The Kashmir factor in UK–India relations

Since the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A by India in August 2019, the Kashmir issue has become an obstacle in India–UK relations. Rahul Roy-Chaudhury explains how the new UK government could provide opportunities to ‘de-hyphentate’ relations between India and Pakistan.
 
Despite the many strengths of the UK-India bilateral relationship, there remains an ‘elephant in the room’ – the Pakistan/Kashmir issue. The Indian security establishment perceives the UK government as favouring Pakistan diplomatically and being critical of India’s governance over Jammu & Kashmir. But, the UK government denies such a bias and maintains that Kashmir is a bilateral dispute between India and Pakistan. Crucially, Boris Johnson’s new post-Brexit government could seek to further ‘de-hyphenate’ its India-Pakistan relationship. On 6 February, it announced that Sir Philip Barton will be the next British High Commissioner to India; as the first British High Commissioner to have served earlier in India, Sir Philip takes up this appointment with considerable experience on security issues.
 
Kashmir in the UN Security Council
 
On 16 August 2019, China made the first of three attempts in the UNSC to criticise India’s controversial decision of 5 August 2019 to revoke Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution and end the semi-autonomous special status of Jammu and Kashmir and merge it fully into the Indian Union as two union territories. It is alleged that the UK supported China (and Pakistan) in calling for such an informal session as well as supporting a formal UNSC statement. Although the British High Commission in New Delhi formally denied both these allegations, Indian security officials remain unconvinced. In the event, an informal closed session on Kashmir took place in the UNSC for the first time in nearly 50 years, but failed to come up with a joint statement to the press; the Chinese and Pakistani envoys subsequently briefed the media.
 
However, in December, another Chinese attempt to discuss Kashmir at the UNSC was foiled by the UK, along with the US, France and Russia. Although a discussion on Kashmir took place in the UNSC in mid-January 2020, the UK, along with the US, Germany and France, made it clear that the UNSC was not the forum to raise the Kashmir dispute, which was a bilateral matter for India and Pakistan to resolve.
 
The Indian foreign policy establishment also perceives UK parliamentary debates on Kashmir, most recently in September 2019 and January 2020, as a ‘victory’ for Pakistan in a classic ‘zero-sum’ game. But, this should not be seen to be the case; British MPs of diverse ethnic origins represent diverse political causes for their constituents, without any official UK government endorsement.
 
More important are the official UK statements made during these debates. On 10 February 2020, for example, Heather Wheeler MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Asia and the Pacific), stated: “HMG’s longstanding position is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution on Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people…it is not for the UK to prescribe a solution or to act as a mediator”.
 
At the same time, the UK continues to raise concerns over the human rights situation across India, including calling for ongoing restrictions and detentions in Jammu and Kashmir to be lifted as soon as possible. One can assume there is also private official UK concern over the protests taking place in India over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), and their implications for India as a democratic and secular state.
 
The Pakistan factor
 
The Indian security establishment remains concerned of the series of anti-India protests by Sikh and Kashmiri separatist groups that have taken place recently in London (including the violent anti-India demonstrations outside the Indian High Commission on 15 August and 3 September 2019). But, the UK continues to support India in calling for Pakistan to bring the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai terror attack to justice; to take decisive and concerted actions against Pakistan-based terror outfits including the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM); and in May 2019, the UK, along with the US and France, successfully co-sponsored a resolution in the UN to declare JeM leader Masood Azhar as a “global terrorist.”
 
Although the Indian security establishment believes the UK could do far more than it is currently doing to curb cross-border terrorism against India emanating from Pakistan, the UK feels Indian perceptions of its influence over the Pakistan army and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) are exaggerated. Notably, the official Pakistani narrative is that the UK has a distinct ‘pro-India bias,’ as it has not been sufficiently critical of India’s actions on Kashmir, post 5 August.
 
‘De-hyphenated’ relationship
 
The UK’s ‘enhanced strategic dialogue’ with Pakistan will continue to focus on intelligence sharing, security and military cooperation, stability in Afghanistan and trade relations, keeping in view the influence and impact of the 1.5-million Pakistani-origin diaspora (now, reportedly, nearly as large as the India-origin diaspora) on UK domestic politics. The UK will also remain a ‘safe haven’ for Pakistani political leaders of all hues.
 
