Facebook Badge

Friday, June 10, 2016

Modi’s US visit was a joke. That's what it was

Where is India’s minister for external affairs? Why isn’t Sushma Swaraj anywhere in the picture? Shouldn’t she DO something about this bull-in-a-china-shop approach to foreign policy?

It is true heads of government are not obliged to include their foreign ministers on every trip abroad. Surely, though, she can talk to him on his fleeting stays in the capital and tell him what her elite foreign service staff must surely tell her: foreign trips do not a foreign policy make.


Narendra Modi certainly conveys the impression that this perk is the best in his contract with the Indian Union: take off for foreign destinations like a Gujju on a Thomas Cook tour, farsan, thepla and chhoondo in tow, to posture with the high and mighty for the camera, the better to impress his mindless bhakts: a rubbernecking rube authorised by 31 per cent of India’s voters to strut and fret embarrassingly on the global stage.

Modi's gaffe and hype methods are awkward in that they conflate his own insecure personality with the august office of prime minister.

But that’s the good news about Modi’s foreign-trip policy. When the hurly-burly’s done, his successors will have to put in long hours and summon all their diplomatic capital to restore some amount of credibility to India’s standing in the world.


Rajiv Gandhi, the first Indian prime minister to address a joint session of the US Congress, spoke in 1985 of an "India… in the front ranks of the nations in the world, in the service of mankind." He set a goal that was achieved, not in full measure but substantially, by subsequent governments.

In the ensuing three decades, India became a recognised player with a massive and growing economy to back its standing. Underlining that achievement was a firm conviction that an independent policy is the only surety of a place at the global table.

Though blind anti-Americanism has been a driving force in the conduct of foreign policy, in 2004, the newly-elected Manmohan Singh government embraced a US-led initiative called "Next Steps in Strategic Partnership", chalking out areas of cooperation: civilian nuclear and space programs, high technology and missile defense, with a view eventually to expand it to strategic matters, energy security and trade and commerce.

As it evolved, the partnership became operationalised on what came to be called the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement. For the Americans, it provided ground-floor entry to India’s prospective civilian nuclear power sector and also opened the door to heightened cooperation in bilateral trade and commerce with one of the world’s fastest growing economies.

On the Indian side, it was the realisation of a major foreign-policy goal: to be recognised as a responsible nuclear-weapons power after years in the NPT wilderness, a vindication of a half-century of idealism.


Despite the euphoria of the time, the two sides got stuck on the details. The Indians balked, for example, at the nuclear liability clauses in the fine print, unwilling to go along with American demands without a solid quid pro quo. Another item in discussion was an agreement by India to adhere to the rules of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) without being admitted to membership.

In return, India secured from the US a commitment to push for India’s inclusion in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).

Even as Modi posed before television cameras and blathered on like a Chauncey Gardner, many thoughtful analysts were disappointed that his need for hype overcame prudence at the negotiating table.

Reports suggest that on the unresolved nuclear liability issue having to do with whether equipment suppliers can be sued in case of an accident, India consented to terms that are far more liberal than those obtaining in the US itself. And this would be fine if it could kick-start the stalled nuclear power generation sector.

But what is the quid pro quo Modi accepted: a pat on the head, a lavish White House reception and a speech to a joint session of Congress? At the very least, he could have put in his thumb and pulled out a plum before orchestrating a media campaign to project what a fantastic guy he is.

Back home, his spear chuckers mindlessly sought to portray the reiterated US support for India’s entry to MTCR as the biggest-ever achievement of any prime minister. That, as the erudite editor Manoj Joshi said, is "an astonishing claim. It is simply part of a deal for which we… agreed to adhere to NSG rules without being members. Among the items of exchange was a US commitment to get us into the technology regime."


Beyond the hype over MTCR, there were serious issues at stake: a discussion of new regime rules on climate change, cyber and regional security, defence. Informed sources say the Indian side was woefully underprepared. For example, in the matter of cyber security, the US led the discussion with a document called "Digital 2 Dozen," an enumeration of 24 obligations that countries that are part of the Trans Pacific Partnership must embrace.

These relate mainly to internet laws, cross-border data flows, intellectual property rights and other issues to facilitate digital trade and commerce (details here). India could have asked what the multilateral document has to do with bilateral ties.

Instead, reports suggest the Indian side got caught up in a discussion on "data localisation," a misbegotten effort to control the global flow of data. It is the kind of knee-jerk control issue that the Modi government has made its signature. In this specific case, any controls on data flow will adversely impact India’s only truly global information technology businesses that are seeking to grow out of outsourcing into product development.

