Tag Archives: FRANCE

Redeeming India’s Nuclear Power Promise

Posted on by
Reply

Published in the Hindu on July 23, 2025

If India is to meet its ambitious target of 100GW of power generating capacity by 2047, it needs foreign partners as well as private entities to participate in the nuclear sector which has been till now completely under the government

The Union Budget for 2025-26 marked a significant shift in India’s nuclear energy plan by announcing an ambitious target of 100 GW of power generating capacity by 2047, up from the present 8.18 GW. This positions nuclear power as a major pillar in India’s energy mix, given the two goals of emerging as a developed country (Viksit Bharat) by 2047 and achieving “net zero emissions” by 2070.

Simultaneously, the Nuclear Energy Mission announced a special allocation of Rs. 20000 crores to develop “at least five indigenously designed and operational Small Modular Reactors (SMR) by 2033.” Such ambitious plans will need involvement of private players, both domestic and foreign, into a hitherto government sector, requiring significant changes in the legislative, financial and regulatory framework. Government has indicated that some changes in the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (CLNDA), 2010 are in the offing. However, the comprehensive reforms needed also require a change in mind set.

India’s nuclear journey

India had an early start, setting up Asia’s first nuclear research reactor, Apsara, in 1956, and beginning work on Asia’s first nuclear power reactors at Tarapore in 1963. As early as 1954, Dr Homi Bhabha, the architect of India’s nuclear programme presented a target of generating 8 GW of nuclear power by 1980!

However, the journey has been long and difficult. Following the war with China in 1962; its entry into the nuclear club in 1964; India’s decision to stay out of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968; and the Peaceful Nuclear Explosion (PNE) test in 1974; India was excluded from the emerging nuclear order. International cooperation ceased and gradually, export controls further slowed down the nuclear power programme. The first unit at Rajasthan was barely set up while the second was under construction: it only went critical in 1981. The nuclear power target was pushed to 10 GW by 2000.

Moreover, India took time to successfully indigenise the design of the 220 MW Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR), employed in Rajasthan. The advantage was that it uses natural uranium as fuel unlike the design of the Tarapur Light Water Reactor (LWR), a design that used Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) that India obtained from the U.S., and later, from France. Subsequently, the same 220 MW PHWR units were established at Narora, Kaiga, Kakrapar etc; the design was upgraded to 540 MW (set up at Tarapur TAPS 3 and 4 in 2005-06) and to 700 MW with two units getting operational at Kakrapar in 2024. Since the nuclear establishment was excluded from civilian exchanges, an understandable and unintended consequence of the 1974 PNE was that the it became inward looking and wary about external engagement.

After the nuclear tests in 1998, followed by intense negotiations with the U.S. and other strategic partners, India finally gained acceptance as a responsible nuclear power. It also got a special waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). India was thus ready to resume exchanges with other nuclear powers to import both nuclear fuel and more advanced reactors to expand its nuclear energy programme.

However, the CLNDA created new difficulties that have prevented the anticipated external participation, from France and the U.S. In fact, Russia is the only country that is partnering with us at Kudankulum with six VVER-1000 power reactors because this government-to-government agreement, signed in 1988, predated the CLNDA.   

Towards green development

To become a developed country by 2047, India’s annual per capita income needs to grow from the current $2800 to $22000, and correspondingly, the GDP from the current $4 trillion to over $35 trillion. There is a well-established correlation between economic growth and energy consumption. In 2022, India’s per capita electricity consumption stood at 1,208 kWh, compared to 4,600 kWh for China, and over 12,500 kWh for the U.S.

India’s electricity generation capacity, currently at 480 GW (divided almost equally between fossil fuels and renewables), will have to grow five-fold, accounting for growth in population and urbanisation. However, solar, wind, and small hydro provide intermittent power. That is why out of 2030 TWh, the total electricity generated in 2024, renewables, with half the generation capacity, accounted for 240 TWh. Coal fired thermal plants accounted for 75 percent of the generation, the balance added by nuclear and large hydro projects.

The climate change commitments announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2021 at the Glasgow COP26, of “net zero emissions by 2070, raising non-fossil energy generation capacity to 500 GW by 2030 while meeting 50 percent of the energy demand through renewables, and achieving a carbon intensity reduction of 45 percent over 2005 levels by 2030” means that that India will not be able to rely on fossil fuels for its growth. The potential from renewables (including solar, hydro, wind, and biomass) is estimated at providing 20% of the demand and up to 25% with investments in battery and pumped storage.   The obvious candidate therefore to fuel India’s growth is nuclear power.

