Month: February 2023

G20: Japan and South Korea’s Foreign Ministers to Skip Meet

Ahead of the March 2 meeting, Russian and EU foreign ministers issued uncompromising statements that they would strongly reiterate their positions on Ukraine.

New Delhi: Even as there is uncertainty about a joint statement after the gathering of the G20 foreign ministers in Bengaluru due to differences over Ukraine, the foreign ministers of Japan and South Korea are skipping the meet due to “domestic obligations”, while China and Russia announced their ministerial visits.

Just two days before the foreign ministers’ meeting, Japanese news agency Kyodo, citing a ruling party source, reported on Tuesday morning that foreign minister Yoshimasa Hayashi would not travel to India due to a conflict with his parliamentary schedule. Twenty-four hours after this report, Japan officially confirmed that Hayashi won’t be coming to Delhi. In a statement, the country said deputy foreign minister Kenji Yamada will be attending the G20 meeting.

The absence of Hayashi will be notable, as Japan is not only a close friend of India, but also holds the annual chair of the G7 group this year. Since last year’s summit, there had been a constant refrain in bilateral statements that the simultaneous chairmanship of the G7 by Japan and G20 by India would lead to a closer synergy between the two countries.

A Japanese researcher at Washington-based Hudson Institute, Satoru Nagao, asserted that India would be “very upset” if Japan’s foreign minister cancelled his trip due to the high level of diplomatic and political capital invested by the Modi government into the G20 summit.

Further, a US state department official already announced last week that the foreign ministers of the four ‘Quad’ countries will meet on March 3 after the G20 event. It remains to be seen whether the Quad ministerial meeting will go ahead with a Japanese official in attendance or whether foreign minister Hayashi will dial in virtually from Tokyo.

While India and Japan have forged closer ties, the Ukraine war has caused a rare divergence on the political front. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has personally steered a hardline position on the Ukraine war, with Japan imposing sanctions against Russia in line with the West. He also brought up the matter during his visit to India last year. On their part, Indian officials have often expressed puzzlement in private at the position taken by Japan on Ukraine, when Russia does not pose a security threat – like Moscow does for Europe.

Meanwhile, South Korea’s foreign office announced on February 24 that its foreign minister would not participate in the New Delhi meeting. As per diplomatic sources, he would not be able to participate due to involvement in “domestic affairs”.

South Korea is one of the biggest investors in the Indian economy, with South Korean companies dominating the consumer goods market in the South Asian country. In December, Seoul unveiled its first-ever Indo-Pacific strategy, a significant development for South Korea that had been a rare hold-out against Washington’s policy in the region.

According to a report in the Khyunghyang Shinmun newspaper, the South Korean foreign minister Park Jin had hoped to meet with his Japanese counterpart on the sidelines of the G20 meeting. It was to have been a continuation of their earlier meeting at Munich, where they tried to bridge their differences over reparations for Japan’s wartime use of forced labour. However, South Korea had apparently learnt that Hayashi would not attend the meeting in New Delhi.

However, the newspaper reported that the main reason for the South Korean foreign minister’s absence in New Delhi was the inability to fix a meeting with his newly-appointed Chinese counterpart Qin Gang. 

China, Russia to attend

The Chinese foreign office announced that Qin Gang would attend the G20 meeting, his first trip to India. It will be the first visit by a Chinese foreign minister since Wang Yi travelled to India last year. 

Ahead of the trip, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said they hoped that the G20 would “focus on the prominent challenges in the global economy and on development and play a bigger role in driving world economic recovery and global development”.

She said that China was “ready to work with all parties to ensure that the G20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting will send a positive signal on multilateralism, food and energy security and development cooperation”. The missing item in the Chinese statement was the international ‘hot potato’ of the Ukraine war. 

Of course, it was the differences on the language to be used with regard to the invasion that ensured that the G20 finance ministers meeting in Bengaluru did not conclude with a joint statement. Instead, a chairman’s summary was issued, which noted that China and Russia did not sign up for the paragraphs referring to the Ukraine war. The document said that “most members strongly condemned” the Ukraine war, but there were “other views and different assessments of the situation and sanctions”.

The Indian opposition leader Shashi Tharoor said in an interview for The Wire on Monday that India had undermined its own leadership in order to placate the Russians. “And, indeed, the Russians issued a statement thanking India for its ‘constructive role’ in not using the word ‘war’. Now, this is getting absurd,” he said.

“This was an example where India’s nerve failed… Not having an agreed communiqué is a bigger failure for a chairman than having a communiqué with a word that displeases a friend,” he said, asserting that it was a setback for Indian diplomacy.

There was no official response from the Ministry of External Affairs, but official sources told reporters that they had “noted some politically biased and motivated comments on the G20 Finance Ministers’ Chair’s Summary and Outcome Document”.

“The fact is that it is India’s considered and balanced position that contributed in forging the Bali Declaration. In particular, Prime Minister’s statement that this is not an era of war found great resonance. Our endeavour was to reflect the Bali consensus in the G20 Finance Ministers’ Meeting. This was expressed in the Chair’s Summary and Outcome Document. Therefore any criticism is misplaced and factually inaccurate,” said official sources.

Also Read: Civil Society Groups Hit Out at G20 for Ignoring ‘Real Problems’ of Global South

A similar outcome?

There was, however, anticipation that the foreign ministers’ meeting in New Delhi would also have a similar trajectory to the Bengaluru jamboree.

Speaking to members of the Indian Association of Foreign Affairs Correspondents on Monday, former national security adviser Shiv Shankar Menon anticipated that the Bengaluru meeting had set a precedent, which could be helpful for India as chair. 

“China and Russia have now set a pattern, where they can get through G20 meetings – by objecting to certain parts while others say what they wish on Ukraine, and there is no joint statement. This may suit India as well,” he said.

Ahead of the March 2 meeting, Russian and EU foreign ministers issued uncompromising statements that they would strongly reiterate their positions on Ukraine.

“As Russia’s war against Ukraine marks its one-year anniversary, the High Representative (Josep Borrell) will convey a strong message on Russia’s blatant violation of international law and the UN Charter, and its global consequences, in particular on energy and food insecurity, but also on the importance of a stronger multilateralism system,” said an EU statement.

Announcing Sergei Lavrov’s trip, the Russian foreign ministry said on Tuesday that it would work with India by “showing the greatest possible flexibility” but will also protect “Russia’s fundamental interests and defend the international order based on the central role of the UN and international law”. Lavrov will bring up the Nord Stream gas pipeline explosion and seizure of Russian cargo ships with fertilisers during his intervention at the G20 meeting.

