This nod toward Pakistan and the sidelining of India from the reconciliation efforts are only going to diminish the chances of a long-lasting peace in Afghanistan. This policy switch in favor of the Taliban’s main demand to include Pakistan in the negotiations can lead to a premature withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan, as Islamabad can easily convince the Taliban to restore a tentative peace until the US forces leave.

Afghanistan remains the focus of India’s developmental funding, given that a fragile pro-Taliban government in Kabul supported by Pakistan means endangering India’s domestic security, specifically when it comes to Kashmir. Recent threats of attacks against India by indicate what may come once the US forces withdraw. Moreover, India wants to counter the growing influence of China and Pakistan across South Asia following the establishment of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, in 2015, through friendly diplomatic relationships with Iran and Afghanistan. New Delhi is also expanding its infrastructural projects like the port at to ease the transportation of goods between Iran and Afghanistan.

Culture and Commerce

After the Taliban was dethroned by US-allied forces in 2001, India directed its efforts toward strengthening Afghanistan’s economic stability and democratic institutions through commercial and cultural relations. India, the largest donor among Afghanistan’s neighbors, has provided in excess of $3 billion. It contributes to the , like the establishment of a direct air freight corridor, dam and road developments, and many other medium and small-scale projects spread across Afghanistan.

Around were sheltered in India in 2017. More than 26,000 Afghan students enrolled in India’s institutions between 2013 and 2018 as part of a cultural exchange program, and nearly 56,000 Afghans have visited India for medical treatment in 2017. Commercially, India’s overseas private investment outflow to Afghanistan was around $6 million over the last eight years. India’s total with Afghanistan currently stands at $1.15 billion, out of which India exported $729 million (mainly clothing, medicine, aluminum, steel and dairy products) and imported $422 million worth of goods from Afghanistan in 2018.

In its drive to support Afghan democracy, India has provided the funds for the construction of a new parliament building in Kabul, inaugurated jointly by the heads of both countries in 2015. India’s Election Commission, which oversees the world’s largest election, also provided for Afghanistan’s election officials back in 2012. India has expressed its opposition to deferring the presidential election scheduled for later this year, which the US peace envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, had agreed to until the reconciliation talks with the Taliban are concluded.

Besides curbing extremism and safeguarding its commercial ties, New Delhi is mainly involved in the rebuilding of Afghanistan to curry diplomatic favor with Washington against Islamabad. The exclusion of India and the inclusion of its key rival in the peace talks is a setback for the United States in a sense that its regional ally that has supported US reconstruction efforts and the restoration of peace doesn’t have a place on the consultation team.

Mixed Messages

US President Donald Trump adopts a mixed approach in dealing with Pakistan. On one side, the US has allowed Pakistan into the quadrilateral group, shown an interest to  and didn’t object to Pakistan securing from the International Monetary Fund. On the other side, President Trump had raised the issue of Pakistan’s support for within its borders on several occasions and has promptly after the detention of the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks mastermind Hafiz Saeed.

India, meanwhile, has made numerous sacrifices to align with the US by adopting decisions that went against New Delhi’s self-interest, like imposing restrictions on the import of Iranian oil despite a high domestic demand or voting in favor of Israel at the UN, which went against India’s long-standing policy of non-interference in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The current government in Kabul has been thawing ties with India based on its developmental approach, while the Taliban leans toward Islamabad. Against an earlier stand not to include the Taliban in the peace talks, the quadrilateral consultation group has now agreed to start between the Taliban, the Afghan government and other local stakeholders. The inclusion of the Taliban in the talks clearly indicates that any future government will be formed with the support of the armed group, which in turn has Pakistan’s support. Under such a power-sharing agreement that would allow for Pakistan’s influence, India’s commercial interests and security concerns will only be exacerbated.

The US must either exert pressure to include India in the consultation group or otherwise arrange for alternative means to safeguard India’s commercial and security concerns in the aftermath of the withdrawal of coalition forces. India, for its part, must espouse its balanced diplomacy without favoring any particular country by sacrificing its own interests. If the US agrees to , India can then unilaterally open dialogue with the Taliban to protect its commercial and diplomatic interest if a coalition government that includes the armed group comes into the power.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

The post India Must Be Included in the Afghan Peace Process appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

The February defeat of a communist coalition after 25 years in power in Tripura, a tiny state in northeastern India, is widely seen as the demise of left-wing politics in the country. The coalition, also known as the Left Front or Left Alliance, comprises the All India Forward Bloc (AIFB), the Communist Party of India (CPI), the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) (Liberation) (CPI(ML)(L)), the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI(M)), and the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP). However, a setback in a smaller state in a close contest cannot decide the fate of the coalition that still vote share in Tripura, only 0.3% below to the winning Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) 43%. Besides West Bengal and Kerala, Tripura is one of three states where the Left Front, under the CPI(M), has ruled for over 30 years.

