The Dialectics

Menu

Regions

Menu

Topics

Menu

Beyond Brief

Menu

More

Menu

magazine

Commentary
Commentary Society & Culture

Since when did Indian women started wearing Blouse: A Sociological Perspective

Human cultures evolved through a continuous exchange of ideas, belief, habits, and forms. Dressing habits in particular constitute a fertile plain in which this exchange takes place. The traditional attire evolved over centuries, reflecting religion, ethnicity, geography, cultures, climates as well as communities in India. This essay paints a picture of clothing during the colonial period in India. Before the advent of Europeans Vastra is a Sanskrit term meaning a cloth or a garment. The term holds a significant cultural and historical importance in India. In fact, every region in India has its own distinct clothing styles. Although most of the figures and sculptures in India suggest that clothing in general was scanty. Nudity did not bear a sense of indecency. Women wearing a blouse with a sari had only become known after the 10th century but more defined during the British rule in India. But why did the attire of Indian women change? It was because the British came up with the notion of ‘shame’. They considered exposure to be inappropriate according to their European standards. This led to the encouragement of women adopting a more covered attire to fit with the imposed colonial norms of modesty. From Unsewn to Sewn clothes – Sari’s Colonial turn Saris specifically, differing in terms of fabric, draping style, and decorative elements. The cultural contact between India and British regarding the clothing styles can be divided into the Company period and British rule in India. During the company period, the influence of clothing style travelled more from India to England. Specifically, the Chintz prints which were adopted for full gowns. Whereas during the nineteenth century people began adapting Western clothing. It was the wealthy Parsi community that first took up to adapt the British attire. Women and men traditionally wore unsewn cloths. It was a common practice among the ordinary people to wear unsewn garments like langota, dhoti, gamucha, lungi, turban and the draped sari for women. The change started within the aristocrats, high ranking Indian officials and men from wealthy families. Women wore the choli a sewn blouse or a petticoat, which they removed while cooking food as cooking had to be done in a specially designated and ritually cleansed area of the house. Wearing well stitched blouses, corseted blouses were some of the distinctions introduced to it. Materials like chiffon and lace began to be used for saris and were sometimes added with brocade work to create an Anglicized look. Saree and Nationalism After 1905, the import of British-made cloth into India and the destruction of traditional handicraft production became a theme of protest in Indian nationalism. Clothing became a symbol of national identity. Women became a repository of tradition. Sari was central to the nationalist narrative. It was used to construct the image of the proper Indian woman in the early twentieth century.  The popularisation of a national ideal of femininity based on tradition was advanced through the printing press and the paintings of Raja Ravi Varma. Similarly, in a booklet of cartoons on Swadeshi, published in Allahabad titled “Avoid Wasteful Expenditure” portraying a Hindu “mother” dressed in a hand-woven sari explicitly targeting women in India. Anasuya Sarabhai in London Sari – Blending tradition and Modernity One of the prominent figures in evolving attire was Anasuya Sarabhai (1885-1970), who was involved in the women’s suffragette movement and later women’s labour movement, often wore a sari but uniquely paired it with a shirt and a necktie instead of the blouse. Similarly, Maharani Indira Devi of Cooch Behar, influenced by her frequent visits to the Parsis, came across the French Chiffon. She wore it as a sari, stitched with a plain Banarasi border stitched onto six meters of Chiffon, leading to the creation of Chiffon Sari. Additionally, Vijay Lakshmi Pandit, dressed in sari preferring long sleeved blouses with a mandarin collar and a brooch. Maharani Indira Devi of Cooch Behar by Philip Alexius de László. Clothing in India underwent remarkable changes during the British period. Men began wearing trousers, shirts, and suits, whereas women of higher status incorporated blouses, petticoat of different styles into their wardrobes. However, when the Satyagraha movement began, clothing became a significant symbol of resistance and identity. The sari in particular, held immense importance representing cultural heritage and nationalism. In the nationalist discourse, women were expected to support men leading the fight against colonial rule. It was imagined as ‘Bharat Mata’ the ideal mother. The Mother Indians sari was seen as a symbol of the nation, protecting it from the influence of English mill-made fabrics and colonial rule. Today we still find echoes of these clothing styles in various communities across India. For example the Bhotia, Banjara, Lamabada, Sugalis, Lamanis etc continue to wear their traditional clothing. These communities serve as a living reminder of how historical and cultural identities can coexist with contemporary fashion trends.

