📰 China’s ‘inevitable’ global dominance
The Chinese assert that the allies and partners of the U.S. cannot count on U.S. power to deter China
•Learning Mandarin in Hong Kong in 1971 soon after he joined the Indian Foreign Service opened “a whole new and fascinating world” for Shyam Saran. “I was coming face to face with a civilization with a long and varied history, a philosophical and cultural heritage of enormous richness, and a view of the world quite distinct and indeed different from others,” he writes in the introduction to his new book, How China Sees India and the World. Saran spent six years in China in two stints and witnessed its “rapid and far-reaching transformation”. China is today the world’s second largest economy after the U.S., and is already a leader in new-age technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing and space exploration. He explains why despite India and China being roughly at the same economic level once, India is now a “retreating image in China’s rear-view mirror.” An excerpt:
•India and China were roughly at the same economic level in 1978, with similar GDP and per capita income. Though China began to grow much faster thereafter, the gap between the two countries was not very significant even a decade later, when the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi paid a historic visit to Beijing in December 1988. It was then possible for Deng Xiaoping to declare that there could not be an Asian Century without India and China growing together and playing a resurgent role. The surge in India’s GDP growth as a result of its own economic reforms and liberalisation policies adopted in the early 1990s expanded India’s political and economic profile. At the turn of the century, India was behind China but was seen as shrinking the gap. In the period 2003–2007, India’s growth rate accelerated while China’s began to slow down. This was the brief period when India’s diplomatic options multiplied. It was able to leverage the advance of its relations with one major power to promote its relations with other major powers, thereby expanding its strategic space.
Border dispute
•During the visit of the Indian Prime Minister [Atal Bihari] Vajpayee to China in 2003, two important decisions were taken. One, the two countries agreed to seek an early political solution to the India–China border dispute, instituting regular negotiations at the level of Special Representatives of their respective leaders. The Chinese side also conveyed its recognition of Sikkim as a State of India. It had not accepted the accession of the State to the Indian Union in 1975 and its maps had continued to depict it [Sikkim] as an independent country. The backdrop to these important decisions was the recognition that relations between the two large emerging economies had now acquired a global and strategic dimension, going beyond their bilateral relations. It was, therefore, important to resolve the long-standing border issue in order to enable the two countries to cooperate more closely in the shaping of the emerging regional and global architecture.
•This development was carried forward during the subsequent visit of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to India in April 2005. As Foreign Secretary, I was closely associated with the visit. The Chinese were already aware that India was negotiating a civil nuclear cooperation agreement with the U.S., which would greatly enhance India’s diplomatic profile and significantly strengthen the India–U.S. partnership. This encouraged the Chinese to balance this development by upgrading their own relations with India, and this increased India’s room for manoeuvre vis-à-vis China. At their meeting, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and [Premier] Wen Jiabao reached a broad consensus on the following lines: One, that China was not a threat to India and India was not a threat to China; Two, that there was enough space in Asia and the world for the simultaneous growth of both India and China; Three, that India was an economic opportunity for China, and China likewise an economic opportunity for India; Four, that as two large and emerging economies the two countries, by working together, could exercise significant influence on the existing global regimes in different domains and could shape new global regimes in emerging domains such as climate change, cyber space and outer space; Five, that India-China relations having thus acquired a global and strategic dimension and in order to enable them to work more effectively together, it was important to resolve the India-China border issue at an early date.
Impact of financial crisis
•The global financial and economic crisis had a major impact on the further development of India-China relations. Just as the asymmetry between the U.S. and China began to shrink in the aftermath of the crisis, the asymmetry between India and China, which had been shrinking earlier, began to expand once again. India’s GDP growth decelerated and has averaged about 6-7 per cent per annum since then. China has maintained the same rate of growth as India, but on a much larger base than India’s. This asymmetry of power began to be reflected in China showing less sensitivity to India’s interests, its steady economic and political penetration of countries in India’s periphery and a lower threshold of tolerance to closer relations between India and the U.S. In conversations at non-official meetings, Chinese scholars would often draw attention to the fact that China’s economy was five times the size of India’s and this could not but reflect in the nature of India-China relations. The implication of such a statement was that India should accept its diminished ranking in the Chinese perception and defer to Chinese interests.
