Latest news with #ColdWar
Straits Times
5 hours ago
- Business
- Straits Times
Trump signs executive order to extend deadline for TikTok sale by 90 days
TikTok on June 19 welcomed President Trump's decision to extend the deadline for the platform to find a non-Chinese buyer by another 90 days. PHOTO: AFP WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump announced on June 19 he had given social media platform TikTok another 90 days to find a non-Chinese buyer or be banned in the United States. 'I've just signed the Executive Order extending the Deadline for the TikTok closing for 90 days (September 17, 2025),' Mr Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, putting off the ban for the third time. A federal law requiring TikTok's sale or ban on national security grounds was due to take effect the day before Mr Trump's January inauguration. The Republican, whose 2024 election campaign relied heavily on social media, has previously said he is fond of the video-sharing app. 'I have a little warm spot in my heart for TikTok,' Mr Trump said in an NBC News interview in early May. 'If it needs an extension, I would be willing to give it an extension.' TikTok on June 19 welcomed Mr Trump's decision. 'We are grateful for President Trump's leadership and support in ensuring that TikTok continues to be available for more than 170 million American users,' the platform said in a statement. Digital Cold War? Motivated by a belief in Washington that TikTok is controlled by the Chinese government, the ban took effect on Jan 19, one day before Mr Trump's inauguration, with ByteDance having made no attempt to find a suitor. TikTok 'has become a symbol of the US-China tech rivalry; a flashpoint in the new Cold War for digital control,' said Ms Shweta Singh, an assistant professor of information systems at Warwick Business School in Britain. Mr Trump had long supported a ban or divestment, but reversed his position and vowed to defend the platform - which boasts almost two billion global users - after coming to believe it helped him win young voters' support in the November election. The president announced an initial 75-day delay of the ban upon taking office. A second extension pushed the deadline to June 19. He said in May that a group of purchasers was ready to pay TikTok owner ByteDance 'a lot of money' for the video-clip-sharing sensation's US operations. Mr Trump knows that TikTok is 'wildly popular' in the United States, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told reporters on June 19, when asked about the latest extension. 'He also wants to protect Americans' data and privacy concerns on this app, and he believes we can do both things at the same time.' The president is 'just not motivated to do anything about TikTok', said independent analyst Rob Enderle. 'Unless they get on his bad side, TikTok is probably going to be in pretty good shape.' Tariff turmoil Mr Trump said in April that China would have agreed to a deal on the sale of TikTok if it were not for a dispute over his tariffs on Beijing. ByteDance has confirmed talks with the US government, saying key matters needed to be resolved and that any deal would be 'subject to approval under Chinese law.' Possible solutions reportedly include seeing existing US investors in ByteDance roll over their stakes into a new independent global TikTok company. Additional US investors, including Oracle and private equity firm Blackstone, would be brought on to reduce ByteDance's share in the new TikTok. Much of TikTok's US activity is already housed on Oracle servers, and the company's chairman, Mr Larry Ellison, is a longtime Trump ally. Uncertainty remains, particularly over what would happen to TikTok's valuable algorithm. 'TikTok without its algorithm is like Harry Potter without his wand – it's simply not as powerful,' said Ms Kelsey Chickering, principal analyst at Forrester. Despite the turmoil, TikTok has been continuing with business as usual. The platform on June 16 introduced a new 'Symphony' suite of generative artificial intelligence tools for advertisers to turn words or photos into video snippets for the platform. AFP Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Al-Ahram Weekly
11 hours ago
- Business
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Trump extends deadline for TikTok sale by 90 days - Tech
President Donald Trump announced Thursday he had given social media platform TikTok another 90 days to find a non-Chinese buyer or be banned in the United States. "I've just signed the Executive Order extending the Deadline for the TikTok closing for 90 days (September 17, 2025)," Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, putting off the ban for the third time. A federal law requiring TikTok's sale or ban on national security grounds was due to take effect the day before Trump's January inauguration. The Republican, whose 2024 election campaign relied heavily on social media, has previously said he is fond of the video-sharing app. "I have a little warm spot in my heart for TikTok," Trump said in an NBC News interview in early May. "If it needs an extension, I would be willing to give it an extension." TikTok on Thursday welcomed Trump's decision. "We are grateful for President Trump's leadership and support in ensuring that TikTok continues to be available for more than 170 million American users," said a statement issued by the platform. Digital Cold War? Trump said in May that a group of purchasers was ready to pay TikTok owner ByteDance "a lot of money" for the video-clip-sharing sensation's US operations. Trump has repeatedly downplayed the risks that TikTok is in danger, saying he remains confident of finding a buyer for the app's US business. The White