Editorial 1 : Arabia and Parsia matter
Introduction: The direct strikes and counter strikes over the last few days between Israel and Iran may have just done enough to signal political resolve and demonstrate the military capability to attack each other while carefully avoiding the escalation of the conflict — bilateral as well as regional across the Middle East.
How a wider conflict in the Middle East was averted?
- Both sides took enough precautions to avoid major civilian targets, and communication through various channels may have given enough early warning for effective defences against the strikes.
- Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, might have liked to escalate the war with Iran and draw the US into the firefight against Tehran.
- But the Biden Administration’s refusal to support that plan and Washington’s pressure to avoid retaliation against Iran’s attack did not stop Tel Aviv but appear to have tempered the nature of the Israeli response.
- Iran, comfortable in its proxy war against Israel, has no desire to be drawn into a costly confrontation with the US with unpredictable political consequences.
- A wider conflagration in the Middle East has been staved off, at least for now.
The Abraham Accord survived Israel’s action in Gaza
- The military duel between Israel and Iran has drawn attention to a dynamic in the region that the Indian public debate barely pays attention to — the intensity of the contradictions between Iran and the Sunni Arab states.
- The willingness of the moderate Arab leaders to help Israel defend itself against Iranian attack — explicitly by Jordan and less so by others — underlines the convergence of Israeli and Arab interests in countering Iran’s brazen destabilisation of the region through its various proxies like the Hamas.
- It was this shared regional interest that produced the Washington-brokered Abraham Accords in 2020, which sought to promote reconciliation between Israel and the moderate Arab regimes.
- It is noteworthy that the Abraham Accords have survived the horrendous Israeli military campaign in Gaza that has taken at least 30,000 lives.
India must weigh in favour of peace and the two-state solution
- India, which has supported the Abraham Accords, does not want to be drawn into the conflict between Gulf Arabs and Iran.
- This is not surprising given the high stakes it has in the relations with both sides.
- After all, both Arabia and Persia matter for peace and prosperity in the Subcontinent.
- That does not mean India should remain a passive bystander in the Middle East.
- Instead, it should put its full diplomatic weight behind the Arab plans for a two-state solution in Palestine that could find a way between Tehran’s cynical hijacking of the issue and Tel Aviv’s equally cynical refusal to abide by the promises it has made on Palestinian statehood.
The way forward suggested by Arab nations
- The Arab initiative involves several elements — an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the insertion of an Arab peace force, an Israeli commitment to an irreversible roadmap for a Palestinian state, the mobilisation of Arab resources for the reconstruction of Gaza and the West Bank, and US security guarantees for the Gulf.
- To be sure, the Middle East is littered with failed initiatives, but the current crises in the region may have opened some wiggle room for thinking boldly about peace.
- For India, the stakes in the Arab-Israeli peace today are higher than ever before.
Conclusion: There remains room for peace in West Asia, despite Iran-Israel clashes. India should put its weight behind Arab plans for a two-state solution.
Editorial 2 : A many splendoured field
Introduction: Voting is now underway in the largest democratic exercise on the planet. It is a complex exercise that led to some misunderstanding by outside observers, especially Western media.
The massiveness of Indian elections
- To put the scale of the Indian electoral process into perspective it is important to recognise that the number of voters in India, at 969 million, is more than the combined voters across the United States, Indonesia, Russia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, South Africa and Mexico.
- The size of the Indian electorate is more than the entire population of Europe.
- With more than 5.5 million electronic voting machines deployed across 1.05 million polling stations, Indian democracy puts to shame even the advanced West in its embrace of technology to make democracy work at the scale of a billion.
- With several thousand registered political parties and many more thousand candidates, elections in India are a testament to the resilience of democracy in the face of geographical diversity and socio-economic complexities.
The poor understanding of Indian democracy by global media
- The scale and complexity of democracy in India is poorly understood by much of the global media and many Western observers which results in patently absurd pronunciations on the health of Indian Democracy based on flawed assessments.