Losing Tripura to the BJP, a party that saw a 41.1% growth of the and has gained 35 seats compared to its 2013 performance, has certainly created an existential crisis for leftist ideology. Communists were also wiped out from West Bengal in 2011 by a regional party, the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC). However, West Bengal is bigger in terms of electorate size, and ideologically there was not much difference between the two sides. The left in India subscribes to social and economic equality for all people and supports a secular state. The BJP, on the other hand, espouses a capitalist approach of profit maximization and tries to impose the supremacy of a particular faith in government affairs. The fall of left-coalition governments across India would ultimately weaken the voices of social equality and secularism.

During the early days of democracy after India’s independence in 1947, CPI was the main opposition to the unchallenged single-party rule by the Indian National Congress (INC), which formed consecutive governments between 1951 and 1971. During this time, the right and left were chiefly divided between the INC and CPI. But the mushrooming of regional parties during the 1970s changed the bipolar equations of the two camps. Congress was defeated for the first time by the amalgam of political parties with different ideologies under the umbrella of the Janata Party, which found common ground against the imposition of emergency rule. The Janata government did not last as the alternative to Congress and was dissolved due to internal divisions within three years. After the fall of Janata, the BJP emerged as the INC’s main opponent at the national level by outpacing the CPI.

Left-wing parties enjoyed a golden age during the 1990s and early 2000s when they held governments in three states and their strength was around 55 to 60 seats. Communist parties held kingmaker roles for the Third Front governments during 1996-98, when the Left Front joined the 13-party coalition, and for the government of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) between 2004 and 2008.

Political Downfall

The left’s political downfall started during the 2009 general election, when the AITC booted out the Left Front in 18 parliamentary constituencies, storming communist strongholds in nine seats where the left was undefeated in the past 10 elections. The demise of the government in the West Bengal state election in 2011 was another major setback. During the 2014 parliamentary election, the Left Alliance scored a historic low, winning only 11 seats and restricted to only three states, having previously had a presence in 10 states during the 1971 election and winning 59 seats in 2004. The Left Front’s ranking among political parties has slipped to eighth in terms of the number of seats won. However, the regaining of Kerala in the 2016 state election against the INC was an achievement amidst other failures.

Numerous historical blunders can account for this decline, such as CPI(M)’s Jyoti Basu’s refusal to become prime minister in the Third Front government in 1996, withdrawing support from UPA on the Indo-US nuclear deal and the land acquisition dispute in Singur. However, the most significant setback for the communists was the failure to deliver development, social equality and better infrastructure in the states where they held long-term power, followed by their inability to prepare the next generation of leaders.

After the end of single-party dominance in 1989, an era of political alliances emerged to consolidate the scattered votes of different castes, groups and ideologies to counter joint rivals. Alliances were forged among ideological rivals to push the common enemy out of office, like the BJP-PDP coalition in Kashmir, where the parties with different views on the issue of Kashmir united to keep out the National Conference (NC) and Congress government. The left failed to form a coalition with other like-minded groups, resulting in the loss of 19 CPI(M) seats to the BJP due to the trivial difference of some 6,500 (0.3%) votes in Tripura.

The Indian left needs to be flexible in ideas to achieve bigger goals, instead of sticking to its old-fashioned politics and waiting for a revolution along the lines of 1917 to sweep the land. They can learn from China and Russia, the historical flag bearers of communism, both of which have transitioned to free-market economies.

Blunders

Along with their own blunders, the communists were held back by the failure to compete with other parties by bringing in proper funding for their cause. If CPI(M) won the Tripura election under the leadership of “probably the poorest of all the chief ministers in the country,”ĚýĚý(who is homeless), against the wealthiest BJP candidate, it would come as a huge surprise. Speaking on the reasons of the Tripura debacle, CPI(M) leader the role of money in politics: “This has happened because the BJP has unscrupulously utilized huge amounts of money power and muscle power and managed to successfully bring together all anti-Left elements and parties including, the erstwhile opposition parties together into one anti-Left platform. BJP brought together all kinds of forces using money power without attaching any morality to it.”

