Posts

Posted on

516: CASTE-BASED RESERVATIONS

 

 

Caste-based reservations, a response to centuries of historical inequalities and discrimination, are affirmative action policies implemented in India and a few other South Asian countries. These policies aim to uplift marginalised communities by providing them with reserved quotas in education, government jobs, and political representation. The goal is to promote social justice, equal opportunity, and access to resources for those systematically excluded due to their caste.

 

Background on the Caste System. The caste system has been a hierarchical social stratification in South Asia for thousands of years, particularly in Hindu society. It divides people into rigid categories based on occupation and family lineage. The four main varnas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras) form the broader structure, with “Dalits” (formerly referred to as “Untouchables”) and Adivasis (Indigenous tribes) falling outside the formal varna system, facing extreme discrimination and exclusion. Despite the legal abolishment of caste-based discrimination in India, these social structures continue to influence access to resources, social mobility, and opportunities to a large extent.

 

 

Objectives of Caste-Based Reservations

 

    • Social Justice. Caste-based reservations aim to correct centuries of oppression and discrimination against lower castes, especially Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). By providing them with reserved quotas in education, government jobs, and political representation, these policies not only strive to bring about a more just and equitable society in the present but also pave the way for a more optimistic future.

 

    • Equal Opportunity. Caste-based reservations are a crucial step towards providing historically marginalised communities with access to education and employment opportunities they were denied due to their caste. These policies aim to rectify past injustices and create a more inclusive society by ensuring equal opportunities.

 

    • Political Representation. To ensure that marginalised communities have a voice in governance by reserving seats for them in political institutions such as state legislatures and Parliament.

 

    • Economic Upliftment. Another important objective of caste-based reservations is contributing to society’s economic upliftment. These policies aim to help bridge the socioeconomic gap between the upper castes and the historically disadvantaged groups by offering reservations in jobs and educational institutions.

 

Key Features of Caste-Based Reservations

 

    • Educational Quotas. Some seats are reserved in public educational institutions for SC, ST, and OBC students. This is meant to increase access to higher education for marginalised communities who may not have had the same opportunities.

 

    • Government Job Quotas. Reservations also exist in government jobs, where a proportion of positions are reserved for SCs, STs, and OBCs. This has been crucial in enabling economic mobility and representation of lower-caste individuals in the public sector.

 

    • Political Reservations. In Parliament, state legislative assemblies, and local bodies like Panchayats, a proportion of seats are reserved for SC and ST candidates, ensuring their participation in the political process.

 

Legal Framework.

 

    • The Constitution of India (1950). The Indian Constitution, under Articles 15 and 16, provides for affirmative action and explicitly allows caste-based reservations to promote social and educational advancement for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.

 

    • Mandal Commission (1980). One of the most significant legal steps towards caste-based reservations was the Mandal Commission’s recommendation of a 27% reservation for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions, which was later implemented in the 1990s. This was in addition to the existing reservations for SCs (15%) and STs (7.5%).

 

Controversies and Criticisms of Caste-Based Reservations

 

    • Merit vs. Social Justice. One of the primary arguments against caste-based reservations is that they undermine meritocracy by reserving seats for individuals based on caste rather than merit or ability. Critics argue that this can lower overall standards in education and employment.

 

    • Perpetuation of Caste Identity. Opponents claim that caste-based reservations reinforce caste identities rather than diminishing them, as the system incentivises individuals to retain their caste identity for social and economic benefits.

 

    • Economic Inequality Overlooked. Critics argue that reservations based solely on caste ignore economic inequalities within castes. Upper-caste individuals in poverty may be just as disadvantaged as lower-caste individuals but lack access to the same benefits.

 

    • Exclusion of Forward Castes. Many from the so-called “upper castes” or “forward castes” believe that they are being unfairly disadvantaged, notably economically weaker sections (EWS) among them. The Indian government responded to this criticism by introducing a 10% quota for EWS (Economically Weaker Sections) in 2019, which applies to those who do not benefit from existing reservations.