•Stepping out of line – a line drawn by China – would invite punitive reactions, and that too is evident in the more recent Chinese moves against India, including its more aggressive posture at the India-China border, where relative peace and tranquillity had prevailed over the past several decades. In 2005, China was willing to make some concessions to India in order to forestall an incipient Indo-U.S. alliance that could be threatening to China. Its reaction to the Quad, which is a coalition of India, Australia, Japan and the U.S., which could constrain China in the Indo-Pacific, is to dismiss its relevance and to adopt an even more threatening posture towards the coalition partners.
•In the aftermath of the global financial and economic crisis of 2008, the Chinese assessment is that the U.S. is a declining power, that its credibility is eroded and, importantly, that its will to exercise power has also diminished. It is a power in retreat and, therefore, allies and partners of the U.S., the Chinese assert, cannot count on U.S. power to deter China. A narrative is being built on the inevitability of Chinese regional, and eventually global, dominance, which it would be futile to resist.
India needs a law to make compensation for unlawful arrest a statutory right
•Shoddy investigation is one thing, but a malicious and motivated probe is quite another. The probe conducted by former Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) official Sameer Wankhede into a purported tip-off about consumption of drugs on board a cruise ship, in October 2021, seems to fall in the latter category. The raid on the vessel resulted in seizure of narcotic substances and the arrest of several people, including Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan. Even though nothing was seized from Mr. Khan, the agency made sensational claims in court about his being part of an international drug trafficking network and, quite strangely, cited messages purportedly exchanged on WhatsApp as ‘evidence’. By the time he obtained bail weeks later, the case had all the makings of a witch-hunt. A special investigation team from Delhi, which took over the case after allegations of extortion surfaced against Mr. Wankhede, has now cited lapses in the initial investigation and the lack of prosecutable evidence, and absolved Mr. Khan and five others and excluded them from the charge sheet filed recently. The lapses include failure to video-graph the search of the ship, not conducting a medical examination to prove consumption, and examining Mr. Khan’s phone and reading messages on it without any legal basis.
•It is good that the agency made amends for the mischief done by the initial set of investigators by applying the standard of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ while presenting its final report. At the same time, the NCB has to re-examine its priorities. It is an elite agency in the fight against international trafficking in narcotic and psychotropic substances. Its primary focus ought to be on trans-national smuggling networks, while the job of pursuing drug peddlers and raiding rave parties must be left to the local police. While strict disciplinary action is warranted if any officer is found involved in ‘fixing’ someone, it is also time that the Government came out with a legal framework for compensating those jailed without proof. The country does not have a law on the grant of compensation to those maliciously prosecuted. However, constitutional courts do exercise their vast powers sometimes to award monetary recompense; the remedy of a civil suit is also available in law, but it is time-consuming. The Law Commission of India has recommended enactment of a law to make compensation in such cases an enforceable right. Currently, Section 358 of the Cr.P.C. provides for a paltry fine to be imposed on a person on whose complaint a person is arrested without sufficient grounds. Such provisions should be expanded to cover just compensation by the state for unnecessary arrests. It is a sobering thought to note that even people with celebrity status and vast resources are not insulated from the misuse of police powers, even while recognising that it is still possible to vindicate one’s innocence and force the establishment to adopt a course correction.
📰 Reservation in public employment
Jarnail Singh judgment authored by Justice Rohinton Nariman indicates a critical turn in the jurisprudence of reservation
•The jurisprudence of reservation relies on the symbiotic coexistence of constitutionally guaranteed equality of opportunity in public employment under Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.
•It is a settled law that there is no fundamental right to reservation or promotion under Article 16(4) or Article 16(4 A) of the Constitution, rather they are enabling provisions for providing reservation, if the circumstances so warrant.
•Sensitivity of the welfare state towards the weaker sections over decades resulted in the gradual expansion of canopy of reservation in the form of increasing classifications under Article 16.
•The jurisprudence of reservation relies on the symbiotic coexistence of constitutionally guaranteed equality of opportunity in public employment under Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India and classifications thereunder various clauses of the same article, especially Article 16(4) and Article 16 (4 A), which are in the nature of facilitating provisions, vesting a discretion on the government to consider providing reservations for the socially and educationally backward sections of the society and to provide reservation in promotion to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, respectively.
Reservation not a fundamental Right
•It is a settled law, time and again reiterated by the Supreme Court, that there is no fundamental right to reservation or promotion under Article 16(4) or Article 16(4 A) of the Constitution, rather they are enabling provisions for providing reservation, if the circumstances so warrant (Mukesh Kumar and Another vs State of Uttarakhand & Ors. 2020).
