Article of the day 25 march

Thank the left for the right

TRUTH be told, now that the left has lost its moorings, it’s mainly the right wing
that calls the shots in South Asia. Who is lending hope to the fight against Prime
Minister Narendra Modi in India? Believe it or not, it’s the hard-line Hindu right Shiv
Sena. Who is the head of the opposition alliance in Pakistan against Prime Minister
Imran Khan? Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the man who opposed the women’s
protection bill among his other regressive assertions. What is common between
the two? Both supplanted the left in street power, both have become powerful
right-wing spearheads for coalitions involving the left and liberal forces, one for the
Muslim right, the other for the Hindu right.
Who has allowed both to grow? The left-supported PPP in Pakistan and the left-
supported Congress in India are to blame. In fact, the Congress created the Shiv
Sena as a caste-based Maratha force to break the leftist trade unions headed by
Marxist Brahmins. The irony is that the left is a fragmented force in India. So, who
does one look to for succour against the onslaughts on democracy by Prime
Minister Modi and his fascist cohorts?
While the street power to combat Modi comes from the Shiv Sena — and efforts
are on to dislodge its government in Maharashtra — the main intellectual
firepower comes from right-wing ideologues. We have to count our blessings that
former BJP minister Arun Shourie has picked up the cudgels on behalf of Indian
democracy. Look how important it could be for West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata
Banerjee that former BJP minister Yashwant Sinha has joined her party to take on
the might of Modi’s party.
There are examples even within the robust farmers’ movement. The khap
panchayats that have come together to challenge Mr Modi are the ones that
colluded with him in 2014 and 2019 to bring him to power. These village

March 25, 2021

communities are also socially regressive, particularly with regard to women’s
rights, not unlike the mullahs who are part of the opposition’s moves to challenge
Khan’s government.
Much has been said in recent days about the resignation of Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a
well-regarded academic from a premier university. He has cited pressure against
his steady criticism of Mr Modi’s assault on democracy as the reason for his exit.
The Caravan magazine did a survey of some ideologically floating intellectuals who
began by supporting Mr Modi but have since become his critics. Prior to the 2014
general election, Mehta was busy deflecting concerns for the future of Indian
democracy in the event that Modi became prime minister, says the Caravan’s
survey.
As early as December 2012, after Modi secured a fresh term as chief minister of
Gujarat, Mehta published a piece titled ‘A Modi-fied politics’. In it, he backed the
politician’s eligibility for national leadership, and addressed the persistent criticism
of Modi for having watched over anti-Muslim pogroms in his state in 2002, soon
after he first took charge of it. “You can look at the convictions of Modi’s cabinet
colleagues and point to those as proxy proof of his culpability,” Mehta wrote.
Among those colleagues was Maya Kodnani, Gujarat’s minister for women and
child development until 2009, who was later given a life sentence for organising a
massacre in 2002. (The Gujarat High Court granted bail to Kodnani in 2014, shortly
after Modi became prime minister, and acquitted her last year.) But, Mehta, says
the survey, added: “You can also look at them and wonder why so many Congress
cabinet ministers still have not been made to answer for 1984” — when Congress
leaders led anti-Sikh pogroms in Delhi. “The point is not to use 1984 to politically
exonerate Modi. The point is that it is hard to attack evil when we so widely
condone it in other contexts.”
This was a roundabout way, according to Caravan, of saying what Modi’s defenders
have always said when confronted with his bloody legacy — that all those who
point it out are Congress minions. Mehta wrote that “those worried about Modi
need to set their own house in order”, and that “attacks on him have a self-
incriminating quality”. The apparent suggestion, according to the survey, was that
it was best not to criticise Modi at all. This approach also ignored the fact that

March 25, 2021

Modi’s critics included people who had long condemned the Congress’s evasion of
responsibility for 1984.
The magazine quotes a number of other intellectuals who switched sides. One
counts this as a blessing when the largest left party has taken leave of its senses to
oppose Mamata Banerjee. It sees her as a legitimate target with the BJP if not
worse.
There is intellectual wrangling between the CPI-M and CPI-ML about the strategy
in West Bengal. The CPI-ML has opposed the CPI-M’s decision to fight Mamata
Banerjee. The two communist parties had been together in the Bihar fray with Lalu
Yadav, and they did quite well for themselves as a united opposition to the BJP. At
one point the CPI-M and Mehta seem to speak in a similar voice. “We are not on
the high tide of fascism,” Mehta reassured his readers not too long ago. “It is more
about a complicated country feeling its way through difficult times, fed up with old
power structures. The ‘F’ word has become a substitute for real thinking.”
In August 2014, Ashutosh Varshney, an Indian professor at Brown University, hailed
Modi for being “pragmatic” rather than dogmatic on Hindu nationalism. Varshney,
who has since changed his position, conceded, according to Caravan’s survey of
intellectuals switching sides, that the RSS “will get personnel representation,
especially in the party and in cultural and educational institutions”, but, he
reassured readers, so long as Modi maintained his authority “it will not be able to
dictate larger policy, economic or cultural”. It’s become difficult to tell the left,
liberal and right from each other.

Jawed Naqvi
Dawn

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.

March 25, 2021

 Tension is rising over Taiwan and even if China isn’t ready to invade,
the current situation is untenable
A US Senate committee has been warned how military action from China on Taiwan
is a possibility. While Beijing is likely to stop short of war, it’s not prepared to accept
the political situation on the island for much longer.
A US Admiral sparked some alarmist headlines this week when he warned that
China’s threat to invade Taiwan is closer than people think. Adm John Aquilino, who
has been nominated to become Commander of the US Indo-Pacific Command, told
a Senate committee that China’s prestige and rejuvenation was at stake over the
issue, and described it as Beijing’s “number one priority”. The comments came
amid growing tension between China and the west, and the US affirming
cooperation with Japan over the issue.
It’s an interesting question. Would China actually risk invading Taiwan? Are there
incentives to do so? And could it bear the consequences? It has never ruled the
possibility out, as the threat of force is essential to sustaining geopolitical
equilibrium over the island. However, the likelihood remains remote.
Military commanders frequently hype up threats in order to legitimitise their own
positions, and attempt to win resources and influence. It’s an institutional thing,
and the US military industrial complex very much wants an increase in spending for
this region. So, there’s an element of ‘he would say that, wouldn’t he?’ about
Aquilino’s remarks.
But that doesn’t mean everything he said is wrong. His point about China’s prestige
and national sovereignty being on the line is correct. In this new climate of
geopolitical confrontation between China, the US and its allies, it is only inevitable
that the stakes surrounding Taiwan are set to grow.

If one looks at the fallout over the situation in Xinjiang, it seems almost inevitable
that harder actions regarding Taipei are on the horizon. The status quo between
Taiwan and mainland China is increasingly untenable, and there’s no way Beijing
can allow itself to be outmanoeuvred on such a sensitive territorial issue.

