China renaming places in Arunachal is an old ploy to delegitimise adversaries

True to form, the Chinese have pushed up their claim over Arunachal Pradesh to another level. The English daily Global Times said in a news item today that “China’s Ministry of Civil Affairs announced on April 14 that it had standardised in Chinese characters, Tibetan and Roman alphabet, the names of six places in ‘South Tibet’, which India calls ‘Arunachal Pradesh’ in accordance with the regulations of the central government.

So, Bum La, the pass that marks the Line of Actual Control (LAC) north of Tawang has become Bümo La and Namka Chu, through which the current LAC runs and where the fighting first began in October 1962, has become Namkapub Ri and Menchuka, a small town in West Siang district, has become Mainquka.

China has long mastered the art of “lawfare” or the system through which legal claims are put forward to delegitimise adversaries. Renaming places is not something new. So the Chinese call the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands in the South China Sea as the Xisha and Nansha islands or the Senkaku islands which they dispute with Japan as the Diaoyu islands. So Aksai Chin which India claims as being part of Jammu & Kashmir is occupied by China and is said to be the southwestern part of the Hotan Prefecture of Xinjiang.

According to the daily, the aim is to “reaffirm the country’s territorial sovereignty to the disputed region”. The paper cited a Chinese specialist Xiong Kunxin to say that the renaming and standardisation were part of “China’s growing understanding and recognition of geography in South Tibet.”

India’s claim on Arunachal Pradesh rests on the Simla Convention of 1914 which it arrived at with the Tibetan authorities which marked the border through what was known as the McMahon Line. The great monastery of Tawang thus became a part of India, though it was administered by Tibetan monks till 1951 when an Indian patrol team led by Major R. Khating sent them away. China says that its representative had not agreed to the Simla Convention, though the record says that he initialled it. Further in ensuring years, the Chinese authorities did not raise any issue with regard to the McMahon Line.

Even though China claimed a boundary on the foothills of the Assam plains from the outset, it did not press its claims. In 1962, following the defeat of the Indian Army, China occupied all of Arunachal Pradesh, but voluntarily withdrew thereafter.

Earlier in 1960, Premier Zhou Enlai offered to trade Chinese claims in Arunachal with India’s claims in Aksai Chin which China was occupying. This offer of a swap was repeated again by Deng Xiaoping in the early 1980s. However, since the mid-1980s, the Chinese have been saying that India should concede Tawang to them. And now, following the most recent visit of the Dalai Lama, which China warned would spoil Sino-Indian relations, Beijing has taken this additional step.

However, in 2005, in signing the agreement on the Political Parameters and Guiding Principle for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question, China accepted under its Article VII that “In reaching the boundary settlement, the two sides will safeguard due interests of their settled populations in border areas.” Indians assumed that the Chinese were willing to again forgo their claim on Tawang, but a year later China disavowed this as well.

Last month, Dai Bingguo who was Beijing’s top negotiator on the border dispute with his Indian counterparts between 2003 and 2013, said in an interview with the China-Indian Dialogue magazine that “The disputed territory in the eastern sector of the China-India boundary, including Tawang, is inalienable from China’s Tibet in terms of cultural background and administrative jurisdiction.” Indeed, he had the chutzpah to suggest that India was blocking China’s “reasonable requests” in not offering Tawang up as part of a border settlement. Indian negotiators have repeatedly told the Chinese that bringing up Tawang is a deal breaker.

Now, it is not just Tawang, clearly the Chinese are hardening their claim on the entire state of Arunachal Pradesh. And the prospects of a border settlement look remote. But this is not just something that affects India. Across their periphery, whether in the Senkaku/Diayou islands, or the South China Sea, China’s position on its borders has become more assertive and inflexible.

