British prime minister suffers second defeat at hands of pro-European Union MPs

Robert Stevens 

On Wednesday, British MPs voted 308 to 297 for an amendment put forward by pro-European MPs—led by pro-Remain Conservative Dominic Grieve—giving UK Prime Minister Theresa May just three sitting days to present a “Plan B” if parliament votes against her proposed Brexit deal with the European Union.

It is expected that MPs will vote by a significant margin against May’s deal next Tuesday evening.

Wednesday’s vote means that May will have less than a week to produce an alternative plan—until Monday, January 21—for a vote by MPs. With the UK set to exit the UK in less than 80 days, legislation passed previously allowed her three weeks to come up with another Brexit plan. She was relying on taking any debate and subsequent vote in Parliament right down to the wire—leaving recalcitrant MPs with a choice of backing her deal or facing a chaotic “no-deal Brexit”—as the Brexit timetable expired.

May had already postponed a vote on her EU deal by over a month, cancelling a vote scheduled for December 11 at the last minute. She was expected to lose that vote by a massive majority.

Wednesday’s vote was the second defeat of the government in less than 24 hours, as a result of pro-Remain Tories blocking with the opposition parties. On Tuesday evening, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn whipped his MPs to support a backbench amendment to the finance bill tabled by leading Blairite Yvette Cooper. The amendment, restricting the government’s tax powers unless a no-deal Brexit is taken off the table, resulted in a 303 to 296 government defeat, with 20 pro-EU Tory MPs backing it.

The amendment put forward Wednesday by Grieve was supported by former Tory ministers Sir Oliver Letwin, Jo Johnson (the brother of hard Brexiteer and former Foreign Minister Boris Johnson) Guto Bebb and Sam Gyimah. Crucially for the Remainers, an amendment to the EU (Withdrawal) Act passed before the Christmas recess—also authored by Grieve—allows MPs to amend any government statement following a Brexit defeat. This allows amendments to be put by the Remain wing demanding that the UK stay in the EU Single Market and Customs Union post-Brexit, as well as other amendments seeking to delay the process.

The pro-Remain Financial Times described the passage of Cooper’s amendment on Tuesday as marking “the start of a parliamentary war of attrition against a no-deal Brexit.”

That vote took place amid extraordinary scenes, as MPs supporting May’s position and hard Brexiteers took turns denouncing the House of Commons speaker, John Bercow, for allowing the amendment to be heard. May had been working on the assumption that Bercow would discard the amendment for procedural reasons, as was his prerogative.

Despite party affiliation or political beliefs, the speaker is duty bound to remain impartial and is not permitted to vote. But such is the crisis of the British bourgeoisie engendered by Brexit that Bercow, a Remain supporter whose wife had a “Bollocks to Brexit” sticker in her car, deemed it necessary to come forward and give the Remain camp a shot in the arm.

Hard Brexiteer Tory Peter Bone told Parliament he had checked with parliamentary officials the previous evening and was informed that putting forward an amendment to a parliamentary business motion would be “totally out of order.” Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the House of Commons, said Bercow should publish the advice he received from the Commons clerk, Sir David Natzler.

BBC parliamentary correspondent Mark D’Arcy commented that Bercow’s decision “drove a coach and horses through accepted normal practice, and will have huge implications for the course of Brexit.” The Commons will now “have a chance to vote on alternative policies. Everything from a ‘managed no-deal’ to a further referendum, via a ‘Norway option,’ or a reheated version of the current deal could be on the table.”

May came to office after her predecessor, David Cameron, resigned, having called the June 2016 referendum and led the failed Remain campaign. May then called a general election in 2017, in which she lost her majority and was forced to rely on the 10 MPs of the hard-Brexit-supporting Democratic Unionist Party to rule as a minority government. She has been able to stagger on, while the Remain and Brexit wings of the ruling class fight out their contending strategies on behalf of British imperialism, only because of the role of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters.

In recent weeks, Corbyn has repeatedly stated his preference for bringing about May’s downfall via a general election. But calling a vote of no-confidence in the government is the only means for the main opposition party to bring about a general election.

Despite the unprecedented crisis facing May, Corbyn has steadfastly refused to do this. He and his main ally, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, have said that a no-confidence vote would take place at a time when it would do maximum damage to May. Most commentators had expected one to be moved following the vote on May’s deal next week.

Labour front bencher Barry Gardiner told the BBC Today programme yesterday morning that “it is expected that the government next Tuesday will be defeated on the most important piece of legislation that has come before Parliament in 50 or more years… Obviously, the next thing to do immediately after that is for there to be a vote of confidence in the government.”

However, Corbyn’s office said a no-confidence motion would not “necessarily” be immediately lodged. His spokesman dismissed Gardiner’s comments as “speculation.”

A Labour spokesman later told the New Statesman that there should be a general election, but refused to sanction the only action that could allow one. He said, “If the government is defeated next week, it will clearly have lost the confidence of Parliament and there should be a general election. We have always said that it’s a matter of when, not if we table a motion of no-confidence, and we’ll judge the timing day by day.”

Corbyn heads a party whose MPs do not want to come to office, but rather seek to ensure a change in orientation under the Tories. These are the forces he allows to dictate events thanks to his refusal to mobilise the massive opposition to the Labour right wing and his non-stop efforts to convince the ruling class that he can be trusted with the fate of British capitalism.

Labour’s pro-Remain Blairites are in favour of a no-confidence motion being moved, anticipating that it will fail and thereby clear the decks for delaying Brexit and eventually securing a second referendum, in which they hope to overturn the 2016 Leave vote.

Speaking to Sky News Wednesday, Chuka Umunna said, “The two big problems we have to solve are… how to break the deadlock and… how to prevent us leaving the European Union without a deal.” This meant getting “that vote of no-confidence out of the way so that we can move on to resolving the impasse.”

With 79 days until exit day, “if you take out the weekends and Fridays when Parliament doesn’t sit, that is about 40 days to resolve this mess,” he added. “I’m not sure that quite frankly a general election is going to resolve this issue… ultimately we are going to have to refer this back to the people.”

