📰 Prolonged school closures due to COVID-19 pose threat to gender equality: UNESCO study
Girls’ time to learn affected by increased household chores.
•Educational disruption due to prolonged closure of schools across the globe will not only have alarming effects on learning loss but also poses threat to gender equality, a new study by UNESCO has pointed out.
•The global study titled “When schools shut: Gendered impacts of COVID-19 school closures” brings to the fore that girls and boys, young women and men were affected differently by school closures, depending on the context.
•“At the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, 1.6 billion students in 190 countries were affected by school closures. Not only did they lose access to education, but also to the myriad benefits of attending school, at an unparalleled scale,” said Stefania Giannini, UNESCO, Assistant Director-General for Education.
•“Educational disruption of this extent has alarming effects on learning loss and school dropout. Beyond this, it poses threats to gender equality, including effects on health, well being and protection that are gender specific,” Giannini said.
•Drawing on evidence from about 90 countries and in-depth data collected in local communities, the report shows that gender norms and expectations can affect the ability to participate in and benefit from remote learning.
•“In poorer contexts, girls’ time to learn was constrained by increased household chores. Boys’ participation in learning was limited by income-generating activities. Girls faced difficulties in engaging in digital remote learning modalities in many contexts because of limited access to internet-enabled devices, a lack of digital skills and cultural norms restricting their use of technological devices,” the report said.
•The study pointed out that digital gender-divide was already a concern before the COVID-19 crisis.
•“The in-depth studies on Bangladesh and Pakistan in the global report revealed its gendered effects on remote learning during school closures. In the study on Pakistan, only 44 per cent of girls in participating districts reported owning mobile phones for their personal use, whereas 93 per cent of boys did so. Girls who did not own mobile phones reported that they relied on their relatives’ devices, typically those belonging to their fathers,” it said.
•“While some of the girls were able to use family members’ phones, they were not always able to do so. Their access was restricted since some parents were concerned that providing girls with access to smartphones would lead to misuse and could result into romantic relationships.” “The longer girls were out of school, the higher was the risk of learning loss. From April to September 2020, the share of girls reporting that they did not study at all increased from 1 to 10 per cent,” it added.
•Noting that the pandemic is a timely reminder that schools are sites not only for learning, but also lifelines for girls and boys – an essential space for their health, well-being and protection, the report has several recommendations on how to challenge gender-based barriers for participation in remote learning.
•“To advance equal access to gender-responsive and inclusive remote learning, it is recommended to provide a range of remote learning options including low-tech and no-tech solutions spearhead and support efforts to reach the most at-risk learners design, develop gender-responsive educational resources and tools besides providing appropriate teacher support and training use formative assessments to track learning outcomes,” it said.
It drops by 9.1 years in men and 6.2 years in women; report highlights disproportionate disease burden.
•Life expectancy among the poorest is lower by 9.1 years and 6.2 years among men and women, respectively, compared to the richest in urban areas, noted a report released recently by Azim Premji University in collaboration with 17 regional NGOs across India.
•The report on ‘Health Care Equity in Urban India’, explores health vulnerabilities and inequalities in cities in India. It also looks at the availability, accessibility and cost of healthcare facilities, and possibilities in future-proofing services in the next decade.
•It notes that a third of India’s people now live in urban areas, with this segment seeing a rapid growth from about 18% (1960) to 28.53% (2001) to 34% (in 2019). Close to 30% of people living in urban areas are poor.
•The study also draws insights from data collected through detailed interactions with civil society organisations in cities and towns across Mumbai, Bengaluru, Surat, Lucknow, Guwahati, Ranchi, and Delhi. This also included an analysis of the National Family and Health Surveys (NHFS), the Census of India, and inputs from State-level health officials on the provision of health care.
•The report, besides finding disproportionate disease burden on the poor, also pointed to a chaotic urban health governance, where the multiplicity of healthcare providers both within and outside the government without coordination are challenges to urban health governance.
•The other key findings include a heavy financial burden on the poor, and less investment in healthcare by urban local bodies.
•The report then calls for strengthening community participation and governance; building a comprehensive and dynamic database on the health and nutrition status, including co-morbidities of the diverse, vulnerable populations; strengthening healthcare provisioning through the National Urban Health Mission, especially for primary healthcare services; and putting in place policy measures to reduce the financial burden of the poor. It also advocates for a better mechanism for coordinated public healthcare services and better governed private healthcare institutions.