House announced Monday that Trump would throw the wildly popular video-sharing app, which has almost two billion global users, another lifeline. During this new grace period, the administration will work "to ensure this deal is closed so that the American people can continue to use TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure," the administration said in a statement. The president is "just not motivated to do anything about TikTok," said independent analyst Rob Enderle. "Unless they get on his bad side, TikTok is probably going to be in pretty good shape." Trump had long supported a ban or divestment, but reversed his position and vowed to defend the platform after coming to believe it helped him win young voters' support in the November election. Motivated by national security fears and a belief in Washington that TikTok is controlled by the Chinese government, the ban took effect on January 19, one day before Trump's inauguration, with ByteDance having not attempted to find a suitor. TikTok "has become a symbol of the US-China tech rivalry; a flashpoint in the new Cold War for digital control," said Shweta Singh, an assistant professor of information systems at Warwick Business School in Britain. The president announced an initial 75-day delay of the ban upon taking office. A second extension pushed the deadline to June 19. Now the deadline is September 17. Tariff turmoil Trump said in April that China would have agreed to a deal on the sale of TikTok if it were not for a dispute over his tariffs on Beijing. ByteDance has confirmed talks with the US government, saying key matters needed to be resolved and that any deal would be "subject to approval under Chinese law." Possible solutions reportedly include seeing existing US investors in ByteDance roll over their stakes into a new independent global TikTok company. Additional US investors, including Oracle and private equity firm Blackstone, would be brought on board to reduce ByteDance's share in the new TikTok. Much of TikTok's US activity is already housed on Oracle servers, and the company's chairman, Larry Ellison, is a longtime Trump ally. Uncertainty remains, particularly over what would happen to TikTok's valuable algorithm. "TikTok without its algorithm is like Harry Potter without his wand -- it's simply not as powerful," said Forrester Principal Analyst Kelsey Chickering. Despite the turmoil, TikTok has continued with business as usual. The platform on Monday introduced a new "Symphony" suite of generative artificial intelligence tools for advertisers to turn words or photos into video snippets for the platform. Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Daily Maverick
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Romania's election chaos: Courts, social media, and the fight for democratic integrity
The Romanian case demonstrates that courts and election management bodies cannot shy away from assessing whether social media and campaign funding influence elections unfairly. Piercing veils of opaqueness obscuring political funding is very much their business. Social media, digital technology and illicit political campaign funding are emerging as new angles for political contestation. Are you worried about them derailing free and fair elections? Then read on. Thirty-five years after the Cold War ended, electoral authorities find themselves walking the tightrope of managing elections in constitutional democracies in decline. Courtrooms to contest election results are now another battlefield for political power. The recent election in Romania is a case study in point. Of interest to judges and election management practitioners like me is the evaluation of evidence of the influence of social media and political funding on elections. It is unlike assessing the hard facts that determine whether a person meets the requirements to stand as a candidate in elections, such as being a registered voter and paying the prescribed fees. When assessing the impact of social media and party funding on elections, decision-makers must exercise their discretion and make value judgements. However, these recent innovations in election practice were not included in the university courses for most judges and election management practitioners. Hence, the Romanian elections offer an opportunity for study for everyone concerned about whether elections deliver democracy. Romania's 2024-2025 presidential election — a chronology On 24 November 2024, Romania held its ninth presidential election since its revolution in 1989. Cǎlin Georgescu won by a 40% lead while Elena Lasconi got 26% of the votes. The incumbent prime minister lagged behind Lasconi. Without an outright majority of more than 50% of the votes cast, a run-off would ordinarily have followed. Instead, candidate Cristian Terheş, who got 1% of the votes cast, asked the court to annul the election results because another candidate's votes were transferred to Lasconi — allegedly. Hence, on 28 November 2024 the Constitutional Court of Romania (CCR) unanimously ordered the 're-verification and recounting' of the votes. Saying that it would give reasons later, the court postponed its ruling on the validity of the elections to the following day, presumably in anticipation of the results of the recount. But, on 29 November the court postponed the matter again. On 2 December 2024 the court ruled on Terheş's challenge to the validity of the elections. It found no clear evidence of fraud or irregularities that met the threshold required to alter the candidate rankings. Satisfied that the allegations were minor administrative errors immaterial to the outcome of the elections, the court dismissed Terheş's request for annulment. It validated the