Dear Aspirants!

Follow up the Colour

Guidelines for Best Reading Experience

COLOUR Psychology

RED COLOR INDICATES……MOST IMPORTANT

( For Indicating Difficult Vocabulary, Phrases and Idioms )

GREEN COLOUR SHOWS……JUST IMPORTANT

(Names, Abbreviations, rhetorical expression and Grammar)

PURPLE COLOUR IS USED FOR……. TITLES

( Headings, sub heading )

DAWN EDITORIALS PLUS OPINIONS

Dated: Wednesday 01 July, 2020

BY: Dawn Analysts M.Usman and Rabia Kalhoro.

Note:
We pick out Opinions from different Newspapers
related to:

#Competitive Exams
#Essay Writing
#Current Affairs
#Historical episodes
#Pakistan Affairs
# General Knowledge
# Global Issues
# Geopolitics
# International Relations
# Foreign Policy
More testing needed
Reports that new coronavirus cases are decreasing across the country are indeed
welcome, but this latest trend must be analysed to get a clear picture of the threat
from the infection.

Key Points: According to the National Command and Control Centre chair
Asad Umar, the four parameters through which the spread of the virus can be
gauged — that is,

▪ the number of daily positive cases,

▪ number of admitted patients,
▪ number of patients on ventilators
▪ and number of deaths —

have all shown a decrease. While the news of fewer patients being critically ill is
undoubtedly positive, the figures for ‘lower daily positive cases’ must be examined
further. Anecdotal (Small story piece) or circumstantial evidence which suggests
that fewer people are approaching hospitals and testing labs should not be the
benchmark(reference point) for assessing the situation.

Detailed Analysis: While there could be multiple explanations behind the low
demand for Covid-19 tests, the government’s approach to testing and getting an
accurate picture of the spread of Covid-19 in communities should not be linked to the
demand for tests. Instead, the health authorities must conduct Covid-19 tests at
random in communities across the country and see what the data reveals.

Case Studies:

▪ In New Zealand, a country with a population about 50 times smaller than

that of Pakistan, the average daily testing in the month of April was about
3,500 — a test per person ratio which, if applied here, would amount to about
175,000 daily tests.
▪ In a more densely populated country such as Vietnam, the testing ratio of 791
tests for every confirmed case, too, is in sharp contrast to Pakistan’s numbers
which show six tests for every confirmed case. While these countries may
differ in size, what Vietnam and New Zealand have in common are the fact
that both have kept Covid-19 infections low.

New Zealand, which had recently celebrated no new cases, is still aggressively
testing and contact tracing travellers entering the country. This information shows
that, regardless of the extent of demand for Covid-19 tests, Pakistan’s testing capacity
must increase. That authorities were unable to cross the figure of 31,000 tests in a
single day is disappointing, and an area where more work needs to be done urgently.
The goal for 100,000 tests by July is far from being met, with the recent week
recording between just 20,000 to 25,000 tests. According to WHO chief Tedros
Adhanom Ghebreyesus, “Although many countries have made some progress,
globally the pandemic is actually speeding up.” Without a cure and with no accurate
analysis about the reportedly low figures in Pakistan, precautionary measures and
testing for Covid-19 cannot be eased.

Recommendations: As the virus spreads in other countries, Pakistan must be vigilant

and aggressive in its approach to curb its spread. Complacency in testing and
premature celebrations which are not backed by data and science will send the wrong
message, and give the public a false sense of security.
Petrol blame game
FEARS that the petrol crisis could trigger a damaging blame game within the
government are now coming true.

Key Points: The government has tried to;

▪ first blame the whole fiasco(total failure) on the oil marketing companies,
▪ then blamed its predecessors for having bequeathed(to transfer, leave
property behind) a ‘mafia’ to the country,
▪ and is now casting blame on the regulator for not having done enough through
the crisis.

Supply Chain Disruption: The central fact at play is that the crisis has grown out of
its inability to manage the supply chain at a time of great volatility in international
oil prices. Fixing the mess will take more than one price revision. It will take
sustained interface with industry, consumer groups, and those with expertise in global
oil markets to reform the pricing mechanism to bring about two specific
improvements.

