingly, Defence spend has dipped to 1.58% of GDP in 2017-18, the lowest since 1962 even as the Army Chief boasts that India is ready for a “two & a  half front” war which is a fallacy since his deputy, the Vice Chief told a Parliamentary Panel that only 8% of capital equipment is state of art & 68% vintage. Are we being fed rhetoric alone?

While “surgical strikes” on Pak, in 2016, as a response to the attack on an army camp at Uri, is touted as a sign of resolute policy, that it has not enforced deterrence  indicates otherwise; Pak continues to stoke violence in the vale.  Rhetoric can manage passions on the Indian mainland but continued adversarial acts by the enemy is reflective of lack of Indian “capacity” to inflict disproportionate pain which needs to be remedied.

Jobs - Pakoda economics: The Modi govt. rode to power on the promise of creating 2 crore jobs yearly & the assurance came a whimper with 8 core industries data available showing about 4.16 lakh new jobs in 2016-17. Modi famously, during a TV interview, cited pakoda sellers as new jobs created only to be ridiculed. Instead of accepting job losses – 14000 in L&T, 4500 in HDFC, 90000 in Telecom, 56000 in IT etc. apart from the jobless growth scenario, the govt. has meandered from showcasing “Mudra” to “Start-up India” to now claim the EPFO data growth by 31 lakhs in 6 months – Sept 17 to Feb 18 – as reflective of new jobs created. This is unlikely to pass muster since formalization of informal jobs post demonetization has forced many firms to register with the EPFO; former Finance Minister, Yashwant Sinha, avers that a firm with 19 employees would be in the informal sector & addition of 1 more employee pushes the company into the formal sector & all the 20 employees into formal sector employment records even while the actual addition is only 1 employee.

The PM claims that Rs 6 lakh crores was issued to 12 crore people under the “Mudra” scheme for self- employment to be countered by the Congress which claims that for 91% of the beneficiaries the average ticket size of loan was a mere Rs 23000/- - a mere tokenism that has failed to create jobs. 

 The “Start-up India” scheme was launched with a corpus of Rs 10,000 crores but only 90.6 crores has been disbursed till date indicating its failure; “Skill India” mission was discontinued after training 41.3 lakh people since the placement rate is at an abysmal 15% (6.15lakhs); the Minister for Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, Rajiv Prasad Rudy, would not have lost his job, in 2017, if his performance was seen as exemplary by the leadership.

Clearly, the govt. record on job creation is pathetic but is hell bent on inflating its achievements.

Economic Fugitives: UPA 2 was thrown out of power for what was seen as a monumental corrupt edifice & the Modi govt. was expected to chart a new course.  However, the fleeing of economic offenders like Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi etc. sends across a dubious signal that the new govt. is no different & no action taken on the Panama papers, Paradise papers, Liechtenstein & HSBC account holders strengthens the assessment.

Conclusion:

Modi, definitely has the potential to be a transformational leader although his actions indicate incrementalism in a bid to sustain power. He should legitimately take credit for schemes like – Swatch Bharat, Ujwala, Ujala & the insurance scheme - but must learn to share credit with his predecessors for the JAM (Jan Dhan-Aadhar-Mobile) & the GST; after all Aadhar was launched in 2009 by the UPA & the telecom revolution was initiated, in 1995, by the Congress govt. to which the Vajpayee govt. added momentum vide the CPP (Calling Party Pays Regime) in 2003. JAM trilogy led to savings vide the DBT( Direct benefits transfer scheme) which incidentally was initiated by UPA II.  On issues like vigilantism & the troll army, the BJP should rethink just as they should on stratospheric propaganda to prevent the the recurrence of the consequence of the “Shining India” campaign of 2004.

Is “One Nation One Poll” In India Desirable?

The BJP govt. is going to complete 4 years in power, in May 2018, & there is a wager on whether joint elections to the National Parliament & State Assembly elections is round the corner, especially, when Prime Minister, Modi, has strongly argued for the cause in various forums & the Election Commission has announced its logistical readiness for conducting simultaneous elections by, Sept 2018, contingent though on the govt. making legal amendments to the law. However, critics scoff at such a move because of its “impracticality” – since it needs a consensus to be evolved followed by a Constitutional amendments to article 83, 85, 172 & 174 supported by a 2/3^rd majority - as much as its “undesirability” - since such action helps, disproportionately, a party with a national footprint vis a vis a regional party & hence detrimental to Federalism. Will the argument of cost reduction, governance dislocation & loss of time of party workers convince the Supreme Court that amendments so passed do not violate the “basic structure” of the constitution – a mandatory requirement post the Kesavananda Bharti Judgment of 1973?

