Author: Sanjoy Narayan

What India and Canada’s Diplomatic Spat Means

By Sanjoy Narayan

India and Canada’s diplomatic war began on September 20 when Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused India of having potential links to the killing in June of a Sikh separatist leader, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, in Surrey in Canada’s British Columbia province. 

Nijjar was a supporter of the Khalistan movement for creation of a separate and independent Sikh nation in the Indian state of Punjab. Nijjar, like several other Indian-origin Sikhs living in Canada, was alleged to be involved in terrorist activities in India and was designated as a terrorist by the Indian government.

The Canadian prime minister said he had credible allegations of India’s involvement in Nijjar’s killing and that he had also raised the issue with the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi when he had met him at the G20 summit in New Delhi recently. Triedeau said he wanted India to cooperate with Canada’s investigation of the matter as any foreign government involvement in Canada’s sovereignty was unacceptable.

On its part, India has outright rejected Trudeau’s allegations as “absurd and motivated” and countered him by accusing Canada of harbouring Khalistani terrorists and extremists who pose a threat to India’s security and integrity. India said Trudeau’s remarks were aimed at shifting the focus away from separatist groups working against Indian interests on Canada’s soil. In a tit-for-tat action, after Canada expelled a senior Indian diplomat from the country, India retaliated by expelling a Canadian diplomat.

Interestingly, India’s allegation that Canada harbours anti-India separatists was echoed across the Indian political spectrum. Shashi Tharoor, an opposition leader belonging to the Congress said in an interview to a news agency: “…We are now seeing a new phenomenon where immigrants to Canada have become Canadian citizens but are not doing anything in Canadian politics. They’re focusing on how to actually do damage to their country of origin. To my mind, that is a very dangerous development. And, Canada really has to examine its own approach to these people. It’s all very well to claim outrage that a citizen has been killed in Canada. In any case, there is, as far as I’m aware, no evidence that any Indian government body had anything to do with it because we know that, unfortunately, this fringe terrorist group has a number of factions…”

The diplomatic row has, meanwhile, sparked outrage and condemnation from both sides, as well as from the Sikh community in Canada, which is one of the largest communities of India’s diaspora. More than 770,000 Sikhs from India live in Canada. Pro-Khalistan elements, however, are believed to be only a minuscule proportion of this. Yet, at least two Sikh groups in Canada have urged the Canadian government to suspend all cooperation with India and called for protecting the rights and safety of Canadian Sikhs. 

Canada is part of the Five Eyes alliance, a group of five countries that share intelligence and cooperate on security matters. The five countries are: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Canada has said that it has consulted the members of the alliance and at least one of them has corroborated its accusations against India. However, no official response has as yet come from any of these allies. 

TheCanada-India  spat is unprecedented and has raised concerns over the future of bilateral relations between the two countries, which are both key partners of the United States and have shared interests in trade, security, and regional stability. Experts say the falling out could put other major Western countries in an uncomfortable position and could have implications for global issues such as climate change, terrorism, and human rights.

BJP Needs to Expel Ramesh Bidhuri Now

Last week, in an ugly incident during a debate in Parliament, an MP from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Ramesh Bidhuri, made angry, hate-fuelled remarks against an Opposition MP, the Bahujan Samaj Party’s  (BSP) Danish Ali. Bidhuri called him a ‘Bharwa’ (pimp), ‘Katwa’ (circumcised), and ‘Mullah Atankwadi’ & ‘Mullah Ugrawadi’ (Muslim terrorist). The comments were made on record and were recorded on video, a clip of which went viral.

The BJP issued a notice to Bidhuri and sought a response from Bidhuri as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for using unparliamentary language. While that is a proforma response, the party should demonstrate it in a more forthright manner by expelling Bidhuri while it investigates the incident. The Opposition has also demanded that the House Privileges Committee should investigate Bidhuri’s remarks and take action against him.

It is important for the BJP to take quick action against one of its party members and parliamentarians because it sets an example that could demonstrate the party’s intolerance of such behaviour. 

Bidhuri appears to be a serial offender when it comes to hate speech. A long-time member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), he has spewed venom on many occasions. In tweets and speeches, he has targeted Opposition leaders such as the Aam Aadmi Party’s Arvind Kejrival, and Congress’ Sonia Gandhi.

Many of India’s elected legislators, at the Centre as well as the state level, often openly make comments and remarks that are motivated by hate, religious discrimination, sexism, and casteism. Often they go unpunished. This should stop. There should be no tolerance for intolerance.

Will A Quota for Women Foster Gender Equality?

The Indian Parliament recently passed the Women’s Reservation Bill, which aims to increase the representation of women in the lower house of Parliament and in state legislatures. The bill proposes to reserve 33% of all seats for women, including those from scheduled castes and tribes, for a period of 15 years. The bill was first introduced in 1996, but faced several obstacles and opposition until it was finally approved by both houses of parliament this month.

It is hoped that the bill will have a positive impact for gender equality and women’s empowerment in India. Gender equality is the state of having equal rights, opportunities and status for both men and women. But although it is a fundamental human right and a necessary condition for social and economic development, it is not fully achieved in India, as there are many issues and problems faced by women in various aspects of their lives.

There are several reasons for tha. Violence against women is, sadly, a common and widespread phenomenon and it includes physical, sexual, psychological and economic abuse by intimate partners, family members, strangers or the state. It also includes harmful practices such as female foeticide, female infanticide, child marriage, dowry deaths, honour killings, rape, acid attacks, trafficking and sexual harassment. Women in India face discrimination and inequality and are subjected to stereotyping  in most spheres of life, such as education, employment, health, politics and social norms. They have less access to quality education and health care than men, and face barriers to enter or advance in the job market. 

Moreover, many women in India lack awareness of their rights and entitlements and are caught in a vicious cycle of low self-esteem, lack of confidence, and social pressure to conform to stereotypical roles. 

Therefore, while laws that reserve positions for women in, say, Parliament, or in corporations, may help, fostering and building a culture of gender equality requires much more. A more determined role of the media, religious leaders, community leaders, parents, teachers, and youth, will be needed to create such a culture in India.

I.N.D.I.A.’s Silly Decision to Boycott News TV Hosts

The rag-tag bunch of opposition parties that have got together to form an alliance called I.N.D.I.A. recently decided to boycott some TV news channel hosts. It means that the alliance, which comprises 28 parties, will not send its representatives to participate in shows or debates that are hosted by those anchors because the alliance feels that they are biased and spread hate towards the Opposition and minorities. 

In fact, the alliance released a list of 14 anchors that it has decided to boycott. It is an ill-conceived move bordering on idiocy. 

Everybody, besides those who have been in a deep stupor or have been residing under a heavy rock, knows how polarised India’s media has become today. The majority of media outlets refrain from ruffling the feathers of those in power. Some, among them, go to extra lengths to actually align themselves to the ruling regime. A few display dissent but also risk becoming targets of its retribution. 

It is a fact that many TV news channels have become hate-driven vehicles that spew ultra nationalism and target those who oppose the regime as being anti-national. 

In such a scenario, it is understandable that opposition alliances such as I.N.D.I.A. is unwilling to field their representatives at TV debates or discussions (many of which have become one-sided shouting forums). But is a formal list of boycotted TV anchors a solution?

The decision has sparked controversy and it is easy to see why. 

Such a boycott could affect the credibility and viewership of the boycotted channels and anchors, as they will lose access to a large segment of the political spectrum and the public opinion. It could also create a vacuum for alternative and independent media platforms to fill in.

Moreover, it could backfire on the opposition alliance as it can be perceived as an act of intolerance and censorship, which goes against the principles of democracy and press freedom. It can also play to the advantage of the ruling party or regime by giving its supporters more fuel to attack the opposition. Already, some channels that have been boycotted are labeling the action as a form of Emergency, invoking similarities to the period when, during the rule of Indira Gandhi, a period of press censorship and control was imposed. 

This can intensify the polarisation and divisiveness that is already plaguing Indian media. Some analysts have observed that even if the opposition alliance does want to avoid facing biased anchors they could simply practice it rather than profess or announce it publicly. The ruling regime’s representatives often avoid “non-friendly” media entities but do not publicly list out the ones that they refuse to grant interviews or interact with. That is probably a smarter way of dealing with biased media outlets.

I.N.D.I.A. (it stands for the verbose phrase, Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance–as an aside, try explaining that to the average non-English speaking voter!) could learn smart tricks such as those instead of issuing a list of mediapersons it wants to boycott. 

Will News Corp. Turn More Right as Rupert Murdoch Steps Down?

Few have had a bigger impact on American media and politics than Rupert Murdoch, 92. The powerful media baron stepped down last week from the Fox News board, handing over charge to his son, Lachlan, 52. 

Murdoch launched Fox News in 1996 to fill what he saw as an unaddressed need for a conservative TV network. ¨He felt that existing news outlets leaned left without acknowledging the alternative views and beliefs in politics. Fox News began modestly but soon its influence grew meteorically. A study in 2007 established what became known as the Fox News Effect: The introduction of the network on a particular cable system typically pushed local voters to the right.

Fox TV’s hosts shaped the realities of its viewers, fostering a suspicion of Democratic politicians and policies and of the mainstream media. In the process, the network became the only news source that many American conservatives trusted.

 Murdoch, a canny businessman, focused on ratings as a driver for programming. In the runup to the elections before Donald Trump became President of the US, Fox’s goal was always to find what resonated most with Fox viewers — a group that was part of the Republican base.

Murdoch owned media properties on multiple continents, but he took a special interest in Fox News. Its influence gave him political clout. During Barack Obama’s presidency, Fox News provided endless hours of coverage of raucous Tea Party rallies and of the “birther” campaign — a false story claiming that Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. — to delegitimise the nation’s first Black president.

Fox’s role in Donald Trump’s political rise was critical. Murdoch had initially opposed Trump’s 2016 candidacy, but eventually backed him.

Now, with Murdoch turning control over to his eldest son, Lachlan, many wonder what will happen to the News Corp empire, which includes some of the most prominent newspapers, TV stations and online platforms in the US, UK, Australia and beyond.

Lachlan Murdoch’s leadership is likely to change the company in some ways, but also maintain its core values and vision. Lachlan, who has emerged a winner from various internecine feuds with his siblings, notably his younger brother, James, has been involved in various aspects of the company, such as newspapers, TV, digital media and entertainment. He has also shown a willingness to challenge and innovate, as well as a loyalty to his father’s legacy.

He is also perceived to be more aggressive and conservative than his father. A staunch supporter of Trump, his views could shape the sort of editorial strategy that might emerge at Fox and the other outlets that the group owns. His strategy for the media empire he inherits on the eve of the 2024 US Presidential elections will be watched keenly.

Is the US Backed IMEC a Copy-cat Project of China’s BRI?

By Sanjoy Narayan

On the sidelines of the G20 summit that was hosted by India in New Delhi, a new project called the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) was announced. Backed by the US, it is a joint initiative of India, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Israel, and the European Union to create a network of railway lines and port connections from India to Europe, across the Middle East. The project aims to boost trade, deliver energy resources, improve digital connectivity and enable the production and transport of green hydrogen to all partner countries.

It could also resemble a copy-cat project, which aims to emulate China’s massive Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), an infrastructure project that spans across Asia, Africa and Latin America and has given China considerable influence over countries that have struggling economies. The BRI was unveiled by China’s paramount leader Xi Jinping in September and October 2013 during visits to Kazakhstan and Indonesia, and was later promoted by Chinese premier Li Keqiang during his state visits to Asia and Europe.

Progress of the BRI, however, has been affected by various factors, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the increasing tensions between China and the United States, and the changing perceptions and policies of the participating countries. 

There have been delays, cancellations, or renegotiations of some major projects due to health risks, environmental concerns, debt sustainability issues, or political changes. For example, in Malaysia, the East Coast Rail Link project was suspended and later restarted on a reduced scale.

