Monthly Archives: August 2018

India must separate the wheat from the chaff and seek guidance from its own winning ways of ending societal disaffection.

Lt Gen Bhopinder Singh (Retd)

Former Lt Governor, Andaman & Nicobar and Puducherry

FOR many hawks in India, extreme right-wing Israel has been the role model of a decisive and aspirational religio-nationalist state. For them, the simplistic framework of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ works subliminally in the spirit of majoritarianism.

Founding fathers of the ‘Idea of India’ were deeply sympathetic to the suffering of Jews but were simultaneously opposed to the forcible usurpation of Arab lands, especially as Arabs were not responsible for Jewish woes. Mahatma Gandhi had said, “Palestine belongs to the Arab in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct.” Even foundationally, India was partitioned between a nation based on religion (Pakistan) and the other based on secularism and inclusivity; hence, India could not make common cause with yet another nation created in the name of religion (Israel).

Zionism’s’ aggressive ethno-nationalism fascinated the Hindu Mahasabha, as both sides possibly perceived a common enemy in the largest minority denomination. This fascination overrode the inherent contradiction of many Hindutva ideologues valourising Hitler’s Nazis, a pathological anathema to Jews or any right-thinking individual. But today, when the legacy of the Mahatma itself is getting contested in India and the alternative persuasion is dominating, the reverence for the ‘Israeli way’ is understandable.

This captivation extends to the Israeli handling of the insurgency in Palestine. There is a perceived ‘emulation worthiness’ of the ‘Israeli way’ when contextualised to any societal strife or disaffection in the Indian context. Hotspots such as Manipur and Jammu & Kashmir seemingly need to be handled with Israeli methods (a euphemism for the ‘scorched earth’ approach). However, history is instructive — the Israeli style has been an unparallelled disaster in handling societal discontent. Only countries like India (in states like Mizoram and Punjab) or the UK (in Ireland) were able to end secessionist movements with means that were decidedly ‘un-Israeli’ in approach.

India and the UK had deployed militaristic steel in the conflict region but had in parallel invested in the spirit of political accommodation and inclusivity, allaying concerns of disgruntled citizens. These countries had signed accords (Punjab Accord, 1985; Mizoram Peace Accord, 1986; Good Friday Agreement, 1998) and patiently agreed to honour genuine grievances. It wasn’t an immediate return to normalcy, but the sincerity of outreach, socio-economic redressal and persistent engagement (despite many violent disruptions and missteps) finally won the day for India and the UK.

The Palestine-Israel violence has been continuing for decades. On October 7 last year, Hamas carried out a brutal terror attack, killing over 1,400 Israelis, and then the Israelis retaliated disproportionately by butchering over 36,000 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian death count is increasing by the day. Beyond the unending blame game, the truth is that Israel has failed to guarantee security and peace despite its fabled ‘Israeli way’ — both sides have not been more polarised, hate-filled and vengeful in 78 years.

Perception of the hyper-muscular Israeli methods is flawed, as Israeli history has witnessed many ideological differences. The principal Israeli party (Labour) once ruled the roost, with all Prime Ministers till 1977 owing allegiance to its movement, albeit under different names. Labour is predicated on an approach based on Israel-Palestine peace talks, pragmatism in foreign policy, welfare statism, and even relative moderation — whereas the ruling Likud party is aggressive to the point of being predatory, proudly anti-peace, against a two-state solution and exclusivist/majoritarian in instinct. PM Benjamin Netanyahu personifies Likud and the ‘Israeli way’ phenomenon by insisting that Israel is “not a state of all its citizens”, implicitly denying dignity to native Arab Palestinians, with whom the Oslo Peace Agreements were signed in 1993 and 1995. The agreements were signed during the rule of Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin of the Labour Party. Rabin was later assassinated by a radicalised Jew. The dovish Rabin was formerly a decorated General of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), which had won wars and conducted daring operations, yet he represented a moderate, restorative and statesmanlike face of Israeli politics.