•“As urbanisation is happening rapidly, the number of the urban poor is only expected to increase. A well-functioning, better coordinated and governed health care system is crucial at this point. The pandemic has brought to attention the need for a robust and resourced healthcare system. Addressing this now will benefit the most vulnerable and offer critical services to city dwellers across income groups,” the report said.
•It added that urban healthcare has received relatively less research and policy attention.
📰 Sifting the pile: On inequity and Swachh cities
Rankings should force cities to get cleaner in the aggregate and not hide inequity
•In what is turning out to be a predictable sequence in the annual ‘Swachh Survekshan’ awards, Indore was ranked the cleanest city for the fifth year, followed by Surat and Vijayawada. Chhattisgarh was the cleanest State, for the third time, in the category of ‘States with more than 100 urban local bodies’. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s constituency, Varanasi, won for the cleanest ‘Ganga city’. The organiser, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, surveyed 4,320 cities for nearly a month and solicited feedback from 4.2 crore people. The metrics (cities) were garbage disposal, open defecation-free ratings, functionality and maintenance of community toilets and safe management of faecal sludge. The ‘Survekshan’ awards have a wide range of categories that segregates cities based on their population. While they attempt to capture the diversity of urban agglomerations on the other, it is hard to deflect criticism: every State has at least a few participants who will top one category or the other, thus making the process a giant appeasement scheme. Along with a category such as ‘States with over 100 urban local bodies (ULB),’ where Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh were ranked second and third, respectively, there was also a top ranker for ‘State with less than 100 ULBs’ where Jharkhand was judged the cleanest. Then there was a category for a ‘Ganga’ city and separate population-wise categories. This year there was a novel ‘Prerak Daaur Samman’ that saw Indore, Surat, Navi Mumbai, New Delhi Municipal Council and Tirupati categorised as ‘divya’ (platinum). They were assessed for solid waste management. Unsurprisingly, these were entities that had already topped ranks in other categories.
•Rankings serve two broad purposes: a publicity boost and recognition for the other winners but also motivation to climb higher on the totem pole. Though the number of cities surveyed has increased since the first edition of the survey in 2016, it appears that the same cities — Indore, Surat, for instance — keep topping the list. Six years is a good time to take stock of what the ranking programme intends to achieve: is it motivating cities to significantly allocate resources towards improving sanitation? Are cleaner cities cleaner because they are better positioned to access State funds and thus able to pull further away from other cities? Do States focus their energies and funds in keeping some cities clean to avail of a rank in any of the wide number of categories? Reducing a metric as complex as sanitation and cleanliness to blunt rankings can often induce a false sense of progress. Both at the regional level and at the Centre there should be more qualitative analysis of whether India’s cities are getting cleaner in the aggregate or if numbers are hiding inequity.
📰 Making Ayurveda a real science
The only way to do this is to present evidence before the scientific community that Ayurveda works
•Ayurveda has gained popularity in recent years, but a lot is still to be done to ensure that it stands the scrutiny of science. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a major challenge for science in general and hence, ‘How did Ayurveda deal with the pandemic?’ becomes a pertinent question to ask. In the following paragraphs I share my views as a teacher of Ayurveda with 20 years of experience.
Rampant misinformation
•During the pandemic, we encouraged self-medication among the public by advocating preparations like decoctions. Thus, the message that unscrupulous, excessive and prolonged use of any medicine could be harmful was lost. We did not educate the public on the identification of the correct herbs, though we encouraged their consumption. For example, Giloy (Tinospora cordifolia) and Dalchini (Cinnamomum zeylanicum) are two plants where correct identification matters. Sometimes, Tinospora crispa and Cassia cinnamon are mistakenly identified as Giloy and Dalichini, which could be harmful.
•Almost every Ayurveda physician came up with his/her own formulations as a purported cure for COVID-19. Many lab reports suggesting clinical improvements with Ayurveda interventions were shared on different social media platforms. However, most of them could not make it to peer-reviewed journals. Thousands of COVID-19 cases treated by Ayurveda physicians could have provided good data that could have been further analysed. Even though the Ministry of Ayush came up with an online case registry, our fraternity could not make any meaningful use of it.