At the same time, India has a much larger multi-faceted and multi-stakeholder relationship with the UK focusing on trade and investment, Indian-origin diaspora and cultural relations, technology, and security and defence. In view of the unique opportunities and advantages for India in its relations with the UK post Brexit, including on a future trade deal, it would be short-sighted for New Delhi to perceive the UK’s relations with Pakistan on an emotional basis, or indeed, as a ‘zero-sum’ game for India. Indeed, pragmatically, these do not directly affect India’s security, even though they may not always be aligned with India’s immediate interests (as in Afghanistan).
 
Moreover, Boris Johnson’s new post-Brexit government could provide further opportunities to ‘de-hyphenate’ relations between India and Pakistan. It will also be far less influenced by the traditional Labour-leading Pakistan-origin diaspora. Moreover, two of its top three Cabinet posts are held by British Indians, Rishi Sunak as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Priti Patel as Home Secretary; and four of seven Indian-origin Conservative party MPs are Cabinet Ministers/attend Cabinet meetings.
 
This commentary was originally published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
 
Rahul Roy-Chaudhury
March 11, 2020

source https://indiaoutbound.org/the-kashmir-factor-in-uk-india-relations/

India’s tryst with the startup ecosystem

Startups, both in India and other parts of the world, have attracted considerable traction over the last couple of decades. From government to academic institutions to media, all are overtly focused on startups and entrepreneurship. And for the right reasons, it seems. To lay credence to this is the fact that massive wealth creation happened in the ecosystem, with figures close to $2.8trillion in economic value. This is at par with a G7 economyand is bigger than the annual GDP of the United Kingdom.
 
Interestingly, the Indian startup space has evolved over the last two decades. While startups got conceived as early as 2000s, the ecosystem was nascent for a long time, as only a few investors were active and there existed only a handful of support organizations, including incubators and accelerators. But the last decade has witnessed significant activity on multiple fronts, including the setup of new startups, influx of global investors and capital inflows, development of regulatory infrastructure, global mergers, acquisitions and globalisation. As the vision for a $5trillion-dollar economy in India is laid out, it is amply evident that start-ups will be one of the strongest force-multipliers of this economy.
 
For instance, the recent Budget 2020 is replete with favourable instances and policies. Besides an adequate focus on developing the tech infrastructure, which saw investments in machine learning, artificial intelligence and quantum computing, the budget introduced measures aimed at mainstreaming the startup economy. Measures such as deferment of the tax incidence on the Employee Stock Options (ESOP), tax holiday on profits for startups, among others are welcome moves. Further, the fact that these measures are applicable for companies who qualify under section 80-IAC means that it will allow more startups to get incorporated, expand their operations, hire more talent and in turn boost employment prospects. Indiais already home to more than 40,000 startups and 33 unicorns and qualifies as the third largest market for startups.
 
Nevertheless, India’s policy approach does suffer from certain shortcomings. One,it mostly focuses on bringing more people into start-ups and in turn, encourages need-based rather than opportunity-based entrepreneurship. This translates into putting emphasis on self-employment rather than large and scalable ventures. As our policy prioritises on bringing in more ventures that are past the startup phase, they often fail to hit the spot due to lack of working capital and resources available to the startups.
 
Second, in general there exists an information asymmetry between the founders of startups and the customers for whom they aim to build products. Given the prevalence of different living environments in India, it is difficult to envisage a startup that would cater to a pan-India audience. Other significant challenges include certain regulatory hurdles and access to the market by startups.
 
A broader emphasis is often placed on innovation and developing R&D capacities. But, India still suffers from a maze of laws and regulations that stifle an entrepreneur’s options to start a business here. So, to foster the growth of startups, we need to comprehensively create a self-sustaining cluster of innovation economies, for instance, through the Smart City mission and innovation labs. Also, policy reforms that improve economic conditions as well as investments in physical and digital infrastructure are expected to benefit startups. Along with simplification of existing policies, the government should also aim to reduce structural inefficiencies and pave the development of the ecosystem.
 