There is a renewed interest globally in nuclear power. It was reflected in the Dubai 2023 COP28 ‘Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy’, acknowledging nuclear power as ‘a critical input in reducing reliance on fossil fuels, enhancing energy security, and move towards a low carbon future’. in June, the IAEA and the World Bank agreed to work together to support nuclear energy in developing countries, marking a significant policy shift. World Bank President Ajay Banga pointed out, “nuclear (energy) delivers base load power, which is essential to building modern economies.” It is quite likely that the World Bank lead will be followed by other development funding banks and organisations.

Creating an enabling environment

Government is looking at three routes ahead. One is to standardise the 220 MW PHWR design and apply it to the Bharat Small Modular Reactors, that significantly reduces costs and commissioning time. This would be relevant to replacing captive thermal power plants that today account for over 100 GW and will be replaced over the next two decades.

The second track is scaling up the Nuclear Power Corporation of India  Ltd (NPCIL) plans for the 700 MW PHWR into fleet mode by facilitating land acquisition, streamlining licensing, and strengthening indigenous supply chains.

The third track is to accelerate negotiations with partners in France and the U.S. partners that have been moving at a glacial pace for the last 15 years.

Under the Atomic Energy Act, nuclear power is a sector reserved by the government. The NPCIL is a government owned company that builds, owns, and operates the PHWRs, the first two Tarapur LWRs, and the Russian designed VVERs.

Nuclear power financing is qualitatively different because of the higher upfront capital costs, lower operating costs, a lifecycle of 50-60 years, and costs associated with decommissioning and radioactive waste management. The indigenised PHWR model has a capital cost of $2 million/MW while the equivalent cost for a coal fired thermal unit is just under a million. Given NPCIL’s annual budget of $1.2 billion, government realises that to achieve the target of 100 GW, private sector companies will have to be brought into the sector, necessitating a comprehensive set of amendments to the Atomic Energy Act.

Questions of majority/minority ownership, whether the nuclear operator is exclusively NPCIL; responsibility and control over the nuclear island part of the plant; and concerns over assured fuel supply and waste management responsibility will need to be considered with the potential stakeholders that include major players like Tatas, Adani, Ambani, Vedanta and L & T. The power plants will be under IAEA safeguards and ensuring this is a sovereign responsibility, necessitating a different legal framework. All these will require amendments to the 1962 Act.

A set of comprehensive amendments will also be needed for the 2010 CLNDA. The Liability Law was intended to be consistent with the international Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) for Nuclear Damage to which India is a party. The CSC provides liability to be channelled only to the ‘operator;’ however the CLNDA added a ‘right of recourse’ by the ‘operator’ to the ‘supplier’ as well as the possibility of legal proceedings under other applicable laws. The government has tried to square the circle by providing explanations that but appears to have finally accepted the need for legal clarity through amendments.

A third area is commercial disputes relating to tariffs. Nuclear electricity tariff for NPCIL is notified under the Atomic Energy Act. Generally, commercial disputes fall under the Electricity Act and are settled by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) but a recent dispute between NPCIL and Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam has led to conflicting views by the CERC and the Appellate Tribunal. The case is now under consideration before the Supreme Court. With the entry of private sector in the field, should the tariff setting come into the ‘levelized cost of energy’ as applicable to thermal, solar, wind and hydro will depend on how the question of ownership and control are determined.  

While India has had an impeccable nuclear safety record, the certification and safety oversight is the responsibility of the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) that is ‘autonomous’ but not a legal entity and is subordinate to the Department of Atomic Energy. In 2011, a draft Bill was circulated to establish AERB as an independent regulator, but the Bill lapsed. With the entry of the private sector, the need for an independent regulator becomes paramount.

In addition, a raft of financial incentives will need to be introduced. While nuclear energy is a low-carbon energy source, it is not classified as “renewable,” like solar or wind. Revising this classification would make nuclear power projects eligible for tax incentives and specially designed ‘green financing’ instruments. Long term power-purchase-agreements and provision for viability-gap-funding are other incentives. The sector also needs to be opened for FDI participation, perhaps up to 49 percent, to ensure Indian ownership and control.  

In the past, the process of reform has been tentative. In 2011, NPCIL set up a Joint Venture (JV) with the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) but it languished till it was revived last year. It will now build and operate 4 units of 700 MW each, scheduled to come up at Mahi Banswara in Rajasthan. Land acquisition has been underway and once completed, the first unit will take seven years. A JV with Rural Electrification Corporation (REC) is also envisaged. Both REC and NTPC are PSUs and these JVs will be wholly government entities.