Whatever the reasons, the demise of the socialist approach is an ominous sign for the pluralist society and a cause of concern for the Left Front and for the people who believe in inclusive democracy. In spite of the electoral fallout, the left is known for its support of the downtrodden and economically deprived sections of society and is perhaps the only bloc confronting plutocracy. INC leader and former union minister has referred the demise of the left as a disaster for the country, saying that “The Left has to be stronger in India. We are going to fight the Left and we are political rivals but, I would say that India cannot afford the demise of the Left.”

Petering out of the communist parties from two stronghold states and their trivial number in parliament definitively reflects that voters have discarded leftist politics. But the fate of a political party cannot be evaluated through its performance in one or two elections. The Left Front still holds a considerable size of the electorate, forms a ruling coalition in Kerala, and is in opposition in West Bengal and Tripura. Two of its affiliates, the CPI and CPI(M), have national party status.

Multilateral reforms and grooming the next generation of leaders to fill the vacuum created over the last 10 years would certainly gear up the bloc to better strategize in upcoming elections. Without reaching out to the electorate, revolutionary messages against the widespread injustice and inequality are meaningless, and rhetoric alone can never bring voters to the ballot box.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:ĚýĚý/

The post Decoding the Indian Left’s Electoral Fiasco appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

India is the leading recipient of international personal remittances, claiming 10.9% of global inflows. This is followed by China (10.6%) and the Philippines (5.4%), according to the latest data released by theĚý for 2016. Total remittance inflow to India was $62 billion in 2016, down from $68 billion in 2015. A major fall (9.5%) is noted from Middle Eastern countries, whose share constitutes 55.7% ($35 billion) of India’s total remittances, as the average annual income per Indian migrant across the region decreased from $5,973 in 2015 to $5,407 in 2016.

Remittances are a major component in terms of contribution to GDP, especially for developing nations like India where domestic resources and national production are insufficient to provide full employment for the existing labor supply. The average wage rate is also lower in India compared to countries where remittances originate. Also, while India’s remittance inflows are similar to China’s, the share of remittances as a percentage of GDP is higher in India (2.5%) against China’s 0.6%. This difference reflects a higher dependency of India’s domestic economy on foreign remittances. Since the Middle East, and specifically the Gulf states, is a major source for India’s remittance inflow, a decline in earning in the region could adversely affect India’s employment and balance of payment.

The Middle East accommodates the highest number of Indian migrants around the world, with an estimatedĚýĚýresiding in the region, accounting for 19.7% of total global migrants in the Middle East and 53.7% of total Indian migrants globally. Over the last four years, the number of Indian workers to emigration check required (ECR) countries fell from 804,000 in 2014 to 391,000 in 2017. ECR, a protective measure for the non-matriculate Indian migrants to 17 countries across the Middle East and Southeast Asia, was adopted under the . Out of 17 ECR countries, 12 are in the Middle East. According to the report for 2012, 42% of migrants to the Middle East were classified as unskilled labor.

A discrepancy in earnings is illustrative: While an average salary in India is $2,860 a year, in Qatar, Indian migrants earn $6,916 a year on average, followed by $5,713 in Kuwait, $5,544 in the United Arab Emirates and $5,112 in Saudi Arabia. Indians occupy various positions ranging from managerial roles to laborers. Around 10% are employed as doctors, engineers, chartered accountants and scientists, while a further 10% work in white-collar jobs such as storekeepers, clerks, secretaries and accountants in both government and private sectors. The majority, around 75-80%, makes up laborers and technicians working in construction and as home servants.

The ongoing economic downturn in the Gulf due to the fall in crude oil prices, internal political disturbances, the extra burden of taxes on expats (like the family-dependent tax in Saudi Arabia), and the growing inclination to recruit locals could account for the fall in remittances. Further, Indian workers in the Middle East report violations of contractual terms, adverse working conditions, poor wages and problems related to medical, insurance and compensation claims. As a result, many Indian workers have showed an interest in returning home. By February 2017, in the Middle East had requested repatriation from Indian authorities (a vast majority of these from Saudi Arabia), while 594 Indians were in jail across the Middle East at this time last year.

Besides external pressures, Indian policies toward the ECR migrants heading to the Gulf are also a major causes for the decline, like the introduction of a tax on conversion of remittances, extra regularization of foreign recruiting markets and now the passports. The color coding scheme was part of a reform to minimize the number of passport pages that contain unnecessary information. Since ECR status was included on a separate page, India’s government had the intention to remove this page by coloring the passport jacket orange to identify ECR emigrants. This could create a sense of inferiority among the ECR passport holders due to their poor economic and educational status and further decrease labor flow.