No deal reached in US-China trade talks

Peter Symonds

Three days of talks in Beijing between US and Chinese negotiators broke up yesterday without a deal being struck to end the escalating trade war between the countries. Further talks are scheduled in Washington ahead of the March 1 deadline set by the Trump administration.

The US threat to raise tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods from 10 to 25 percent, if no resolution is reached, underscores the one-sided and bullying character of Washington’s approach to the talks. The “negotiations” consisted of US officials insisting that Beijing meet a long list of demands, but offering nothing in return, other than not proceeding with the higher tariffs.

In a statement issued yesterday, the Office of the US Trade Representative declared that US negotiators had “conveyed President Trump’s commitment to addressing our persistent trade deficit [with China] and to resolving structural issues in order to improve trade between our countries.”

The statement noted that China had pledged to buy a “substantial amount” of US agricultural, manufacturing, energy and other products, but made clear that any deal would be “subject to ongoing verification and effective enforcement.” In other words, the onus is on China to demonstrate that it will meet US demands, with the threat of additional penalties in the background.

The New York Times noted that the US intends to maintain its tariffs placed on Chinese goods last year. “Treasury would preserve indefinitely the 25 percent tariffs that Mr. Trump imposed in July and August on $50 billion a year in Chinese goods, or roughly a tenth of American imports, and the 10 percent tariffs that he imposed in September on an additional $200 billion in Chinese goods,” it reported.

The so-called “structural issues” are not about “fair trade,” but reflect fears in Washington that China is a threat to US ambitions for global domination. Trump and his officials have repeatedly accused Beijing of the “theft” of American intellectual property and of forcing US corporations to transfer technology to their Chinese partners as the price of doing business in China.

While, prior to the talks, China had drawn up draft laws to illegalise such practices, the US demanded tougher measures. The New York Times reported that, according to unnamed US sources, American officials pressed China for more details on how it will guarantee its offers will be implemented. “Many of the administration’s trade hawks regard them as nebulous, especially when it comes to Chinese trade practices that administration officials consider unfair,” it stated.

The chief obstacle to any deal remains the “Made in China 2025” program to accelerate China’s competitiveness in key high-tech industries such as semi-conductors, commercial aircraft and electric cars. While Beijing regards these plans as essential to China’s continued economic growth, Washington is hostile to the threat that it poses not only to the dominant position of US corporations, but also to US military superiority.

While Beijing has offered to allow US corporations greater access to participation in manufacturing development in China, it is unwilling to abandon its plans to boost its industrial capabilities.

In a brief statement issued today, China’s commerce ministry put an optimistic spin on the talks, declaring there has been “broad, deep and meticulous discussions on shared observations on trade issues and structural problems, laying the foundation for addressing areas of common concern.”

Both sides are under pressure to reach an agreement. China is facing a slowdown in economic growth, in part as a result of falling exports to the US. If no deal were reached and US tariffs were raised as threatened on March 2, Chinese growth would be hard hit. Trump has also threatened to go further and impose higher tariffs on all Chinese imports to the US.

The latest sign of the slowing Chinese economy was a fall in car sales last year—the first decline in more than two decades. According to a report released yesterday, retail sales of sedans, multi-purpose vehicles and sport utility vehicles plunged by 19 percent in December—the seventh straight monthly drop.

Trump is also under pressure to reach an agreement amid a US economic slowdown and high levels of volatility on Wall Street. Sharp divisions have emerged in the White House between Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and those such as US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer who insist that China has to address not only trade imbalances, but also the so-called structural issues.

A Bloomberg article yesterday, based on unnamed sources, suggested that Trump was keen to make a deal “driven in large part by his desire for markets to rally.” However, “hawks have also been pressing the president to keep his focus on what they see as a long-term fight” to address what they term “a vast list of Chinese trade abuses.”

This week’s talks took place between mid-level officials. The US team was led by Deputy US Trade Representative Jeffrey Gerrish, who is reportedly closely aligned to Lighthizer. The next round of talks is likely to take place in Washington between Lighthizer, who was appointed by Trump to lead the negotiations, and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, President Xi’s chief economic adviser.

Any agreement, if finally reached, will be little more than a temporary truce. The Trump administration’s trade war measures against China are part of a far broader confrontation on all fronts—diplomatic and military as well as economic—that is directed at ensuring China does not threaten American global domination. As in the 1930s, the escalating economic and trade rivalry is bound up with the US preparations for a catastrophic war involving nuclear-armed powers.

Worker killed as Bangladesh police attack striking garment workers

Wimal Perera

Thousands of striking Bangladesh garment workers continued demonstrations for a fourth day on Wednesday in the face of increasingly violent police attacks. The workers, who are among the lowest paid garment employees in the world, have long been fighting for decent wages to compensate for price increases in food and other basic necessities.

On Tuesday, Sumon Mia, a 22-year-old garment worker, was killed and more than 50 others injured when police assaulted protesting workers. Sumon, who worked in the cutting section of the Anlima Textile factory in Savar’s Kornopara area, was not involved in the demonstrations but was returning home from work.

Nadid, Sumon’s work colleague, told the Bangladesh’s Daily Star newspaper that he and Sumon were walking along a road in Hemayetpur where some workers were protesting. Police suddenly arrived and began breaking up the demonstration. While the two young men were running away Sumon was hit in the chest by police gunshots and died. He was married just a year ago.

According to the Daily Star, police left the area, leaving Sumon dead on the ground. When Sumon’s co-workers took his body to the Anlima Textile plant and began protesting over his death, police opened fire with rubber bullets and baton-charged the workers. Witnesses told the newspaper that at least 11 workers were injured, including two who were hit with rubber bullets.

Yesterday police and Border Guard Bangladesh officers again used rubber bullets, as well as water cannons and tear gas, against an estimated 10,000 workers blocking a major highway at several places in the Savar industrial district, north of the capital, Dhaka.