With the proliferation of smartphones and technology and the prevalence of a rich demographic dividend, the opportunities in the startup space remain unparalleled. Another catalyst for innovation is urbanization. From a consumerist point of view, this creates a young middle-class with increased spending power and a heightened interest in digital innovation. The large diversity along with challenges in the social sphere such as education, health etc. makes a strong case for a rich economy of products and services. While the opportunities are immense, the challenges are many. Hence, the path to being a global player in technology and innovation would require a combination of government support, funding from both domestic and international firms to enhance India’s position in the startup space.
 
India Outbound
March 9, 2020

source https://indiaoutbound.org/indias-tryst-with-the-startup-ecosystem/

Woes of the Home Secretary Priti Patel

Lutyens London: A View from the Westminster Bubble

In an unprecedented move, the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office, Sir Philip Rutnam resigned last week making a statement to the BBC (right on time before the Sunday columnists finalised their pieces for the next day’s papers) accusing the Home Secretary Priti Patel of bullying and being abusive not only to him but also to the wider staff at the Home Office. Refusing a financial settlement from the Cabinet Office, Sir Philip will be taking the government to court citing “constructive dismissal.”
 
Since then, other reports of bullying by the Home Secretary in her previous stints as minister, in other government departments have surfaced. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has backed his Home Secretary although he has instructed the Cabinet office to ascertain facts around the issues of ministerial misconduct. The Conservatives have rallied around the embattled Home Secretary, while the Labour party and other opposition parties along with the “left” media have already judged Priti Patel of being vicious and guilty.
 
However, there is a tinge of hypocrisy in how this is being played out in an openly partisan basis.
 
Usually, publications such as the Guardian and its columnists would throw in their support behind a non-public school-educated woman of colour, against the accusations of a public school and Oxbridge educated senior civil servant who is a Knight of the realm. However, Priti Patel is a Conservative Brexiteer and has no time to play the victim card of race or gender. Hence, she is ‘unworthy’ of the support from the liberal left. Dianne Abbott, the Shadow Home Secretary and other senior Labour figures have called for Patel’s removal from office. However, the conservatives have argued that mere allegations of this kind must not lead to a politician being removed from one of the great offices of the state.
 
This position exposes the Tories to criticisms of hypocrisy as well. The party’s opposition, which this columnist shares, to erstwhile Speaker of Commons John Bercow’s elevation to the House of Lords is supposedly based on the reports of bullying and abusing his staff. There are indeed serious allegations against the former Speaker, however, critics suggest that it was due to John Bercow’s role in blocking the expressed public will to exit the European Union in the last Parliament.
 
By all reports, Patel is a good Home Secretary focused on securing our borders and keeping our streets safe. She also enjoys the confidence of the Prime Minister and the Tory backbenches. However, bullying and abuse at the work place just as much as in the school playground are scourges that must be eradicated ruthlessly. Any minister facing those charges must be thoroughly investigated and if proven true should be sacked. Until then the minister in question must be allowed to serve the public, following the common legal maxim “innocent until proven guilty.”
 
That is exactly what Prime Minister Boris Johnson has done and it is time for all sides to respect the process and not prejudge the situation.
 
India Outbound
March 4, 2020
 
 

source https://indiaoutbound.org/woes-of-the-home-secretary-priti-patel/

The media: a ubiquitous threat to democracy

Proliferation of media has led to a manic outpour of news, that is more often than not, a quest for misconstrued or misrepresented versions of facts. The Oxford Dictionary defines “post truth” as the “public burial of objective facts by an avalanche of media appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Under the garb of Freedom of Speech and Expression, we are living in a warped version of a post-truth world today. Historically, media has been a great boon for society but in its current form, it is fast losing trust and credibility, a danger that can prove catastrophic for any democracy.
 
Edmund Burke, during a parliamentary debate in the House of Commons in 1787, claimed that those in the reporters’ gallery represented “the Fourth Estate.” Thus, Burke argued that the press was the most powerful of all the forces, driven by the compulsion of seeking the truth and nothing but the truth, underpinned by an ethos of public good. Historically, the press has functioned on the currency of “trust”, of the people it serves, for holding up a mirror to society, complete with all its warts, evils and fallacies as well as ensuring that the powerful are held accountable for their actions. More often than not, the press has done this right.
 