In some countries that fall in the proposed BRI route, there have been criticism and opposition to the plan because of lack of transparency, accountability, and standards of the projects that make up the BRI. Much of this also centres around the geopolitical implications of China’s growing influence in the world and its ambition of evolving a New World Order to challenge the West, and, particularly the US. 

There have been recent dissenting ripples. Italy was the first from the G7 grouping (the intergovernmental political forum consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the US) to join the BRI in 2017 by singing a memorandum of understanding with China but it has since faced pressure from its allies, notably the US , to reconsider its involvement in BRI and align its policies with the European Union and NATO. Recently, there were reports that Italy now wants to withdraw from the BRI before its five-year MoU expires next year. 

According to some reports, Italy is now seeking to withdraw from the BRI before its five-year memorandum expires in March 2024. 

The IMEC is expected to offer an alternative model of development that is based on shared values, transparency, sustainability and respect for sovereignty. It wants to nurture and foster regional cooperation and stability in the Middle East, a crisis riddled region of the world where countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia have been at odds with each other, as well as other schisms within the Arab world. 

It is easy to surmise that the IMEC is a proposal aimed at countering or even checkmating China’s BRI but whether it can do that remains to be seen. BRI has a 10-year head start over IMEC and among the 150 countries that have signed agreements with China for its BRI, are Greece, Italy, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which are. allies and partners of the US. Will they dump BRI and swarm to IMEC? 

The IMEC is still in its early stages and many details are yet to be worked out, such as the financing, timeline and technical feasibility of the project. The IMEC will also face challenges such as geopolitical tensions, security risks and environmental concerns in the regions it passes through. Moreover, the IMEC will not necessarily replace or compete with the BRI, but rather complement or coexist with it, as some of the partner countries are also involved in the BRI or have good relations with China. And many BRI signatories might want to evaluate the IMEC’s value propositions and comparative advantages over the BRI before they decide to sign up or choose one over the other.

The IMEC proposal should also be viewed from the perspective of Saudi Arabia, the biggest player in the Middle East, and a close ally of China. 

China and Saudi Arabia established diplomatic relations in 1990 and have since developed a comprehensive strategic partnership that covers various areas of cooperation, such as oil, defence, infrastructure, culture and tourism. China is Saudi Arabia’s largest trading partner and the largest importer of Saudi crude oil. 

Besides Saudi Arabia being a key part of China’s BRI, China has also played a mediating role between Saudi Arabia and Iran, two regional rivals that have been at odds over various issues, such as the nuclear deal, the war in Yemen, the crisis in Syria and the influence in Iraq. China has proposed a security framework for the Gulf region that emphasizes multilateralism, non-interference and mutual respect.

China’s mediation efforts led t oa landmark agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia that was signed in Beijing in March this year. After seven years of broken relations, the agreement aims to restore ties between the two countries, which are divided by a religious rift that dates back to the early history of Islam. Saudi Arabia and Iran follow different branches of Islam – Saudi Arabia is largely Sunni Muslim, while Iran is predominantly Shia Muslim. This has global implications with Muslim dominated nations around the world either looking up to Saudi Arabia or Iran, depending on which sect is dominant in their regions. China’s importance in geopolitics in general, and the Middle East, in particular, can be gauged by the fact that it brokered a deal between the two biggest rivals in the Mulsim world.

China’s growing global influence, and its close ties with the other major power, Russia, which is embroiled in the ongoing war in Ukraine, and its economic importance–it is still the dominant manufacturer for global markets, should not be viewed separately from its BRI ambitions. China’s president Xi Jinping decided to skip the recent New Delhi summit of the G20 but how his country will react to the IMEC proposal will be highly anticipated.

Indian PMs and Their Media Shyness

Shortly after the conclusion of the G20 Summit in Delhi, attended by a panoply of world leaders, including some of the most powerful, Prashant Bhushan, a noted Indian public interest lawyer and activist tweeted a parody of the late Harry Belafonte’s song, Jamaica Farewell, with lyrics that satirized and lamented the denial of access that journalists covering the summit had to face. Mainly it was aimed at the American media corps that travels with President Joe Biden on his Air Force One aircraft and who traditionally expect to interact informally with the leaders and with the US president when he meets them for talks. 

Some of the lyrics of the parody, quite artfully done and accompanied by an animated clip, said: …”They thought free speech was in their reach but when they landed in Delhi, they got a shock: “I’m sad to say they were kept at bay and in the van they just had to stay”…. and “where Smiley Joe met PMO, the press corps simply could not go…”

Funny? Yes. But sad as well. Ever since 2014, when Narendra Modi became Prime Minister of India after his party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won massively in India’s parliamentary elections, a feat that it bettered before his ongoing second term, Modi has adopted a somewhat reclusive media policy. True, he has and does agree to be interviewed from time to time but usually to very selective media publications, TV channels, or journalists (Disclaimer: this writer along with a colleague from a leading Indian newspaper was granted an interview with him in April 2015), but he has never addressed a press conference or faced the press in the manner that some heads of states in other democracies routinely do.

The Indian mainstream media has gotten used to restrictions and there was hardly a murmur about access or the lack of it during the G20 media. On social media such as X and Facebook some tired posts made the rounds but not much else. 

Here’s the thing, though. Is it a practice for Indian Prime Ministers to shun the media? Modi’s predecessor, the Congress party’s Manmohan Singh, had a tenure that began in 2004 and lasted till 2014. Guess how many press conferences he addressed during that decade? Three. The first press conference was in May 2005, the second was in February 2010, and the third and last one was in January 2014. Singh was often called the “silent PM” and considered by many to be a puppet of his party’s then president, Sonia Gandhi.

More Violence in Manipur

Manipur may have dropped off from the front pages of Indian newspapers, overtaken by other deemed important stories such as  afterglow of the G20 summit in Delhi, but violence still rages in the northeastern state that has been in turmoil since May this year. Last Friday, a group of armed Meitei men attacked a Kuki village in the Chandel district, killing 12 people, including four children, and injuring 18 others. The attackers also set fire to several houses and vehicles, and looted valuables. The police said they have registered a case and launched a manhunt for the culprits. 

Ethnic violence between the Meitei and the Kuki tribal communities in the state has claimed more than 180 lives and displaced nearly 70,000 people besides causing widespread destruction of property, including churches and temples. 

The violence in Manipur is a conflict between the Meitei people, who are the majority in the Imphal Valley, and the Kuki tribal community, who live in the surrounding hills. The violence began after a protest by the Kukis against the Meiteis’ demand for tribal status, which the Kukis feared would give them more power and land rights. The violence has also been fueled by other issues, such as drug trafficking, illegal migration, land disputes, and religious differences. Besides killings and destruction of property, women have been targeted and humiliated by sexual violence and public shaming. 

Although the central and state governments have deployed security forces, such as the army, paramilitary, and police, to restore law and order and protect civilians, and imposed curfews, internet shutdowns, and prohibitory orders to prevent further violence, this has clearly not helped in stemming the violence, which has far deeper socio-economic and communal problems that need to be resolved.

Does India Have a Talent Shortage?

Last week, a report by ManpowerGroup, a global staffing company, revealed that four out of five employers in India report facing difficulty in finding the talent they need. Meanwhile, 52 million additions were made to the payrolls over the past four years. The report also said that India has one of the highest talent shortages in the world, with 80% of employers struggling to fill roles compared to 69% globally. The most in-demand roles are IT professionals, engineers, technicians, sales representatives, and accounting and finance staff.

Why do companies have trouble recruiting for such roles in India? There could be several factors.

First, is the fact that  the impact of the COVID pandemic continues to impact the job market with uncertainties and insecurities among many jobseekers, some of whom prefer to work from home or avoid exposure to crowds. This has had an impact on the number of workers available for onsite work.from home or avoid exposure to crowds.

Second, it is the lack of qualified job-seekers. Demand may have increased  for skilled and high-performing workers with companies seeking productivity and performance-driven hires. Job seekers with average or poor performance may find it hard to compete and get selected for the right job opportunities. And although India has a vast cohort of working age population (aged 15-59), many are just not qualified for the sort of roles employers are looking for. 

India’s working-age population was 61% of its total population in 2011; the proportion is growing rapidly, and is now estimated at 64-65%. In numbers, and try to wrap your head around it, it is 900 million. If the majority of these people are not qualified or capable enough to do the jobs that employers are seeking workers for, what do you think will happen? Hear the ticking? It’s a time bomb.

To End With Some Heady Stuff…

Quick, which country drinks the most beer per head? According to a survey by Kirin Holdings (it’s a Japanese group; and, yes, it also makes beer!), it’s the Czech Republic. Presumably because beer is cheap in that country, people drink an estimated nearly 200 litres per capita every year. That’s a whole lot of guzzling. In Austria, which comes a distant second, the comparative figure is less than 100 litres. And, if you’re wondering where India ranks on this list, it doesn’t figure among the top 30. And not even in the top 100. According to the survey, Indians drank a measly 1.2 litres of beer per head, the lowest among the 170 countries surveyed!

How Modi Can Gain From Xi’s Absence at the G20 Summit

By Sanjoy Narayan

This weekend even as the G20 Summit, hosted this year by India, got going in Delhi, a global news network’s website had a photograph from the 2019 summit of the grouping, which is an intergovernmental forum comprising 19 countries and both the European Union (EU) and African Union (AU). In the photo, a beaming Prime Minister Narendra Modi is seen holding hands–with Russia’s president Vladimir Putin to his right, and China’s president Xi Jingping–and posing for the photograph. That photo op will not recur in Delhi during the summit this year because both Putin and Xi absented themselves from the annual summit that is hosted by a rotating presidency. 

Putin’s not going to India because there is a warrant accusing him of war crimes in Ukraine, issued by the International Criminal Court, and he faces arrest if he travels abroad. For the same reason, he missed the meeting of the BRICS (a grouping that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and some recently added new members) last month in South Africa.

Xi’s absence is a bit more perplexing. China has not officially proffered any explanation but there are several theories doing the rounds. First, that Xi, under whom China’s rift with the West has greatly intensified, may be disillusioned with the existing global system of governance and structures that he sees as dominated by American influence. He may be prioritizing multilateral forums that fit into China’s own vision for how the world should be governed.

Second, Xi may have decided to skip the meeting because he wants to rebuff India. Relations between China and India are not smooth because of the ongoing border dispute on the north-eastern perimeter of India. Xi may also want to avoid meeting other Western leaders because of their disapproval of some of China’s issues, notably its friendship with Russia and the support it is extending Putin during his offensive against Ukraine that is going on for the past 19 months.

Third, and probably least likely, is that he may be facing domestic crises such as potential health issues, or economic and political challenges.

Indeed, at last month’s BRICS meet, Xi skipped a commerce session at which other heads of states of the grouping were present, and, instead, sent his commerce minister to read out his speech.

While the absence of those two biggies, who together form the biggest adversarial alliance against the West, might rob the summit of its incendiary potential, there are other biggies that are in attendance. They include US President Joe Biden, UK’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, France’s Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron, and Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida.

Xi’s absence has disappointed US president Biden, who would have liked to have had some face time with Xi over a long list of differences that his country has with China. Biden would have wanted to discuss with Xi several pressing global issues, such as climate change, pandemic response, and nuclear non-proliferation. Biden may face more challenges in persuading China to cooperate on these issues, especially if China views them as interference in its internal affairs or sovereignty.

Yet, for Modi, Xi’s absence might offer an opportunity to shine brighter at the summit. With Xi not around. Modi can pitch himself as the leading light of the South, a region whose inequality vis-a-vis the North has been widening. And while the rift between the West (read: US and its allies) and the East (read: China and Russia) has become sharper, India occupies a unique position that Modi can leverage.

India is not unequivocally aligned with either Russia & China or with the US. It buys Russian oil, weapons and capital goods. India-Russia trade was estimated to be $45 billion in 2022-23. India has also refrained from strongly and vehemently opposing Russian military action against Ukraine. 

On the other hand, India’s relations with the US have also been improving. The two countries share values and interests, such as democracy, and security. They cooperate on various issues, such as counterterrorism, climate change, and countering China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific. The US is India’s largest trading partner and their bilateral trade in goods and services reached $128 billion in 2022-23.