Read More
Commentary Society & Culture

Evolution of Hinduism: Buddha’s Influence on the Later Brahmanism

‘The purpose of religion is to explain the origin of the world. The purpose of Dhamma is to reconstruct the world.’ (Ambedkar, 1987: 322) With these words Dr. B. R. Ambedkar interpreted Buddhism as a world transforming religion. During the end of the Upanishad period, the Uttarapatra (north highway) was made. Linking the fertile lands of Yamuna and the Ganga Valley, it led to the period of second urbanisation in the Indian sub-continent. Leading to major economic growth it gave birth to new religious sects and philosophical ideas. Among them, the chief religious sects were Buddhism, Vaishnavism, Saivism, and Jainism. When we speak of Brahmanism, Monier Monier-Williams marks, “Pure philosophical Brāhmanism is identified with the Vedanta Systems, which is built upon the doctrine of Brahman.” The discussion of the article centers around the influence of Buddhist philosophies on Brahmanical Hindu religion and its philosophical tradition.   Tara Nanda Mishra observed that both Jainism and Buddhism were fostered by heterodox leaders denying the supreme authority of Vedas. Still, they inherited some of the old traditional methods of Tap, Yoga, Bhaikshacharya (begging alms), Charanatika (wanderer), Ekantvasa (living in Seclusion), Asrmavasa (staying away from the common mass in the hermitage) and live at a fixed place during rainy season. In this way they were influenced by the Rigveda. Buddhism is a religion of reason, rejecting all that reason does not comprehend. Buddhism makes its constant appeal to Buddhi, the human intellect as a supreme judge in the religion. The influence of Buddhist philosophy on India’s culture, and civilization over many centuries cannot be overstated, having significantly shaped its development in many ways. It is important to note that Buddhist influence can be seen in both language and doctrine of the Upanishads. Dhamma’s Influence on Upanishads The Buddhist declared animal sacrifice as a crime, as it had resulted in slaughter of an innocent creature, emphasizing compassion and mercy towards all living beings. Contrasting sharply with the sacrificial rites practiced by the Brahmans. Brahmans were in fact compelled to modify their system. The anti-sacrificial tendency of a few Upanisadic passages seems to be inspired by Buddha’s critical attitude towards Vedic Karmakanda. Some of Upanisadic teachers agreed with the Buddha in criticising Vedic sacrificial slaughter of the animals. Moreover, some of the Upanisadic philosophers agree with the importance of inner awakening over external ceremonies and emphasized Karman, Dhyana and Yoga. The Buddhist concept of Nirvana, the ultimate truth is similar to Upanisadic concept of ultimate reality, Brahman and Atman. Additionally, both the Philosophies highlight the importance of consciousness or vijnana. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad mentions ‘Reality’ (bhuta) as an infinite and limitless mass of consciousness,’ which is similar to Dighanikaya’s description of consciousness as ‘invisible, infinite and shining everywhere.’ Doctrines of Ahimsa, Karma and Rebirth The Bhagavad Gita incorporates many Buddhist principles and practices. Historian, D. D. Kosambi, who dates the text between 150-350 AD, notes that its idea of achieving perfection through multiple rebirths is ‘characteristically Buddhist.’ Moreover the moral principle of ahimsa (non violence), which is central to Jainism and Buddhism was not known to the Vedic texts but later became an important aspect of Hinduism. In Buddhist texts, ahimsa is the foremost of the ‘five precepts’ (pañca sila) and the anusasanaparva of the Mahabharata also declared ahimsa to be the ‘supreme duty’ (paramo dharmah).  The idea of karma originated in the ancient Indian tribal religions in the Gangetic region where Buddhism and Jainism flourished. The Upanishad states that after death, the various parts of a person return to the elements of nature from which they originated, including the soul (atman) which goes into space, with only one’s karma or effect of work remaining. Passages from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad point out that, “a man turns into something good by good action and into something bad by bad action.” Mahabharata also predict rebirth as an outcast for those who misbehave. Over time the notion of Karma and rebirth influenced Brahmanism, shaping their doctrines and integrating the principles of Karma, yoga, and ahimsa into Hindu philosophy. Decline of Buddhism Many scholars have traced the decline of Buddhism from the seventh century AD. Lal Mani Joshi on the decline of Buddhism in India divides the factors into internal and external. The internal factors such as Moral degradation, Sectarian Disputes, Mahayana Influence, revival of Brahmanism, etc. led to its decline. As remarked by Chinese pilgrims and Indian literature, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Buddhist monks and nuns experienced moral decline. Though they wore the monastic dress yet they killed animals, reared cattle and maintained wives and children. Moreover, the Mahayana approach blurred the distinction between Buddhism and Hinduism, Bodhisattva Yana seems to have initiated the institution of married monks. The Brahmanical hostility towards Buddhism was a major external factor for the decline. Brahmanas often showed disdain for Buddhist monks, and texts. Additionally, the decline in royal patronage and royal Persecution also contributed to its decline. After Harshwardhana, Buddhism lost strong royal support. The sacking of Nalanda by Bakhtiyar Khalji and the Arab attacks on Buddhists of Sindh explains the absence of royal protection of Buddhism in India. Incorporation of Buddha into Hinduism Buddha’s influence impacted the Indian minds deeply. His images adorned thousands of pillars, walls and the gates of numerous monasteries across the country. His teachings had been pupularized through a vast body of Pali and Sanskrit  literature. The Buddhist philosophies and doctrines were praised by countless Indians for centuries. Given the profound impact, Buddha was too significant and thus became a member in the pantheon of avataras. This signifies a shift, symbolising a blending of two distinct religious traditions. The acceptance of Buddha as an incarnation first appeared in Matsya Purana, around the sixth century A.D. This incorporation illustrates Buddhist elements, leading to a fusion of ideas and practices between the two philosophies. However, despite its profound impact on Indian thought and culture, many challenges ultimately led to the decline of Buddhism, diminishing its presence in the land of its origin.