Note: This article was updated to include Japan’s official statement.

Civil Society Groups Hit Out at G20 for Ignoring ‘Real Problems’ of Global South

The statement criticises G20 for “its absolute silence on declining spaces of dissent, human rights abuses, shrinking space of democracies and rising fascism and authoritarianism in countries including in the G20 nations themselves; as well as for undermining the democratic multilateralism.”

New Delhi: A public statement issued by a group of Indian people’s movements, trade unions and other civil society slams the G20 for ignoring the “real problems” of the global south and accuses the Indian government of “using the G20 presidency” to seek political and electoral gains.

The statement says India should instead raise important issues of the global south and vulnerable communities of the world at a time when the world is facing multifaceted problems, such as the climate crisis, poverty, hunger, malnutrition and socio-economic inequalities. It goes on to say that “the scale at which the G20 meetings are being organised to portray a picture perfect narrative of shining India, reeks of a vulgar display of wealth at a time when India’s performance on every social barometer is abysmal; not to forget, all on tax payers’ money”.

“In the run-up to scheduled G20 meetings in different cities of India, government authorities are displacing the homeless people to far-flung areas, removing street vendors, and small shops from the roadsides to ‘beautify’ the cities. The party in power is forwarding India as the ‘centre of diversity’ and ‘mother of democracy’ while also consistently using all national institutions at its disposal to silence the dissenting voices of human rights defenders, repeatedly attacking minority communities with impunity and systematically destroying institutions and progressive civil society spaces.”

Citing various indices of democracy, which point to a democratic decline in India, the statement says that “against this background, the forum of G20 needs to be questioned for its absolute silence on declining spaces of dissent, human rights abuses, shrinking space of democracies and rising fascism and authoritarianism in countries including in the G20 nations themselves; as well as for undermining the democratic multilateralism.”

The statement, which is endorsed by over 100 persons, says that “the mere inclusion of few developing countries from the southern hemisphere and the G20 troika being composed of the countries of the south – Indonesia, India and Brazil, does not grant it a legitimate status and makes it a representative body of the global population.”

It says merely including governments from the south does not equal serving the interests of the people in the global South. “In fact it means very little, for the Global South (i.e. the most vulnerable, poor people across the world) remains excluded from the G20 decision-making process and from its priorities. The G20 forum is still being used to safeguard international monetary systems and global economic governance framework in line with the demands of global capital and to serve the interests of corporations and the political and economic elite in both industrial and industrialising nations,” they said.

The signatories to this public statement, issued on the eve of the G20 meeting of Foreign Ministers in Delhi say that they affirm the resolution “to strengthen our struggles against the neoliberal policies and authoritarian governance pushed ahead by forums such as G20, and our attempts at forging truly sustainable, democratic, equitable and just economies and societies.” They have appealed “to all citizens, global people’s movements, national and international trade unions, students and academia to not be deceived by the gimmicks of the Indian government and its false propaganda, but to work for these struggles and initiatives.”

‘Hypersensitive’: Bombay HC Quashes FIRs Against Congress Leader Who Criticsed BJP Minister

To invoke Section 153A of the IPC, the statements must be “judged on the basis of what reasonable and strong-minded persons will think” and not on the basis of the “views of hypersensitive persons who smell danger in every hostile point of view”.

Mumbai: Ruling in favour of a Pune-based Congress worker who staged a protest outside Maharashtra’s higher and technical education minister Chandrakant Patil’s residence, the Bombay high court on Monday observed that the right to express one’s views is a protected and cherished right in India’s democracy and cannot be taken away merely by accusing a person of threatening harmony.

The division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan passed an order in Sandeep Kudale’s petition seeking the quashing of two FIRs registered against him for protesting against Patil. 

In the order, passed on February 27, the HC has observed that Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be resorted to silence people from expressing their views, opinions and dissent so long as Article 19(2) is not violated. Cases under Section 153A, the judges observed, “are on the rise” and “the onus is on the police/State to ensure that the said provision is not misused by anyone, much less, political parties.”

In December last year, BJP leader Patil, while speaking at a programme at a university in Paithan, Aurangabad, had said, “Those who started schools, Ambedkar, Phule… they did not depend on government aid. They started schools by going to people, and begging, by saying, ‘I’m starting a school, please give me money’.” This angered the anti-caste organisations in the state, leading to protests against Patil across the state. One activist had even blackened Patil’s face.

Kudale, as a mark of protest, stood outside Patil’s house and made statements criticising Patil. A video of these statements was also posted on Kudale’s social media accounts. Based on the complaint of a BJP worker, FIRs were registered against Kudale. The complainant claimed that Kudale was trying to provoke the Ambedkarite community and try to trigger enmity between the two communities. 

“By no stretch of the imagination, can it be said, that by the said words, the petitioner, even remotely promoted or attempted to promote, on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or on any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religions, racial, language or regional groups of caste and communities,” the order reads.

Kudale’s lawyer Subodh Desai, in his argument, called the FIRs “politically motivated”, and said, “(They were) lodged with the sole intent of harassing and browbeating the petitioner, who is a member of the Congress Party, from expressing his opinion.” He further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated only because he questioned the statement of a sitting cabinet minister of the state.

The HC has observed that for section 153 (A) of the IPC to be invoked, there have to be two communities involved. “The statement in question on the basis of which the FIR has been registered against the accused must be judged on the basis of what reasonable and strong-minded persons will think of the statement, and not on the basis of the views of hypersensitive persons who smell danger in every hostile point of view,” the court observed while quashing the FIRs against Kudale.

The order further states that an influential person such as a “top government or executive functionary, opposition leader, political or social leader of following or a credible anchor on a TV show” carries more credibility and has to exercise his right to free speech with more restraint, as his/her speech will be taken more seriously than that of a “common person on the street”.” A citizen or even an influential person, however, is under no obligation to avoid a controversial or sensitive topic. “Even expressing an extreme opinion in a given case does not amount to hate speech,” the court observed.

Self-Regulatory Body Fines News18 India Rs 75k for Two Broadcasts of Aman Chopra’s Programme

The NBDSA held that in the first episode, the anchor crossed the “threshold of impartiality” by making communally polarising statements. In the second, the body observed that the anchor condemned the entire Muslim community for the actions of a few miscreants who were accused of pelting stones at a garba event in Kheda.