results of the first round of elections and directed Georgescu and Lasconi to participate in the run-off on 8 December. But, on 4 December the intelligence and security services of Romania produced to the court declassified information concerning cybersecurity threats, the use of digital technology and information campaigns that they alleged affected the integrity of the elections. On 6 December 2024, the court annulled the November 2024 presidential election. That election was rerun on 4 May 2025. Georgescu was not allowed to participate as a candidate because, the court said, he had violated electoral laws. Nicușor Dan won 20.99% and George Simion 40.96% of the votes. In a remarkable about-turn, in the run-off election held on 18 May, Dan won with 53.6% against Simion's 46.4%. Dan was elected President of Romania. Neither belonged to the party that had led Romania after the revolution. For the first time, that party failed to reach the final. A 65% voter turnout was the highest for a quarter of a century. For Georgescu's prospects of success on appeal, read on. Observations It took an election, a rerun of that election and a run-off election to elect a president for Romania. Costs for each election would have been about €200,000 (about R4m). All three elections were run within a narrow time frame of about six months. Notwithstanding the novelty and complexity of assessing the influence of social media and political funding, the court stepped up to the task. The ultimate arbiter to declare whether the elections were free and fair was the court. However, to successfully shepherd the elections, it relied on its reciprocal relationship with the Permanent Electoral Authority. Incumbency was no guarantee of reelection. Notwithstanding the intensity of the contestation, there was no unconstitutional change of government. The rule of law had prevailed. Worth pondering The 6 December judgment is the subject of this discussion. It raises the problems around the abuse of social media, digital technology, artificial intelligence and illegal campaign funding from unreported sources. Pondering the following four questions is a starting point: Did the law empower the court to annul the elections and extend the term of the sitting president until a new president was elected? Did the 'Information Notes' presented to the court justify its findings and conclusions? For elections to be annulled, what must the quality and quantity of the standard of evidence be? May the Constitutional Court of South Africa consider and apply the judgment of the Romanian court? Below, a brief description of the powers of the court in electoral matters is followed with summaries of the court procedure and the judgment. The Constitutional Court of Romania Nine judges are appointed to the court for nine years. The Chamber of Deputies, the Senate and the president of Romania appoint three judges each. Having representatives appoint the judges is Romania's way of asserting the legitimacy of the court, and consequently, acceptance of its decisions. A striking feature is that the court is not a typical court of law representing the judicial arm of government. Rather, its powers flow from its role as 'the guarantor of the supremacy of the constitution'. Its oversight includes ensuring that public power is exercised constitutionally. The court may act not only when it receives information from citizens and nongovernmental organisations about noncompliance with electoral laws, but also of its own accord. In this instance, the state security services triggered the court's judgment. Decisions of the court are final and binding. Court procedure Sittings of the court are constituted by all nine judges and an assistant magistrate who is the Judge-Rapporteur. The president of the court chairs the meetings. He may invite anyone to attend the proceedings if he thinks it necessary. When the court receives a complaint, it decides the matter without notice to or hearing anyone. The hearings are not public. But the decisions are published. The court's 6 December 2024 judgment The same panel of judges who upheld the November elections on 2 December overturned the ruling on 6 December. In the judgment, the court exercised powers and prerogatives to ensure that the procedure for the election of the president of Romania was observed and to confirm the ballot returns. These prerogatives, the court said, were its 'role in the constitutional architecture, i.e. of guarantor of the supremacy of the Constitution'. The court received and considered 'Information Notes' from Internal Security, the Intelligence Services and the Special Telecommunications Service. The Information Notes led the court to find that the electoral process for the election of the president of Romania had been vitiated throughout by many irregularities. This distorted the freeness of the votes cast and the equal opportunities of the electoral competitors. Lack of transparency and fairness of the electoral campaign, and disregard for the law relating to campaign funding, 'converged' to undermine 'the essential principles of democratic elections'. That was the crux of the court's finding. It proceeded to examine the irregularities as violations of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental political and human rights. Sovereignty Fair elections, the court recognised, were an 'expression of sovereignty'. Sovereignty imposed on the state the duty to 'ensure a transparent electoral process… so as to guarantee the integrity and impartiality of the elections'. The court placed a positive duty squarely on the state to 'prevent any undue interference in the electoral process', build resilience among voters, raise public awareness about the use of