March 25, 2021

For the past 50 years, China’s relationship with Taiwan has been stable, but has
hinged on a number of factors, which have prevented a ‘frozen conflict’ from
becoming hot. Although Beijing has always seen the self-ruled region as a
breakaway province to be reunified, a number of incentives and disincentives
prevented change.
Firstly, the balance of power has been in favour of the US. In 1950, President Harry
Truman created the separation between the mainland and Taiwan by protecting
the regime of Chiang Kei-Shek via naval power. When Mao Zedong took over China,
he had no naval capability to reach the island. For most of the time since, the US
has had the upper hand, protecting the island from the mainland.
But things are changing. China is now reported to have the world’s largest navy. In
addition, open-source US documents show how China is capable of creating a
blockade extending far beyond Taiwan and across the entire first island chain. This
will reach further by 2025.
The second factor that has contributed to the stability has been China’s restraint
on Taiwan, as it enjoyed a good relationship with the west. For the past 50 years,
Beijing sought to reconcile with the west and expand ties in order to facilitate
economic development. Therefore, it would have been suicidal to start a war with
Taiwan. The west respected this as well, but the geopolitical context is changing.
Although China’s economic links with the west remain extensive, tensions are
growing and Beijing increasingly sees its core interests being infringed, as was
evidenced by its retaliation to the Xinjiang sanctions. The lesson is clear: China is
now prepared to defend itself as it senses the west is ready to push the issue of
Taiwan further than ever before.
The other key issue worth considering is that previously, the political environment
within Taiwan was tolerable to China. Even if formal reunification was off the cards,
for decades China worked with the KMT party and the two states integrated with
each other economically. Cross-strait ties were amicable. Now, the status quo has
been uprooted, thanks to Taiwan’s anti-China stance, and the Democratic
Progressive Party tilting towards pushing for formal independence.

March 25, 2021

Beijing finds this new normal on every factor increasingly untenable. In a similar
way to how the status quo between Hong Kong and the mainland has collapsed,
the same is happening between Beijing and Taipei.
Although obviously the stakes are far bigger than on Hong Kong, China’s viewpoint
is nonetheless the same – it considers its national sovereignty and territorial
integrity to be increasingly undermined by the new geopolitical context. Therefore,
a tougher, riskier strategy aimed at consolidating Beijing’s position is on the way
China is not prepared to risk a global economic collapse over war on Taiwan, but it
is very much prepared to risk a few sanctions here and there from the west in order
to gain the initiative on this issue. Look at Hong Kong as an example; China is
unlikely to care about officials being blacklisted now that the unrest is over.
Of course, the question remains, what exactly will Beijing do short of war? It could
be tougher military provocations, harder sanctions or even encouraging a pro-
China insurgency or unrest within the island itself. The fact is that the question as
to whether Beijing will invade Taiwan or not, as posed by Adm Aquilino, overlooks
the more urgent reality that the status quo is collapsing, and China thinks
something has to be done. Tougher actions are on the way. Let’s wait and see what
they are.
Tom Fowdy
Russia Today
Writer is a British Intellectual and analyst of politics and international relations
with a primary focus on East Asia.

March 25, 2021

 Whoever wins in the Israeli election, it’s clear that the Palestinians
will be the losers
Israel goes to the polls today, with Benjamin Netanyahu set to rely on extreme
right-wingers if he is to retain power, and the hardline Gideon Saar the probable
alternative. Either outcome is bad news for the Palestinian people.
Benjamin Netanyahu heads into Tuesday’s election, the fourth in only two years,
with a deeply divided political opposition. The Israeli premier is running against 10
opposition parties, as opposed to four main parties in last year’s election. And as
he bids to win not only an election but also evade prosecution over corruption
charges, he’s brought under his wing the Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party,
along with other far-right groups.
Netanyahu has ushered in an era in which the political opposition is entirely right-
wing. His former chief rival, Benny Gantz of the Kahol Lavan Party, will, according
to most polls, struggle to even make it into the Knesset (the government) at all,
after breaking his promise to the Israeli people that he would not share power with
the Likud Party’s Netanyahu. Instead of the centrist Gantz being the front-runner
against Netanyahu, it is now Gideon Saar of the New Hope Party who is considered
his main adversary.
Saar is a former Likud Party politician, who is further to the right of Netanyahu and
much more staunchly anti-Palestinian. Although the Palestinian issue is of concern
to most of the world at election time in Israel, most Israelis don’t place much
importance on it. But the growing anger from Palestinians who hold Israeli
citizenship is becoming ever more apparent.
The population of Palestinians living inside Israel, generally known as ‘Israeli-
Arabs’, have become much more politically active in recent years. They make up
roughly 20% of Israel’s population, and showed their collective power last year
voting for the coalition of Arab Parties known as the Arab Joint List. The Joint List
won 15 seats in the Knesset and cemented itself as the third biggest bloc, playing a
big role in thwarting another Netanyahu coalition win.
The Joint List has now broken up, after providing a short spell of hope for Israeli-
Arabs that they could change their predicament through the ballot box, and it is
now projected that Arab parties will not see such a big return at the ballot box. But

March 25, 2021

despite the despair of many at their inability to ever force change in the country
through elections, this new-found political engagement did not end with the 2020
election.
For months now, Israeli-Arabs living in places like Haifa, Nazareth, Umm Al-Fahm
and Jaffa have been taking part in protests against Israeli police violence, and
inaction against gang-related crime in their neighbourhoods. In the northern city of
Umm Al-Fahm, there have been protests for eight consecutive weeks, following the
killing of Palestinians by Israeli police.
Local Arab Joint List MK (Member of Knesset), Yousef Jabareen, said following the
largest protest of Israeli-Arabs in 20 years, “Umm al-Fahm now provides a
successful answer to the violence of police, who act weakly against criminals but
act brutally against demonstrators.” The most significant elements of these
ongoing demonstrations are that the protesters are carrying Palestinian flags and
are calling for unity with the West Bank and Gaza, something not seen previously.
Historically it has been the occupied Palestinian territories which have witnessed
the most energized protest movements against violence and oppression, with
those living inside Israel having remained relatively silent. But there is little doubt
that the shift of Israel further to the right has fuelled the recent political awakening
of Israeli-Arabs, who experience what they feel is institutionalised racism in the
form of legislation such as the Nation-State law passed in 2018.
Whilst Palestinians inside Israel do not feel included in mainstream Israeli politics,
those living in the occupied territories – the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza –
experience an even greater sense of exclusion. Whoever becomes prime minister
as a result of Tuesday’s election, the occupation of the West Bank and siege on
Gaza will continue. For East Jerusalem residents, who are excluded from voting in
Israeli elections despite living in the country’s self described ‘undivided capital’, the
ongoing home demolitions and home expulsions will also continue.
Indeed, the election may make things even tougher on Palestinians, as if
Netanyahu’s coalition is to receive the 61 seats it needs to form a government, he
will have to work with hardline right wing groups. One of the groups he has allied
himself with, the extreme Neo-Kahanist ‘Jewish Power Party’, has been condemned
by even the likes of American-Israeli lobby group AIPAC. Jewish Power is led by a
man named Itamar Ben-Gvir who has been convicted of supporting a terrorist

March 25, 2021

organisation and inciting racism. Netanyahu has also aligned himself with the likes
of the National Union, headed by Bezalel Smotrich, and right-wing religious party
Noam. Smotrich has been accused of racist remarks against Palestinians several
times and is openly anti-LGBT.
If he has to rely on such hardline right-wing groups in order to form a coalition
government, it is easy to imagine that the influences on Netanyahu will drive him
to commit more crimes against the Palestinians. And things will be no better for
them if the even more extreme Saar is successful. Regardless of who wins in the
election, one thing is clear – the Palestinians will lose.
Robert Inlakesh
Russia Today
Robert Inlakesh is a political analyst, journalist and documentary filmmaker
currently based in London, UK. He has reported from and lived in the occupied
Palestinian territories and currently works with Quds News and Press TV. Director
of ‘Steal of the Century: Trump's Palestine-Israel Catastrophe’.

