This story first appeared in ETV Bharat

In an exclusive interview with the senior journalist Smita Sharma, President of the US-India Business Council, Nisha Biswal criticised Donald Trump’s decisions to suspend H1B, L1 visas and force international students on F1 visas to leave if their campus goes fully online for the fall semester. She further said that there are opportunities for India and the US to expand our economic partnership to support a greater focus on supply chain and manufacturing in India particularly in sensitive areas like essential drugs, defence, high technology, infrastructure.

New Delhi: A mini trade deal under discussion for a long time between India and US is unlikely ahead of the November 2020 American Presidential elections, feels former diplomat and US-India Business Council (USIBC) President Nisha Biswal. Biswal was the Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia in the Obama administration.

Speaking to senior journalist Smita Sharma from Washington DC, Biswal criticised Donald Trump’s decisions to suspend H1B, L1 visas and force international students on F1 visas to leave if their campus goes fully online for the fall semester.

Biswal also argued that turning inward when there are job losses or turning the tap off on immigrants is disadvantageous for American society and economy itself. In this exclusive conversation when asked about Google’s decision to invest up to USD 10 billion in India, Biswal underlined that digital economy is the future in the post-COVID-19 era and Indo-US trade will deepen over next many years but will need for stable policy frameworks in India. Excerpts from the conversation:

Q- Do you see a possible Indo-US Trade deal finalising soon?

The mini trade deal has been a subject of many conversations between Ambassador Lighthizer and his team at USTR and Piyush Goyal and his team at the Ministry of Commerce. Those conversations are ongoing and they are looking to see if those issues are put away. The closer you get to the election, the less likely it is you will get something before the election but I would be very pleasantly surprised if they were able to get it done. It would be in the interest of the United States and India to get the mini-deal done as soon as possible.

Q- Amid talks of US-China trade decoupling and India China tensions at LAC, which are the opportunity areas for Indo-US trade?

There are opportunities for India and the US to expand our economic partnership to support a greater focus on supply chain and manufacturing in India particularly in sensitive areas like essential drugs, defence, high technology, infrastructure. Those are areas where we want a trusted partner in building those industries. China will always be a very important economic partner for India and the US and no one is trying to change or undermine that. But more diversity on supply chains and de-risking in certain sectors will also require policy framework in India that is stable, attractive and incentivises that investment. This is about longing but in the short term, companies are dealing with a lot of red ink on their balance sheet. This is not the time you make major investments. We are talking about trying to reposition over the next several years in a way that will deepen the US-India corridor.

Q- Post-Galwan clashes, Indian announced a ban on import of certain Chinese goods that led to chaos at ports. USISPF said it would hurt American manufacturing firms too. Your views.

These are very complex and nuanced issues. We understand the security issues the Indian government is grappling with. We appreciate and support their need to secure the nation, citizens and Indian supply chains. But we live in a very integrated global economy so it is important to act with deliberative action and think through some of the unintended consequences.

Q- Google’s Sundar Pichai has announced a new $10B digitization fund to help accelerate India’s digital economy. Do you see more American firms steeping into the area?

Absolutely. Digital is the future, the digital economy is fast and the pandemic has actually accelerated significantly the move towards digitisation. What you are hearing from Sunder Pichai, Microsoft and the Indian tech giants as well is that the race to really expand digital architecture to support the future economy whether on collaborating on 5G infrastructure, expanding access issues that Google has talked about, those are really important opportunities for US-India collaboration between our two markets that can give access to suppliers and producers.

Q- Do you think Suspension of H1B, L1 Visas could be extended beyond December and how would it impact Silicon Valley?

Tom Donohoue, the CEO of US Chamber of Commerce has spoken out very forcefully and compellingly about why this is a misguided policy. In fact what it does is disadvantage the US, US companies and investing in the US workforce. We have benefitted as a nation in decades past by people who came on our shores, whether they are coming as permanent immigrants seeking a better life or as foreign students seeking higher education or on temporary work visas to help support short term needs in the US economy. These people have contributed greatly to America’s economic rise, to our entrepreneurial spirit and our ability to innovate. Immigration policies that really turn off the tap and access to the US , to some of the best and brightest around the world, is simply going to keep that talent off our shores and benefit other countries.

Q- Donohue reacting to the notification on F1 visas, that could impact some 200,000 Indian sides, said it would have a ‘chilling effect’ on the American economy. Why would Trump administration go for this description?

I cannot speak to the motivation of the Executive branch in putting the policies out. It is a time when we are dealing with a pandemic and with both fear and concerns around health as well as economic impacts. When you have so many job losses there are tendencies to turn inward which we think is exactly the wrong thing to do. But it is an instinct which is understandable and manifesting in many countries. We all do better when we work in a more collaborative and connected way with countries and our partners around the world. Our markets, sources and talents are global and we cannot afford to turn inwards and put up barriers at this point.

Q- The Ideas India summit organised by USIBC is lined up for next week which will see Nirmala Sitharaman, Jaishankar, Pompeo deliberate on Indo-US cooperation in a post COVID world. Which are some of the big ideas?

The theme for this year’s summit is Building a Better Future. We are in the midst of a time that is deeply disruptive to the status quo, to the norms that we have had, whether economic or geopolitical or disruption to the ways of our life and work. Yet at this time of disruption, we are also on the cusp of bringing in a new age. It is in our hands what that new era will represent. The Ideas summit is about how the US and India are working in partnership for the future of the economy. Whether it is security partnership that keeps the sea lanes of commerce open, or on the strategic relationship that talks about values and norms we cherish as well as adjustments that are due in a new era with new leaders emerging on the global stage or in the technology sector.

Link to original story

This story first appeared in ETV Bharat

Speaking to Senior Journalist Smita Sharma, Professor Sree Sreenivasan, Marshall Loeb Professor of Digital Innovation at Stony Brook School of Journalism, underlined that the immigration changes have been a wake-up call for the Indo-American community which is not a homogenous vote bank, but several considered Trump as a harmless candidate.

New Delhi: There is massive chaos among international students in the United States following the latest Trump administration announcement on Monday.

The Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) announced temporary modifications on Monday for F-1 nonimmigrant students pursuing academic coursework and M-1 nonimmigrant students pursuing vocational coursework while studying in the United States. This is expected to adversely impact majority Chinese and some 200,000 Indian students as they are expected to leave the US if their universities do not offer campus courses in the fall semester.

While detailed guidelines are yet awaited for clarity, Professor Sree Sreenivasan, Marshall Loeb Professor of Digital Innovation at Stony Brook School of Journalism, feels this chaos is deliberate and part of the racist immigration policies adopted under Donald Trump’s leadership. A well known Indo- American voice, Sree Sreenivasan was formerly the Chief Digital Officer at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Columbia University and the City of New York.

He argues that through disastrous changes to Student Visas and H1B and L1 Visas Trump is pandering to his ‘conservative and xenophobic constituency’.

