News Analysis Archives - Lokmarg

How Tricky It Is For Journalists To Cover A War

By Sanjoy Narayan 12th November 2023

Last week, Israel accused four freelance Gaza-based journalists who have worked with Western media outlets of having advance knowledge of the Hamas attack on October 7, which triggered the ongoing bloody conflict in Gaza. The journalists, mainly photographers, were accused of collaborating with Reuters, Associated Press, CNN, and the New York Times, all of them media outlets of considerable repute.

The accusation, made by Israeli communications minister Shlomo Karhi, was based on a report by a pro-Israeli media watchdog group, Honest Reporting, which stated that the journalists and, therefore, the organisations they were working for had prior knowledge of the horrific attacks by Hamas. In the past also, Honest Reporting has accused newspapers such as the New York Times and other western publications of an anti-Israel bias in their coverage of the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

The accusations have serious implications. In the October 7 attack, 1,200 Israelis died and more than 240 were taken hostage. It has led to a bloody battle with Israel seeking retribution by launching a full-scale attack against Hamas but the collateral damage from which has killed, displaced or injured thousands of civilians.

On their part, the four media outlets—Reuters, AP, CNN, and the New York Times—have denied any prior knowledge of the attacks. They emphasised that there were no arrangements in advance with the journalists to provide photos. The New York Times described the accusations as “untrue and outrageous,” highlighting the risk such unsupported claims pose to journalists on the ground in Israel and Gaza.

Covering wars such as the one that is ongoing in Gaza or the one that is raging for nearly two years in Ukraine after Russia attacked the country in February 2022 is fraught with risks. Of course, the primary risks that journalists face are obvious: the possibility of getting caught in the attacks, suffering injuries, or even getting killed. But there are other risks. How credible are journalists’ war-time sources?

In the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the picture of what is happening can vary sharply, depending on what the source is. If it is the Russian propaganda machinery, which also includes pro-Kremlin bloggers “embedded” in Russia’s military in the war zone, then you will get the pro-Russia view; if it is sourced from Ukraine, then it is likely going to be an entirely different view.

In Gaza, journalists covering the conflict face significant challenges. First, there are the restrictions. Israel has not allowed foreign journalists to enter Gaza. As a result, Western correspondents (as well as Indian media outlets that sent their representatives there) have reported extensively on the grief of Israeli families, but they miss a vital aspect of the story by not being able to witness the situation firsthand in Gaza. Without experiencing the prayers Palestinians make when they lose loved ones or learning about the life stories of those who have been killed, the coverage of Gaza remains incomplete compared to the coverage of Israel.

Israel has been steadily suppressing news reporting in the Gaza Strip. Journalists have faced danger, with some killed or wounded, media premises destroyed, and communication disruptions. There is a looming threat of an all-out media blackout in Gaza.

Journalists also face entry bans in Gaza. Since Israel blockaded the area 16 years ago, journalists cannot enter the Palestinian territory without authorisation from Israeli authorities. In addition, there could be further restrictions on Muslim journalists as three Muslim journalists from MSNBC—Mehdi Hasan, Ayman Mohieddine, and Ali Velshi—were suspended. This decision coincided with escalating tensions in the Gaza area.

On the other side too, Hamas, the ruling group in Gaza, has imposed (and later rescinded) some restrictions on journalists covering the conflict. After the recent conflict in Gaza, Hamas issued sweeping new restrictions on journalists in the Palestinian enclave. These rules included not reporting on Gazans killed by misfired Palestinian rockets; and avoiding coverage of the military capabilities of Palestinian terror groups. However, these guidelines were rescinded after discussions with authorities in Gaza. The Foreign Press Association (FPA), which represents international media, expressed that such restrictions would have been a severe limitation on press freedom and safety. Hamas confirmed the reversal and stated that there are currently no restrictions.