digital technologies in elections, provide appropriate information and support and 'address the challenges and risks' likely to undermine the integrity of elections. Information Notes The Information Notes exposed 'manipulation' of the vote and 'distortion of the equality of opportunity for the electoral competitors, through the non-transparent use of digital technologies and artificial intelligence'. Funding from unreported sources of the electoral and online campaigns compounded the distortion. Altogether, they affected both the 'free expression of the citizens' vote', freedom to form an opinion, and the right to be 'properly informed' before making decisions. That impugned the rights to having both 'accurate information about the candidates and the electoral process from all sources', and protection against undue influence. Disinformation The court described 'political advertising' that sometimes turned into 'disinformation'. The political nature of advertisements were not disclosed. They were sponsored from outside the country, or subject to 'targeting techniques' or 'ad-delivery techniques'. This 'propaganda or electoral disinformation campaigns' amounted to undue interference. Misinformation The court found the electoral campaign of one of the candidates to be 'aggressively promoted'. It circumvented national electoral laws and abused the algorithms of social media platforms. The court found 'evidence' for the manipulation of the vote in the electoral materials; they did not bear the specific symbols of electoral advertising, as required by law. Additionally, the candidate received 'preferential treatment' on social media platforms. This conduct, the court said, resulted in voters being misinformed. It led to a distortion of the voters' expression of the free will to vote. Equality of opportunity On the right to equality of opportunity, the court said that the state must adopt an 'objective and impartial attitude' towards all candidates and parties. It must apply the same legislation uniformly to all. To ensure equal opportunities, limiting spending on electoral advertising would be consistent with the guidelines adopted by the Venice Commission. The court found that irregularities in the election campaign created a clear inequality between 'the candidate who manipulated digital technologies and the other candidates'. Thus, the 'considerable exposure of one candidate led to the directly proportional reduction of the online media exposure of the other candidates'. Transparency, integrity and impartiality In the opinion of the court, electoral candidates, political parties, supporters and sympathisers should use digital technologies and artificial intelligence transparently to ensure the integrity and impartiality of the elections. They must avoid hindering voters from freely forming their opinions about the candidates. They must also refrain from misleading voters about the identity and quality of candidates and about the voting procedures. Political funding The court extended the principles of legality and transparency to the funding of the electoral campaign and online electoral advertising. It recommended that social media platforms should consistently disclose data on political advertising and their sponsors, in compliance with the Venice Commission's Interpretative Declaration of the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters as Concerns Digital Technologies and Artificial Intelligence (10 December 2024). The court found that a candidate (Georgescu) had infringed the laws relating to the funding of the electoral campaign. He had submitted statements to the Permanent Electoral Authority regarding his campaign budget, which he had declared to be zero Romanian lei. That contradicted the data presented in both the Information Notes and the predictably high costs of electoral campaigns. The 'obvious incongruity between the size of the campaign conducted' and the non-disclosure of expenses violated the principle of transparency of the funding of electoral campaigns, and raised 'suspicions about the fairness of the elections'. Rerun Based on these findings above, the court annulled the entire electoral process for the election of the president of Romania. It ordered that the whole elections should be rerun. The government had to set a new date for the election and a new timetable for its implementation. Finally, the court ordered the president of Romania to exercise his term until the new president-elect took the oath. Prospects of success on appeal Georgescu appealed unsuccessfully to the European Court of Human Rights (Călin Georgescu v Romania, application no. 37327/24). Notwithstanding the final and binding nature of the Constitutional Court of Romania judgment, the European court heard the case. Georgescu argued that the annulment of the entire presidential election had been based on 'unsubstantiated accusations'; that the decision had been adopted in a non-transparent manner; that he had no remedy to challenge it; and that this decision had been the result of political interference by 'the ruling party' in charge of the electoral process. On 21 January 2025, the European court rejected Georgescu's request for the suspension of the Constitutional Court of Romania's annulment and the resumption of the elections on the basis that the circumstances were not exceptional. Piercing veils of opaqueness Clearly, courts cannot shy away from assessing whether social media and campaign funding influence elections unfairly. Neither can election management bodies. Piercing veils of opaqueness obscuring political funding is very much the business of both the courts and election management bodies responsible for overseeing political funding. If