•However, these pronouncements no way understate the constitutional directive under Article 46 that mandates that the state shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and in particular Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In fact, sensitivity of the welfare state towards the weaker sections over decades resulted in the gradual expansion of canopy of reservation in the form of increasing classifications under Article 16, a set of actions that created a wave of litigation by which resulted in the ever-evolving jurisprudence of affirmative action in public employment.
The Mandal storm and Indra Sawhney
•Reservation in employment which was otherwise confined to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes got extended to Other Backward Classes as well on the basis of the recommendations of the Second Backward Class Commission as constituted, headed by B.P. Mandal.
•The recommendation of Mandal Commission (1980) to provide 27% reservation to Other Backward Classes in central services and public sector undertakings, over and above the existing 22.5% reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, was sought to be implemented by the V.P. Singh Government in 1990 and the same was assailed in the Supreme Court resulting in the historic Indra Sawhney Judgment (1992).
•In the judgment, a nine-judge bench presided by Chief Justice M.H. Kania upheld the constitutionality of the 27% reservation but put a ceiling of 50% unless exceptional circumstances warranting the breach, so that the constitutionally guaranteed right to equality under Article 14 would remain secured.
•The Court dwelled on the interrelationship between Articles 16(1) and 16(4) and declared that Article 16(4) is not an exception to article 16(1), rather an illustration of classification implicit in article 16(1).
•While Article 16(1) is a fundamental right, Article 16(4) is an enabling provision. Further, the Court directed the exclusion of creamy layer by way of horizontal division of every other backward class into creamy layer and non-creamy layer.
The Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995
•In Indra Sawhney Case, the Supreme Court had held that Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India does not authorise reservation in the matter of promotions. However, the judgment was not to affect the promotions already made and hence only prospective in operation, it was ruled.
•By the Constitution (Seventy-seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, which, Article 16(4-A), was inserted to provide that “nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State”.
•Later, two more amendments were brought, one to ensure consequential seniority and another to secure carry forward of unfilled vacancies of a year, the former by way of addition to Article 16(4 A) and the latter by way of adding Article 16(4 B).
The Constitution Bench Judgment in M. Nagaraj (2006)
•A five-judge bench of Supreme Court declared the 1995 amendment as not vocative of basic structure of the Constitution but laid down ceratin conditions which included the collection of “quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment”. . The bench held that the creamy layer among Scheduled castes and tribes is to be excluded from reservation.
Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta (2018)
•In the aforementioned case, a constitution bench of Supreme Court was called on to examine wisdom of the 2006 judgment in the light of the constitutionally recognised socio-economic backwardness of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes which may not require any further substantiation. It was also contended that the requirement to identify creamy lawyer among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes fell foul of Indra Sawhney decision. The constitution bench invalidated the requirement to collect quantifiable data in relation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes but upheld the principle of applicability of creamy lawyer in relation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Jarnail Singh judgment authored by Justice Rohinton Nariman indicates a critical turn in the jurisprudence of reservation.
The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019
•The 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), other Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes for government jobs and admission in educational institutions is currently under challenge before the Supreme Court which has referred the same to a constitution bench. The adjudication awaited in this regard may also turn to be a critical milestone in the jurisprudence of reservation as traditional understanding of backwardness is broadened to specifically include economic backwardness without social backwardness as is traditionally seen.
Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil vs Chief Minister (2021)
•Despite the Indra Sawhney ruling, there have been attempts on the part of many States to breach the rule by way of expanding the reservation coverage and the Maharashtra Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act 2018, (Maratha reservation law) came under challenge before the Supreme Court which referred the same to a bench of five judges and one question was whether the 1992 judgment needs a relook.
•Interestingly, the Supreme Court not only affirmed the Indra Sawhney decision, but also struck down Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(1)(b) of the Act which provided 12% reservation for Marathas in educational institutions and 13% reservation in public employment respectively, citing the breach of ceiling. “The 2018 Act as amended in 2019 granting reservation for Maratha community does not make out any exceptional circumstance to exceed the ceiling limit of 50% reservation,”, declared the apex Court. This judgment is likely to rein in the propensity on the part of some State governments to blatantly disregard the stipulated ceiling on electoral grounds rather than any exceptional circumstances as conceived by the constitution bench. It is pertinent to note that several States such as Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh had made submissions before the Supreme Court against any upper limit on reservation.
📰 Building peace and prosperity with strong BRICS
The BRICS partnership is ‘walking together to walk far’ to build a community with a shared future for mankind
•As an old Chinese saying goes, nothing can separate people with common goals and ideals; not even mountains and seas. Sixteen years after its creation, BRICS has become an important platform for win-win cooperation among China, India, Russia, Brazil and South Africa, and a significant force for the evolution of international order, the improvement of global governance and the promotion of common development.