▪ First is greater transparency,

▪ the second is tighter integration between domestic and international prices.This
is what is required to limit the space for manipulative behaviour. Instead, the
energy and petroleum ministry seems to be casting about to find a villain in the
whole affair.

Detailed Analysis:

The oil and gas regulator seems to be the latest in the line of fire coming from the
ministry. All through the crisis, Ogra continuously pointed out the mismanagement
that was taking place, and warned that an oil supply crisis could result from these
decisions if course correction were not undertaken rapidly. Recently, the regulator
detailed all its actions as well as the mismanagement of the ministry in a report
submitted to the cabinet, which triggered an indignant(furious) response from the
ministry.

Reports Observation:

▪ In its report, Ogra pointed specifically to the actions of the director general oil
in the Petroleum Division, who took it upon himself to alter decisions that had
already been made. It also drew attention to the ministry’s
lumbering(clumsily) attempt to try and operate the oil supply chain via
command, first by ordering oil marketing companies “to cancel their planned
imports” on March 25, a ban that remained in place till April 26, and then by
ordering two refineries to resume production to ensure diesel stocks for the
harvest season. The ministry also tried to blame Ogra for not doing enough to
ensure industry players maintain their required mandatory 20 days’ stock, but
the regulator had a clear reply that this was the ministry’s own job.

Way Forward:

This latest round in the blame game will get us nowhere. The emphasis must be on
reform, not blame.
Palestine land grab
Introduction :

IF all goes according to plan, Israel will initiate the latest phase of its colonial
land grab of Palestinian territory today by annexing (attach) West Bank
settlements and the Jordan Valley. While international opinion has roundly
condemned this blatant(noticeable) illegality, the Israelis have little to fear
as they have American support to back them up in this crime.

Key Points to be Considered:

▪ In fact, were it not for Donald Trump’s widely panned(express

negative Opinion) ‘deal of the century’ — a euphemism(soft-word)
for complete Palestinian surrender and an Israeli declaration of victory
that spells the end(confirm the end of something) of the two-state
solution — those ruling Tel Aviv may not have attempted such a bold
affront (insult, offense) to international law.
▪ UN human rights chief Michelle Bachelet did not mince (to make
words polite of disapproval) her words when she said that “annexation
is illegal. Period,” while adding that the move would be “disastrous for
the Palestinians”.

Ever since the Nakba — the great Palestinian catastrophe, dislocation and
mass exodus(immigration) that accompanied the founding of the state of
Israel in 1948 — Zionists have been gnawing away(eating) at Arab land.

▪ This expropriation(confiscate) gained considerable speed after the

humiliating 1967 Arab-Israeli War, and today, if Israel and its
powerful patrons go ahead with their grim plan, any hopes of a viable
(possible) Palestinian state will be buried forever.
▪ What Mr Trump’s plan envisages(visionary plan) is a
bantustan,(place set aside) little more than a glorified concentration
camp where the Arabs can be locked up, out of sight and out of mind,
while Israel is free to devour(tear to pieces)choicee Palestinian land
and plant its flag on it. Both major Palestinian factions — Hamas and
Fatah — have denounced Tel Aviv’s plan, with Hamas warning that
annexation would be a “declaration of war”.

Conclusion:

The fact is that the Palestinians have no choice but to resist; accepting the
imposition of an apartheid(racial) state on their land will spell the end of the
Palestinian dream of a workable state with Al Quds as its capital. The
international community must not remain silent in the face of Israeli
impunity(no fear of law enforcement)and speak up for the dispossessed
Palestinians.
 Narendra Modi on horns of dilemma? | Pakistan Today
www.pakistantoday.com.pk

Chinese `Go’ versus Indian Chess

Topic: Chinese expansionist policy VS India’s revisionist policy

Introduction :

India’s denial of Landakh land loss of approx. 1500 km : Opposition from Rahul
Gandhi

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi called chest-thumping Narendra Modi `surrender

Modi’. While addressing the all-party conference, Prime Minister Modi said,
“Neither have they[Chinese] intruded into our border, nor has any post been taken
over by them (China)”. He added, “no one can take even an ‘inch of the land’ The
media alleged that China had taken over 640 sq km of Ladakh territory. This fact had
been recorded by former foreign secretary Shyam Saran in his 2013 report. But, this
allegation was rebutted not only by Saran himself but also by former Defence
Minister AK Antony. Even “The Indian army denied that Ladakh had shrunk.
Change in the river course was cited as a reason for the loss of 500-1,500 metres
of land annually.