For journalists, trying to cover a war objectively and without bias could be an oxymoron. Most journalists are dependent on one or the other side of the warring nations. If reporters and photographers are in Israel covering what is going on in Gaza, you can expect their reports and dispatches to reflect the Israeli view of things; if they are on the other side, then the views could be quite different. Over the past nearly two years, making sense of who is making progress or suffering more losses in Ukraine has become a complex business: you either get the Russian view or the Ukrainian view, none of which might be the “true” picture.

The Cosmic Blueprint of Xi Jinping

There is a photograph that you can find with relative ease on the Internet. It shows China’s supreme leader and President Xi Jinping, flanked by Russian President Vladimir Putin, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres, and some two dozen top dignitaries from around the world. The photograph is from the third Belt & Road Forum for International Cooperation that was held on October 17 & 18 in Beijing.

It also marked the 10th anniversary of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a global infrastructure and investment project announced by Xi in 2013. Many see this as part of China’s and Xi’s larger vision of a blueprint for a new world order to challenge the existing international system that it feels is unfairly skewed in favour of the United States and its allies.

Xi’s vision transcends mere governance and is more of a cosmic plan to reshape China’s role, influence, prominence, and, indeed, dominance of the world.

China was once happy to hide its capacities–economic, military, and cultural–and bide its time. It is no longer content to do so. Xi, who is on an unprecedented third term at the helm of his nation, wants to redefine the norms, dismantle existing “western biased” hierarchies and meld together a world where China’s rise is unstoppable. This vision unambiguously pervades every forum, conference, policy formulation, and international strategy that China now espouses.

The Belt & Road Forum was no different. The heads of states who attended it hailed China’s strategy and Xi’s vision. Notably, the United Nations’ Secretary General was a participant at the forefront of the forum.

For the West, Xi’s gambit resembles a tectonic shift. American wars overseas, erratic foreign policy shifts, and deep political polarisation have eroded confidence in US global leadership. Moreover, within the US, opinions, support, and allegiances are sharply polarised and divisive, raising questions there and elsewhere in the world about the relevance and effectiveness of a US-led world order. Is its approach sustainable? Can it navigate the tempests of climate change, geopolitical tensions, and humanitarian crises?

As China’s assertiveness grows, the West faces a choice: adapt or resist. Xi’s alternative model—multilateralism reframed as great-power balancing—tempts some. Yet, lurking beneath are shadows of Beijing’s iron-fisted rule—surveillance, censorship, and repression.

Where does India fit into this? Thus far, India’s approach has been cautious as it tries to balance ancient wisdom and modern ambitions. India seeks economic ties with China while guarding its strategic interests. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) looms large—an infrastructure web that binds nations but also raises sovereignty concerns. India is not a signatory to that initiative.

India’s strategy has been a sort of tightrope walk where it has tried to tango with both the West and with Beijing. It wants to harness economic opportunities from both, yet remains wary of Beijing’s territorial assertiveness and military buildup in the Indo-Pacific.

Xi’s vision does resonate with a large swathe of regions and countries around the world, including predominantly developing nations in Asia, Africa, and South America. His vision exhorts countries to forge creative coalitions—beyond simplistic divisions of democracies versus autocracies. North Korea and Iran share this stage with moderate, modernising nations. The global future, Xi suggests, demands nimble alliances.

In this scenario, India, which has had a rich history of alliances with international partners, has to traverse a shifting landscape. As the most populous nation in the world and with hundreds of millions of young people with high aspirations, India would ideally like to have a louder voice in the emerging new order, and not merely be a spectator. For that to happen, perhaps it is time for India to review its tightrope-walking style of geopolitical strategy and be more decisive.

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/

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

By Sanjoy Narayan 3rd September 2023

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.

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

By Sanjoy Narayan 13th August 2023

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.

Expel Rahul Gandhi? Or Allow Him to Speak?

By Sanjoy Narayan 19th March 2023

Should Rahul Gandhi be allowed to speak or be expelled from Lok Sabha?

