The first ever “informal summit” between the leaders of China and India in Wuhan, China, began today. The talks are officially set to tackle a range of bilateral issues, from border disputes to trade, as Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister NarendraModi promise a “heart-to-heart” dialogue. But there’s an unacknowledged third party — U.S. President Donald Trump.
Wuhan’s bilateral diplomacy has a triangular twist. Both Beijing and New Delhi find it hard to view each other outside of the framework of relations with Washington. China has long feared that India is being lured into a U.S.-led alliance meant to contain China and block its rise to superpower status. And while wary of a full-fledged alliance, New Delhi sees the United States as a necessary strategic partner to build up India’s economic, technological, and military muscle and to withstand Chinese expansionism.
This dynamic has been in place for the last two decades since Washington and India began courting each other strategically, but Trump has shaken up the equation with his chaotic and unorthodox policymaking. America’s volatile president has become the unwitting trigger forcing China and India to rethink their core assumptions about the trilateral relationship.
Since coming into office in January 2017, Trump has pursued protectionist and economic nationalistic policies to heighten tensions with China. He has abruptly ended an era when U.S. presidents tolerated their nation’s gigantic trade deficit with China, and the rapid erosion of their technological edge. The ambiguity under previous presidents about whether or not the United States would name China as a currency manipulator or accord it “market economy” status in trade has today given way to all-out economic warfare where China is explicitly framed as the enemy and an unfair competitor in the minds of Trump and his hawkish advisers.
Trump’s National Security Strategy clearly labels China as a rival and pledges that “the United States will no longer turn a blind eye to violations, cheating, or economic aggression.” The tariffs Trump has slapped on China and his targeting of China’s hi-tech industrial policy “Made in China 2025” have conveyed to Beijing that it cannot count on the continued inflow of American foreign direct investment and open market access for Chinese exports — the two key engines for China’s extraordinary economic growth since the 1980s.
Yet, despite the unilateral economic attack that Trump has launched on China, he has shown little interest in maintaining and oiling the multilateral U.S. alliance system in Asia that could truly hem in China’s rise. His decision to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership and his failure to offer key allies in the Indo-Pacific region the generosity and magnanimity they usually expect from the United States are offering wiggle room to China to bring nearby nations into Beijing’s sphere of influence.
So far, Trump has not lived up to his pledge in the National Security Strategy that Washington would focus more on “great power competition” with “revisionist powers” than on countering terrorism by extremist nonstate actors. But his threats to broaden the anti-Chinese economic assault, and the sense in China that this is “just the beginning” of a war that would imperil Xi’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative, has led Beijing to recalibrate its approach to its main Asian neighbor, India.
China also perceives a new threat from India, not just because of incidents on the disputed border but also due to shifting economic circumstances, namely the fact that India’s GDP growth rate now surpasses China’s. The Doklam incident, where a tense military stare-down over a disputed corner of the Himalayas was eventually defused by talks, prompted serious discussion on both sides of the border.
China used to ignore India, but it is now taking the country more seriously. India’s opposition to the Belt and Road Initiative, and in particular to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor that passes through territory disputed with Pakistan, rankles Beijing.
In the run-up to the Wuhan summit, Chinese Communist Party-linked news media have reissued warnings that India “should stay clear and independent to avoid being used as a pawn” by Trump. The Global Times, a nationalistic paper that has taken an increasingly antagonistic tone on India, has also explicitly linked the “Wuhan spirit” of trying to patch up differences over the border and geostrategic competition to “an era of great uncertainties featuring Trump’s opportunistic maneuvers, braggadocio and threats.” Explicit hostility from the United States, it seems, is compelling China to moderate its tensions with India.
In India too, while the political and defense establishment still has faith in the United States and Modi has found a certain personal rapport with Trump, there are questions about how reliable an ally Washington would be in the event that conflict with China in the Himalayas or the Indian Ocean grows hotter.
Trump’s narrow “America First” ideology has sent strong signals to U.S. treaty allies in Asia such as the Philippines, Thailand, Japan, and South Korea that Washington might not stand by its commitments in a conflict. The so-called grown-ups in the Trump administration such as Defense Secretary James Mattis have tried to convince U.S. allies of continued commitment, but Trump’s harsh words asking allies such as South Korea and Japan to pay up for the U.S. security umbrella and his moves toward trade war with almost all Asian partners have dampened spirits.