India’s ‘Fight or flight’ response to China’s expansionist policy

Shortly after, India warned China not to alter the status quo ante. (the previously
existing state of affairs) Modi’s reaction epitmises the ‘fight or flight response’.
Despite whirlwind tours of forward airfields, he did not threaten China with surgical
strikes.

India had been nibbling at China all along the Line Of Actual Control. Both
countries had been strengthening their infrastructure since Doklam faceoff.

China wouldn’t let India have its strategic highlands : Response of China to
India for criticizing CPEC

China was particularly irked at India’s unilateral reorganising of Jammu and

Kashmir and Ladakh, and India’s opposition to the $60-billion China Pakistan
Economic Corridor (CPEC). China wanted to pre-empt India from dominating the
Durbuk-DBO road, to strengthen its position in the Fingers area, and halt the
construction of link roads in Galwan-Pangong Tso [salt lake].

Claims of Galwan Valley and recent Sino-Indian ladakh stand-off : Indo-US

strategic plans of containing China

The Galwan hills protrude into the lake like fingers. They are numbered 1 to 8
from west to east. According to India, the LAC lies at Finger 8, but China points
to Finger 4. John Bolton’s memoirs The Room Where It Happened should be an eye
opener for India. The USA, under America-First. props up India as a proxy gladiator
against China. But, in reality, `India was of “marginal concern of the US national
security advisor during his term in office. Bolton did not take the India-Pakistan
border clash of 2019 very seriously’. Sanjaya Baru points out `Former NSA
Bolton’s book raises questions about US commitment to India’s national
security.’

Hefty investment of China in Indian :slogan to boycott Chinese products can

worsen the rising hostility

There are shrill calls in India to boycott Chinese products. But an economic blockade
is a lot easier said than done. So far India and China have only delayed entry of goods
into each other’s country. The Indian Railways cancelled a Rs.4.71-billion
contract for signaling equipment with the Chinese Beijing National Railway
Research and Design Institute of Signal and Communication, citing inadequate
pace of work. The contract, signed in 2016, was for Dedicated Freight Corridor
Corporation of India Limited. In the telecom sector, BSNL has indicated that it
will not use Chinese equipment for 4G upgradation.

India was able to create difficulties for Pakistan through US support. The freedom
struggle in Kashmir was portrayed as `terrorism’. However, Bolton’s book reveals
that India does not figure prominently in USA’s national security calculus. US
administrations view India-USA relations through the lens of nuclear non-
proliferation, Afghanistan exit and China-Russia relations.

Inter-reliance of India and China for balancing budget deficit

Yet India remains a major importer of crucial Chinese antibiotics and

pharmaceutical ingredients, telecom equipment and semi-conductor devices.
China’s investment in India has jumped by leaps and bounds. They rose from $1.6
billion in 2014 to $8 billion in 2017. These are in sectors as broad-based as
automobiles, electronics and pharmaceuticals and are across the country. One of the
top destinations is Gujarat, which the BJP has ruled for 19 years. Other States such as
Haryana, Karnataka and Maharashtra also received Chinese investments in
infrastructure projects over the past decade. The 2018 report titled “Impact of
Chinese Goods on Indian Industry” pointed out that bilateral trade between
India and China increased from $38 billion in 2007-08 to $89.6 billion in 2017-
18, and of this, the rise in imports from China was of $50 billion, while Indian
exports increased only by $2.5 billion. The report further pointed out that trade
with China constituted more than 40 percent of India’s total trade deficit. It
identified several key areas where Chinese trade was galloping, including
pharmaceuticals, solar power and textiles. Iye noted that China was even dominating
the firecracker industry. According to the report, India’s dependence on China for
life-saving drugs was 90 percent, and in solar energy China’s penetration was up
to 84 percent.

