English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Can Chabahar be a second OBOR gateway?

Published

on

NEEDED, SOME PROACTIVE DIPLOMACY: Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets President of People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping ahead of the BRICS Summit in Goa, UNI

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Gwadar need not be the only port of ingress and egress for the China-initiated transnational road-and-rail network; the India-Iran harbour route can be safer

By Sujit Bhar

Stated positions in international diplomacy change faster than pieces in a rapid chess match.  If frequent geopolitical shifts have to be addressed, they either have to be dealt with counter-moves, or through the opening of an alternative, surreptitious and camouflaged line of attack.

There is no defeat in international diplomacy, till you concede one.

The India-China position vis-à-vis the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative can reach a dead end if India cannot find that alternative route fast. The Chabahar Port route rests in a confused state as of now.

While in April Union minister Nitin Gadkari said work on the port is moving fast and that India has now got a two-year management contract for the port, India’s promise of a $ 500 million investment seems to be on a slippery surface, post problems arising out of Iran’s delaying tactics in awarding gas exploration contract in its Farzad B offshore field to ONGC Videsh. This was one by-product India was looking for within the Chabahar Port deal.

As per published reports, India has decided to reduce oil imports from Iran by three million tonnes, which translates to approximately 25 percent of the oil India imports from Iran. With India sourcing almost six percent of all its oil from that country, India will have to seek an alternative route. With oil prices down, this might not be such a problem, but Iran has not taken kindly to its second-largest customer (after China), cutting back on purchases. It has retaliated by cutting India’s payment schedule from 90 days to 30, as well as cutting back on freight discounts.

If one looks at these as pure business decisions, then there is no problem. Differences arise before they are solved. However, this seems to be connected to India’s political aspirations. Isolating Pakistan isn’t proving to be so easy. If Iran does think joining OBOR would be beneficial for it, a quick change of stance with respect to Pakistan would not be difficult. While India has several running defence deals with Iran, Iran has shown no bad intentions regarding Pakistan.

There is said to be a clause in India’s 16-year-old defence deal with Iran, which reportedly says that India might be given access to Iranian military bases in the event of a war with Pakistan. This, however, has not been openly confirmed by either country, which puts the viability of the deal into unknown territory.

AN OVERVIEW: A map pinpointing the locations of Chabahar and Gwadar ports

AN OVERVIEW: A map pinpointing the locations of Chabahar and Gwadar ports

Hence Iran’s intentions, as expected, revolve around its own interests. The Chabahar Port will be a value addition for Iran. If the CPEC goes forward, joining Gwadar Port with the overall OBOR system, how much latitude can India gain from the Chabahar port connecting Afghanistan, while staying away from OBOR?

Frankly, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s vision cannot be wished away by India. India would expect to get a better understanding of the OBOR initiative from the inside and not from a spectator’s perspective. That China has taken the lead in world geopolitics and across the financial world cannot be denied by India. There is little point in being an ostrich in a changing world. There are no stated positions.

India’s stated position about PoK need not change if there is a move towards accepting OBOR as inevitable, and in a partnership offer, one has to take financial options into consideration while dealing with the issue. Prime Minister Narendra Modi would need a face-saver, surely, because the opposition would be screaming murder if India agrees to attend the upcoming OBOR meet. But here is the dig. If OBOR is developed through partnership, and not through the primary dictates of China, there is a possibility that India can press for its own security system for its goods through the disturbed Baloch, PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan regions.

Let this be a practical discussion. Can India, though any international forum, possibly stop Chinese-Pakistani construction in disputed areas for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which happens to be an integral part of OBOR? One guesses not.

And, as China claims, will India’s not attending the OBOR meet completely isolate India? I guess not, too. This will also remain in the region of probability. However, there is a catch. If OBOR is an unqualified success, any late entry effort would not only require cost, but also present a positioning problem for India.

What if India sends an unqualified “yes” signal? Technically, that would mean accepting all existing norms, including, possibly, discussions on the Kashmir issue with a third party, something India has consistently refused to accede to. That would be the end of Modi’s tenure at the top.

What is the midway? Possibly sending a low-powered delegation to the OBOR meet? That would provide representation without accountability, because such a delegation would lack the authority to make decisions. In other words it would result in dragging feet, but India has huge experience in this. Any opportunity unexplored is no opportunity. If India refuses to acknowledge OBOR, its voice on PoK will be rarely heard.

There is a chance of forcing a change from within, and Chabahar is as good an entry and exit point for goods on OBOR as Gwadar. Does that sound like an alternative position? Two things to consider here. Xi has improved relations with Iran several-fold through his visit of the country. OBOR does not need to have just the CPEC route to use. What if it can use both? What if India can place a quick proposal that India’s proposed route can also connect to OBOR?

This is a disruptive thought. Floating it would be difficult, but not impossible. Could we think about this? India has invested in Chabahar and in developing railway lines to the north. OBOR will happen. While the CPEC is fraught with dangers, the India-Iran-Afghanistan route can be safer.

Let’s make the best use of it.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Supreme Court judge calls police assault on CJP protesters very distressing

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan criticised alleged police assaults on CJP protesters and raised concerns over excessive force.

Published

on

Supreme Court

Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has criticised the assault of protesters by police personnel during the recent CJP demonstrations in Delhi, describing the conduct as “very, very distressing” and a matter of serious concern.

Speaking at the launch of retired IPS officer Yashovardhan Azad’s book Policing the Republic, Justice Bhuyan said the detachment expected from police officers appeared to be diminishing.

He expressed concern over young Indian Police Service officers personally participating in the assault of protesters and demonstrators.

Justice Bhuyan stresses need for responsible policing

Justice Bhuyan said effective policing does not require excessive use of force or infringement of human rights. He emphasised that the police play an important role in maintaining public confidence because citizens generally approach the police when they feel they have been wronged.