Speaking to Senior Journalist Smita Sharma from New York, Sreenivasan underlined that the immigration changes have been a wake-up call for the Indo-American community which is not a homogenous vote bank, but several considered Trump as a harmless candidate. Smita Sharma spoke to Professor Sreenivasan on the US internal political dynamics playing out in an election year and where does the Global Order stand with the US pulling out of several major world pacts and bodies including now the World Health Organisation amid a pandemic.

Q: Can you breakdown the F1 visa modification for us. Does it mean such active students have to depart the US if their campus is fully online for the fall semester?

A: This is a moment of great chaos. This is what the Trump administration does. Chaos is their main feature. As a result of all that chaos, misinformation, disinformation, actively trying to implement their racist and other policies all at the same time, we have seen America fail on the health front and on the economic as well as racial injustice front.

Everybody should understand that immigration is still a work in progress and comes as a part of a series of things that President Trump and his administration have done that should worry everybody. We are hopeful that there will be some more clarification around all this.

But students will have an option of either leaving or trying to transfer to another school that has more in-person classes. The good news is that many schools are moving to in-person classes. The bad news is that it is probably a bad idea for this fall semester which starts early here for many people. But because there is so much of confusion maybe there will be some pullback on this. But none of this is a surprise.

This higher administration is anti-immigration. People who have come and succeeded here have done so because of the immigration policy as well as the ability of students to come here, study here, stay here and have an impact here. That is not in President Trump’s interest. He does not want IIT people. So IIT engineers and similar Indians think they are exempt from all the racist immigration policies that Trump has created.

They think that Trump wants them here. He does not. He would rather have Norwegian fishermen than Indian IIT engineers.

Q: How much of anxiety and confusion do you believe now prevails among the international students community-majority of them being Chinese and Indians?

A: There is great panic. There is confusion about what will happen for students already here. For students coming as it is there is a great degree of confusion to get a visa if you got admission because Visa Offices have not been opened. So this is already chaotic and we do not know. What I have been telling students contacting me is try to remain calm, see what the actual guidelines are and then see what happens. Trump does float trail balloons just to see what happens to cause chaos. It could become policy and then we could be in major trouble.

Not just for Indians but this could become great trouble and disaster for America.

Q: Several colleges have already completed admissions for the fall semester, so how can students seek transfer? And countries are in lockdown mode, we do not know when international scheduled flights will commence for India. So how will students depart the US?

A: Absolutely. There is no clarity in where we are going with this. But this is not an accident. This is on purpose. Who else would pull out of WHO in the middle of a pandemic than this administration?

Q: The Trump administration earlier suspended H1B, L1 visas till the year-end and fate of Green Card applicants also now is unknown. Is there a domestic constituency that is being catered to in this election year?

A: 100 per cent. The constituency, his base is 90 per cent with him, which is around 40 per cent of the country. This base is xenophobic, racist, worried about its jobs. Trump has made the minority people in this country and immigrants an enemy. Once you do that all you do is constantly stoke the fears of that group giving it misinformation, disinformation to Television channels that lie on his behalf every single day.

The combination of media and social media that supports him, lies for him, is the chaos he thrives on. What he did with the immigration policy on H1, L1 visa is a disaster. There is an opposite constituency, people who are against it and understand the value of immigrants.

The tech industry is against this because they need those workers. Unemployment levels are still low in the tech business and those tech jobs are going to go overseas. Tech companies are saying by blocking the H1Bs you are not giving jobs to Americans necessarily.

Q: We have seen Trump’s presidential challenger Joe Biden make positive noise on H1B visas if elected to power. How is the Indo- American community watching the developments in the backdrop of all the chemistry between Trump and Modi that played out in events in Houston to Gujarat?

A: There is no one Indian community. It is splintered into so many ways. There are people who loved Trump. Who are excited by him because he says things that they want to hear because they believe his tax cuts will be good for them. Who believe that they have gotten a chance to come here and succeed and stay. The next generation should not come.

There are also strong progressive people who are opposed to him. Who is fighting all of these regulations? Some of the biggest activists here are of Indian origin. There isn’t one community. And there is a large community of Indian origin people that is detached, unconnected, is not necessarily following the US news or registered or voting. But this has been a wake-up call to many of the people that I have spoken to who thought that Mr Trump was harmless as a candidate.

But what is happening with immigration no, if this is not a wake-up call, I do not know what is. Including many of the people who love Trump, who benefitted by coming here on a student or H1B visa, being able to stay, for them to continue to support him after all of this, his malfeasance as direct causes of people dying is a much greater moral problem.

Candidate Trump said I can shoot a person on Fifth Avenue and I won’t lose anybody. Imagine any other leader saying that. Look at South Korea and America. They got their first confirmed COVID 19 case the same day. And by the time Korea had 200 deaths, America was approaching 50000 deaths. And Korea is 15 times denser than America. This is the tragedy that is unfolding before our eyes.

Q: Yesterday we saw President Trump lash out at Harvard University and also argue that schools and classes should open up, keeping them closed is lazy. Is the F1 visa modification a pressure tactic for institutes to open up their campuses? Is the COVID situation good enough for physical classrooms to start?

A: I do not think they have connected those necessarily. But he is not just forcing colleges but also schools to open. He has said he will put pressure on Governors to open. The country is in the middle of a full-blown pandemic. We were trying to flatten the curve. Instead, we are in the middle of the first wave. No other country has seen such massive spikes so fast at. We did not do anything. It was as if lessons of pain suffered by everyone who went through the lockdown was wasted completely. Everything has become political

Q: US has formally announced its withdrawal from WHO even as the world continues to face a pandemic. Congressmen Ami Bera posted a series of tweets criticising the move.US has now pulled out of at least major world bodies and treaties including JCPOA, Paris Climate Act..Where does the concept of Global Order stand today?

A: It is tragic at every level. For a while, I and so many others treated the candidate as a joke. And many others thought that maybe Trump will come around after he becomes President. But he has shown his exact plan from day one and we are here. Nothing he has done is shocking because he told us he would do it.

Link to original story

This story first appeared in ETV Bharat

In an exclusive interview with senior journalist Smita Sharma, former India’s Ambassador to Beijing Ashok K Kantha said that if India and China do not settle the boundary dispute, horrific clashes will continue. He also commented that now may not be the time for PM Modi and President Xi to hold direct talks without ascertaining all facts.

New Delhi: India and China must confirm and clarify the Line of Actual Control at the earliest, if the relations need to keep moving forward, said former diplomat Ashok Kantha.

In an exclusive interview with senior Journalist Smita Sharma, former India’s Ambassador to Beijing and currently the Director of Institute Of Chinese Studies (ICS) Ashok K Kantha commented that if India and China do not settle the boundary dispute, horrific incidents like the clashes at Galwan Valley which killed at least 20 Indian soldiers will continue.

He underlined that the immediate priorities have to be to continue the process of de-escalation, disengagement and there must be clear political directives from the top.

Kantha felt that now may not be the time for Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping to hold direct talks without ascertaining all facts, but there has to be high level political and diplomatic engagements as the military talks are useful but not adequate. He also added that China has stalemated the borer settlement process for the last 18 years as it wants a deliberate ambiguity to use as leverage against India.