By pitching his relations with both sides strategically, Modi can use India’s unique position to influence the relations between the West and East as well as the North and the South.

With the absence of Putin and Xi, few expect the G20 summit this year to achieve anything huge. Although the theme of the conference is ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam — One Earth, One Family, One Future’, we should not expect any consensus statement or agreement on any of the grouping’s objectives of achieving “international financial stability, climate change mitigation and sustainable development”.

As the most important member of the Global South, India enjoys a leadership position among the region’s smaller developing countries. This weekend, Modi formally invited the African Union, which represents the 55 countries on the African continent to join G20 as a permanent member. Although this was initiated by Biden last year, it will be formalised under Modi’s presidency of the group at this year’s summit.

Modi can also leverage India’s hosting of the summit as a major publicity move. India’s parliamentary elections are scheduled for May 2024 and Modi, now on his second term as prime minister of the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) regime would want to win a third. The image of India hosting and Modi presiding over a gathering of world leaders in Delhi can generate immense political mileage and pride among Indians, who were recently exhilarated when an Indian space mission landed on the moon. Even before the summit got going, India’s high-decibel TV news channels were unanimously hailing the event as India’s “moment of glory”. And through the weekend, frenzied TV anchors shrieked themselves hoarse about how huge this was for India… and, of course, for Modi.

There are other, more mundane, benefits that can accrue from the two-day summit such as India’s trade pacts, bilateral talks and cooperation with other countries. Yet, the most important one for Modi could be the value it would add to his and his regime’s image and what could, eventually, accrue to his legacy. In the run-up to the summit, Delhi got a massive, cosmetic, revamp of its civic infrastructure–a clean up, if you like. Some of it was controversial–such as the restriction of movement in the capital city area, removal of slums and signs of poverty, and so on. Some politicians have speculated that the Indian government has spent an estimated ₹4,100 crore on holding the summit and that is seven times as much as when Germany spent ₹641 crore during its hosting of the summit in 2017. Even if that is correct, for Modi the cost-benefit assessment of the G20 summit would probably still be agreeable.

Bullet, India’s Iconic Motorcycle, is a Prime Example of Make in India

The UK publication, The Economist, recently published an article about how Royal Enflield’s Bullet motorcycle, which many consider its flagship model, continues to not only survive but thrive despite the fact that little has changed technologically in the model for decades. The Economist pointed out that while global giant corporations have had to evolve and keep changing their products to stay relevant, Royal Enfield’s Bullet, which enjoys a cult status in India’s market for motorcycles, seems to be doing great with minimal tech tinkering.

The Bullet, a 350 cc motorcycle was launched first in 1932 by a British company but since 1994 it has been owned by an Indian company and is now part of the Eicher Group. Last week, the company launched its latest iteration of the Bullet. Surprise, it looks almost exactly as it did, say, 50 years ago. There have been tech innovations that have been carried out over the years: the 2024 model combines an old-school design with more modern updates such as double-cradle chassis and fuel-injected engine. Yet, the Bullet’s looks and basic appeal remains the same.

Its retro looks have over recent years appealed to markets abroad. It has a niche but substantial market in the US where sales grew more than 90% last year to 5120 units last year. Eicher exports 16-20% of its motorcycles and its overseas sales have been growing rapidly in recent years, particularly in markets such as the UK, Europe, New Zealand and Southeast Asia. In 2022, the company’s international volume doubled as it expanded its presence and product range in the international markets, with over 125 dealerships across 60 countries. The Bullet serves as a prime example of India’s Make In India campaign.

Finland’s Former PM Makes News… Again

Finland is a small country in the Nordics with a population of a bit more than 5.5 million people, not much more than the number of people who live in a borough of, say, Mumbai or New Delhi. So it hardly makes news on the global scene. Yet, because it shares a 1340-km border with Russia, it has become an important region that features in geopolitical discourses that centre around Russia’s offensive against Ukraine. Finland also made news when it was recently admitted to NATO (the collective defence bloc of North American and European countries).

There is another newsmaker in Finland and it is Sanna Marin, the former prime minister of the country. Marin was 34 when she became the youngest prime minister of a country in modern times (William Pitt the Younger was 24 when he became prime minister of Great Britain, not UK, in 1783). 

She and her Socialist Democratic Party-led alliance made the news also when her tenure coincided with the Covid pandemic and her government’s effectiveness in combating its spread was lauded.

Marin acquired somewhat of a rockstar’s image (not without some controversies surfacing around her after-work partying) during her tenure as prime minister, making it to the covers of magazines such as Vogue and Time. Her term ended in 2023 after her party lost by getting marginally less votes than her closest rivals. Now, Finland has a rightwing government in power.

But Marin continues to make news. Last week, Marin, now 37, announced that she was resigning from the Finnish parliament and, ostensibly, from politics. She will join the Tony Blair Institute, a think tank and nonprofit that strives to strengthen the centre ground between the right and left extremes of politics and uphold the belief in democracy. 

Marin’s decision to move on comes at a time when Finnish politics is getting more polarised–currently there is a debate over racist statements by some ministers in the new government–and while she may consider it a personal career progression many believe that she had years of valuable contribution to make in Finnish politics.

Much Ado About Maps

Recently, China again stirred up a controversy with its official maps that have perturbed other countries by their depictions. According to some web sources, China released a new official “standard” map on August 29 this year, which shows its claims over some of its neighbors’ territories. Some of the countries that have protested against the map include India, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Taiwan.

India, for instance, rejected China’s depiction of its northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh and the disputed Aksai Chin region as part of China’s territory. The Philippines, whose islands and waters are shown as part of China’s territory, has similarly rejected the claims. Malaysia has also alleged encroachment of its territory by China in its map, as has Vietnam.

As for Taiwan, China has relentlessly claimed that it is part of China and refuses to acknowledge its independence. 

Such posturing through maps showing other countries’ territories as part of its own territory are not restricted to China. India too has issued maps that have stirred controversy in Nepal, with both countries laying claim to a region known as Kalapani. India published a new map in November 2019, after it revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, which included Kalapani as part of its territory. Nepal protested against the map and said Kalapani belongs to Nepal. In May 2020, Nepal published its own map, which showed Kalapani as part of its territory. India rejected Nepal’s map and said it was not based on historical facts or evidence.

… And Here is Some Good News

As US-China tensions escalate, many global brands are looking to diversify their suppliers away from China. India has emerged as an attractive option, thanks to its large and cheap labour force, its growing domestic market, and its government incentives. For instance, the Modi government’s manufacturing scheme, known as Production Linked Incentive (PLI), offers cash incentives to firms in a range of industries, including pharmaceuticals, textiles and electronics.

And while mega projects to manufacture in India might not have taken off quickly (Foxconn, the Taipei headquartered electronics maker, aborted its joint venture with Vedanta group to make semiconductors in India but it could find a new partner), small and medium sized ones have been making a beginning.

Two recent examples: Dixon Technologies, which assembles smartphones for Motorola and Lenovo, and has seen a surge in orders and revenues; Zetwerk, which connects customers and manufacturers within India, and has handled orders from US firms for products ranging from nail clippers to steel frames. 

These could be welcome examples of greenshoot ventures for the Make In India programme.

It’s High Time That The Adani Group is Investigated in India

By Sanjoy Narayan

Early this year Hindenburg Research, a New York financial firm, accused the Adani Group, India’s diversified industrial conglomerate (total revenues: $33 billion or Rs 2.625 lakh crore) of pulling off the biggest scam in corporate history by manipulating its own stock through offshore entities and, thereby, boosting the group’s value, which had reached a peak of $288 billion last year.

At that time, the Adani Group, which has interests in areas spanning sectors such as energy, resources, logistics, agriculture, defence and aerospace, had refuted the allegations calling them a calculated attack on India, and on the “the independence, integrity and quality of Indian institutions”. The group is headed by Gautam Adani, 61, who is also close to the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Their relationship dates back to when Modi was the chief minister of Gujarat, Adani’s home state, and Adani supported Modi’s political ambitions and economic vision. Since Modi became the prime minister, Adani’s net worth has increased by almost 250%, and some critics have accused him of benefiting from Modi’s policies and influence, and have raised concerns about the impact of their ties on India’s democracy and media freedom.

Following the Hindenburg accusations the Adani Group’s stock prices tumbled, eroding its valuation and dislodging Adani from a prime spot on the global richest list. However, there was no concerted investigation into the allegations that Hindenburg made. 

Now, a fresh wave of controversy has hit Adani. New documents obtained by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), a global network of investigative journalists with staff on six continents, for the first time have revealed details of the complex offshore operations based in Mauritius and apparently controlled by Adani’s associates and relatives. These operations were allegedly used to manipulate the share prices of the group’s companies between 2013 and 2018.

The new documents further establish that Gautam Adani’s brother, Vinod, has had links with the offshore entities that were used in the share manipulation operations. The investigations by the OCCRP have also found that the Indian stock market watchdog Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) was handed evidence of the suspicious share trades as early as in 2014 but its efforts to follow up on it died down shortly after the Modi regime came to power in the same year.

Following the OCCRP revelations, many in India, including Opposition leaders, activists, and others, have demanded a probe into the group’s operations, particularly those linked to the alleged share manipulation. It is time now for SEBI, which is ostensibly an independent body, to conduct a full-scale investigation into the issue. Will that happen?

What China’s Slowdown Means for India

China’s $18-trillion economy is the second largest in the world, and its growth has been slowing down in recent months due to various factors, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, the power shortage, the real estate crisis, and the regulatory crackdown on some sectors. According to the latest data, China’s GDP growth this year is expected to be 4.6%, lower than the average of 9% that it has clocked annually since its economy opened up in 1978. Some analysts have warned that China’s economic troubles could have negative impacts on the global economy, especially on the commodity exporters, the trade partners, and the financial markets that are exposed to China.

One of the countries that could be affected by China’s slowdown is India, which has a complex and competitive relationship with its northern neighbour. India’s bilateral trade with China has grown nearly 50% over the past two years. China is India’s largest trading partner and a major source of imports for various sectors, such as electronics, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and machinery. A slowdown in China could reduce the demand for some of India’s exports, such as iron ore, cotton, and seafood. It could also disrupt the supply chains and increase the costs of some inputs for India’s industries.

On the flipside, though, China’s slowdown could also present some opportunities for India to attract more foreign investment, diversify its trade relations, and enhance its competitiveness in some sectors. 

For example, India could benefit from the global shift of manufacturing away from China due to rising costs and geopolitical risks. India could also leverage its domestic market, its demographic dividend, its digital innovation, and its strategic partnerships to boost its economic growth and resilience. 

What is more, India could use the window of opportunity to resolve some of its structural challenges, such as improving its infrastructure, reforming its labour laws, enhancing its ease of doing business, and strengthening its financial sector.

What is Chandrayaan-3 Doing After it Landed on the Moon?

After Chandrayaan-3’s lander, named Vikram, touched down on the lunar soil near the south pole of the moon, it is its rover, named Pragyaan, which has swung into action, taking its first steps on the moon. 

The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) has been periodically updating the world on what the rover has been up to and its findings. Here are some of the highlights:

First, it has found many chemicals in the lunar soil. These include, notably sulphur and oxygen. Other chemicals that have been found include aluminium, calcium, iron, chromium, titanium, manganese, silicon and oxygen. 

The Vikram rover has also negotiated several craters, including ones that measure a diameter of over four metres on the surface of the moon. These give an idea of the lay of the land on the moon. 

The other major finding by Vikram’s roving on the surface is an insight into the temperatures on the moon. According to preliminary data, the temperatures vary widely. While the temperature on the surface of the moon was expected to be in the range of 20-30 Celsius, Vikram has found temperatures on the surface to be 60 C or higher, while temperatures just three inches below the surface apparently drop to -10 C. 