He said maintaining the credibility of the police force was therefore of “utmost importance”.

The judge’s remarks come amid continuing scrutiny of the police and paramilitary response to the CJP protests in Delhi.

Supreme Court panel to examine police action

The Supreme Court has constituted a high-level panel to investigate allegations concerning the use of force by Delhi Police during the July 20 student protests at Jantar Mantar and the subsequent Parliament march.

The panel, headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice R Subhash Reddy, will examine complaints relating to lathi charges, tear gas, pellet guns and electronic batons. It will also look into allegations of targeted harassment or molestation of female protesters and review available CCTV and video footage.

The police response during the protests has faced criticism, while Delhi Police has maintained that its personnel were also attacked during the clashes.

Judge raises concern over custodial deaths and torture

Justice Bhuyan also spoke about custodial torture and deaths, describing custodial death as one of the gravest crimes in a society governed by the rule of law.

He stressed that torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be accepted, regardless of whether such conduct takes place during investigation, interrogation or other circumstances.

The judge further warned that when government functionaries themselves become lawbreakers, it can undermine respect for the law and encourage lawlessness.

He questioned whether citizens lose their fundamental rights simply because they have been arrested by police.

‘Fake encounters’ cannot be part of policing

Justice Bhuyan also addressed allegations of extra-judicial killings, commonly referred to as “fake encounters”. Referring to a 2011 Supreme Court judgment, he said such encounters undermine the rule of law.

He stressed that an “encounter philosophy” cannot become part of legitimate policing and said proven fake encounters involving serving police officers must be treated with the utmost seriousness.

The Supreme Court’s panel will now examine the allegations surrounding the police action during the July 20 protests as scrutiny of the events continues.

Continue Reading

India News

8 Tamil Nadu engineering students killed in Kerala car-lorry crash

Eight engineering students from Tamil Nadu were killed after their car collided with a parked lorry on NH-66 in Kerala’s Thrissur district.

Published

on

Eight engineering students from Tamil Nadu were killed after the car they were travelling in crashed into a parked lorry on NH-66 in Kerala’s Thrissur district late Friday night, police said.

The accident took place at around 11.40 pm at Panambikkunnu in Kaipamangalam. The students were travelling from Guruvayur towards Kodungallur when their car collided with the rear of the lorry.

What happened in the Thrissur accident

According to the FIR, the lorry was parked illegally on the right side of the highway near a barricaded section where traffic had been diverted because of ongoing construction work.

Police said the car was travelling at high speed and its driver apparently failed to notice the diversion barricade before the vehicle crashed into the rear of the lorry.

The lorry was registered in Maharashtra.

Six students died at the accident spot, while two others were declared dead on arrival at a nearby hospital, police said.

Six victims identified

The victims were students of an engineering college in Dindigul and were travelling towards Kodungallur along NH-66.

Police have identified six of the eight victims. Four of them — Surya, Yuvasanjith, Vishva and Johua — were from Dindigul. The other two identified victims were Santhosh and Prasanna from Madurai.

The identities of the remaining two students are yet to be confirmed.

Residents, fire and rescue personnel and police took part in the rescue operation and pulled the students from the badly damaged car. The bodies were subsequently taken to the mortuary of Thrissur Medical College.

Case registered against lorry driver

Kaipamangalam police have registered a case against the lorry driver under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for culpable homicide.

Police said the driver went into hiding shortly after the accident.

The families of the victims were contacted using student identity cards recovered from the bodies. Police said some families were unaware that their children had travelled to Kerala.

Postmortem examinations will begin after the families reach Thrissur Medical College, police said.

Continue Reading

India News

Air India sacks Phuket-Delhi flight pilot after failing drug test

Air India has terminated the Phuket-Delhi flight pilot after a confirmatory test found a psychoactive substance following the August 4 incident.

Published

on

Air India has terminated the employment of the pilot-in-command of a Phuket-Delhi flight after he tested positive for a psychoactive substance.

The pilot was in command of flight AI2379, which was travelling from Phuket to Delhi on August 4 when the aircraft suddenly lost altitude over Odisha. The incident left 24 passengers injured.

Air India said the termination was in line with its zero-tolerance policy regarding safety violations and regulatory requirements.

Air India terminates pilot with immediate effect

In a statement, the Tata-owned airline said the pilot-in-command had tested positive for a psychoactive substance.

The airline said that, considering its zero-tolerance approach to violations related to safety, fitness and regulatory requirements, the pilot’s employment had been terminated with immediate effect.

Air India also said it continues to cooperate fully with the investigation into the incident and has provided access to relevant operational, maintenance and technical records.

What happened on the Phuket-Delhi flight?

According to the preliminary findings of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the Airbus A320 was carrying 145 people when it experienced the near-simultaneous loss of all three hydraulic systems while cruising at around 36,000 feet.

The technical failure resulted in the autopilot disconnecting and triggered a brief stall warning. The aircraft subsequently lost altitude, resulting in injuries to 24 passengers.

The preliminary report also noted that the pilot tested non-negative for a psychoactive substance in a confirmatory test.

However, the report did not establish that the pilot’s drug-test result caused or contributed to the hydraulic system failure or the subsequent loss of altitude.

AAIB recommends action over psychoactive substance finding

The AAIB described the confirmation of psychoactive substance use as a serious concern and recommended that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) take appropriate action against the pilot on priority.

The investigation into the technical and other aspects of the incident is still underway.

The preliminary report also noted that the co-pilot was flying the aircraft when the incident occurred and attempted to bring the situation under control.

Air India said safety remains its highest priority and that its pilots undergo training, proficiency checks, medical examinations and other regulatory assessments in accordance with applicable requirements.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com