Here is the transcript of the conversation:

Q: After decades of peace and tranquility at the India-China border, has the nature of the LAC changed permanently now following the violent clashes?

A: Clearly, something extremely unfortunate has happened. For the last 45 years despite problems of alignment we had at LAC and International Boundary, India and China working together had ensured that the LAC remained relatively peaceful. There were no incidents resulting in the loss of lives on either side since 1975. That is behind us. We need to look at how to move ahead from this present situation which is extremely serious. We should not downplay the seriousness of the present predicament we are in. What needs to be done is to see there is no further escalation. We should not rule that out. When the standoff situation began we mentioned that there is always a risk of an accident taking place when you have armed personnel face to face over an extended period and that is what has happened on Monday evening. So there is a need for very clear political directives going from both sides to respective girder guarding forces to try and ensure the situation is de-escalated as soon as possible. Then we have to take a series of steps to bring back the situation under control once again.

Q: But the de-escalation process will be very complex with army men on ground emotional, sensitive, and tempers volatile. So chances of things worsening much higher including serious flare-up other points where standoff continues?

A: I will not rule out a flare-up at some other point along the LAC. I am reasonably confident that both sides would like to see that the flare-up does not result in a broader conflict. In fact, both India and China invested a lot in maintains peace and tranquility in border areas. We have put in place fairly elaborate architecture of CBMs (Confidence Building Measures), SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) to see those border areas remain peaceful. Clearly, that has not worked in this case. So we need to do some introspection and take some immediate steps. A clear message going down that there should not be any further escalation. The process of de-escalation and disengagement must continue and must be brought to its logical conclusion of restoration of Status Quo Ante. We cannot accept a situation where the Chinese side is allowed to retain gains made through unilateral action taken by them since April this year. Restoration of the situation as it existed in April before we had recent sets of incidents is very important. Then we need to review SOPs, see what went wrong, and equally important need to look ahead and take some remedial measures. We cannot accept the present situation where there is a great deal of ambiguity about the alignment of LAC. We must clarify and confirm the LAC. We have a formal understanding in this regard. We had agreed to exchange maps and move towards a common understanding of the LAC. The Chinese side has stalemated that process over the last 18 years. This should be a wake-up call. We must resume that process. And can we really live indefinitely with a situation where we have such major differences on the boundary question? The task given to two SRs (Special Representatives) since 2003 has been to find a political settlement to the boundary question. They made some good breakthroughs initially in 2005 when we agreed on guiding principles and political parameters for boundary settlement. Since then there has been no original breakthrough. They need to refer to the original mandate. This is not a problem we can put in the back burner indefinitely. If we do that we will pay a price through horrific incidents like what happened at Galwan Valley.

Q: Are the existing mechanisms and boundary protocols past their shelf lives?

A: I do not think these SOPs or CBMs are past their shelf lives. I have been intimately involved in negotiating some of them. I can tell you that they are excellent. What is missing is the proper implementation of those CBMs. We should not throw the baby with the bathwater. We should stick to the CBMs we have with renewed commitment on both sides to respect them. We must scrupulously respect the LAC as we are committed to do.

Q: Should there be a direct conversation right now between PM Modi and President Xi Jinping or given the number of casualties, now is not the right time to talk?

A: Without knowing full facts, I would not like to assert a suggestion that PM Modi should pick up the phone and speak to President Xi. But there is definitely a need for contacts at a fairly high level through diplomatic channels. It is useful to have meetings between Border Commanders. But we have always felt that that channel though useful is not adequate. We need to give more contacts at the diplomatic and political Level. It could perhaps be a conversation between SR’s of the two countries who are tasked to look after the border issue.

Q: Does the political directive trickle down to local commanders? Experts believe these intrusions were coordinated, pre-planned, and directed at least from the Western Command Theatre of the Chinese PLA. So will political messaging help?

A: There is no doubt that these are not localised incidents. Most of the intrusions and border incidents we have seen since 5th of May have been across a very wide frontier from Sikkim to Western Sector. Clearly, we would not have that many incidents at multiple locations taking place without a decision at a very high level in the Chinese hierarchy. There is a decision on the Chinese side but does not necessarily mean that on the Chinese side there is no interest in ensuring restoration of a measure of peace and tranquility along with border areas. Like us, the Chinese side is also invested in ensuring relative peace in border areas and it is time for us to retrieve a difficult situation. We have a very complex and complicated relationship with China.

Q: But will clarification and confirmation of the LAC suit the Chinese who perhaps prefer a volatile border as a leverage to keep Indian pinned?

A: I agree that the Chinese side has shown a deliberate proclivity to maintain ambiguity regarding the alignment of LAC. That suits them. That is why despite a formal understanding and written agreement between two sides to move towards a common understanding of the LAC, they have stalemated the LAC clarification process over the last 18 years. But the message needs to be re-iterated very forceful to the Chinese side that if you wish to keep India-China relations moving ahead in a relatively positive direction, border areas must remain peaceful. It is a key understanding between two sides that a peaceful border is an essential pre-requisite to ensure that India-China relations remain constructive.

Q: Will China agree to the restoration of status quo ante? The PLA Western Command Theatre spokesperson in a statement claimed sovereignty over the entire Galwan river and MEA has said China was unilaterally trying to alter the status quo.

A: LAC is not about sovereignty. It is about a given position. It is LAC as it exists on the ground. So both sides are committed to not to alter LAC as it exists. What Chinese are doing in recent weeks is to alter the LAC. What happened on Monday, if you look at the MEA statement, the indigent resulted from Chinese action to alter the status quo in Galwan River Valley notwithstanding consensus that was reached between border commanders on the 6th of June. So respecting the status quo, not allowing it to be altered is a very important requirement. So I am a little worried when some media reports talk about the buffer zone to be on our side of LAC. We should not accept any restrictions on patrolling which we have been undertaking on our side of the LAC. It should not only be the restoration of status quo in terms of Chinese personnel moving back to their side of LAC but also no restriction on patrolling or development of border infrastructure on our side.

Q: Former NSA SS Menon in an interview said these negotiations must not be done in public through media, but silence can be read by Chinese as non-negotiable things being acceptable. What should public messaging be like now? PM Modi has not given a single statement in the past 24 hours on the killings, is this silence conducive.

A: I do agree that these negotiations are sensitive in nature, they cannot be conducted through media. But there is also a need for greater transparency. Our side story also needs to be put out. As a practitioner in the past, I am aware there are limits beyond which we cannot share facts in the public domain. But there has to be better communication from our side. Also, we must prevent speculations based on leaks or ignorance that are avoidable.

Q: PM Modi and President Xi have met 14 times in 6 years, PM has visited China five times. Is this a failure of his China diplomacy? How important is a public message from the top leadership?

A: It has been very useful to maintain contacts at the level of PM Modi and President Xi. Engagement at the highest level has contributed to ensuring that India and China are engaged in relationships that are inherently complex, complicated, and difficult. We have seen ups and downs. At present we are seeing a serious dip. But I believe political engagement is extremely important and we should not question that.