•Since China took over the BRICS chairmanship at the beginning of this year, we have worked together with BRICS partners to press ahead with cooperation in political security, economy and finance, people-to-people exchanges, public health and other realms. More than 50 important events have been held, contributing to significant progress in various cooperative fields.
•On May 19, Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered a video address at the virtual meeting of BRICS Foreign Ministers. The BRICS Foreign Ministers issued a joint statement. And the first dialogue of Foreign Ministers between BRICS and emerging markets and developing countries was held.
•The world today witnesses increasing factors of instability, uncertainty and insecurity. It is of great significance for the BRICS Foreign Ministers’ meeting to reach consensus and outcomes on multiple important issues concerning global security and development, which made political preparations for the 14th BRICS summit.
•The BRICS Foreign Ministers’ meeting indicated that BRICS countries will strengthen solidarity and cooperation in the face of challenges with firm conviction, and take real actions to promote peace and development, and uphold fairness and justice. We will inject more BRICS strength into global development, and speak with a louder BRICS voice to uphold the common interests of the developing countries.
Upholding universal security
•BRICS countries should be builders of universal security. Cold-war mentality and bloc confrontation pose grave threats to world peace and security. Seeking one’s own security at the expense of others’ will only create new tensions and risks. President Xi Jinping put forward the Global Security Initiative, pointing out the way to make up the peace deficit and solve the global security dilemma. It is important to respect and guarantee the security of every country, replace confrontation and alliance with dialogue and partnership, and promote the building of a balanced, effective and sustainable regional security architecture.
•BRICS countries need to strengthen political mutual trust and security cooperation, maintain communication and coordination on major international and regional issues, accommodate each other’s core interests and major concerns, respect each other’s sovereignty, security and development interests, oppose hegemonism and power politics, and work together to build a global community of security for all.
•BRICS countries should be contributors of common development. The COVID-19 pandemic threatens to derail the world economy. The irresponsible macro-economic and monetary policies of certain countries have aggravated the uncertainties and imbalances of economic recovery. President Xi Jinping’s Global Development Initiative gives priority to development, embraces the people-centered core concept, and calls for more robust, greener and more sound global development. It provides a Chinese solution to global development problems and has been widely echoed by the international community.
•Facing the rising tide of de-globalisation and the increase of unilateral sanctions and technology barriers, BRICS countries should enhance mutually-beneficial cooperation in supply chains, energy, food and financial resilience, take solid steps to implement the Global Development Initiative, foster an open world economy and create a favourable environment for common development.
On health
•BRICS countries should be pioneers of cooperation in COVID-19 pandemic management. The international pandemic response is at a critical moment, and we should not give up half way. President Xi Jinping has called for accelerating the building of a global community of health for all, and has advocated a coordinated international approach to the pandemic and the improvement of global health governance. India’s vision of ‘One Earth, One Health’ also contributes to multilateral cooperation on public health. BRICS countries should fully leverage their respective strengths, and jointly promote the development of global health governance in a direction in favour of developing countries. We should make good use of the BRICS Vaccine Research and Development Center, establish a BRICS early warning mechanism for preventing large-scale infectious diseases, and provide high-quality public goods for global health governance cooperation.
A governance philosophy
•BRICS countries should be leaders of global governance. Global challenges are emerging one after another. Only by coordinating global actions can we properly cope with them. “Small circles” cannot solve the “big challenges” facing the whole world. BRICS countries should firmly safeguard the international system, with the United Nations at its core and the international order underpinned by international law, and ensure that international affairs have participation by all, international rules are formulated by all, and development outcomes are shared by all. We should embrace a global governance philosophy that emphasises extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits, enhance unity and cooperation with emerging markets and developing countries, and increase the voice in global governance.
•It is especially commendable that the first dialogue of Foreign Ministers between BRICS and emerging markets and developing countries sent out the message of supporting multilateralism, supporting anti-pandemic cooperation, supporting common development, and supporting solidarity and cooperation. All parties to the dialogue support and advocate the ‘BRICS plus’ cooperation model, which is a platform born for cooperation and thrives on development. We should explore the ‘BRICS plus’ cooperation at more levels, in more areas and in a wider scope. China proposes to launch the BRICS expansion process and discuss standards and procedures for expansion in order to build consensus step-by-step. This will increase BRICS countries’ representation and influence and make greater contributions to world peace and development.