Read More
Commentary India & South Asia Indo-Pacific

Myanmar and Indonesia: Two Contrasting Journeys of Democratisation

Comparing and contrasting the political history of Myanmar and Indonesia since their independence reveals a tale of two Southeast Asian nations with divergent paths but shared themes of struggle, dictatorship, reform, and democratization. Independence & Immediate after: Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, gained independence from British colonial rule in 1948. The immediate post-independence period was marked by internal strife, with various ethnic groups and communist insurgents challenging the central government. The situation culminated in a military coup in 1962 led by General Ne Win, who established a military-led socialist state. For nearly five decades, Myanmar experienced stringent military rule characterized by repression, economic mismanagement, and isolation from the international community. The military, or Tatmadaw, remained the central political force despite sporadic uprisings, such as the 1988 pro-democracy protests and the 2007 Saffron Revolution. The introduction of a new constitution in 2008, followed by quasi-civilian rule in 2011, signalled a potential shift towards democratization. However, the transition has been rocky, with the military retaining significant power and influence, culminating in the 2021 coup that ousted the democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD). Myanmar’s political landscape remains volatile, marked by ongoing ethnic conflicts, human rights abuses, and a tenuous relationship with the international community. In pic: Indonesian President Sukarno (left) with Gen. Suharto Indonesia’s journey post-independence offers a contrasting narrative. After declaring independence from Dutch colonial rule in 1945, Indonesia faced a bitter four-year struggle against Dutch attempts to reassert control. The Dutch finally recognized Indonesian sovereignty in 1949. The early years of independence were marked by parliamentary democracy under President Sukarno, a charismatic leader who played a pivotal role in the country’s fight for independence. However, political instability and economic challenges led to Sukarno’s implementation of “Guided Democracy” in 1959, centralizing power and curbing dissent. This era ended dramatically with the attempted coup of 1965, which led to a violent anti-communist purge and the rise of General Suharto. Suharto’s “New Order” regime, lasting from 1966 to 1998, was marked by authoritarian rule, economic growth, and significant human rights violations. Suharto’s fall during the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-1998 ushered in the Reformasi era, a period of democratic transition characterized by political decentralization, economic recovery, and efforts to address past human rights abuses. Since then, Indonesia has emerged as a stable democracy, holding regular free elections and witnessing peaceful transitions of power. Authoritarian Rule: Both Myanmar and Indonesia experienced prolonged periods of military or authoritarian rule following their independence, yet their trajectories diverged significantly in the subsequent decades. In Myanmar, the military has been the dominant force, repeatedly disrupting democratic progress and maintaining control through force and constitutional manipulation. Conversely, Indonesia’s military, while powerful, eventually retreated from direct political control, allowing democratic institutions to take root and flourish. Indonesia’s Reformasi period starkly contrasts with Myanmar’s tumultuous attempts at democratization, highlighting the resilience of Indonesian civil society and political actors in the face of past authoritarianism. Economic policies under military rule also differed markedly. Myanmar’s adoption of a closed, socialist economy under Ne Win led to economic stagnation and poverty, while Indonesia, under Suharto, embraced a form of state capitalism that spurred significant economic growth despite widespread corruption and cronyism. This economic divergence contributed to different outcomes in terms of social development and international integration, with Indonesia becoming an active member of the international community while Myanmar remained largely isolated until recent years. Ethnics & Religious tensions: Ethnic and religious diversity has posed challenges for both nations, yet their approaches have varied. Myanmar’s myriad ethnic groups have long sought autonomy or independence, leading to ongoing civil conflicts. The Rohingya crisis, where the Muslim minority faced brutal persecution and displacement, has drawn international condemnation and highlighted deep-seated ethnic tensions. Indonesia, with its vast archipelago and diverse population, has also faced separatist movements and religious tensions, notably in regions like Aceh and Papua. However, Indonesia’s approach has been more accommodating, with significant autonomy granted to restive regions and efforts to promote national unity through the state ideology of Pancasila, which emphasizes pluralism and tolerance. Myanmar’s Perpetual Misery In recent years, the political landscapes of Myanmar and Indonesia continue to reflect their divergent paths. Myanmar’s 2021 coup represents a significant setback in its democratic journey, with the military once again asserting control and facing widespread domestic and international opposition. The humanitarian crisis, particularly concerning the Rohingya, remains unresolved, further complicating Myanmar’s international standing. In contrast, Indonesia has continued to consolidate its democratic institutions, with successive governments focusing on economic development, anti-corruption measures, and maintaining a balance between accommodating regional autonomy and preserving national unity. Indonesia’s role as a leader in ASEAN and its active participation in global forums stand in stark contrast to Myanmar’s pariah status. While both Myanmar and Indonesia share common themes in their political histories—such as the struggle for independence, military dominance, and the quest for democracy—their trajectories have diverged significantly. Myanmar remains embroiled in conflict and military rule, struggling to establish a stable democratic system, whereas Indonesia has successfully transitioned to a stable democracy, leveraging its economic and political reforms to become a significant player on the global stage. The comparison of these two nations underscores the complexity of post-colonial state-building and the varied paths countries can take in their pursuit of stability, development, and democracy.

Read More
Commentary Society & Culture

Issues Around Surrogacy: Prejudices, Bodily Autonomy, Commodification, Altruism and what not

Rising infertility rates might not seem to be incongruous with a world trying to grapple with an ever-increasing population. However, several estimates round the globe, including that of WHO, indicate that infertility is indeed a serious health issue affecting almost 17%of the world’s adult population. Hence several interventions like surrogacy and ART (Assisted Reproductive Technologies) technologies become useful to curb the malice of infertility so that humans can thrive sustainably, facilitating the fulfillment of essential human rights by each one of us. Among all such interventions, surrogacy is the most popular one owing to its cost effectiveness. However, since this method involves the use of third-party gametes or uterus, it presents a labyrinth of moral and ethical issues which requires our attention. Religious Orthodoxy and Prejudices Though times have changed from HAGAR, who was banished for bearing the surrogate child ISMAEL, little have changed for Catholic church on its stance for surrogacy. Traditional and religious elements in society perceive motherhood and procreation as sanctimonious, a gift from God, which ought to be preserved in the most natural form. Any external intervention by man is seen as jeopardizing the natural law. They seek an outright ban on surrogacy on moral and religious grounds. However, such a narrow outlook towards surrogacy is replete with several societal prejudices. As a result, parties opting for surrogacy are seen to be violating the accepted moral norms and are subjected to several social barriers which are mostly skewed against woman. For example, a women willing to be a surrogate mother is perceived as a ‘whore’ who carries the ‘illegitimate child’ of another man and is banished from the society. Couples who opt for surrogacy are also labelled and name-shamed in most societies. Liberalists solution – Profession and Body Autonomy Hence, liberal scholars argue for a more accommodative approach towards surrogacy. They argue that surrogacy should be devoid of any moral ethos as motherhood and procreation is not a holier than thou choice, and thus there’s nothing immoral to it. They urge to consider surrogacy as a profession just like any other and therefore supports commercial surrogacy, wherein the willing surrogate woman is paid in cash for her service. Just like liberalism, liberal feminism is rooted in individual autonomy, and some scholars (John Robertson, Avi Katz, etc.) are opposed to any ban on commercial surrogacy as they view it as an interference on the rights and liberty of the intended couples as well as the surrogate mother. Hence, they highlight surrogacy as an act where parties exercise their own choice and bodily autonomy. A Ground reality check: Autonomy vs Commodification These arguments put surrogacy on a pedestal where surrogate women are acting as agents and negotiators. However, the rapid commercialization of surrogacy and the resultant expansion of markets into developing countries present a rather opposite picture of child’s and women’s rights. Several ethnographic research, (wherein a researcher interacts directly with a community to collect data and analyze their behavior), such as that of Andrea Whittaker for Rutgers University, 2018, throw light to the fact that most of the commercial surrogacies are performed in low-income countries like India, Nepal, Cambodia, Laos, etc. In fact, after the legislative nod for gestational surrogacy in late 1990s in India, the country has become the capital for “rental wombs”. Amrita Pande, in her book “Women in Labor”, points out that most of the intended surrogate women come from low income or similar vulnerable groups, who often struggle to eke out a living. She reveals that infertility clinics have become breeding rooms for babies of affluent couples. Such clinics give precedence only to the preferences of couples, while intended mothers need to go through a “detailed recruitment process” which involves complex medical procedures and economic background check-up. Couples too prefer women from poor backgrounds as they have very low bargaining power and is easily condescending. Therefore, chances of vulnerable women being coerced into surrogacy without their full informed consent is very high. They also enjoy very little rights with respect to the newborn child. Hence the whole concept of bodily autonomy and women exercising their choice is being tossed into the air and rather what we see is commodification of womanhood. Thus, commercial surrogacy to fulfill the reproductive aspirations often tramples upon the rights of vulnerable women. Strands of feminism like Marxist and Radical, view it as objectifying and demeaning a woman’s dignity and seeks a ban on it. Altruistic Surrogacy Commercial surrogacy has perpetrated other human rights abuses as well. Abandonment of children born with undesirable characteristics, abuse of surrogate mother’s health, illegal export and import of gametes, etc. are rampant. Thus, the whole paradigm of commercial surrogacy has been permeated with human rights abuses and protracted legal battles. India has recently banned this and has touted for altruistic surrogacy wherein the carrier woman is not paid any kind of remuneration other than medical expenses. Supporters of altruistic surrogacy have argued that motherhood should be respected and any kind of payment to it is disrespectful to the natural law. They also hope that exploitative practices associated with surrogacy and its commercialization can be curbed with it. But the exercise of bodily autonomy by women is doubtful in this case too. As depicted in the movie ‘Children of Men’, a world full of infertile humans reeks only despair and hopelessness. However, touting surrogacy as a panacea for infertility is not wise. Alternatives like ART technologies and even adoption should be promoted and surrogacy in any case should be properly regulated.  Nevertheless, sensitizing the society is the way forward rather than a top-down approach.