Indian moves of unilaterally occupying strategically important areas provoke

China to assert a strong response

To India’s chagrin, Nepal legislatively amended its maps to show Kala Pani and
some other areas as part of Nepalese territory. It allowed China to occupy Gorkha
Rui village and strategic lands at 11 places across Nepal, around 36 hectares in
four districts.

Differing strategies: Chinese strategist Sun Tzu’s aphorism says “If you know
neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. If you know
yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If
you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred
battles”.

China’s regional “Go” game giving tough time to Indians regional chess play

Wily India is playing chess with China to checkmate it. But, China is playing the
strategy game “igo”, commonly known as “Go”. It is played on a much larger board
19×19 sides resulting in 361 points, compared to 64 squares in chess.In Go, the
stones are positioned on the “intersections” of the squares to deny “liberty” to the
opponent’s stones. Go also has white and black pieces called stones, but that is where
the similarity with chess ends.

The objective of Go is not to capture any single piece; instead, it is to surround a

larger total area of the board with one’s stones before the opponent. As the game
progresses, the players position stones on the board to map out formations and
potential territories.

Contests between opposing formations result in the expansion, reduction, or capture

and loss of stones. The winner is decided by counting each player’s surrounded
territory along with captured stones.
China has been playing Go, on a multi-dimensional canvas much larger than the
Indian landmass and across several spectra, ranging from the military to the
economic “intersections”, blocking India’s “liberty” or maneuverability over a
long period.

Despite several peace treaties its India who always ignite confrontations

It was India, not China, which set the ball rolling at roulette. India allowed its
troops to use arms against China if necessary. This discretion is contrary to four
India-China bilateral agreements on maintaining peace and tranquility at the India-
China border. These were concluded in 1993, 1996, 2005 and 2013, over a period of
20 years. The use of arms by Indian forces when engaging with Chinese counterparts
will inevitably lead to similar action by the latter. Realizing the pitfalls of using arms,
India has pulled back angry troops to the hinterland.

Doklam incident opened China’s eyes. There India intervened and stopped China
road work at ostensibly Bhutan’s request (India has no border with China at Doklam).
It appears that China knows what India has up its sleeve.

Ceding Aksai Chin, China would fundamentally alter the status of J&K and
Ladakh

Stobden in a newspaper article last year `China’s past border tactics, especially in
Central Asia, offer India a clue’points out, `If India falls for some kind of Chinese
position over Aksai Chin, Beijing will then shift the focus to Arunachal to
emphatically claim 90,000 sq km from India. Ceding Aksai Chin would
fundamentally alter the status of J&K and Ladakh’. No more integral part. Just
`might is right’ or `jis ki lathi us ki bhains‘ (he who has the staff, has the cow).
India was able to create difficulties for Pakistan through US support. The freedom
struggle in Kashmir was portrayed as `terrorism’. However, Bolton’s book reveals
that India does not figure prominently in USA’s national security calculus. US
administrations view India-USA relations through the lens of nuclear non-
proliferation, Afghanistan exit and China-Russia relations.

India is envious of China’s growing economic clout. Fear of rising China may
lead to more confrontations like the recent one on the Sikkim border.
Promised land
Mahir Ali July 01, 2020

Mahir Ali

TODAY is the promised day for the Promised Land, the deadline Benjamin
Netanyahu set himself for initiating his plan to annex Judea and Samaria, better
known as the West Bank, and at least vaguely recognised internationally as
Palestinian territory. At his latest — and perhaps last, though it would be imprudent
to bet on it — swearing-in ceremony as the prime minister of Israel, Netanyahu
talked up the proposed annexation as “another glorious chapter in the history of
Zionism”.

During the third election campaign within 12 months, the prospect was dangled as
bait to attract the right-wing vote. It wasn’t a monumental success, given that
Netanyahu’s Likud party had to struggle to form a coalition, which now includes his
most prominent rival, Blue and White party leader Benny Gantz, as defence minister
and “alternate prime minister”.

Gantz is not quite as enthusiastic about annexation as his boss but hardly in a position
to oppose it outright. In fact, some of the strongest opposition comes from a slightly
surprising source: the most virulent elements among the West Bank settler leadership.