This confirms the earlier findings that the temperature ranges on the moon are extreme and some crates that lie permanently in the shadows of the south pole are extremely cold. One of the main objectives of Chandrayaan-3, besides getting an idea of the elements that are found on the moon, is to find whether there is also water there.

After the Moon, it’s the Sun…

On Saturday September 2, Aditya-L1,  India’s first dedicated space mission to study the sun, was launched by ISRO from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre at Sriharikota in Andhra Pradesh. The mission consists of a satellite that carries seven scientific instruments to observe various aspects of the sun, such as its corona, photosphere, chromosphere, and solar wind. The satellite is placed in a halo orbit around the L1 point, which is a gravitationally stable spot about 1.5 million kilometres from Earth in the direction of the sun. The mission is expected to provide valuable data and insights into the solar activities and their effects on space weather and climate.

India’s solar mission has two aspects: one is a national policy to promote solar power, and the other is a space mission to study the sun.

The National Solar Mission is an initiative of the Indian government to promote solar power. The mission is one of the several policies of the National Action Plan on Climate Change and it aims to achieve 100 GW of solar power capacity by 2022, and to reduce the cost of solar power generation in India. The mission also supports various schemes and programs, such as rooftop solar, grid-connected solar, off-grid solar, and solar parks.

The Controversy at Ashoka University

The recent controversy involving Ashoka University, a leading private university,  began when one of its faculty members, Sabyasachi Das, resigned after facing backlash for his research paper that suggested possible vote manipulation by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the 2019 general elections. The paper, titled Democratic Backsliding in the World’s Largest Democracy, presents evidence that indicates voter suppression to favour the BJP, especially against the Muslim minority group.

The university has since distanced itself from the paper, saying it has “not yet completed a critical review process” and instituted an inquiry committee to examine its academic merits. Das resigned from his post, saying he felt “uncomfortable” and “unwelcome” at the university. His resignation sparked protests by students and teachers at Ashoka, who accused the university of stifling academic freedom and bowing to political pressure

This is not the first time that Ashoka University faced criticism for compromising its academic independence. In March 2021, two prominent professors, Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Arvind Subramanian, also resigned from the university, citing concerns over the lack of freedom and autonomy. Mehta, a political scientist and public intellectual, had been vocal in his criticism of the Modi government and its policies. He wrote in his resignation letter that his association with the university was a “political liability” for its founders and donors. 

Subramanian, a former chief economic advisor to the government, resigned in solidarity with Mehta, calling his exit “ominously disturbing” for academic freedom.

These incidents have raised questions about the role and responsibility of private universities in India, especially in the context of increasing state interference and intolerance towards dissenting voices in academia. 

Some critics have argued that private universities are more vulnerable to political and financial pressures than public ones, and that they lack transparency and accountability in their governance and decision-making processes. Others have defended Ashoka University as an example of excellence and innovation in higher education, and have urged its founders and authorities to uphold its vision and values of liberal arts and sciences.

Ashoka University, located in Sonipat, Haryana, India, focuses on liberal education in humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences. It was set up in 2014 by a group of philanthropists and entrepreneurs who wanted to create a world-class institution for higher learning.

Future in BRICS

Does India Have a Meaningful Future in BRICS?

By Sanjoy Narayan

Three things made the news at the recently concluded summit in South Africa of the BRICS, a grouping of Brazil, Russia, China, India, and South Africa. The first of these is the group’s expansion. Six new countries–Saudi Arabia. Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina, and the United Arab Emirates–have been invited to join BRICS. The queue to join BRICS is actually longer with at least two-dozen countries showing interest in signing up to what is projected as an alternative to the US-led western bloc. BRICS’ dominant leader, though, is clearly China with which Russia, the other big member of the group, is firmly in alliance.

The second thing during the three-day conference was that China’s President Xi Jinping missed a highly-anticipated speech at the conference. Instead he sent his commerce minister to deliver his speech, which mainly consisted of hostile comments directed at the West (read: the US). 

The third thing that happened is a bit of trivia but we mention it here because readers will be hard-pressed in their efforts to find it in the reportage by the mainstream media. It concerns India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi. According to a South African news portal, The Daily Maverick, when Modi landed in Pretoria he apparently refused to disembark because the South African president Cyril Ramaphosa had not come to receive him and that he finally emerged from the aircraft after deputy president Paul Mashatile was despatched to receive Modi. 

Officially neither South Africa nor India has commented on this but the portal alleged that after it had reported on the “incident” its website was subjected to cyberattacks that it claims originated in India.

Cut to BRICS and its significance today. The reasons why countries want to join BRICS vary but many want to seek more economic opportunities and cooperation with other developing countries. Many of them also want to diversify their foreign policy and reduce their dependence on the West. In a sense, BRICS is seen as challenging the existing global order and international systems that are dominated by the US and its allies and many nations buy into the rationale for that challenge. BRICS, for many aspirant members, offers a platform where they can gain more recognition and influence.

Does BRICS have the potential to challenge the West, though? This year the world’s interest in the BRICS summit has peaked and it is easy to see why. Russia, a BRICS member, whose powerful ally is China, the most powerful BRICS member, is at war in Ukraine; and Chinese-American relations are probably at its lowest in several decades. All eyes clearly are on what happens at a group such as BRICS that is also expanding rapidly.

The significance of BRICS in geopolitics is that it represents a potential alternative to the Western-led system of global governance. BRICS aims to promote the interests and values of the Global South, which often feel unfairly treated by the current international rules and norms. BRICS also seeks to enhance its collective voice and bargaining power in global issues such as trade, climate change, security, development and human rights. 

By expanding its membership, BRICS hopes to increase its legitimacy and representation on the world stage. However, BRICS also faces many challenges and limitations. The interests of BRICS members vary as does the sort of political systems that operate in each of them: there are democracies such as India’s, authoritarian dictatorships such as Russia’s; and China’s Communist system. BRICS in its current form lacks a clear vision or agenda. 

For instance, for China, which was the main focus of interest in Pretoria, BRICS is seen as a way of garnering as much of the global south’s support as it can in its quest to change the world order and shift its axis in its favour. Compare that with India, which, as it continues its long-standing trade and defence ties with Russia, has been cosying up to the US, and has disputes with China over the countries’ border. For India. The relevance and importance of being in BRICS seems more ambiguous than, say, it is for China or, for that matter, Russia. 

Now, with BRICS all set to expand vastly, especially with the inclusion of oil-rich Saudi Arabia, how the grouping’s agenda and vision change will be interesting to watch.

Chandrayaan 3 and its Impact for India

For all Indians, the recent success of the nation’s Chandrayaan-3 mission to the moon was a moment of great pride. India became the fourth country after the US, Russia, and China, to land on the moon and the first to do so near the lunar south pole, which is a region of great scientific interest and potential resources. The mission demonstrated India’s technological prowess and ability to achieve its ambition in space exploration. 

Chandrayaan also showed how India could carry out the mission at a much lower cost. India is believed to have spent around Rs. 615 crore, or about $74 million, which is much cheaper than many Hollywood movies or other space missions. The mission’s outcome means that India has joined an elite group of countries that have successfully landed on the moon, and has opened new possibilities for future lunar exploration and cooperation.

The Surprise Rise of Vivek Ramaswamy 

Vivek Ramaswamy is 38; a Tamil by ethnicity; and a Hindu by religion. He is also a member of the US Republican Party; and, most importantly, a candidate for the presidential nominee for that party’s candidate for the 2024 US presidential election. And if you have been following the Republican Party’s first debate among eight hopefuls running for the race to get nominated, then you’d have seen he was probably the most impressive among them during that debate.

Ramaswamy is no politician. In fact, he is a tech and biotech entrepreneur who is worth millions.

Now, the Yale and Harvard alum has cast his eyes on the White House. Pitted against seasoned Republican politicians such as former US vice-president Mike Pence, governors Chris Christie and Ron de Santis, and Nikki Haley, at last week’s debate it was Ramaswamy who stood out.

As a self-proclaimed “outsider” Ramaswamy seemed to get popular support for many of his views, which include raising of the voting age to 25; cutting off the US support to Ukraine and instead focusing on securing its own southern border with Mexico through which the drug mafia and illegal immigrants operate; and the abolition of the the Federal Bureau of Investigation and some other US agencies because he feels they have become irrelevant.

His rightwing views seem to have touched a chord among many Americans. Immediately after the debate, during which his more seasoned rivals called him a rookie and novice,  Ramaswamy is believed to have raised US$450,000 for his campaign. 

The road to the presidential elections is a long one. There will be many more debates and campaigning before the Republican Party chooses its candidate. And, although former president Donald Trump, embroiled in a series of indictments, did not participate in the debate (his interview with a sympathetic former TV host was aired on X, instead) still commands the highest popularity among Republican voters for the candidacy. Yet, Ramaswamy’s performance at the debate has created ripples. All eyes will now also be on him.

The Good and the Bad About India’s Young Population

India, along with China and Indonesia, is projected by the consultant firm McKinsey & Co. to have the largest working-age population in the world by 2030. This demographic dividend could be a source of strength and opportunity for India, but also pose some challenges and risks.

Let’s take a look at the pros and cons of this. First, the pros: 

A larger labor force can produce more goods and services, and increase the GDP and per capita income of the country. India could add an estimated $1 trillion to its annual GDP by 2030 if it increases its labor force participation rate to 40%.

A larger pool of workers can also lead to more creativity and entrepreneurship, and enhance the productivity and quality of the economy. India could leverage its talent and skills to become a leader in sectors such as IT, biotechnology, renewable energy, and manufacturing.

A larger working population can also support the development of human capital and social infrastructure, such as education, health care, pensions, and housing. This can improve the living standards and well-being of the people, and reduce poverty and inequality.

Now for some cons:

A larger labour force also means more competition for jobs and wages, especially in a context of slow economic growth and structural changes. India already faces a high unemployment rate of around 7.5%, and many workers are employed in informal and low-productivity sectors.

A larger working population puts more pressure on consumption and production, which can strain the natural resources and environment of the country. India already faces challenges such as water scarcity, air pollution, climate change, and biodiversity loss.

A larger working population can also create social and political tensions, especially among different groups based on age, gender, caste, religion, region, or ethnicity. India already witnesses frequent protests and violence over issues such as jobs, land, education, reservation, citizenship, and identity.

A larger pool of workers, therefore, can be a double-edged sword.

Is Prigozhin’s Death Putin’s Revenge?

It has been barely two months since Yevgeny Prigozin, the head of Russian mercenary army Wagner, attempted a coup by marching his troops towards Moscow before aborting that attempt. Last week reports claimed that Prigozhin was aboard a private aircraft that crashed after an explosion occurred and that the one-time Vladimir Putin confidant and one of Russia’s most powerful men had been killed. 

No official version of details about what happened is available but speculation about whether Prigozhin’s death is a fallout of his show of rebellion abounds. Was the plane sabotaged? Did a missile hit it while it was on its flight path not too far away from Moscow? Was it something that the Kremlin had a hand in? These are questions that are unanswered and will, probably, remain that way. 

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Modi Kicks Off His Campaigning

Elections 2024, Ahoy! Modi Kicks Off His Campaigning 

By Sanjoy Narayan

After Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 90-minute speech from the ramparts of the 375-year-old Red Fort in Delhi, many in Indian media did stories on how long or short his speeches have been since 2014 when he made his first one (the longest, if you care to know, was 94 minutes in 2016; and the shortest, 56 minutes, was in 2017). 

That sort of trivia may count for news in some circles but in the 90 minutes that he spoke, the Prime Minister covered much ground. And as the speech progressed it could, to many listeners, resemble the unfolding of an election campaign. The 2024 Parliamentary elections are barely eight months away and a careful listening of the Prime Minister’s speech on August 15 shows that he’s off the block already.

Early in the speech Modi referred to the communal violence in Manipur and the instances of atrocities such as the public dishonoring of women by a mob, and expressed solidarity with the people of the northeastern state that has been in turmoil for months. The Prime Minister had not publicly commented on Manipur until recently in Parliament. 