March 25, 2021

 Hybrid Warfare and its Implications for Pakistan’s National Security
Strategy
This paper will study the impact of hybrid warfare, an established war strategy, on
the national security of Pakistan. Hybrid warfare is considered the most significant
strategic discourse in today’s contemporary world. It is said to be an old concept
but accompanied by new technologies. Its roots lie in history, but its nature has
changed due to the advancements in information technology and the involvement
of non-state actors in strategic warfare.
Hybrid warfare is not permanent in nature but the conflict of changing behaviors
and characteristics. It uses conventional military force through the use of irregular
and cyber warfare. Advancements in technological warfare tactics come up with a
design that makes it rather difficult for a country to analyze the situation.
Hybrid warfare impacts all state domains whether it be social, political, economic,
informational, military, and diplomatic. Hybrid war, in its broadest sense, includes
surgical operations, false flag operations along with cyberwar, media war, social
media war, and misinformation and disinformation.
The wars in Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan are all part of hybrid warfare due to the
significant role of media through misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, and
actual operations. Since the war is about weakening state ownership, the entire
land is considered the battlefield due to its broader spectrum of propaganda and
uncertainty.
The target areas in this warfare include the theatre command, control,
communications, and intelligence targets, sovereignty, territorial integrity, cultural
identity, ideological and ethnic cohesion, and the economy.

Hybrid Warfare Against Pakistan

Pakistan has faced serious threats from hybrid warfare due to its unique geo-
strategic location. Pakistan is a nuclear state and so conventional warfare against
Pakistan is unlikely. Therefore, a wave of indirect warfare has been imposed on
Pakistan to undermine and destabilize the peace, prosperity, and stability of the

March 25, 2021

country. Doval Doctrine of 2014 is the evidential fact that introduces the Indian
defensive-offense policy towards Pakistan.
The recent attack on the Pakistan Stock Exchange by the involvement of some state
and non-state actors is a direct attack on the economic setup, and these non-state
actors are trained armed terrorists of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) that
are funded by India and are responsible to create unrest in Balochistan. Moreover,
lobbying in FATF to get Pakistan black-listed clearly identifies India’s political and
military leadership goals and objectives towards Pakistan; an indirect war strategy
against Pakistan on the international stage to seize its assets and economy.
A report released by the US Department of Treasury’s FinCEN claimed that India
had been involved in money laundering and terrorism funding through state-
owned banks. It was reported that the money has been transferred to anti-Pakistan
elements throughout the world to support propaganda against Pakistan.
Even social media has gained a realistic significance in hybrid warfare to propagate
information warfare. EU Disinfo lab’s report published on 9 December, 2020
discussed and highlighted the secret massive operations against Pakistan.
Pakistan’s military leadership has firmly stressed the need to safeguard the national
interests in the ongoing hybrid warfare against Pakistan. Similarly, the Pakistan
Foreign Office has also warned about the enforcement of influential hybrid warfare
against Pakistan. The Government has taken many supportive initiatives in
collaboration with Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to create
awareness among the general public about fake international propaganda warfare.
Security Aspect
A study conducted in 2018 on the significance of non-conventional warfare threats
and means concluded that Pakistan’s military was only trained for conventional
warfare. Since then, Pakistan has adopted non-conventional warfare tactics of
psychological warfare, cyber warfare, cultural warfare, economic warfare,
information warfare, the weaponization of military assets.
Pakistan has also taken the irregular domain of cyberspace into accordance to
establish a threat-free national policy against hybrid warfare. Hybrid warfare is the
war of narrative and perception management. Pakistan has covered up to a major
extent the internal fault lines by establishing a strong network of media awareness

March 25, 2021

campaigns about propaganda warfare and Internal Security that discourage the
foreign actors to engage in violence inside Pakistan.
In hybrid warfare, the most important tool is the art of navigating the enemy’s
infrastructural lines of communication and fault lines in order to exploit or
influence the operations. The wide scope of ethnic conflicts, socio-economic
concerns, religious radicalizations, and political instability has increased the
complexity of the hybrid warfare scenario in the 21st century. These domains are
directly linked to the national security of any state.
Hybrid war due to its multidimensional nature and sensitivity is the core object of
today’s military operational tactics. A study has been conducted on information
warfare and its role in hybrid warfare. The study concludes that with the
advancement in Information and communication technology, information has
taken the shape of an important component of national security principles.
Today’s world is globalized due to its dependency on the internet and so increases
the risk of a cyber attack. Pakistan, being a nuclear state, is very careful in dealing
with the cyber threats to its nuclear and financial infrastructure. Consequently,
Pakistan has developed laws and bodies to deal with such threats, but there has
been a lack of concrete steps.
To deter hybrid warfare, an effective national security strategy and policy
formulation in collaboration with both civilian and military leadership is required.
A strong unity between the nation and state narrative is very much compulsory
because it’s the attack on the war of fake narratives and perception approach.

HASSNAIN MOAWIA
Paradigm Shift

March 25, 2021

 China in the Indian Ocean: India’s Dilemma
China is trying hard to dominate in Indian Ocean Region to secure its Sea Lines of
Communication (SLOC) for the protection and safety of trade activities to maintain
high economic growth. On the other hand, India is an emerging economy with the
same needs as that of China, with the clear ambition to dominate the Indian Ocean.
This desire to dominate the sea has culminated into strategies to find ways and
means to exercise this influence overseas. A strategic paradox is a result because
of the uncertain competition between the two economic giants in this region
The Indian Ocean is the third-largest water body covering about 18% of the earth’s
surface. Geographically, Asia lies in the north, Africa is in the west, Australia is in
the east, and Antarctica in the south of the Indian Ocean.
The important choke points in the Indian Ocean are the Strait of Hormuz, Bab al
Mandeb, the Strait of Malacca, the Lombok Strait, and the Palk Strait along with
the Arabian Sea, Andaman Sea, Bay of Bengal, Gulf of Aden, Mozambique Channel,
Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman and Gulf of Aden.
Suez Canal is also an important chokepoint linking the Mediterranean Sea with the
Indian Ocean. The presence of these important chokepoints and strategically
significant water bodies within the Indian Ocean contributes largely to the
significance of the Indian Ocean as a whole. Historically, the Indian Ocean has been
a hub of civilizations and maritime trade for thousands of years.
Numerous ancient civilizations of Africa and Asia played a role in the exploration of
the Indian Ocean. The Maldives was also an important ancient civilization that
flourished on the shores of the Indian Ocean. The Indian Ocean witnessed the
Muslim dynasty, Ming Dynasty, and then the colonial periods under the
Portuguese, French and British.

The SLOCs in the Indian Ocean are amongst the most significant choke points in
terms of strategic importance and relevance. The Indian Ocean links the Middle
East, Africa, and East Asia with Europe and America by important sea routes and
linkage points.