 

    • Intra-Caste Inequality. Significant socioeconomic status variations within the reserved categories (SCs, STs, and OBCs) exist. Some argue that the benefits of reservations are disproportionately enjoyed by a small segment of these communities, referred to as the “creamy layer,” while the most disadvantaged remain excluded.

 

Justifications and Support for Caste-Based Reservations

 

    • Corrective Action: Proponents argue that reservations correct the historical injustices and discrimination faced by SCs, STs, and OBCs. They help level the playing field in a society where social mobility has traditionally been constrained by caste.

 

    • Breaking the Cycle of Poverty: Reservations have helped create a middle class among Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs, who have benefitted from better access to education and jobs. This breaks the cycle of generational poverty and promotes upward mobility.

 

    • Social Inclusion: Caste-based reservations promote social inclusion and ensure that all sections of society have a voice in the political process and access to economic opportunities.

 

    • Empowerment of Marginalised Groups: Political and economic empowerment through reservations is crucial for developing marginalised communities historically excluded from power structures.

 

Alternatives and Proposals for Reform

 

    • Economic Criteria for Reservations. Some have proposed shifting from a caste-based to an income-based reservation system to address concerns about economic inequality across all castes. However, this is controversial as caste discrimination persists irrespective of financial status.

 

    • Reducing Caste Quotas over Time. Others have suggested a phased reduction in reservations as more marginalised communities attain socioeconomic parity with forward castes. This approach sees reservations as a temporary corrective rather than a permanent feature.

 

    • Focusing on Education at Primary Levels. Many argue that addressing inequality through better access to primary and secondary education, rather than reservations at higher levels, would better prepare marginalised communities for competition in a merit-based system.

 

Caste-based reservations are an intensely debated but integral part of India’s affirmative action framework, which aims to redress historical injustices and provide opportunities for marginalised groups. While these policies have successfully promoted social mobility and political representation, they continue to generate controversy over merit, economic inequality, and the persistence of caste identity in public life. Whether or not reforms or alternatives emerge, caste-based reservations remain central to discussions on equality, justice, and social transformation in India.

 

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome.

 

645
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

 

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

 

Posted on

515: KURSK INCURSION: TURNING THE TABLES

 

 

My OPED published on the EurAsian Times website on 30 Sep 24.

 

In an unexpected move, On Aug. 6, Ukraine surprised the world by launching a bold pre-emptive offensive attack into Russian territory. Reportedly, over 1000 Ukrainian troops, along with armour, crossed into Kursk Oblast, a Russian region that borders Ukraine to the southeast. Ukraine’s cross-border attack named “Operation Krepost” on Russia’s Kursk region is the most significant incursion by Ukrainian forces into Russian territory since the start of the war. In this operation, Ukraine claims to have seized over 1,000 square kilometres of territory and captured several settlements and hundreds of Russian soldiers. The Kursk attack is distinct in the scale of resources used by Ukraine and its highly secretive nature. The event represents a turning point in the war and global geopolitics, shifting the initiative temporarily from Moscow to Kyiv. It has sparked widespread debate, highlighting the conflict’s potential for escalation and geographical expansion and raising questions about the underlying objectives behind this move and its possible future repercussions.

 

Surprise, Shock and Awe. Any move into Russia required a surprise. The Ukrainian attack on Kursk was a stunning display of surprise in modern warfare. By employing a mix of operational secrecy, deception, and tactical manoeuvring, Ukraine managed to achieve a surprising advantage. Ukraine had been engaging Russian forces in the eastern regions around Toretsk and Pokrovsk, giving an impression that its primary focus remained there and diverting attention away from the northern border with Kursk. Ukraine also exploited the gaps in stretched-out Russian deployment by attacking an area with lesser defences. In contrast to previous minor ones with irregular forces, the sheer magnitude of the incursion misled Russian military planners, leaving them in shock and awe at the audacity of the Ukrainian troops. The plans were kept tightly under wraps, sharing them only with a tight group of generals and security officials. The attack was executed with remarkable speed and efficiency, limiting Russia’s ability to mobilise reserves and respond effectively in the early stages. This swift strike allowed Ukrainian forces to capture territory and establish control over critical areas before a complete Russian response could be coordinated.