•Many clinical trials for testing Ayurveda interventions came up for COVID-19 and a few even got published. To show the efficacy of a new intervention in a condition where spontaneous recovery is more than 95%, one needs a large sample size and a robust study design. In most of these trials, the Ayurveda interventions were either in addition to Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) protocols or, when used as independent interventions, they were administered in mild to moderate cases only. Even governmental agencies widely publicised a few patent and proprietary formulations that were tested insufficiently, and drew flak from the scientific community for doing so.
•Scientifically speaking, ‘immune boosting’ is a vague and potentially misleading term. During the pandemic, every other Ayurveda pharmacy came up with its own patent and proprietary formulation that supposedly boosted immunity. The common public was made to believe that Ayush interventions were safe, of preventive value, and effective in treating the disease. But most of these claims lacked credible evidence.
•In my view, the Ayurveda sector should not have succumbed to the pressure to show that Ayurveda works in the treatment of COVID-19. Instead, the sector could have been visualised as a potential workforce. People could have been roped in for managing various tasks such as telephonic triaging, teleconsultations and counselling, monitoring home-quarantined patients, and coordinating referral services. Though some Ayush hospitals were converted into COVID-19 care centres, most of these facilities managed only mild to moderate cases. This is where a collaboration was required, between Ayush and conventional healthcare professionals. The protocols of ICMR and Ayush were disconnected and this is one of the reasons why there was no coordination. Moreover, this workforce could have been used to address the needs of non-COVID-19 patients who suffered the most because of various restrictions.
Questions to be asked
•A group of scientists and physicians has recently started a social media campaign calling all Ayush systems ‘pseudoscience’. These activists conduct chemical analysis of many Ayush formulations and demonstrate that many of these products contain high doses of unwarranted constituents such as antibiotics, corticosteroids and heavy metals. They also share publicly the scanned images of the unscientific and outdated content in the textbooks of Ayush graduate programmes. They also publish and share various clinical case reports where adverse events are reported after exposure to Ayush interventions. These activities are crucial and need the support from at least those who believe in rational Ayurveda. This would make Ayush academicians and policymakers introspect seriously about the current system. Academia, at present, has made Ayurveda a pseudoscience by teaching the young students that whatever is written in ancient texts is the ultimate truth and cannot be challenged. This non-falsifiability renders the system unscientific.
•The only way to make Ayurveda a real science is to present evidence before the scientific community showing that it works. Absence of uniform protocols either for diagnosis or for interventions make Ayurveda too subjective and diverse. An objective evaluation of complex Ayurveda practices is very difficult in the standard accepted format of ‘double blind randomised controlled trials’. The practical alternative is to go for longitudinal observational studies. Initially, around 20 different clinical conditions involving different organ systems can be identified, which practitioners are confident of treating. A large sample size with a long-term follow-up in a multi-centric design would go a long way in establishing the usefulness of Ayurveda. Most of the knowledge we now have about ischemic heart disease comes from a single longitudinal study going on since 1948, which demonstrates the value of observational studies.
Need for regulation
•Formally, we never teach our graduates patent and proprietary formulations. However, as these graduates set up their clinical practice, they start prescribing these formulations. Most of these products are not backed by reliable trials or even pre-clinical and toxicity data. The number of pharmacies that manufacture classical formulations has reduced to a bare minimum over the years, which shows how commercialisation has taken over the sector. This aspect needs to be regulated to ensure that such products go through robust pre-marketing studies. Even classical formulations that contain toxic substances such as heavy metals need to be regulated.
•Further, maintaining only a manageable number of colleges is essential to ensure that all students get good clinical exposure. The indiscriminate growth of new Ayush colleges is another matter of concern.
📰 ‘Go back to committees’ is the farm laws lesson
In any key legislation, the practice now of not involving the established systems of Parliament has to be reviewed
•The Prime Minister’s apology to the nation for not being able to convince a section of the farming community about the real intent of the Government in enacting the farm legislations is unprecedented. But it is not clear why it was an apology to the nation when only a section of the farmers could not be convinced. And then the apology is not for enacting the three farm laws or causing enormous suffering to the farmers. In any case it appears that the farmers have clearly understood the intent; and that is the reason why they did not go back to their farms until the laws are repealed. Now that the Prime Minister has informed the nation that the Government is going to repeal these laws, the farmers are understandably jubilant over their victory. This victory indeed takes India’s politics to a new phase — a phase of robust non-political movements with a certain staying power. We do not know ultimately what transformation it will bring to India’s jaded politics. But one thing becomes clear. The prolonged non-violent agitation by the determined farmers and the final capitulation by a very powerful Government augur well for India’s democracy.