campaign spending exceeds the amount of funds disclosed, the authorities must intervene. Returning to the four questions above, the court's extraordinary powers have their roots in Romania's inquisitorial legal system. An inquisitorial court actively investigates the case, gathers evidence and questions parties. The judge leads the hearings, establishes the facts and applies the law. Unlike inquisitorial proceedings, an adversarial system, such as in South Africa, relies on the parties to bring their evidence and argue their cases before judges, usually sitting in courts open to the public. Ultimately, in any system it is the authenticity and reliability of the information and evidence before judges that matters. Analysing the Information Notes is impossible without access to them. The court judgment does not record or summarise their contents. Instead, it merely expresses its opinions and conclusions about the Information Notes. Not only must this nondisclosure in the judgment be viewed through the lens of inquisitorial proceedings, but also with due regard for the interests of state security. As for setting standards, whether the evidence should be beyond a reasonable doubt, reasonably probable or clear and convincing will depend on, among other things, the nature of the violations and the materiality of their impact on the overall freeness and fairness of the elections. As for the last question, South African courts may consider but not necessarily apply Romanian law as foreign law. Similarly, our courts may consider the codes of the Venice Commission but not necessarily apply it. South Africa is not a member of the Venice Commission but supports its work. Much will depend on the quality and quantity of evidence before a South African court will annul an election. DM
France 24
12 hours ago
- Business
- France 24
Trump extends deadline for TikTok sale by 90 days
"I've just signed the Executive Order extending the Deadline for the TikTok closing for 90 days (September 17, 2025)," Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, putting off the ban for the third time. A federal law requiring TikTok's sale or ban on national security grounds was due to take effect the day before Trump's January inauguration. The Republican, whose 2024 election campaign relied heavily on social media, has previously said he is fond of the video-sharing app. "I have a little warm spot in my heart for TikTok," Trump said in an NBC News interview in early May. "If it needs an extension, I would be willing to give it an extension." TikTok on Thursday welcomed Trump's decision. "We are grateful for President Trump's leadership and support in ensuring that TikTok continues to be available for more than 170 million American users," said a statement issued by the platform. Digital Cold War? Trump said in May that a group of purchasers was ready to pay TikTok owner ByteDance "a lot of money" for the video-clip-sharing sensation's US operations. Trump has repeatedly downplayed risks that TikTok is in danger, saying he remains confident of finding a buyer for the app's US business. The White House had announced Monday that Trump would throw the wildly popular video-sharing app, which has almost two billion global users, another lifeline. During this new grace period the administration will work "to ensure this deal is closed so that the American people can continue to use TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure," the administration said in a statement. The president is "just not motivated to do anything about TikTok," said independent analyst Rob Enderle. "Unless they get on his bad side, TikTok is probably going to be in pretty good shape." Trump had long supported a ban or divestment, but reversed his position and vowed to defend the platform after coming to believe it helped him win young voters' support in the November election. Motivated by national security fears and a belief in Washington that TikTok is controlled by the Chinese government, the ban took effect on January 19, one day before Trump's inauguration, with ByteDance having made no attempt to find a suitor. TikTok "has become a symbol of the US-China tech rivalry; a flashpoint in the new Cold War for digital control," said Shweta Singh, an assistant professor of information systems at Warwick Business School in Britain. The president announced an initial 75-day delay of the ban upon taking office. A second extension pushed the deadline to June 19. Now the deadline is September 17. Tariff turmoil Trump said in April that China would have agreed to a deal on the sale of TikTok if it were not for a dispute over his tariffs on Beijing. ByteDance has confirmed talks with the US government, saying key matters needed to be resolved and that any deal would be "subject to approval under Chinese law." Possible solutions reportedly include seeing existing US investors in ByteDance roll over their stakes into a new independent global TikTok company. Additional US investors, including Oracle and private equity firm Blackstone, would be brought on to reduce ByteDance's share in the new TikTok. Much of TikTok's US activity is already housed on Oracle servers, and the company's chairman, Larry Ellison, is a longtime Trump ally. Uncertainty remains, particularly over what would happen to TikTok's valuable algorithm. "TikTok without its algorithm is like Harry Potter without his wand -- it's simply not as powerful," said Forrester Principal Analyst Kelsey Chickering. Despite the turmoil, TikTok has been continuing with business as usual. The platform on Monday introduced a new "Symphony" suite of generative artificial intelligence tools for advertisers to turn words or photos into video snippets for the platform.