•As an old saying goes, if you want to walk fast, walk alone. If you want to walk far, walk together. Since the establishment of the BRICS mechanism, it has been closely connected with the destiny of emerging markets and developing countries. China is always a member of the family of the developing world, and will always stand alongside developing countries. We will endeavour to translate the BRICS spirit of openness, inclusiveness and win-win cooperation into concrete actions, deepen the BRICS partnership centering on the theme of ‘forming a high-quality partnership to jointly create a new era of global development’; we will make unrelenting efforts to build a community with a shared future for mankind.
📰 Deepening strategic commitment
China is not only the glue that holds the Quad together; it is also the fuel that may drive the grouping’s inner consolidation
•The Quad (the U.S., India, Japan and Australia) held its second in-person leaders’ summit in Tokyo on May 24. It has emerged stronger and clearer in its strategy and goals for the security and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific. The efforts by the Quad countries should be viewed not only from the prism of the summits, but also from the wider context of international developments and the continuing process of consolidation of the bilateral relations within, especially U.S.-India ties.
Beyond Ukraine
•This is the second interaction of the Quad leaders held after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That war has no end in sight. With India abstaining from most anti-Russia voting in multilateral bodies, experts in India worried about the impact of Ukraine on the Indo-Pacific region, particularly U.S.-India ties. Some feared that Prime Minister Narendra Modi would face new and intense pressure in Tokyo from the U.S. to condemn Russia. Others argued that the U.S. understood India’s nuanced position on Ukraine and may refocus on China’s strategic game in the region.
•The latter interpretation proved correct. India and the U.S. agreed to disagree on Ukraine, but showed full readiness to further strengthen the Quad and their bilateral cooperation, which, U.S. President Joe Biden said, he was “committed to making…among the closest we have on Earth.” With China, he has moved beyond the traditional U.S. stance of ‘strategic ambiguity’ and pointedly referred to Ukraine to stress that China's armed action against Taiwan would be unacceptable and attract a military response.
•The central driving force of the Quad is to counter China’s growing expansionism and belligerence. The grouping’s diplomatic device of defining its raison d'être without ever using the word ‘China’ was best reflected in the ‘Quad Joint Leaders’ Statement’ which reads, “We reaffirm our resolve to uphold the international rules-based order where countries are free from all forms of military, economic and political coercion.” Thus, China is not only the glue that holds the Quad together; it is also the fuel that may, through Beijing’s bad behaviour in the future, drive the grouping’s inner consolidation, as shown by an expanding agenda.
•The Quad agenda now covers nine sectors: vaccine partnership and health security, climate action, critical and emerging technologies, cooperation on infrastructure, cyber security, space cooperation, education and people-to-people ties, maritime domain awareness, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. The Quad claims to have established “a positive and practical agenda” in year one; in year two, it will focus on “delivery.” This needs to be watched.
•Not all commitments have been met. The promise of making available at least one billion COVID-19 vaccine doses to Indo-Pacific countries has fallen short. Excluding what the Quad countries contributed to COVAX, just 25% have been delivered to the region so far. This needs to be expanded rapidly. Meanwhile, Quad experts have begun planning ways to enhance capacity for early detection and monitoring of “new and emerging pathogens with pandemic potential.”
•On infrastructure, a new commitment was made at Tokyo for the Quad to extend over $50 billion in investment and assistance to the Indo-Pacific countries over the next five years. While the focus is on the ASEAN countries and the Pacific Island States, a part of this funding should perhaps reach the Indian Ocean region too, with its touch points in Africa. The Common Statement of Principles on Critical Technology Supply Chains is significant, as it concerns cooperation on semiconductors.
•The atmospherics of the summit improved significantly after the launch of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) a day earlier. The joint announcement was made by the Quad, seven ASEAN member-states (excluding Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos), South Korea and New Zealand. The plan is to prepare their economies for the future by conducting negotiations on the pillars of trade; supply chains; tax and anti-corruption and clean energy; decarbonisation and infrastructure. The IPEF is ambitious, but doable.
India’s plan
•India’s constructive participation in the Tokyo summit and agreement to join IPEF demonstrated commitment to strengthening its strategic partnerships in order to push back China’s dominance. At the same time, New Delhi has agreed to the expansion of BRICS membership. This simultaneous engagement with the Quad and BRICS is New Delhi’s strategic autonomy in full play. India’s presidency of the G20 in 2023 and the likelihood of India hosting the Quad summit in 2024 will ensure that it follows a calibrated policy and stays on track, as every major step will attract international attention.