ASEAN-India summit

Association of South East Asian Nations or ASEAN is the 10 member block, it is one of the most successful regional block in the world. India started looking toward the group seriously from 1992 with the launch of 'Look East policy' and now it occupies the central position in India's policy Southeast Asia. From 2002 onward India and ASEAN started holding annual summit at the sidelined of ASEAN summit showing the growing level of engagement between the two sides.^[157][158]

At the 12th India-ASEAN summit, which was Modi's first appearance in an ASEAN meet, he called for greater connectivity with the Southeast Asian countries and mentioned that "India and ASEAN can be 'great partners'".^[159] Stressing on the importance ASEAN commands in India's foreign policy Modi has repeatedly remarked that his government has in the last 6 months made relation with ASEAN a top priority and turned India's two decade old 'Look East policy' into 'Act East policy' which reflects a renewed momentum in India's approach toward ASEAN nations. The two sides also discussed the scope of extending the existing free trade agreement on service sector as well and ways to increase India-ASEAN trade which is expected to reach US$100 billion in 2015. Modi also stressed on three 'C's to strengthen the relation and those are commerce, connectivity and cultural links.^[160]

In the sidelines of ASEAN summit Modi also held several bilateral meetings with his counterparts including Thai Prime Minister Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha, Singapore's Prime MinisterLee Hsien Loong, Sultan of Brunei Hassanal Bolkiah, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak and South Korean President Park Geun-hye

The HIV/AIDS Bill provides a solid base for further empowerment and treatment access. . .

The HIV and AIDS (Prevention and Control) Bill passed by Parliament does not guarantee access to anti-retroviral drugs and treatment for opportunistic infections, but there is no denying that it is a good base for an active health rights movement to build upon. Understandably, HIV-positive people in the country, estimated at over 21 lakh, are disappointed that the Centre’s commitment to take all measures necessary to prevent the spread of HIV or AIDS is not reflected in the Bill, in the form of the right to treatment. The law only enjoins the States to provide access “as far as possible”. Beyond this flaw, though, the legislation empowers those who have contracted the infection in a variety of ways: such as protecting against discrimination in employment, education, health-care services, getting insurance and renting property. It is now for the States to show strong political commitment, and appoint one or more ombudsmen to go into complaints of violations and submit reports as mandated by the law. Here again, State rules should prescribe a reasonable time limit for inquiries into complaints, something highlighted by the Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare that scrutinised the legislation.

Access to insurance for persons with HIV is an important part of the Bill, and is best handled by the government. The numbers are not extraordinarily large and new cases are on the decline, according to the Health Ministry. Data for 2015 published by the Ministry show that two-thirds of HIV-positive cases are confined to seven States, while three others have more than one lakh cases each. Viewed against the national commitment to Goal 3 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals — to “end the epidemic of AIDS” (among others) by 2030 — a rapid scaling up of interventions to prevent new cases and to offer free universal treatment is critical. Publicly funded insurance can easily bring this subset of care-seekers into the overall risk pool. Such a measure is also necessary to make the forward-looking provisions in the new law meaningful, and to provide opportunities for education, skill-building and employment. As a public health concern, HIV/AIDS has a history of active community involvement in policymaking, and a highly visible leadership in the West. It would be appropriate for the Centre to initiate active public consultations to draw up the many guidelines to govern the operation of the law. Evidently, the requirement for the ombudsman to make public the periodic reports on compliance will exert pressure on States to meet their obligations. In an encouraging sign, the Supreme Court has ruled against patent extensions on frivolous grounds, putting the generic drugs industry, so crucial for HIV treatment, on a firm footing. The HIV and AIDS Bill may not be the answer to every need, but it would be a folly not to see its potential to make further gains.

The BJP did well in the by-elections, but the Congress managed to arrest its slide in Karnataka . . . . .