After protests by politicians and activists, the government its discriminatory initiative. Pointing out its repercussions, , former chief minister of Kerala, said: “If this becomes a reality, the moment an orange color passport holder lands in a foreign country, he will be treated with disdain, and it will have a telling impact on such people’s character and individuality. This should not happen at all.”

, chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, surmizedĚýthat “the very premise of this decision — discriminating against the citizens of a country based on their economic status and educational qualifications — makes it inherently unfair.”

A decline of remittance inflows creates a major cause for concern due to adverse impact on India’s balance of payment and on the domestic employment adjustment. The government must take remedial measures to curb such decline and to prevent the discriminatory behavior against ECR migrants. Disputes related to wages and contract violations are also common in the Indian labor market, but the occurrence of such incidents among migrants across the Middle East should not be overstated to provide a reason for tightening recruitment rules and imposing excess regulations.

*[Updated: March 5, 2018]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:ĚýĚý/

The post Why Remittances from the Middle East Matter to India appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

Traditionally, India adheres to the bilateral approach in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, dealing with both sides on equal terms in advocating peaceful coexistence for a two-state solution. Despite formally recognizing Israel in 1950 and having full diplomatic ties with Tel Aviv, India maintains crucial cultural and commercial relationships with Palestine and other Arab countries. India has, to some extent, managed to maintain an equilibrium by not taking sides in the conflict over the demarcation of boundaries or the crimes committed by both sides.

A new political landscape that took shape after the fall of the Soviet Union and the emergence of China as a global power means that India must associate with the United States. This is to address the challenges related to its demand for arms in the face of hostility from neighboring rivals such as Pakistan and China. The volatile situation in Kashmir and cross-border terrorism are among India’s main concerns, with the US and Israel openly supporting its stand, while the Arab world and the alliance of Muslim-majority countries, called the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), have stood with Pakistan and . Therefore, close relations with Israel and the US could be a desirable solution for India to survive politically in a transforming world.

Considering the advantages of fomenting close ties with Israel, the relationship between the two countries blossomed during the Indian National Congress party’s government under V.P. Narashima Rao in 1992. During the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) tenure in government, which is widely known for its soft stand toward Israel, the relationship really got off the ground.

Both visits by Israeli prime ministers to IndiaĚý— that by Ariel Sharon in 2003 and Benjamin Netanyahu in January 2018Ěý— were hosted by the BJP government, while aĚýĚýand the Indian Muslim community oppose any relationship with Israel over the latter’s imperialistic policies against Palestine. Netanyahu’s recent visit marked the occasion of , with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi having already visited Israel in July 2017.

Ěýacross the fields of cybersecurity, transportation, energy, film production and investment were signed during this latest meeting. Bilateral visits by the heads of both states would certainly bolster trade and investment and, most importantly, defense. As per theĚýĚýreport for 2016, India’s arms trade with Israel has increased by 117%, from $276 million in 2015 to $599 million in 2016. India imports 48% of Israel’s total arms exports. Russia is still the largest exporter of arms to India, contributing 62% of all imports, but Israel has emerged as the second largest at 24%.

A major shift toward Israel has taken place since the formation of the current BJP government, bolstered by Modi’s 2017 trip to Israel that did not include Palestine and by Ěýat the UN Human Rights Council in 2015. This was followed, most recently, by the enthusiastic welcome given to Netanyahu and the to commemorate Indian soldiers’ liberation of the city from the Ottomans during the First World War. ThisĚýapproach could cause further isolation of India among OIC countries and would provide an opportunity to its arch-rival to find parallels between and .

Further, OIC countries have the potential to claim some 30% of India’s total trade. According to theĚýĚýfigures for the 2016-17 financial year, India’s volume of trade with Arab countries stands at $200 billion, which includes $81 billion in exports and imports of $119 billion. These countries are also a source of remittance inflows to India and fulfill its petroleum needs, with 82% of crude oil being imported from OIC nations.

Considering the commercial advantages of cooperation with Arab and OIC countries, India cannot afford to ignore the issue of Palestine. Therefore, its vote against the US and Israel in the passing of a UN General Assembly resolution denouncing the Trump administration’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel did not surprise political pundits.

DespiteĚýdifferences over Kashmir, OIC countries individually retain close ties with India and support its security concerns over terrorism. after he was reported to be in the company of Hafiz Saeed, the head of Lashkar-e-Taiba (an organization linked to the 2008 Mumbai bombings), reflects the bond of its friendship with India. Prime Minister Modi is scheduled to visit the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Palestine in February to show solidarity with the Arab world.