Last week the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads India’s ruling regime, issued a notice in Lok Sabha urging the speaker seeking an order to expel Rahul Gandhi, Congress MP and a former president of the party. The grounds for seeking his expulsion were allegations that he had breached his privileges as a parliamentarian by the comments he had made about governance in India, India’s foreign policy, particularly related to China, and issues concerning democracy and freedom of speech in the country. Gandhi was reported to have made these comments during a recent foreign visit to the UK where he had several speaking engagements.

For four days scheduled normal work in Parliament had come to a halt while members of the ruling regime and those from the Opposition, chiefly Gandhi’s party, sparred over this. While in the UK, Gandhi had alleged that Indian democracy was in peril and that he was not allowed to speak freely in Parliament. Last week, amid the noisy protests and counter-protest in Parliament, Gandhi followed up his UK speeches by meeting with the Lok Sabha speaker and asking that he be given time to speak on the floor of the House. Gandhi referred to four members from the BJP who spoke in Parliament and accused Gandhi of “belittling” and “insulting” Indian democracy on foreign shores.

Gandhi was quoted in The Hindu as saying: “If Indian democracy was functioning, I would be able to say my piece in Parliament.” And adding: “So, actually what you are saying is a test of Indian democracy, after four BJP leaders made allegations about a member of Parliament, is that member of Parliament going to be given the same space that those four members were given, or is he be going to be told to shut up?”

Well, does Gandhi deserve the right to speak his mind in Parliament? Or should he be expelled for breach of privilege? The answer would depend on how his statements made in the UK are interpreted against the privileges enjoyed by MPs in India.

The Indian parliament and its members from both houses (the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha) enjoy certain rights and protection. The Constitution of India grants MPs privileges or advantages under Articles 105 and 194 so that they can carry out their responsibilities and functions without hurdles. These privileges are aimed at ensuring proper democratic functioning of the legislature. The question is whether Gandhi breached these privileges by making the statements that he did while in the UK.

It would all depend on how the speaker of the Lok Sabha, Om Birla, responds to the notice. If the speaker decides that it is a matter that warrants discussion then the notice would be sent to the Lok Sabha’s committee of privileges, which could investigate the matter and decide whether Gandhi was in breach of the privileges that he is entitled to as MP. It could then prepare a report on the matter, which along with recommendations for action against Gandhi, could be tabled before the House for a decision.

Going by precedence, however, it is not common for breach of privilege notices to be escalated by the speaker to the next level by referring them to the privileges committee. But Gandhi also faces another complaint that the privileges committee is already examining. These are charges against him of making “derogatory” comments about the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, which allege that he (Modi) gave favourable treatment to the industrialist, Gautam Adani, who was recently accused by an activist short selling firm of financial manipulation and deception.

How the charges against Gandhi will pan out could likely be seen next week in Parliament. Will he be allowed to speak? Or will the notice against him be acted upon? Or, will the House continue to be disrupted as the fracas between the ruling regime and the Opposition stymies normal work to the detriment of the nation?

To make sense of the world, watch China; not the US

It was a case of the mediator making bigger news than the two long-time foes who shook hands last week. When Saudi Arabia and Iran, two countries that have been in confrontation for many decades, partly based on historical and religious enmity, decided to shake hands and resume diplomatic relations, it was a major breakthrough in the geopolitics that dominates West Asia. Saudi Arabia, dominated by Sunni Muslims, and Iran, which is dominated by Shia Muslims, have been at loggerheads for long. And their conflict (accompanied by proxy wars) has been known as the Cold War in the Middle East, an analogical reference to the Cold War between the West, notably the US and the erstwhile Soviet Union.

But while geopolitical analysts have welcomed the beginning of a rapprochement between Saudi and Iran, the spotlight shone more brightly upon the mediator—in his case, China, led by its hugely powerful president and head of state Xi Jinping. China’s emergence as a broker of peace in the Middle East is of great significance and can be seen as the beginning (or, as some analysts would say, continuation) of the development by which it is has begun supplanting the gradually declining dominance and clout of the US in the region.