In Support of the Move

Narendra Modi has faced criticism for being constantly on an “election mode”; perhaps, to counter the charge & emerge as a statesman, he made a persuasive argument that India had simultaneous elections till 1967 & citizenry have displayed maturity in electing different parties, if need be, at the Centre & the States then & can be expected to display the same maturity in future too.  He also argued for a single electoral roll from Panchayat to Parliament to reduce the work load on the teachers involved, ceaselessly, on electoral roll up gradation.  He proposed local body elections - both Urban & Rural - within a month of the simultaneous elections to the Centre & States to wind up the election season & settle into the serious job of governance.

The costs of Parliament elections in 2009 was 1000 -1100 crores (1483 crores as per EC), in 2009, & has increased to 4000 crores (3426 crores as per EC), in 2014, he averred & sought out joint elections as a solution to reduce costs & hence black money; reduce federal friction due to “war of words”- vitriol & rhetoric - between the political executive doubling up as a party representative & their opposition; & to prevent announcement of populist promises that are economically unfeasible. Simultaneous elections, incidentally, is budgeted to cost Rs 4500 crores – leading to substantial savings.

He also referred to the redeployment of the security forces during elections effecting the strategic security objectives of the country & deployment of senior officials of a neutral state in the electoral state disrupting governance in their parent state. He also highlighted India having about 10 lakh polling booths & the govt. deploying about 11 personnel per booth – largely govt. employees & teachers - dislocating human resources from their original functions & hence delivery.

Others have opined that governance comes to a standstill when the moral code of conduct comes into effect - from the time the poll bugle is sounded till the elections are completed. If elections are announced in UP, national governments are expected to refrain from launching schemes in the rest of the country too for ubiquitous media allows message transmission across porous regions; needless to add that some governments have taken advantage of this loophole to serve themselves with an electoral advantage & hence the need for joint elections to serve a level playing field. Former CEC SY Quraishi has suggested that if the Home Ministry could provide more paramilitary forces, the election season could be crashed to a month from the current 2 – 2.5 months cycle. Likewise, during the period the moral code of conduct is in vogue only launch of new schemes is disallowed & existing schemes can be pursued, nullifying the adulterated argument that governance comes to a standstill.

Simultaneous elections could help deepen democratic processes; migrant workers cannot make multiple visits back home to vote for the local bodies, state & national elections but if all of them are held together, they could do with oe visit  to participate in the festival of electoral democracy, perhaps, leading to a voting % increase.

The strongest argument in favour of the motion is that the law commission of 1999, in fact, suggested simultaneous elections & a parliamentary standing committee having studied the recommendation submitted its report, in 2015, to which the Election Commission too has added its viewpoint.

Against the Move

A staggered election – across the state & centre  - even if its costs about 10000 crores over a 5 year period (Rs 2000 crores per annum) is not as large as it is made out to be for a country with a national annual budget of about 25 lakh crores; the cost argument thus might not pass muster.

This move could propel the dominance of one party at the expense of diversity & inclusion. As per IDFC Institute Report 2016, in 16 simultaneous elections held between 1999 - 2014, the winner was from the same party in 77% of the cases; the metric has inched up from 68% in 1999 to 86% in 2014 which buttresses Prashant Bhushan’s view that the “absurd proposition” of simultaneous election is being pushed by the BJP since they believe that Modi’s perception as the strongest leader at the centre would be carried forward to the state elections too in the event of joint elections. The Parliamentary standing committee too in its report submitted, in 2015, has conceded that voting once every 5 years could deplete political accountability, marginalize regional parties & reduce voters ability to differentiate between local & national issues.

Nalini Singh telecast a program in the 1990s on how local strongmen subvert democracy & how country-made weapons are widely & easily available, a situation that has not changed much even today. It is prudent to therefore argue that if elections are spread out, then the concentrated deployment of security forces in the electoral areas, thus achieved, could help in the conduct of free & fair elections unlike a thinly spread out force in the case of simultaneous elections.

Are we barking the Wrong Tree?

