16 Jun 2020: Hindu Editorial Analysis

The Hindu Editorial Analysis
16 June 2020

1) Building trust: On India-Pakistan ties-

CONTEXT:

  1. The shelling and the retaliations along the Line of Control with Pakistan are a matter of consternation (dismay, horror), because it has been allowed to go on so long as to become an everyday occurrence.
  2. The unfortunate death of Sepoy and the airlifting of two other soldiers to the Command Hospital because of injuries due to shelling are the latest grim reminders of this phenomenon.
  3. All of May the Pir Panjal range, which fronts the Kashmir Valley, has seen mortar and small arms firing.

 

 

 

WORRYING TREND:

  1. This has been a worrying trend, as when the shells reach deeper they fall in residential areas, in villages such as Churunda and Silikote.
  2. When shells begin raining, villagers panic, leave their homes and run further, to temporary shelters.
  3. This additional disruption to life in the aftermath of the dilution of Article 370 last August and the COVID-19 lockdown, is something that should be addressed with urgency.
  4. Shelling should not be allowed to be a regular occurrence.
  5. Ceasefire with Pakistan along the Line of Control is obviously not working, and the government needs to build bomb shelters for civilians until normalcy returns.

 

 

SHRINLING BILATERAL RELATIONS:

  1. Unfortunately, aspects of relations with Pakistan in other spheres are in poor repair as well.
  2. The two personnel from the Indian mission in Islamabad going suddenly missing for a while points to further breakdown in relations.
  3. It makes evident that India and Pakistan are unable even to adhere to reciprocal protocols regarding staff posted in the missions.
  4. Whether or not it is a tit-for-tat reaction for India having expelled two Pakistan High Commission officials, on charges of espionage, is not clear.
  5. India must take steps to ensure its diplomatic personnel are spared such harassment, which is always present and episodically on show.

 

CONCLUSION:

  1. But with New Delhi studiously avoiding any serious engagement, is the staffing in Pakistan commensurate (in proportion) with the vastly shrunk bilateral relations?
  2. It might be prudent to temporarily maintain only essential mission staff in Pakistan till India is able to obtain trust and stability in the ties.
  3. India needs to re-engage with Pakistan and end the ceasefire violations along the border.

 

 

2) Call for action: On ICMR antibody test study-

TRIVIA:

Serological test- A blood test to detect the presence of antibodies against a microorganism. A serologic test can determine whether a person has been exposed to a particular microorganism.

 

 

 

CONTEXT:

The results of a serological test conducted across 69 districts by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) have indicated that the confirmed numbers of COVID-19 infections reported from the RT-PCR tests are likely an undercount.

 

 

USEFUL INDICATORS:

  1. Serological or antibody tests are not as accurate as the PCR tests, but they are useful indicators of the spread of the novel coronavirus among people.
  2. 0.73% of the population were examined for antibodies produced specifically for SARS-CoV-2 via an ELISA test.
  3. ICMR study found that those 0.73% had evidence of past exposure to the virus.
  4. In a population with a low infection rate, there is a higher possibility of “false positives” being reported.
  5. A number of respondents could have been found to have released antibodies specific to coronaviruses, but without actual exposure to SARS-CoV-2 alone.
  6. But the ICMR in its methodology note in a paper in its online publication, Indian Journal of Medical Research, had said that the actual results would account for the limitations of the ELISA test.

 

 

NO ADEQUATE TESTING:

  1. If this is accepted, then the number of people found to have been exposed to the virus would be 7 lakh people or more.
  2. The full paper detailing the results of the study by the ICMR is still not out in the public domain.
  3. Serological tests, despite inaccuracies, can be a useful guide of the extent of the infections among vulnerable people.
  4. And within hot spots, and periodic tests of this kind are a must amid the rise of cases that have now crossed the 3.2 lakh mark.
  5. The clear takeaway from this report is that there has not been adequate testing by the more accurate RT-PCR method.

 

 

UNTENABLE STRATEGY:

  1. The “lockdown” strategy might have slowed down the rise in cases and fatalities in the early period of the outbreak in the country.
  • But the severe effect it had on the economy, besides its uneven implementation in urban areas where physical distancing is a difficult proposition, made it an untenable strategy to pursue over the longer term.
  1. India continues to register among the highest daily rises in COVID-19 cases and fatalities world-wide.
  2. This has now burdened the health institutions in many urban centres following the easing of the lockdown.
  3. Yet, authorities continued to test at relatively low levels with a lot of variance across States.
  4. Some States such as Maharashtra and Gujarat have tested at a higher rate (tests per million population) than many others, but have not increased the overall testing to account for the relative rise in the size of the outbreak.
  5. Telangana has still not ramped up testing numbers adequately and has been opaque in the release of testing data.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

  1. Testing, tracing and treatment at a higher order across the population besides measures such as mask wearing and practising hand hygiene is the clearest way to address the outbreak.
  2. ICMR’s antibody test study underlines need for more testing, and better contact tracing.

 

 

3) Remaining non-aligned is good advice-

CONTEXT:

  1. For weeks, the India-China stand-off dominated newspaper headlines, warning about the possibility of a major conflict along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the Ladakh and Sikkim sectors.
  2. With both India and China agreeing to step back marginally from positions adopted at the beginning of May, and “reaching an agreement”, the newspapers and most other believe that tensions have abated(reduced).
  3. The reality is, however, very different.