Strikes and demonstrations also erupted at Ashulia, Gazipur, Uttara and Mirpur yesterday with at least 50,000 workers walking out of their factories in the morning to demand higher wages. Scores of workers were injured in police attacks on the protesting workers.

The industrial action and protest rallies began on Sunday when workers at the TCL 2 and Standard Group factories in Savar complained to management about low wages and discrepancies in recent pay increases. Factory authorities responded by calling the police who beat up the workers. Angered by this response, workers took to the streets and the next day were joined by others from Savar, as well as workers from Ashulia and Gazipur.

Police have also begun violent raids on workers’ homes. Imdadul Haque, a worker from the Standard Group in Savar, told the media this week: “Although we did not join the demonstrations, police came to our house and asked to see our professional identity cards. Upon seeing our ID cards, they started beating us. At one stage, police fired rubber bullets at my leg and my colleague’s leg.”

Bangladesh garment workers have been fighting since 2016 for their monthly minimum wage to be increased to 16,000 taka ($US190). In December that year about 150,000, garment workers in Ashulia demonstrated for 10 days for the pay rise.

Employers, backed by the Awami League-led government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, responded with sackings, victimisations and political frame-ups. At least 1,600 workers have been dismissed and around 1,500 accused of “inciting” industrial action, “trespass,” “vandalism” and “theft.” Most of these workers have been black-listed and are thus barred from employment at other factories.

When garment workers resumed protests last September, the Hasina government, fearful that any industrial action would rapidly escalate, announced that the minimum monthly wage would be increased on December 1 to 8,000 taka ($96), up from 5,300 taka.

The recommended pay increase, however, has only been paid to grade seven (entry-level) employees, who only constitute about 10 percent on the industry’s total workforce, with a far smaller rise for senior workers. Workers in most other grades only received a 500 taka increase.

Early last month workers began strike action again for minimum pay of 16,000 taka, with walkouts at 20 factories in Mirpur, Gazipur and adjoining districts. In line with government demands, the garment workers’ unions ordered an end to all action in the lead up to the December national elections.

Garment workers temporarily ended their agitation, but following Hasina’s “victory” in the blatantly rigged national ballot, have resumed demonstrations and industrial action. The Awami League won 288 of the 300 elected positions in the parliament.

On Tuesday, the Hasina government announced the establishment of a tripartite committee consisting of ten representatives from government, garment owners and union officials. The committee immediately held “an emergency meeting” and called on workers to present their “grievances” on the new pay structure within a month. It denounced the protesting workers as “toughs and vandals” and called for “stern action.” The meeting was presided over by State Minister for Labour Monnujan Sufian and also involved Commerce Minister Tipu Munshi.

Munshi declared that “those engaged in vandalism are not friends of the RMG [ready-made garment] trade and the lawmen have been instructed to take a tough line on the troublemakers.”

Bangladesh has about 4.5 million garment workers who produce about 80 percent or $30 billion of the country’s annual foreign exchange earnings. With garment exports as the “main pillar” of economic growth, big business and the government are determined to keep garment workers’ wages at poverty level and boost its share of the international market. Giant retailers in the US and Europe, such as H&M, Inditex, C&A, M&S, Wal-Mart, Tesco, Gap, and JC Penney, reap massive profits from Bangladesh’s low-wage regime.

The escalating police violence and ongoing government and employer attacks on garment workers are another indication that the Awami League regime is turning towards dictatorial methods, which will be used against all sections of the Bangladesh working class.

India’s “rise” and the savage exploitation of the working class

Kranti Kumara

Beset by a catastrophic foreign exchange crisis that had forced it into the arms of the IMF, India’s ruling elite abandoned in 1991 the state-led capitalist development project it had pursued for decades, and set out to make India a cheap-labor haven for global capitalism.

If the Indian bourgeoisie and the western press are to be believed, the adoption of neo-liberal, “pro-market” policies has been a stupendous success. After all, between 1993 and 2014 India’s GDP grew in real terms at an annual rate of about 7 percent per annum, resulting in nearly a quadrupling of India’s total economic output.

But India’s “rise” has been based on ruthless capitalist exploitation and the plunder of state assets and natural resources. India’s rapidly expanding working class is condemned to poverty wages, Dickensian working conditions and precarious employment, and this in a country in which public services, if they exist at all, are dilapidated and even a rudimentary social-safety net has never existed.

India has become one of the most socially unequal countries in the world. Between 1980 and 2016, the richest 10 percent of Indians captured 66 percent of all growth in income. Just the top 1 percent appropriated 28 percent—or more than two-and-a-half-times the 11 percent share of income growth that fell to the poorest 50 percent of Indians.

Further light on the rapacious growth in social inequality is shed by the figures on national income. They show that between 1991 and 2013 the labour share of national income declined from about 40 percent to 35 percent despite a massive growth in the working-class population.

The crudest expression of the gargantuan appetite of the bourgeoisie, in a country where the Global Nutrition Report 2018 found 46 million children to be stunted due to malnutrition and a further 25 million “wasted,” is the exponential growth of India’s billionaires. Whereas in the mid-1990s India was home to two billionaires with combined assets of $3.2 billion, today it boasts 131, whose wealth of $340 billion is equivalent to 15 percent of India’s GDP.

While the elite crows about India’s arrival on the world stage, the widespread and intractable social deprivation in which the vast majority of the country’s 1.3 billion people eke out their existence defies imagination.

Many of the statistics cited in this article come from UN International Labor Organization (ILO) and United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reports. Some have been rounded for convenience, and although most apply to the years 2011 or 2012, the social crisis they document has certainly not abated and most likely worsened. Currently India is under the rule of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which combines veneration of the capitalist market and personal enrichment with rabid communalism.

Mass joblessness and under-employment

One of the most striking features of the Indian economy is its feeble labour force participation rate.

According to the latest ILO report on India, out of the country’s 860 million working-age population, that is, persons between the ages of 15 and 64, only 405 million (47 percent) are “wage-earners”—which under the ILO’s definition refers to all persons earning a living, whether as a worker, salaried professional, farmer, artisan, street-vendor or corporate executive.

