top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Chaos Diplomacy

Donald Trump has always understood one thing better than most modern politicians that markets respond to perception. In the grinding drama over Iran, the American president appears to have weaponised uncertainty itself. One day he hints at a diplomatic breakthrough with Tehran and signals the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz which causes investors to breathe a sigh of relief. However, hours later, he reverses course by declaring there is “no rush” for a deal and that restrictions will remain...

Chaos Diplomacy

Donald Trump has always understood one thing better than most modern politicians that markets respond to perception. In the grinding drama over Iran, the American president appears to have weaponised uncertainty itself. One day he hints at a diplomatic breakthrough with Tehran and signals the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz which causes investors to breathe a sigh of relief. However, hours later, he reverses course by declaring there is “no rush” for a deal and that restrictions will remain until Iran bends fully to American conditions. The markets wobble again Trump’s defenders may argue that unpredictability is a negotiating tactic. Henry Kissinger once cultivated strategic ambiguity during the Cold War. Richard Nixon perfected the so-called ‘madman theory’ to keep adversaries guessing. Yet Trump’s oscillations differ in both scale and intent. In recent weeks, analysts and ethics experts in the United States have raised uncomfortable questions about whether political messaging is increasingly shaping market volatility in ways that benefit insiders, speculators and politically connected traders. When geopolitical brinkmanship begins to resemble a financial instrument, public trust in democratic institutions erodes. Nearly a fifth of the world’s oil passes through Hormuz. A closure or blockade affects fuel prices in Mumbai as much as manufacturing costs in Shanghai or inflation in Berlin. Trump’s repeated shifts between escalation and reconciliation have had grave implications for India, which imports more than 80 percent of its crude oil requirements. Any prolonged instability in Hormuz translates directly into higher import bills, inflationary pressures and stress on the rupee while ratcheting prices of essentials. India has spent years carefully balancing its ties between Iran, the Gulf monarchies and the United States. Tehran remains important for connectivity projects such as Chabahar Port and for India’s access to Central Asia. But allies and adversaries alike are forced into a perpetual state of recalibration because American policy itself appears unstable. Trump’s Iran manoeuvring reflects a dangerous transformation in global politics, which is the merger of geopolitics with spectacle capitalism. International crises are increasingly consumed like market-moving entertainment. This may generate short-term leverage for him or even produce tactical victories at the negotiating table. Iran, under immense economic strain, reportedly agreeing in principle to surrender its highly enriched uranium stockpile is no small development. Yet diplomacy built on volatility carries long-term costs and lead to the weakening of institutions. Markets become addicted to chaos and chaos, once normalised, rarely remains controllable. The world’s largest economy cannot afford to conduct foreign policy like a reality television script, with cliffhangers designed to manipulate sentiment every news cycle. Great powers are supposed to provide stability, not amplify uncertainty for strategic theatrics. Trump may believe that time is on America’s side. But for an anxious global economy already strained by wars, inflation and fragmentation, time spent trapped in manufactured uncertainty is becoming increasingly expensive.

Tribal Calculus

The Maharashtra government’s decision to carve out a dedicated State Tribal Commission (STC), separate from the existing combined Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes body, may seem long overdue. After all, the Centre has maintained distinct commissions for these two historically disadvantaged communities for years. The question is not whether this move was justified - it almost certainly is. The more pressing question is: why now?


The official explanation is bureaucratic symmetry. Since New Delhi has had separate commissions for SCs and STs, Mumbai ought to mirror the model. Yet this belated alignment comes not in a vacuum but against the backdrop of renewed and intense anti-Maoist operations across the volatile tri-junction of Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh and Telangana - a region where tribal discontent has often proven fertile ground for insurgency.


Over the past fortnight, security forces have killed at least 30 Maoists in this region, including top commanders and cadres, in a string of violent encounters. Surrenders, too, are on the rise. Besides intense operations in Chhatisgarh, Maharashtra’s Gadchiroli district, long a flashpoint, saw another bloodbath when four Maoists were recently gunned down and a fresh stockpile of arms and Naxal literature recovered. The point is to assume that the creation of the STC against this backdrop is entirely unrelated would seem naïve.


This is not to suggest the commission is a counter-insurgency tool in disguise. Rather, it is an attempt, however belated, to project the optics of inclusion, institution-building, and constitutional fidelity in a region where the state’s presence has too often been synonymous with the gun barrel. Tribal discontent in central India is rarely about ideology and primarily about land, displacement and the absence of genuine representation. In this context, the establishment of a commission devoted to Scheduled Tribes could serve both as a pressure valve and a political signal.


The move also reflects the growing political clout of tribal legislators in Maharashtra, given there are 25 in the state assembly and four in the Lok Sabha. These numbers are no longer electorally negligible. In recent years, tribal legislators have grown more vocal. This commission is, in part, the Mahayuti’s response to that appeal and also an effort to pre-empt further alienation of a voting bloc that helps swing seats in an increasingly competitive political landscape. That said, what tribal communities need is not another layer of bureaucracy but consistent implementation of the Forest Rights Act, targeted health and education services and a halt to exploitative displacement. The state’s track record on these counts remains patchy at best.


Furthermore, will this commission have investigative powers? Will its recommendations be binding? Or will it be another advisory body mired in red tape and underfunded in practice, like many of its predecessors?


Still, the Devendra Fadnavis-led Mahayuti government appears keen to show the permanence of governance in the state’s tribal pockets. Whether tribal communities see this as a genuine gesture or yet another arm’s-length sop will depend not on cabinet resolutions but on results.

Comments

bottom of page