New Delhi: The self-regulatory body for television channels on Monday, February 27, fined News18 India Rs 50,000 and Rs 25,000 for two separate broadcasts of anchor Aman Chopra’s programme. The first programme dealt with Yogi Adityanath’s “80 vs 20” statement, while the second was on the public flogging of Muslim men in Gujarat’s Kheda district.

The News Broadcasting & Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA), which is the self-regulatory body for all members of the News Broadcasters & Digital Association, passed the orders on February 27 based on complaints filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace and two individuals.

In the first case, NBDSA said that Chopra crossed the “threshold of impartiality” in the first by making communally polarising statements. On the Kheda flogging, the body observed that the anchor condemned the entire Muslim community for the actions of a few miscreants who were accused of pelting stones at a garba event. “The manner in which the debate was conducted was condemnable and the statements made by the anchor had the tendency to disturb the communal harmony in the country,” it said.

It is rare for the NBDSA to fine news channels for violating the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards as it usually closes complaints by censuring them. In these two orders, News18 India was censured and fined.

The self-regulatory body had recently issued guidelines to prevent hate speech to its members, which directed editors, editorial personnel, anchors, journalists and presenters to refrain from using “language and agenda-driven words”, “terms and adjectives” and “all forms of expression” which can advocate violence or engender hatred against individuals or communities. The guidelines were issued after the Supreme Court asked NBDSA why offending anchors could not be taken off the air.

Incidentally, the NBDSA had in October 2022 fined News18 India Rs 50,000 for another programme anchored by Aman Chopra for giving a platform to “extreme views” during a discussion on the hijab ban in Karnataka.

‘Violated fundamental principles’

The first order dealt with the ‘Desh Nahi Jhukne Denge’ programme broadcast on January 18, 2022 titled ‘हिन्दुओं के ह़िलाफ़ महागठबंधन?’ [An anti-Hindu grand alliance?]. It was aired a few days after Yogi Adityanath, in the run up to the Uttar Pradesh assembly election, said that the polls were “80 vs 20”, which was interpreted as pitting the majority community against the minority.

The NBDSA said that by starting the debate on the premise that “20% people were ganging up against Hindus constituting 80%, the anchor had given the debate a thrust, which is communal in nature and not appropriate”.

The show was “flagged off” by the anchor with a communally polarising question, it said. “Hinduon ke khilaf Uttar Pradesh me Mahagathbandhan tayyar ho raha hai, aur jab 80 vs. 20 ki baat ki thi Yogi Adityanath ne toh wo sahi thi? (An anti-Hindu alliance is getting prepared in Uttar Pradesh. So when Yogi Adityanath speaks about 80 vs 20, was that correct?).” During the programme, the anchor “crossed the threshold of impartiality by making certain statements” like “Ye 80 k khilaf hai mahagathbandhan” and “Wo keh ray … unhey Hinduo sey problem hai aur wo 80 kay khilaaf hai”.

The anchor violated the “fundamental principles of Impartiality, Objectivity and Neutrality in reporting”, the body said.

“In view of the above violations, NBDSA decided to issue a warning to the broadcaster to be more careful in future, decided to impose a fine of Rs. 50,000,” it said. The channel was also directed to air a ticker once every hour for 24 hours, starting from 8 am on March 6, which says that the NBDSA found the said programme to be in violation of the Code of Ethics & Broadcasting Standards relating to Impartiality, Objectivity and Neutrality and Specific Guidelines Covering Reportage relating to Racial & Religious Harmony.

NBDSA also directed the broadcaster to remove the video of the said broadcast, if still available on the website of the channel or YouTube, and remove all hyperlinks to it.

Illustration: The Wire

‘Tendency to disturb communal harmony’

The second order was also about the ‘Desh Nahi Jhukne Denge’ programme, regarding the broadcast aired on October 4, 2022 about the flogging of some Muslim men in Kheda district of Gujarat for allegedly pelting stones at a garba event.

NBDSA observed that the impugned programme was “interspersed with statements made by the anchor” which “targeted, vilified and castigated the entire Muslim community for the actions of a few miscreants”. NBDSA held that by condemning the entire Muslim community for the actions of a few miscreants, it was the anchor who had given the alleged incident a communal tilt.

“The manner in which the debate was conducted was condemnable and the statements made by the anchor had the tendency to disturb the communal harmony in the country… Further, the tickers which were aired during the impugned broadcast, raised rhetorical questions, thereby reinforcing the narrative created by the broadcaster and gave the impression that all Muslim men attended garba celebrations only with ulterior motives,” it said.

The broadcaster also failed to condemn police violence and in fact kept looping the video of the police beating the men, the body said. “The thrust of the broadcast appeared to give the impression that the actions of the police were justified,” it observed.

For these violations, NBDSA warned the broadcaster not to repeat the violations in future and imposed a fine of Rs 25,000. It was also directed to remove the video of the said broadcast, if still available on the website of the channel, or YouTube, and remove all hyperlinks to it.

US, China and Global South in a ‘Bi-Multipolar’ World

Two books – ‘The Rise of the Infrastructure State’ and ‘Asian Geopolitics and the US-China Rivalry’ – support the claim that the world today is ‘bi-multipolar’, moving in the direction of greater multipolarity. 

Even as the world remains focused on the war in Europe, the major actors on the geopolitical and the geo-economic stage, the United States and China, are on two different continents. It is not quite a ‘New Cold War’, given the inter-dependence that still characterises the relationship between the US and China, but the growing ‘decoupling’ of the two, some suggest, points to a future of a new bipolar contestation like the one we lived through in the ‘old’ Cold War era, between the US and the erstwhile Soviet Union.

Even as the US-China contestation becomes bigger, it is still not clear whether China would emerge as the new global superpower, overtaking the US, or whether the US would be able to weaken China to the point where it would no longer constitute a serious threat to Trans-Atlantic global dominance. Indeed, it is also not clear whether at some point the US and China enter into a G-2 partnership and whether that partnership would produce a stable or an unstable equilibrium in a global balance of power system.

What is clear, however, is that even when the principle contradiction in the global balance of power system is today between the US and China, other nations are increasingly securing space either to benefit from this rivalry or ensure independent action.

Also read: Breakdown of US-China Relations Will Leave the World Scrambling to Cope

If the US uses European proxies to extend its influence into Eurasia, China is using Russia. The war triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine is nothing more than just that – a trigger. Its denouement will be in the re-balancing of global power equations. The interconnections between the US and China are at present so complex that a direct conflict between the two, for instance if and when China invades Taiwan, appears unlikely in the near future. That does not mean that the two are not preparing for a showdown, if required, in the future.