Trajectory and intent
•The trajectory of the three farm laws clearly shows the real intent of the Government. These were brought in first as ordinances which was quite perplexing. First, these laws have a far-reaching impact on the farmers and it was very improper and quite unwise to push them through without taking the farmers into confidence.
•Second, under Article 123 of the Constitution the President can legislate on a matter when there is great urgency in the nature of an emergency and the sitting of Parliament is quite some time away. Farm laws which make radical changes in the farm sector and affect the life of farmers in very significant ways do not have the kind of urgency which necessitates immediate legislation through the ordinances. Obviously, someone not very familiar with the working of Parliament must have advised the Government to take the ordinance route in order to avoid the standing committees’ scrutiny. It is a wrong impression that Bills which are brought to replace the ordinances are not or cannot be referred to the standing committees of Parliament. There is no such restriction. The Speaker/Chairman has the authority to refer any Bill except a money Bill to the standing committees.
It was being adventurous
•These farm Bills should have been referred to the standing committee on agriculture for a detailed scrutiny. The committee could have held comprehensive discussions with the farmers. They would have thus got an opportunity to present their views before the committee and Parliament. In fact, their main complaint was that they were not consulted at any stage before the ordinances were issued. Radical changes in the farm sector without having any kind of consultation with the farmers was nothing short of adventurous.
•Parliament is a kind of shock absorber. Its systems have been designed to address issues with a cool head and find solutions. The committees take the heat off the issues and deal with them in a mature manner by listening to all stakeholders. Parliament and its systems require men who govern, not to bypass it.
House wisdom is invaluable
•The English monarchs of the 13th century, powerful and arrogant though they were, felt the need to consult the commoners for running the realm because they became wiser after many battles and wars. Parliament emerged from these consultations. Consultation with Parliament and its time honoured system is a sobering and civilising necessity for governments howsoever powerful they may feel. The accumulated wisdom of the Houses is an invaluable treasure. It is very surprising why important Bills which are coming before Parliament are not being referred to the committees. The experience of centuries shows that scrutiny of Bills by the committees make better laws. The case of the farm laws holds an important lesson for this Government or any government. A series of missteps led to avoidable sufferings to the farmers who do not normally leave their farms and trudge along hundreds of miles to agitate. They lost 700 of their brothers after being exposed to the harshness of the summer, winter and monsoon for almost 14 months. Instead of using water cannons and barricades, had Parliament been allowed to intervene, the head of the Government would not have had to apologise to the nation. However, now that the Government has decided to repeal the farm laws, it will be widely welcomed no matter what political calculations have gone into it.
These may be tactical moves
•What next is an interesting question because the farmers seem to have decided to wait and watch. They will wait till Parliament repeals these laws in the winter session that commences on November 29. A tone of scepticism could be detected in their reactions presumably because the Government has not taken the position that these farm laws are wrong or harmful to the farmers. In fact the Government is of the view that these laws are necessary for reforming the farm sector. The public apology has not changed that position. So the apology and the repeal of laws may be tactical moves by the Government to tide over the emerging political situation in certain regions of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Repealed laws can be brought back in future may be with certain modifications. There are no legal hurdles in that. The basic approach to corporatisation of the farm sector has not been abandoned.
•A proper parliamentary scrutiny of pieces of legislation is the best guarantee that sectoral interest will not jeopardise basic national interest. Protection of farmers is an essential part of national interest. So, in any future legislation on farmers it is absolutely necessary to involve the systems of Parliament fully so that a balanced approach emerges. We must not forget that the farm Bills were not referred to either the standing committee or a joint select committee of both Houses of Parliament as has been the practice earlier.
A missed step
•In fact, available data shows that Bills are very rarely referred to the committees these days. House rules have vested the discretion in the presiding officers in the matter of referring the Bills to committees. No reasoned decisions of the presiding officers for not referring them are available. Since detailed examination of Bills by committees result in better laws, the presiding officers may, in public interest, refer all Bills to the committees with few exceptions. Although the relevant rule is not happily worded, the intent is clear, namely, that the committee should examine all the important Bills. In the light of the horrendous experience of the Government over the farm laws, the present practice of not referring the Bills to committees should be reviewed. Speaker Om Birla has spoken about strengthening the committee system in the recent presiding officers’ conference. One way of strengthening it is by getting all the important Bills examined by them.