Soon, though, he moved on to his government’s achievements and initiatives in various sectors, such as health, education, infrastructure, defense, agriculture, and social welfare. He also announced the launch of the Vishwakarma Yojana for barbers and goldsmiths with an initial spending of Rs. 13,000-15,000 crore. Could that be a move to woo the backward castes and the poor, who form a significant vote bank in India? In a jab at the Opposition, chiefly the Congress party, Modi also called for uprooting the evils of “corruption and dynasty politics” to safeguard the nation’s economic development. 

The politics in Modi’s speech was unmistakable. While Modi referred to how India had achieved independence after 1000 years of rule by outsiders–a probable reference to the Mughal invasion of the subcontinent, followed by the British rule–and mentioned the names of Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, B.R.Ambedkar, Jaiprakash Narayan, Sri Aurobindo, and Swami Vivekananda, as being crucial contributors to freedom and nation-building, but carefully left out any reference to India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru or the Nehru-Gandhi family of which Rahul Gandhi, the Congress leader, is a descendant.

Gandhi’s popularity has been getting a boost. In many circles, he is seen as a hero: he got thrown out of parliament after he was convicted in a defamation case (charged with maligning the “Modi” surname in an election speech in 2019) but was reinstated following a Supreme Court order that went in his favor.

Last year, Gandhi led a mass movement, Bharat Jodo Yatra, and walked from Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu to Srinagar in Jammu and Kashmir, covering a distance of about 4,000 km (2,485 miles) in 146 days. It was aimed at uniting Indians against the “divisive politics” of the ruling (Modi’s) Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and protesting against the economic and social problems faced by the country.

These have served to boost Gandhi’s image after people had begun doubting his leadership abilities following the Congress’ repeated poor performance in elections–the 2019 parliamentary polls and in various state elections since then. Modi and the BJP will not want that to happen. 

Modi also made lighthearted mention of his desire to deliver next year’s Independence Day speech, if he had the blessings of his countrymen, a clear indication that he was intent on winning and serving a third term as Prime Minister. 

In the next election, the Opposition strategy, although still being formed, will likely be a bit different. Most of India’s major Opposition parties have allied in a united front, known as the acronym INDIA and expanding into a mouthful, Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, and propose to nominate one joint candidate in most constituencies to take on the BJP candidate. Consequently the BJP will likely tweak its own strategy to combat this. 

As always, India’s next election will be interesting to follow. And the contest began last week–from the ramparts of Delhi’s Red Fort.

India’s go-getter CJI makes a difference

Since November 2022, after he became the Chief Justice of India’s Supreme Court, Dhananjay Y. Chandrachud, 63, there has been a string of achievements that can be attributed to him. 

First, the Supreme Court has been able to dispose of cases faster under Chandrachud. For years, in any given period the Supreme Court would have more cases filed than could be disposed of by it. But, during Chandrachud’s ongoing tenure that has reversed. Since he took over, 14,209 cases have been disposed of against the 13,764 new cases filed.

Some of the measures that have contributed to the speedy disposal of cases include the introduction of virtual hearings, e-filings, live streaming of hearings, the use of AI, and other dispute resolution mechanisms; and, in addition, the process of listing petitions has been streamlined.

But it is the landmark judgments that he has presided over that have upheld the constitutional values of democracy, secularism, human rights, and social justice. Some of these include the verdicts on the validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act, the abolition of triple talaq, the protection of personal data, the regulation of hate speech and fake news, the recognition of transgender rights, and the decriminalization of euthanasia, 

Chandrachud has also been vocal in his dissenting opinions. For instance, he dissented from the majority judgment that upheld the validity of the electoral bonds scheme, which he argued was a threat to transparency and accountability in political funding. He has also advocated for increasing the judge-to-population ratio, filling up the vacancies in the judiciary, enhancing the diversity and representation of women and marginalized groups in the judicial appointments. Chandrachud is the CJI of the moment. He is the top judge the country badly needs.

Doping in the Indian sports world

Dutee Chand, 27, is an Indian sprinter and current national champion in the women’s 100 metres event. She is the first Indian to win a gold medal in 100m race in a global competition and the third Indian woman to ever qualify for the Women’s 100 metres event at the Summer Olympic Games. She is also India’s first athlete to openly come out as a member of the LGBTQ+ community. But Chand has also been banned by the National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) for four years after failing two dope tests for selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs), which are non-steroidal substances often used to treat osteoporosis, anaemia, and wound healing in patients. 

Dutee recently claimed that she will challenge the ban as the consumption of the substance was unintentional and on the advice of her physiotherapist.

Doping, however, is a serious problem in Indian sport, as India is ranked third in doping, according to the latest World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) report released in 2021. With 152 instances of doping across various sports disciplines, the country fares only marginally better than  Russia (167) and Italy (157). 

On the list of those who failed doping tests in India, are not only seasoned pros but also once promising junior athletes and sportspersons. On this list are not only seasoned pros but once promising Indian juniors. Doping refers to the practice of using banned chemical substances, known as performance enhancing drugs (PEDs), by athletes. The primary goal is to enhance performance, but it also poses health risks and ethical issues. 

A quick history of India’s moon mission

As Chandrayaan-3, the latest of India’s lunar exploration missions,  last week sent new images of the surface of the moon from up close as it nears its landing spot near the moon’s south pole, here’s a recap of India’s history with its moon missions.

Chandrayaan is a series of lunar exploration missions launched by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). The first mission, Chandrayaan-1, was launched in 2008. It discovered the presence of water molecules on the moon’s surface. The second mission, Chandrayaan-2, was launched in 2019 and was scheduled to land on the moon. It consisted of an orbiter, a lander, and a rover. But things went wrong and the lander-rover crashed on the moon. The orbiter continues to orbit and observe the moon even today.

The ongoing mission, Chandrayaan-3, was launched in July this year and is expected to soft land near the south pole of the moon on August 23. If successful, India will be the first country to land near the lunar south pole and the fourth country to achieve a soft landing on the moon after the US, the former Soviet Union, and China. 

Why are there so many fires around the world? A roundup.

In recent months devastating fires causing harm to both lives as well as the environment have broken out in various parts of the world, including Greece, Hawaii, Tenerife, and Canada. The fires have happened all at the same time but perhaps not for the exact same reason.

Wildfires can be caused by many factors, such as many factors, such as weather, climate, vegetation, human activity, and lightning. 

The fires in Greece are mainly driven by a heatwave that swept through Europe in July, creating record-breaking temperatures and dry conditions that made the vegetation more flammable. The fires have hit several islands and regions, such as Lesbos, Evia, Attica, and Peloponnese. Some of the fires may have been started by arsonists or negligence, such as discarded cigarettes or unattended campfires.

In Hawaii, the fires were mainly caused by human activity, such as agricultural burning, fireworks, power lines, or vehicles. The fires have been worsened by strong winds, low humidity, and drought. The fires in Hawaii hit several islands and areas, such as Maui, Oahu, Kauai, and Big Island. Some of the fires have threatened homes, businesses, and natural resources, such as forests and wildlife. 

In Tenerife, the fires were mainly caused by natural factors, such as lightning strikes or volcanic activity. The fires have been worsened by high temperatures, low rainfall, and strong winds that have created a tinderbox situation on the island. The fires have affected several towns and villages, such as La Esperanza, Arafo, and Candelaria. Some of the residents have been evacuated, bringing their animals with them.  

In Canada, the fires are mainly caused by climate change, which has increased the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as heatwaves, droughts, storms, and lightning. The fires have been fueled by the accumulation of deadwood and organic matter that have dried out due to the lack of precipitation and snowpack. Several Canadian provinces and territories, such as British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Yukon, have been affected by the fires, which have endangered communities and infrastructure.

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

Former CJI Gogoi Stirs Up a Debate

Should Parliament Have the Power to Change the Constitution? Former CJI Gogoi Stirs Up a Debate

By Sanjoy Narayan

Last week, Ranjan Gogoi, former chief justice of India and now a Member of Parliament, sparked a controversy that raised eyebrows when, while supporting the Delhi Services Bill that gives more power to the central government over the administration of the national capital, he questioned the validity and relevance of the basic structure doctrine, which limits the Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

But before we analyze the implications of what the former CJI, who was nominated to Parliament by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), said, here’s a sidebar about him: Gogoi was a controversial chief justice of India. He faced allegations of sexual harassment by a former Supreme Court employee in 2019, shortly after he was appointed as the CJI. He denied the charges and claimed that they were part of a conspiracy to destabilize the judiciary. A three-judge panel of the Supreme Court cleared him of the allegations, but the process was criticized by many as unfair and opaque. 

Gogoi also delivered some controversial judgments on sensitive issues such as Ayodhya, Rafale, and Kashmir. 

Last week in Parliament he questioned the Constitution’s basic structure doctrine.  The basic structure doctrine was first put forward by the Supreme Court in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case in 1973, and has since been used to protect the core features of the Constitution, such as democracy, secularism, federalism, judicial review, and fundamental rights, from being altered or abrogated by constitutional amendments. The doctrine has been hailed as a safeguard of constitutional supremacy and a check on majoritarianism.

Gogoi, however, argues that the doctrine had a “debatable jurisprudential basis” and that it was not part of the original Constitution. He also suggested that the Parliament has the legislative competence to make laws for Union Territories like Delhi, and that the Bill does not violate any other part of the Constitution. He said that if full-fledged federalism is desired for Delhi, then an amendment can be made to make it a full-fledged state.

Gogoi’s views have been seen by many as an attempt to undermine the basic structure doctrine and to justify the government’s encroachment on the autonomy of Delhi. Some have also pointed out that Gogoi himself had upheld the doctrine as a judge and had invoked it in several judgments, such as the one on Aadhaar  and the one on Sabarimala. Has he changed his stance because of his allegiance to the ruling party that has nominated him to Parliament?

On the flipside, by raising the question about the Constitution’s basic structure doctrine, Gogoi has also raised the need for a deeper debate on the future of constitutional democracy in India.

Modi and the Indian media

Have you wondered who the official media adviser to the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi is? If you have, the answer is: no one. The current media adviser to Modi, who has been Prime Minister since 2014 is not clear. There are a few people, including  a couple of former bureaucrats, whom Modi may consult with on some issues but in a curious departure from the practice followed by most of his predecessors, the Prime Minister has not appointed an official media adviser. 

The reason perhaps is that he doesn’t really need one. A media adviser to the Prime Minister normally has many functions and responsibilities: he or she can act as a sluice gate or filter for the Prime Minister and his office’s interactions with media; or can be the spin doctor for shaping perceptions and building the Prime Minister’s image and stance on different issues; he can coordinate press meets or interviews for the PM and his office; advise on communications during crises and tricky situations; and, act as an analyst who reads the mood in the media and feed it back to the PM’s office.

The Indian Prime Minister ostensibly does not need anyone to manage relations with Indian media. Primarily because the need does not arise. The Indian media pretty much manages itself when it comes to the top executive office in the government. 

The Prime Minister has rarely given interviews to Indian media in the past nearly decade that he has had the top job. There have been no press conferences, interactions, or meetings where he has engaged with representatives of media. He has stopped the practice of taking along with him members of the press when he travels officially abroad. 

It has worked fine. The media, particularly the mainstream established, and so-called legacy media, never criticizes him or his policies. And, if you’re looking to read critiques or objective analysis of policies, stances, nuances, and everything else that makes for informative and interesting reading you are better off seeking out small niche publications or global media publications instead of the usual big-name Indian newspapers, TV channels, and news websites. 

The Prime Minister’s preferred media strategy has been to stay silent, and, in effect, project himself on a level higher than the rest of Indian polity. Critics attack him for not speaking out on issues such as communal violence, corruption, and hate speeches, often perpetrated by those owing allegiance to his party or its affiliates. But it is also a fact that his strategy of being above all of it has given him a sort of (perhaps mythical) dignity and respect, certainly so among his supporters.