It’s not the idea of annexation itself that upsets them. It’s the likelihood of a semi-
annexation. The contours of Netanyahu’s plan were unclear at the time of writing, but
reports suggest it involves the Jordan Valley and about 30 per cent of the West Bank.
According to the Trump administration’s version of the plot, the ostensible idea is
that the remaining 60pc or so would provide the basis for Palestinian ‘statehood’.

Even the White House has switched its green light to amber.

That is far too ridiculous a proposition for even a halfwit to seriously entertain, so the
more deeply embedded settlers’ fears of being adjacent to, let alone surrounded by, a
Palestinian state are unfounded, but their intolerance stretches to not wishing to live
anywhere in the vicinity of territory where there is even a semblance of Palestinian
self-rule.

Hence they favour total annexation of the West Bank. Many of them would probably
be shocked to learn that such a stance effectively puts them on the same page as those
on the left who argue that pushing the 1967 occupation to its logical conclusion — a
goal that most Israeli regimes since then have at least secretly aspired to — would
finally lay to rest the absurdist fiction of a ‘two-state solution’ and compel Israel to
choose between either becoming a multiethnic democracy or formalising its long-
standing essence as an apartheid state.

Choosing the latter course would, in the ideal scenario, eventually entail
acknowledging its untenability, as South Africa did some four decades after
formalising apartheid.

The one-state solution may, for the moment, be a pipe dream. It holds out the
possibility, though, of an imaginable future in which Israel transforms itself into the
kind of entity it has always pretended to be: a genuine democracy in a region
dominated by autocracies, instead of an American-sponsored malignancy envied by
its Middle Eastern neighbours near and far — from Egypt and Jordan to Saudi Arabia
and the UAE — for all the wrong reasons.

The threat of annexation has sparked predictable responses, with a broad range of
nations and organisations advising against such a move, and some even ‘threatening’
to impose sanctions (even if it’s only on products from the West Bank). Perhaps
somewhat more alarmingly for Netanyahu, even the White House has switched its
green light to amber, suggesting it may be opportune to wait a while.

But the impressionable Donald Trump can easily change his mind, so it’s not hard to
imagine the Israeli hierarchy monitoring his Twitter feed for relevant signals. With
his polling numbers dwindling, the US president must be keen to preserve one of his
most solid constituencies — not American Jews, many of whom traditionally vote
Democrat, and whose younger generations are anyhow not particularly wedded to the
Zionist ideal, but evangelical Christians, who have long entertained dark fantasies
about an apocalyptic final conflict involving Israel facilitating the ‘rapture’ and the
‘end times’.

It’s one thing for Trump to relish such support, and quite another for the Israeli
leadership to buy into an eschatology that entails its destruction — and just last week
the Jewish state demonstrated the limits of its indulgence by pulling the plug on the
proselytising satellite channel God TV. More generally, though, it’s happy to play
along. And even the foreign current critics of its annexationist tendencies seem more
concerned about how this will turn out for Israel — in terms of its security and
international diplomacy, than about Palestinian rights.

A partial annexation will, at most, be followed by a chorus of admonitions, but little

or no meaningful action, especially from the Arab states that have long been cosying
up to Israel even as it continued to establish ‘facts on the ground’ to consolidate its
occupation.

And yet, whichever way Netanyahu chooses to go, there could be surprises in store.
Dangerous delusions
Zahid Hussain Updated July 01, 2020

The writer is an author and journalist.

SPEAKING at a dinner for coalition lawmakers recently, the prime minister had
boasted: “we are the only choice”. Maybe his words were meant to calm down
disgruntled allies and were also a way of letting an increasingly aggressive
opposition, baying for his blood, know that he was not going anywhere. But whose
‘choice’ was he alluding to?

It was not a speech given at the hustings. For some, it amounted to a habitual
arrogance and a feeling of illusory superiority. But there was more to the assertion
that came in the midst of the widening cracks within a fragile coalition and growing
discontent within party ranks.