India has a rapidly expanding working-age population, with young people between the ages of 15 and 34 accounting for 35 percent of India’s population. But only a fraction of the 1.3 million youth who, according to the World Bank, are entering the workforce each month, are finding employment.

In the 1970s and 1980s, when GDP grew by 3–4 percent annually, employment increased by 2 percent per year. In the 1990s, with the adoption of India’s pro-investor agenda and the closing down of sections of state-owned industry, job growth slowed to less than 1 percent per year. Currently employment growth is close to zero.

Mass joblessness and underemployment are taking a vast social toll. Business, needless to say, exploits the vast pool of unemployed and under-employed labour to depress wages and working conditions. But the scarce job opportunities also mean there is tremendous competition to enter even semi-reputable educational institutions and obtain better qualifications.

Under conditions where the Stalinist parties and the unions have suppressed the class struggle, the bleak employment prospects facing youth have fueled reactionary caste-based agitations for reservations (affirmative action) to dole out the few public sector jobs and university places on more “equitable” lines. Youth unemployment and the competition for jobs and education are also a major factor in India’s youth suicide rate, which at 35.5 per 100,000 is the highest in the world.

The following graph, excerpted from the 2018 UNDP Asia-Pacific Human Development Report, shows the increasing gap since 1991 between the numbers of working-age population and their “participation rate” in the national economy—a phenomenon which attests to the growth of “hidden” unemployment.

However, even this graph is misleading since 206 million or 51 percent of the persons deemed employed are “self-employed.” Large numbers of these subsist by engaging in small-scale vending or hawking, tilling small plots of land, and other marginal economic activities.

According to a UNDP estimate, during the period spanning 1991 to 2013, while the working age population increased by 241 million, employment increased by only 144 million.

Another striking feature of the Indian economy is the division between the so-called formal and informal sectors. The formal sector includes large-scale industry and businesses and has traditionally been subject to labour standards providing for regular employment with some sort of benefits.

The informal sector, comprised of small and medium enterprises, is almost entirely unregulated, with employers free to dictate wages and working conditions. Fully 82 percent of wage workers work in the informal sector where in 2012 the average wage was a miserable 147 rupees ($2.00) per day. In the formal sector, the average wage was considerably higher, Rs. 247 ($3.50) per day, but still by any definition a poverty wage.

Increasing “informalization” of the economy

If employment in the formal sector was once associated with more stable employment, this is no longer the case. There has been a vast increase in contract labour and other forms of precarious, lower-paid employment in the formal sector, with state-owned enterprises very much spearheading the drive to increase exploitation and gut job security.

In a 2018 report the ILO emphasizes that “[although] the organized sector has often been used synonymously with formal regular/salaried work, since the economic reforms in 1991, wage employment in the organized sector has increasingly become casual or contractual in nature, without access to social security and other benefits to the workers.”

The Modi government has peddled the lie that the solution to chronic joblessness is to allow companies to hire and fire workers at will. In March 2018, Modi and a small coterie of his ministerial minions amended labour laws to allow what they termed as “fixed-term” employment, lasting from a week to up to two years, in all industries. Even the category “fixed-term” has no meaning since the employers are allowed to terminate the “fixed-term” employees anytime.

Poverty wages

The earnings of the working class in India can only be described as ranging from the miserable to the abominable. The following graph displays the median income, which defines the midpoint of income distribution, among rural, urban and all Indian workers. According to the ILO, in 2011-12 half of rural workers earned less than US $1.85 a day. In urban areas, half earned less than $3.20 per day. Nationally the median was just $2.15 per day. It needs to be stressed that the overwhelming majority of Indian workers are casual workers whose access to even these miserable wages is precarious.

The plight of agricultural labourers and other rural workers

As indicated above, the plight of rural workers, including the tens of millions who work as agricultural labourers, is especially grave.

Faced with widespread rural distress, the Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government introduced a program in 2005 that nominally guarantees 100 days of menial minimum-wage labor to one member of every rural household, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS).

The UPA did this at the urging of the Stalinist Communist Party of India (Marxist) upon whose parliamentary support it depended for survival. Touted as the exemplar of “reform with a human face,” the MGNREGS gave the Congress Party the requisite populist cover for proceeding unencumbered with implementing pro-market “reform.”

Although the Indian government has failed to live up to even the meagre promises of the MGNREGS, the scheme has come under concerted attack from the Modi government and big business for distorting the “agricultural labour market”—that is, for driving up wages!

The BJP government has slashed support for it, even though the program has been significantly oversubscribed, that is many more people have sought to exercise their MGNREGS rights than the government has places for. According to a recent report in the Indian business daily Business Standard,the funding of MGNREGS as a percentage of GDP has steadily fallen from 0.53 percent of GDP in 2010–11 to 0.42 percent in 2017–18. Adjusting for inflation the budget allocation for 2017–18 should have been greater than Rs. 710 billion ($10 billion) but the actual allocation in the budget was a mere Rs. 480 billion ($6.9 billion).

Most cruelly, the Modi government has purposely delayed paying wages for months to these impoverished workers so as to discourage them from availing themselves of this mandated “benefit.”

Countering Left Wing Extremism: Need to Look Beyond Numbers

Rajat Kumar Kujur


It has been over 50 years, and the Maoist movement in India is still not showing signs of withdrawing or weakening. Undeniably, at present, the movement is hard pressed by new challenges and it no longer inspires the buoyant optimism it did during the 1960-70 period. Yet, simultaneously, it is also true that the government has not been able to fine tune its strategies and policies to effectively deal with what was described by a former Indian prime minister as “the single biggest threat to India’s internal security.” Going forward, it is important to glean lessons from past experiences in order to counter left wing extremism (LWE) comprehensively.