For the present, though, they seek to manage their own bilateral relations even as they demand allegiance from other countries. Against this background, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has once again pushed a confused Europe into the American embrace while across Eurasia many countries seek space for themselves as yet refusing to be forced into taking sides.

In the two books under review, Seth Schindler and Jessica DiCarlo, and Felix Heiduk have brought together interesting essays on the implications, the consequences and the opportunities provided by this Big Power conflict for the countries of the Eurasian region.

Big power conflict

The Rise of the Infrastructure State
Edited by Seth Schindler and Jessica Dicardlo
Bristol University Press

In The Rise of the Infrastructure State: How US-China Rivalry Shapes Politics and Place Worldwide, Schindler and DiCarlo argue that the “key to unravelling the complexity of US-China rivalry is its territorial logic. In contrast to the Cold War, the US and China do not compete to establish blocs of loyal allies and client states. Instead, contemporary great power rivalry is geared towards the management of territorial integration, as both the US and China seek to establish positions of centrality in the networks of trade, production and consumption through which power will be projected”.

They see infrastructure as the space in which this US-China rivalry is most manifest, with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) being China’s play and the US responding through a series of initiatives on terrestrial and maritime domains, including Build Back Better (BBB).

Infrastructure finance and construction have become an “arena of geopolitical competition”, suggest the essays in the Schindler and DiCarlo volume, with highways, ports, pipelines, energy grids, high-speed rail and undersea cables being the networks that Big Powers seek to secure control over. However, both the US and China are presently competing for influence through such projects in third countries, and these countries, especially their power elites, have their own interests in mind. They are no passive recipients of funds and pressure, but active participants who are trying to make use of the space provided by Big Power rivalry to secure their own developmental interests.

Also read: What Lies Behind China’s Belt and Road Initiative?

Thus, Schindler and Di Carlo sum up, “While acknowledging the significance of great power rivalry, the chapters in this volume simultaneously attend to the agency of other countries, and show that the US and China are not free to compete as they like across the globe. This book draws attention to the risks and opportunities for states adapting to the emergent multipolar order. It also highlights the role played by middle and regional powers such as Japan, India and Vietnam.”

We have seen in the past few months how India and other major countries of the Global South have tried to voice their own interests and secure their own space in the extant Big Power conflict. Even as the US and China use their financial power to seek geopolitical support from a range of countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America by funding large infrastructure projects, the target countries are able to assert their relative autonomy, securing the benefits of such investment without as yet getting drawn into a military alliance with either.

This is a theme echoed in India’s own response to the US-Russia conflict being staged in Europe with its focus on retaining strategic autonomy and promoting the interests of the Global South.

Growing assertion of the ‘Not Big Powers’ in the US-China rivalry

Asian Geopolitics and the US-China Rivalry
Edited by Felix Heiduk
Routledge

The book – Asian Geopolitics and the US-China Rivalry – edited by Heiduk explores a related theme of the role of ‘other’ powers, so to speak, in the era of renewed ‘Big Power’ rivalry. In his detailed introduction to the book Heiduk sums up the book’s key proposition as follows: “Risking overgeneralization, it seems safe to state that mainstream IR (international relations) literature, therefore, traditionally has focused overtly on great powers in order to explain structural change and continuity in international politics. This has often reduced, conceptually speaking, other states to a de facto secondary or tributary role with their foreign policy options strongly constrained by structural factors over which they have little agency.”

However, hypothesises Heiduk, “to many an international audience such binary choice might appear like one between the devil and the deep blue sea”. Smaller states do have the space to pursue their interests and often do so. The volume examines the postures of several countries in Asia and the Indo-Pacific to explore the extent to which they make use of the space made available by the US-China rivalry.

What both these collections of essays point to is a difference between the ‘Old Cold War’ (OCW) and the potential ‘New Cold War’ (NCW) represented by the growing assertion of the ‘Not Big Powers’ (NBP). In the post-colonial era of OCW, the NBP constituted itself into the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). However, not only were the NBP too weak to assert their autonomy from the Big Powers – the US and USSR – they were often drawn into situations wherein they were forced into the willing arms of one or the other power. Thus, NAM founder-leader India drew closer to the USSR, while Egypt, another founder leader of NAM, drew closer to the United States.

In the unfolding era of NCW, many NAM members have become big and strong enough to refuse to align themselves fully with one or the other Big Power or at least secure enough space for independent action on matters of vital national interest. The so-called Global South was a supplicant during the OCW era, while it is today in a stronger position to assert its own strategic interests in the NCW era. The opportunity provided to countries of the Global South by their successive chairmanship of the Group of Twenty (G-20) – Indonesia, India, Brazil and South Africa – is enabling them to shape the agenda on global issues, even in the midst of a renewed conflict between Big Powers.

Also read: Multipolarity Without Multilateralism? A Brewing Crisis Within the G20

In my essay, the ‘Geo-economics of Multipolarity‘ (Published in Sujan Chinoy and Jagannath Panda (Edited), Asia Between Multipolarism and Multipolarity, IDSA, 2021), I have defined the global system within which the NBP can protect their interests in the midst of Big Power rivalry as being ‘Bi-Multipolar’. The historian Samuel Huntington coined the term ‘Uni-multipolar’ to define the global power balances in the 1990s when the United States was the dominant world power, after the USSR imploded, but faced several countries including France, Germany, China, India and Brazil that asserted their strategic autonomy even within that system. The US cannot take unilateral action, Huntington concluded, without the support of one or more of the other regional powers.

With the rise of China after the trans-Atlantic financial crisis of 2008-09, the global power system has increasingly become ‘bi-multipolar’, rather than remain ‘uni-multipolar’ or become the old ‘bipolar’ system of the OCW era. While the US and China are the only Big Powers today, there are many other nations capable of retaining their strategic autonomy, or at least secure adequate space for an independent foreign policy. This would certainly include Russia, India, Brazil, France and South Africa and could potentially include Germany and Japan. Apart from these countries, many other countries may seek to utilise the opportunity provided by East-West rivalry to pursue their own national developmental and security interests.

The two books under review provide more evidence in support of my hypothesis that the world today is ‘bi-multipolar’, perhaps moving in the direction of greater multipolarity.

Sanjaya Baru is a writer and policy analyst. 

After Latest Targeted Killing, Kashmiri Pandit Employees Intensify Stir for Relocation to Jammu

Dozens of employees assembled outside the office of the relief and rehabilitation commissioner in Jammu for the third day in a row and staged a protest to demand their relocation.