Some observers took the prime minister’s remarks as meant for the security
establishment, ie ‘we are still your best bet’. It is evident that the establishment’s
continued support is critical to keeping intact a fractious ruling coalition that has been
further shaken by the exit of Akhtar Mengal’s BNP-M and the threats of some other
parties to abandon ship.

Moreover, the public remarks of cabinet ministers have further added to the
government’s woes. Surely the passing of the budget has come as a relief for the
ruling elite, but the crisis of confidence is far from over. A major challenge for the
prime minister is how to save the coalition from falling apart.

The opposition seems to have become more coherent and forceful in

challenging the government.

Meanwhile, a seemingly more united opposition has stepped up its attack targeting
the prime minister in particular. The government’s mishandling of the ongoing
pandemic, the worsening economic situation, and the various scandals highlighting
the crisis of governance have provided the opposition ammunition with which to
target a beleaguered administration.

That has at least forced the prime minister to come down from his pedestal and try
and placate disgruntled allies and appease party dissidents. It has certainly not been
Imran Khan’s approach to get directly involved in such political manoeuvring. The
responsibility had earlier been left to Jahangir Tareen and some other party leaders.

The dinner that was followed with a series of meetings with allied party leaders is
seen by many as a desperate attempt on Prime Minister Imran Khan’s part to salvage
the situation. But there are still questions regarding how he can emerge from what
can only be described as a subjective reality.One tangible change in the prime
minister, perhaps prompted by internal criticism, is his more frequent appearances in
the National Assembly in the past week. That is certainly a good omen. But some of
his remarks during the budget session have certainly exposed a lack of understanding
of some critical national security issues.

For instance, the comment in which Osama bin Laden was described as a
‘martyr’ did not appear to be a slip of the tongue but something that he really
believed. He has never been clear about the threat that militancy and terrorism pose
to this country. One wonders what was the need for raising the OBL issue that has
caused embarrassment to the country. But it is not the first time that such comments
have been made by the prime minister, that risk misrepresenting Pakistan’s position
on critical foreign and security policy issues.The real issue, however, is whether or
not the prime minister can improve governance and deliver on his promise of change.
Almost two years in power, the government is still struggling to find a direction and
is lacking in several areas. Policy bungling, whether it involves sugar or petroleum, is
conveniently blamed on some unidentified mafias.

‘Accountability’ is the new mantra for the government that uses it in order to distract
attention from its own disastrous performance in practically all fields and public
institutions. Unfortunately, the government is not showing itself to be capable of
rational judgement. Many believe that the government’s increasing dependence on
the security establishment for survival has further undermined its ability to improve
and correct course. Is there a feeling in the top leadership that it is indispensable to
those who are perceived as having brought them to power? If so, some lessons should
be drawn from Pakistan’s political history that shows how the game of thrones
changes in this country.

There have been many others in the past, who have suffered from a similar sense of
being indispensable, but it took no time at all for them to fall from grace. They have
learnt this history lesson hard. By weakening parliament and other institutions of the
state, a government digs its own grave.The establishment’s extending shadow can be
discerned in all dimensions of the state, and the perpetual state of confrontation
among political forces gives it further space. The power balance has long been
perceived as residing in Pindi and, given the worsening political confrontation, the
establishment is once again emerging as an arbiter of political power in the country.

Despite being under constant pressure because of their leaders being jailed or
summoned by NAB for investigation, the opposition seems to have become more
coherent and forceful in challenging the government. Its strategy now seems to
encourage an in-house change through an internal party revolt.

The old minus-one formula is once again being talked about. That has not worked in
the past and it’s not likely to deliver this time either. It presumes extra-parliamentary
intervention that would have its own political consequences. It seems that the
opposition realises that mid-term elections will not provide any solution to the
multiple challenges the country is facing at the moment. In fact, it will further
intensify political polarisation, which this country cannot afford.

There is an urgent need for a broader political consensus on dealing with the serious
health, economic and governance crises. That is only possible if the prime minister
accepts the gravity of the situation. For that, he needs to cast aside dangerous
delusions such as ‘we are the only choice’ and ‘après moi, le déluge’.
Visa disaster
Rafia Zakaria Updated July 01, 2020

The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.