•The farmers had to wage a prolonged struggle because the systems of Parliament were bypassed by the Government. A government elected by the people can function only in a democratic way. Other options are not available to it. The farmers who sat at the Delhi border for 14 months, braving heat and cold and death and conducting themselves in the most democratic way, have once again proved that.
📰 Reliable data, good policy
The onus is on the government to ensure that there is a robust system of public data production and use
•When evidence-based policymaking becomes the cornerstone of good governance, it is difficult to overstate the importance of reliable and timely public data. Such data have a direct bearing on the state’s capability to design and implement programmes effectively. Among the emerging economies, India is credited to have a relatively robust public data system generated through its decennial Census and yearly sample surveys on specific themes. The coverage and reporting of Census data have vastly improved since independence. Though errors continue to be higher than in high-income countries, Census data are recognised for their reliability. Nevertheless, certain disquieting trends are visible on this front.
Concerns
•One, despite having adopted latest data processing technologies, there has been a growing delay, sometimes by years, in the release of the collected data. This renders such data less useful for policy intervention. The delay also implies less public scrutiny and hence undermines accountability. In an extreme case, the government refrained from releasing the data collected through the Socio-Economic and Caste Census.
•The second is the issue of comparability. In recent years, the government introduced changes to the estimation of GDP that made comparisons over time impossible. Adjustments to computation and survey methods are always welcome when they are meant to improve accuracy. In this instance, the arguments for revision and the revisions undertaken do not improve the quality of estimates. Therefore, the revisions, some claim, are driven more by political considerations than by the need to improve accuracy.
•Third, there has been a slippage in the conduct of sample surveys. The statistical bureau has been revising the sample surveys almost every year. One crucial sample survey is the quinquennial ‘Monthly Household Consumer Expenditure’ (MHCE). The MHCE provides the data base to compute the weightage assigned for commodities in the calculation of Inflation Index, the poverty line and poverty ratio, nutritional standards of people based on their consumption of various food items, and consumption expenditure in the national accounts system. The government also uses the poverty estimates to decide on the State-wise allocation of foodgrains to be sold at subsidised prices through the Public Distribution System. Hence, the MHCE is an important policy instrument despite the fact that the data provided through the MHCE surveys have been widely debated. Such debates have, however, led to refinement of the methods of data collection and made the data more robust.
•The Government of India (GoI) in November 2019 announced that the MHCE data collected in 2017-18 could not be released due to ‘data quality issues’. Though it did not elaborate on what the issues were, it went on to announce that the sample surveys for consumption expenditure will be conducted in 2020-21 and 2021-22. At present, we do not have information on whether the GoI has conducted these sample surveys. The GoI has further postponed the decennial census in 2021 to 2022 on the grounds that COVID-19 has had a serious impact on migration and livelihood options of the people. It is therefore important that the Census be conducted at the earliest and the results be made available to draw samples for the sample surveys in subsequent years.
Challenges
•If digital data collection tools are to be used as announced earlier, several challenges need to be addressed. As mentioned earlier, we have lost a precious data base and more than five years have lapsed since then. This affects the framing of policies relating to food and nutrition security, among others. Given the significance of education and health in sustaining development, and the adverse impacts that the pandemic is likely to have had on these dimensions, such lapses are disconcerting. Moreover, the robust estimation of individual items in the national accounts system also awaits the Census and the subsequent sample survey results. Unless these surveys are completed and the results announced, we will be left with a doctor prescribing medicines without diagnosis.
•In the absence of timely and reliable public data, users are increasingly relying on data provided through large-scale surveys conducted by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE). However, users have raised questions about the design and data collection framework of the CMIE’s high-frequency household survey. As they take recourse to other metrics for analysis, the onus is on the government to ensure that the data generation possibilities opened up by new technologies are embedded in a robust system of public data production and use.
📰 Keeping a close eye on China’s nuclear capabilities
A Pentagon report highlights a transformation in both the quantity and the quality of its arsenal, which India must note
•The only real substantive outcome of last week’s virtual summit between Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping has been some unconfirmed reports of the two sides, the United States and China, agreeing to hold strategic nuclear talks sometime in the near future. This development comes against the backdrop of the China Military Power Report (CMPR) recently released by the Pentagon that categorically underscores the growing challenge posed by the increasing capabilities of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and its ambitions across various dimensions of military power. The PRC’s nuclear capabilities, in particular, are undergoing a fundamental transformation and a shift seems to be evident in both the quantity and the quality of the PRC’s atomic arsenal. Even before the release of the CMPR, there was significant concern globally about the trajectory of China’s strategic capabilities. Confirmation provided by the CMPR reveals four specific areas where change is underway — quantitative strength, atomic yield, delivery capabilities and posture.