Read More
Commentary Technology

Semiconductor Diplomacy: The New Frontier of Global Power

In the 21st century, semiconductors have become the building blocks of modern technology, powering everything from smartphones to advanced military systems. As these tiny chips grow increasingly crucial to national security and economic prosperity, a new form of diplomacy has emerged – semiconductor diplomacy. The recent global chip shortage, affecting over 169 countries, has underscored the critical nature of semiconductors in modern economies. As the global semiconductor landscape evolves, it is clear that no single country can dominate the entire global value chain. The industry relies on a complex, interconnected global network from design to manufacturing, equipment to raw materials. This reality underscores the importance of semiconductor diplomacy in shaping the future of technology and global power dynamics. The article explains the recent developments in the field of semiconductor diplomacy among great powers. US Strategies in Semiconductor Sector The United States, long a leader in semiconductor technology, has found its dominance challenged by China’s rapid ascent in the tech sector. Recognising the strategic importance of maintaining its edge, the US has launched a multi-pronged approach to counter China’s ambitions and secure its semiconductor supply chain. The CHIPS and Science Act passed in 2022 is a cornerstone of America’s semiconductor strategy. With $52.7 billion in funding, including $39 billion for grants and a 25% investment tax credit for fabrication (fab) construction, the Act aims to revitalise domestic chip manufacturing. This move addresses a critical vulnerability: Despite designing many of the world’s most advanced chips, the US had outsourced much of its manufacturing to Asia over the past decades. Intel, America’s leading chip manufacturer, has played a pivotal role in shaping this policy. Under CEO Pat Gelsinger’s leadership, the company has committed to a $50 billion chip plant in Arizona, reinforcing the state’s position as a semiconductor hub. This investment aligns perfectly with the CHIPS Act’s goal of bolstering national security by ensuring domestic production of critical components. Beyond domestic efforts, the US has engaged in active diplomacy to create a network of trusted partners in the semiconductor ecosystem. The focus has been on strengthening ties with technologically advanced allies like Japan, South Korea, and the Netherlands – home to ASML, the world’s sole producer of advanced extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines essential for cutting-edge chip production. Simultaneously, the US has implemented stringent export controls to limit China’s access to advanced semiconductor technology. These restrictions aim to slow China’s progress in developing state-of-the-art chips, which could be used to enhance its military capabilities and artificial intelligence prowess. Where does China Stand? China, for its part, has not been idle. Since 2014, under President Xi Jinping’s directive, China has poured vast resources into its semiconductor industry. The National Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund, or “Big Fund,” has raised approximately $47 billion annually to boost domestic chip production. However, despite these efforts, China still lags behind in producing the most advanced chips, highlighting the complexities of this high-tech industry. However, China set its goal to be self-reliant in chip production and produce 25% of total global production by 2030. The East Asian dominance Only a handful of key players dominate the global semiconductor landscape. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), with a market cap of $737.28 billion, leads the industry with over 50% market share in advanced chip manufacturing. Taiwan is the undisputed leader in semiconductor manufacturing holding more than half of the total world’s production capacities, mainly due to TSMC’s dominance. South Korea follows closely, led by Samsung and SK Hynix, particularly in memory chip production. Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, the three leading producers of semiconductors, are geographically neighbours of China in the South China Sea and East China Sea. If any geopolitical tensions escalate in the region among these states, especially between China and Taiwan, it would affect supply worldwide. Hence, diversification in semiconductor production is essential in order to maintain the supply chain. Where does India stand? As this technological war unfolds, other countries are positioning themselves to play crucial roles in the global semiconductor landscape. With its large pool of tech-savvy talent and growing economy, India has emerged as a potential key player. Recognizing the opportunity, India has taken significant steps to establish itself in the semiconductor ecosystem. In June 2023, the country approved Micron’s plan to set up a semiconductor assembly and test facility in Gujarat. This moves into the Assembly, Testing, Marking and Packaging (ATMP) segment marks India’s entry into the semiconductor manufacturing chain. Further cementing its commitment, India has announced plans for multiple chip manufacturing plants. Tata Semiconductor Assembly and Test Pvt Ltd is set to invest $3.26 billion in a plant in Assam. In comparison, a partnership between Tata Electronics and Taiwan’s Powerchip Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp will see an $11 billion investment in a fab in Gujarat. Additionally, CG Power, in collaboration with Japan’s Renesas Electronics and Thailand’s Stars Microelectronics, is planning a $1 billion factory in Gujarat. These developments position India as a potential alternative to China in the semiconductor supply chain, aligning with many Western companies’ “China Plus One”, a strategy to avoid investing only in China and diversify businesses to other countries to avoid monopoly. However, challenges remain. Building a robust semiconductor ecosystem requires manufacturing capabilities and expertise in chip design, an area where India needs to focus more attention and resources. Conclusion The impact of semiconductor manufacturing on the global economy cannot be overstated. The industry is projected to reach $1 trillion by 2030, driven by emerging technologies like electric vehicles, IoT, AI, and cloud computing. The semiconductor industry, once the domain of technologists, has become a critical piece in the great power competition. As nations jockey for position in this high-stakes game, the ability to forge alliances, secure supply chains, and drive innovation will be crucial to success. In this new era of semiconductor diplomacy, the balance of power may well be determined by the countries that can best navigate this complex, interconnected landscape.