Since 2015, the Union Government has been following the National Policy and Action Plan to tackle the Maoist insurgency. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs’ (MHA) data, the numbers of districts affected by Maoist violence has reduced from 106 in 2017 to 90 in 2018. Similarly, the numbers of worst-affected districts reduced to 30 in 2018 from 36 in 2017. Security forces killed 232 Maoists in 2018 while the number was 150 in 2017. Going by those statistics there seems to be no doubt about the success of the government’s counter-Maoist strategy. However, while dealing with a problem like LWE one needs to look beyond the numbers as well. Numbers are always deceptive in a conflict situation because they only portray half the truth.

As per official data, while the numbers of attacks on security personnel may have reduced in past few years, during the same period, Maoists also demonstrated their ability to carry out fatal attacks on security forces. Unfortunately India’s counter-Maoist strategy is yet to find answers to the Maoists’ use of landmines that cause massive damage to the life and morale of the security forces. Indeed, a lot of coordination between state police and central paramilitary forces operating on the ground is visible now. However, what is missing is real time intelligence. In a conflict like LWE that India faces, it is not high tech intelligence but human intelligence that holds the key.

Coercion or otherwise, it is local support for the Maoists that makes it difficult for the security forces to procure accurate information about the insurgents. On the other hand, Maoists get information on security forces’ logistics through villagers. Additionally, Maoists are extremely familiar with the topography of the forest land and the hills. Meanwhile, security forces find it difficult to keep pace with the Maoists as they fall short on accurate knowledge of the terrain. Given the situation, it is time for the local police forces to redefine their role in the counter-Maoist operations.

In 2018, Maoist penetration into India’s urban centres emerged as the greatest challenge for the government. The Maoists have carved the “Golden Corridor” (Pune-Mumbai-Ahmadabad), “Ganga Corridor” (Delhi-Kanpur-Patna-Kolkata), and the “Tri-junction” (Chennai-Coimbatore-Bengaluru) for their urban operations.  Maoists have also formed urban cells in the industrial belts of Raipur, Durg, Surat, Faridabad and Bastar. They are making steady inroads into the many of India’s semi-urban centres. While the Maoists seem to be preparing for the next stage of the ‘People’s War’ i.e. encircling the cities, the government is busy counting its success from the rural war fields.

An important development of 2018 that could lead to a perceptible change in the course of the Maoist Movement in India is the stepping down of Ganapathy and elevation of Baswaraj as the general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Maoist). Known to be extremely tech-savvy and equally strong in his ideological commitment and military craft, Baswaraj is a fervent advocate of the Tactical Counter Offensive Campaign (TCOC) to blunt counter-insurgency measures. His experience of leading the People’s Liberation Guerrilla Army (PLGA) could result in a possible escalation of violence in the coming days.

Undoubtedly, the Indian government’s multi-pronged strategy in the areas of security, development, and community empowerment, have begun to show results. It is also a fact that CPI (Maoist) is experiencing one of its worst leadership crises. However, it would be useful to remember that the Maoists have survived similar situations in the past. When several analysts wrote off the Movement following the arrests of Charu Majumdar and Kondapalli Seetharamaiah in 1972 and in 1993 respectively, the group proved everyone wrong with its resurgence.

At present, the government evidently has an edge over the CPI (Maoist) but that should not lead to unrealistic assessments. Success is not always dependent merely on numbers. And the success of the counter-Maoist strategy depends much on winning the hearts and minds of the people who are yet to realise their independence. It is not just to reaffirm India’s sovereignty over its own territory; more than that, it is essential to make people realise that the sovereign power belongs to them.

Strengthening of institutions for proper implementation of government programmes is much more essential than formulation of ambitious development plans and programmes. Raising new battalions for security agencies is important but preventing youth, children and women from joining the Maoist fold is equally important. With a new general secretary at the helm of affairs at a time when general elections are fast approaching, and changes in state government leaderships in various Maoist infested states, it is certain that the CPI (Maoist) will change gears in 2019. The government of India must wake up to the winds of change in order to prevent any future ‘Spring Thunder’, for India does not need it.

Where is Kabul Headed?

Maryam Baryalay & Abdul Mateen Imran


Afghanistan is gearing up for a possible political overturn. The ongoing peace talks between the US and the Taliban; talks of withdrawal of 7000 US troops; the three-month push-back of the Afghan presidential election; and the appointment of two staunch anti-Pakistan politicians – Amrullah Saleh and Asadullah Khalid – as the ministers of interior and defense respectively, are post-signs indicative of strategic changes in the US policy towards the country, as well as Afghanistan's future path.

Dissecting the EventsWith the onset of the US launched two-party talks with the Taliban without the government of Afghanistan (GoA) at the behest of the Taliban’s insistence and rumors of a possible US troops withdrawal in late summer 2018 became an accepted fact by late autumn 2018. As the peace-talks headed by US Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad began in Qatar and continued without achieving any tangible outcome, the GoA realised it had to make a move sooner than later to gain a footing in an ever-looming situation of Kabul's disadvantage. The US’s bilateral talks with the Taliban weakened the GoA's position and placed Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in a precarious position, discrediting his government in the region and especially with its enemy, the Taliban.

Days ago, the Afghan presidential election was postponed by three months citing the need for additional preparation time for the polls. Many inside Afghanistan view this as a US attempt to pressurise the GoA by not financing the elections, so that the GoA accepts the interim-government solution proposed (indirectly) by the Taliban as a starting point for any further steps. If such an interim government comes to be, it would enable Washington to realise its much sought after ‘dignified exit’ from Afghanistan and the credit of succeeding in reaching a peace deal with the Taliban.

However, the GoA and the incumbent establishment in Kabul would be the main losers of such a scenario. The rationale of this scenario – a US imposed interim-government with the Taliban – has all relevant Afghan-stakeholders inside and outside the Afghan government so anxious that major opposition formations literally disintegrated at the prospect of such an outcome. Key opposition figures have either stepped aside or signaled possible alignment with a second-term Ghani government. The alternative, namely the possibility of an interim government with the Taliban (and the insofar absent clarity regarding the capacity in which they will join, given the unpredictability of decisions coming from the US) has undoubtedly become an unfavorable option for the Kabul political elite.