Link to original story

This story first appeared in ETV Bharat

In an exclusive interview with senior journalist Smita Sharma, Indian High Commissioner to New Zealand Muktesh Pardeshi shares his insight on the ‘Kiwi model’ on how to contain the spread of COVID-19.

New Delhi: On 9th June New Zealand became one of the nine countries in the world to declared itself COVID free with no new cases of coronavirus reported in the country since 29th May. New Zealand’s young Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern remarked that she ‘did a dance’ to celebrate the achievement.

Indian High Commissioner to New Zealand Muktesh Pardeshi says that an early health warning system, clear messaging and people’s faith in a popular Prime Minister were key to the success story in tackling COVID-19.

Speaking to senior journalist Smita Sharma from Auckland, the envoy shared his observations of how New Zealand informed and educated its people on he virus and took early steps to deal with it. The country has now lifted all restrictions on domestic travel, large gatherings and the economic activities.

Only border restrictions remain, with possibilities of flight resumption’s with Australia or some smaller pacific countries in near future. High Commissioner Pardeshi informed that NZ may be one of the few or only country where the International Yoga Day will be observed in the usual pre-COVID-19 manner.

Asked about the impact of COVID-19 and an aggressive Beijing on New Zealand’s deep trading ties with China, the India envoy remarked that there is a growing realisation within the Kiwis of the disadvantages of over-reliance on one country and that may change in the post COVID-19 era.

Muktesh Pardeshi on India-New Zealand cooperation in fighting COVID-19

Q: India and New Zealand are very different in size and population, but a lot to learn from the latter’s success on COVID-19?

A: I am very fortunate to be living in New Zealand (NZ) at this point in time. It has become a role model by declaring itself free of Coronavirus. On 9th June NZ became one of the nine countries in the world which are free of coronavirus. The other countries are Monte Negro in Europe, also a Pacific country like Samoa. NZ has caught the imagination because it is a developed, industrialised country and well connected with the western world. Since 29th May there has been no new cases here.

So the total number has been 1504 with 22 deaths. This has been very encouraging. They have been able to contain. And now NZ is trying to stamp out Coronavirus from its borders. Several things have been in its favour like size and also the population density.

It has 5 million people but in terms of geographical size it is quite spread out. So people are all over the country and segregation and self-isolation is much easier here than say for example in India.

Q: One of the strictest lockdowns across the globe was observed in India yet there is such a sharp spike in numbers. Share some practical lessons you observed from the NZ story.

A: One of the most practical thing they did was to develop in the very first week a 4 stage Health alarm system. Four being the highest level. Around 20th March they declared the 1st level, and within 3-4 days they went to Level 4 because they realised that this may spread here. Most of the transmission, in the beginning, came from abroad as students, or other travellers from Iran, China returned.

They closed the borders with those countries, brought into effect this 4-way health alarm system and constantly people were being educated as to what would happen at different stages. When they published stage 1, they had already informed people as to what would happen at stage 4. So when PM Jacinda Ardern took the country to a higher level of health alert system, people were geared up to the challenges.

So I would say that dissemination of health alarm system here is an excellent example of how the government can take people into confidence. PM Jacinda Arden has a high approval rating. So people cooperated with the government’s caution system, people responded and they reposed enormous faith in what the government was doing. I would say that the clear messaging, consistent and early warning systems they developed has been in favour of NZ.

Indian High Commissioner to New Zealand shares the details of New Zealand model to contain COVID-19

Q: South Korea has also been hailed as a successful model in dealing with COVID. But it along with several others is gearing up for a second possible wave. So what precautions will NZ continue to take?

A: As of now from 9th June the country is at health alarm stage 1. So it is not completely normal. But social gatherings are there. No travel restrictions now. The economy is back to normal, I would say 95 per cent. The borders are closed. So during stage 1, no foreigners are being allowed. Only people coming in are in repatriation flights and they go into 14 days of government quarantine system.

Last week when Air India flew their passengers from India they were taken to government-supported quarantine centres. They have closed borders and their intention remains so. Unless they see there are no new cases say over another fortnight, or three weeks, then there is speculation that they may try with some pacific islands or Australia because there are close ties. Otherwise, they are not looking at opening their borders soon.

Q: Is there any possibility of resumption of travel with India with Aviation Minister Hardeep Puri signalling possible resumption of some scheduled but limited international flights by August?

A: As of now we are geared up for repatriation of our people. There are some 3000 Indians stuck here. Under Vance Bharat Mission (VBM) we have got 9 Air India flights throughout this month. Our first flight was only last week and this will continue up to 30th June.

So people stranded here are going to India and flights departing from India are also bringing Kiwis who are stranded in several parts of India.

So this has been a two-way process and by the end of this month we hope to have repatriated most of the stranded people.

Q: What is the kind of cooperation including HCQ supplies between India and New Zealand On COVID-19? And what has been your feedback to the MEA headquarters on what lessons can India learn from the NZ story?

A: We have been collaborating with each other. A few weeks back our EAM had a telephonic conversation with NZ Deputy PM. In fact, the Deputy PM visited India towards the end of February.

NZ was dependent on the supply of some pharmaceutical products. When they raised with us we took it up with Delhi and that supply continued. Select countries of the Indo-Pacific were also in touch for a month at the Foreign Secretary-level and NZ was part of that group under which they discussed several aspects of the supply chain, how countries can deal with the crisis, how countries can cooperate within the WHO framework.

We have been in touch and lately how to repatriate nationals of each other’s country under VBM. We have been cooperating with each other as a friendly and reliable partner.

Q: One of the highlights of the bilateral ties is the passion for cricket. Are Kiwis missing their matches? What is a possible future for the sporting ties given COVID will be around for some time?

A: We just had the Indian cricket team visit her in January. Until 5th of March. They just left NZ a few days before they closed their borders. Here they love rugby and they are going to start their domestic series.

Q: Will it be similar to Indian announcement of allowing games in stadiums with no spectators?

A: There are no restrictions on gathering, domestic travel. In fact on 21st June we are going too have our International Day of Yoga (IDY) as we were doing in the previous years.

So perhaps NZ would be one of the first countries where we are going to celebrate IDY in the usual manner. So now you can have congregations of thousands of people, there are no restrictions. The only restriction is the border remains closed.

Q: Given China has threatened Australia, NZ with trade consequences for persisting for a probe into origin of COVID-19, what is the conversation like around China within the NZ government as well as the MNCs and corporate houses?

A: The fact remains that NZ has deep-rooted relations with China which has developed over a decade or so. They have FTA (free trade agreement). China is their largest trading partner. In the context of the global pandemic there is a growing realisation that over-reliance on one partner country may not be the next thing for the future, And not diversifying their market, these two things have been noted by CEOs and business community.

I see commentaries in newspapers that perhaps post COVID NZ will look at diversifying its sources of supply and new markets.

Q: India faced several issues related to faulty testing kits from China. Did NZ source its testing kits and PPEs from China or elsewhere?

A: They sourced from outside and also produced here, but I do not think that was a major issue here.