However, if India has to deliver on the promise of 100 GW by 2047, India needs foreign partners and the private sector. This has been accepted by the government Now it has to move forward the reform process comprehensively and decisively.  

*****

What makes the India-France ‘Strategic Partnership’ Tick

Posted on by
Reply

Published in the Hindu on February 1, 2024

The French President, Emmanuel Macron, was the chief guest at India’s Republic Day, making it his third visit to India, after his 2018 State Visit and last year for the G-20 summit hosted by India. Coming within six months of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit last year as the Chief Guest at France’s Bastille Day, it is clear that the two countries do share a ‘Strategic Partnership’ that is special. It is no secret that United States President Joseph Biden had been invited initially and his visit was to be followed by a Quad summit that had been accepted by the Australian and Japanese leaders when Mr. Biden declared his inability to travel. The fact that Mr. Macron stepped in readily speaks for the personal ties that he and Mr. Modi have established and the importance they attribute to the relationship.

Origins of strategic convergence

President Jacques Chirac was the Chief Guest at the Republic Day in 1998 when India established its first Strategic Partnership. In a significant statement, Mr. Chirac declared that India’s exclusion from the global nuclear order was an anomaly that needed to be rectified. The ‘Strategic Partnership’ was tested when India undertook its series of nuclear tests in May 1998 and declared itself a nuclear weapon state. France was the first country to open a dialogue with India and displayed a greater understanding of India’s security compulsions compared to other countries. It was the first P-5 country to support India’s claim for a permanent seat in an expanded and reformed UN Security Council.

India and France have valued strategic autonomy, in their own fashion. India adopted non-alignment. After the Second World War, France was one of the founding members of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in 1949 and hosted the NATO headquarters; it withdrew from its Integrated Military Command in 1966 due to reservations over U.S. insistence on subordinating French nuclear deterrent to NATO and accepting any collective control that Gen Charles de Gaulle felt would dilute French sovereignty, forcing NATO to shift its headquarters to Brussels.

After the Cold War ended, both countries were quick to espouse the virtues of multipolarity. French discomfort with a unipolar system was clear when French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine described USA as a hyperpuissance and openly spoke out in favour of multipolarity, forming a natural convergence with India’s ambitions of seeking strategic autonomy. As a resident power in the Indian Ocean, France was quick to realise the geopolitical focus shifting from the Euro-Atlantic to Asia-Pacific and decided on India as its preferred partner in the region. 

Both France and India share a common trait of ‘civilisation exceptionalism’ and pride themselves on their ‘argumentative intellectualism’ but have wisely refrained from preaching to each other. Though part of the western world, France, as a non-Anglo-Saxon nation, found it easier and more natural to engage with India on equal terms.

Building the Partnership

The nuclear dialogue established in May 1998 grew into a broader strategic dialogue elevated to the level to the National Security Advisers. From the original three pillars of nuclear, space and defence, the agenda gradually expanded to include counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing and cyber-security issues. Convergence has also evolved on global challenges like climate change, reform of multilateral development institutions, a globally beneficial Artificial Intelligence, and as the Joint Statement indicates, ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza.

On the defence side, six Scorpene submarines have been built by Mazagaon Docks Shipbuilders Limited with transfer of technology from the Naval Group. Technology sharing memoranda of understanding and acquisitions of short-range missiles and radar equipment were concluded. Joint exercises between the navies, air forces and the armies were instituted in 2001, 2004 and 2011 respectively. The government-to-government agreement for 36 Rafale aircraft, salvaged out of the prolonged negotiations for the original 126 which were at an impasse, has been concluded. Its offset target of 50 percent (nearly Rs 25000 crores), has helped in building up India’s budding aerospace industry.

During Mr. Modi’s visit last year, an announcement regarding a further acquisition of three more Scorpenes with enhanced features of air-independent-propulsion and 26 Rafale M aircraft for India’s new aircraft carrier was made, with negotiations to be concluded by the end of 2024.