Hindustan Times
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
The Emergency and its external dimension
The pain inflicted by the 21-month Emergency rule in India on its body politic and its people continues to hurt even after 50 years. The domestic dimensions of the Emergency have been discussed at length. A recent study by Srinath Raghavan ably explores its structural dimensions – of the gradual evolution of a powerful executive, creeping encroachments on freedoms and rights and authoritarian tendencies of governance — that have been building for long. However, Indira Gandhi's oft repeated allegations about the role of 'foreign hand' (of the United States of America) in destabilising her government have often skipped rigorous scrutiny. Her political opponents, many media commentators, and even serious historians like Ramchandra Guha and Bipin Chandra have dismissed these allegations in want of hard, concrete evidence, as a pretext to justify her authoritarian streak. This was also the position of the various US official organs, as expected. The prevailing intellectual narrative clearly underlines that transformational changes in developing countries result from a conscious or coincidental coalition of domestic and external forces. Over the years, many new archives have opened and the present ruling dispensation in New Delhi has brought the issue back to the forefront of India's political dynamics. The narrative of the US pushing Indira Gandhi towards the Emergency decision and supporting the peoples' uprising against its repressive regime deserve a second dispassionate look. This may be done at three levels. First, regime change, through covert as well as overt means, against Communist/ socialist or Left-oriented governments in Latin America (Chile) and Asia (Iran) has been an integral part of the toolkit of US policy since the Cold War years. According to American scholar Lindsey O'Rourke, the US carried out 64 covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989. Another scholar, David S Levins (2020), claims that the US carried out the largest number of foreign electoral interventions during 1946-2000. The use of covert operations for regime change in developing countries brought about extensive criticism of the US's democratic credentials, forcing the US Congress to appoint The Church Committee to investigate the matter. In its report in 1976, this Committee came down heavily on CIA operations and blamed it for having a worldwide network of several hundred individuals to have access 'to a large number of news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial publishers and media outlets' for covert operations. Secondly, at the regional level in South Asia, the US National Security Council's policy document, NSC 98/1, was adopted by President Truman in January 1951. It asked US policy in the region to take 'more frequently accept calculated risks' in ensuring that the Communist (as also, socialist and Communist supported) governments did not remain in power. Only such governments were acceptable that 'would assist the United States and its allies to obtain the facilities desired in the time of peace or required in the event of war'. The Nixon (1969-1974)-Kissinger (1969-1977) team of the US had a strong focus on South Asian regimes in its endeavour to cultivate China and isolate the Soviet Union. Between 1975 and 1977, major developments took place in South Asia. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (1975) in Bangladesh and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1977) in Pakistan were deposed brutally by military regimes. Sheikh Mujib's Bangladesh in 1971 had emerged in strategic defiance of the US, and Bhutto had defied the US on the nuclear issue. Bhutto's daughter, Benazir, was reported to have disclosed Kissinger's threat in November 1976 to Bhutto to make a horrible example of him if he pursued the nuclear path. Nepal (Zone of Peace, 1975) and Sikkim (the American queen of the Chogyal sponsored independent status, 1974-75) had explicit support from the US so as to distance them from India. Lastly, at the bilateral level, Indira Gandhi's 'foreign hand' paranoia was a reflection of these regional developments. She had the worst of relations with the Nixon-Kissinger team both on the Bangladesh (1971) and the nuclear (implosion, 1974) issues. It was problematic for the US establishment that Indira Gandhi, whom the CIA supported in dethroning the Communist regime in Kerala in late 1950s, was during 1967-69, leaning on the Indian Communists in her struggle for power within her own party. The CIA activities during Indira Gandhi's regime had become so unacceptable even to the US embassy in New Delhi that ambassador Patrick Moynihan had to ask the state department to withdraw CIA operations. The imposition of Emergency was publicly disapproved by the US state department and American media. The US secretary of state Kissinger in his memo to President Ford in September 1975 said that the Emergency had discredited Indian democracy, adding, 'We should avoid any overt involvement that could confirm her allegations of foreign subversion'. Did this imply that covert operations to subvert the Emergency could go on? The post-Emergency regime was headed by Morarji Desai, who American journalist Seymour Hersh alleged was a CIA mole in Indira Gandhi's cabinet. Desai fought a libel case in the US against Hersh unsuccessfully. President Carter visited India in January 1978 to acclaim the post-Emergency regime, and asked Prime Minister Desai to desist from the nuclear path. Thus, there are ample leads at all the three levels to revisit the question of the 'foreign hand' and see if it had any links with the popular protests. British scholar Paul Garr in his study, Spying in South Asia (2024), says that Indira Gandhi's 'foreign hand' was an exaggeration sometimes, but her fears about the CIA were 'genuine' and valid. Our reliance only on the structural theories and Indira Gandhi's authoritarianism do not explain her decision to end the Emergency, as also how she managed to stage an impressive electoral comeback in less than three years. SD Muni is professor emeritus, JNU, former ambassador and special envoy, Government of India. The views expressed are personal.