By-elections are no more than pointers to the popular mood. They are not firm trend-setters for a general election. When the winners of polls in 10 Assembly constituencies in eight territories are representatives of four different parties, there is no one big lesson to be drawn from the results. Even so, these will inevitably be interpreted as indicators of the public mood, especially when four of the States, which held by-elections, are due for Assembly elections by the end of 2018. The Bharatiya Janata Party, which is sitting pretty after sweeping the elections in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand earlier this year, did well to best the Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi, and win a seat each in Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Assam. The victory in Delhi should be especially satisfying for the BJP as AAP leader, and Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal attempted to cast himself in a larger-than-life image, pitting himself directly against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his campaigns and public statements. That the AAP candidate lost his deposit is a shocker: the party had won 67 of Delhi’s 70 seats in the 2015 Assembly election. As the AAP seeks to extend its reach and increase its clout, it seems to be losing out on its home turf. More than the  victory in Assam, or even in Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh, what will be more gratifying for the BJP is the second place finish in West Bengal. Its candidate was ahead of both the Left Front and Congress candidates in Kanthi Dakshin in West Bengal, an indication that the party could grow in opposition to the ruling Trinamool Congress in the years ahead. That must be truly worrying for the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which had held power in the State for a record 34 consecutive years until 2011. As the 2014 Lok Sabha election showed, the BJP is no longer a party of the Hindi belt alone, and is now national in character.

If the BJP has cause to celebrate its position at the top of the heap, the Congress can draw some comfort in having arrested its slide in Karnataka. The party won both seats in the State, beating back the challenge from the BJP, which was on the comeback trail after the return of former Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa to its fold. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who was under pressure from sections within his own party, should get some additional breathing space till the Assembly election next year. By retaining one seat in Madhya Pradesh, the Congress has shown it cannot be written off despite having lost three successive elections to the BJP. Indeed, if there is one lesson for all parties in this round of by-elections, it is that there is still everything to fight for in the Assembly elections, whether they are to be held next year or later.

Army personnel using 'human shield': The rights thing. . . .

The ports of Army personnel using a young man as a human shield in Jammu and Kashmir’s Budgam district must not only invite a swift inquiry and justice, but also compel the Army and the government to issue clear statements on the unacceptability of this shocking practice. A short video clip that went viral on Friday showed a man tied to the bonnet of an Army jeep being driven through the streets, as it escorted election officials on polling day in the Srinagar parliamentary constituency. Heard in the clip, on what appears to be the public address system of the vehicle, are the threatening words, “Paththar bazon ka yeh haal hoga (this shall be the fate of stone-pelters).” The man has subsequently been identified as Farooq Dar, a 26-year-old who embroiders shawls, and the Army personnel are said to belong to the 53 Rashtriya Rifles. There is a lack of total clarity on exactly what happened, including how long Mr. Dar was tied to the bonnet — he says he was subjected to this humiliation as the vehicle passed through 10 to 12 villages, while Army sources have been quoted as saying it was for just about 100 metres. But such questions relating to distance are hardly the issue. The larger point here is that if he was indeed forcibly strapped on to the bonnet, it amounts to an instance of gross human rights violation, and must officially be called out in clear terms.

Human shields have often been used cynically by terrorist organisations — theIslamic State uses civilians as shields in its battles, and the LTTE used them in the closing stages of the civil war in Sri Lanka. To use a person as a human shield is to abduct him, to hold him hostage, and to potentially put him in harm’s way. There is no argument that the Army, which is caught in a situation in which terrorists attempt to blend in with the civilian population, is fighting a difficult and unenviable battle. But the difficulties in fighting a hybrid war do not constitute a justification for the use of human shields, which is categorised as a war crime by the Geneva Conventions. Only a couple of days before the human shield video surfaced, another one — which showed CRPF personnel exercising admirable restraint as they were pushed and beaten by youth in Kashmir — had gone viral. It is ironic and hypocritical that some of those who commended such self-control are now defending the indefensible use of a human shield. It is true that the polling in Srinagar was held in a hostile environment, the abysmally low 7% turnout being a reflection of local alienation as well as intimidation by militants to keep people away from voting. But the security bandobast was aimed precisely to reassure the people and not to force an ‘us vs them’ binary. The Army must expedite the inquiry and act against the erring personnel where warranted. Its response must also publicly affirm its Code of Conduct vis-à-vis civilians, which includes the clause, “Violation of human rights… must be avoided under all circumstances, even at the cost of operational success”. To do any less would amount to being a party to rights violations.