The other issue on the table was the Defense Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI), which dates back to 1995, when the Narasimha Rao government signed the Agreed Minute on Defence Relations.

The Modi government seems to have been fobbed off with four "pathfinder projects" involving "not-so-complex" technologies for co-production including "next generation hand-launched mini drones" with a range of ten kilometres "used by soldiers in the battlefield to keep tabs on enemy formations".

Seriously? In return for buying billions of dollars of weapons?

Similarly, on the logistics agreement, without a clearly articulated policy, it is clear that the US will use Indian bases while the chances of India needing US bases are marginal. Here, the trade-off seems to have been vague agreements under which the US will help India build an aircraft carrier.

In a predominantly asymmetric relationship, securing a meaningful quid pro quo is the best resort of the underdog. Under the present dispensation, it seems that Modi’s image and the BJP’s political prospects are the only criteria.

What an incredible joke this Modi visit has been! Obama will be gone in January 2017 but he and his team will still be laughing at the vainglorious redneck from India.

(An edited version of this post will appear in DailyO.in, June 6, 2016.)


Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Pathankot attack: Mr Modi is no PM, his party has failed India

We can only hope that the inept handling of the Pathankot terror attack is the worst breach of national security and dignity that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his BJP can inflict on the nation. However, the progressive scale of ineptitude that has been on display doesn't give much hope.

For too long, it was not clear if all the terrorists had been taken out.Indian Express reported there was a blast even while defence minister Manohar Parrikar arrived at the base.
Before that:

o    The finance minister got into the act saying the siege was over; his statement was followed by reports of more gunfire.

o    The home minister put out a tweet announcing the end of the attack and then deleted it.

o    The prime minister was purveying wisdom on yoga and Hinduism.

o    The defence minister was in Goa, meddling in its seaside politics.

Maybe the terrorists died laughing?
With the BJP, garish spectacle triumphs over quiet diplomacy. In February 1999, Atal Bihari Vajpayee took a bus to Lahore with the famous Bollywood actor Dev Anand in tow and signed the Lahore Declaration. In May that year, India faced the Kargil war. With Modi, the Pathankot terror attack came just a few days after his PR stopover in Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media appeared clueless, reporting every leak from the multiple agencies in charge, sowing confusion all around.Television news simply passed off everything as breaking news. The more "intrepid", not wanting to dig and delve into the hard story, went after the human angle: interviewing grieving relatives of the soldiers who were killed, calling them "bravehearts" like medieval Scots and "martyrs" like Islamic fundamentalists.

The newspapers were no better: they simply bought whatever line the government put out and played up the sentimental angle of sacrifice for the nation.

In the event, the social media, some uncompromising publications like The Hindu and The Telegraph and a number of hardnosed commentators nailed the truth. Many questioned the national security adviser's decision to deploy the Defence Security Corps (DSCs) comprising retired soldiers to assist the National Security Guard at Pathankot. There was widespread derision of Mr Modi's preoccupation with yoga and Hindu temples and the now-familiar loose-lipped syndrome of his ministers.

Mr Modi and his party have failed every test of serious governance so far. Remember: climate doesn't change, people grow older. Or, Ganesha's elephant head is proof there were plastic surgeons in those ancient days. Or, India can never abuse nature: earth is our mother; moon is our "mama", echoing a popular Bollywood song of the 1950s.

This government is also demonstrably incompetent. Never mind Pathankot, even in Parliament, where it commands a majority in the lower house, Mr Modi has been unable to get anything done. Plus, he has suffered significant political defeats in Delhi and Bihar. Now there's virtually no hope the BJP can win a majority in the upper house through 2019.

As such, the first-ever majority government since the 1980s finds itself stymied.

Mr Modi's belligerence swayed many away from their normal predilections to vote for him in 2014; hence, the majority. Cocky in victory, he denied Leader of Opposition status to Sonia Gandhi, president of the Indian National Congress. As such, his no-holds-barred approach permitted no negotiation and compromise with the opposition, a sine qua non of democracy.

In just 18 months, he has shown he is simply not prime ministerial material. Never mind his own obvious shortcomings, including gaffes about the flag in Japan and the national anthem in Russia, his cabinet is a distressingly low on intellect and ethics.

The much-admired campaign in 2014 beguiled the electorate: there was dog-whistle rhetoric about Hindutva; a slanderous paid media campaign against a government that delivered a decade of unprecedented prosperity and social welfare; a quixotic promise of a golden age.  

There's one more thing in play: during the 2008 Mumbai terror attack, Mr Modi, then Gujarat chief minister, showed up outside the Oberoi Hotel to castigate the government as soft and directionless. This was while security forces were still battling the terrorists.  In stark contrast, there has been no politicking by the opposition in the matter of Pathankot.