From the Pentagon Papers to the UK MPs expenses scandal and the Panama Papers lifting the lid on how the wealthy and powerful hide their money without paying taxes in off shore tax havens are all excellent examples of investigative journalism on a global scale. Aside from these global media powerhouses, there have been many unsung heroes from local papers and stations who have often challenged the power and unveiled atrocities of big business, politicos and bigots, despite being threatened or worse, killed. They have lived up to the best ideals of the Fourth Estate as the “force for good” that aims to improve lives and also strengthen democracy. Over the course of the 20th century, Burke’s prophecy has stood the test of time, with the information revolution and proliferation of technology, infusing an almost unparalleled power into organised media.
 
Lord Melbourne, the former British Prime Minister, in a debate in 1817, argued that “remind the conductors of the press of their duty to apply to themselves a maxim which they never neglected to urge on the consideration of government that the possession of great power necessarily implies great responsibility.”
 
As we embark on the second decade of the 21st century, it seems as if the leaders in the media industry have failed to live up to this maxim, be it Fox News, CNN, NDTV, Republic, The Economist or The Financial Times. Trust in the media is falling to a new low. Moreover, far too many people instinctively believe that the media, instead of being a defender against the post-truth world, has become an enabler and participant of old-fashioned lies, hot air talk, willful exaggerations, buffoonery, biased reporting, “alternative facts” and so on. Bluff and bluster hides from public attention issues that may be less “news-breaking.”
 
The Freedom of Speech and Expression, enshrined in most democratic constitutions worldwide, has been and is undoubtedly a cherished ideal in society. However, journalists have been using this democratic right pervasively to function as the world’s “judge, jury and executioner.” The President of the Republic India used these words in a recent speech and urged the media to be more responsible.
 
Interestingly, many journalists accept this reality of a crisis of trust. This perspective was best presented by Rajdeep Sardesai, a renowned journalist when he told the DW,”I think there is a credibility crisis, in that television news media in particular, is driven by a tendency to put sensation above sense in the search for ratings.” Similarly, on Fox News and CNN, we hear commentators and journalists alike call out exaggerations or willful misconstruction of the truth. However, these are not mea culpa moments. Instead, they only call out those who they believe do not share their “biases.”
 
Unfortunately, these incidents therefore exacerbate the lack of trust in the media in general, across the world’s two largest democracies and democratic societies elsewhere as well.They reinforce the idea that media is not as interested in pursuing facts, but keener about pushing particular narratives that suits its biases. The mediated to use the doctrines of “Freedom of Speech and Expression” to pursue ratings and their own agenda even if that means hurting or tarnishing the reputations of innocent individuals to harming national interests.
 
The issue of post-truth is not a Left Vs. Right issue. While politics and society have historically paid the price of misinformation and manipulation of fact, resulting in full-fledged wars as well, the phenomenon of post-truth today, has assumed disastrous proportions. The access to technology and information, supposed to prevent people from remaining oblivious to happenings in society, has made it close to impossible to discern fact from fiction. It has become dangerous to believe anything written or shown in the media.
 
That is inherently a clear and persistent danger to democracy.
 
Shamit Ghosh and Aditi Rukhaiyar
February 3, 2020

source https://indiaoutbound.org/the-media-a-ubiquitous-threat-to-democracy/

The Ideas For India conference: diverse conversations around India’s growth story

Bridge India, a London-based think tank, has conceptualised a unique Ideas For India conference. The inaugural three-day event will be held in London from April 22-24, 2020. Ideas For India will bring together business, policy and diaspora leaders from the UK, India and Europe, to collectively deliberate upon the next wave of India’s growth as a formidable global economy and nation.

Who is Bridge India?

Bridge India is a progressive and not-for-profit think tank, dedicated toward delving into public policy discourses for the betterment of India. Often, the “India Story” is presented through a narrow lens in the international community, with limited viewpoints on the business environment, economy or policy landscape. However, India’s massive scale and diversity renders it as a land of juxtapositions. Within this context, Bridge India seeks to highlight and celebrate this nuanced perspective, in order to facilitate a better understanding for the India-watchers.