The principal Opposition leader now is Benny Gantz, yet another retired General of the IDF and no longer part of the National Unity Government (formed after the October 7 attack). He, too, personally and politically, eschews and disavows the failed ‘Israeli way’ of Netanyahu. Though Israel is still in the war mode and angry at the Hamas attack, there is a huge groundswell about the failed policies and consequences of Netanyahu’s counterproductive belligerence that created a tinderbox-like situation and led to endless bloodshed. Israel was at its most peaceful (relatively speaking) after the signing of the Oslo Accords.

Seeds of the Israeli template were sown by the hawkish and warmongering Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, initially from Likud (he later formed the Kadima party), who earned notoriety as the ‘Butcher of Beirut’. The Human Rights Watch recognises him as a war criminal; Netanyahu has only worsened that construct of ‘muscular’ politics that seems very impressive in the beginning but comes at a very heavy price in the long run. India must separate the wheat from the chaff and seek guidance from its own winning ways of ending societal disaffection, as opposed to getting galvanised by failed and vacuous muscularity of the ‘Israeli way’, as there is no bravery, morality or constitutionality involved in it.  

The adage that a soldier is never off duty was applied literally by the ruling party to boost its political prospects and force-multiply its message via the country’s soldiery.

Rahul Bedi

Senior Journalist

THE advent of a genuine coalition government has kindled hope among a cross-section of defence veterans and security analysts regarding a salutary makeover of some questionable schemes and directives imposed upon the military by the political leadership over the past decade.

The foremost among these is the Agnipath scheme, launched in mid-2022, to recruit personnel below officer rank (PBOR), known as Agniveers, for a limited tour of duty (ToD). The Janata Dal (United), a critical constituent of the National Democratic Alliance, has demanded a review of the scheme amid public disaffection with it in Bihar and other states. According to reports, the government has tasked a group of secretaries from 10 ministries to review Agnipath and suggest ways to make the recruitment programme more attractive.

Under Agnipath, PBOR are being recruited for all three services for a four-year ToD, following which just 25 per cent of them would be retained to complete 15 years of military service. The remaining 75 per cent — the demobilised Agniveers — would reportedly be provided employment in the paramilitary, state or railway police forces or other attendant security agencies. Public sector banks and insurance companies and other associated state-run financial organisations, too, would be called upon by the government to absorb these disbanded soldiers, airmen and sailors, each of whom would receive around Rs 12 lakh, tax-exempt, as their severance pay.

Meanwhile, a series of directives from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to the armed forces, which triggered unease within the services as well as among veterans, are likely to be reassessed or quietly abandoned.

One such was the mandate issued last May by the Army headquarters at the MoD’s behest, requiring all soldiers on home leave to promote ‘nation-building’ endeavours in their respective village, town and city neighbourhood communities by publicising the merits of government welfare schemes like Swachh Bharat Abhiyan and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. The scheme was to be monitored by the soldiers’ individual units through a quarterly feedback, supported by photographs and video clips.

Additionally, these ‘soldier ambassadors’ were directed by the Army’s Ceremonials and Welfare Directorate, which functions under the Adjutant General’s office — responsible for the forces’ overall administration — to instil patriotism and nationalism in their respective circles, motivate and mentor the youth and organise sports events for them.

Senior military officials said the Army Training Command in Shimla had issued guidelines for these soldiers to follow with regard to these ‘educative’ tasks with the aim of ‘leveraging’ their skills and innate discipline towards augmenting nation-building. Senior veterans had estimated that at any given time, the armed forces would have 3,50,000 ‘social warriors’ engaged in this government-led mega publicity drive. All soldiers are entitled to two months’ leave annually, in addition to 30 days of casual leave, but for now it remains unclear how successful this scheme has proved to be.

At that time, many veterans had said that this scheme had been foisted upon the services, its instructions framed by the MoD to make it appear voluntary to ward off protests and court cases. In short, the adage that a soldier is never off duty was applied literally by the ruling party in a bid to boost its political prospects and force-multiply its message via the country’s soldiery.