India had 4215 members of the Vidhan Sabha & 543 members of the Lok Sabha, in 2014, for an electorate of 81 crores; thus an MLA represents a 2 lakh electorate & an MP 15 lakhs.  Generally, 30% of the eligible voters do not exercise their franchisee & a victor targets 50% of the rest of 1.4 lakhs i.e. 70,000 voters. As per The Hindu Business line article dated 6/4/2009, about 70% of the candidates expenditure is on liquor & cash & 10% each on vehicles, publicity & miscellaneous. The recent RK Nagar by poll in Tamil Nadu was countermanded since it was rumoured that about Rs 4000 was paid per voter as a bribe. Assuming a conservative expenditure of Rs 1000 per voter, a candidate has to expend about 7 crores per assembly constituency & assuming 3 serious candidates per constituency the spent is approximately 21 crores. Thus a total of about 1 lakh crores is spend by all candidates across the parliamentary & assembly seats in an election cycle; isn’t it surprising that instead of making an attempt to reduce this expenditure of 1 lakh crore – which, arguably, is black money – interested parties are barking the wrong tree by claiming that the EC would reduce its expenses to only 4500 crores in conducting simultaneous elections? Should the target not be to reduce the election expenditure of candidates & parties?

Today there is a cap on the candidate’s spending but none on the party spent; a party can & does spend multiple times the candidates spent. This loophole that gives substantial advantages to political parties at the expense of independent candidates needs to be plugged by

1(a)Spent for a Lok Sabha constituency - 70 lakhs (say) - should include both the candidate’s spent & the party spent

1(b)Parties & candidates should be mandated to put their expenses, booth wise, in the public domain to be audited not only by the EC but by a vigilant opposition & civil society with recourse to the courts & judgements within 1 year to create a self- fulfilling prophecy of auto correction.

(2)Donations to political parties should be put into the public domain even if it is 1 paise & not Rs 2000/- & above as is the current practice.

(4)Political Parties have not subjected themselves to the RTI act despite a CIC’s June 2013 ruling that defined political parties as “public authorities” under rule 2(h) of the Act. Parties could opt to remain opaque with regard to their internal deliberations but should subject themselves to RTI with regard to their income & expenditure.

Increase in Opacity

The BJP govt. vide Finance bill 2017 amended the Company  Act 2013 that barred companies from donating more than 7.5 % of the average profits of the company of the past 3 year & mandated disclosure of the beneficiary in their P&L Accounts. This is a regressive move since it rewards corporates with anonymity & limitless political funding that could encourage quid pro quo. Likewise, individuals or firms are now allowed to buy electoral bonds from the authorized banks vide cheque or electronic payments – which does help regulate undisclosed money – but giving it to political parties without revealing the beneficiary makes the reform legally opaque. Greater transparency is the need of the hour.

To circumvent an adverse Delhi High Court ruling of 28^th Mar 2014, on receipt of funding from foreign sources, by the BJP & the Congress, from Vedanta, in violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976, the law was amended, retrospectively, in Finance Bill 2018. This encourages a feeling that political parties do not believe that the law of the land applies to them & collude to protect their interests.

Surely, if lawmakers are genuinely interested in electoral reforms, they should reduce opacity in political funding in a bid to dampen the influence of perverse money power before attempting the next reform of simultaneous elections.

Some unanswered questions

(1)If simultaneous elections are held & one of the 30 states or 5 union territories has a fractured verdict in the assembly & falls midway (say after 2 years), would

(a)Fresh elections be held & the new assembly so constituted remain in power only for the remaining part of the term as recommended by the EC?

(b)Would it remain under President’s rule for the entire 3 year period which gives untrammelled power to the centre? or

(c )The assembly is forced to cobble together an alternative by placing a “confidence” motion alongside a “no confidence motion” as suggested by the EC. Would this lead to the formation of “coercive alliances” bereft of ideological or program cohesion or encourage a whip driven tyranny as a consequence of the 10^th schedule?

(2)What happens if a member dies or is disqualified midterm due to the anti-defection law or vide corruption charges proved?

(3)Between 2014 - 2018 the BJP has won most of the assembly elections. In the case of simultaneous elections would the BJP dissolve all the state assemblies where they have recently won or seek to extend their tenures coterminous with the end of the next parliamentary term (2024 say) even as they curtain the tenures of the remaining states? A Parliamentary standing committee has recommended some assembly elections to be held along with the Parliamentary elections & the rest of the states in the mid-term of parliament.

(4) J&K has a 6 year term for the assembly unlike the rest of the Indian state assemblies & Parliament that have a 5 year term; even if simultaneous elections are agreed to, how do you conflate the J&K term issue that needs an amendment to be passed by the J&K state assembly/constituent assembly. Would the J&K issue boil over if their term is sought to be reduced to 5 years?