The appointments Saleh and Khalid, both former heads of Afghanistan's National Directorate of Security, must also be viewed in conjunction with President Ghani attempting to consolidate his position at home. With the appointment of these men, President Ghani has sent an clear message to all the neighbouring countries that either have or are attempting to initiate their own bilateral talks with the Taliban (Iran being the latest in the list) that any such attempts at peace will not be acceptable to the GoA, and must not be held without the GoA. The move has already generated some positive changes in public perception –  something President Ghani desperately needs given the internal pressure of growing public discontent and the overall deteriorating security situation. Both ministers are relatively popular in their ethnic communities, most prominently for their anti-Taliban and anti-Pakistan stances. Moreover, the appointment of the two – one Tajik and one Pashtun – is indeed killing two birds with one stone as it also serves as a silencer to President Ghani's Pashtun and Tajik critics and competitors. While the GoA does want to strike a peace deal with the Taliban, it wants to do this on its own terms, most likely on the terms they got in the peace deal with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hizb-e-Islami.

Likely ScenarioThe current trajectory does not indicate significant changes in the overall political and security situation in the short term. While the usual winter lull will witness a slight decrease in fighting in the provinces and major population centers, high profile installations will remain a potential target, especially in Kabul. This is because the Taliban will attempt to demonstrate their resilience and fighting morale, and the Islamic State ‘Khorasan Province’ will try to just show that they exist. In the meantime, the Afghan National Security Forces headed by the two new ministers will try to make positive inroads and gains to demonstrate the capability and capacity of the forces. The Ministry of Interior has already introduced significant disciplinary measures concerning the national police forces. These and other steps with regard to new appointments or dismissals in Kabul or the provinces are all connected to consolidating President Ghani's position and reelection chances. In this backdrop, the peace talks and the prospect of a possible peace deal will continue to take reverse steps until the presidential election is conducted, mainly because the political elite in Kabul have to align and rearrange themselves with new realities that will decide their fate.

Preventing the Next 26/11: Intelligence and India's Security Apparatus

Alok Joshi

There is a long-standing debate on the role, means, and end goals of intelligence. Is dissemination the purpose? Do ownership issues come into play between intelligence and law enforcement only in the event of success or failure? Such issues that bedevil the current debate are self-defeating and certainly not in consonance with the challenges that India faces. Across the world, intelligence agencies have restructured themselves to be embedded in operational work - it is no longer about 'them' and 'us'. Instead, they focus on building synergies, enhancing their technological wherewithal, and working out the best processes that can deliver the greatest advantages. For this to take place in India, there must be better dialogue between various arms of the security apparatus and serious thinking on how best to use available resources and anchoring new technologies.

The events of 26/11 provide an instructive backdrop to discuss the range of technologies that allow a state to prepare for similar security eventualities. Institutional changes are important, particularly in the interplay between intelligence and executive policing, to absorb and benefit from these technologies. This is not to critique the way events were handled in 2008, nor an attempt to cover every aspect related to it. Instead, it is a look at expanding the current discourse on the possibility of such a situation recurring, and India's preparedness to meet threats with all the resources at its command. This article will limit itself to the technologies that are available to India today, and will presuppose the development of advances in big data analytics and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

The first consideration is of the initial inputs regarding the likely threat to Mumbai from a seaborne vector, with the identification of some specific targets. It is now generally accepted that any operation of such magnitude would require advance planning of at least 3-6 months to mature and be ready for execution. What are the options if a similar threat assessment is received today? In the author's view, the initial discussion between intelligence and law enforcement should focus on a set of questions that could be instrumental in identifying gaps in existing knowledge about the nature of the threat, and help better appreciate the potentially catastrophic consequences of a likely future event:  

Why is the threat emanating at this stage?

Are there any geopolitical factors that could incite or encourage adversaries? Are there any internal political dynamics involved?

Which groups are likely to give effect to such a threat?

What is the current interplay of such groups? Are they competitive or collaborative?

What is their current standing with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)?

What are their linkages within India?

What is the information available about the principal players and their movements over the preceding months?

Today, India is in a much better position to elicit answers to these questions largely due to ingresses made into the databases of militant organisations and other key institutions in Pakistan. Photographs of affiliated activists and over ground workers culled from social media and cyber operations are now in possession - this could be the starting point of enquiries. When this stage is reached, an assessment of whether cooperation through India's liaison relationships with other countries is required for both human intelligence (HUMINT) and technical coverage must be made. For a meaningful assessment, it is essential for each agency to ensure that their databases are effectively populated and their integrity maintained.

A close look at the likely targets of any terror strike must follow. LIDAR's surveying capabilities can provide precise details of such targets; this includes not only structural details but cues to work out the best angles from which to protect or approach a target. LIDAR imagery can also create a virtual 3D environment to facilitate mock drills to familiarise security forces with the geophysical opportunities and constraints that can deter or give a fillip to operations in progress.

In addition, CCTVs are deployed on a large scale as a part of megacity policing. While they are currently utilised for post-incident investigations, the preventive aspects of CCTV coverage must also be exploited. This is possible only if there is a strong and comprehensive database of suspects that can provide comparative results. The concerned agencies can also work out algorithms to collate images of suspects, which involves specificity drawn from the generic profile construction of a militant suspect from a particular region, including voice matches. To be sure, a number of false positives may also be produced, but the exercise would still act as a sieving mechanism, and more importantly, as a deterrent.

Moving forward to the stage of operational deployment, there are now technologies available to enable close monitoring of any crisis situation and backhaul data from a variety of sources. An operations room that can monitor a developing situation in real-time and give ground feed to decision-makers is accessible to most city-based forces. In this regard, the deployment of drones along with the ops teams is critical. Drone imagery must be made available to the consumers as quickly as possible, and simultaneously fed into a centralised data base for future reference.

One of the principal requirements of policing in such situations is secure communications, both for maintaining close coordination among various teams as well as to jam those of the adversary. Today, capabilities exist to geo-fence areas in a closed environment and allow only white-listed devices to function. There is also a need to keep track of what is being projected on social media, given that exaggerated accounts or deliberate disinformation often give rise to rumour mongering and result in communal and law and order disturbances.