Concomitantly, the MoD had also directed the installation of geo-tagged ‘selfie points’ by its various departments and related organisations to showcase the achievements of the government in the military realm. The proposed 820-odd selfie points, in most instances carrying PM Modi’s picture, were focused on defence public sector undertakings, the Border Roads Organisation, the Coast Guard, the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Sainik schools and the National Cadet Corps, among other associated bodies.

In its directive, the MoD had declared that these ‘selfie points’ would also be located at prominent locations with the “maximum footfall and the potential of attracting public attention”, like war memorials, rail and Metro stations, bus terminals, airports, malls, schools and colleges and even festival gatherings. The ministry had also suggested a ‘feedback mechanism’, including a dedicated app which would enable people to upload selfies and post them on social media platforms to further transmit the ruling party’s message in the election season.

A bunch of veterans, all of whom requested anonymity, criticised Project Udbhav (genesis), launched late last year to “synthesise ancient wisdom with contemporary military practices to forge a unique and holistic approach to address modern security challenges”. This joint venture between the Army and the United Services Institution think tank, aimed at capitalising on India’s 5,000-year-old civilisational legacy to “comprehend its enduring connect, relevance and applicability in modern times” is in consonance with the BJP’s penchant for invoking India’s ancient glory.

This included studying, examining and analysing the writings of Chanakya (Arthashastra), post-Mauryan Kamandaka (Nitisara) and Tamil saint-poet Thiruvalluvar (Thirukkural), all of which the Press Information Bureau (PIB) declared “aligned with modern military codes of ethics or just war and principles of the Geneva Convention”.

The PIB went on to state that Udbhav was a “visionary initiative by the Army seeking to integrate age-old wisdom with contemporary military pedagogy”, in addition to enhancing “strategic thinking, statecraft and warfare”. In short, Udbhav, according to the government, was poised to “foster deeper understanding of military matters and contribute to enriching military curricula”.

Regrettably, it was left to veterans, albeit sotto voce, to flag these political and contentious enterprises, and to those still in service to implement this publicity blitzkrieg. Perhaps after the recent electoral verdict, both domains will breathe somewhat easier.

Our Correspondent

Srinagar, June 18

The Army on Tuesday said the terrorist killed during an encounter in Bandipora on Monday was an ‘A’ category militant, identified as Umar Lone. Lone was killed in the Aragam area of Bandipora during a joint operation launched on the night of June 16 and 17.

Addressing mediapersons, Commander 3 Sector Rashtriya Rifles (RR), Brigadier Vipul Tyagi said: “The elimination of the top rank commander is a major achievement for the security forces.” The Army officer said they had been getting information about the movement of militants in the area for the past few weeks. “We had kept this area in focus,” he said.

He added that based on inputs received on June 16-17, the Army, CRPF and J&K Police launched a joint operation. During the ambush, he said, the party saw suspicious movement and after a thorough check-up, the ambush party opened fire.

“In this encounter, one terrorist, identified as Umar Lone of Husankhoie Pattanwas, was killed,” the Army officer added. He added: “Lone, active since 2018, was an ‘A’ category terrorist associated with the TRF and LeT. He was responsible for several terrorist activities, including recruitment, running a network of overground workers (OGWs) and illegal killings.”

The Army said: “His elimination is a big success for the security forces.” Brigadier Vipul Tyagi said: “The Army, police and CRPF forces have for the past few weeks maintained high operational momentum and killed terrorists who had been operating for a long time. We have got the full support of people in this.”

The officer said the security forces would continue to strive and maintain this momentum towards ensuring peace and stability in Kashmir.

Was associated with LeT, TRF

Umar Lone, the terrorist killed in Bandipora on Monday, was associated with the TRF and LeT. He was responsible for several terrorist activities, including recruiting militants and carrying out illegal killings in Kashmir. — Brigadier Vipul Tyagi, Army officer

Tribune News Service

Vijay Mohan

Chandigarh, June 18

The Ministry of Defence has approached the UK for the transfer of nine Jaguar aircraft that are now no longer in service with the European country, along with a cache of spares, to make up for attrition in the Indian Air Force (IAF).