Read More
Commentary Theory

Erosion of Liberal International Order : Are we on the brink of a new epoch?

After the end of the Cold War, the liberal world order was erected by the sole superpower USA around the core tenets of economic interdependence  and democratic peace  — the two pillars of the liberal international order. The primary architect of this order wanted to spread their domestic ideology of democracy and international institutional membership and create an open and inclusive international economy in order to spread their political, economic and cultural dominance worldwide. However, the liberal international order has been in decline since the end of the second decade of the 21st century as the US is no longer able to bear the sole responsibility of maintaining liberal international order’s stability. John J. Mearsheimer, a renowned IR scholar writes, “By 2019, it was clear that the liberal international order was in deep trouble. The tectonic plates that underpin it are shifting, and little can be done to repair and rescue it.” A convergence of forces — resurgent nationalism, the resurgence of  regional wars, the proliferation of minilateral organisations, and the formation of the anti-west Alliance in the shadow of regional and global geopolitical rivalry — challenges the liberal world order. The article will explain these reasons, citing contemporary examples from recent world events. The Resurgence of Nationalism The increasing socioeconomic disparities, cultural polarisation, and large-scale migration have fostered conditions conducive to the resurgence of nationalist ideologies, which prioritise national interests and realpolitik over global cooperation and multilateralism. This paradigm shift is manifested in the growing popularity of populist, nationalist and right-wing political parties worldwide, advocating for protectionist economic measures, stringent immigration policies, and a more inward-looking approach to foreign affairs — ultimately leading to the erosion of the liberal international order. Brexit and debates on stringent immigration policies in European countries are recent examples of it. The Resurgence in Regional wars, The Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, civil wars in Sudan, and increased tensions in the South China Sea exemplified regional conflicts in three main continents — Asia, Europe and Africa. The eastward NATO expansion created a national security concern for Russia and ignited a protracted conflict in Europe. The NATO expansion and the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war pushed Russia in the lap of China, a global competitor of the US and created a gap between European countries and Russia. The Israel-Hamas war and its spillover effects on Iranian proxies destabilised West Asia and created the Red Sea Crisis from October 2023 to March 2024, which hampered global trade and ongoing normalisation efforts by the USA between Arab nations and Israel. The recent events such as drone attacks on Saudi Arabia oil installations by Houthis (an Iranian proxy in Yemen), the Iranian first-ever direct attack on Israel and the increased technological capabilities of Hezbollah show the decreasing capabilities of the USA as a security provider in the region. The civil war in South Sudan between two rival factions of the military government of Sudan, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) under Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) under the Janjaweed leader Hemedti and foreign involvement in it further destabilised East Africa and caused migration crisis in neighbouring nations. Hence, the resurgence of regional conflict and involvement of great powers in these regional conflicts, the Intensifying rivalry between the US and China globally (trade wars between them) and regionally (in the South Pacific), China’s defiance of the International Court of Justice ruling on disputed waters of South China sea and an informal Anti-western alliance formation among China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and like-minded nation undoubtedly exhibit the formation of poles in international politics which undermines the liberal international order. Protectionism in Trade The global economic landscape has undergone significant changes in recent years, marked by a shift away from traditional free trade policies and multilateralism towards protectionism and minilateralism. This transformation is evident in both developed and developing countries, where the working class increasingly views protectionist measures as a means to safeguard economic stability, boost job creation, and enhance national competitiveness. The transition from the Trump to the Biden administration in the United States exemplifies this trend, with both administrations displaying growing scepticism towards free trade. Recent economic initiatives, such as the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity, I2U2, and the Declaration on Atlantic Partnership, notably lack traditional free trade clauses focused on lowering tariffs and barriers. The proliferation of Minilateral Organization In response to the perceived ineffectiveness of multilateralism, minilateralism has emerged as a new approach to international cooperation. This strategy involves forming small groups of countries with shared interests to coordinate actions on specific issues. Examples include the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), AUKUS, I2U2, and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor. Minilateralism offers advantages such as faster decision-making, flexibility, and a more focused approach to addressing specific challenges. However, it also presents potential drawbacks, including competition among minilateral groups and the risk of creating a fragmented international system that may struggle to address global challenges requiring broader cooperation. This shift in global economic and political dynamics reflects a complex interplay between domestic economic concerns, geopolitical realignments, and the search for more efficient modes of international cooperation in an increasingly multipolar world. Conclusion In the third decade of the 21st century, the tectonic plates of liberal international order are experiencing a profound transformation. The rise of nationalism, protectionist policies, minilateral organisations, and regional conflicts between nations paint a vivid picture of a world on the brink of a new epoch. Following the post-Cold War period, the pillars of liberal international order established after the Second World War face fundamental restructuring  now. By observing all these events, one can say that American dominance and liberal international order have been dented and may not be repaired. About Author Anmol Kumar holds a postgraduate degree in politics and international relations from Pondicherry University. He is currently working as a Research Assistant for an ICSSR Major Project at Pondicherry University. His interests lie in Geopolitics, Foreign Policy and International Relations.