Modi is a nationalist politician who wants India to emerge as a leading power in the world, and he will not simply cave in to China’s demands the way that Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte did by refusing to further press the Philippines’ territorial claims in the South China Sea after its landmark victory in international court over disputed islands. Modi displayed his gutsy side in 2017 by resisting Chinese threats of “annihilation” during the border standoff at Doklam.
Still, he is aware of India’s vulnerabilities vis-à-vis a more powerful China and has no delusions that Trump will come to his aid in the event of new military faceoffs with China. Moreover, Trump’s economic czars have also trained their guns on India as a problem-maker for American firms. The trade deficit that the United States runs with India, although tiny compared to that with China, has been blamed by the U.S. trade representative on India’s “system which is not particularly open.”
Modi’s desire to review Chinese-Indian ties with Xi at Wuhan “from a strategic and long-term perspective” may not mention Trump, but the U.S. president’s lack of appreciation of India’s role as a democratic stabilizing force in Asia is both recognized and resented in New Delhi.
Nevertheless, the United States remains one of the key players, together with Japan and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, that India needs to march to what it sees as its destined spot as a global power. Even if Trump fails to check threatened Chinese hegemony in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, Modi will not throw away the American card to pacify Xi.
Excitement about a reset in Chinese-Indian relations is palpable in both New Delhi and Beijing, and there is intense speculation about a package deal that could involve quid pro quo, such as India endorsing the Belt and Road project in some form in return for China condemning Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. Indian closeness to the United States is on Xi’s mind as he attempts to regain trust with Modi. China barely cooperates with the U.S. military, while U.S.-Indian military ties have grown exponentially in recent years, with joint manufacturing of weaponry and technology transfer on the cards.
The hyperbole from China ahead of the Wuhan summit about a “major shift” and a “new course like never before” in Chinese-Indian ties camouflages many of China’s fundamental strategic anxieties in the Trump era. Modi will attempt to use this as leverage in what could be an intense encounter with Xi. For all of India’s weaknesses, Modi has the advantage of not being caught in Trump’s crosshairs in the same way that Xi is.
Why EVMs must go
By G. Sampath
The recent Assembly elections — the last major polling exercise before the 2019 Lok Sabha polls — were not devoid of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) malfunctions.
Though the discourse at present makes no distinction between a ‘malfunction’ (which suggests a technical defect) and ‘tampering’ (manipulation aimed at fraud), there were several reports of misbehaving EVMs. Alarmingly, in Madhya Pradesh alone, the number of votes polled did not match the number of votes counted in 204 out of the 230 constituencies. The Election Commission’s (EC) explanation is that the votes counted is the actual number of votes polled — a circular logic that precludes cross-verification.
A discrepancy of even one vote between votes polled and votes counted is unacceptable. This is not an unreasonably high standard but one followed by democracies worldwide. It might therefore be helpful to briefly look beyond the question that has hijacked the EVM debate — of how easy or tough it is to hack these machines — and consider the first principles of a free and fair election.
The reason a nation chooses to be a democracy is that it gives moral legitimacy to the government. The fount of this legitimacy is the people’s will. The people’s will is expressed through the vote, anonymously (the principle of secret ballot). Not only must this vote be recorded correctly and counted correctly, it must also be seen to be recorded correctly and counted correctly. The recording and counting process must be accessible to, and verifiable by, the public. So transparency, verifiability, and secrecy are the three pillars of a free and fair election.
Regardless of whether one is for or against EVMs, there is no getting away from the fact that any polling method must pass these three tests to claim legitimacy. Paper ballots obviously do. The voter can visually confirm that her selection has been registered, the voting happens in secret, and the counting happens in front of her representative’s eyes.
EVMs, however, fail on all three, as established by a definitive judgment of the German constitutional court in 2009. The court’s ruling forced the country to scrap EVMs and return to paper ballot. Other technologically advanced nations such as the Netherlands and Ireland have also abandoned EVMs.