A glimpse into the inaugural conference

The Ideas For India event is likely to bring afield 400+ attendees, including, 50+ foreign delegates and representatives from 10+ countries, across 12+ sessions, keynotes, panel discussions, focused roundtables and exclusive breakfast briefings, to curate and create a distinctive configuration of a million ideas for India.

Ideas For India has been designed in a manner that Day 1 will take place in the British Houses of Parliament; Day 2 will contain focused, parallel business and policy dialogue sessions; and Day 3 will include an all-day business conference followed by an invite-only black-tie dinner. A vast range of topics will be encapsulated across the various sessions to provide a 360-degree view of the India Story. Some of these relate to: India’s attractiveness as an investment destination, India’s energy security, fake news in India, artificial intelligence, data privacy and security, India’s position in the world, delivering for the bottom 90% of India, to list a few.

Some esteemed speakers who have confirmed their presence at the event include: Lord Karan Bilimoria (President, Confederation of British Industry), Mohandas Pai (Chairman, Manipal Global Education), Karan Thapar (TV news anchor), Nakul Saxena (Head of Policy, iSpirt Foundation), Sitaram Yechury (General Secretary, CPI (M)), Abhinandan Sekhri (CEO, Newslaundry), Dinesh Dhamija MEP (Chair of India Caucus, European Parliament), Siddarth Zarabi (Executive Editor, Business Television India) and Nitin Mantri (President, ICCO).

Rohini Lakhani, a team member of Bridge India said: “The event space in the UK-India corridor is a crowded one, but what is unique about Ideas For India is that it brings together senior stakeholders from business, policy, academia and elsewhere, not just from the bilateral corridor and on one side of the political spectrum, but in a genuinely diverse manner to explore collaboration opportunities between Europe and India, as well as globally. Our big focus will be to debate and discuss the big ideas that could drive India’s growth both as an economy and nation over the coming decades.”

According to Speaker Nakul Saxena, Director of Public Policy at iSPIRT Foundation, “The nature of growth in India is changing. Capital and access to the internet has disrupted business models in India, creating a virtuous cycle of growth for many of India’s tech startups. As India rebrands itself and evolves as an economy, technology, innovation, data privacy and related topics will be at the heart of this growth. I’m delighted to be able to contribute to such ideas for India at this conference.”

Pushparaj Deshpande, Director of the Samruddha Bharat Foundation opined that “The Indian diaspora has risen to the top of their professions globally and can contribute significantly to India’s growth as an economy as well as a heterogeneous democracy. I look forward to engaging in this unique forum to bring together leaders from just from India but globally, in a unique, diverse yet intimate forum.”

In order to convene and drive the debates and conversations across Europe and India, India Outbound has been brought on board as a media partner for the Ideas For India inaugural conference. All our partners have come together to ensure that this conference provides a unique, inclusive and focused forum and starts an annual conversation that yields invaluable insights into India’s current and future growth story.

For further information, please visit www.bridgeindia.org.uk/event/ideas-for-india-april-2020.

For details related to speakership, sponsorship, exhibition or any other event-related information, please email sanjana@bridgeindia.org.uk.

source https://indiaoutbound.org/the-ideas-for-india-conference-diverse-conversations-around-indias-growth-story/

Yes, Trump will possibly survive impeachment

The United States is currently in the middle of an upheaval. The chaotic aftermath of the US strike against Iran and a shock turn in President Donald trump’s impeachment drama are triggering a monumental Capitol Hill clash over trust and presidential power. Besides the raging uncertainty over the trial, the developments in the Middle East shifted the focus in Washington, even as Trump remains fixated as ever on the impeachment saga. He now faces a trial in the Senate, possibly in January, where he is likely to be acquitted in the Republican-controlled Senate.In theory, a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate would be required to convict Trump and remove him from office.
 