INDIA has been having a bad summer. The Nepalese have face-palmed them, the
Chinese have taken territory they said belonged to them, and now Donald Trump has
dealt a deathblow to hundreds of thousands of Indians. Last Monday, June 22,
President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order that mandated an immediate
stop in the processing of all H-1B, J, and L visas. The order, which is already in
effect, is set to expire at the end of the year and will primarily affect Indian tech
workers who make up over 70 per cent of all grantees in the H-1B category. Those
who already hold H-1B visas are not expected to be impacted by the order, although
it is unclear whether H-1B extensions will continue to be processed.

Over the past decade, US tech companies like Google and Microsoft have employed
hundreds of thousands of engineers in the sector. In addition to them, Indian
companies like Infosys and Tata, which have also established a presence in Silicon
Valley, were also using the visas to bring high-skilled Indian workers to the US. In
addition to the H-1B visa, which is usually capped at about 85,000 issuances a year,
awarded by a lottery system, Indian firms in the US had already become quite adept
at using an L visa for intra-company transfers to bring thousands of Indian workers to
the US.

Now those days have come to an end. Trump administration officials complained that
these companies were using third party and outsourcing companies to bring in
workers who were paid less than American workers and were thus responsible for
driving down American wages. An analysis of the numbers does show that firms like
Tata and Infosys were filing for thousands of visas (far more than employers like
Apple and Amazon) and were paying workers on average about 70pc of what an
American worker would have been paid. Since the employees were beholden to the
employers, who were their ticket to the US labour market, they could never complain
about this (if their wages were lower than what was stated in the paperwork) or bring
it to the attention of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. The companies
have long denied the allegation, but a look at the statistics does make a case for the
Trump administration; last year, 278,491 visas went to Indians, about 50,408 to
Chinese, and then 58,303 to people from other countries. (This count includes new H-
1Bs and extensions.) In sum, India had established dominance in the category as a
means of funnelling high-skilled workers to the US.
Expectedly, the order unleashed panic in India. Analysts on Indian television insisted
that this was only a temporary move and that all the visas would soon be available
again. One analyst went on about how the order was not a defeat for Modi’s foreign
policy, which has tried (and apparently failed) to align India with the US. Another
mocked how their enormous joint rallies, and Trump’s visit to India, all seemingly
amounted to nothing. Yet another suggested that India’s H-1B applicants should hope
that Trump does not win his re-election bid so that the visa ban may expire on its
own.

Ironically, no one in India seems to want to accept the truth behind the US
visa ban.

Many of these are false promises. Ironically, no one in India seems to want to accept
the truth behind the visa ban. Couched in the language of American job creation, etc,
is the fact that a white nationalist American president just does not want to import
brown Indians into the country.

Despite all of India’s grand delusions about belonging to a single Aryan race as white
Americans, white nationalists see them as impurities that do not fit in their picture of
an all-white America. Trump, who just this Sunday retweeted a video of a man
chanting ‘white power’ (and then deleted it), is not interested in what this or that
engineer can do; he is interested in keeping his white nationalist base happy. Indians,
of all people, should understand these longings; it is they who passed a
discriminatory citizenship law just a few months ago, aimed at denying citizenship to
Muslims and other discriminated groups. If they can aim for a Hindu nationalist state
that unjustly imposes discriminatory legislation on its minorities, then Trump can
look at all the Indians coming into his country and put an end to the system that
enables them to do so.

A Biden administration, if it becomes a reality, is unlikely to restore employment-

based visas to what they once were. The reason truly is economic; when over 45
million Americans have no jobs, allowing hundreds of thousands of Indians to come
in is unlikely to be politically popular. Those on the far left of the Democratic Party
want immigration reform that focuses on the poorest migrants rather than the high-
skilled category. Labour unions also have issues with the importation of workers.
American STEM graduates will likely receive first priority for jobs in this category
so that politicians can show that they are doing everything they can to reduce the
number of unemployed citizens.