Serviceability cause for concern

• The IAF is seeking the airframes of Jaguars decommissioned by the Royal Air Force, along with 150 types of spare parts

The Jaguars, which equip six squadrons, form a crucial element of the IAF’s deep penetration strike capability and tactical reconnaissance. Some of these aircraft have also been modified for the maritime role with anti-ship missiles.

The IAF is seeking the airframes of five single seater GR-1 version and four twin-seat T-2 variants decommissioned by the Royal Air Force, along with about 150 different types of spare parts, sources said. The sale and transfer of the airframes and spares would be facilitated by UK’s Defence Equipment Sales Authority and once the deal is finalised, these would be shipped to the Air Force Station, Ambala, where two Jaguar squadrons, No.5 ‘Tuskers’ and No.16 ‘Bulls’, are based.

Earlier, as an offset of the Rafale fighter jet deal, the IAF had received 31 decommissioned airframes along with a few engines and a large number of critically needed spares from France, which were moved to the Gorakhpur airbase, where two other squadrons are based. Jamnagar is the third operating base for these aircraft.

Most of the airframes would be used for cannibalisation so that optimum squadron serviceability can be maintained. Production of the Jaguar has long ceased and at present the IAF is its sole operator, with other users — France, the UK, Oman, Nigeria and Ecuador — having retired them.

In 1979, 40 aircraft were imported from the UK followed by licence manufacture of 150 aircraft by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. At present, the IAF has about 115 Jaguars in service, but according to reports their serviceability is a cause for concern due to obsolescence, non-availability of spares. Over the past decade, the IAF’s Jaguar fleet has been undergoing modernisation and upgradation to enhance its operational capability. With this, sources said the fleet is expected to remain in service for another 15 years.

A few years ago, the IAF began re-equipping the Jaguar with the DARIN-III advanced navigation and attack avionics suite, and earlier this year, initiated another project to re-equip the fleet with new generation close combat air-to-air missiles, transport platforms as well as cruise missiles and UAVs.

The absence of violence is not peace. But it would be unfair to bill Baramulla’s electoral verdict as one driven by separatist sentiments.

Lt Gen Syed Ata Hasnain (retd)

Former GOC, Chinar Corps

The results of the Lok Sabha polls in Jammu and Kashmir have been interesting. One of the things everyone is looking for is a signal for the conduct of the Assembly polls, based upon a Supreme Court direction to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to hold the polls before September 30. There was a time when it was contemplated that the Lok Sabha and Assembly polls could be conducted simultaneously. That would have been an ambitious step. The ECI’s decision was sound — in that the Lok Sabha polls would restore confidence in the conduct of peaceful elections with an encouraging turnout. Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar recently said, “We will very soon start the poll process in J&K. We are very enthused by the voter turnout… J&K recorded the highest turnout in four decades at 58.58 per cent overall, and 51.05 per cent in the Valley”.

The poll results, however, have been followed by a series of terror attacks. The June 9 Reasi attack on a bus carrying pilgrims was meant to send out a message that the Assembly polls would be targeted. While decrying this and urging the security forces to undertake a large-scale offensive to dominate Pir Panjal and neutralise the terrorists, there must be no climbdown on the Assembly polls, which are due in three months.

A few issues came to the fore with reference to the J&K polls. Each constituency in Kashmir has an interesting dynamic, and delimitation added to the suspense. The inclusion of Rajouri and parts of Poonch with Anantnag constituency gave a unique opportunity to the National Conference (NC) to exploit the Gujjar surge. Mian Altaf Ahmad of the NC, the virtual spiritual leader of the Gujjar community, was tailor-made for the fight there. He won comfortably against People’s Democratic Party (PDP) candidate Mehbooba Mufti, who also belongs to south Kashmir and is extremely influential in its prime locations at the Valley end, Bijbehara, Anantnag and Kulgam.