Recently, after months of full-scale violence in the north-eastern state of Manipur where two indigenous tribes have been at war, and where atrocities against women and others have shocked the world, the Prime Minister was forced to address issue in Parliament where India’s depleted Opposition parties (they have only 203 of the 543 seats in Lok Sabha) moved a motion of no-confidence against him. He expressed his anguish about what was happening in Manipur but trained his sights on the Opposition and blamed it for obstructing a debate on the situation in Manipur. In his speech, he poked crude fun at his opponents and was cheered by his colleagues on the Treasury benches.

While everyone dutifully documented the Prime Minister’s speech, few in the media made any critical assessment of the fact that the Prime Minister had effectively said nothing about what the government was planning to do in Manipur and about how to avoid such communal clashes in the future. 

As we said, the Prime Minister does not need anyone to advise how to manage the media. The media in India manages itself.

The army continues to rule in Pakistan

Imran Khan, the former prime minister of Pakistan, is facing a political and legal crisis after he was arrested and convicted on corruption charges in May 2023. His supporters have accused the army, which has a history of meddling in civilian affairs, of orchestrating a coup against him. They have also staged violent protests in several cities, targeting military installations and personnel.

Khan, who came to power in 2018 with the backing of the army, had a falling out with the generals over his policies on India, Afghanistan, and the economy. He also tried to assert his authority over the army by appointing his own loyalists to key positions. The army, which sees itself as the guardian of the nation’s interests and security, resented Khan’s attempts to challenge its dominance and influence.

The army has used its control over the judiciary, the media, and the opposition parties to undermine Khan’s legitimacy and popularity. It has also cracked down on his party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), by arresting its leaders and activists, banning its rallies, and freezing its funds. The army has also tried to create a rift within the PTI by wooing some of its dissident members.

The army’s role in Pakistan’s politics has been controversial and divisive. While some see it as a stabilizing force that can prevent chaos and extremism, others see it as a threat to democracy and human rights. The fate of Imran Khan and his party will depend on how the army manages this crisis and how the public responds to it.

Why ‘Oppenheimer’ may never be shown in Japan

Christopher Nolan’s new film, Oppenheimer, is about J. Robert Oppenheimer, considered the father of the atomic bomb, and focuses on the complexities of his character and personality, his dilemmas between commitment to science and humanitarian concerns and much more.The film, a blockbuster, crossed $550 million at the box office globally and became the highest-grossing WWII film in history. Since its release in July it has already been watched by millions around the world.

But not in Japan. Recently, Japan marked the 78th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the two cities where the bombs created by Oppenheimer were dropped, killing 210,000. More than 100,000 people exposed to radiation from the bombs are still alive. The film, while not explicitly depicting the horrors that the bombings spread, includes the incidents in its narrative.

It is unlikely that the film will make it to cinema theatres in Japan where many believe the phenomenon of memes and jokes combining Oppenheimer and the film, Barbie (a $1 billion grossing film on a doll), makes a mockery of the suffering that thousands of Japanese civilians have undergone as a result of the bombings.

The woman who controls North Korea’s propaganda

When North Korea, which most of the rest of the world considers a rogue nation, controlled by Kim Jong Un, known as the Supreme leader, has to protest or make a statement about its enemies (which is almost everyone else in the world), it turns to Kim Yo Jong, the younger sister of Kim Jong Un. 

The 35-year-old is the Deputy Department Director of the Publicity and Information Department of the Workers’ Party of Korea, or WPK. She is also a member of the State Affairs Commission of North Korea, the highest decision-making body in the country. She is considered by some commentators to be a possible successor to her brother in case of his death or incapacitation. 

Ms. Kim is also responsible for crafting her brother’s public image and controlling the state propaganda and media. 

Later this month when the US, Japan and South Korea meet at Camp David to discuss North Korea’s aggressive actions, and when South Korea, backed by the US, organizes military drills to show their ability to thwart any attacks by the north, Ms. Kim will swing into action with her propaganda strategies.

Not a mincer of words, Ms. Kim has been known to use choice epithets to describe North Korea’s enemies. She has likened the South Korean president to an “impudent flunky beggar”, and compared the US to a “scared barking dog”. 

With rumours of her brother the 41-year-old Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un not keeping good health, it is widely speculated that Ms. Kim could be his successor. She has another elder brother but he is apparently not considered to be strong enough for the job.

Read More: http://13.232.95.176/

The Lesson Rahul Gandhi Should Learn At 53

By Sanjoy Narayan

The lead news on Friday was on how after a Supreme Court order, the Congress party’s Rahul Gandhi, 53, would be able to get back to his position as a member of Parliament (MP) and of how he could now contest elections–both rights that had been denied to him after he was convicted by a trial in a lower court. Gandhi was on bail after he had been sentenced to two years in prison and disqualified from Parliament. 

During a campaign speech before the 2019 parliamentary elections, Gandhi had made a remark that alluded pejoratively to people with the surname “Modi”, which, of course, happens to be the surname of India’s Prime Minister. But it was a legislator belonging to the Prime Minister’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and from his home state, Gujarat, who filed a defamation suit against Gandhi. 

Gandhi holds the enviable position of leading the Congress party, India’s main national Opposition party, without being officially assigned as its head. The party’s president (on paper, at least) is the octogenarian Mallikarjun Kharge but, in effect, Gandhi’s family, chiefly his mother, Sonia, is the one that runs that party. It is undeniably a sort of dynastic entitlement that Gandhi enjoys: near-absolute power without official responsibility.

When Gandhi was disqualified from Parliament and sentenced for his defamatory statements, this column had suggested that he should also apologise for making a statement that could be perceived to tarnish the image of an entire community of Indians. That still holds. Gandhi ought to apologise.

There are two things that the apology would convey. In Indian politics, particularly during election campaigns and speeches, grace is not one of the attributes on display. Vicious, often personal, verbal assaults are de rigueur, and most often political leaders of every stripe get away with anything that they say: lies, insults, and false allegations against their rivals, to name a few. It is the reason why, along with rampant corruption, it is these that have given Indian politics a dirty, murky, unwholesome image. By apologising for something that he ought not to have said, Gandhi would not only do the fair thing but could even enhance his flagging image.

Second, an apology could act as an example to others in Indian politics, particularly to India’s young people because (although, strangely, Gandhi in his middle age is considered young in India’s political scene) he could be a role model for talented young people who want to build a career in politics. The example he could set is of being civil and respectful of others, including his opponents. Will he, though? If your guess is as good as mine, then he probably won’t. 

Gurugram is One of India’s Many Urban Tinder Boxes

Communal clashes in India are common and it is general knowledge that in the past 10 years, the friction, confrontation, and violence, particularly between the majority Hindu community, which accounts for 80% of the populations, and Muslims, who make up 14%. The most recent incident began at the end of July in the northern state of Haryana. 

It started when a Hindu religious procession organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal, two Hindu far-right organisations aligned with the ruling BJP, turned violent in the Nuh district neighbouring Gurugram. The clashes are believed to have begun after some Muslim men stopped the religious procession and stones were thrown at the marc². At least four people were killed, including two policemen.

The violence then spread to Gurugram, which is just outside the capital city of Delhi, where a mob allegedly set fire to a mosque and killed its imam on the night of July 31. Several Muslim-owned shops, roadside eateries, properties and places of worship were also attacked and torched by Hindu mobs in Gurugram and nearby towns such as Sohna. Bajrang Dal members also held a rally in Haryana’s Bahadurgarh city, shouting hateful slogans against Muslims.

The situation in Gurugram is still tense but under control as of now. But the incident highlights how fragile and potentially incendiary communal tension in India is. 

Communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims in India have been very serious since the BJP came to power in 2014.  Many blame that the BJP’s Hindu nationalist rhetoric and policies marginalise and persecute the Muslim minority. The BJP has also been accused of inciting violence against Muslims, either directly or through its affiliated groups. 

Incidents such as the most recent one in Gurugram have been frequent. And many of them are increasingly happening in or close to India’s bigger urban centres. Last year in April, a massive street fight broke out in the Jahangirpuri area of Delhi, when a group of Hindu nationalists stopped in front of a mosque during a procession for the Hindu god Hanuman and provoked the Muslim residents. The clash lasted for several hours and spread to other parts of the city.

In May the same year, a curfew was imposed in Jodhpur city of Rajasthan state, following clashes between Hindus and Muslims over the hoisting of religious flags. The violence erupted on the occasion of Eid al-Fitr for Muslims and Parshuram Jayanti for Hindus.

In March 2020, at least 53 people were killed and hundreds injured in the worst communal riots in Delhi in decades. The violence started after clashes between supporters and opponents of a controversial citizenship law that critics say discriminates against Muslims. The clashes coincided with the visit of the then US President Donald Trump to India.

In February 2020, two people were killed and several injured in Mangaluru city of Karnataka state, when a group of Hindu activists attacked a Muslim prayer hall during a rally against the citizenship law. The police fired tear gas and bullets to disperse the mob.

These  are just a few examples but incidents such as these have created a climate of fear and insecurity among Muslims in India, who feel that they are not safe or equal citizens under the Modi regime. The most recent incident in Gurugram further demonstrates how urban India could well be ticking time bombs whose fuse could be lit at any time. Many analysts also warn that communal violence could escalate further as India approaches an election next year, with the BJP likely to use divisive tactics to mobilise its Hindu base.

Twitter Becomes X But Musk’s Real Strategy is Bigger

To some, Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter, the popular social media platform that has more than 450 million monthly users, is a risk-taking business visionary. His businesses, which include spacecraft and electric car manufacture, have been valued as high as to make him the world’s wealthiest man with an estimated net worth of $240 billion or more. But to many he could also resemble a powerful man given to flights of megalomania and control seeking. 

After he took over Twitter in October 2022, he has been tinkering furiously with the platform and its offerings. He has made it partly subscription driven (you can now practically buy the blue tick of verification or credibility); the number of tweets or direct messages you can post daily has been capped; and now, he has changed the branding of Twitter. It is now named X.

While this has led to memes and protests in social media (Twitter included), what really does the rebranding mean? Here are a few thoughts… 

The new logo, which is a simple black-and-white “X”, is meant to “embody the imperfections in us all that make us unique”, according to Elon Musk. It also reflects his personal affinity for the letter X, which he has used in many of his ventures, such as SpaceX, X.com, and X.AI. In marketing, it could actually differentiate the brand from other social media services and platforms. 

But then it could also alienate or confuse some existing users of Twitter. Many don’t understand the rationale behind the change. While Twitter with its bird logo had a sort of maverick quirkiness about it, the X can seem bland and charmless. The readability of the logo X as portrayed has also raised concern among resenting users. ‘X’ also could have connotations through literature and popular culture of being associated with censorship, control, and authoritarianism. 

Much would depend on how Twitter, or rather X, positions, markets, and communicates its rebranding exercise. It would also impact how Twitter’s rivals can challenge it in the social media market. 

Twitter does have rivals in the social media space, such as Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp), Google (YouTube), Snap (Snapchat), LinkedIn, WeChat, and others. Some of these rivals offer similar features or functions as Twitter, such as microblogging, messaging, video sharing, news aggregation, etc. Some of them also have larger user bases or more diverse revenue streams than Twitter.

Twitter’s rivals may offer more innovative or appealing products or services that attract more users or advertisers. Meta’s Threads is an example of an app designed to take on Twitter by offering a text-based messaging system that also integrates with Instagram and allows its users to share links, photos, videos and other media for up to five minutes’ duration. Others such as Snapchat are more popular among younger users who may not be guaranteed to switch to other platforms as they grow older. 

Yet, Twitter has a value proposition and niche in the social media market. It is characterised by real-time news dissemination and immediacy of being able to deliver information. It has a conversational aspect and an influential and diverse user base that includes heads of state, political leaders, celebrities, journalists, and so on. 

Unlike some of its rivals, however, Twitter has been tardy in monetising its user base. But now it has been taking steps towards that as well. For example, it has launched Spaces (audio chat rooms), Fleets (disappearing stories), Super Follows (paid subscriptions), Tip Jar (in-app tipping), Revue (a newsletter service), etc.