Mr. Macron’s visit saw the conclusion of an India-France for Defence Industrial Roadmap that fits in with the goal of atmanirbharta. Tata Advanced Systems Ltd and Airbus concluded an agreement to set up a final assembly line by 2026 for H125 civilian helicopters. A final assembly line for C-295 military transport aircraft has already been set up in Vadodara by the two partners. Collaboration between Safran, DRDO and its Gas Turbine Research Establishment is being stepped up for designing, developing, and producing an aircraft engine for India’s fifth generation aircraft (Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft) with 100 % transfer of technology. This is a major step forward from the agreement concluded with the U.S. to permit technology transfer to HAL to produce General Electric F-414 engine to power Tejas Mk2 fighter aircraft. However, the GE engine is a 1990s design while the Safran project will entail defining parameters, co-designing, engineering, certification, in addition to production. Akasa Air has signed a $5 billion agreement for 300 LEAP-1B engines to power its fleet acquisition of 170 Boeing MAX aircraft. This engine is a Safran-GE JV product and together with Safran’s Snecma engines powering Rafale and Rafale M, sets the stage for it to set up a maintenance, repair, and operations in India.

Cooperation in the space domain began in the 1960s with French assistance to set up the Indian launch facility at Sriharikota but languished in later years because of export controls. The strategic dialogue helped restart this cooperation and Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and French Space Agency (CNES) now work on joint missions. The visit saw a new MoU being signed between New Space India Ltd, a Government of India company under the Department of Space and the commercial arm of ISRO, and French satellite launch company Arianespace for collaboration on space launches. In addition, with France converting its air-force into the French  Air and Space Force and India setting up Defence Space Agency, the two ministries of defence are looking to work together in optimising space domain awareness.

Broadening and deepening the partnership

The challenge for both countries has been to take the partnership out of the government domains into the commercial and civilian spaces. As a result, Joint Working Groups on a range of subjects covering agriculture, environment, civil aviation, IT and telecom, urban development, transportation, culture, and tourism have been set up over the years.

One of the success stories has been the growing number of Indian students now going to France for higher education. A decade ago, it was less than 3000 and today it is upwards of 10000. The target is now 30000 by 2030. The visa issue is being addressed with a five-year Schengen visa for Indians who pursue a post-graduate course in France. The operationalisation of the Young Professional Scheme under the Migration and Mobility Partnership Agreement will help. Last year the University Grants Commission revised rules regarding foreign universities setting up campuses in India. Sorbonne University, established in the 13th century, is globally renowned, and has had a campus in the United Arab Emirates since 2006. A campus in India should be identified as a priority objective.

There are nearly 1000 French companies present in India including 39 of the CAC 40 (the most influential benchmark of performance in the French economy) while nearly 150 Indian businesses have established a presence in France. In the past, Indian companies saw the United Kingdom as the entry point for Europe; post-Brexit, France is an entry point for Europe and Francophonie!

‘Strategic Partnership’ does not require convergence on all issues but sensitivity so that differences, where these exist, are expressed in private and not publicly. This is where India-France ties, nurtured over the last quarter century, reflect maturity and resilience. 

*****

 

Macron’s second term will be harder – his centrism pushed opponents to extreme Left & Right

Posted on by
Reply

Published in The Print on April 29, 2022

President Emmanuel Macron scored a decisive victory over his Right-wing challenger Marine Le Pen last week, polling 58.5% of the national vote to win a second term. It is a tremendous political achievement for 44-year-old Macron who fought his first election in 2017, created a new political party, Le Republic En Marche (France On The Move) and has sought to enlarge the liberal-pragmatic-centrist space on the political spectrum at a time of increasing polarisation. Only two of his predecessors have won second terms, Francois Mitterand in 1988 and Jacques Chirac in 2002 and both were in politics for decades.

Born in 1977, Macron graduated in 2004 from the Ecole National d’Administration (ENA), the prestigious and highly competitive school which has trained a majority of French leaders, in politics, civil service, judiciary and business. In 2008, he left government to do a four-year stint as an investment banker with the venerable Rothschild & Co, returning to government in 2012 in President Francois Hollande’s office. In 2014, he joined the cabinet as minister for Economy and Industry only to resign two years later to embark on a political career in 2016.

Macron’s political instinct was right. Coming after the Brexit vote and a Trump victory, political populism was rising and Europe was drifting Rightwards. Macron provided the alternative – Centrist politics.

Macron’s middle ground

The European Union (EU)’s precursor, the European Economic Community (EEC) established in 1957, following the Treaty of Rome, consisted of a homogeneous group of six countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands). These six countries were also founding members of NATO which had been set up in 1949.

The 28 member EU, a result of hasty expansion during the 1990s, was a heterogeneous lot. The idea of Europe with a variable geometry, proposed as a compromise to accommodate differences, disguised political disunity, with some EU members proudly claiming to be “illiberal democracies.”