With no direct negotiations between the Senate leaders, combined with John R. Bolton’s (the former White House national security advisor) willingness to testify at Trump’s impeachment trial indeed puts a new face to the process. According to many, Bolton’s statement could spur a dramatic turn that could alter the political dynamic of the impeachment trial in the Senate where Trump’s presidency hangs in the balance. But that appears unlikely. First, given that Trump enjoys an 80% approval rate among Republicans, it is hard to see mass defections among the Senate Republicans. Further, the approval rate suggests that the Republicans will double-down on their far-right vision of America and stick with Trump, irrespective of the malfeasance that came to light.
 
Even the fact that opinion polls among people have fairly remained immobile signifies the growing inelasticity of American politics and demonstrates the support that Trump enjoys outside Congress. Consequently, on a purely tactical level this move,could actually end up enhancing his support base,instead of eroding it. All of these do indicate that there is no way to send Trump packing. But the fact that he is poised to win in 2020 and serve another four years, is what makes impeachment a warranted move.
 
In this regard, the Democrats have rightly sounded the bugle by holding an impeachment procedure against him. At the heart of Democrats case is the allegation that Trump tried to leverage a White House meeting and military aid, sought by Ukraine, to combat Russian military aggression, to pressure Ukrainian President Volody mr Zelensky to launch an investigation of former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Second, Trump also wanted Zelensky to investigate a debunked conspiracy theory, that Ukraine, not Russia, colluded with Democrats in the 2016 election. The premise on which the impeachment clause was included by James Madison and co. was to guard against the potential incapacity, negligence and perfidy of a President. Another dangerous possibility, according to them was that the “President might betray his trust to foreign powers.” Trump through all his high crimes and misdemeanors made his impeachment inevitable.
 
In all, impeachment nonetheless is a gamble for the Democrats as a full-blown trial distracts them from their core election agenda. But with the current dysfunction in American politics, impeachment almost becomes a shield against the dangers that a president like Trump poses. So even though impeachment might include partisanship, it ultimately asserts the supremacy of law in a political system.
 
India Outbound
January 9, 2019

source https://indiaoutbound.org/yes-trump-will-possibly-survive-impeachment/

End of the global trade order?

One of the pillars of the global trade order, the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) dispute settlement system is set to collapse quietly this week. Though its demise may not make headlines akin to the US-China trade war, but its demise entails moving further away from multilateral rules, designed to promote global free trade and towards a law of the jungle where the mighty wins.
 
The collapse has been in the making for over two years, driven by a US blockade on appointments to the WTO’s highest court, the Appellate Body. In fact, U.S President Donald Trump has rallied against the WTO, calling it a catastrophe and a disaster, based on the assertion that the United States loses cases due to a skewed proportion and representation of Americans in the court. It is not unknown that Trump faces a barrage of disputes, at the WTO against his trade policies, including global tariffs on steel, and a tariff war with China with no end in sight.
 
Since he came to power, Washington has blocked all appointments to the appeals’ chamber as existing judges’ terms end. Such absence of new appointments, which can only occur by consensus of all WTO members in December, the appellate body will shrink to only one member out of its standard of seven, two less to form a quorum of three necessary to hear appeals and settle trade disputes. In a matter of months, their rotation will become meaningless, placing an impossible workload on the remaining members. The next vacancies for the US and Indian members occur in December 2019, at which point the appeals process would be crippled.
 
Essentially, what is at stake is a unique system that has on balance safeguarded the interests of all WTO members, regardless of their economic size or diplomatic influence. Governments must settle trade disputes through the dispute settlement system, if other diplomatic means are exhausted. The dispute settlement mechanism often referred to as the “crown jewel” of the WTO provides governments the right to appeal decisions and the right to withdraw trade concessions and raise tariffs in the event of an adverse funding. The international legitimacy of the WTO dispute settlement system makes it an indispensable tool that governments can use to hold trading partners accountable and without entering a retaliatory mechanism in tariff escalation in a bid to change behaviour.
 
Without a multilateral architecture to hold rule-breakers accountable, international economic relations would revert to the law of the jungle where countries with economic heft would rule the ground. That reversion definitely sits ill with multinational businesses, the global economic framework and the rule of law, thereby potentially jeopardizing international economic stability.
 
India Outbound
Nov 22, 2019
 
 

source https://indiaoutbound.org/end-of-the-global-trade-order/