 

Intentions and Objectives. Ukraine aimed to shift the momentum of the war by launching an offensive into Russian territory. Strategically, Ukraine aimed to divert Russian forces from other critical fronts, such as the eastern regions of Toretsk and Pokrovsk, where Russia had been advancing. While the complete success of this diversion is debated, Ukraine’s offensive has forced Russia to reassess its deployments and react to the threat. Ukraine’s objectives could also be to weaken Russia’s military capability, capture territory, and disrupt Russian supply lines. Some analysts also speculate that holding Russian territory might give Ukraine better leverage in peace negotiations in future. Besides, Ukraine needed to boost its morale after months of defensive operations. A successful offensive into Russia would showcase Ukrainian capabilities and counter Russian propaganda about an inevitable victory. These factors combined to encourage Ukraine to take the risk of crossing into Russia and launching the most significant cross-border attack of the war.

 

 

Effect on Russia. The Ukrainian attack on Kursk has had a significant effect on Russia, both militarily and politically. It has forced Russia to divert resources, exposed its military vulnerabilities, and increased internal political and psychological pressure. The Kursk Offensive has further stretched the already heavily engaged Russian military on multiple fronts, further complicating ongoing Russian offensive operations. Ukraine’s capture of territory in Kursk, including several settlements, is a blow to Russian morale and undermines the Russian invincibility. However, it has also significantly boosted Ukrainian morale, providing a much-needed psychological advantage. This also posed logistical challenges, as Ukrainian forces targeted vital supply lines and infrastructure. The Kursk attack is a psychological blow to the Russians, raising fears of further incursions and challenging the Kremlin’s portrayal of the war as distant from Russian territory. The shock of the incursion could also erode public support for the ongoing conflict as casualties rise and domestic security is threatened. The attack puts internal pressure on the Russian government.

 

Russian Response. Russian President Vladimir Putin called the incursion “a large-scale provocation” and responded by declaring an emergency, imposing heightened security measures in these areas and launching retaliatory counterattacks. Russia mobilised additional troops, mainly from regions close to Kursk, such as Belgorod and Bryansk, to stabilise the situation and prevent further Ukrainian advances. Russia escalated its aerial bombardments across Ukraine, focusing on critical infrastructure, military installations, and supply lines. These colossal airstrikes aimed to disrupt Ukraine’s operations and cripple its logistics. Several missiles (including Kinzhal, Kh-101 and Iskander missiles) and drones attacked 15 of Ukraine’s 24 regions.  Russia also deployed more drones and missile systems to target Ukrainian cities far from the front lines. Russia organised ground counteroffensives to reclaim the territory lost to Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region. These counterattacks aimed to regain control of settlements captured by Ukraine and reinforce border defences. Alongside traditional military responses, Russia reportedly increased cyber-attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and government systems, aiming to weaken Ukraine’s command and control capabilities. Diplomatically, Russia described the Ukrainian attack as a significant provocation, with President Putin labelling it as part of Ukraine’s broader strategy to destabilise Russia. The Russian government used the Kursk attack to rally domestic support for the war effort and called on international partners to limit support for Ukraine.