Link to original story

]]> https://dev.sawmsisters.com/china-on-their-mind-india-australia-add-muscle-to-defence-cooperation/ Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:56:06 +0000 https://sawmsisters.com/?p=2909

This story first appeared in ETV Bharat

In this article senior journalist, Smita Sharma outlines India-Australia defence cooperation and writes that the first Virtual summit between Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Scott Morrison reiterates the ‘commitment to promoting peace, security, stability, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region.’

New Delhi: A shared vision for Maritime Cooperation between India and Australia and a Mutual Logistics Support Arrangement underlines the focus on the Indo-Pacific strategy of the two Comprehensive Strategic Partners.

The document issued alongside a joint statement following the first Virtual summit between Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Scott Morrison on Thursday reiterates the ‘commitment to promoting peace, security, stability, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region.’

“As two key Indo-Pacific countries, India and Australia have an enduring interest in a free, open, inclusive and rules-based Indo-Pacific region. They have a shared interest in ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight in the Indo-Pacific region, and maintaining open, safe and efficient sea lanes for transportation and communication,” said the Vision Document.

Significantly with an eye on Chinese aggression in the South China Sea and increasing footprints in the Indian Ocean Region and Pacific, the two sides were finally able to conclude a Logistics Sharing Arrangement which will allow both defence forces to deepen their cooperation.

New Delhi and Canberra have quadrupled the number of defence exercises in the past six years including the major bilateral maritime exercise AUSINDEX.

“Both sides agreed to increase military inter-operability through defence exercises through their Arrangement concerning Mutual Logistics Support (MLSA),” said the Joint Statement on a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between India and Australia.

“Elevating ties to Comprehensive Strategic Partnership provides you with a special relationship. While the MLSA adds some muscle to the desire to strengthen the defence cooperation as well as to the Quad. We would then have these agreements with each of the Quad members (Japan, US, Australia). Also, the 2+2 Talks shave been elevated to the Foreign and Defence Ministers Level to take place every two years. This is also part of the desire to make India-Australia defence cooperation more meaningful,” said Navdeep Suri, former Indian High Commissioner to Canberra.

It was during his term in Australia that the two countries first signed a White Shipping Agreement in 2016 towards greater maritime domain and awareness.

The MLSA would allow the two countries access to each other’s military bases for logistics support including refuelling and refreshment for personnel with food and water.

The arrangement also seeks to further enhance interoperability and mutual cooperation between the Indian Navy and the Royal Australian Navy while conducting bilateral exercises.

“Australia and India are Indian Ocean neighbours, and this agreement strengthens the ability of our navies and coast guards to share intelligence and train and operate together. Between our countries, we can have a detailed surveillance picture of the Indian Ocean and share data on everything from illegal fishing to the movements of naval forces,” says Rory Medcalf, Professor and Head of National Security College at the Australian National University and Author of ‘Contest for the Indo-Pacific.’

Welcoming the outcome retired spokesperson of the Indian Navy Captain DK Sharma says that like-minded navies who believe in freedom of navigation, global commons of right to overflight share respect for sovereignty and international law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) should come together. Captain Sharma hoped that Thursday’s significant decisions would pave the way within six months for Australia to join the Malabar exercise conducted between the navies of India, Japan and America.

“This is a welcome and awaited step. Australia’s centrality to Indo-Pacific and the region where the threat is emanating from China is crucial. For Indian Navy Operating in these waters it makes sense to have an arrangement with Australia,” said Captain Sharma.

He reminded that India has crucial maritime cooperation today Japan in the North East, Australia to South East and the US to the Far East of the Indo- Pacific. And with China trying to make forays into the Indian Ocean Region and coercing smaller littoral steps, the India-Australia cooperation is logical next steps.

“The only thing which is missing is inviting Australia for the annual bilateral Malabar exercise and expanding it into a Quad formation, which is but obvious given the prevailing circumstances post-COVID,” the retired Naval official further added.

Australia is a part of the Quad or the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with India, Japan and US which last met at the level of Foreign Ministers. But its entry to the Malabar exercise despite its willingness to do so has been held up for some years now owing to shadow of past baggage of Canberra’s proximity to Beijing.

This has now changed especially with an angry China threatening Australia and New Zealand with trade consequences for pushing for a probe into the origin of the Corona Virus.

“In the past, we were overly mindful of Chinese sensitivities. But in recent past Australia has been at receiving end of heavy-duty Chinese bullying and we are witnessing what is happening at the LAC. The Chinese have been flexing muscles in Hongkong, Taiwan, Vietnam among others and ironically they have become a catalyst to speed up reactions and enthuse new energy into partnerships of other countries,” remarks Navdeep Suri.

“We’re likely to see Australian and Indian naval, coast guard and air assets visit each other’s bases, assisting each other with logistics and information. This will help our two democracies patrol the shared maritime commons and also manage the changing power balance as Chinese forces become more active in the region,” added Rory Medcalf sharing his view from Canberra.

Today India has major logistics and information sharing agreements or understandings with nearly three dozen countries including the US, UK and France and all littoral states of the Indian Ocean Region.

The major navies that these arrangements have not been worked out with include China and Pakistan.

“Expanded Australia-India cooperation on maritime safety and security will be marked in particular by building stronger links between coastguard and civil maritime agencies, and by developing deeper navy-to-nave engagement,” said a statement issued by the Australian Foreign Minister Marisa Payne.

Link to original story

]]>

This story first appeared in ETV Bharat

As street protests continue in Hong Kong over a National Security Law proposed by China last month, Senior Journalist Smita Sharma spoke to the leader of the Civic Party and legislator Alvin Yeung in Hong Kong about the ground situation, demands on the table and international dynamics of the ongoing protests.

Street protests continue in Hong Kong over a National Security Law proposed by Beijing last month. Beijing says continued protests that sparked off last June are ‘embodying acts of subversion with elements calling for secession’, charges that activists and pro-democracy political leaders in Hong Kong deny.

A former British colony, Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997 under the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ arrangement with special rights and autonomy. Hong Kong has its own judiciary and a legal system separate from mainland China that allows rights including freedom of assembly and speech.

Last June, unprecedented social unrest broke out with an estimated one million people taking to spontaneous protests against an Extradition Bill. The bill which was later withdrawn in September would have allowed the extradition of fugitives to mainland China. Critics feared this could undermine judicial independence and put lives of dissidents speaking out against Chinese authoritarianism at risk. Since then demonstrations have continued in Hong Kong with activists demanding full democracy and an inquiry into police excesses.

The New National Security Law proposed in May this year has now added fuel to the fire with experts believing that Xi Jinping’s position in China has been questioned and weakened because of the demonstrations. Many Indian observers believe that Chinese aggression on the Line of Actual Control is also triggered by events in Hong Kong and Taiwan which have led to unprecedented criticism of President Xi and the Chinese Communist Party domestically.

Senior Journalist Smita Sharma spoke to the leader of the Civic Party and legislator Alvin Yeung in Hong Kong about the ground situation, demands on the table and international dynamics of the ongoing protests. In November last year, Hong Kong held local council elections that saw a landslide victory for the pro-democracy movement with 17 of the 18 councils now controlled by councillors fighting for full democracy. Alvin Yeung says that the people of Hong Kong are saying no to the National Security Law that infringes upon their rights and making reasonable demands promised under the Basic Law. He said that the demand for secession does not resonate among majority sections and that Beijing does not respect ‘One Country, Two Systems’ or promises of autonomy. Alvin added that people speaking out in Hong Kong faces fears of a crackdown and extreme challenges but these ‘leaderless’ protests will continue.