Conclusion

Former chief election commissioner SY Quraishi has addressed both the pros & the cons of the issue at hand & called the move “desirable but not feasible” since it is fraught with constitutional issues & administrative problems. In support of simultaneous elections he said that if we are in the election mode all the time we are we are in the corruption mode all the time. Since communalism, casteism, divisive & hate politics happens during the elections to be forgotten later, simultaneous elections could lead to the desirable consequence of 4.5 years of undisturbed peace. Against the move he opined that local issues are different from national issues & joint-elections could conflate the same. Likewise it is untrue he attests that people hate elections; in fact they love them since that is the only occasion politicians visit them & elections - if  not spread out - could possibly deny electorate the opportunity to see the face to the representative for the next 4.5 years. He cited an interesting slogan he overheard : “Jab jab election aata hai, tab tab gareeb ke pet me pulav aata hai”.

Indian democracy during the era of simultaneous elections till 1967 experienced the dominance of one party – the Congress - & replication of the same process could see the emergence of another – the BJP - & that perhaps explains the latter’s eagerness to pursue the measure. Today, the electorate votes at least thrice in a 5 year period for the Parliament, State & local body polls ensuring answerability & accountability; if simultaneous elections are held, will the political class hibernate only to emerge after 5 years?

Surely, having single electoral rolls from Panchayat to Parliament as suggested by the PM is a kosher argument & aadhar could be employed to make such logistics simpler; however, purging Indian democracy of money power should precede any attempts at holding simultaneous elections.

War Machines: India’s Options?

The security environment in India’s neighbourhood is getting graver by the day even as increasingly shriller voices for “self-determination” abound internally. Countering both the challenges with emotional speeches or chest thumping TV debates vide media operations to raise nationalistic passions would remain mere psychological operations unless intent is backed by adequate economic support & technological rigour under a broad strategic security doctrine. Alas, the Indian state appears guided more by ham-handed tactical pursuits rather than a strategic doctrine.

As per the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, India was the largest importer of defence equipment during the period 2013-17, accounting for about 12% of the world’s defence imports followed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt & UAE in that order. Clearly, Middle East & the Indian sub- continent remain lucrative arms markets & hence great powers would actively refresh fault lines to grow defence trade exponentially. Denial of cutting edge tech transfers is a strategic attempt to gain captives; not surprisingly, “Make in India” has attracted only 1.17 crores of Defence FDI during the period 2013-17.

India designed & produced the Jet fighter Marut domestically – under  the famed German engineer Kurt Tank – who also designed the piston powered WW II era classic Focke Wulf Fw 190. Instead of pursuing domestic innovation with foreign help or reverse engineering India shifted to imports from the 1970’s under pressure from interested lobbies; China did otherwise. The Soviet Union provided Mig 21 designs to China, in 1962, as part of a rapprochement post the Sino-Soviet split in 1956 owing to doctrinal differences; China used the designs to produce their own indigenous J 7. Likewise post the bloody Tiananmen square crackdown on student protests, in 1989, & the denial of Western defence markets to China, Russia provided the Su 27’s which were reverse engineered to produce J 11s & later the naval version  J 15; now they appear to have stolen the stealth features of the F 22 from the US & incorporated those  into the J 20.  China has reduced its defence imports progressively even as it built domestic capacity & today is the world’s third largest arms exporter after the US & Russia with  Pak, Bangladesh & Myanmar being her largest clients indicative of their increasing encirclement & strangulation of India. The recent Indian defence policy document that proposes a target of 1.7 lakh crores of defence production with Rs 35000 crores of exports by 2025 is a well-intentioned though ambitious statement.

India has been constrained by a slow defence procurement process accentuated by corruption charges leading to the cancellation of contracts blunting the capability matrix of the armed forces. Post Bofors bought in 1980’s, no artillery was procured till very recently when a deal has been signed both with L&T & the US for howitzers; likewise no procurement of fighter aircraft post Su 30MKI deal in the 1996 till Rafale recently; the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas – an indigenous production is suffering from Range- 300KMs - & weight could be an issue for deploying the aircraft on aircraft carriers. Prudent to deploy short range Tejas on the western sector & the Long range Su 30MKI & Rafale against China supported by missile firepower across both the sectors.