March 25, 2021

China is one of the strongest economic giants in the world with the fastest growing
economy that is likely to surpass the American economy in the coming decade.
While pursuing this large economy at a high rate, China’s interests have increased
massively in the world’s affairs because of the strategic and economic interests
they hold.

The Indian Ocean is an important playground for political and economic activities
in the 21st century. China’s interests in the Indian Ocean largely involves energy
security and access to new markets for the purpose of finding alternative sea routes
to reduce the over-reliance of China’s energy supplies over Malacca Strait and for
securing maritime trade activities by holding control over or having an influence on
the important choke points in the Indian Ocean.
The foremost interest of China is in its energy security that has compelled China to
spread its wings across the world, especially in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific
Ocean. The energy security of China is significant to meet the long-term needs of
China’s industrial and economic ventures. Secondly, the geostrategic importance
of the Indian Ocean is also an important factor to determine the standing of China
in the world.
China is opting for a long-term, sophisticated, and intelligently crafted strategy to
protect its maritime ambitions and interests in the world to overcome its energy
vulnerabilities and secure its energy supplies. Joseph Nye has defined soft power
as, “getting others to want the outcomes you want, that co-opts people rather than
coerces them.”
China has been pursuing a robust soft power strategy to build its image in different
parts of the world especially in East Asia, South Asia, and Africa to gain brotherly
cooperation to secure China’s interests in the world. China has been propagating
the Chinese expeditions in the Indian Ocean as a legacy of the historical voyages
during the Ming Dynasty.
It pursues the “Chinese Grand Strategy” in the form of the “String of Pearls
Strategy”. Pearls are the important sea bases in the Indian Ocean and joining lanes
with these pearls make it the String of Pearls. China is redefining the role of the
People’s Liberation Navy by increasing the size of fleets and weapons it operates.

March 25, 2021

In recent times, China has developed a massive number of frigates and destroyers
along with naval ships.
The Indian Ocean is considered to be the home ocean for India and India’s maritime
interests entirely depend on securing SLOCs in the Indian Ocean.8 India’s interests
in the Indian Ocean include securing and protecting important choke points in the
Indian Ocean; developing friendly relations with the Indian Ocean littoral states
especially with the members of the Indian Ocean Rim Association; and securing
India’s energy supplies and expansion of Indian markets in the Indian Ocean Rim to
counter Chinese influence.
In 2015, the Indian Prime Minister decided to take aggressive measures to counter
China’s increasing influence in the Indian Ocean region and so visited Sri Lanka,
Mauritius, and Seychelles. In addition, India proclaimed its “Look East Policy”.
Under this policy of cooperation, India deliberately built relations with the South
Asian and Southeast Asian Nations to dominate the SLOCs in the Indian Ocean.
India’s Maritime Strategy under the Indian Maritime doctrine published in 2004
and updated in 2015 clearly underlines the aspirations of India to gain command of
the Indian Ocean as India’s Ocean. Indian Maritime Strategy is based on the idea of
“Ensuring Secure Seas” in which India has mentioned the dominance over the
Indian Ocean as the inherited right of India.
Both China and India are Asian economic giants with seemingly the same energy
desires and needs. This desire to dominate is creating a kind of strategic dilemma
where both of the states with the help of allies and partners are pursuing
hegemonic policies in the Indian Ocean region. India is a powerful state in this
region and with the help of the USA, it can become a potential competitor of China.
In addition, Chinese think tanks view India’s naval and maritime ambitions beyond
the Indian Ocean and as a threat to China’s strategic interests as a whole. This
Indian strategy to expand cooperation and relations with Southeast Asian Nations
carries geostrategic implications and creates a threat perception for China.
Competition between India and China over the Indian Ocean choke points is a
matter of debate as parity between India and China in terms of economy and
military is not possible. Although, India has the energy requirements on the same

March 25, 2021

lines as China, yet India can never compete with China in Indian Ocean dominance
that is evident in the success of BRI and the String of Pearls strategy.
China has developed plenty of bases throughout different points of the Indian
Ocean, undermining Indian interests to counter this influence. Despite this unequal
power paradigm in Indian Ocean politics, India has been developing its relations in
ASEAN areas and South Asia. India has propagated itself as the keeper of the Indian
Ocean, but China, too, largely depends on the Indian Ocean’s SLOCs for its energy
supplies.
This paradox can lead to regional rivalry culminating in the global power
competition with the involvement of other big players such as the United States,
Russia, the European Union, and Australia.
The study reveals that the Indian Ocean is a pivot for world politics in contemporary
and most probably in the future as well because of the strategic significance it
holds. China and India are the most important players in Indian Ocean politics, each
having its own specific strategic interests in the Indian Ocean.
China’s baseline interests are to secure its energy supplies and minimize the
reliance on the Malacca strait for trade activities and energy supplies. India’s
interests lie in the fact of geographical proximity of India with the Indian Ocean as
India is said to be the largest Indian Ocean littoral state.
The study concludes that the overlapping interests of India and China have created
a strategic paradox in Indian Ocean politics where both states are trying to develop
their navies for the protection of the important choke points in the Indian Ocean
for the safe flow of trade. This paradox is actually an alarm for future competition
or rivalry because both the states are increasingly moving towards economic
growth that demands more and more footholds over the sea lines.

SAMRAH ASLAM
Paradigm Shift

March 25, 2021

 The Possibility of New Provinces in Pakistan
The burgeoning demand for new provinces and states on an ethnic and linguistic
basis even in the 21st century is proving many sociologists like Max Weber wrong
who held the point of view that ethnicity and nationalism would ultimately vanish
after the surge of modernization, globalization, and industrialization.
India, like most countries, faced the issue of new provinces and so appointed the
Linguistic Provinces Commission in 1948 under S.K. Dhar. The commission advised
forming the new provinces merely on administrative viability and development
potential, spurning the idea of reorganizing the state boundaries on a linguistic
basis. Rancor over this report led to the formation of another committee on the
very issue which, too, rejected the idea.
Contrarily, the Indian government was coerced to create the state of Andhra
Pradesh on linguistic footings in 1953 after the death of Potti Sriramulu in a hunger
strike for this cause. In 1953, the Government of India entrusted the task of the
reorganization of state boundaries to the Fazal Ali Commission, which
recommended that state boundaries be readjusted to form 14 states and 3 union
territories. This report further led to the reorganization of states in 1956.
Pakistan is no exception to ethnic politics as it has been facing such movements
since its inception. Although the country itself was created on Muslim nationalism
and it had cost the lives of many of the Muslims of the subcontinent to get a
separate homeland for themselves, linguistic and ethnic multipolarity rose and
sowed the seeds of hatred in less than a decade when Urdu was declared as the
national language of the country.
It was deemed unjust by the Eastern wing of the country, and Bengalis from this
region started demanding the equal status of Bengali as that of Urdu — the Urdu-
Bengali controversy. This controversy proved to be the rudimentary ingredient for
the causes of the secession of East Pakistan and thus the creation of a new country
based on Bengali nationalism.
Moreover, the people of Sindh, NWFP (now KPK), and Baluchistan have also felt
deprived of their identity when General Ayub Khan — the then President of the
country — established ”One Unit” to reduce administrative costs and provincial