 

 

 

BEHIND THE STATEMENTS:

  1. Confirmed facts about incursions during May are that Chinese forces came in sizeable numbers and crossed the undemarcated LAC at quite a few points in the Ladakh and Sikkim sectors.
  2. These were in the vicinity of Pangong Tso (Lake), the Galwan Valley, the Hot Springs-Gogra area (all in Ladakh), and at Naku La in the Sikkim sector.
  3. Talks at the level of military commanders, from lieutenant generals to brigadiers and lower formations, have produced, to repeat the official jargon, a “partial disengagement”.
  4. Both sides have also agreed, according to the same set of officials, to handle the situation “in line with the agreement” that had been reached.
  5. The blandness of the statements conceals many a truth. This time, it would appear, the Chinese are here to stay in places such as the Galwan Valley.
  6. It is also unclear, as of now, whether the Chinese would withdraw from Pangong Tso, any time soon.
  7. Restoration of the status quo ante (previous state) which existed in mid-April is thus nowhere on the horizon.
  8. Another bone of contention(concern) also seems unlikely to be resolved for quite some time is the China’s insistence that India stop road construction in the border area.
  9. Chinese claim the construction is on the Chinese territory, which India contests, insisting that it is taking place within Indian territory.
  10. This is not, however, the time for political grandstanding. There is a great deal at stake.

 

 

MORE WEIGHTIER REASONS:

  1. India needs to undertake a detailed analysis of recent events to find proper answers to many vexed questions.
  2. To merely affirm that India’s decision to strengthen its border infrastructure was the main trigger for the recent show of strength by China, would be simplistic.
  3. Both India and China have been strengthening their border infrastructure in recent years.
  4. While the strengthening of the Darbuk-Shyok-Daulat Beg Oldi road may have angered the Chinese, to ascribe China’s recent show of strength to this would be misplaced.
  5. A demonstration of military strength, merely because India was improving its border infrastructure, would fall into this category.
  6. Nor does this action fit in with western assertions that such steps demonstrate China’s newly assertive post-pandemic foreign policy.
  7. There have to be far weightier reasons for China’s actions, and India needs to do a deep dive to discern whether there is a method behind China’s actions,
  • As for instance, the existence of certain geopolitical factors, an increase in bilateral tensions between India and China, economic pressures, apart from China’s internal dynamics.
  1. China’s action clearly belies (fail to fulfil) the code of conduct drawn up at the Wuhan (China) and Mamallapuram (Tamil Nadu) summits by the leaders of India and China.

 

 

THE AMERICAN ORBIT:

  1. If we were to examine geopolitical factors, it is no secret that while India professes to be non-aligned, it is increasingly perceived as having shifted towards the American orbit of influence.
  2. India’s United States tilt is perhaps most pronounced in the domain of U.S.-China relations.
  3. An evident degree of geopolitical convergence also exists between the U.S. and India in the Indo-Pacific, again directed against China.
  4. India is today a member of the Quad (the U.S., Japan, Australia and India) which has a definite anti-China connotation.
  5. U.S. President Trump’s latest ploy of redesigning the G-7, excluding China, provides China yet another instance of India and China being in opposite camps.
  6. A recent editorial in China’s Global Times confirms how seriously China views the growing proximity between Delhi and Washington.
  7. India is almost the last holdout in Asia against China’s Belt Road Initiative (BRI).
  8. India also loses no opportunity to declaim against the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
  9. China further views India’s assertions regarding Gilgit-Baltistan, as an implicit attack on the CPEC, China’s flagship programme.
  10. More recently, India was one of the earliest countries to put curbs and restrictions on Chinese foreign direct investment.
  11. Adding to this, is the rising crescendo of anti-China propaganda within India.
  12. Such sentiments do impact border matters. Almost all India-China border agreements are premised on the presumed neutrality of both countries.

 

 

CHINA’S INTERNAL DYNAMICS:

  1. One should also not ignore the impact of internal pressures that have been generated within China due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and in part due to other factors.
  2. Mr. Xi has, no doubt, accumulated more power than any other Chinese Communist leader since Mao.
  3. But there are reports of growing opposition within party ranks to some of his policies, including the BRI.
  4. Chinese economic miracle is also beginning to lose steam, the current Chinese leadership is faced with an unique crisis.
  5. The coupling of political and economic tensions have greatly aggravated pressures on Mr. Xi, and the situation could become still more fragile, given the rising tide of anti-China sentiment the world over.
  6. How the present crop of Chinese leaders led by Mr. Xi would react to this situation, remains to be seen.

 

 

HISTORY AND THE PRESENT:

  1. These are dangerous times, more so for countries in China’s vicinity, and specially India.
  2. India is being increasingly projected as an alternative model to China, and being co-opted into a wider anti-China alliance which China clearly perceives as provocation.
  3. We cannot ignore or forget the circumstances that led to the unfortunate India-China war of 1962.
  4. Faced with the disaster of the Great Leap Forward, and increasing isolation globally (with even Soviet leaders like Nikita Khrushchev trading barbs), Mao chose to strike at India rather than confront Russia or the West.
  5. A single misstep could lead to a wider conflagration, which both sides must avoid.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

  1. This is not the time for India to be seen as the front end of a belligerent(aggressive) coalition of forces seeking to put China in its place.
  2. Even the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, now seems to be joining the anti-China bandwagon under prodding from the U.S.
  3. India has consistently followed a different policy in the past, and it is advisable that it remains truly non-aligned and not become part of any coalition that would not be in India’s long-term interest.