If we take the first two criteria, EVMs are neither transparent nor verifiable. Neither can the voter see her vote being recorded, nor can it be verified later whether the vote was recorded correctly. What is verifiable is the total number of votes cast, not the choice expressed in each vote. An electronic display of the voter’s selection may not be the same as the vote stored electronically in the machine’s memory. This gap was why the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) was introduced.
But VVPATs solve only one-half of the EVMs’ transparency/verifiability problem: the voting part. The counting part remains an opaque operation. If anyone suspects a counting error, there is no recourse, for an electronic recount is, by definition, absurd. Some believe the VVPATs can solve this problem too, through statistics.
At present, the EC’s VVPAT auditing is restricted to one randomly chosen polling booth per constituency. In a recent essay, K. Ashok Vardhan Shetty, a former IAS officer, demonstrates that this sample size will fail to detect faulty EVMs 98-99% of the time. He also shows that VVPATs can be an effective deterrent to fraud only on the condition that the detection of even one faulty EVM in a constituency must entail the VVPAT hand-counting of all the EVMs in that constituency. Without this proviso, VVPATs would merely provide the sheen of integrity without its substance.
The third criterion is secrecy. Here too, EVMs disappoint. With the paper ballot, the EC could mix ballot papers from different booths before counting, so that voting preferences could not be connected to a given locality. But with EVMs, we are back to booth-wise counting, which allows one to discern voting patterns and renders marginalised communities vulnerable to pressure. Totaliser machines can remedy this, but the EC has shown no intent to adopt them.
So, on all three counts — transparency, verifiability and secrecy — EVMs are flawed. VVPATs are not the answer either, given the sheer magnitude of the logistical challenges. The recent track record of EVMs indicates that the number of malfunctions in a national election will be high. For that very reason, the EC is unlikely to adopt a policy of hand-counting all EVMs in constituencies where faulty machines are reported, as this might entail hand-counting on a scale that defeats the very purpose of EVMs. And yet, this is a principle without which the use of VVPATs is meaningless.
Despite these issues, EVMs continue to enjoy the confidence of the EC, which insists that Indian EVMs, unlike the Western ones, are tamper-proof. But this is a matter of trust. Even if the software has been burnt into the microchip, neither the EC nor the voter knows for sure what software is running in a particular EVM. One has to simply trust the manufacturer and the EC. But as the German court observed, the precondition of this trust is the verifiability of election events, whereas in the case of EVMs, “the calculation of the election result is based on a calculation act which cannot be examined from outside”.
While it is true that the results come quicker and the process is cheaper with EVMs as compared to paper ballot, both these considerations are undeniably secondary to the integrity of the election. Another argument made in favour of the EVM is that it eliminates malpractices such as booth-capturing and ballot-box stuffing. In the age of the smartphone, however, the opportunity costs of ballot-box-stuffing and the risk of exposure are prohibitively high. In contrast, tampering with code could accomplish rigging on a scale unimaginable for booth-capturers. Moreover, it is nearly impossible to detect EVM-tampering. As a result, suspicions of tampering in the tallying of votes — as opposed to malfunction in registering the votes, which alone is detectable — are destined to remain in the realm of speculation. The absence of proven fraud might save the EVM for now, but its survival comes at a dangerous cost — the corrosion of people’s faith in the electoral process.
Yet there doesn’t have to be incontrovertible evidence of EVM-tampering for a nation to return to paper ballot. Suspicion is enough, and there is enough of it already. As the German court put it, “The democratic legitimacy of the election demands that the election events be controllable so that… unjustified suspicion can be refuted.” The phrase “unjustified suspicion” is pertinent. The EC has always maintained that suspicions against EVMs are unjustified. Clearly, the solution is not to dismiss EVM-sceptics as ignorant technophobes. Rather, the EC is obliged to provide the people of India a polling process capable of refuting unjustified suspicion, as this is a basic requirement for democratic legitimacy, not an optional accessory.
Doctor to serve the Humanity but ……….