With the assistance of the India Navy and Coast Guard, India possesses the ability to track any non-registered shipping and also receive alerts if an Indian flag vessel is in distress in the face of a seaborne threat. Satellite communications among the suspect vessels can be closely monitored, and underwater sensors in proximity to select vulnerable targets can also be deployed.

The management of databases is going to be the key to success in policing, especially in mega-cities, in the near term. Big data offers possibilities of target discovery and locking, and the activation of various sensors available in the cyber, telecom and/or geospatial fields to take the entire exercise to its logical conclusion. One other advantage of working on databases is the availability of historic data for deeper insight. There are certain projects at various stages of fruition in the areas of smart munitions and autonomous weapons that can have a multiplier effect for India's offensive capabilities.

Community outreach is another important aspect of inter-agency coordination. This involves tapping into all stakeholders that have the expertise to offer solutions, whether government or non-government. There is considerable talent that is yet to be harnessed to develop holistic solutions for national security. Governmental process and systems, too, much be adapted to current contexts, particularly in the areas of recruitment or induction, and in procurement. It is certainly within India's capacity to configure solutions that both use existing resources and take advantage of new developments, such as the opportunities presented by technology,  to meet evolving security challenges.

No two situations develop on exactly similar trajectories, and it is possible that the next terror event is a combination of physical and cyber attacks or even low-level biological weapons. A combination of human resources and technological capability offers a template of solutions that India's senior leadership must consider in all sincerity. Institutional mechanisms, too, will need to be reassessed to give the personnel working in the technical domains due importance in the country's security architecture. Command and control structures will likely need modification to ensure that information flowing from the technical domain is absorbed, worked on and feedback given to re-calibrate sensors.

Customising available technologies as per the needs of security agencies and ensuring that they work in synergy with other wings of the police while refurbishing India's security architecture is admittedly ambitious, but it must be addressed head-on. To ensure effective outcomes from the various technologies now available, doctrines and organisational structures must be reviewed, and if need be, revised.

Michelin Challenge Design (Fully-funded to Detroit, USA) 2019

Application Deadline: 1st March, 2019

Eligible Countries: All

To be taken at (country): Online, Detroit, USA

About the Award: Megacities are struggling to meet the future economic, environmental, emotional and social needs for sustainable mobility in a time of rapidly changing technology.
Most discussions around the future of mobility are focused on what people will be driving, the technologies that will be used and the brands that will survive. Hundreds of billions of dollars will be spent over the next 20 years maturing the technologies and creating the devices that will be used in the sustainable mobility ecosystems of the future.
Less frequently asked is ‘why’. Why would a user choose a particular mobility system? Your design will be much deeper and more meaningful for users if you first recognize why certain emotional needs of users are important before proceeding to how you will address the needs and what your design product will be.
For the 2019 Michelin Challenge Design, your challenge is to inspire users by successfully identifying one of the following emotional needs: joy, trust, security or freedom; and designing a mobility solution that will invoke that emotion for users in one of the following megacities: Berlin, Mumbai, New York, Sao Paulo or Shanghai in 2035.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: 

• Fans, students, individual designers, studio designers, consultants, design schools, Transportation designers, including OEM and suppliers, are all eligible to enter.
• Michelin Challenge Design is open to residents of any country. Parents or legal guardians of entrants less than the age of majority in their state, province or country must sign the MCD Questionnaire and the MCD Entry Form. Michelin Challenge Design is void where prohibited by law. All entries for the Michelin Challenge Design must be received by August 1 of the previous year.
• By participating you agree to be bound by the Rules and Procedures of this challenge and by the decisions of the Michelin Challenge Design Jury and of Michelin, whose decisions shall be final and binding in all respects. Any entries or displays may be withdrawn or declined for any reason at any time.
• Entrants must include all data and information and fulfill all requirements as required by the Michelin Challenge Design Rules and Procedures and Entry Form in order for the entry to be valid. Entrants must provide all data and information that is accurate and complete. If more than one person designed an entry, all designer names must appear on the “Designer(s) Name(s)” portion of the Michelin Challenge Design Entry Form.
• Student designers who are working with an engineering department, at a university, are required to take the lead role in the development of any submitted work. This means that the designer has final say to all technical questions that will have an impact on the functional and aesthetic result of the design work.

Selection Criteria: Jury evaluates based on the following:

• Relevance to the theme
• Concept originality
• Design value and quality
• Developmental potential
• Design displayability.

Value of Contest: 

• Roundtrip coach airfare to Detroit to attend 2019 North American International Auto Show (NAIAS-Detroit) for the sole designer or, in the case of a team design, one team representative. Michelin will book the airfare on your behalf; any guests will be at your expense.
• Up to Five (5*) nights hotel accommodations in Detroit for NAIAS, including hotel internet service, room rate and taxes at a Michelin-selected hotel. You will be responsible for all other incidentals, and the hotel will ask for a credit card to cover any charges other than room, internet, and taxes.**
• Michelin-arranged transportation from Detroit Metro Airport to Detroit hotel upon arrival and from Detroit hotel to Detroit Metro Airport at departure***
• Travel Visa: If required and you provide Michelin with your receipt, Michelin will reimburse you the expense. This does not apply to passport fees.
• Daily per diem of $50.00 USD/day* (maximum of $250.00 USD) for meals and miscellaneous expenses, available for you at check in to your hotel in the form of a VISA® gift card.
• Entry credentials for Press Days and Industry Preview days at NAIAS (January 2019)
• Invitation to attend and recognition at the private Michelin Designer’s Reception – the Monday night during press days at NAIAS – highlighted by the exposure to NAIAS, media, designers and other winners.
• Private Portfolio Review with some members of the Michelin Challenge Design Jury
• Recognition on www.michelinchallengedesign.com web site
• Recognition on www.cardesignnews.com web site
• Inclusion in Michelin Challenge Design promotional materials and events throughout the year
• Invitation to join a new Michelin Challenge Design Alumni website
• Michelin Challenge Design may also recognize a select number of entries for Honorable Mention which will be publicized on the Michelin Challenge Design and Car Design News web sites.