Mr Modi's future suddenly seems to be limited. The narrative of good governance is shown up as "a tale told by idiots, who strut and fret their hour upon the stage, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

(An edited version of this post will appear in Dailyo.in, January 2016.)

Confusion Now Hath Made His Masterpiece


We can only hope that the inept handling of the Pathankot terror attack is the worst breach of national security and dignity that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his BJP can inflict on the nation. However, the progressive scale of ineptitude that has been on display doesn’t give much hope.



For too long, it was not clear if all the terrorists had been taken out. Indian Express reported there was a blast even while defense minister Parrikar arrived at the base. Before that:



  • The finance minister got into the act saying the siege was over; his statement was followed by reports of more gunfire.
  • The home minister put out a tweet announcing the end of the attack and then deleted it.
  • The prime minister was purveying wisdom on yoga and Hinduism.
  • The defense minister was in Goa, meddling in its seaside politics.



Maybe the terrorists died laughing?



With the BJP, garish spectacle triumphs over quiet diplomacy. In February 1999, Atal Behari Vajpayee took a bus to Lahore with the famous Bollywood actor Dev Anand in tow and signed the Lahore Declaration. In May that year, India faced the Kargil war. With Modi, the Pathankot terror attack came just a few days after his PR stopover in Pakistan.



Meanwhile, the mainstream media appeared clueless. It reported every leak from the multiple agencies in charge, sowing confusion all around.Television news, now bigger and better than in 1999, simply passed off everything as breaking news. The more “intrepid,”not wanting to dig and delve into the hard story, went after the human angle: interviewing grieving relatives of the soldiers who were killed, calling them “bravehearts” like medieval Scots and “martyrs” like Islamic fundamentalists.



The newspapers were no better: they simply bought whatever line the government put out and played up the sentimental angle of sacrifice for the nation. They could not or would not distinguish between reports on the ground from the disinformation being put out by government sources.



In the event, the social media, some uncompromising publications like The Hindu and The Telegraph and a number of hardnosed commentators nailed the truth. Many questioned the national security adviser’s decision to deploy the Defense Security Corps comprised of retired soldiers to assist the National Security Guard at Pathankot. There was widespread derision of Mr Modi’s preoccupation with yoga and Hindu temples.



Mr Modi and his party have failed every test or serious governance so far. Remember: climate doesn’t change, people grow older.  Or Ganesha’s elephant head is proof there were plastic surgeons in those ancient days. Or India can never abuse nature:earth is our mother; moon is our “mama” (mother’s brother), echoing a popular Bollywood song of the 1950s.



This government is also demonstrably incompetent. Never mind Pathankot, even in Parliament, where it commands a majority in the lower house, Mr Modi has been unable to get anything done.Plus he suffered significant political defeats in Delhi and Bihar.Now there’s virtually no hope the BJP can win a majority in the upper house through 2019. As such, the first-ever majority government since the 1980s finds itself stymied.

Mr Modi’sbelligerence swayed many away from their normal predilections to vote for him in 2014; hence the majority. Cocky in victory, he denied Leader of Opposition status to Sonia Gandhi, president of the Indian National Congress. As such, his no-holds-barred approach permitted no negotiation and compromise with the opposition, a sine qua non in a democracy.

In just 18 months, he has shown he is simply not prime ministerial material. Never mind his obvious shortcomings, including gaffes about the flag in Japan and the national anthem in Russia, his cabinet is a distressingly low on intellect and ethics.



The much-admired campaign in 2014 beguiled the electorate: there was dog-whistle rhetoric about Hindutva; a slanderous paid media campaign against a government that delivered a decade of unprecedented prosperity and social welfare; a quixotic promise of a golden age. 



There’s one more thing in play: during the 2008 Bombay terror attack, Mr Modi, then Gujarat chief minister, showed up outside the Oberoi Hotel to castigate the government as soft and directionless. This was while security forces were still battling the terrorists.  In stark contrast, there has been no dissenting opposition voice in the matter of Pathankot.





Mr Modi’s future suddenly seems to be limited. The narrative of good governance is shown up as“a tale told by idiots, who strut and fret their hour upon the stage, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” 



(An edited version of this post will appear in DailyO.in, January 2016.)


Friday, April 8, 2016

US Presidential Election: The rise of a millennial left?

Bernie Sanders is the first avowedly socialist presidential candidate in American politics. Whether or not he wins the Democratic Party’s nomination and goes on to become President, his emergence signals a major ideological change in global politics. The credible challenge he has mounted on the global stage has hastened the end of the fraying Reagan-Thatcher model of laissez-faire economics. The main reason free-market economics came under a cloud was because it spawned the Washington Consensus, a set of policy prescriptions proffered to developing countries by Western politicians, government officials, scholars and executives of multinational corporations and multilateral institutions.