All is not awful. Most Indian and American tech companies have already started to
lean heavily on allowing workers to work from home. In some ways, this fact also
reduces the need for workers to actually be in the US in person. Of course, those
working from India will be paid far less than what they would have been in the US.
Until now, Indians have relished aligning their nationalist agenda with the Trump
administration. Now, it is that very nationalist agenda that has labelled Indians as
outsiders no longer welcome in the US. For the first time since the election of Trump
and Modi, Indians will have to assess the cost of supporting an American president
who thinks they are racially inferior and must be kept out of a nation that he believes
has been built for white people.
Connecting with learners
Nishat Riaz | Mark Crossey July 01, 2020

‘OVERWHELMED’ is a word used very often for the health sector, and rightly so, in
reference to the pandemic. Similarly, the impact of Covid-19 on the education sector
has been broad and dramatic. In less than 90 days, around 1.5 billion students and 65
million teachers found themselves suddenly out of their classrooms in 180-plus
countries around the globe. In the UK, for instance, schools which had managed to
remain open throughout two world wars found themselves closed by government
directive.

It is a unique, unprecedented and unexpected outcome of a highly underestimated

crisis. Educational institutions were taken aback at first, but then started firefighting
as a knee-jerk reaction. The first emergency action was to establish an electronic
connection with students and hence the sudden burst of online teaching — the birth
of mass ‘emergency teaching’.

At first, digital platforms were the only way to connect with learners. However, it is
causing ‘cold spots’ and creating new educational disparities for those who are
digitally ill equipped.

Quick fixes do not have inherent stability. Short term, reactionary, knee-jerk
responses in the education sector are understandably problem focused, with the sole
purpose of reaching students. In a few instances, the sector has witnessed heroic case
studies of online outreach, ranging from WhatsApp calls to Zoom sessions.

Educational managers need to go beyond firefighting.

Pakistan’s reaction to the crisis has been arguably exemplary. Within the first 60 days
of the pandemic, state and private sector had already established functional systems
of online teaching. TeleTaleem and Taleem Ghar are reaching out to over 60m
viewers through educational TV transmissions. Similarly, private-sector schooling
through digital platforms is in full swing. While this is amazing as a first-aid
response, some sensible thinking will be required to rethink and reframe the
education offer for the future. While fully appreciating these war-footing efforts,
short-term responses cannot be the basis for long-term policy and planning.

Covid-19 is now accepted as a long-term problem that might last for years.
Educational managers and planners need to go beyond firefighting to stock take all
the quick fixes and recipes adopted in the time of emergency. The education sector
by now has all the proofs of concepts, including the test bed level beta applications
which were used to roll out the educational response.

In planning for the future, the sector has a broad mandate. It will be important to
differentiate between a content platform and a university. Currently, fuzzy lines
between content producers, providers and delivery chains should be clarified.

Learning can be made possible through discourse, innovation and interpretation,

rather than by a one-way flood of teaching content. The sector should come up with
geographically segregated areas for providing a content marketplace based on
creative commonalities and shared intellectual property. Those educational
establishments that do not have the resources or capabilities to transform into new
media of delivery should be supported under a global, participative and a
democratised model.
Shared and co-created content could be made available as open educational resources
or under a shared Creative Commons licence where applicable. This will allow
several education providers to collaborate, co-create and coexist. There have already
been successful transitions amongst many universities. For example, Imperial
College London is offering a course on the science of the coronavirus, which is now
the most enrolled class launched in 2020 on Coursera. Media organisations such as
the BBC are also powering virtual learning, Bitesize Daily. Launched on 20 April,
Bitesize Daily is offering 14 weeks of curriculum-based learning for kids across the
UK with celebrities like Manchester City footballer Sergio Aguero teaching some of
the content.

The government of Pakistan’s TeleTaleem and Taleem Ghar are excellent examples
of collaborative efforts by the state, private sector and ed tech providers.

Alongside fairness, collective value and trust, many institutions can obtain economic
and commercial benefits.

As an untapped treasure, students have always been on the receiving end of the
process. If they are an active participant in content and delivery feedback, they will
be the best resource in reshaping the offer. Students must become central to feedback
and no longer be just passive recipients of criticism or praise. Getting employers,
industry and the wider community meaningfully involved will also be crucial: what
are their expectations and which skills and qualifications are relevant for them and
why?

So, what could the glittering prize be? A responsive, resilient and equitable education
provision for all for the demanding times ahead.