March 25, 2021

prejudices; this was gauged by East Pakistanis as an attempt to counterbalance the
numerical strength of Bengalis.
Balochi also rose up against this One Unit policy under the leadership of Nawaz
Nauroz Khan, but General Ayub Khan quelled this insurgency by sending 1000
troops to Baluchistan. Pakistan, to date, faces many movements demanding
separate provinces based on ethnicities like the Saraikis, Hazaras, Mohajirs, and
those in Bahawalpur.
Demand for Hazara Province ascended after NWFP’s changed to Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) through the 18th amendment. These movements mostly claim
that small provinces can usher development and will be easy to administer.
The constitution of Pakistan, unlike the constitution of India, which permits the
Indian parliament to establish new provinces through simple legislation according
to Articles 2, 3, and 4, does not allow for the creation of new provinces. Article 216
of the 1956 constitution provided that the limits of provinces could not be altered
unless the provincial assembly of that province passed a resolution by a simple
majority.
Following the declaration of Martial Law on October 7, 1958, General Ayub Khan
gave his constitution in 1962 based on 2 provinces instead of the original five,
Article 210, which limited the National Assembly from passing any bill regarding
alteration of provincial boundaries unless the provincial assembly of that province
voted by a two-thirds majority. Such was done to give protection to the
comparatively less populated West Pakistan.
After his abdication, his successor, General Yahya Khan, restored all the four
provinces of West Pakistan by enacting the West Pakistan Dissolution Order.
Thereafter, Article 239(4) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, gave the same
protection to new provinces as was awarded to West Pakistan by Article 210 of the
1962 Constitution. This article is merely about the alteration of present boundaries,
not about creating a new province. Even the merger of FATA to Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa only altered the boundaries of an existing province, not create a new
one.
So, from a constitutional point of view, the debate on creating new provinces is
pointless. Political parties knowing the constitutional travails still clamor for new

March 25, 2021

provinces only to lure their voters while they are one of the colossal hindrances in
carving new provinces out of the existing provinces where they hold majority seats.
Recently, the South Punjab Secretariat has been made functional and people of the
region are seeing it as a beacon of hope.
Smaller administrative units can assist ineffective administration and bring the
governmental officials closer to the citizens. It will also mean the devolution of
power and funds to the local level that can then be used as per the requirements
of the localities. A strong local body system can also bring such changes; however,
no political government lets the local bodies work properly since it erodes the
power of MNAs and MPA and takes financial empowerment away from them.
In Punjab, most of the developed areas along Grand Trunk road from Rawalpindi to
Lahore and South Punjab seem to be abandoned by the provincial government. The
same is the case with the border areas in KPK. Thus, creating a new province can
amend the pitiful situation of people living in far-flung areas of their respective
provinces and help in easy accessibility of funds and services.
New infrastructure would be needed for the nascent provinces which will then lead
to job opportunities thus mitigating poverty. New provinces can also abate the
pressure on courts as new high courts could be formed for justice to be served
swiftly. If the people of marginalized areas keep supporting the same corrupt
political elite then the creation of new provinces can only have a trivial change in
their living standards.
The creation of new provinces in Pakistan will result in the ramification of the
National Financial Commission, the composition of the senate, the National
Economic Council, and the Water Accord of 1991. It would also require
amendments in Articles 1, 51, 59, 106(1), 175A, and Article 218 of Pakistan’s
constitution. Devolution of power will also strengthen federation in a multi-ethnic
society like Pakistan, but political will and public awareness are mandatory to take
pragmatic steps.

MUHAMMAD HAMZA TANVIR

Paradigm shift

March 25, 2021

 ‘Islamo-leftism’: France enters its McCarthyist era
In recent weeks, another wave of political polarisation hit France, as the concept of
“Islamo-leftism” occupied centre stage in a heated cultural debate. In an interview
with CNews, the French equivalent of Fox News, Higher Education and Research
Minister Frédérique Vidal was asked whether or not she agreed that “Islamo-
leftism is plaguing universities”. Her response was instant and shocking: “Islamo-
leftism is plaguing the entire society,” she declared.
She went on to say: “I am going to call for an investigation into all the currents of
research on these subjects in the universities, so we can distinguish proper
academic research from activism and opinion.”
Vidal’s statement on “Islamo-leftism” is the latest in a string of similar
pronouncements by elected officials in France. In June, President Emmanuel
Macron told journalists: “The academic world has its share of blame. It has
encouraged the ethnicisation of the social question, thinking this was a good line
of research. But the result can only be secessionism. This means splitting the
Republic in two.”
In October, Minister of National Education Jean-Michel Blanquer warned that
“Islamo-leftism” was “wreaking havoc in society” and denounced what he called
“the intellectual complicity in terrorism”.
These vicious attacks on academia and leftist intellectuals have been repeated
across French mainstream media and among the pseudo-intellectual elite.
They aim to whip up public hatred against the left – a traditionally secular force –
by linking it to “Islamism”, the eternal bogeyman in French society. This kind of
incitement, while politically expedient for the government, is slowly but steadily
pushing France into its own McCarthyist era. Macron and his supporters are laying
the groundwork for a witch-hunt similar to the one in the United States led by
Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s which was aimed at “purging” American
institutions of suspected communist agents, militants or sympathisers.
It is important to understand the political context in which this process is taking
place. All these statements should be viewed as part of an electoral ploy. Macron
is set to run for reelection in 2022, but his government has done poorly handling
the COVID-19 pandemic.

March 25, 2021

The country has seen over 4 million infections and more than 90,000 coronavirus-
related deaths to date. Last year, the French economy shrank by 8.3 percent, while
poverty rates almost doubled. In a September survey, 33 percent of respondents
said their income is just enough to make ends meet; 18 percent said it was not
enough at all. In an October poll, 61 percent of those surveyed felt Macron had
failed to lead an adequate response to the pandemic.
With the COVID-19 crisis likely to heavily impact next year’s elections, Macron is
expecting fierce competition at the polls and is looking for an effective strategy to
galvanise support. At the moment, nothing seems to work better in distracting the
public from the many failings of the government than attacking Islam and pursuing
“Islamist conspiracies”, and Macron seems to have jumped at the opportunity to
raise his flattening ratings.
His government already launched a brutal campaign aimed at intimidating the
Muslim community and suppressing its civil society organisations. Among other
repressive measures, it dissolved the Collectif contre l’islamophobie en France
(Collective against Islamophobia in France), which defended Muslim victims of
Islamophobia within the legal framework of the Republic.
But Macron wants to go beyond attacking the Muslim community and is now taking
aim at the left as well.
And in doing so, he is taking a page from the playbook of one of his main rivals,
Marine Le Pen, president of the far-right National Rally. The idea of “Islamo-leftism”
is something she popularised in her first presidential campaign in 2012.
It now appears that Macron’s politics have swung so far to the right that he has
fully embraced the language of the National Rally. By starting a public crusade
against the imagined Islamist-leftist conspiracy in French society, he hopes not only
to steal some of Le Pen’s votes but also to undermine the left.
Macron is specifically taking an aim at the leftist La France insoumise (France
Unbowed) party. Its leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon is the only politician to denounce
Islamophobia and French Muslims’ stigmatisation – he was the only party head who
attended the March against Islamophobia in 2019. Today he is also the only
prominent leftist who stands a chance at the presidential polls next year.