Read More
Commentary India & South Asia

Integration of Chabahar Port with International North-South Transport Corridor: Geostrategic Implications

In May 2024, India signed a 10-year agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran to manage the strategically located Iranian port of Chabahar, which is the first overseas port an Indian company is managing, aimed at facilitating expanded trade with Central Asia. This long-term agreement is critical to India’s economic and geopolitical strategy for Central Asia and beyond. Hence, the port is geopolitically and geo-economically highly crucial for India. At the same time, it is a significant component of INSTC. The article will trace the evolution and examine the significance of the INSTC multi-modal project keeping special focus on India’s stake in Chabahar Port.  International North-South Transport Corridor The idea of the project was first mooted in 2000 in St. Petersburg by Iran, Russia and India. The 7200-km long corridor is a multi-modal transportation project in order to build a transport network linking Russia’s Baltic Sea coast to India’s western ports in the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea via Iran. In 2002, Russia, India and Iran signed preliminary agreements to develop the inter-continental International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC).The INSTC was eventually expanded to other countries and ratified by 13 countries — India, Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Oman, Tajikistan, Turkey and Ukraine. Bulgaria joined the project as an observer state.  Despite the perceived potential and the eagerness exhibited by the member countries, the implementation of the project experienced minimal progress for an extended period. One of the contributing factors to the sluggish advancement was the Western sanctions (especially the United States) imposed on Iran due to its nuclear program. Other nations and their respective private corporations resisted substantial investments in Iran, driven by the apprehension of potential third-party sanctions from the United States. However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, followed by the subsequent imposition of Western sanctions, has fostered a closer alignment between Moscow and Tehran, thereby injecting a renewed impetus into the INSTC.  The 10-year agreement between India and Iran on the Chabahar Port is a significant step towards global connectivity. The long-term agreement between India and Iran brings connectivity to the landlocked Central Asia region and beyond, providing a promising alternative route—India’s aim to reduce reliance on conventional routes susceptible to geopolitical fallout. In this context, the Chabahar Port and INSTC, with their potential to connect continents, hold the promise of enhanced regional as well as global connectivity. India and the Integration of Chabahar with INSTC India’s proactive engagement in initiatives such as the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and Chabahar port underscores its aspirations to cultivate strategic relations with Central Asia and Afghanistan. Incorporating Chabahar into the INSTC holds profound strategic significance for regional nations. By circumventing Pakistan, India gains access to Afghanistan and paves the way to Central Asia, a geopolitical shift of substantial importance. This maneuver fundamentally reshapes the regional dynamics. Iran and India both recognise the pivotal role of Chabahar port in the INSTC project. A trilateral working group comprising Iran, India, and Uzbekistan was established in 2020 to foster cooperation on the Chabahar Port and other connectivity initiatives. During the group’s second meeting in December 2021, the significance of Chabahar’s Shahid Beheshti Terminal was accentuated. The group also acknowledged the necessity of constructing a transit corridor to enhance regional connectivity by interconnecting South and Central Asia. At the India-Central Asia Summit in January 2022, emphasis was placed on coordinating various connectivity projects. India’s endeavour to integrate Chabahar Port into the INSTC garnered an endorsement from five Central Asian nations, recognising the port’s tremendous potential to augment connectivity with Eurasia and Central Asia. Subsequently, in April 2023, the India-Central Asia Joint Working Group (JWG) on Chabahar Port convened its inaugural meeting in Mumbai. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan also expressed support for the Chabahar Port and stated its preparedness to provide the requisite “facilities.” The Taliban’s Foreign Ministry has “welcomed” the integration of Chabahar Port into the INSTC, underscoring that the regime is “ready to provide all necessary protection and facilities in this regard.” This endorsement from the Taliban, a critical regional political entity, could significantly bolster the port’s development and its role in regional connectivity. Furthermore, in March 2024, acknowledging the port’s potential, the Taliban also announced an investment of $35 million in Chabahar. Implications The integration of Chabahar Port with the INSTC, which will serve as an additional port of entry for Bandar Abbas and the INSTC, holds immense promise. With Russia expressing interest in utilising the Chabahar Port to facilitate India’s access to its resource-rich regions, these developments possess the potential to significantly enhance India’s connectivity and trade with Russia and Eurasia, kindling optimism for future trade prospects. Their mutual reinforcement underscores the strategic importance of Chabahar Port and the INSTC. Their integration fortifies India’s ties to the substantial Russian and Eurasian markets and amplifies the strategic value of these initiatives for India’s economic relations. The INSTC is touted as a shorter and cheaper alternative to the traditional Suez Canal route for trade between Russia/Europe and India. It is strategically vital for India’s energy security and trade with Russia and Central Asia. India successfully integrated the Chabahar port, which is developing in Iran, with the INSTC. However, challenges remain, including financing constraints due to sanctions on Russia and Iran, differing rail gauges, geopolitical tensions in the Caucasus region, and the practical difficulties of constructing the Rasht-Astara railway link, which requires tunnels and bridges along the Caspian Sea. Despite these hurdles, India, Russia, and Iran view the INSTC as a potential game-changer for Eurasian economic integration and seem determined to push ahead with its implementation.