Srinagar: The latest killing of a Kashmiri Pandit in Pulwama district has revived the climate of insecurity and fear in the Valley, and allegations that the Jammu and Kashmir administration has failed to protect the minority Hindu community.

Sanjay Kumar, the father of three minor children who worked as a bank security guard, was shot dead in Achan village of Pulwama district on Sunday, February 26, prompting the members of the Kashmiri Hindu community to intensify their protest in Jammu.

On Tuesday, February 28, several dozen Kashmiri Pandits, who have been provided employment in the J&K administration under a centrally-sponsored PM package for migrants, assembled outside the office of the relief and rehabilitation commissioner in Jammu for the third day in a row and staged a protest to demand their relocation.

“The killing (of Sanjay) has increased the worries of my family,” said Rubon Saproo, a protesting migrant employee, “They are asking me to quit the job. The government may be trying its best to protect us. I have full faith in security agencies. But for me and my family, my life is more important than my livelihood.”

Under the PM package, around 6,000 Kashmiri Pandit employees have been hired by the J&K administration and posted in various government departments in Kashmir Valley. As part of the package, the administration is also constructing transit accommodations for the employees in Kashmir, some of which are already functional.

A senior J&K administration official said that the Valley was deliberately chosen as the place of posting for the employees under the PM package to enable the reintegration of the community after they were forced to leave because of the armed insurgency which began in the early 1990s.

Kashmiri Pandit activist and lawyer, Deepika Pushkar Nath, said that the rehabilitation policy was formulated at a time when the violence was at its lowest ebb and Kashmir was peaceful. “There were no terror attacks on the Pandits when the policy was rolled out by the Congress government. But the equation has changed,” she said.

Lawyer Deepika Pushkar Nath. Photo: Pallavi Sareen.

A wave of targeted killings

The situation started to turn ugly after the reading down of Article 370. Open threats were issued by militant groups such as the Resistance Front and ‘Kashmir Fight’ to Kashmiri Hindus and others for allegedly becoming part of the BJP-led Union government’s “agenda of changing the demography” of the Muslim majority region.

In the aftermath of the broad daylight killing of Rahul Bhat, a Kashmiri Pandit employee, in May 2022 at his government office in central Kashmir, nearly all the Kashmiri migrant employees fled to Jammu. A wave of targeted killings swept the Valley last year in which at least 14 civilians, including three Kashmiri Pandits, were murdered.

Ranjan Jotshi, vice-president of All Migrant Displaced Employees Association Kashmir (AMDEAK), said that the situation in Kashmir after the latest killing in Pulwama has “made it more difficult” for the migrant employees to resume their duties in Kashmir. “I am glad that I left Kashmir last year because I too could have been dead by now,” Ranjan told The Wire over the phone.

The AMDEAK leader, who is posted in J&K’s Social Welfare Department in south Kashmir where the latest killing took place, said that he would quit instead of resuming his duty. “My family is happy only as long as I am alive. I will work as a daily-wage labourer and return alive to my family in the evening rather than in a coffin,” added Ranjan.

The J&K administration has paid no heed to the migrant employees’ demand for relocation. Instead of reaching out, the administration has withheld their salary. In December, J&K’s Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha asked the employees to resume their duties, warning that they would not be paid for “sitting at home”.

Sinha’s remarks drew flak from the Pandit community, prominent citizens as well as political leaders in Kashmir. However, he has continued to rule out the relocation demand, forcing some of the employees to resume their duties.

Watch | The Untold Misery of Pandits in Modi-Shah’s ‘Naya Kashmir’

‘Revived fear psychosis’

A Kashmiri Pandit employee, who shifted back to his place of posting in south Kashmir after the administration stopped his salary last year, said that the Pulwama killing has revived the fear psychosis in the migrant employees.

“Earlier, I had to remain extra-cautious only during my commute to the office and back home. Now, every stranger I see along the way and in the office looks like a killer in disguise. I feel depressed at times. My family doesn’t want me to continue the job,” he said, wishing to remain anonymous.

In a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (KPSS), a prominent group of Kashmiri Hindus living in Kashmir, on Monday called for the removal of LG Sinha for “letting the Kashmiri Pandits be killed by the militants for some vested agenda and vendetta to malign the ruling political party at the national and international level.”

KPSS president Sanjay Tickoo said in the letter that “in a fight between Muslim Kashmir and Hindu India religious minorities living in Kashmir are becoming a scapegoat”, adding that the Union government must issues orders “to initiate brutal operation against the militants and their aides to safeguard the lives of the innocents Kashmiri Pandits and other religious minorities living in Kashmir Valley”.

Sanjay.

‘Principle of natural justice’

While the J&K administration is sticking to its stand that the rehabilitation policy doesn’t contain provisions for the relocation of Kashmiri Pandit employees, Deepika, the lawyer, said that the government should “act on the principle of natural justice”.

“Despite the fact that there is no relocation clause in the policy, Kashmiri migrant employees are trapped in a peculiarly harsh situation where the writ of the constitution and our fundamental rights, which includes the right to live, are more important than a government policy,” she said.

Saproo, the protesting employee, also argued that the government should amend the existing rehabilitation policy and allow the migrant employees to temporarily work out of Jammu till the situation improves in Kashmir Valley and the ongoing construction of 6,000 accommodations for migrant employees is completed.

“Five Kashmiri Pandit employees were killed at their places of work in the last couple of years. The killing of Sanjay has aggravated the atmosphere of fear. In such a situation, how can the government expect us to resume our duties?” he said.

One militant killed

Two days after the killing in Pulwama’s Achan village, the J&K police claimed that it has gunned down Aqib Mushtaq Bhat, an ‘A’ category militant from Pulwama who, the police said, was involved in the killing of Sanjay. But the killing is unlikely to reassure migrant employees.

Jotshi said that he can’t ignore the “good work” that the government is doing for restoring peace in Kashmir and rehabilitating Kashmiri Pandits. But he said that the government can’t provide security to all the Pandit employees. “Sanjay was staying back at home for five months. The day he left his home, he was killed,” he said.

Saproo said that the Pulwama killing has “proven” that Kashmiri Pandits are not safe in the Valley. “Since the terrorism broke out in Kashmir, my family is settled in Jammu. I shifted to Kashmir only to earn an income. But I will draw a salary only as long as I am alive. What will it mean to my family when I am not there,” he said.

India’s FY23 Q3 Growth Slows to 4.4%, Down From 6.3% in Q2

The country’s GDP is estimated to grow by 7.0% in FY 22-23, compared to 9.1% in the previous fiscal, the government data showed.