How to Apply: 

• No purchase necessary to participate.
• For Internet entries, visit http://www.michelinchallengedesign.com and complete and submit the online Michelin Challenge Design Entry Form with all accompanying required materials.

 Entry Portal

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Mandela Institute for Development Studies (MINDS) Diamond Empowerment Fund Scholarships 2019 for African Students

Application Deadline: Ongoing

Eligible Countries: Angola, Botswana, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Liberia, Namibia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe.

About the Award: The Fund was inspired by Nelson Mandela who encouraged DEF’s co-founders to tell the world the positive impact Africa’s diamonds were having in building healthy and educated communities on the continent.

Type: Postgraduate

Eligibility: The MINDS Diamond Empowerment Fund Scholarship will be earmarked for students from a diamond producing country whose chosen post-graduate study will be in a field that meets the needs for improving the quality of life for Africans. Preference will be given to students who want to gain critical skills in short supply on the continent, e.g. in STEM areas like biotechnology, robotics, aerospace, nanotechnology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, ICT law, mining taxation, agriculture technology, etc.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The Scholarship will cover some or all of the expenses below, depending on whether a partial or full scholarship is awarded:

• Tuition
• Accommodation and meals
• One return ticket per duration of studies
• A fixed stipend.

How to Apply: Apply now

• It is important to go through all application requirements on the Programme Webpage see link below) before applying

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

West African Research Association (WARA) Residency Fellowship 2019 for African Researchers

Application Deadline: 1st February 2019 11:59pm

Eligible Countries: West African countries

About the Award:  Each residency will last 4-8 weeks and will provide the visiting scholar with opportunities for library research, guest lecturing, and/or collaborative work with American colleagues.

Type: Research, Fellowship

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: WARA will pay the round-trip travel costs of the selected scholar as well as a stipend of $3500 to help cover meals and local transportation costs. Host institutions are encouraged to provide additional support in the form of housing, office space, library privileges, laboratory facilities, or other supports for the period of the residency.

Duration of Program:  4-8 weeks

How to Apply: All applications must be submitted online and will include:

• Name and contact information for representative of WARA host institution
• A 50-80 word abstract of the proposed residency, clearly indicating the purpose of the Residency (clearly indicate the host institution contact person)
• A proposal of no more than six (6) double-spaced pages profiling the visiting scholar, his or her proposed residency activities, how the residency will contribute to the goals of WARA, the expected impact or outcome of the residency, and any support that the host institution is prepared to contribute
• Curriculum vitae for the visiting scholar
• A letter of interest from the scholar
• A letter of support from a relevant administrator (dean, department chair, etc.) at the host institution
• Proof of citizenship in the form of a copy of the scholar’s passport (please note: only scholars who are eligible for non-immigrant visas to the U.S. will be considered)

All applications for WARA grants, including the WARA Residency Fellowship, must be submitted through the online application.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Important Notes: Please note that applications can only be made by WARA member institutions for the purpose of bringing a specific scholar to their campus. Applications from individual scholars will not be accepted.

Aga Khan Foundation Scholarship 2019/2020 for Developing Countries (Masters & PhD)

Application Deadline: 31st March 2019. In certain countries internal deadlines may be earlier.

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: The Foundation accepts applications from nationals of the following countries: Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Syria, Egypt, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Madagascar and Mozambique. In France, Portugal, UK, USA and Canada, applications are accepted from those who are originally from one of the above developing countries, are interested in development-related studies and who have no other means of financing their education.

To be taken at (country): Anywhere. However, for the 2019-20 application cycle, the Foundation will not accept applications from students planning to attend universities in UK, Germany, Sweden, Austria, Denmark, The Netherlands, Italy, Norway and Ireland.

Accepted Subject Areas? Masters and PhD focused areas are Architecture, Health, Civil Society, Planning & Building, Culture, Rural Development, Economic Development, Humanitarian Assistance, Education, Music.

About Scholarship: The Aga Khan Foundation provides a limited number of scholarships each year for postgraduate studies to outstanding students from select developing countries who have no other means of financing their studies, in order to develop effective scholars and leaders and to prepare them for employment, primarily within the AKDN. Scholarships are awarded on a 50% grant : 50% loan basis through a competitive application process once a year in June or July.
The Foundation gives priority to requests for Master’s level courses but is willing to consider applications for PhD programmes, only in the case of outstanding students who are highly recommended for doctoral studies by their professors and who need a PhD for the fulfilment of their career objectives (academic or research oriented).

Type: Masters, PhD

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: The main criteria for selecting award winners are:

1. excellent academic records,
2. genuine financial need,
3. admission to a reputable institution of higher learning and
4. thoughtful and coherent educational and career plans.

Candidates are also evaluated on their extra-curricular interests and achievements, potential to achieve their goals and likelihood to succeed in a foreign academic environment. Applicants are expected to have some years of work experience in their field of interest.
Preference is given to students under 30 years of age.

Number of Scholarships: A limited number of scholarship will be available

Value of Scholarship: The Foundation assists students with tuition fees and living expenses only. The cost of travel is not included in AKF scholarships. Applicants are requested to make every effort to obtain funding from other sources as well, so that the amount requested from the Foundation can be reduced to a minimum. Preference is given to those who have been able to secure some funding from alternative sources.

Loan Conditions: Half of the scholarship amount is considered as a loan, which must be reimbursed with an annual service charge of 5%. A guarantor is required to co-sign the loan agreement. The payback period is five years, starting six months after the study period funded by the Aga Khan Foundation.

How long will sponsorship last? For the duration of the degree programme

How to Apply:

• Application forms can be obtained from the Aga Khan Foundation or Aga Khan Education Board/Service office in the applicant’s country of current residence
• Completed applications should be returned to the agency from which the form was obtained, or to the address indicated on the front of the form. They should not be sent to Geneva.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details