Here is the full text of the exclusive conversation.

Q- Beijing says this new law is needed to protect national security and ‘curb terrorism’. How do you view this argument?

Alvin Eyung: Hong Kong under ‘One Country, Two Systems’ has its own set of rules. We are governed by the Basic Law that is like a mini Constitution of Hong Kong. Inside this Basic Law, there is one article that states so clearly about national security. That the Hong Kong government should legislate its own set of legislation in relation to national security. So that is part of a domestic issue and should be governed by people of Hong Kong. In 2003, the Hong Kong government tried to put forward a controversial national security bill and half a million people took to the street and said no to it. Since then no administration has dared to put forward something similar because we understand that it is so controversial you have to make sure that your rights are well-protected. Since Hong Kong still does not have full democracy we cannot choose our own Chief Executive, only half the legislature is elected by the people. So you can imagine people of Hong Kong are not well protected. So people are saying No to National Security Law because that is going to infringe our rights. Since last year there have been protests on the street because people have been fighting against the extradition bill. Since then we have met with police brutality and this government decided to turn a blind eye to police brutality and basically back the police force without considering any consequences. So Beijing right now is saying that I do no care about Basic Law, I do not care about the promises, I am going to impose this National Security Law without consulting the people of Hong Kong, without going through our legislature, without giving a chance to people to say No.

Q- China has insisted that “foreign forces” are to blame for the turmoil in Hong Kong, where pro-democracy protesters are being labelled as terrorists- described by Beijing as rioters.

Alvin Eyung: All authoritarian governments are the same. Basically blame everybody. Like the opposition, university students they called foreign forces. But they never put forward any evidence. They never really have the guts to have a self-reflection of what they have done. What this government fails to do is to look into the eyes of the people of Hong Kong and say I am wrong, yes there is something wrong in my governance and I am going to improve it. What they are doing is basically point the fingers at each and every one of us but for themselves. Last year they failed to push forward a controversial bill with all these consequences. This year they tried to fix the problem by introducing an even worse piece of legislation.

Q- What are the demands of the protesters? Is secession also a demand on the table?

Alvin Eyung: Some people are calling for that but that is not shared by the majority. Hong Kong people since last year have been calling for five demands. Universal suffrage that is a right to choose our own government. That is promised under the Basic Law. We are not asking for the Moon here. We need an independent enquiry to look into police brutality. This government still refuses to set up a committee to look into police brutalities. That is extremely disappointing. We want this government to stop prosecuting people on political charges, this is completely wrong. Do these demands sound extremely unreasonable to anybody? No. In an ordinary free world, the government would have done this without people demanding for that.

Q- America has been abdicating its global responsibilities, pulling out of multilateral organisations. In this situation are American statements helping your cause? Or does it complicate the situation?

Alvin Eyung: Hong Kong is an international city. A lot of countries including India have strong interests in Hong Kong. You have your investments here, you have a lot of Indian citizens living here and so does America and the rest of the world. Hong Kong over the past one and half centuries enjoys close connections and ties with different investors and countries. America is one of them. They granted Hong Kong a special status in 1992 under the Hong Kong Policy Act which is legislation in the US on the promise that if Hong Kong could stay unique then it would be treated uniquely from China. But since the hand over we have witnessed countless incidents that Beijing does not respect One Country, Two Systems. Beijing does not respect a high degree of autonomy. So the US is saying that we are going to take this gift away. If Beijing treasures and cares about Hong Kong and wishes to keep it unique and special then there are things that Beijing and Hong Kong governments could do. First of all, withdraw the National Security Law and demonstrate to the world that they do treat Hong Kong especially.

Q- There is unrest across several cities in the United States over racial inequality and police brutality following the George Floyd case in Minneapolis. The Chinese government spokespeople and official media have launched attacks against US authorities. Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of nationalist Global Times, wrote on Saturday-“It was as if the radical rioters in Hong Kong somehow snuck into the US and created a mess like they did last year”. How do you look at China telling the US that Hong Kong police are more restrained than their forces?

Alvin Eyung: You cannot expect anyone from an authoritarian state, someone who has never enjoyed the freedom of speech, someone who has never participated in a genuine protest to stay anything genuine or fair. Hu, the editor In Chief of Global Times, has he ever participated in any sort of protests, has he ever witnessed police brutality?

People like him have no standing to say anything. They are in no position to criticise anything that is happening in the free world.

Q- What are your darkest fears? Are you afraid of a severe crackdown for speaking out?

Alvin Eyung: I would be extremely naive or lying to you If I say I have absolutely no fear. But Hong Kong is what I call home. I am so proud to be serving the people over the past few years. If there is a chance that I could serve them probably I will continue to do so. People of Hong Kong have been so brave in the past year and have demonstrated the highest quality of fearlessness. Days ahead could be extremely challenging. This is an uphill battle but Hong Kong people will not easily give up.

Q- How are you ensuring that the protests remain peaceful and there are no arms involved?

Alvin Eyung: Right now in Hong Kong protests, there is no backstage. There is no leader. It is a leaderless movement here. It started very peacefully when over one to two million people took to the streets. But when this government started to ignore the people’s demands, some were frustrated and police officials started firing tear gas, rubber bullets at ordinary citizens. Then people were angry. Over the past year, we saw countless incidents of police brutality and that really drove people mad. I wish we could stay peaceful but I understand why people are mad and angry on the street.

Q- Do you sense any sympathy or solidarity from ordinary citizens in mainland China, because these are also times of unprecedented criticism of President Xi happening domestically?

Alvin Eyung: It is not easy to have direct communications with people in China without any fear of censorship or monitoring. But I understand there are people across the border who support Hong Kong peoples’ freedom movement. But their situation is even more critical compared to Hong Kong. We can still have free access to the internet. In China they have firewalls, they have to use VPNs and find different ways to climb over the firewall. This is something extremely difficult for them. We wish them the best of luck.

Q- There is an escalation of tensions between India and China at the LAC. Is the Chinese aggression on display because the Chinese dreams ambition of Xi Jinping is losing the steam and this is an attempt at reclaiming authority back home?

Alvin Eyung: In this world today all we are asking for from those who are in power, regardless of who they are, just have a genuine sense to have genuine communications with different parties. Especially in the internet age, people get access to things very quickly. So if the leaders fail to communicate with fellow leaders and citizens around the world, it is not going to bring peace to anybody and will not do anyone good.

Link to original story

This story first appeared in ETV Bharat

In an exclusive conversation with senior journalist Smita Sharma, Intelligence official and expert on China Jayadeva Ranade said that the standoff by PLA troops along LAC has been approved of and cleared right from the top, with the Western Theatre Command of the Chinese Army involved in the decision making. He further argued that the standoff is a diversionary tactic for Xi Jinping to re-establish his authority back home despite the debates surrounding the coronavirus outbreak.