New Delhi: India’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the October-December quarter (Q3 FY23) slowed to 4.4%, down from 6.3% in the previous quarter, data released by the government on Tuesday showed. Growth has slowed for the second consecutive quarter.

According to Reuters, a series of interest rate hikes by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) hurt demand and weakness in the manufacturing sector continued.

The manufacturing sector shrank by 1.1% year-on-year in the quarter – a second straight contraction, which showed a weakness in consumer demand and exports.

The country’s GDP is estimated to grow by 7.0% in FY 22-23, compared to 9.1% in the previous fiscal, the government data showed.

The sharp fall in the year-on-year growth rate is also because the low base effect introduced by the lockdowns at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic is fading. The low base effect had contributed to higher growth figures in FY21-22.

A press release by the Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation (MoSPI) stated that the real GDP in Q3 2022-23 is estimated at Rs 40.19 lakh crore, as against Rs 38.51 lakh crore in Q3 2021-22, showing a growth of 4.4%.

“Real GDP or GDP at Constant (2011-12) Prices in the FY23 is estimated to attain a level of Rs 159.71 lakh crore, as against the first revised estimate of GDP for the year 2021-22 of Rs 149.26 lakh crore,” the release stated.

The government said that India’s nominal GDP or GDP at Current Prices in the year 2022-23 is estimated to grow by 15.9%.

The RBI, during its last monetary policy meeting earlier this month, had lowered India’s forecast to 6.8% in FY23. It projected India’s GDP to grow by 4.4% in Q3 and 4.2% in Q4.

SC Refuses to Hear Manish Sisodia’s Plea Against CBI Arrest, Suggests Moving Delhi HC

A bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud said Sisodia can only move the Supreme Court after he has exhausted all other available options.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, February 28, refused to hear a plea by Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia against the decision by a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court to send him to remand until March 4 in connection with the alleged Delhi liquor scam.

A two-judge bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, instead, asked Sisodia to pursue alternative remedies, by first approaching a trial court and then the Delhi high court before knocking on the doors of the apex court.

“You are challenging an FIR, challenging remand, seeking bail, all under Article 32. You have remedies before the high court under Section 482 CrPC,” CJI Chandrachud told Sisodia’s counsel, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, according to LiveLaw.

Singhvi sought to drive home the point that Article 32 (right to individuals to move to the Supreme Court to seek justice when they feel that their right has been ‘unduly deprived) can be invoked and said the same was done in the Arnab Goswami and Vinod Dua cases. The court, however, was not convinced by Singhvi’s arguments and told him that he can approach the apex court after he has exhausted all other alternative options. CJI Chandrachud said just because the case falls in Delhi, Sisodia cannot move the Supreme Court directly and asked Singhvi why these points can’t be raised before the Delhi high court instead.

Singhvi, in response, said that the roster judge hearing the matter at Delhi high court was busy with work of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) Tribunal in the Popular Front of India (PFI) case and was not holding sittings on the matter. The apex court, however, was still not convinced.

On the other hand, Singhvi also questioned the rationale behind arresting Sisodia, stating that the latter had complied with all the summons issued and there was no flight risk. “How can you arrest when he has appeared on all occasions? Where is the flight risk?” he asked, refusing to believe the CBI that Sisodia is not cooperating with the investigation.

The Delhi deputy chief minister was arrested on Sunday, February 26, after eight hours of interrogation. He was sent to five-day CBI remand by a special court in the case on Monday, February 27. The special court said this was to allow the agency to get “genuine and legitimate” answers to questions being put to him for “a proper and fair investigation”, Indian Express reported.

According to the FIR filed by the CBI, Sisodia and several others were instrumental in “recommending and taking decisions” regarding the excise policy 2021-22 “without the approval of competent authority with an intention to extend undue favours to the licensee post tender”, LiveLaw reported.

Rahul Sankrityayan’s Tibet Story

An excerpt from the book ‘Mystics and Sceptics : In Search of Himalayan Masters’, edited by Namita Gokhale.

From studying Brahmanical canons and classical Vedantic learning to Arya Samaj, Buddhism and Marxism, Indian scholar Rahul Sankrityayan (1893-1963) was the quintessential sceptic and seeker. He turned ‘onism’ – the angst and frustration of being stuck in one body that inhabits only one place at a time – on its head by constantly moving from place to place and from one area of knowledge to another, haunted by the road not taken, by places not mapped, by ideas that remained unexplored. He rationalized his obsessive urge to travel in a treatise for footloose wanderers titled Ghumakkad Shastra, (loosely translated as Wanderer’s Scriptures).

In his memoir, Sankrityayan traces the genesis of his constant need to move to an Urdu couplet that caught his imagination in primary school:

Sair kar duniya ki gafil, zindagani phir kahan
Zindagi gar kuchh rahi to naujavani phir kahan
(Wander the world, oh thoughtless one, how long will life last?
Even if life remains, how long will youth last?)

Sankrityayan journeyed through Europe, Japan, China, Korea, Manchuria, Iran, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Russia, crossing Siberia on the Trans-Siberian railway, and of course the Himalaya.

However, none of these voyages rivalled the combined experience of his four trips to Tibet, the forbidden land, closed to outsiders in the 1920s. It is a story of exceptional strength, resilience and determination. In his travelogues, he confesses that it was difficult to think of another journey as demanding and singular as these.

Mystics and Sceptics : In Search of Himalayan Masters
Ed. Namita Gokhale
HarperCollins India (January 2023)

The trips were not random. Sankrityayan was at that point living the Gandhian dream, immersed in the impassioned tumult of the freedom movement. During this time he was imprisoned in 1922 and then again in 1924. While he was incarcerated, he read a smuggled copy of Leon Trotsky’s Bolshevism and World Peace, composed verses in Brajbhasha, worked on the Sanskrit translation of the Quran, learnt trigonometry and wrote his first novel, Baisvin Sadi. His tryst with Buddhism also began during his jail term. He taught himself Pali and managed to read the entire Pali text of Majjhim Nikaya, the Buddha’s middle-length discourses.

Sankrityayan’s interest in Buddhism deepened as he travelled to Ladakh in 1926. He met Ras-Pa, a lama at the Hemis monastery, and spent time studying Buddhist texts at the Rizong monastery. He also attempted to travel to western Tibet, taking a route traversed by nomads that was considered dangerous and vulnerable to crime, with only a young Tibetan dog as his companion. The dog died midway, leaving him completely distraught. His memoir takes on a ruminative, poetic tone in the eight Sanskrit shlokas he wrote as an elegy to his companion.