India could benefit from strengthening its ties with Israel, but it must not isolate Palestine and its supporters among the OIC countries. Solidifying India’s position in relation to both Israel and Palestine means it can play a role as a mediator in the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:yĚýĚý/

The post Can India Navigate Between Israel and Palestine? appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.

America has always been a favorable destination for international students from across the world, specifically those from the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) countries. In 2016, 13% of chose to study in the US. In May 2017, the total number of , making up over 14% out of more than a million overseas students in the country, down from just over 17% in 2014.

The number of international students in the US rose by 17% from to , but, comparatively, the increase in the number of students from OIC countries was a meager 0.44%. There was a major fall in applications from Saudi Arabia, with 16,413 fewer students representing a negative growth of 22.4% during the time period. Saudi Arabia was a majorĚýOIC contributing country, ranked 4th, sending between 55,810 and 72,223 students in 2017 and 2014 respectively. Other prominent countries with negative growth are Libya (22%) and United Arab Emirates (10%). While China and India provide almost half of America’s international students given their massive populations, there’s been a robust addition of more than 2,000 students from Nigeria, Kuwait, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Iran.

Muslim countries, despite an abundance of oil wealth, have been unable to develop adequate tertiary education infrastructure. TheĚý,Ěýwhich picks the world’s top 1,000 universities, shows that only 97 ranked institutions are located in OIC countries. Highest ranked universities among OIC nations are listed in Turkey.

An estimate for the year 2016Ěý indicates that students from OIC countries make up approximately 11% of total global overseas students. Top destinations countries for OIC students are the US (13%), Russia (11%), France (7%), UK (7%), Saudi Arabia (5%) and Turkey (5%). The US is still at the top of the list due to its reputed schools and academic competitiveness. But the trend is slowly shifting toward Russia and, most importantly, toward Saudi Arabia and Turkey, mainly due to a friendlier environment for OIC students and less restrictive visas compared to the US.

A slower growth in the number of OIC students coming to America might be caused by internal conflict in the Middle East as well as the global economic downturn. But the impact of the political situation in America also cannot be ruled out, specifically the concerns over the current administration’s pursuit of a travel ban on Muslims entering the US. Following a number of legislatives blocks, the so-called “” was finally backed by the US Supreme Court to restrict entry into the US from six . While Saudi Arabia is not on the list, uncertainty would be looming for students from other OIC countries, and a sense of overall ambiguity may well cause Saudi students to rethink their higher education destinations.

In response to the Supreme Court ruling, : “US Supreme Court defends and allows Trumps #MuslimBan to go into full effect, giving bigotry full licence in U.S.A. Sad!” Iran is among the top OIC exporters of students to the US (12,355 this year), a number that has grown 22% from April 2014.

This ban would undoubtedly cause distress and hamper the flow of students from other OIC countries. But this may also not be in the interest of the US. Pointing out the implication of the travel ban, : “It would impair the ability of American educational institutions to draw the finest international talent and reap the attendant benefits. It would divide students and scholars who were able to enter the U.S. from their families who could not. And it would inhibit the open academic exchange that is so vital to modern higher education and our national interests.”

New York University, filed to an appeals court in April this year, argued:

By obstructing the entry of international students, faculty and other scholars into the United States based solely on their having come from one of the Muslim-majority countries singled out for adverse treatment in the Executive Order — without any reason to believe that the individuals are involved at all in any terrorist activity — the Order would gratuitously and unlawfully encumber NYU’s ability to conduct its many international programs, which rely on input from faculty and students from the affected countries; impair its ability to transmit its strongly-held values abroad; and obstruct its ability to provide to all of its students the educational benefits that flow from a fully diverse student body and faculty.

This ban will, however, open new opportunities for other countries. For example, Canada’s Memorial University has already seen a benefit. According to the university’s deputy registrar of strategic enrolment management, applications have increased across the board, whileĚý, and admissions from those countries are up by 25%.

According to the Association of International Educators, in the 2015-2016 academic year, supporting some 400,000 jobs. The OIC student market will be burgeoning in the coming years due to the large youth population — more than . Internal disturbances in the Middle East and other parts of OIC mean that students seek out more peaceful destinations for their studies. These prospects indicate that the US government can only stand to benefit from easing the student intake from OIC countries. These steps would be mutually beneficial commercially as well as culturally. The travel ban may provoke a reciprocal action to restrict US citizen from entering countries affected by the ban. Such behavior will stop the exchange of ideas and promotion of American democratic values within these countries, possibly deeply damaging bilateral relations and reversing the progress made thus far.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51łÔąĎ’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:ĚýĚý/

The post Will the US Travel Ban Put Off Foreign Students? appeared first on 51łÔąĎ.