Stalin once said “Quantity has a quality all its own”; India - suffering from a depleted strength of 31 squadrons against a requirement of 42 to tackle a two front war - should increase production of the Tejas by subletting additional lines to the private sector. Likewise, instead of stopping the production of the Su 30MKI, arrange for sharing technology with the private sector to build capacity. Increased nos. of 3rd/4^th gen fighters thus would be better than pleading for the 5^th Gen sheath designs or products from Russia or the US;pertinent to note that Russia offered S400 Missile systems to China before offering it to India.

However, a note of caution: just as the arms lobby & the National Rifle Association have become factors in the US elections, so too would the Indian Pvt. arms lobby unless  checks & balances are not incorporated. 

Following are some technologies that India should work on urgently

(1)Stealth Weapons: The US 5^th Gen Fighter aircraft - the F 35 - has stealth properties which works on the principle of bending light to escape detection vide “adaptive camouflage” of both the visual & thermal footprint; the Chinese have copied the designs.  While the Indians might evince interest in the F35 under the aegis of the Quad, the US is unlikely to allow for transfer of neither the technology nor the aircraft considering the strategic implications; clearly there is work to be done by the DRDO.

Perhaps, India should leapfrog to UVs (unmanned vehicles) – Unmanned aerial vehicles, undersea drones etc. – like China. Near space - which begins at about 20km above sea level - has been regarded as a “death zone” for drones. However, the Chinese tested two experimental unmanned aerial vehicles sent vide a high-pressure balloon & deployed it at different altitudes barely leaving any traces on radar due to their small size – the drones are small enough to fit in a shoebox and weigh about the same as a soccer ball.

Likewise, Stealth armour, if developed for special -forces, would serve as an “invisible cloak” that would be useful in conducting surgical strikes on enemy/terrorist training bases or hi value targets & hence should be pursued rigorously.

(2)Electromagnetic Products: India is seeking electromagnetic catapults from the US to launch fighter aircrafts from aboard its aircraft carriers. Vertical lift off & catapult launchers would offset the need for having ski board launchers on such carriers.

Both the US & China have made great strides in Electromagnetic guns - that use magnetic fields to thrust a projectile with a proven range of about 100 nautical miles instead of chemical propellants which are otherwise inflammable - & are ceaselessly working on bettering the range.

(3)Space Weapons: Arming the space orbitors with nuclear weapons or electromagnetic pulse weapons & launched to de-capacitate the command, control, computers, communication, Intelligence, Surveillance & reconnaissance capabilities would win wars without any single shot being fired. Unlike the ICBM’s that can be brought down by a missile shield or vide the Russian S 400 a space based attack has less reaction time & surface to air to satellite weaponry development is still in its infancy. High energy space based lasers should be the next phase.

(4)Cyber warfare: Apparently in 2016, 22000 pages of India’s Scorpene submarine designs were leaked from the French manufacturer cum designer – DCNS. Govt. websites including those of the PMO, Ministry of External Affairs, DRDO, and Indo Tibetan Border Police were defaced or hacked. A wikileaks report speaks of the “Equation Group.”- a clandestine CIA & NSA operation that penetrated Indian Military, Telecom & research institutes.

The Facebook saga & the Russian sabotage of US elections vide propaganda unleashed after consumer profiling is indicative of the increased sophistry of cyber-attacks. Blackout vide an externally induced  power grid failure, attack on stock exchanges & banks to unleash economic terror & crippling transportation networks are not unlikely scenarios any longer.  

India should be wary of weapons that obviates kinetic warfare altogether, by pre-emptively disabling an opponent’s ability to conduct military operations. Perhaps, the Chinese supply of telecom equipment, power plants etc. with bugs falls into such a strategy. Hence the need for the National technical Research Organization under R&AW, National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection centre – to protect Telecom, Defence, space, Banking, Transport & energy assets working alongside the tri-service Defence Cyber agency reporting to the National Security advisor.

Conclusion

There are no permanent friends or enemies in geopolitics & India's rise shall not go uncontested. Hence the need for India to develop indigenous capacity; armed forces should work closely with DRDO, Indian ordnance factories & the Indian private sector to develop & deploy products, avoiding the lust of the “foreign” tag. Jai Hind!!

Run up towards The 2019 Parliamentary elections

A week, they say, is a long time in politics. Journalists - who were gushing at the unstoppable Modi-Shah juggernaut, post the BJP govt. formation in the North Eastern states of Tripura, Nagaland & Meghalaya – are now convinced of BJP’s vincibility, in 2019 – post the SP win in the UP by elections – with BSP support -  & the exit of the TDP from the NDA on the issue of denial of “special category status”.  Lack of rigour in analysis & swinging like trapeze artists & changing positions with each event does the profession no good.