Spurred by the desire to study the Pali Tripitakas under the guidance of renowned scholars, Sankrityayan joined vidyalankar Parivena, a renowned Buddhist monastic school in Sri Lanka in 1927, where he finally found what he had been searching for:

When I came upon the Buddha’s exhortation: ‘do not believe by deference to some book or tradition or to your elders; always decide upon belief by your own examination, and then stand firm’, my heart suddenly exclaimed: here is the man whose faith in truth remain implacable, who understood independent intellect within humankind. And when, in the Majjhim Nikaya, I read ‘the precepts of Dhamma that I have given to you are like a ferry boat…’, I realized that what I had been searching for in all my wanderings had now been found.

Sankrityayan translated the Digha Nikaya and Majjhim Nikaya into Hindi, deepened his engagement with epigraphy and archaeology, and taught himself German and French to follow the work of eminent European Indologists and scholars such as Sylvan Levi, Aurel Stein, Rudolf Otto and Sergei Oldenburg. He dropped his original name, Ram Udar Das, and embraced the Buddhist name of Rahul Sankrityayan. He was conferred the title of Tripitakacharya, a rare honour, but his search was far from over. In a poignant essay on her father, Jaya Sankrityayan observed that the commentaries on original Sanskrit works that were lost when the universities of Odantapurui,vikramshila and Nalanda were ravaged,piqued his interest. He was also aware that European expeditions to Central Asia and Tibet at the turn of the century had led to the rediscovery of some of the precious text.

The travelogue of European scholar Alexandra David-Néel, who sneaked into Tibet in the 1920s, inspired him, as did Ekai Kawaguchi’s seminal 1909 book, Three Years in Tibet. The discovery of texts taken away and airbrushed from public consciousness, Sankrityayan felt, was vital for understanding the Indian-Buddhist heritage. He also longed to visit the ruins of the oldest mahavihara in Samye, Tibet, to pay homage to the relics of the renowned Nalanda scholar Santarakshita who, together with masters such as Dignaga and Dharmakirti, formed the Buddhist triumvirate. It was Santarakshita who had ordained the first seven Tibetan monks and strengthened the roots of Buddhism across the Himalaya.

The journey to Tibet, an idea that had been brewing in his mind for years finally took shape in 1929. As someone who was a recognized face of democratic dissent, Sankrityayan knew that he was a marked man and would have to travel incognito. It was not easy for him to enter Nepal, leave alone Tibet. He juggled the subtleties and oddities of assuming different religious personas, entering the Kathmandu valley disguised as a sadhu during the Shivratri celebrations in spring. Once there, he remained largely underground in the attic of a house near the Mahabaudha stupa, clothed in a threadbare chhupa (Tibetan gown). Sankrityayan’s travel diaries, Tibbat mein Sava Vars and Yatra ke Panne, with their essayistic detours, describe his ordeal. Even though he wore a Tibetan dress and remained unshaven and bedraggled, he was petrified of being recognized as a plainsman.

He used Henderson’s Tibetan manual to familiarize himself with the language and weighed his options carefully.The best bet seemed to be to use his rather tenuous contact with Dukpa Lama to get to Tibet as a member of his large entourage of monks. When this did not work, he took the help of Dharmaman Sahu, a wealthy Newar trader who had a home and office in Lhasa, and his friend Dasharatan Sahu, to put in place a credible and workable travel itinerary.

Sankrityayan tried to hoodwink the Nepal border police by pretending to be a mystic from Kinnaur. His initial journey was fraught with danger. He had to move cautiously, masquerading as a beggar before potential marauders and predators. A fortuitous meeting with Lobsang Sherab, a taciturn lama he had befriended in Bodh Gaya, radically altered the situation. The lama helped him get an authentic permit to cross into Tibet. They travelled together for three months, navigating the ragged terrain, crossing the icy water of the Kosi river, often taking rest in flea- infested stables, sustaining themselves on a frugal diet of sattu and tea. They reached the important milestones of Narthang, Tashi Lhumpo Gumba and Shigarche, crossing the Jarala Pass and reaching extremely remote areas such as Nagache largely on foot. Their journey ended on 19 July when they spotted the wondrous golden roof of the Dzong fortress of Potala.

One of Sankrityayan’s immediate tasks was to reveal his presence to the Thirteenth Dalai Lama and seek his permission to study in the ancient gumbas of Sera and Drepung, where thousands of monks lived in dormitories made for Buddhist devotees from across the world. He spent months in Lhasa, trekking to nearby monasteries, often through frigid darkness. The city spread itself open to him. He absorbed the magic that nested in the quotidian details of its social fabric and enjoyed the fine aesthetic sense embedded deep in the country’s DNA. His presence no longer sparked a flurry of speculation. Through his connections, he was able to source prodigious amounts of rare texts and Thangka paintings. Most of these texts were hand-lettered Tibetan manuscripts or printed woodblocks. A few were written with gold and silver powder. In addition to the spiritual canon, there were texts on philosophy, history, art, astronomy, medicine and other subjects.. He also travelled to Samye, a two-day journey from Lhasa, to keep his date with the remains of the Himalayan master Santarakshita. When Sankrityayan began his return journey to Kalimpong, he had to hire twenty-two mules to ferry manuscripts, paintings, and rare antiquities acquired during his stay.

Sankrityayan’s second voyage to Tibet in 1934 was preceded by his ordainment as a bhikkhu in 1930. This, along with his fame as a scholar of the Tripitakas, the holy canon of the Theravada school of Buddhism, carried considerable weight with Tibetan monks, who unlocked the vaults of their monasteries. He threw all his time, energy and passion into his search for original palm-leaf manuscripts. His command over the languages used in the Buddhist canon helped in the quick assessment of their importance. These manuscripts had been taken from India to Tibet in the seventh century and from the ninth to thirteenth centuries. A serious study of these texts had the potential to not only open up new dimensions of Buddhist religion and philosophy, but also the Brahmanical and Jain traditions.

First, Sankrityayan set about searching for the Sanskrit manuscript of Dharmakirti’s Pramanavarttika, considered the greatest Indian work on logic. He was aware that several European scholars were also interested in this rare manuscript. He managed to find only a fragmentary commentary on the text, but discovered forty volumes of other precious manuscripts. Sankrityayan used his Rolex camera to photograph them. He also copied many of them by hand, working at feverish pitch, sometimes for up to eighteen hours a day. Among the most poignant anecdotes in his travelogue Yatra Ke Panne is the recollection of a freezing winter day in Lhasa, when the ink in the inkwell froze, and another in Saskya when, while copying Asanga’s Yogacharbhumi, his hands and fingers were so chilled that a brazier had to be kept lit to keep them moving.