By Sheikh Umar Ahmad
Doctors profession is regarded as a noble profession world over and is given due dignity and honor in global community for their selfless service to humankind.Every educated person aims to become a doctor in order to serve humanity in best and better of their capacities, but as it is, everybody can’t become a doctor and there are other professions as well to serve the humanity in general. Among all other professions, the medicine is regarded as one of the coveted both in terms of requirement of its service as well in terms of monetary benefits. This profession is only among existing ones that cater to global community involvement as well as service dissemination. Every person has expectations from doctors to deliver in close coordination anytime, rather 24*7 when the need arises without any internal or external excuses, including personal ones. There is a deeper dissatisfaction & grudges when any person from medicine community refuses any other person of consultation when it is time for them to serve. If they are unable to deliver to society with utmost satisfaction, then their purpose of serving the society through this profession only does not hold any merit. A similar kind of episode some days before than happened at state’s premier maternity hospital, so called as Lal Ded has shaken the whole Kashmiriyat that is otherwise known world over for their hospitality and generous behavior but some doctors who in literal sense are there to grab the greater public shearing and for their mere monetary benefits, have deceived and decimated the expectations of one of economically, socially and educationally backward section of our society who yet hold equal weightage at the measures table when it comes to Kashmir diversity and harmonious ethnicity.
Their refusal to admit a women in labor pain and then her parturition at a roadside, has shackled the immediate conscience of whole educated lot of Kashmir who now think that there should be a humanity course for every doctor before only he is allowed to practice medicine. A doctor in true essence should be ready to work in any society, with any person, and to serve any other person in need irrespective of his caste, creed, colour, religion, sect and above all ethnicity. If a doctor is unable to work in any multi-cultural society, he loses his position in the eyes of society to be called as a doctor. This person dashes the hopes of weaker section of society as they think that such persons can never pay attention towards them being economically and culturally senile. The death of a newborn on the roadside at Srinagar area speak volumes about those gross irregularities that still exist in best of our essential & emergency services. This should not have been the case and nothing such things happen in world over but are common in Kashmir only and there is a greater need to overhaul the whole system so to debug these bogus and nefarious elements in society that tarnish the whole image.
There should have been a commission in place to look at those gross malicious activities thatdiscord the whole organisational setup. Now as we know, the enquiry will be put in place and at the end what will be seen, nothing but the ball will be put in the court of victim by falsifying & negating the whole episode. The little one has gone now and no one on earth can bring him back. This episode brings this message forth, that doctor being the representative guardian of life our earth, protect lives every day in every part of world and there is a greater sense of satisfaction and this dealing makes the person feel happy internally & eternally for this greatest benefit to mankind. But for us, it is high time now, that we repent of our past sins and relook at our duties to disseminate it properly at every time it is required. Every person will be suitably rewarded for his good deeds and kind gestures that he has done on humanity and doctors are none as exception.
They are the best representatives of selfless service and moral attitude, and kind reflection of ultimate hope. State administration in Kashmir at the helm of affairs need to reaffirm their responsibilities and duties, so that utmost discipline is maintained in hospitals both from public & doctors end. If public outrages over anything that may be the reflection and agony of intermix of pain and grief. It is the responsibility of doctors on duty to deal with those situations quite humbly and morally, so that the professionals deliver their duties in its true essence and totally error free. There should be limited biasness in dealing with culturally and economically down-centric groups of society. We need to be first ambassadors of humanity before guardians of life through practising medicine to protect the lives of people. We need to safeguard the hopes and expectations of our ethnic groups before we deliver our best to save the lives.
These episodes nevertheless should be repeated in the times to come, else this profession will loseits dignity and honor world over for not withstanding with the requirements of and fulfilling the criteria of being a doctor humanely. There are doctors who treat animals even, this never mean that we need to make an animal human first to be treated by a human doctor as animals are animals, rather we need to be real doctors to understand the physiology of animals before only we can treat them. This is the only message I can conclude with… ! Hence a change is imperative.
(The author is Doctoral Research Scholar, currently working as DST INSPIRE Fellow at CSIR Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine Jammu)
The angry Pakistani
By Arifa Noor
IT takes an outsider to point out the anger within us. Last week, a former US ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, spoke at an event, arguing that our anger prevents us from telling the good story about Pakistan to the world.