The Middle East is important for China for obvious reasons. Shorn of all frippery, the Middle East is of importance for all major nations for its oil. By enabling the “handshake” between Saudi and Iran, China has now become a close and reliable ally of two of the world’s largest producers of oil. And instead of others, such as the US and Russia, it has not had to resort to armed conflict in the region. Xi’s diplomacy is driven by his country’s economic and commercial objectives.

For China, gaining a major presence in the Middle East ties in with its overall strategy of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) by which it wants to connect Asia with Africa and Europe through land and maritime networks aimed at improving regional integration, increasing trade and stimulating economic growth. Brokering peace between Saudi and Iran will give it the boost it needs to cement the BRI in the region.

In fact, more than the moves that the US makes in the global arena, it is China’s moves that deserve to be observed with more focus. Last week the US president Joe Biden made a bit of news when he welcomed the International Criminal Court’s “arrest warrant” against Russia’s president Vladimir Putin for “war crimes” in Ukraine. The warrant means nothing. Russia is not a member of the ICC, which is based in The Hague and has no jurisdiction in Putin’s country. Biden’s welcoming of a warrant that is unlikely to be exercised is even less significant. It is non-news.

What is of major significance, however, is the announcement that Xi Jinping would be visiting Russia next week in his first visit after Russia attacked Ukraine and started the ongoing war back in February 2022. Although China claims that it is a neutral peace broker between Russia and Ukraine that should fool nobody. China’s diplomatic and commercial ties with Russia have been growing consistently. Xi’s visit, which will be marked by a face-to-face meeting between him and Putin, therefore, could signal the fast-emerging superpower’s support for Putin and for Russia, something that could be an unambiguous wake-up call for the West. To make sense of where the world is headed, watch China. And not the US.

Preventing another Covid wave

In directions to six Indian states–Maharashtra, Gujarat, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Karnataka—the Centre’s health secretary has asked the state authorities to pre-empt and control the sudden and resurgent trend of spreading infections related to the Covid virus. The states have been asked to focus on testing, treating, tracking, and vaccination.

Last week, on Thursday, 700 Covid cases were recorded in a day after an interval of four months and they were concentrated in these six states. India wants no repeat of the past waves of the Covid related cases, hospitalisations, and deaths.

Mainly because of India’s huge population and its density, the several waves of the virus since the pandemic emerged in November 2019 have taken a big toll on India. The number of people infected by Covid is reported at 44,694,349; the number of deaths at 530,799; and the number that recovered from the illness at 44,158,161.

Another case against Sisodia!

There was a fresh setback to the deputy chief minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia, who is also a trusted lieutenant of the chief minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) president Arvind Kejriwal, who has been in custody after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested him in connection with a (now withdrawn) new liquor sales policy.

Now, the CBI has charged him with surveilling people and political entities that were opposed to the AAP government and its leaders. According to the charges, Sisodia allegedly misused the Feedback Unit formed by the Delhi government. The unit, set up in 2015, was aimed at gathering ‘actionable feedback’ about the working of government departments and related agencies. The CBI has charged Sisodia with using it to snoop on his party its leader’s opponents. AAP has, of course denied it and said that the CBI move is politically motivated by the Centre and the ruling regime led by the BJP, an arch opponent of AAP.

India gets an US envoy after 2 years

Although Eric Garcetti was appointed by Joe Biden as the new Ambassador to India in 2021, he couldn’t take office because of an ongoing dispute. When Garcetti was mayor of Los Angeles, he was believed not to have taken appropriate action against an aide who was accused of sexual harassment. Last week, finally, Garcetti was cleared to take office in New Delhi.

For two crucial years, Washington did not have a man in India’s capital. This has particularly been critical in the past year since the Russia-Ukraine conflict. India has not unambiguously condemned Russia and continues to have trade and defence ties with the country—it buys huge amounts of Russian oil as well as weaponry. This has irked the US, which also a major trading partner of India. The US is also concerned about the growing influence and impact of China in the region, especially on the border that the latter shares with India.

At a juncture such as this, having an US envoy in India is important and this is now finally completed.

Read More Article: http://13.232.95.176/