The prescriptions were actually very sensible but not the inflexible approach of those pushing them. The Washington Consensus stirred opposition from the Left-dominated bureaucracy and academies in developing countries, especially India, and around the world. It was disparaged as “neoliberalism” and “market fundamentalism.”

Early protests were led in the US during the mid-1990s by a coalition of NGOs, labor unions, student groups and assorted pacifists and anarchists. They initially targeted meetings of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), a group of Pacific Rim countries that advocated free trade in the region. Fast forward to 1999, similar protests rocked the ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle. These were on a much larger scale and immediately drew global attention.

From what came to be known as “The Battle of Seattle” to the Occupy Movement seemed a logical extension of the activism against globalization. The 2008 global economic meltdown that led to the bailout of large transnational banks was the spark that lit the fire. Starting out of New York City in September 2011, the Occupy protest spread to 951 cities in 82 countries. Its method was simply to take over chunks of real estate in vital areas of major cities, much like the Arab Spring protesters. A similar “Indignants” movement erupted in Spain that October to challenge the government’s “austerity measures” including welfare cuts, joblessness and changes in labor laws. The Indignants movement counted for nearly seven million participants.

The scope of the protests grew to encompass not just “neoliberal” policies and multi-national corporations but the entire phenomenon of globalization and targeted capitalism itself.  Pointing to the growing economic disparities in the world, the demonstrators used a catchy slogan: “We are the 99 %!” This was reinforced by a report issued in October 2011 by the US Congressional Budget Office which said, among other things, that the income of the top one per cent of the population grew 275 per cent in the three decades since the late 1970s. The slogan was instantly popular; that’s because concerns about the distribution of wealth go back a long way to the late 19th century to Vilfredo Pareto, the Italian economist who established the 80-20 principle based on his observation that 80 per cent of Italy’s land was by 20 per cent of the population.

For example, in the US, distribution of wealth was fairly stable from the 1940s through 1980, income gains remained roughly the same; after that the gap widened to where today the income of the top one per cent shows 200 per cent growth whereas the bottom 20 per cent report just a 48 per cent increase. Worse, the middle 60 per cent have to be satisfied with just a 40 per cent growth in income.

What research could likely show in understanding the Sanders phenomenon is that the middle 60 per cent, solid supporters of the status quo, have taken a beating in the globalized economy and bought into the 99% slogan. These are level-headed, middle-class people, the bedrock of support for the “American way of life.” Clearly, they won’t buy into the maddening Donald Trump war cry of “making America great again” that appeals largely to the working class. Looking for “change they can believe in,” an aspiration Barack Obama gifted voters; they seem unmoved by Hillary Clinton’s experience and worried by her ties to multinational companies and Wall Street.

This unrest seems only to grow. Just in the past week, France has been rocked by “Nuit Debout” (Standing Night), a massive protest against the Hollande government’s proposal to amend labor laws and promote business-friendly hire-and-fire practices. Echoing the Occupy movement, the French demonstrations have spread to nearly 30 cities involving anywhere from 400,000 to a million people. Already, with the debut of the hash tag #nuitdebout and a television link, TV Debout, live from the Place de la Republique, which the protesters have occupied for over a week, the message has broadened in scope to include a revolt against capitalism.

In mainstream as well as digital media, you can sense a sharp Left turn. The difference is there is no Soviet Union, the orthodoxy; only a growing indignation against inequality, the demonization of the corporate world and a steadfast belief that capitalism is an exploitative system. The current mood is eloquently captured by the slogan of Spain’s Indignants: “We are not goods in the hands of politicians and bankers.”

Into this souped-up ambience of protest, enter 75-year-old Bernie Sanders, junior US senator from Vermont. Three things are noteworthy about his ascent to highs never before allowed to professed socialists: one, in all the primaries so far, he has claimed more than 70 per cent of the vote of voters between the ages of 19 and 35; two, his emergence is every bit as radical as that of Obama, the first black presidents; at 75, he is five years older than Ronald Reagan when he was elected; he is the first Jewish candidate. Is it any wonder that he’s giving Hillary Clinton nightmares: first woman president pales in comparison to Sanders’ firsts? The third feature is that the platform on which Sanders is articulating a socialist message is unprecedented. It is simply the biggest, most prominent, most widely recognized in the world: the US presidential election campaign.

(An edited version of this post will appear in http://http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com, April 8, 2016.)