March 25, 2021

By adopting Le Pen’s racist language and demonising the left, and specifically
Mélenchon’s party, Macron hopes to emerge again as the compromise candidate,
the “lesser evil”, who the French people will vote for to avoid a far-right
government and still feel protected from the “Islamist bogeyman”.
But in pursuing re-election with ruthless, unscrupulous ploys, the president is
causing much damage to French society. By putting academia in the crosshairs, he
is directly threatening academic freedom.
Shortly after Vidal’s interview was aired, the National Centre for Scientific Research
(CNRS), the most prominent academic institution hosting the country’s finest minds
from all scientific disciplines, published a statement rejecting her accusations and
condemning “those who try to use [the term “Islamo-leftism”] to call into question
academic freedom”. It emphasised that “the political exploitation” of this term “is
emblematic of a regrettable instrumentalisation of scholarship” and and “does not
correspond to any scientific reality”.
In the meantime, Vidal has doubled down on her words and insisted that an
investigation into the “Islamo-leftism” in academia will take place. If she makes
good on her promise, this could have a devastating impact on academic life in
France.
Purging educational institutions of any intellectual or political opposition that may
question the government’s policies or mainstream attitudes would seriously curb
public debate on important political and socioeconomic issues.
Coming after academics accused of being “Islamo-leftists” would certainly limit
academic freedom and lead to self-censorship. It would disrupt the work of the so-
called decolonialists who challenge the narrative about France’s colonial past
promoted and sanctioned by the French state, thus highlighting the ills of French
colonialism.
It would also solidify the position of the Muslim community in France as the
ultimate scapegoat for the political and moral bankruptcies of the ruling elite.
“Islamo-leftism” is the latest ploy in this war on dissent in France. It is a useful tool
to silence both political adversaries and those Muslims who oppose the
Islamophobia and racism that plague the French administration and society. It

March 25, 2021

ushers France ever closer to an autocratic rule where anyone who dares to criticise,
oppose or question directives dropped from above is smeared and silenced.

Ali Saad
Aljazeera
Ali Saad is a French sociologist and media critic, focusing on the influence of mass
media on society.

March 25, 2021

 Hydropower projects are wreaking havoc in the Himalayas
On February 7, a Himalayan glacier broke and caused a flash flood in the North
Indian state of Uttarakhand. The avalanche smashed two hydroelectric dam
projects and killed more than 200 people. A total of 205 people were reported
missing in the disaster, but so far only 74 bodies and 34 separate body parts have
been recovered from the debris. Local authorities have declared those still
unaccounted for as “presumed dead” and initiated the process of issuing death
certificates for them.

Environmentalists who have been studying Himalayan glaciers for decades have
linked this deadly disaster, like many others before it, to climate change, adding
weight to the growing calls for aggressive climate action in the region.
Attributing the blame for the flash flood solely or mainly to the ongoing climate
crisis, however, risks obfuscating the failure of national and international agencies
involved in construction projects in the region to act on the lessons learned from
past disasters.

Less than 10 years ago, in 2013, flash floods left more than 5,700 people dead in
Uttarakhand. Back then, experts quickly drew links between the disaster and the
numerous hydropower construction projects in the high mountain valleys in
Uttarakhand, arguing that these projects had exacerbated the intensity of the
floods. “The disaster is a costly wake-up call,” Peter Bosshard, the policy director
at International Rivers, said in the aftermath of that deadly flood. “It shows that
nature will strike back if we disregard the ecological limits of fragile regions like
the Himalayas through reckless dam building and other infrastructure
development.”

After the 2013 flash flood, the Supreme Court of India also mandated a national
panel of experts to investigate the policy failures responsible for the disaster.
After conducting an investigation, the panel called for hydropower development
in this “disaster-prone” region to cease, arguing that it significantly amplifies the

March 25, 2021

damages caused by natural disasters. It also asked for the installation of a flood
warning system. Later, two Supreme Court justices noted that they “are very
much concerned about the mushrooming of a large number of hydroelectric
projects in Uttarakhand […] The cumulative impact of those project components
like dams, tunnels, blasting, muck disposal, mining, deforestation, etc. on the
ecosystem has yet to be scientifically examined.”

Indian governmental agencies, however, refused to heed these warnings and

continued their efforts to build dams on Himalayan rivers. Today, there are plans
to build over two dozen medium and large hydropower projects in Uttarakhand
alone. Dozens more are planned in other parts of the Indian Himalayas.

Environmentalists argue that the construction of the Tapovan Vishnugad

hydroelectric project, one of the two damaged by the February 7 flash flood, likely
increased the damage caused by the disaster. This dam was being built by India’s
National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), with the financial backing of the
Asian Development Bank (ADB). Both the NTPC and ADB were undoubtedly aware
of the warnings environmental groups and other agencies have been issuing
about hydropower development in the area since at least 2013. Their apparent
decision to ignore these warnings cost the lives of hundreds of people working on
the project site on the fateful morning of February 7. Had it not been a Sunday,
the number of fatalities on the site would have been significantly higher.

The second project affected by last month’s flash flood, the Rishiganga
Hydroelectric Project, was not merely damaged but completely swept away by
the violent surge. And the disaster did not hit that construction without warning,
either.

The Rishiganga project site was struck by a cloudburst, floods and landslides
several times between 2008-2016. None of these incidents led to the project’s

March 25, 2021

suspension. In the summer of 2019, the residents of Raini village, world renowned
for the role they played in the Chipko (Hug the Trees) movement of the 1970s,
filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Uttarakhand High Court, calling on the
district magistrate of Chamoli and the state government to review the
environmental and social impact of the Rishiganga Hydroelectric Project site. The
PIL also did not lead to any constructive action.
Those behind the hydropower projects in the Indian Himalayas long defended
their efforts against criticism from environmentalists by arguing that these
hydropower plants would reduce India’s harmful emissions and the detrimental
effects of climate change on the local population. Indeed, the construction of
hydroelectric dams in the Himalayan river valleys is part of a national plan to cut
emissions linked to the energy sector. If and when these plans are fully realised,
the disaster-prone Indian Himalayas will have one dam every 32 kilometres.

But, as the fate of the Rishiganga project clearly demonstrated, building carbon
offset projects in fragile ecologies is a dangerous and misguided endeavour. The
Rishiganga project was approved under the Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was
anticipated that once fully operational, the project would deliver emission
reductions equivalent to 49,585 metric tonnes of CO2 per annum. Those
anticipations were washed away, quite literally, in part because of the damage
that the project likely caused to the local ecology and geology.

The rapid expansion of hydropower projects in the region is not fuelled only by a
desire to produce clean energy, either. The continuing “water war” between India
and China is also a motivating factor behind the mushrooming of these projects in
the Indian Himalayas. In November 2020, the Power Construction Corporation of
China, a Chinese state-owned company, announced plans to develop a massive
hydroelectric project, with production capacity of up to 60 gigawatts, on the
lower reaches of the Yarlung Zangbo river. India responded by announcing plans
to build a 10-gigawatt project on the Siang, the main tributary of the same river,
to “offset the impact of the hydropower project by China”.

March 25, 2021

Whether they are built solely to produce clean energy or in response to regional
rivalries, the hydropower projects in the Indian Himalayas pose a significant
threat to the region’s ecology and the wellbeing of local communities. Despite
repeated warnings from experts, local authorities and government agencies
involved in these hydroelectric projects have failed to enact proper safeguards.