The Srinagar constituency includes Ganderbal in the north, Pulwama-Shopian in the south and Budgam to the west. The southern belt is where stone-throwing was most intense in 2014-19, and the terror incidents were the most marked there. The radical footprint remains dormant, biding its time for another opportunity.

The Srinagar seat has been won by Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi, a cleric from a prominent Shia family of Budgam. Mehdi is an old NC hand who has represented Budgam in the J&K Assembly. He identified ‘dignity’ and ‘identity’ as his core concerns. This sentiment was mostly about Article 370 being an article of faith, the Kashmiri not ever being anti-national and the need for the restoration of statehood. Mehdi’s victory against Waheed Para — the young, intelligent and well-respected youth leader of the PDP — could be a surprise for some, as support for a Shia may have been unexpected. Waheed belongs to Pulwama and Mehdi to Budgam. So, both are not hardcore Srinagar representatives. The NC’s organising capability and ‘cadres in depth’, however, do usually spell advantage for its candidates. That capability will be an advantage in the Assembly polls too.

But the same ‘cadres in depth’ and the party’s excellent organising skills have been unable to put former CM Omar Abdullah in the driver’s seat in Baramulla. If I know any part of Kashmir the best, it is Baramulla — both the city and the constituency — having commanded a brigade and a division in the area. I was a little surprised to see Omar enter the fray there. Of course, no party can claim ownership of Baramulla. It’s the gateway to the Valley from Muzaffarabad, and it has been so for centuries, while the main route lay through Uri along the Jhelum Road to Baramulla. The constituency is spread far and wide, including Gurez, Bandipora, Machil, Keran, Kupwara, Handwara, Tangdhar, Uri and Gulmarg. The outlying areas in the higher mountains along the LoC are populated by Pahadis, who have benefited from reservation, which was initially 4 per cent but subsequently raised to 10 per cent.

These areas are sparsely populated, although the communities there are all pro-India. There is no grey zone there. It’s the Valley floor with the townships of north Kashmir, where the separatist sentiment was high at one time. The decline in violence does not necessarily alter the sentiment. I have often reminded observers that ‘absence of violence is not peace’ and it’s not a change of heart either. However, it would be unfair to bill Baramulla’s electoral verdict as one driven by separatist sentiments. The Assembly polls will tell us more.

Engineer Rashid, the man who defeated former CM Omar Abdullah by over 2 lakh votes, is known as a separatist. He fought the election while lodged in Delhi’s Tihar Jail through a two-week campaign managed on a shoestring budget by his sons. I have known Engineer Rashid for a long time. He once came calling on me in a rickety Maruti 800. I was aware of his popularity among the poorer segments of Langate in Rafiabad; that is what made him famous all over the Baramulla constituency.

It is believed by some that Rashid managed to get the support of non-voters (those who traditionally kept away from voting) in the hope of conveying that they backed his separatist stance. What is important for the establishment is that the Assembly polls are conducted, and in time. The people’s verdict aimed at development and welfare needs to be adequately reinforced against any persisting sentiments of separatism, which no doubt still thrive.

For India, the border issue is not just a small part of bilateral military relations. It is the issue that must be resolved for a mutually stable neighbourhood.

Lt Gen Anil Ahuja (Retd)

Former Deputy Chief of Integrated Defence Staff

AMID concerns over the emergence of a ‘rules-broken’ international order, replacing the “taken for granted, insufficiently protected and barely modernised rules-based order”, the 21st Shangri-La Dialogue, Asia’s premier defence summit, was held in Singapore from May 31 to June 2. This annual dialogue brings together defence ministers, senior officials and non-governmental stakeholders to discuss the most pressing challenges in the Asia-Pacific region.

The most-watched participants this year included Philippines President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, who delivered the keynote address, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin and the new Defence Minister of China, Admiral Dong Jun, who was appointed in December last year, two months after his predecessor, Gen Li Shangfu, was formally removed.