 

Ukraine’s Supporters.  Several nations and organisations provided critical assistance to Ukraine. The U.S. is Ukraine’s most prominent supporter, providing billions in military aid, including advanced weaponry, intelligence, and training. The U.S. has supplied systems like HIMARS and air defence platforms, which are essential to Ukraine’s defence against Russian advances. Most NATO members, particularly those in Eastern Europe, like Poland, the Baltic States, and Romania, have provided substantial military aid, logistical support, and training. The European Union has also contributed financially, providing billions in aid packages. The U.K. has been a critical supporter, delivering advanced weapons systems and training Ukrainian forces. It has also played a significant diplomatic role, pushing for continued Western support for Ukraine. Canada has offered military and financial assistance to Ukraine, providing artillery systems, armoured vehicles, and drones. It has also imposed significant sanctions on Russia and supported diplomatic initiatives against the invasion. Western defence contractors, particularly from the U.S., have supplied Ukraine with essential technology and equipment. Civil society movements and non-governmental organisations in countries supporting Ukraine have also raised funds and provided humanitarian assistance. These state and non-state supporters have enabled Ukraine to continue resisting the Russian invasion, providing a vital backbone of military, economic, and diplomatic support.

 

Behind-the-scenes Support. In this instance, a debate has arisen about the direct or indirect involvement of the behind-the-scenes supporters. Washington says it was not informed about Ukraine’s plans ahead of its Aug. 6 incursion into Kursk. The United States has also said it did not take any part in the operation. Russia claims that the United States’ involvement in Ukraine’s incursion into Russia’s western Kursk region was “an obvious fact.” Russia also asserts that Western weaponry, including British tanks and U.S. rocket systems, have been used by Ukraine in Kursk. Media sources have reported that the United States and Britain have provided Ukraine with satellite imagery and other information about the Kursk region in the days after the Ukrainian attack. The intelligence was aimed at helping Ukraine keep better track of Russian reinforcements that might attack them or cut off their eventual withdrawal back to Ukraine.

 

 

Crystal Gazing. Ukraine’s advance into Kursk would culminate due to a combination of the Russian response, the number of casualties, and extended lines of communication. The Ukrainian army will probably be unable to hold all of the Russian territory it has advanced on. Kyiv is contemplating a longer-term occupation to use the land as a bargaining chip.  This will take a lot of Ukrainian resources, and enforcing a long-term occupation would depend on factors like Ukraine’s priorities, the availability and spare ability of resources, and the severity of the Russian response. The choices include consolidation on the captured terrain and partial or complete withdrawal. Partial withdrawal and consolidation seem to be the logical possibility.

 

The initial successes achieved by Kyiv in The Kursk attack have further intensified the war and raised questions about the future of the conflict. The Ukrainian offensive into Russian territory has had a profound impact on the course of the war. On one hand, it has boosted the morale of the Ukrainian army and sent a strong message to the West about Ukraine’s ability to take the offensive initiative. On the other hand, the offensive has elicited mixed reactions in Russia. The event has far-reaching repercussions on the entire war, further complicating the situation in the coming period. The war in Ukraine is a complex game, with many intertwined factors influencing the course of events. Both sides are undertaking concurrent campaigns that consume enormous resources (manpower, munitions, and supporting systems). Surge operations for short durations are possible, but sustaining them for long durations is doubtful. The future of this war mainly depends on the extent of continued Western military and political support to Ukraine.

 

Link to the Website:

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/operation-krepost-ukraines-awe-inspiring/

 

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome.

 

645
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register here:-

Subscribe

 

References

  1. Basel Haj Jasem, “Kursk: A new chapter in the Ukraine war”, Daily Sabah, 27 Aug 2024.
  1. Anastasiia Lapatina, “Six Observations—and Open Questions—on

Ukraine’s Kursk Operation”, 15 Aug 2024.

  1. Deutsche Welle, “What is behind Ukraine’s Kursk operation in Russia?” The Indian Express, New Delhi, 11 Aug 24.
  1. “Moscow says US involvement in Ukrainian incursion into Russia’s Kursk is ‘an obvious fact’”, By Reuters, 27 Aug 24
  1. Mick Ryan, “The Kursk Offensive Dilemma”, Futura Doctrina, 19 Aug 24.

Credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

Posted on

514: CONFLICTS, MILITARY SPENDING & ARMS TRANSFERS

 

 

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) launched its Yearbook 2024 on 17 June. The yearbook contains the annual assessment of the state of armaments, disarmament, and international security.