- Two illustrative examples should make this quite apparent.
- In a recent comment noted geopolitical expert and the President of Eurasia Group, Ian Bremmer observed that in Mexico at least 22 mayoral candidates had been murdered since September 2023.
- One would think that murderous political violence of this nature that not only impacts outcomes in electoral democracy but results in a pervasive climate of fear, ought to have a bearing on the democratic ranking of Mexico.
- Incidentally, the famed V-Dem Index of Democracy ranks Mexico at 81, several notches above India which was ranked at 110.
- Contradictions of this nature are not limited to the Democracy Index alone.
- The Press Freedom Index of RSF ranks Mexico well above India when in fact according to the Reuters Institute of Journalism, Oxford University, Mexico is the most dangerous country for journalists, recording more journalistic deaths in the line of duty than the war zones of Ukraine and Syria.
The democratic backsliding allegation is not substantiated by ground reality in India
- A commonly used phrase in much of the global commentary spelling doom on Indian democracy is “democratic backsliding”.
- It is puzzling how routinely and often mindlessly this phrase is applied in the context of India despite the country’s electoral system being as vibrant as ever before with both the ruling BJP and the opposition Congress party winning and losing state elections every election season.
- Another oft-repeated claim is about the “shrinking freedom of expression”, a claim that flies in the face of the diversity of opinion that is expressed every day across the spectrum of media, traditional and digital, apart from a noisy and raucous social media.
The independence of constitutional bodies is intact
- India’s independent institutions from the courts to the Election Commission have maintained a high degree of integrity that rises above the partisan rhetoric of everyday politics.
- A case in point is the recent Supreme Court ruling on electoral bonds that went against the government weeks before the elections were due.
- Similarly, the Election Commission has been even handed in its enforcement of the model code of conduct ahead of the elections.
India’s ruling party is not cynically anti-opposition
- Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also stumped his critics and media observers more than once with his outreach across the political spectrum.
- Of particular note is the decision by the Modi government to confer the Bharat Ratna on former President, the late Pranab Mukherjee, who belonged to the Congress Party.
- Modi has set aside partisan considerations to bestow state honours on more than 15 politicians across parties and regions.
- This includes many current and former political rivals such as Sharad Pawar, Ghulam Nabi Azad and the late Chief Minister of West Bengal Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee apart from the late P A Sangma from Meghalaya and the iconic film personality Chiranjeevi.
- Most recently PM Modi has also honoured iconic stalwarts of diverse ideological persuasions with the Bharat Ratna like the late Charan Singh, P V Narasimha Rao and Karpoori Thakur, all of who had little in common politically either with the BJP or its parent organisation the Jan Sangh.
- In fact, under Modi’s premiership, the widest pantheon of leaders and iconic personalities across political parties and ideological persuasions from every region of India have been recognised, celebrated and even given a prominent space in the newly built Museum of Prime Ministers.
- In the face of this outreach across the political spectrum, it is strange that alarmist pronouncements on the so-called stifling of political opposition have been made.
- While the political level playing field in India remains as competitive as ever before, what we are witnessing is specific political parties and individual political leaders being held accountable for alleged acts of corruption and tax evasion.
Western democracies have different views on the rule of law
- A striking feature of most Western democracies is the unflinching manner in which the rule of law gets applied irrespective of political station or ideological persuasion.
- Politicians at all levels in Western democracies have been held to account for their acts of omission and commission including some serving jail time.
- In stark contrast, arguments advanced by global media commentators seem to call for circumventing the law in India to suit the political convenience of specific parties and individuals.
- These arguments, by casting doubts on the process of law, are contemptuous of the independence of the judiciary which continues to be ever vigilant in upholding the Constitution.
Conclusion: Indian democracy is vibrant and competitive. The Indian state has upheld the rule of law without compromising on constitutional values. By failing to make this critical distinction, those who are spelling doom on democracy in India have unwittingly reduced themselves to agents of partisan politics in India.