The challenge set forth for the participants by Sir John Chipman, Executive Chairman, International Institute of Strategic Studies — a co-organiser of the event (along with the Singapore Government) — was to find a unique way to build a rules-based order in the Asia-Pacific, amid the complex realities presented by the “interplay of economic statecraft and military strategy”. Within the region, there is an ongoing major power contestation and a progressive drift towards a unipolar Asia, oblivious to the reality that power alone cannot decide the rules by which this region is governed or integrated.

Despite the backdrop of a sombre and bleak global and regional security environment, the messaging by the Chinese Defence Minister and his accompanying delegation of Generals was far from ‘reassuring’. The glaring contrast between the words and deeds of China was evidenced best by the stark difference between the ‘prepared’ text of the speech of Admiral Dong and his answers to the questions raised (though most were left unanswered). In addition, members of the Chinese delegation posed provocative questions to prominent speakers. Such coordinated aggressive behaviour, which is not usual in global security dialogues, gave the impression of a ‘pack of wolves’ being present at Shangri-La, an ironic contrast to this mythical paradise.

The most significant observation was that China seemed to have unilaterally usurped the mantle of leadership of Asia-Pacific, articulating its own concerns, guised as the voice of the region. Admiral Dong said that while different countries had different security interests and goals, China has a ‘leadership’ role. He also said: “We will not allow anyone to bring geopolitical conflicts or any war, whether hot or cold, to our region.” The efforts to displace the US in the Indo-Pacific and create an uncontested, unipolar, Sino-centric Asia and disregard for the centrality of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) were more than evident.

The harshest words, though, were reserved for Taiwan, termed the “core of China’s core interests”. Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te, who took over in May, is viewed by China as a ‘separatist’. Referring to his statements as a ‘betrayal of China and their ancestors’, Admiral Dong warned: “They will be nailed to the pillar of shame in history.” Reiterating confidence in the People’s Liberation Army’s capabilities to deter Taiwan independence, he added, “Anyone who dares to separate Taiwan from China will only end up in self-destruction.” The threat of use of force for the capture of Taiwan was not even attempted to be disguised.

The Dragon’s belligerent actions in the South China Sea, particularly against the Philippines, were sought to be justified by dubbing all facts, other than the Chinese ‘facts’, as ‘a fabricated and false narrative’. In a severe criticism of the July 2016 award of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in favour of the Philippines, Admiral Dong accused the country of enforcing the ‘illegal arbitration award’. He described it as “blackmailing others (China) under the guise of international law”. Claiming Beijing’s great restraint in the face of infringements and provocations, he warned that it would backfire.

The questions fielded by Admiral Dong’s delegation members seemed an extension of the predetermined script. A Major General confronted President Marcos, stating that the Philippines’ behaviour in recent times risks ruining the long-earned, long-lasting regional peace and that the Philippines seems to be disregarding the other party’s (China’s) comfort level. Likewise, a Senior Colonel asked the US Secretary of Defence, “Is the US planning to build a NATO-like alliance system in the Asia-Pacific region?” adding, “The east border expansion of NATO has led to the Ukraine crisis. What implications do you think the strengthening of the US alliance system in Asia-Pacific will have on the region’s security and stability?”

Other references to China’s disruptive behaviour included Zelenskyy’s assertions that Beijing was attempting to sabotage the global peace summit in Switzerland by pressurising countries not to attend. Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles raised concerns over China’s strategic partnership with Russia, its escalatory behaviour in Asian waters and airspace, incursions against Taiwan, activities against the Philippines in their territorial waters and interference with Australian navy operations in Korea. Through these illustrations, he raised doubts about the role that China intends to play as a global actor.

The unusually belligerent behaviour of the Chinese delegation at the Shangri-La Dialogue does raise concerns over the Dragon’s role in the Indo-Pacific, particularly for its neighbours. There are indicators that India must take note of: China’s usurping of the leadership role in Asia and attempts to coerce the nations seeking alternatives; an undisguised attempt to create a Sino-centric unipolar Asia and undermining the centrality of ASEAN; the propensity to create fabricated historical narratives and discredit established international institutions like the Permanent Court of Arbitration (established in 1899); and the willingness to use the military for furthering its perceived national interests.