Read More
Commentary India & South Asia

Arakan Army’s recent gains in Rakhine region throws Kaladan Project in limbo

BACKGROUND: Since the February 2021 coup, there has been widespread resistance and unrest in  Myanmar resulting in brutal crackdown and cycle of violence, orchestrated by the Military Junta. The clashes between Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs) and the Tatmadaw too have intensified significantly. Numerous EAOs, which have long sought greater autonomy, have either renewed hostilities or intensified existing conflicts against the Tatmadaw. Groups like the Kachin Independence Army (KIA), Karen National Union (KNU), and the Arakan Army (AA) have launched offensives, resulting in heavy casualties and displacement of civilians. The National Unity Government (NUG) of Myanmar, formed in response to the 2021 military coup, represents the ousted civilian government and aims to restore democracy. The NUG has garnered support from various Ethnic Armed Organisations (EAOs), particularly the Brotherhood Alliance, which includes the Arakan Army (AA), the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA), and the Ta’ang National Liberation Army (TNLA), to weed out the Junta. KALADAN PROJECT – CURRENT STATUS : The Kaladan Project once again is in news in India following the Arakan Army’s (AA) capture of Palette township in Chin state of Myanmar in the North Western region, near Mizoram border.   The Kaladan Project is an ambitious collaborative infrastructure initiative between India and Myanmar aimed at enhancing regional connectivity. It involves developing a multi-modal transport system that includes a sea route from India’s eastern port of Kolkata to Myanmar’s Sittwe port, a river transport route along the Kaladan River from Sittwe to Paletwa in Myanmar, and a road network from Paletwa to India’s northeastern state of Mizoram. This project is intended to boost trade, economic development, and strategic ties between the two countries while providing an alternative route for India’s northeastern states to access the Bay of Bengal.  As per the reports, in April 2023, the Indian side of the road connecting border town Zorinpui in Mizoram with Paletwe in Myanmar was almost complete. Subsequently, on May 9, 2024, the Kolkata-Sittwe part of the Kaladan Project  was declared operational when the union ports, shipping and waterways minister, Sarbananda Sonowal virtually received the first Indian cargo ship sailing from Kolkata Port to Sittwe Port in Rakhine State of Myanmar. The Arakan Army’s Advance In October 2023, the Brotherhood Alliance began offenses under ‘operation 1027’, and by January 2024 several strategic townships bordering India, Bangladesh, China and Thailand were under its control.  In the North West, the Arakan Army has made significant gains capturing 180 military camps and taken full control of 17 townships in Rakhine state,  following a three month long brutal clash with Myanmar Military (Source: Radio Free Asia).  Ever since the Arakan army was founded in 2009, it has only grown in strength, by May 2024, the AA had 40000 military personnels at its disposal (the new humanitarian,29 may, 2024) with more than 15000 alone stationed and operating in north and north western states of Rakhine and Chin. In its early years, the AA was trained by the Kachin Independence Army, which is believed to have trained the insurgents from northeastern India in the 1980s. AA is part of the Federal Political Negotiations and Consultative Committee (FPNCC) , an alliance of seven major Ethnic Armed Organisation (EAOs), formed in 2017 as a negotiating body with the Government headed by Military Junta. FPNCC is spearheaded by United Wa State Army (UWSA), Myanmar’s largest and most powerful Ethnic Armed Group which administers the Autonomous Wa State, is a strong ally of China. Currently, FPNCC is the largest negotiating body of EAOs in Myanmar recognised by China as the agency to negotiate with the government.  The China Factor Several reports have emerged in recent times indicating the Arakan Army receiving substantial support, both financially and militarily from china. AA targeting of India backed projects and avoiding interfering in Chinese infrastructures in the region is often cited as a proof of AA’s close association with China. In early 2019, in a retaliatory move to the joint operation by India and Myanmar Military to chase away AA obstructing the project, the AA abducted five Indians working on kaladan site leading to death of one, .  China and India are neck to neck in funding developmental projects in the north western region of Myanmar, and what makes India worry is China increasingly backing EAOs and AA in particular in taking control of border areas. Therefore, reports of January 15 AA taking over the Paletwa, a township on the northern end of the Kaladan river connecting Sittwe Port, which forms the crucial component of the Kaladan Project linking northeastern states of india with the Kolkata port and thereby avoiding the over reliance on the Siliguri Corridor, holds significance.  Even though it is unexpected of a democratic nation, the Indian government has backed Military Junta for its strategic interests, but Junta losing ground against EAOs in Rakhine region does not augur well for India.  Completion of Kaladan Project has certainly been on top of the agenda for India. This project strengthens India’s presence in Myanmar and enhances strategic ties with SouthEast Asia. It counters China’s growing influence in the region, thereby balancing power dynamics. By fostering economic development and connectivity, the project can stabilise the insurgency-prone northeastern states. And thus contributing to overall regional stability. 