Even after last month’s deadly flash flood, then Chief Minister of Uttarakhand
Tirath Singh Rawat refused to acknowledge the role the massive hydropower
projects in the region has played in bringing about this tragedy. Instead of
committing to take the necessary precautions to prevent its repeat, the chief
minister called the incident a “natural disaster” and reiterated his commitment to
hydropower development. The central government, meanwhile, merely read out
a statement announcing the number of dead and missing persons in parliament.

More than 550 hydroelectric projects are under construction or being planned
throughout the Himalayas in China, India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan. Without
discounting the potential benefits of small-scale hydropower projects, national
and international agencies active in the region should put in place ecological and
social protection measures to ensure these projects do not cause more harm than
good.

That such measures have not been put in place despite thousands of deaths in
dozens of disasters that have struck the region over the past two decades, is a
damning indictment of the failure of international and national environmental
governance. International and multilateral agencies, such as the World Bank and
the Asian Development Bank, and national energy corporations, must be held to
account for these major lapses.

To avoid tragedies similar to the February 7 flash flood in the future, the question
of climate action should be debated in tandem with the broader question of
adopting an ecologically-sensitive model of development. To achieve this, we

March 25, 2021

should stop attributing the blame for such disasters solely to “nature’s fury”, and
start holding national and international agencies and policymakers accountable
for their failings.

Ajazeera
Prakash Kashwan
Associate Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the Research Program
on Economic and Social Rights, Human Rights Institute, University of Connecticut,
Storrs.
Neelima Vallangi
Neelima Vallangi is a freelance writer and photographer from India with an
interest in nature and mountain stories.

March 25, 2021

 Will Modi’s ceasefire with Pakistan last?
The perpetually fractious relationship between India and Pakistan reached a
particularly low point two years ago, after dozens of Indian paramilitary personnel
were killed in a suicide attack in Pulwama in the mountainous terrain of Kashmir.
India blamed the attack on Pakistan and bombed what it believed was a terrorist
training camp in Balakot across the border. The Pakistani air force retaliated by
shooting down an Indian air force plane in a dog-fight, with the pilot having to
eject on enemy soil. The airman was returned; but the downward spiral in ties
accelerated with the two countries withdrawing their high commissioners and
suspending bilateral trade altogether.
Now, the endless volley of heavy artillery along a United Nations-mandated Line
of Control in Kashmir (which has been claimed by both countries since 1947) has
suddenly transformed into a ceasefire. Meanwhile, several confidence-building
measures and restorations of status quo ante on a number of fronts are being
discussed in back channels.
It didn’t seem like any rapprochement between India and Pakistan was possible.
India’s head of government Narendra Modi had insisted there would be no
dialogue until Pakistan abandoned its alleged export of terrorism to India. His
opposite number Imran Khan had countered that there would be no talks until
India reversed its abrogation of the relative provincial autonomy enjoyed by
Kashmir.
There was little electoral incentive for Modi to compromise, either. India’s ruling
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is the political arm of the Hindu extremist, Muslim-
hating Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), where Modi worked as a pracharak or
propagandist in the past. His war-mongering on Pakistan before and after coming
to power has reaped rich electoral rewards.
Meanwhile, the baffling security lapse at Pulwama that allowed the attack to take
place has still not been explained. And whether the strike on Balakot achieved its
objective remains to be established. Satellite images of the area distributed by
Reuters after the bombing indicated it didn’t. The humiliating capture of an Indian
air force officer by Pakistan has been brushed under the carpet.

March 25, 2021

Khan was fire and brimstone at the UN General Assembly in 2019 and with the
Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, over Indian Kashmir being stripped off its
autonomous status. Only China, Malaysia and Turkey were sympathetic. Not even
Pakistan’s previously steadfast ally, Saudi Arabia, commiserated.
But the geopolitical dynamic has now changed considerably. The threat posed to
India’s territorial integrity by Chinese troops crossing the traditionally respected
Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh, adjacent to Kashmir, nearly a year ago and
refusing to retreat, has forced Modi to swallow the bitter pill of mending fences
with his neighbour Pakistan.
The perilous state of Pakistan’s economy – notwithstanding an International
Monetary Fund bailout – has convinced Khan to do the same. He is said to be now
considering importing cotton from India. Khan unilaterally terminated trade
between the two countries after Modi’s controversial centralisation of Kashmir.
But it’s Modi who is responsible for economic ties stagnating to both countries’
detriment.
India extended most favoured nation (MFN) status to Pakistan on trade in 1996.
But the civilian government in Islamabad came under pressure from its
omnipotent army not to reciprocate. The Pakistani cabinet eventually agreed to
this in January 2014, with the deal renamed as a ‘non-discriminatory market
access’ (NDMA) treaty.
The Pakistani cabinet was on the verge of formally approving the pact when I can
reveal that it was spiked by Modi, who through the United States-based RSS
activist, Jay Kumar, asked Pakistan via its ambassador in Washington, Jalil Abbas
Jilani, to postpone ratifying the deal until he came to power in May that year.
Jilani told me that, ‘He (Kumar) said that he was conveying the message on behalf
of Mr Modi… In order to ascertain the authenticity of the message, our High
Commissioner in India was asked to verify the contents of the message. The High
Commissioner after consulting with the BJP camp and people close to Mr Modi
confirmed that the message delivered by Mr Kumar was indeed on behalf of Mr
Modi.’ Jilani explained that Modi’s ‘BJP felt that the grant of MFN by Pakistan
during the election would be advantageous to Congress, which was then in
power.' Kumar confirmed that Jilani’s narration of events was correct and said he
was acting with Modi’s knowledge and approval. Pakistan agreed to the request,

March 25, 2021

feeling that it would be wise to start on a positive note with the incoming Modi
administration.
But Modi did not keep his word. The NDMA was conveniently forgotten when he
entered office and embarked on bashing Pakistan and extracting benefits at
elections.
Professor Athar Hussain of the London School of Economics was of the view that if
an MFN was in place, Indo-Pak trade could yield an expansion of £36 billion in a
decade. Trade stood at a mere £1.7 billion in 2018-19. Tens of billions of trade
would certainly have provided a cushion against a slowing Indian economy, which
has now been dealt a body blow by the coronavirus pandemic.
If the Pakistani army is on board, Khan will have no difficulty proceeding with an
improvement in relations. But how will Modi sell the softening of the line towards
Pakistan to his surcharged constituency?