Twitter’s new branding could be seen as a strategy to reposition itself and adapt to the changing trends and demands of its users and stakeholders. Whether it succeeds or fails will depend on how well it executes its plans and responds to the challenges and opportunities ahead.

Why Trump still has appeal among voters

Despite facing multiple criminal charges and lawsuits, Donald Trump remains the most popular figure in the Republican Party and a formidable contender for the 2024 presidential nomination. How does he manage to maintain his loyal base and fend off his rivals?

One reason is his grip on the conservative media ecosystem, which amplifies his messages and attacks his critics. Although debarred from Twitter, Trump has a loyal following on social media platforms such as Telegram and Gab, where he can communicate directly with his supporters without any censorship or fact-checking. He also has the backing of influential right-wing outlets such as Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN, which often echo his claims and defend his actions.

Another reason is his ability to mobilise his supporters and raise funds for his political activities. Trump has held several rallies across the US since leaving office, drawing large crowds that cheer his grievances and aspirations. He has also garnered at least $100 million from his loyal donors, who steadfastly support him.

A third reason is his influence over the Republican Party, which he has reshaped in his own image and got rid of dissenters. Trump has endorsed several candidates who share his views and agenda for the upcoming midterm elections, hoping to oust those who voted to impeach him or certify Joe Biden’s victory. He has also threatened to run as an independent or form a new party if the GOP does not nominate him in 2024.

Trump’s popularity among Republican voters is undeniable. But he faces several challenges and uncertainties that could undermine his political return. His legal troubles could result in convictions or settlements that damage his reputation or drain his resources. His health (he is 77) could deteriorate or prevent him from campaigning effectively. His rivals could unite or outperform him in the primaries or the general election. His supporters could lose enthusiasm or defect to other candidates.

Trump’s appeal, however, is remarkable in American politics. He has been topping the popularity charts among all potential Republican nominees in the presidential elections and many believe that he may still have a chance to return to the White House.

Fresh violence breaks out in Manipur

Last Friday, in a fresh outbreak of violence in Manipur, three people were gunned down while they were sleeping and then slashed with swords gruesomely, a sign that violence in the northeastern Indian state is nowhere near abatement. 

The situation in Manipur continues to be tense and volatile, as the ethnic conflict between the Meitei and the Kuki communities rages on. The violence has claimed more than 130 lives, displaced more than 60,000 people, and destroyed hundreds of homes, churches, and temples. The state is divided along ethnic lines, with the Meiteis controlling the valley and the Kukis dominating the hills. Both sides have armed militias that are engaged in frequent clashes and attacks.

The courts are trying to resolve the legal issues that triggered the conflict, such as the granting of tribal status to the Meiteis and the eviction of Kukis from their lands. India’s Supreme Court has stayed the order that gave the Meiteis tribal benefits, and has asked the state government to explain its rationale. The court has also directed the Centre  to intervene and restore peace and order in the state. However, the judicial process is slow and complicated, and has not been able to address the underlying grievances and aspirations of both communities.

For now, there is no sign of an end to the violence, as both sides are adamant on their demands and unwilling to compromise. The Kukis accuse the Meiteis of trying to wipe out their identity and culture, while the Meiteis accuse the Kukis of being illegal immigrants and drug traffickers. The violence has also taken a toll on women, who have been subjected to sexual assault and humiliation by rival groups. A shocking video of two Kuki women being paraded naked by Meitei men in May has sparked outrage and condemnation across India.

The situation in Manipur is a humanitarian crisis that needs urgent attention and action from all stakeholders. The state government, the central government, the civil society, and the media need to work together to find a peaceful and lasting solution that respects the rights and dignity of all communities.

Two Get Bail in Bhima-Koregaon Case But is the Case Merely a Witch Hunt?

By Sanjoy Narayan

Last weekend India’s Supreme Court granted bail to two prominent rights activists, Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira, who have been jailed since 2018 in the Bhima Koregaon case. The court’s decision to grant bail to the two is interpreted as a refreshing revival of the Indian judiciary’s independence and values. But what is the Bhima Koregaon case?

The Bhima Koregaon case is a controversial and complex legal case that involves the arrests of several activists, academics, and political leaders for allegedly inciting caste violence and having links to Maoist rebels in India.

The origins of the case go back to the last day of 2017 when an event called called Elgaar Parishad was held in Pune, Maharashtra, to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Koregaon-Bhima, where a small force of Dalit soldiers of the British East India Company defeated a larger army of the Peshwa, a Brahmin ruler. The event was attended by thousands of people, mostly Dalits, who consider the battle as a symbol of their resistance against caste oppression.

The event sparked off violence the next day, New Year’s Day 2018, when Dalit and upper-caste groups clashed near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial. One person died and several were injured in the incident. The police filed an FIR against two right-wing leaders, Sambhaji Bhide and Milind Ekbote, for allegedly instigating the violence but no arrests were made.

Six months later, the Pune police arrested five activists, Sudhir Dhawale, Shoma Sen, Mahesh Raut, Rona Wilson, and Surendra Gadling, for allegedly having links to the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) and for being part of a conspiracy to assassinate Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The police claimed that they had evidence from letters and documents seized from their computers and devices. The activists denied the charges and said that the evidence was fabricated.

A couple of months later, the police followed it up by raiding the homes of several other activists across the country and arrested five more, Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, Sudha Bharadwaj, and Gautam Navlakha, on similar charges. They also alleged that these activists were involved in organising the Elgaar Parishad event and inciting violence at Bhima Koregaon.

In November 2018, the Bombay High Court rejected the bail pleas of the first five activists and extended their house arrest. In December 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking an independent probe into the case.

In January 2019, the Pune police filed a charge sheet against 10 of the accused, naming them as “urban Naxals” who were part of a larger conspiracy to overthrow the government and wage war against the country. The charge sheet also named nine more absconding accused, including some top Maoist leaders.

In February 2019, the Bombay High Court granted bail to Gautam Navlakha, but stayed his release for four weeks to allow the state to appeal. In March 2019, the Supreme Court set aside his bail order and directed him to surrender before the trial court.

In April 2019, the police filed a supplementary charge sheet against five more accused, 

In April 2019, the Pune police filed a supplementary charge sheet against five more accused, Anand Teltumbde, Stan Swamy, Hany Babu, Sagar Gorkhe, and Ramesh Gaichor.  

In January 2020, the then newly-formed Maharashtra government led by the Shiv Sena announced that it would review the case and consider dropping charges against some of the accused. However, in February 2020, the central government transferred the case to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), a federal agency that deals with terrorism-related cases.

In April 2020, amid the Covid-19 pandemic, several accused filed bail applications on medical grounds, citing their vulnerability to infection in prison. However, most of them were denied bail by various courts. In July 2020, Varavara Rao tested positive for Covid-19 and was shifted to a hospital. His family and lawyers alleged that he was not given proper medical care in prison and demanded his release on humanitarian grounds. In August 2020, he was granted interim bail for six months by the Bombay High Court on medical grounds.

The case of Stan Swamy, an 83-year-old Jesuit priest and tribal activist, stands out in particular for the insensitivity with which it was handled. Swamy was arrested by the NIA from his residence in Ranchi, Jharkhand in October 2020. Swamy, who suffered from Parkinson’s disease, was denied bail twice despite his fragile health condition.

In July 2021, Swamy died of a cardiac arrest in a hospital in Mumbai. He was 84 years old and had been on ventilator support for several days. His death sparked outrage and condemnation from various quarters, including the United Nations and the European Union. His lawyers and family accused the authorities of denying him proper medical care and violating his human rights.

Last week, the Supreme Court granted bail to Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira, two of the activists arrested in August 2018. They were both trade unionists and human rights defenders. The court noted that they had spent nearly five years in custody without trial and that mere accusations should not suffice as the sole basis for denying bail. The court imposed certain conditions on their bail, such as surrendering their passports, not leaving Maharashtra, and sharing their mobile location with the NIA.

As of now, out of the 23 arrested accused in the case, six have been granted bail (either interim or regular), one has died in custody, and 16 are still in jail awaiting trial. The trial is yet to begin as the charges are yet to be framed by the court. The case has been widely criticized as a witch-hunt against dissenting voices and an abuse of anti-terror laws by the state. The accused have maintained their innocence and claimed that they are being targeted for their work on behalf of marginalised communities and social justice causes.

If India and China Get Closer, What Would it Mean for the World?

In June this year, during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the US, the two countries signed the sort of defence agreements that the US usually reserves for its closest allies. One of the deals included in the agreements is a $3-billion one for 31 High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) drones, of which the Navy will get 15 SeaGuardian drones. while the Army and the Indian Air Force (IAF) will get eight each of the SkyGuardian land version. The significance of these deals is not only that they enhance India’s defence capabilities but also demonstrate the degree of closeness between India and the US. 

The US has viewed India as a potential strategic ally and a counterbalance against the rising power of China with whom its relationship has been on a steady decline. It is a hope and strategy that has been pursued by the US since the Clinton regime. Since then regardless of whether it has been a Republican or a Democrat in the White House, the US has sought closer relations with India. The fact that India’s relations with China, have also been under strain, chiefly because of the long-drawn-out border dispute in the former’s north-eastern boundaries, has also united the two countries–with both having a sort of common enemy.

What if that changes? What if India and China manage to reach a rapprochement over the border and other disputes? 

On the face of it, it could seem premature to assume that could happen. After all, it has been barely three years since Indian and Chinese troops clashed at the border with India suffering more casualties than China. Both countries amassed more troops on the north-eastern side of India, the US offered high altitude combat gear and other assistance, and China enhanced its military infrastructure on the other side. The dispute also led to restrictions on trade, and bans on Chinese apps in India.

But is a detente now in the offing? Post-pandemic bilateral trade between India and China has grown more than 40%; and although the border dispute has not been resolved, after several rounds of negotiations, both sides have withdrawn some of their troops from each side.

Both India and China have much to gain from a more harmonious relationship between them. Trade, especially in technology inputs from China, and the vast market India offers to China whose economy is showing distinct signs of slowing, is important to both countries. A Symbiotic relationship between China and India could, in effect, lead to a greater bond between the two neighbours and, consequently, thwart the West’s (read:the US) attempts to gain stronger support of India as a counterfoil to China. 

True, these developments are still nascent but the US should take note that getting India as an ally is not going to be a cakewalk in an increasingly polarising geopolitical situation.

Should Modi Worry About INDIA, the Opposition Alliance?

A united opposition can be a potential threat to Narendra Modi, whose government has been in power since 2014 and has been able to marginalise most of its prominent political rivals, notably the Congress party whose current status is a faint shadow of what it was before 2014. 

After failing to stop the Modi-led juggernaut in elections–both at the Centre and in several states, India’s Opposition parties have now forged an alliance, Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) to challenge Modi and his BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) in the next general election, which is due in May 2024. The alliance comprises 26 parties, including the main national opposition Congress party and several regional parties that have a strong base in some states.

The alliance claims to represent the interests of the people and the Constitution, and to oppose the “hatred and violence” that they allege Modi and his BJP have unleashed against minorities, especially Muslims, who make up about 14% of India’s population. The alliance also accuses Modi of undermining democracy, institutions, and federalism, and of mishandling the Covid-19 pandemic, the economy, and foreign policy.

But INDIA faces many challenges in taking on the current regime. Modi continues to be the most popular leader among the majority of Indians who are Hindus and make up 80% of the 1.4 billion population of the country. In an age where individual personalities play a significant role in politics, Modi has a charismatic personality, a strong media presence, and a loyal base of supporters who see him as a decisive and visionary leader who can deliver development and security for the country. Modi also has the advantage of being the undisputed leader of his party, while the opposition alliance has no clear leader or prime ministerial candidate.

Many believe that the Opposition alliance is potentially riven by internal differences and contradictions. It is a union of disparate ideologies and interest groups that are united only because they are all opposed to the Modi regime. Such a basis for an alliance can be fraught with risks of fractures and, indeed, a collapse. 