Let us step back & analyse the current political landscape

(1)The BJP that won 282 seats in 2014, now has its nos. reduced to 276, post losing 6 of the 10 seats - it held earlier - that went to the by polls later- Ratlam (MP to INC in 2015), Gurdaspur (Punjab to INC in 2017), Alwar & Ajmer (Raj to INC in 2018), Phulpur & Gorakhpur (UP to SP in 2018) indicating the onset of anti-incumbency.

Takeaway: The GOP, the INC, has its footprint sequentially reduced from the days of Indira Gandhi & is now shrunk to fighting the BJP directly in 14 of the 29 states only: Western India(Gujarat), Central India(MP & Chhattisgarh), North Western India(Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan), Northern India(Uttarakhand & HP) & South (Karnataka, Telangana) & North East (Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh)while it is still a formidable force along with allies in 4 states: North(J&K with the NC), West(Maharashtra with the NCP; Goa), South (Kerala as UDF). The regional parties dominate the remaining landscape - largely in the South & East - prompting TMC’s Derek-o-Brein to comment that the BJP should be stopped by the regional parties in their areas of dominance while the INC does in its backyard, to propel India back into a liberal, inclusive coalition era.

 (2)BJP  ruled 6 states in 2014 – Gujarat, Rajasthan, MP, Chhattisgarh, Goa, & Punjab (in alliance with SAD; between 2014 to 2019, it lost Punjab but retained Gujarat in a cliff-hanger & Goa vide a coalition despite the verdict being anti-BJP.  It added 14 new states – HP, Haryana, Uttarakhand, UP, Jharkhand, Assam & runs govt. coalition governments in  Maharashtra(with Shiv Sena), J&K (with PDP), Bihar(with JDU), Tripura(with IPFT), Meghalaya(NPP), Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Nagaland riding as much on Amit Shah's poll strategy as much as on anti-incumbency against existing state governments.

Takeaway: The BJP gained massively in 2014 & beyond due to anti –incumbency against the INC & Regional parties; going forward, ruling as it does 19 of the 29 states, would it too not be at the receiving end of the same trend in both in the impending Parliamentary & Assembly elections?

(3)The State BJP CMs of the newly acquired states are generally seen as lacking in administrative acumen & might not be in a position to regain power the next time. The anti- incumbency vectors are corruption, lack of employment opportunities, & price rise. The Modi govt. which retained the sheen of being corruption free is now weighed down by the patina of the corruption in the Rafale deal, Nirav Modi's PNB scam, Jay Amit Shah’s sudden riches etc.; likewise, the govt. has not been able to show an appreciable increase in employment opportunities & the PMs allusion to “Pakoda sellers” as new jobs has ruffled feathers. Inflation was been kept in check vide an unexpected bonanza of an oil price drop & a public policy decision to go for a minor rise in MSP; however, the latter decision has led to rural angst & rise in farmer suicides; the farmer march in Maharashtra is a consequence of the same malady.  The usual suspects are thus now rising in unison.

Takeaway: There are issues to corner the Modi govt. if the opposition can weave the right narrative taking advantage of the emerging situation. With Nitish co-opted, Chidambaram entangled in legal mess & Rahul suffering from the “pappu jibes” & Mamata & Mayawati unable to acquire the leadership of the opposition mantle it will a case of “distributed leadership” fighting the BJP’s electoral machine which in a way is good for the opposition since a direct fight between an opposition leader & Modi would make the contest “Presidential” – a situation NaMo shall savour.

(4)While the TDP had existed the coalition & initiated a no confidence motion against the govt. the BJP could win this round but is precariously placed since Uddhav Thackeray of the  Shiv Sena has already announced that they would contest the 2019 elections without the BJP, Naresh Gujral of the SAD has opined that the single party rule is off in 2019 & the BJP should therefore consult its allies more while the JD(U) in Bihar is sulking for want of special category status & more representation at the centre.

Takeaway: The NDA is in a mess & in a bid to dominate from the "Panchayat to Parliament" the BJP is in no mood to apply the balm.

Against this background we could reasonably make the following predictions for the next parliamentary elections

(a)The BJP would suffer from anti-incumbency & is unlikely to repeat its 2014 performance:  Gujarat (26/26), Rajasthan (25/25), Haryana (7/10), Madhya Pradesh (27/29), Chhattisgarh (10/11), Maharashtra (23/48); it would lose about 50 seats in these states. A neck & neck fight between the INC & the BJP is thus predicted in 2019 with each party winning about 140 seats.