The recent Shangri-La Dialogue has highlighted to the world a facet of China’s behaviour that India has experienced for a long time. While India maintains the desire to improve its relations with China, the latter must remain mindful of Indian interests and aspirations. For India, the border issue is not just a small part of bilateral military relations, as the Chinese would have us believe. It is the issue that must be resolved for a mutually stable neighbourhood and to ensure that ‘Galwans’ and ‘Yangtses’ do not occur again. 

Seema Sachdeva

On the reverse of a set of four postcards with images of buildings in Calcutta are neatly penned messages by Eloise, wife of a British official. Instead of writing a letter, Eloise had shared those postcards giving her aunt Jeanne back home an insight into her lived experiences as a foreigner in undivided India. The series is from the collection of nearly 80 postcards currently on display at an exhibition, ‘Hello & Goodbye: Postcards from the Early 20th Century’, at the Museum of Art & Photography (MAP), Bengaluru.

Giving a peek into the larger social and political framework in the early 1900s, each of these postcards has its own story to tell. Curated from a collection of more than 1,300 postcards, a majority of which have been gifted by avid art collectors Kenneth X and Joyce Robbins, these delve into the country’s print culture as well as the colonial history, mostly from the perspective of Europeans, particularly wives of British officers, who posted these back home to share snippets from their lives in India. A window to the social, political and cultural landscape from the 1890s till 1940s, the postcards take you on a visual journey that includes iconic monuments like the Taj Mahal in Agra, Esplanade Band Stand in Bombay, General Post Office in Calcutta, different ranks in the Indian army, of Ganpati from the embellished Raja Ravi Varma press collection, or simply a leaf out of the life of common people.

According to Meghana Kuppa, who co-curated this exhibition with Khushi Bansal, “Early 20th century was a time of much action, especially with the struggle for Independence gaining ground. We drew a lot of inspiration from the idea of identity and started looking closely at the social context.” While it was mostly the Europeans who were users of postcards, a small collection is of those written by Indians to fellow countrymen, says Khushi, adding that these included postcards by Marwadis, Gujaratis and Parsis, the latter being huge patrons of photography.

In contrast to the printed imagery of the European presses that stereotyped Indians and disseminated propaganda of the Crown, the prints from the Indian presses circulated imagery supporting the burgeoning nationalist movement, they say.

On the response to the exhibition, Khushi says, “Besides scholars and senior citizens, many young people are attending the exhibition. The browsing station is an experience many seem to enjoy. Besides this, we also have a counter of yellow postcards on which people can write their messages and we post it.”

Making it relevant to the present generation, an application on an iPad has been developed, says Meghana. A kiosk has been installed where people can digitally create their own postcards while taking material from within the exhibition. “We’ve made it a little fun by incorporating elements like taking your own picture and adding it to the postcard. You can write a message and send it to a loved one through WhatsApp and other social media channels.”

The postcards are part of the museum’s broad collection of ‘tiny objects’ which fit a relatively small dimension. These include textile labels, stamps, matchboxes, postcards, etc. Of the tiny object series, exhibiting the postcards is just the beginning. The exhibition, which started on April 6, is on till August 18.

Greater sensitivity in handling India’s relations with neighbours will lead to a better entente with them.

Jayant Prasad

Former ambassador to Afghanistan and Nepal

In his recent meetings with visiting leaders of the neighbourhood and the Indian Ocean Region — Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Mauritius, Nepal, Seychelles and Sri Lanka — on the sidelines of his swearing-in ceremony, Narendra Modi reaffirmed the ‘neighbourhood first’ policy he enunciated at the beginning of his first term as Prime Minister in 2014. According to a Ministry of External Affairs press release, Modi promised to work for regional peace, progress and prosperity in close partnership with neighbours. He called for deeper people-to-people ties and more connectivity.