 

Summarised excerpts from the yearbook:-

 

Conflict Trends

 

Although the number of states experiencing armed conflicts fell from 55 in 2022 to 52 in 2023, the estimated number of conflict-related fatalities worldwide rose from 153,100 in 2022 to 170,700 in 2023, reaching the highest level since 2019.

 

In 2023, four conflicts were categorised as major armed conflicts (i.e. conflicts involving 10,000 or more conflict related fatalities in the year), one more than in 2022: the civil wars in Myanmar and Sudan, and the Israel–Hamas and Russia–Ukraine wars.

 

The number of high intensity armed conflicts (i.e. conflicts involving 1000–9999 conflict related fatalities) also increased, from 17 in 2022 to 20 in 2023.

 

The Russia–Ukraine war continued throughout 2023 at a high cost to both sides. Russian air attacks continued, and Ukraine began to reply in kind, although not on the same scale. Both sides sought and received ammunition and weapons from their allies. There were no formal Russian–Ukrainian peace talks during the year, and the one noteworthy diplomatic success—the 2022 Black Sea Grain Initiative—unravelled in 2023.

 

In contrast to the stalemate in Ukraine, in September 2023, Azerbaijan secured a decisive victory in its long running conflict with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh.

 

High intensity armed conflicts continued in Iraq, Syria and Yemen throughout the year.

 

Israel responded to the events of 7 October (the killing of over 1000 civilians and more than 350 Israeli soldiers and police, and the capture of around 240 hostages) by declaring a state of war for the first time since 1973. By the end of the year, more than 22,000 Palestinians had been killed in the ensuing air strikes or ground operations by Israel. Houthi forces in Yemen, claiming support for the Palestinians, started to attack commercial shipping in the Red Sea, prompting Western powers to dispatch warships to the area to address the threat.

 

Sub­Saharan Africa remained the region with the most armed conflicts, although many were low intensity conflicts (involving fewer than 1000 conflict-related fatalities), and levels of violence fluctuated considerably. There were decreases in conflict related fatalities in several countries experiencing high intensity armed conflict, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria and South Sudan. However, there were notable increases in conflict­related fatality rates elsewhere, including in Sudan (+537 per cent compared with 2022), Burkina Faso (+100 per cent) and Somalia (+28 per cent).

 

The fighting that erupted in Sudan on 15 April 2023 between forces led by rival military generals triggered a humanitarian crisis and resulted in an all-out civil war.

 

In the Sahel, a coup in Niger and a decision by Mali to expel United Nations peacekeepers added to regional tensions.

 

The Americas is the only region not to have had a major armed conflict in 2018–23. The two countries in the region with the highest number of conflict­related fatalities—Brazil and Mexico—primarily faced criminal rather than political violence in 2023. Criminal gang related violence also escalated significantly in Haiti during the year.

 

Despite the ongoing civil war in Myanmar, the overall conflict­related fatality rate for Asia and Oceania more than halved between 2021 and 2023. This was partly due to a continuing decline in conflict­related fatalities in Afghanistan following the return to power of the Taliban in 2021.

 

Military Spending

 

Estimated global military expenditure rose for the ninth consecutive year in 2023, surpassing $2.4 trillion, driven by the Russia–Ukraine war and broader geopolitical tensions.

 

The 6.8 per cent increase in total military spending in 2023 was the largest rise since 2009, pushing estimated world spending to the highest recorded level.

 

As a result, the global military burden {world military expenditure as a share of world gross domestic product (GDP)} rose to 2.3 percent.

 

Governments allocated 6.9 per cent of their budgets to the military or $306 per person.

 

Estimated military spending increased across all five geographical regions for the first time since 2009.

 

Spending by African countries rose the most (by 22 percent in 2023), while the smallest increase was in the Americas (2.2 percent).

 

The United States remained by far the largest military spender in the world. Its $916 billion expenditure was more than the combined spending of the nine other countries among the top 10 spenders and 3.1 times as large as that of the second biggest spender, China.