There was an occasional windfall, as he notes delightedly in his book, ‘Someone came all the way to Gyantse to sell a copy of the Pragyaparamita written in gold letters.’ The Dalai Lama also sent him several rare volumes carefully wrapped in yellow brocade covers.

Sankrityayan’s hunt for Pramanavarttika continued. He was told that Nepal’s royal priest, Mahapandita Hemraj, possessed a copy, so he returned to India via Nepal to see if could borrow it. He managed to obtain it but was heartbroken when he discovered that it had a few pages missing. During his third and fourth trips to Tibet in 1936 and 1938 respectively, time seemed short and urgent. His travelogue, reminiscent, evocative and sharply alive to social cadences and cultural nuances unspools slowly, illuminating several significant moments of his Himalayan sojourn. He continued to remain hostage to the past, spending hours and hours in a time warp, photographing and copying manuscripts found in the monasteries of Saskya, Ngor and Shalu. The caches of manuscripts he copied included important works of philosophers and masters such as Nagarjuna, Asanga, vasubandhu, Bhavya, Dharmakirti, Jnanasri, Ratnakar Sjanti, and Durvek Mishra. Finally, he managed to find the complete manuscript of the elusive Pramanavarttika.

Sankrityayan’s friendship with Gendum Choephel, one of the most outstanding scholars and poets of twentieth-century Tibet, was legion. They were both inveterate travellers and sceptics, hardwired for uncertainty and seeking out the unfamiliar. They met in 1934 in Lhasa during Sankrityayan’s second trip to Tibet. Choephel joined Sankrityayan’s search for commentaries on the Pramanavarttika, and shared his excitement in discovering many more original Sanskrit palm-leaf manuscripts of lost Buddhist texts. They travelled across Tibet to monastic centres in Saskya, Pyokhang, Ngor, Shalu, Riphug, Narthang, Tsang Thupten and Zalu. Their journey through central Tibet in 1934 and 1938 was an odyssey, with moments of pain, privation and companionship. Choephel was in India from 1938 to 1946, visiting different parts of the country, spending time in old libraries and brothels, writing and sketching. He read a good deal of classical Sanskrit text, translating them into the Tibetan, including the Kamasutra. He also found common cause with the politics of the Tibetan Revolutionary Party, founded by a fiery group of exiled Tibetans. His return to Lhasa was fraught with dramatic moments. Accused of insurrection, he was incarcerated and died shortly after the occupation of Lhasa by the Chinese army in 1950.

Much like his friend, Sankrityayan acquired a revolutionary fervour in the 1930s. He translated the Communist Manifesto, was for a while closely associated with the Congress Socialist Party, and in 1938, became a prominent face of the peasants’ movement and the Communist Party of Bihar. He was arrested in a crackdown on communists and spent two years in Hazaribagh jail and the Deoli Internment Camp. His monumental work Darshan-Digdarshan, a Marxist exposition on Greek, Islamic, European and Indian philosophy, was written during this period as was another masterpiece, Volga se Ganga Tak, stretching through 8,000 years of history.

Even though his politics was grounded in Marxism, he continued to be entranced by Buddhism and saw no contradiction between Marxism and the teachings of the Buddha. He kept travelling through the Himalaya and lived a major part of his last few years in Mussoorie and Darjeeling. His obsessive longing for Tibet had to be put on hold when he was completely debilitated after a couple of strokes. Tibetans continue to remember him as a man who in the words of K.P. Jayaswal, resembled the Buddha and, absorbed in scholarly pursuits, was universal in his outlook.

Assam CM Orders CID Probe into Alleged Encounter of ‘Wrong Person’

After two families came forward claiming that the person killed in the Udalguri encounter was their kin, the state police also carried out exhumation and DNA profiling of the dead body.

New Delhi: Assam chief minister, Himanta Biswa Sarma, ordered a probe by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) into an alleged encounter of a “wrong person” by the state police on February 24, The Hindu reported.

This is in addition to a magisterial inquiry, which is already underway. The state police claimed that “veteran dacoit” Kenaram Basumatary had died in the exchange of fire in the Udalguri district when a search party tried to foil his planned robbery attempt at No. 1 Dhansirikhuti Daifang village under Rowta police station.

A day after the incident, on February 25, a family from Jengrenpara village in the neighbouring Baksa district approached the superintendent of police (SP) of Udalguri district claiming that the person killed was Dimbeshwar Muchahary alias Gobla. The family claimed that police had shot at him in a case of mistaken identity.

Against this backdrop, chief minister Sarma ordered a CID inquiry to “ascertain the factual details of the incident”. He instructed the director-general of police, G.P. Singh, to conclude the investigation and submit a report within two weeks.

In a statement issued late on Monday evening, Sarma’s office said an inquiry was ordered “in view of an incident that took place in Udalguri district involving the death of a dacoit”. Two policemen, sub-inspector Hira Jyoti Pegu and constable Sukumar Barman, were also injured in the incident, the statement said.

According to the state police, security personnel lay in wait on February 24 night at No. 1 Dhansirikhuti Daifang village in Udalguri district to nab Kenaram. However, police said, Kenaram who was on a bike in the vicinity spotted the forces and opened fire at them. In the exchange of fire, Kenaram received fatal injuries while the other rider fled the spot. Kenaram was then rushed to a hospital and was declared brought dead by doctors, the police added.

On February 25, the police said that they had handed over the body to a woman who claimed that the deceased was her son. His last rites were performed in Natun Panbari village under the Orang police station on February 24 night, the police said.

It was also later revealed by the police that Kenaram was at once part of the now-disbanded extremist outfit National Democratic Front of Boroland. He left the outfit and later surrender before police, the police claimed.

With another family coming forward to claim that the deceased was their kin, authorities ordered the exhumation of the dead body. The exhumation was carried out in the presence of a magistrate four days after the incident.

“DNA profiling is being done to verify the claim regarding the identity of the deceased,” a police officer said, according to The Hindu.

Ever since Sarma took over as the chief minister of state in May 2021, there has been a rise in the number of alleged encounters in the state. According to the Assam government’s affidavit filed before Gauhati high court on June 20 last year, a total of 54 encounters had taken place since May 2021.