Connectivity is indeed the key to regional cooperation and integration, as it promotes sustainable and better-distributed growth across a given region. It encompasses a range of public goods, including investment in inter- and intra-regional projects, across trade, transportation, information and communication technologies, energy and people. All these, underpinned by appropriate infrastructure, facilitate the free and unfettered flow of goods, services, investments, persons, ideas and technology.

India shares its land or maritime boundaries with China, the South Asian countries of the Indian subcontinent and Myanmar, Thailand and Indonesia. Its neighbourhood extends on its land frontiers from the Hindu Kush in the west to the Irrawaddy in the east. In the oceans, it stretches from Suez in the west to Shanghai in the east.

Good relations with neighbours are a priority for India’s foreign policy. An unstable contiguity is distracting and bad for business, and it encourages meddling by outside powers. “It is our neighbourhood,” said Modi at the Combined Commanders’ Conference in December 2015, “that is most critical for our future and our place in the world.”

This was manifest in India’s active pursuit of ‘neighbourhood first’, Act East, Connect Central Asia, Link West policies; its participation in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, the I2U2 Group and in conceiving the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor; and its determination to commit to security and sustainable development in the Indian Ocean. Modi paid bilateral visits to Kathmandu and Colombo, not visited by previous Prime Ministers for 17 and 28 years, respectively. His first visit was to Bhutan, and by about mid-2015, he had completed visits to some Indian Ocean countries and to all Central Asian Republics.

However, during Modi’s tenure as PM, in contrast to India’s relations with the great powers and its leadership in the Global South, there has been an overall regression in India’s relations with its immediate neighbours, despite New Delhi continuing its development partnerships, accelerating project implementation, extending grants and loans and providing humanitarian and technical assistance.

The cultural closeness of South Asia — people speaking the same languages or belonging to the same ethnicity or religion on both sides of India’s boundaries — has counterintuitively reinforced a sense of distinctiveness of its neighbours from India. Psychological partitions of perception and identity have reinforced the physical fractures of South Asia.

On its margins, the subcontinent is bristling with terrorism and insurgencies. India’s neighbouring countries diverge in many ways: geographically, socially, economically, demographically, and most of all, politically. Many of them suffer from endemic social strife and political instability. It does not help that they are significantly more unequal in growth, resources, population and size than neighbouring countries in any other part of the world.

While there is likely to be more continuity than change in the substance and style of Modi 3.0’s foreign and security policies, there is scope for improvement concerning South Asia. Greater sensitivity in handling India’s relations with neighbours will lead to a better entente with them.

Coalition politics might compel the BJP to temper Hindutva, which has caused misgivings in many parts of South Asia, such as Bangladesh, Maldives, Pakistan and even Nepal, an erstwhile Hindu kingdom and now a secular republic. The stability of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) depends upon two staunchly secular leaders, Chandrababu Naidu and Nitish Kumar, who have a considerable Muslim support base. Although the primary players in the Indian Government remain the same and the BJP’s partners are not invested in foreign policy issues, the optics of the NDA coalition will improve India’s standing in the neighbourhood.

Without actively courting Pakistan, the NDA government might respond to friendly overtures and re-engage with the caveat that intractable bilateral issues can only be resolved as a function of improved mutual perceptions and relations, not the other way around. Nawaz Sharif’s congratulatory message to Modi, appealing to “replace hate with hope”, is a positive portent.

Adversarial relations between India and China are likely to persist, as Beijing seems in no hurry to restore the status quo ante in eastern Ladakh. Yet, India will not view China as an enemy to be fought militarily. India, with its friends, will try to rein in China’s assertiveness and persuade it to follow international rules and rebalance relations peacefully.

The time has come to revive the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC), which has had just 18 summits, the last one in Kathmandu a decade ago. That summit had given the go-ahead to national, regional and sub-regional measures and arrangements. Both the Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal Initiative and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation must be re-energised.

The objectives outlined in Modi’s ‘neighbourhood first’ policy are ambitious, and the impediments are many. Getting things right with neighbours is an arduous process, often with uncertain results. There is no alternative to trying, however. India cannot walk unfettered on the global stage without better relations in its contiguity.