•First is the size of the PRC’s nuclear arsenal, which is set to increase. Hitherto, the PRC’s nuclear arsenal has hovered at roughly 200 nuclear warheads, half of which directed at the United States (U.S.). By 2027, the CMPR estimates that this number is likely to increase to 700 weapons consisting of varying yields which is three and half times the current Chinese warhead strength.
Low-yield weapons, concerns
•Second, the PRC is likely to privilege expansion in the direction of low-yield weapons. Low-yield weapons have been an area of interest and development for the PRC. They are weapons meant for battlefield use during conventional military operations and against conventional targets such as concentrations of armoured, artillery and infantry forces. Lower yield warheads help the PRC avoid causing collateral damage. Prior to the release of the CMPR, evidence that the PRC was testing low-yield devices has periodically surfaced in years past.
•In April 2020, the U.S. State Department’s Findings on Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments drew attention to the PRC’s deliberate opacity in the use of explosive containment chambers and excavations at its Lop Nur nuclear facility to test low yield weapons and Beijing’s refusal to grant permission to access data from its International Monitoring System (IMS) stations to the Data Centre under the operational authority of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO). Actions of this kind have evoked strategic concern and increasingly confirm that China’s atomic arsenal consists of a large number of low-yield weapons ideal for battlefield use.
•Third, these low-yield nuclear warheads are also likely to find their way into a key delivery capability — the PRC’s Dong-Feng-26 (DF-26) ballistic missile. This missile has already undergone deployment at Korla in the Xinjiang region in Western China. It is an Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) which is launched from a Transporter Erector Launcher (TEL). Indeed, the DF-26 has featured in extensive training exercises west of Jilantai in inner Mongolia. In addition to the DF-26, China has also developed the JL-2 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) with a range of 7,200 kilometres capable of striking targets across continental Asia.
A key shift
•Finally, China’s move towards a Launch on Warning (LoW) nuclear posture marks an important shift in the PRC’s commitment to ensuring that no adversary doubts its response in the event of a nuclear first strike. A higher alert posture not only risks reducing the threshold for nuclear use in the form of preemption but it could also sow the seeds of miscalculation and unintended nuclear use.
Delhi needs to be cautious
•The PRC’s nuclear competition with the United States will have a cascading effect. For India there are some serious implications with China’s increasingly minatory nuclear military capabilities. First, the size of China’s nuclear arsenal complicates the potency of India’s nuclear arsenal and it is especially true in the face of the PRC’s pursuit of missile defences in the form of the HQ-19 interceptors, which are specifically designed and developed to execute mid-course interception of medium-range ballistic missiles. A significantly larger Chinese nuclear arsenal paired to missile defences will limit damage to the PRC and more menacingly threatens the survivability of the Indian nuclear arsenal.
•Reinforcing this is Beijing’s pursuit of a Launch on Warning (LoW) posture. Such a posture reduces the decision time for any Indian retaliatory nuclear strike in the heat of a war or crisis and places pressure on India to pursue its own LoW. Despite Beijing’s pursuit of No First Use (NFU), which is reversible, the PRC could also significantly degrade an Indian retaliatory strike if China chooses to resort to First Use (FU) of nuclear weapons, and even worse outrightly decapitate India’s nuclear forces. Indian strategic planners will have to think about the quantitative nuclear balance and India’s nuclear posture vis-à-vis the PRC.
Additions, surveys by China
•Finally, India must pay close attention to the sub-surface leg of the PRC’s nuclear arsenal. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese have added two new Type 094 (Jin class) SSBNs/nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines to their existing fleet. The maritime dimension of China’s nuclear capabilities might not be an immediate strategic challenge but will potentially become one in the coming years for New Delhi. The Chinese Navy has carried out bathymetric and ocean mapping surveys in the Indian Ocean crucial to the execution of sub-surface military operations. The Bay of Bengal whose sea depth is very conducive for nuclear submarine missions will leave India exposed to a Chinese atomic pincer from the maritime domain in addition to the continental domain. New Delhi will have to specifically watch the pattern in the People Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN) nuclear submarine deployments and address the deficit in its subsurface nuclear delivery capabilities.