(b)In UP, a SP-BSP-INC combination with a vote share close to 50% could potentially sweep the polls; however since arithmetic might not translate into chemistry, the coalition is predicted to win 60 seats, unless a Ram Janmabhoomi agitation, perhaps, post an adverse judgement, in Oct 2018, in the Supreme Court, is likely to create polarization catapulting the BJP to about 55 seats – similar to the no. it earned in the 1990’s. That would push the BJP to about 175 seats - still about 100 seats short of a majority.

(c)Despite leaders like KCR wanting to lead the third front, it appears more a strategy to sweep polls in their home state i.e. do what Modi did in Gujarat, or Jaya in TN or Mamata in WB, in 2014 – thereby becoming a  kingmaker rather than a king, in 2019.

(d)Allies view the BJP leadership as arrogant, non-consulting & intent on playing a zero sum game; this makes acquiring new friends / allies pre or post poll difficult for the BJP.

Conclusion

With Ram Janmabhoomi agitation/building a temple likely to spur “polarization” & a skirmish in the Pak border or Indian intervention in Maldives to ratchet up “nationalism” a possibility, it is feasible for the BJP to emerge as the single largest party but due to lack of friends/allies, it would be forced to cede power to the INC to form the govt. with the support of the regional parties.

Tackling China: A New Approach to Foreign Policy

Foreign Secretary, Vijay Gokhale’s note to the Cabinet Ministry to issue an directive to Govt. servants not to participate in the events, starting April 1st, planned to commemorate the 60^th anniversary of the Dalai Lama’s exile from Tibet to India is, perhaps, to smoothen Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Qingdao, in June this year to attend the Shanghai Co-operation Organization (SCO) meeting; or was it is a quid pro quo to muster Chinese withdrawal of opposition to Pak being put on the “Grey list” by the FATF (Financial Action Task Force) on terror financing? Prompting the Dalai Lama to visit Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh, or the Tibetans to protest when wanting to needle the Chinese & swinging the other way as in this case, though viewed as a legitimate action under foreign policy is in bad moral taste & against the host – guest relationship defined in our country by “Atithi Devo Bhava”.

I have long argued that despite our ambition to see ourselves as China’s peer, the dichotomy in economic sizes is substantial with China boasting of 5 times our GDP (Gross Domestic Product) & about 3.5 times our military budget (India$51 billion vs. China’s $175 billion). But since economic sizes of the two countries were similar till about 1980 & per capita incomes till 1991, our ambition is not misplaced since the power differential would be substantially reduced in a 25 year timeframe if the elephant grows at least 1.5 times the dragon. Till such time, we need to play with caution even while asserting where necessary to protect our core interests for China is using coercive diplomatic, economic & military pressures to browbeat nations to gain territory & market access.

Managing China: Strategies

The Quad (US-India-Australia-Japan) strengthened by the addition of like-minded countries in the ASEAN like Vietnam could logically serve to deter China from pursuing a “creeping acquisition” of territory strategy; however, pertinent to note that during the Doklam standoff the US did not come out opening in India’s support; only Japan did & in a non-Shinzo Abe scenario we cannot expect such emphatic support from the Nippon nation too. While China blisters at such encirclement, our attempts at strengthening the alliance should be pursued, especially since China has made deep inroads into SAARC nations & beyond.

Ambassador, KC Singh, however, argues that India is a “swing” power in a post unipolar world scenario where the sole superpower – the US - is on a decline & displaying withdrawal symptoms under Trump & a revisionist power – China – is not only on the rise but displaying greater risk appetite to shift the world epicentre to Asia; he proposes that India with the 3^rd largest military & economic power (in PPP terms) should maintain a balance to protect our interests even as others have proposed “Strategic Autonomy”.  In areas like climate change, free trade etc. India sees convergence with China while in areas like freedom of navigation in South/East China sea & beyond, propagation of democratic values etc. our interests conflate with those of the US.