Amid the standoff at multiple sectors across the LAC between the Indian Army and PLA, some talks have started at two-three levels and there are signs of defusing tensions, says former career Intelligence official and expert on China Jayadeva Ranade.

In conversation with senior journalist Smita Sharma, Ranade stressed that the current transgressions by the PLA troops have been approved of and cleared right from the top with at least three military sub-districts in the Western Theater Command of the Chinese Army involved in the decision making. Ranade who retired as Additional Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat in 2008 also serves as Member of the National Security Advisory Board. He argues that the LAC standoff is a diversionary tactic for Xi Jinping to re-establish his authority back home as well as signal out to the western world that he remains in command despite the debates surrounding the coronavirus outbreak.

He highlighted that in an unprecedented development in China for the first time people are publicly criticising Xi Jinping and the Communist Party by name and they see Xi failing in his dream of overtaking the USA by 2049. An author of several important books on China and Tibet, Ranade also advocated that India should increase its trading ties with Taiwan exponentially regardless of the New Delhi-Beijing dynamics. He also said that the LAC face-off is not disconnected from India reorganising the state of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh into two Union Territories and Chinese Strategic investment in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

Here is the conversation:

Q. On Statements from Beijing -Is China Reconciliatory?

Ans. If Beijing was going to be conciliatory then the intrusions should not have happened. There are enough protocols in place to see no intrusions take place and yet they have. I have a distrust of what the Chinese say and what they do. Controllable means if things get out of hand we can control it. The word peaceful was not used. It is stable yes, no conflict has broken out. It is controllable because as we talk we are going to be able to control it. It is a first step towards defusing the situation.

Q. On Trump’s offer to mediate or arbitrate

Ans. He has done a similar thing with Pakistan in the past. Here he has spoken about mediating between the two countries and being an arbitrator. This would have irked Beijing certainly and they would not be willing for any such arrangement neither would we. That dies a natural death.

Q. Does military escalation look a possibility given China is cornered by US, Europe on the pandemic outbreak?

Ans. If the Chinese do something then there will be retaliation and reaction from our forces. Otherwise, we are not spoiling for a fight. We would rather have diplomatic agreement to return to the status quo which means they go back to where they were and we come back to where we were. While there is a huge anti-China feeling globally today, their foreign intelligence bureau think tank came out with a report and briefed Xi Jinping and the Politburo. The report says how the feelings are very anti-China in the whole world. That US is leading and fanning anti-China sentiments. So they are worried. But India is also battling the pandemic, we do not know what the results are going to be. They hit us at a time when we are down. So what that does for public sentiment against them they will realise. It will not make any friends for them here. They are behaving similarly with other countries too. They feel there will be no ability to retaliate. They also spoke of the Indian Army being affected by COVID but that’s far from reality.

Q. Is LAC stand-off diversionary tactic for Xi Jinping given internal and external challenges?

Ans. Internal dynamics for China are very important. Xi Jinping is under a lot of pressure. It is almost unprecedented in China for people to come out and criticise by name the Communist Party and Xi Jinping and demand that he steps down. An incumbent leader for him to face such criticism we have not seen in the last 20 years. Even during Tiananmen, Deng Xiaoping was not criticised by name, there were allegorical references. This is unusual and many of those criticising have used their social media accounts which means they were readily traced and they knew they would face punishment. Secondly, there is growing perception in China that the leadership has failed to deliver on not only on economic matters where unemployment has soared from 20 million to 70-80 million now but also per capita incomes have not risen, the cost of food is going up. And apart from that people feel that the promised China dream and ability to rival if not overtake the USA by 2049 are not materialising and the leadership has lost the script. Xi Jinping is trying to draw back his reputation, to re-establish because he put his personal prestige on the line when he spoke about the China Dream and 2049. He is now trying to show that he is very much in-charge, that this dream will be realised and the Chinese Communist Party will continue to lead from the front. So we are seeing a tougher stance on Hong Kong, a tougher attitude towards Taiwan and we are seeing this (LAC standoff). What we are seeing on our LAC is something that is planned and approved right by the very top. Without it being cleared from the top this could not have happened. There are at least three military sub-districts involved in the Western Theater Command.

Q. Will new mechanisms like informal summits be needed? Have existing border protocols stopped being useful?

Ans. We can have these mechanisms and many more. But if one party does not respect them then it does not matter. We still seem to be going in for protocols which in the absence of anything else is the best thing to have. It is a typical Chinese ploy to meet at the top and to try and talk softly but do something else. So as someone aptly put it is strategic stability but tactical turbulence. We are seeing here is turbulence and at highest levels, there will be benign smiles and that’s it.

Q. Can Taiwan, Trade and Tibet be leveraged by India?

Ans. The BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) is already in trouble. Some of the people criticising Xi Jinping put out an open leader addressed to all 2000 plus delegates to the International Peoples’ Congress that concluded today. Someone has questioned who authorized the expense of this project. China itself has contacts with and trading with Taiwan. It is an economic opportunity that we have failed to exploit or optimise. It is something we should do for our own benefit regardless of what our state of relations with China is. There Is a lot to be gained from there including a higher level of technology.

Q. How connected are the LoC, valley, and LAC situations, and how challenging for the Indian Army?

Ans. As a citizen it is naturally worrisome because it will it allow the state itself to become peaceful and stable, people there will be affected. We would not like a situation where China and India get together in an overtly hostile posture against us. But we are quite prepared for it. Our Service Chiefs have been talking about this situation for some time so obviously, they have made preparations. But ever since we have amended Article 370 and 35A and issued the new maps, basically portraying the correct boundaries of our countries, the Chinese have got more upset. Their and Pakistan’s interests of-course converge but that convergence has become more boldly outlined. So China has taken up the matter of Kashmir in UNSC at least four times. There is a common factor there. Even the focus on Ladakh during these incursions tends to get linked up with these because with CPEC and all China has a lot of strategic and financial interest now in the areas of PoK, Gilgit-Baltistan which is our territory. They are concerned and want to secure the area including the Karakorams, the wider region so that they feel their interests are not going to be upset.

Link to original story

This story first appeared in ETV Bharat

In an exclusive interview with senior journalist Smita Sharma, retired Lt. Gen D S Hooda remarked that India’s standoff with the Chinese Army is a manifestation of what is happening along the LAC. He further added that this standoff is linked with China’s attempt to send the message that it has not gone weak despite the coronavirus pandemic.

The stand off between the Indian army and Chinese PLA across multiple sectors of Demchok, Galwan and Pangong in Ladakh and Naku La in north Sikkim is likely to not get resolved soon says former Chief of the Indian Army Northern Command. In an exclusive conversation with senior journalist Smita Sharma, Lt. Gen (Retd) D S Hooda says that the Chinese action across LAC this time are not isolated and local events like in the past but coordinated and pre-planned from a higher level in Beijing.

The former top army officer who led India’s surgical strikes in response to the Uri terror attacks says that cornered by US, Europe on the origin of Corona Virus and developments in Hong Kong and Taiwan questioning political legitimacy of Chinese Communist Party is driving this ‘aggressive pushback’ by Beijing manifested in the LAC face off with India. China is messaging to the world that it is not weakened.