 

The trend for increased military spending by European states in response to Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine gained traction in 2023. 39 of the 43 countries in Europe increased military spending. The 16 per cent surge in total European expenditures was driven by a 51 per cent rise in Ukrainian spending and a 24 per cent rise in Russian spending, as well as by 10 of the 28 European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) reaching or surpassing the 2 per cent of GDP spending target in 2023.

 

Estimated military expenditures in Asia and Oceania rose for the 34th consecutive year. Half of the regional total consisted of spending by China, which grew by 6.0 per cent to reach $296 billion in 2023. China’s spending influenced spending decisions in neighbouring countries and the broader region: in Japan, for example, spending rose by 11 per cent, the largest year­-on-­year spending increase since 1972.

 

Estimated military spending in the Middle East grew by 9.0 per cent in 2023, with increases in all three of the biggest spenders in the region: Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkiye. The Israel–Hamas war was the main driver for the 24 per cent increase in Israel’s military expenditure.

 

Arms Transfer

 

Suppliers of Major Arms

 

In 2019–23, 66 states exported arms, but most were minor exporters. The 25 largest suppliers accounted for 98 per cent of the total volume of exports, and the top five (the United States, France, Russia, China, and Germany) accounted for 75 per cent.

 

The USA’s share of global exports has increased in recent years while Russia’s share has decreased. In 2019–23, the USA’s arms exports were 17 percent higher than in 2014–18, and its share of the global total increased from 34 to 42 percent. In contrast, Russia’s arms exports decreased by 53 per cent, and its share of the global total dropped from 21 to 11 per cent.

 

France’s exports rose by 47 percent between 2014–18 and 2019–23, making it the second largest exporter of major arms in 2019–23.

 

Known plans for future deliveries of major arms strongly indicate that the USA will remain unchallenged as the largest arms exporter in the coming years and that France will consolidate its position in second place. They also indicate that Russia’s arms exports may reduce even further, while some of the other current top 10 exporters are likely to remain steady or increase.

 

Recipients of Major Arms

 

In 2019–23, 170 states imported arms. The five largest importers were India, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Ukraine, and Pakistan, accounting for 35 percent of total arms imports.

 

Asia and Oceania received the largest volumes of major arms in 2019–23, accounting for 37 percent of the total, followed by the Middle East (30 percent), Europe (21 percent), the Americas (5.7 percent), and Africa (4.3 percent).

 

Between 2014–18 and 2019–23, the flow of arms to Europe increased by 94 per cent, while flows to all other geographical regions decreased: Africa (−52 per cent), Asia and Oceania (−12 per cent), the Middle East (−12 per cent) and the Americas (−7.2 per cent).

 

Many of the 170 importers are directly involved in armed conflict or in tensions with other states where the imported major arms play an important role.

 

Moreover, many exporters are direct stakeholders or participants in at least some of these conflicts and tensions, which partly explains why they are willing to supply arms, even when the supply seems to contradict their stated arms export policies. It is also noteworthy that, for most suppliers, arms exports are only a small part of the financial value of their total exports.

 

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)

 

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is an independent, international think tank based in Stockholm that provides research, data, and analysis on arms control, disarmament, military expenditure, and armed conflict. It was founded in 1966 by Alva Myrdal and Tage Erlander. SIPRI’s work is intended to help researchers, policymakers, and the public understand the state of the arms industry and the preconditions for a stable peace. 

 

SIPRI’s work is based on open sources and includes:

 

  • Databases. SIPRI’s Arms transfers, Arms industry, and Military expenditure databases provide data on nearly every country in the world.

 

  • Documents. SIPRI provides documents on arms embargoes since the 1950s and national reports on arms export controls.

 

  • Analysis. SIPRI researchers analyse the data to identify trends and potential impacts on global security. 

 

Suggestions and value additions are most welcome.

 

645
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

 

For regular updates, please register here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

 

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.