Justice C.S. Karnan’s continuance as a judge makes a mockery of the rule of law

He has brought the judiciary into disrepute, flouted all norms of judicial conduct and thrown an open challenge to the Supreme Court. His continuance as a judge makes a mockery of democracy and the rule of law. The case of Justice C.S. Karnan is no longer just strange or curious; it is disgraceful and intolerable. The Calcutta High Court judge’s ‘order’ summoning the Chief Justice of India and six judges of the Supreme Court to his ‘residential court’ to face punishment under the Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is yet another unacceptable affront to the apex court’s authority. Justice Karnan’s conduct goes against the assurance he gave the Chief Justice of India last year that he would foster a “harmonious attitude towards one and all”. At that time, he had expressed regret for passing a suo motu order staying his own transfer from the Madras High Court to the Calcutta High Court, admitting that it was an “erroneous order” passed due to “mental frustration, resulting in loss of mental balance”. The latest instance of his misconduct is in response to thecontempt proceedings initiated against him by the Supreme Court for denigrating the judicial institution by making sweeping allegations, in a letter to the Prime Minister, against several judges. He had appeared in person before a seven-judge Bench on March 31, and was given four weeks to respond to the charge of contempt of court. It is quite apparent that he is only further damaging his own case.

The recalcitrant judge has a long history of alleging corruption among other judges, accusing some of caste discrimination against him, and often invoking his caste identity to take complaints against his peers and even Chief Justices to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. In the past, he has passed judicial orders on matters pertaining to the selection of judges, even after being barred by a Division Bench from hearing them. He had once barged into a court during a hearing, and on another occasion into the chamber of the Madras High Court Chief Justice, “hurling a volley of invectives”. Public criticism, transfer to another High Court, being hauled up for contempt and being denied judicial work — nothing seems to restrain him. The only option left is impeachment, but it is a political process involving Parliament and is something he himself may want so he can give full play to his alleged grievances, including those based on his caste. Justice Karnan’s case vividly exposes the inadequacies of the collegium system of appointments. Nothing makes a better case for the infusion of greater transparency in the selection of judges than his current presence in the High Court.

The stage is set for Turkey’s strongman to assume even more power. . . . . .

The path is now clear for Turkey to be transformed from a parliamentary democracy to a presidential republic, after a referendum on constitutional reforms proposed by the ruling Justice and Development Party (or AKP) gave the nod for handing sweeping powers to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The “Yes” campaign won by a relatively narrow margin, with a little more than 51% of the vote, and the opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) cited irregularities, including the use of unstamped ballot papers. The three biggest cities, Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, voting “No” also indicates that much work remains to be done by the incumbents to bridge the rift within the polity. However, the head of the electoral body said the vote was valid. This remarkable turn of events, which will echo through the region and beyond, marks a step change from Turkey’s historical tryst with representative democracy. The idea of major constitutional reforms of this sort has been in the making at least since 2014, when Mr. Erdogan became Turkey’s first directly elected president. Nevertheless, many in Turkey and elsewhere, including anxious liberals across the EU, will watch with concern as the 18 major reforms on the table now will centralise power to an unprecedented extent in Mr. Erdogan’s hands, raising valid questions about the separation of powers in the Turkish government.

The new executive powers that will accrue to Mr. Erdogan if he wins the 2019 elections, a very likely outcome, include the abolition of the post of Prime Minister and the transfer of that power to the President; authority to appoint members to the judiciary; and the removal of the bar on the President maintaining party affiliation. These changes could presage overwhelming AKP control of state institutions, which in turn could lead to, for example, a purge in the judiciary and the security forces. Mr. Erdogan has in the past accused the judiciary of being influenced by the U.S.-based Islamic preacher, Fethullah Gülen, besides attacking members of the security forces in the aftermath of the failed coup in July 2016. That these fears are not exaggerated is clear from the fact that tens of thousands of officials have been dismissed and dozens of journalists and opposition politicians arrested since that time, not to mention Mr. Erdogan’s diplomatic spats with the Netherlands and Germany during the harsh campaign leading up to the referendum. Turkey today faces myriad problems, many stemming from the civil war in Syria. But the greatly empowered Mr. Erdogan would do well to design his future policies not only as a reaction to these forces but also as the means to enhance Turkey’s unique effort in reconciling pluralist democracy with political Islam, and Western-style liberalism with populist nationalism.