Many in the alliance are rivals or enemies in their respective states, and some of them have been allies or partners of the BJP in the past. The alliance will have to find a common minimum program that can appeal to voters across regions, castes, religions, and classes.

INDIA will also have to contend with the BJP’s formidable electoral machine, which has a huge network of workers, volunteers, and resources. The BJP also has the support of several influential groups, such as the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh), a Hindu nationalist organization that is the ideological mentor of the BJP; the VHP (Vishva Hindu Parishad), a Hindu right-wing group that campaigns for Hindu causes; and various media outlets that are sympathetic or loyal to the BJP.

The alliance will also have to face the challenges posed by the electoral system, which is based on first-past-the-post voting. This means that even if the alliance gets more votes than the BJP nationally, it may not get more seats in parliament if it loses in key states or constituencies where the BJP has a strong presence or advantage. Seat-sharing strategies will be important for winning in the elections and these, for parties that have often been at loggerheads with each other, can be difficult to forge. 

Then there is the question of defections and splits. Political alliances in India have also been marked by instances of sabotage from within. Also, the BJP can attempt to lure away key members of the alliance with the offer of lucrative political deals that capitalise on individual ambitions or lust for power. 

In theory, a united opposition is probably the only way to challenge the monolithic and powerful regime that Modi has in place but in practice it is not going to be easy. Which way voters cast their ballots will depend on how they assess the performance of the Modi government, which will have completed 10 years by the time the elections are held. It will also depend on campaign strategies of either side and, of course, on any unforeseen developments that could change the narrative.

India’s Economy is Growing Fast But That isn’t Enough

India’s economy is one of the fastest-growing and largest in the world, but it also faces many challenges and uncertainties. According to the World Bank, India’s GDP growth rate was 8.3% in 2022, making it the fifth-largest economy by nominal GDP. However, the IMF projects that India’s growth will slow down to 6.9% in 2023 and 6.5% in 2024, due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the weakness of the financial sector, and the slowdown in global trade.

Some of the main drivers of India’s economic growth are its large and young population, its urbanisation and digitalisation, its reforms and investments in infrastructure, and its integration with global markets. Some of the main pitfalls that India’s economy faces are its high poverty and inequality, its environmental and social sustainability, its institutional and governance quality, and its geopolitical and security risks.

Therefore, India’s economic prospects depend on how well it can balance its opportunities and challenges, and how resilient and adaptable it can be in the face of shocks and uncertainties. India needs to pursue a more inclusive, sustainable, and job-rich growth model that can benefit all its people and regions, while also enhancing its competitiveness and innovation in the global arena.

Why Oppenheimer Doing Better than Barbie in India

In India, some things can often be counter-intuitive. That could be the case in the box-office performance of two potential blockbuster Hollywood movies that hit the screens together at the end of July.

Based on available information, globally it seems that the Barbie movie has been more successful than the Oppenheimer movie, at least so far. The Barbie movie, which stars Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling as the iconic dolls, and is directed by Greta Gerwig, opened on July 21, 2023 to rave reviews and record-breaking box office numbers. According to various sources, the Barbie movie made over $500 million worldwide in its first week, and was expected to cross $700 million by its second weekend. Some analysts predict that the Barbie movie will soon reach $1 billion worldwide, making it one of the biggest hits of the year.

The Oppenheimer movie, which stars Cillian Murphy as the father of the atomic bomb, and is directed by Christopher Nolan, opened on the same day as the Barbie movie, but had a lower profile and a smaller budget. The Oppenheimer movie also received positive reviews and impressive box office results, but not as much as the Barbie movie. According to various sources, the Oppenheimer movie made about $180 million worldwide in its first week, and was expected to reach $300 million by its second weekend. Some analysts predict that the Oppenheimer movie will end up with around $500 million worldwide, making it a profitable and acclaimed film, but not a blockbuster.

But let’s cut to India, where things seem to be quite different. After it was released on the same date as everywhere else in the world, the Barbie film grossed nearly Rs 39 crore in the first 10 days in India. But Oppenheimer, released simultaneously with Barbie,  has soared ahead of the global blockbuster. The film’s total gross collections are nearly Rs 78 crore.

Is that surprising? Perhaps not. Barbie is a fashion doll created in 1959, manufactured and marketed by the toy giant Mattel. It became a worldwide franchise worth millions of dollars and swept the market for decades. However, in India the Barbie brand resonates with a tiny percentage of affluent, western-influenced households. 

In contrast, the interest in Oppenheimer, which is about the father of the most devastating invention of modern weaponry, resonates with many more Indians than a blonde doll with an improbable physique does. 

It’s INDIA Versus NDA. Can a United Opposition Defeat Modi?

By Sanjoy Narayan

Last Wednesday, 26 Indian opposition parties announced a pre-election coalition, which will contest the next parliamentary elections due in May 2024. The 26 parties, which together won 134 of the 545 Lok Sabha seats in the 2019 elections, forged the alliance following the initiative of Nitish Kumar, 72, the veteran Bihar politician and chief minister of the state. 

The coalition is called INDIA, a clever acronym that expands to “Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance”. The 26-party coalition includes the Congress, the Trinamool Congress, the DMK, the AAP, the JD(U) (of which Kumar is the leader), the RJD, the JMM, the NCP and the Shiv Sena.

When Kumar proposed the idea as the convenor of the opposition alliance, the plan was (and perhaps still is) to together field one strong candidate regardless of which constituent of the alliance they belonged to contest the candidate nominated by BJP or its alliance, the NDA.

Already the rhetoric has been flying thick and fast. Mamata Banerjee, West Bengal’s chief minister and head of the Trinamool Congress, was quoted as saying: “Let us challenge the NDA. The NDA cannot challenge INDIA. Is there anyone who can challenge INDIA?”

The bigger question, however, is whether the mish-mash of politicians of different stripes will be able to work together. Many of the constituents of “INDIA” have been arch rivals of each other, with a long history of bitter sparring between them. Whether they will be able to bury their differences and fight as one against the NDA remains to be seen. 

Some people think that the coalition has a chance to challenge the BJP’s dominance and popularity, especially if they can present a united front and a common agenda to the voters. Others doubt the coalition’s viability and stability, given the ideological differences and regional rivalries among some of the parties. Ultimately, it will depend on how the coalition performs in the upcoming state elections and how it manages to mobilize public support for its cause.

Meanwhile, critics of the new alliance have been quick with their rhetoric as well. The chief minister of the northeastern state of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma, jibed at the coalition’s acronym name and said  the British had named the country “India” and the fight should be to free the nation from “colonial legacies”.

How India’s Ban on Rice Exports Can Fuel Global Food Inflation

Last Thursday, India ordered a ban on exports of white rice, its largest category of rice exports. India is the world’s largest exporter of rice and this move, it is feared could set off fears of a further rise in food inflation around the world, particularly in markets that are already reeling from high rise in price of food. 

According to India, the ban on exports (the ban is on non-basmati white rice) follows a rise in price of rice in the domestic market because of the late and heavy monsoon, which has caused widespread damage to crops. 

India accounts for more than 40% of global rice exports. The ban, coupled with low inventories of the grain with other exporters could further fuel food price inflation. Already, after the Russian offensive against Ukraine, which is a major food grains exporter, food prices have shot up globally. Days before India banned the exports of rice, Russia disallowed the Black Sea Grain Deal that allowed exports of foodgrains (mainly wheat) from Ukraine. 

India’s food ministry noted a 11.5% increase in retail food prices over the past year and reasoned that the ban on exports was aimed at ensuring enough rice was available in the domestic market. 

Last year, India exported 22 million tonnes of rice of which non-basmati white accounted for 10 million tonnes. Last week’s ban, however, does not cover parboiled rice (rice that is partly boiled in the husk) nor does it cover broken rice. These accounted for nearly 8 million tonnes last year.

High food inflation is a politically-sensitive matter in India too. Next year, India heads to its next parliamentary elections and the ruling regime headed by the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) Narendra Modi would be keen to keep inflation under check in its bid to win a third term at the Centre. India has also limited sugar exports after sugarcane yields declined. Rising sugar prices can also be a trigger for food inflation, which the Modi regime wants to keep in check. 

Nearly 3.5 billion people in the world consume rice as a staple food grain and most of it is produced in Asian countries. Rice price inflation has been growing steadily over the past decade and, according to estimates, they are hovering around their highest levels in the last decade. 

Can Cricket Hit a Sixer in America? 

The names of the teams are as curious as they are in the Indian Premier League (IPL) cricket tournament: Atlanta Fire; Chicago Lions; Dallas Stars; Los Angeles Galaxy; and New York Bravehearts, to name a few. Last week, the Major League Cricket (MLC) tournament kicked off in the US, in a high-powered attempt to make the sport a popular money spinner in that country.

For decades there have been attempts to popularise the sport, which is played only in a few countries–mainly in the UK and its erstwhile colonies, including India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, the West Indies, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. Those efforts had mixed outcomes.

Now, however, the MLC is powered with resources. Last week, the tournament began in a converted baseball stadium in Texas. With big multinational corporations as sponsors and Indian-origin tech heavyweights such as Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella (himself a big cricket buff) as patrons, already close to $50 million has been splurged on the tournament, which could see a further outlay of $130 million. 

MLC is a professional Twenty20 cricket league and is operated by American Cricket Enterprises (ACE) and sanctioned by USA Cricket. It began play on July 13, 2023, with six teams representing major U.S. cities under a single-entity model. The first season is taking place over three weeks at Grand Prairie Stadium in Grand Prairie, Texas, and Church Street Park in Morrisville, North Carolina, concluding on July 30, 2023. 

Besides Microsoft, sponsors include Uber, Coca Cola, Nike, Slazenger, and Amazon. The organisers are hoping that the money backing the tournament and  the growing influence of the South Asian diaspora, much of it comprising cricket fanatics, will make cricket work in the US, finally.

Shock and Shame in Manipur

More than two months ago, a gruesome and shocking incident took place in Manipur where ethnic clashes and violence have been continuing since the beginning of the year. In that incident, a video recording of which has been spreading virally, two women were paraded naked through the streets by a violent mob of men. It led to global outrage over the incident.

Police have arrested four men alleged to be involved in the act and charged them with gang rape. The question, however, is why did it take the police so long to act? A police complaint was believed to have been lodged soon after the incident and in the video the perpetrators are clearly identifiable. 

What is more, according to the BBC,  “a damning detail that has emerged from the written complaint – the BBC has seen a copy of it – filed by a relative of one of the women, is that the mob allegedly took the survivors from police custody. And two of the survivors have even accused the police of being present, but not doing anything to help them”.

Many in India are anguished and angry about this and other incidents in Manipur and many believe the government is not doing enough to stem the violence or to bring to book perpetrators such as those involved in heinous acts such as these. The current ruling party in Manipur is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which formed the government after the 2017 state assembly elections.

The Internet Phenomenon of ‘Barbenheimer’

Barbenheimer is an Internet meme that became viral before the release of two blockbuster films on the same day last Friday in many major global markets. The name is a portmanteau of the titles of the two films, Barbie and Oppenheimer, which couldn’t be more dissimilar in style and content. 

Barbie is a lighthearted fantasy comedy by Greta Gerwig about the fashion doll Barbie, played by Margot Robbie, who finds herself in the real world and embarks on a journey of self-discovery. Oppenheimer is a dark, gritty epic biographical thriller by Christopher Nolan about physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, played by Cillian Murphy, who was the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, which developed the first nuclear weapons during World War II.

The contrast between the two films provoked a comedic response from Internet users, who created memes, posters, trailers and fan art that humorously combined the contrasting aesthetics and themes of both films³. Some examples include: Barbie smiling in the foreground of a mushroom cloud; Oppenheimer holding a pink suitcase with the Barbie logo; Barbie saying “C’mon Oppie, let’s go testify before the US government; and so on.

Many were exhorted to watch both the movies on the opening day as a double bill. According to trade estimates, both films did well on the opening weekend: Barbie grossing  $120 million and Oppenheimer grossing $150 million.