Read More
Commentary India & South Asia

Indian Election Verdict : Coalitions are a Reminder of Collective in Democracy

After securing an absolute majority in two successive elections, even crossing the 300 mark in 2019, the BJP was anticipating a crushing defeat of its opposition this time too. But by the end of 4th June,  It was clear that BJP alone would not secure the absolute majority and had to rely on the pre-poll partners to stake a claim at the government. Following three months of intense canvassing and campaigning to secure the ‘janadesh’ (people’s mandate) in their favor, the 2024 general elections concluded with the BJP-led NDA obtaining the necessary mandate to the government. INDIA alliance’s dogged persistence ensured a remarkable 234 seats to its name, thereby rendering BJP well short of the halfway mark in a 543-member Lok Sabha.  This verdict has landed the Modi-Shah duo in uncharted territory, wherein they not only have to accommodate non-BJP and ideologically non-aligning parties but also have to rely on them for any legislative moves. Although BJP is the major constituent of the NDA, now, with truncated seats, it will be difficult to formulate and execute laws with disdain, which, with given numbers in Parliament, previously would do.  Collective in Democracy Democracy is about the collective and never about individuals; therefore, when an individual becomes bigger, then the reduction of the size of an individual in any democracy is always a positive sign for a vibrant democracy. The most significant factor of the 2024 general election was the BJP’s overconfident sail on “Modi Magic”, where BJP time and again reiterated ‘400 Paar’. However, the Indian public showed that the “Modi Magic” appeared to have waned significantly and brought the BJP to 240. The opposition’s election goal was to save the constitution and thereby democracy itself from the arbitrary use of individual power and their vendetta politics. Fortunately, they succeeded in all of it. Democracies should never be about an individual or a party, but collective,  and the election results reiterated it loudly. Coalition Discomforts  INDIA Alliance was a coalition of contradictions, a contradiction to the way by which PM Modi ran the Parliament. There is no doubt that PM Modi is a majoritarian Prime Minister who today has no majority by his own party. The two major alliances supporting NDA – Chandrababu Naidu and Nitish Kumar- do not share the Prime Minister’s communal and majoritarian vision, nor do they have a history of undermining institutions. The leaders of the two major alliance partners of the NDA also do not believe in vendetta politics. The repetition of ‘NDA’ in the recent statements of senior BJP leadership (which had disappeared from their lexicon) shows the changing behaviour of the overconfident BJP leaders towards their fellow mates.  Now, it is no longer “Modi Sarkar” but “NDA Sarkar”. The 234 seats of the INDIA alliance shifted the paradigm and again revived the collective politics in Indian Political Culture. The INDIA alliance succeeded in their goals/motive, the NDA alliance will have to think before surfacing any bill to the Parliament and can’t formulate laws and policies without discussing in the Parliament with its allies and opposition, which so far Modi-Shah duo have been incapable of managing in coalition politics. It will be interesting to observe whether the INDIA alliance remains steadfast in pursuing their shared objectives against communal and majoritarian forces. Despite the convergence in common goals, the next five years are going to be challenging for the INDIA alliance to keep its ideologically divergent partners close, as well for the NDA government against a strong and united opposition. Hope for democracy For a decade BJP had absolute numbers in Parliament, which had given it unfettered control over legislature and institutions. Now, this inconvenient coalition would shackle it from political recklessness. Here, the INDIA alliance faring well in elections can be seen as a victory over the perceived moral turpitude of the BJP. This reflects a collective response from various political entities and sections of the electorate against what they view as the erosion of democratic values, social harmony, and institutional integrity under BJP’s rule. Coalition victories underscore a commitment to upholding secularism, pluralism, and constitutional principles, serving as a counterbalance to the BJP’s centralizing tendencies and ideological rigidity. Such outcomes reinforce the resilience of India’s democratic framework, illustrating the capacity of diverse political forces to unite in defence of the nation’s foundational ethos and to strive for a more inclusive and equitable governance model. The moral victory secured by the INDIA alliance is a testament to the enduring strength of India’s democratic values and pluralistic ethos. It signifies a collective yearning for a more balanced and inclusive governance model that respects regional diversity, promotes economic and social justice, and safeguards the integrity of democratic institutions. While the numerical dominance of the BJP remains, the moral victory of the INDIA alliance provides a crucial counterbalance, ensuring that the voices of dissent and diversity continue to shape India’s democratic journey. This outcome not only reinvigorates the opposition but also reaffirms the electorate’s commitment to the core principles of Indian democracy, setting the stage for a more dynamic and contested political landscape in the years to come.

Read More
Commentary India & South Asia

Guilty until proven Innocent: How ED uses PMLA to keep its accused jailed indefinitely

The principle of ‘Bail is the rule and Jail is an exception’ was established by the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment in 1977. The recent series of arrests by the ED and followed by the indefinite custody of the accused has made ‘Jail as the rule’. But what really has pushed the judiciary to compromise its due process of law, is the law itself. The controversial provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), through which the ED draws its power of prolonged custody has already undergone a roller coaster ride. The contentious provision of PMLA, section 45, which was earlier struck down as unconstitutional was later upheld by the SC. What does Sec 45 of PMLA says, what amendments did the government brought in in PMLA by 2018, What made SC to change its stance on the constitutionality of the provisions, How the judiciary reacts to the current developments in the light of the modus operandi of the ED. Traverse through this article for the answers. The Twin conditions For an alleged offender to be granted with a bail, has to undergo two-step process which is prescribed in Section 45(1) of the PMLA. Firstly, the public prosecutor should be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application and secondly the court has to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person may not be guilty and also may not commit any offence while on bail. It was these provisions that the SC had held as unconstitutional earlier in Nikesh Tarachand vs Union of India case in November 2017. Why SC changed its stance  In order to understand why SC has changed its stance, it is essential for us to know how the SC had reasoned the twin condition of the act previously. It compared these provisions with the twin conditions of erstwhile TADA, where SC had upheld the condition as constitutional considering the ‘most heinous’ nature of the crimes that TADA deals with. The nature of crime was thus weighed in to examine the non bailable clauses. Whereas in PMLA, the wordings of the section 45(1) consider only the list of predicatory offences and they are not of ‘most heinous’ nature to be weighed as non bailable. Hence the SC considered the section as unconstitutional in November 2017. The government swiftly acted in response to the judgment and in February 2018 made amendments through an act in parliament in order to further strengthen the non bailable clause. Again, the amendment was brought for judicial review but this time the SC had ruled that the provisions were constitutional. The SC was convinced of the argument made by the government that the money laundering is also a heinous crime considering its implications on the nation’s security and sovereignty. A more draconian turn Not the judgment in favor but it is the amendment that had incentivized ED more. To understand this, one has to note the changes in the wordings that the 2018 amendment had made to an already controversial section of 45(1) Pre amendment, ‘ No person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment for more than three years shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless ……’ Post amendment, ‘No person accused of an offence under this act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless ……’ Atleast, to consider non bailable, the pre amendment provision was only covering a list of crimes that has the potential of above three years imprisonment. But the 2018 amendment had removed this restriction, made the provision vaguer thereby bringing any offence under PMLA to be non bailable, irrespective of the heinous-ity of the offense . Can judiciary do complete justice? Recently, the CJI D.Y Chandrachud while addressing a congregation of judges in Gujarat, raised his concerns over the reluctancy of the trial courts in granting bail. He emphasized the importance of ‘Bail is rule and jail is exception’ principle. This apprehension among the trial court judges should not be taken lightly as the independence of the grass root judiciary is equally important as it is for the higher courts. The political climate of the country should not interfere in the reasoning and pronouncing the judgments. “…[PMLA] could not take away the power of courts to grant bail in case of delay in trial” These are the words of the CJI-in-waiting, Justice Sanjiv Khanna during a trial of a PMLA case. If the executive body fails to provide substantial evidence or reasons for the continued custody of the accused, the judiciary has all the power to override the twin provisions of the act and grant bail. It is the right to life that is foremost than a parliament law.

Read More
error: Content is protected !!