Suhasini Haider, vide an article in the Hindu, has argued that we could delineate Chinese actions/ strategies under 3 heads: helpful to India; neither helpful nor inimical to India’s interests: & inimical to India. She advises co-operation in the first, co-existence in the second & assertion/alternate offer if need be along with the Quad in the third. Salvatore Babones, writing in Forbes asserts that India’s “Act East” needs China while the latter’s “Go West” needs India since China has excess capacity in construction & infrastructure industries & needs markets while India has the market but lacks infrastructure. He reasons that Indian economy at $2.5 trillion is roughly the size of ASEAN & positively dwarfs the economies of Central Asian Republics - where China is trying to gain leeway.  India thus can absorb a meaningful proportion of China’s excess capacity. Even while Manipur is closer to Chinese Chengdu rather than Thai Bangkok, India is keen to connect the two in a bid to seek additional manufacturing investments in the North East from the ASEAN which is unlikely to fructify; likewise, Chinese interest in rebuilding the Stilwell road that links Assam to China is stonewalled due to political opposition from India. He laments that the only country that has the capital & technology to help India’s North East is the last country India wants to turn too. Perhaps, opposition is a consequence of Indian security considerations predicated by the unresolved border dispute; would India think differently if the border issue is resolved favourably – the McMahon line becomes the de-jure border?

Shifting sights to the country’s North West, India has opposed the CPEC (China – Pak Economic Corridor) – part of President Xi’s pet BRI (Belt & Road Initiative) – because of sovereignty concerns since it passes through Gilgit-Baltistan – a part of undivided J&K - on which India has an unresolved bilateral dispute with Pak. Ceding of the Shaksgam valley by Pak to China, in 1963, effectively makes the J&K dispute a tripartite one & the Karakoram highway was subsequently constructed. China skilfully circumvented India’s sovereignty objections then by introducing a clause that promised to respect sovereignty of the territory as & when it was finally resolved, perhaps, knowing fully well that it will take decades; 50 years hence, Gilgit Baltistan & POK remain part of Pak. When India is finding it difficult managing the aspirations of the people in the Kashmir valley alone, would she not find it difficult managing additional territory & people even if Pak hands over the disputed territories to India? Can the tripartite problem be resolved by an agreement to convert the LOC with Pak as the de facto border & recognition of India claims over the Siachen heights in lieu of withdrawal of Indian sovereignty claims - over Gilgit- Baltistan & POK - & support to CPEC under a new nom-de-plume by linking it to the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial corridor to gain access to Central Asia? This deal though pragmatic could pique of our Western allies since it is a reversal of their strategy of denying the communists' access to the Arabian Sea since imperial times; can India stop  China from pushing through with the CPEC project & the proposed corridor linking Kyauk Pyu port in Myanmar with China, gaining access to both the Arabian Sea & Bay of Bengal?  

Connecting CPEC to the Delhi Mumbai industrial corridor would give us access to Central Asia without expending energy & money on the Iranian port of Chabahar & an alternate route via Afghanistan to central Asia.  Iran is a tough negotiator & has given India access to the port for 18 months only. India, unable to fund its own infra requirements cannot spend adequately on the Iran-Af-Central Asia linkage or the North- South Corridor to provide access to Eurasia vide the Caspian sea; even if she did, it would only increase Iran’s geostrategic importance & not India’s. Would taking advantage of China’s investments not be a better strategy rather than becoming captive to Iran’s belligerence or  blackmail?

In 1959-60, The Chinese Premier, Zhou-en-Lai proposed an India concession on the Western sector at Aksai Chin in lieu of Chinese concession in the eastern sector of Tawang to settle the border issue which effectively meant recognition of  the McMahon line, of 1914, & the McCartney-McDonald line, of 1899, which PM Nehru, unfortunately, rejected & followed through with the ill thought through “Forward post policy” which led to the Indo-China war, of 1962, post which China occupies the entire Aksai chin, much beyond the McCartney-McDonald line. Can India & China agree on the McMahon & McCartney-McDonald lines in lieu of India allowing Chinese access beyond the BMIC (Bangladesh-Myanmar-India-China) corridor to the NBBMIC (Nepal-Bhutan-Bangladesh-Myanmar-India-China) corridor & greater market access, contingent on reducing the trade deficit?

Conclusion

It might be prudent to take advantage of aligning with China on climate change, handling terror, alternative world financial architecture & participating in parts of the BRI (Belt & Road Initiative) wherever we see an advantage & put our foot down where we see our interests challenged by offering an alternative model. Issuing demarches to SAARC nations not to cross the Red line of accessing Chinese investments, on what we perceive as dual use projects, that challenge our security interests is not working with even nations like Maldives revolting; offering them a better financial package & economic model – perhaps along with our other Quad allies - is a better alternative. Despite the brave averments of our Army Chief is India ready for “a two & a half front war”? Even if "yes", a war is regressive as much as it is unlikely. Prudent for India to borrow a line from the former Chinese strongman, Deng Xiaoping: “Hide our capabilities & bide our time”.