Gen Hooda also underlines that while surge of militancy in valley and firings on LoC are not disconnected from LAC situations, but the Indian army is prepared to meet challenges on multiple border fronts. He also dismissed off President Trump’s controversial tweet saying that India and China will resolve their issues bilaterally without any third party mediation. Here is the exclusive conversation.

Q. Why is this stand off so different from the past ones in Chumar to Doklam? How do you look at the timing of these transgressions, skirmishes and scuffles?

Ans. It is different from the past. To me it appears quite significantly different.If you look at the past stand offs like Chumar, Doklam, even one in Depsang in 2013, these were local incidents and the trigger was also a local action in some ways. In Doklam the Chinese were trying to construct a road, our people (Indian Army ) stepped across and went into Bhutanese territory and requested the Chinese not to make the road. The same thing happened in Chumar. They wanted to make a road, come in, our people stopped it. It remained localised in that area, Doklam did not spread beyond it. We were absolutely clear what the demands of the two sides were. This time it is completely different. Firstly it is spread out geographically over many years. In Many of these areas there has been no dispute about the alignment of the border. Galwan for example we have never had a problem. The number of troops involved are much more. It certainly is not a local trigger although the Chinese might want to say that this is because of infrastructure building and etcetera. It has been planned at a daily high level. They have come in in a coordinated fashion. Biggest question mark is what are their demands, what do they want. Clarity is not there. So this is a situation that we need to take fairly seriously.

Q. Yesterday Beijing said that the ‘border situation is overall stable and controllable’. President Donald Trump also tweeted that he has ‘informed India and China’ that he is willing to ‘arbitrate or mediate’ in what he defined as ‘raging dispute’. Are the border incidents linked to geopolitical developments of China being cornered by US and Europe about origin of Corona Virus to protests in Hongkong and developments in Taiwan?

Ans. There is obviously a geo-political link to whatever is happening. China is under tremendous pressure. You have the literal US-China Cold War going on in areas of technology and trade. This is leading to certain aggressive behaviour from Chinese side. You see that in South China Sea, you see new laws being passed in HongKong, You see revival of nationalistic feeling against Taiwan, pressure on Australia. It is all linked with China trying to send message that ‘Do not think We have become weak’ because of Corona Virus. The statement given by a Chinese diplomat we can take it as a positive step. But as long as situation on ground does not change statements like this we have to take with a pinch of salt. As far as Donald Trump is concerned am not sure anyone takes him seriously any more. This issue will not need a third party intervention. This will have to be solved by India and China themselves.

Q. India has opposed BRI in the past, is a part of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with US, Australia and Japan and is also aligning with Americans on Indo-Pacific. How much are these factors playing on Beijing’s mind?

Ans. All these factors would be playing. There was a commentary in Global Times that talks about how India should not get drawn into the US camp and start taking anti China stance. This is an area of concern to them. In the Indian Ocean, India has a fairly strong Navy. And if they feel that India and the US or Quadrilateral gets together, there is a vulnerability for the Chinese in the Indian Ocean. 80 percent of their trade is coming through the Indian Ocean. They are trying to send a message for sure and trying to pressurize India through this aggressive and belligerent behaviour along the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Q. How strong is India today at the LAC on infrastructure development and resources deployment?

Ans. There is an infrastructure advantage that the Chinese have on their side and that should be accepted by everyone. But over the past few years there have also been rapid developments on the Indian side. Roads, bridges are coming up, our logistic infrastructure is coming up. India is in a fairly strong position on the LAC. If you look at past standoffs where China has attempted to apply military position on India, where has it succeeded? Starting from Nathu La in 1967 to recent incidents, they have not had any major success to apply pressure. So are they going to change their tactics this time, will they adapt a more aggressive attitude, that makes this situation a bit more risky.

Q. At a time when China faces so many challenges on the world stage, why would it choose to open up so many multiple sectors on the LAC? Why choose India to be the messenger?

Ans. China is a strong power. When you have your back to the wall or there is tremendous pressure, at that stage are you going to lose your reputation as a great power by calming down or are you going to push back? We are seeing an aggressive push back by China. That also is manifesting in what is happening on LAC. India and China are two powerful neighbours. The geo-political reality is two powerful neighbours can rarely stay in peace. So there is going to be some strategic rivalry between India and China and that is something we have to live with.

Q. In Kashmir militant commanders have been killed, today also in Pulwama army neutralised a reported car bombing attempt. Do you see the developments across LoC given the China-Pak friendship connected to developments across LAC or are these two different theaters?

Ans. We should always connect them. We know the close links that are there between China and Pakistan. We know for sure that China is using Pakistan as a proxy to keep our attention on the western borders, to keep our focus there so we do not become a big challenger to China. So we must always look actions in a coordinated and a comprehensive way. Not just China but even Pakistan will try and take advantage for our attention on the Northern border, to try and stoke up trouble in Kashmir. We need to look at both fronts carefully.

Q. With situation boiling across LoC and LAC, how hot is the situation to handle for the Indian Army?

Ans. In terms of capabilities, our ability to handle incidents in Ladakh and Kashmir is not directly linked up. So if one heats up we do not have to pull out capability of troops from other areas. There are sufficient resources available both in Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir to be able to handle any crisis that builds up in these areas. One will not divert attention from the other. While we continue to handle situation across LAC in Ladakh, it will not dilute our operational preparedness control on LoC or counter terror operations ongoing in the valley.

Q. There are existing mechanisms and border protocols between India and China to maintain peace and stability on the boundary. Do these continued transgressions show that they have run out of utility?

Ans. Not completely. These protocols have helped. The fact that no shot has been fired on the LAC. It is a manifestation of existing protocols and mechanisms and so peace has remained. We are talking of 500 transgressions into Ladakh alone every year. All of them do not degenerate into these. But we need to continuously review our protocol. Some of them in these cases have not succeeded. For example protocols very clearly call for disengagements when patrols come face to face. There should be no violence, people should go back. Those kind of protocols are unfortunately are being flouted quite regularly by the Chinese. So there is a need to revisit some areas of our border cooperation agreement.

Q. Do you see this as a prolonged stand off situation or you see it as de-escalating? What do you see as the way forwards?

Ans. Diplomacy will have to take centre stage. Hoping for military to military contact of commanders at ground level to resolve this particular situation may not succeed. When you have a territorial contest between two groups of soldiers on both sides, they are not going to give in an inch of the ground. On ground positions are going to be locked. So military to military contact in this case is not going to help. It has to be diplomacy, try and invoke agreements that are there in the past to come to some kind of agreement. Is it going to be solved in a hurry? My personal assessment is it will not. It will drive on for some time. We are not even sure what Chinese want, are their demands acceptable to us or not. Those are many unanswered questions. Having taken the kind of steps that the Chinese have taken if they will immediately disengage people will ask them what was then purpose of it all. So I think it will require some tough hard negotiations at the diplomatic level.That could be protracted.

Link to original story