Ashis Ray
The Spectator

March 25, 2021

 One Nation One Curriculum
IB, Cambridge, Provincial Board systems, Federal Board system, and the multiple
conventional Madarassah systems, working simultaneously in a country can bring
nothing but disorder. It has always been a challenging question for any parent as
to which school and system he should opt for his child’s education. The answer
lies in his financial status, his location, his approach towards edification, and of
course, the social trends.
The implementation of SNC (Single National Curriculum) has triggered a state of
panic. People related to education, directly or indirectly, have questions about its
workability, sustainability, and practicality. Be it a parent, a student, businessman,
economist, political expert, or a religious man, everyone has a lot to say. Where
many seem excited and relieved, there are several aggrieved as well. Some see it
as a change while others apprehend stagnation. Questions surfacing up vary from
person to person. Would it be possible for the government schools to achieve the
levels of excellence required by a uniform curriculum? Would a private school’s
student be able to handle certain subjects in Urdu? Would it be wise to pay
thousands of rupees to the elite private schools when they’ll be teaching the
same curriculum as others? Will the books be properly tailored to bridge the gaps
between the multiple education systems? Would it be a good idea to exclude ICT
at the primary levels? Would schools be able to do justice to teaching Quran?
What about the people who believe that learning Quran in Arabic is futile as it’s
the manual about living a life and not reciting without understanding? Will these
model books be equally useful in steering the child towards international
examinations? Can a child of a poor servant take the same exam as the child of a
millionaire? These questions depict our psyche, the mind-sets, the tangible
realities, financial divisions, and classes of our society.
Many portals, platforms, and forums on social media prove that the parent body
has never been satisfied with the education situation and systems. A majority of
parents are witnessed complaining and showing their disappointment in the
curriculum, frameworks, teaching methodologies, and ever-increasing fees. A
single curriculum for all has been a constant demand by the stakeholders of the
education business i.e., the parents. Mrs. Tooba Tahir, a mother of four says,
“Keeping my fingers crossed, I’ve been waiting for this since forever. The existing

March 25, 2021

education system in our country is haywire. Many still struggle to understand the
logic and difference between matriculation and O levels! It’s all just business. Due
to the negligence and mala-fide intentions of our previous governments, we are
exploited by the private schools. They force us to buy books printed at their own
printing houses. The curriculums are imported from abroad, hardly custom-
designed to fit the requirements of our youth; but bringing huge profits to the
schools and an average gain to us.”
The deliberate degradation of government schools hasn’t left the people with
another choice. Therefore, come hell or high water, every parent tries hard to
afford a private school. SNC is a hope that whichever school a parent may choose;
the curriculum would be the same. The only concern would be, the quality of
tutelage.
“In a few decades, private schools have very intelligently created a market of their
own. With their own standards, their fancy uniforms, their curriculum, and
printing houses, they’ve been able to establish small dynasties of their own. The
huge banners feel under threat now. Such schools are likely to provoke the
parents, instilling fear of a poor career of their children. All we need is to stay
put!”, said Mr. Iqbal Hassan (a parent). The arguments and chaos can be seen on
social media forums. The nation needs to comprehend that the national
curriculum has been designed by collective efforts and most of the renowned
scholars and prestigious institutions have contributed to this cause. There are
several misconceptions regarding the medium, making it a war between Urdu and
English. SNC suggests Islamiat and Social Studies be taught in Urdu whereas, the
medium of teaching for the rest of the subjects would be English. People with a
progressive attitude think it to be a recessive step. Command over the national
language has always been irrelevant in our social philosophy, whereas, English is
indispensable as it is generally associated with intellect and competence.
Significance and utility of the English language is unquestionable, but
marginalizing the local and national languages is also unjustifiable. We have
countless examples of people who have studied the local board assigned
textbooks and yet accepted by International universities worldwide. The efficacy
of any curriculum is contingent upon the execution, and equipping the teachers
with the knowledge, attitudes, and skills they require to perform. It’s high time

March 25, 2021

we reject the misconceptions and marketing ploy of the private schools to justify
their high fee and flamboyance.
SNC will reveal the weaknesses in the ever praised multitude of private schools
compared to the Urdu medium government schools. It is a composed and
balanced step towards synchronizing the categories among our society. It’ll push
and pull both the sectors: private and public. Multiple Comparative studies have
been carried out, to align SNC with international standards. It includes the
analysis and comparison with standards of the UK, Cambridge, Singapore, and
Indonesia/Malaysia. A thorough consultation with all the educational sectors and
systems is professed on the official website. The four-tiered process
comprehensively covers the curriculum documentation, development of the
model textbooks, teachers’ training modules, and assessment framework. SNC
focuses on defining the framework, specifying the topics. The model books would
reassure the achievement of the objectives. The schools would be responsible for
teaching whichever way they prefer. They are free to utilize pre-approved extra
books, supplementing and supporting the learning process.
Much criticism is observed by the modern approach. The content of Islamiat is
heavier as compared to the previous syllabi. Along with the Quran Nazra and hifz
of surahs, a number of Ahadith are included as well. The lot suggesting
comparative religion deems it to be an extreme step. Besides, for a child aiming at
O levels, it would be difficult to switch the medium of instruction as all the
subjects including Islamiat are taught as well as assessed in English. Furthermore,
when it comes to interacting with the world outside Pakistan, our youth should be
well versed and competent enough to explain and convey their Islamic beliefs. For
that, the basic vocabulary and expression is a must which can only come if they’ve
been taught in a language understood by the rest of the world.
Even after so many years of independence, we have been unable to take pride in
our entity. Instead of creating an educational framework on a national level and
making it at par with the international levels, we have preferred to copy-paste
others. Adopting the curriculum as well as the examination system has made
schooling ridiculously expensive. A regular program of O levels costs around seven
lakhs per child. The school fees, the extra tuition fees paid to academies, as none
of the schools is competent enough to guarantee good grades to a child, the

March 25, 2021

multiple books, and the Cambridge examination fee, PKR17000 for a single
subject. How many of us can conveniently afford it? Another obvious side effect is
the inequality and confusion deliberately created by the several systems. Why do
our students require to testify on the international standards at such young ages?
Our local matric system should be competent enough to enable our generations
to compete with any foreign assessment system. Besides implementing a uniform
framework, there is a need to regulate the teaching tools and methodologies,
along with the implementation of a standardized, transparent assessment system.
The tarnished board examinations and checking strategies have made our
accreditation worthless internationally. People prefer spending a fortune on
Cambridge degrees as they believe it to be the only door to explore the foreign
academic world.
The panic reveals the mistrust of our governmental initiatives, based on past
experiences. We’re constantly fed lies and policies go to trash, the moment a
government changes.
Ms. Rabia Shuja, a middle school teacher says, "Once into the system, things will
automatically evolve and improve. National curriculums are enforced around the
world. Private schools still flourish as they offer a better student-teacher ratio and
extracurricular activities. People focused on additional skills always have a choice
to add on the electives and individual coaching. Instead of impeding the
implementation of a much needed and well-thought project, they should consider
the collective benefit.” The panic reveals the mistrust of our governmental
initiatives, based on past experiences. We are constantly fed lies and policies are
trashed the moment a government changes. Therefore, Pakistanis find it almost
impossible to have faith in any reform.
The Revolutionary idea of SNC; a single system of education, and a common
platform of assessment so that all the children can have a fair and equal
opportunity to receive a quality education, is a remarkable effort to bring the
whole nation to one page. Fear of the unseen is lethal! A practical solution to
resolve the panic would be to go through the contents, action plan, assessment
frameworks, teacher training, and overall ecology. The competition between both
sectors is very much alive as it is all dependent upon the execution. Besides, the
schools focusing on grooming, extra activities, and co-curricular accomplishments

March 25, 2021

would have an edge. Socially, it will improve our image worldwide as nations
taking pride in their own identity and language have always earned respect. Let us
see what SNC proves to be; Merely another experimentation or an epoch-making
move, banishing the social inequality and uplifting all, irrespective of status and
position.

Maliha Choudhary
Daily Pakistan

March 25, 2021