It reminded me of an interaction that took place nearly 20 years ago. Back in 2000, a soft-spoken Indian professor from Delhi had asked why the Pakistani people were always so pessimistic about their country — present and future — despite the fact that till the 1990s, Pakistan had always enjoyed better social and economic indicators (including a higher growth rate) than India. It was a question I had no answer to. The hostile questions about Kargil and military rule were easier to answer during that trip to India than this gentle insight and a sense of bewilderment about our state of being.
But since that morning in New Delhi, there have been so many moments when the professor’s question has come back to mind. Countless memories that came spilling out echoed what former ambassador Munter said. Some as clear as the question asked by the Indian professor; some a little less sharp. But each one testifies to our despair, anger or lack of confidence in what is known as Pakistan.
We have been living in an age of anger, decades before Pankaj Mishra wrote about it.
Fast forward from 2000 to the last months of 2007 or the beginning of 2008: a faded memory, I am unsure of the exact month, but it was during the days of that heady yet difficult transition from dictatorship to democracy. Musharraf was fighting for his survival. Benazir Bhutto and the Sharifs were clawing their way back to relevance (followed by the devastating assassination of the former). A lawyers’ movement had caught Pakistan’s imagination. And there were terrorist attacks galore.
In the midst of these trying yet hopeful times, an op-ed had discussed Pakistan as a possible failed state. I was told that the writer had gotten a call from an amused friend in Afghanistan who said that despite all that had happened in and to Afghanistan, no Afghan would ever call his country a ‘failed state’.
We, of course, have used this term so often for the country that many of us believe it is a failed state — despite the term’s problematic origins as one used by Washington to describe countries it ‘disapproved’ of rather than an empirically established concept.
Then there are jumbled up memories of various track II dialogues. Each such seminar or conference is coupled with at least one discussion (on the sidelines) of how the Indians (and more recently the Afghans) present a united stand unlike Pakistanis. There is always a sense of frustration at how we end up helping ‘their’ cause rather than supporting our interest.
Why do we do this, as the professor asked?
Perhaps it stems from our long bouts of dictatorships. Denied their due and rightful say in policymaking has made entire swathes of the populace angry, hostile and critical of the state. They are angry at being left out: it’s an anger that is accompanied by a sense of helplessness at the direction that the country and society have taken. And in recent times, too, there is a sense of outrage because course correction (if there is any in their opinion) has not included their input. Hence, many refuse to believe that there has been any course correction, or criticise it for moving too slowly.
This is why perhaps the anger is most palpable when it comes to foreign policy, especially relations with India, and the radicalism that has engulfed state and society.
Being denied a voice, there is little left to do but express rage at the state, what it has come to stand for and to also conclude that there can be little hope for the future. (Pakistan has not just been at the crossroads ever since I can remember, it has also forever been in danger of being torn apart).
The rage has gotten worse post-2008, for the hope that accompanied the transition then has turned bitter. We thought that the worst was over, that ‘true’ democracy had returned to Pakistan and politicians would now rule — fixing all that had gone wrong. The 10 years of exile and powerlessness had also given the politicos a sheen of competence and maturity. But it was yet another shab gazida sahar (night-bitten dawn).
Ten years later, the anger has grown for it seems that decision making was never transferred. But because the hope this time was greater, so has the rage been too. And perhaps because the urban middle class fought for this transition in greater numbers than before, the disappointment is greater. They are angry for they cannot see the change they had fought for or protested against.
The judiciary turned out to have feet of clay. The military didn’t really share as much as they had promised. And the politicians didn’t deliver the reform or show any inclination for democratic norms once in power. And we continue to rail, against all of them or the one we had placed most hope in, or the one we hated most.
In addition, the rage has turned into hatred of the institution that has disappointed us the most. Indeed, the anger is expressed with malicious glee at times: the Sahiwal incident is a case in point, as was the controversial statement by a former high court judge, Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, or any terrorist attack which reveals chinks in the armour of the security forces. And, of course, the various JITs revealing the shenanigans of our political ruling class.
It is as if we have no option but to express our rage, so all energy is poured into it.
But expressing outrage, however cathartic it may be, is not a strategy, which is what Cameron Munter was trying to say.