According to Macron, Europe had relied too blindly on the US for its defence and needed to take charge of its destiny, of the European project. There were growing differences between ‘new Europe’ and ‘old Europe’ that created factions within NATO, after its doubling from 14 countries in 1991 to 28 today.  

The 2008 financial crisis and the Eurozone crisis highlighted the difficulty of having a common currency among 19 different countries at varying levels of development and governance structures. This had created disenchantment with globalisation. Right wing parties were gaining ground in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and even in the Nordic states. In France too, the Right-wing Front National of Jean Marie Le Pen had been rebranded by his daughter Marine Le Pen as National Rally and its image makeover was attracting the disenchanted. The fragmentation of the Left had begun in the 1990s and now it was happening on the Right.

Macron successfully exploited this in 2017 to capture the middle ground, appearing as a pragmatic centrist, committed to the EU and the Euro, pro-globalisation and business friendly but progressive on social issues. He brought a message of confidence, reviving optimism about France, based on technology, education and innovation. It was a meteoric rise and he won a resounding victory with a 66% vote.

Rebuilding the Centre

While he redefined the Centre successfully, the opposition got pushed to the extremes, on both the Right and Left of the political spectrum. The gilets jaunes (yellow vest) protests in 2018 were spontaneous and not led by any political party. In some ways, it was a confused protest; it saw the capitalist state as a villain but yet wanted a bigger but benevolent state as saviour to provide more services and benefits. However, Macron’s handling reflected a lack of empathy and reinforced his image of being a technocratic, pro-rich, aloof president.

Disenchantment grew and was successfully exploited at both ends of the political spectrum, by Jean Luc Melenchon on the Left and Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour on the Right.

French elections follow a two-stage process. Unless the first round throws up a winning candidate obtaining over 50% of the vote, a run-off takes place between the top two candidates. In the first round held on April 10, Macron took the lead with 27.8% but with Le Pen and Melenchon following with 23.1% and 21.9% respectively. For the first time, the candidates on the far right and far left accounted for 58% of the vote. Traditional mainstream party candidates were routed. The centre-right candidate Valerie Pecresse, who had been part of President Chirac’s team and was later Higher Education Minister in President Sarkozy’s cabinet got 4.8% while centre-left Socialist candidate Anne Hidalgo, mayor of Paris since 2014, was reduced to 1.7%.

It was a wake-up call for Macron who had not spent time on the campaign trail, engaging more in high profile diplomacy on the Ukraine war, relying on appearing presidential. The strategy had backfired and Le Pen exploited it successfully as rising cost of living became the most important issue for nearly two-thirds of the electorate by appearing a more normal and approachable candidate. In the final stages, the run-off round became a referendum, a question of who the voters disliked more. An abstention of 28%, the highest since 1969, reflects the disenchantment of the people with the choice on offer.

The message has registered with Macron who instead of striking a jubilant note adopted a conciliatory tone in his victory speech, ‘promising to be a president for all’ and thanking those who helped defeat Le Pen. The latter was an acknowledgement of the Left vote; 41% of the Melenchon’s voters held their nose but voted for Macron just to prevent a Le Pen victory.

Macron’s challenges in his second term are greater. In 2017, his party won 314 seats in the 577 strong National Assembly but this time both Melenchon and Le Pen are calling the Assembly elections scheduled for mid-June as a ‘third round’. If Macron loses control of the Assembly, he may be forced into an uneasy co-habitation that will limit his policy options. It is the fate that befell both his predecessors, Mitterand and Chirac, in their second terms. Macron is aware that French voters can be fickle; a quick and convincing image make-over is necessary if Macron has to create history, by becoming the first president to win a second term and keep control of the Assembly.

*****

Macron’s Re-election, A Victory With Challenges

Posted on by
Reply

Published in the Hindu on April 27, 2022

Last Sunday, French voters gave President Emmanuel Macron his second term and Europe heaved a collective sigh of relief. Though Mr. Macron scored a convincing victory over far-right-wing challenger Marine Le Pen, his victory margin diminished compared to the 2017 run-off, from 66% to 58.5%, while Ms. Le Pen improved her score from 34% to 41.5%, reflecting the changing character of French politics. Nevertheless, given that only two popularly elected presidents have won second terms (Francois Mitterand in 1988 and Jacques Chirac in 2002), Mr. Macron has reason to feel chuffed. European Union leaders, facing twin challenges of the Russian war in Ukraine and a tepid recovery from COVID-19, have enthusiastically welcomed Mr. Macron’s victory given Ms Le Pen overt Euroscepticism.

A changing politics

France’s two-step voting process means that in the first round, voters express their real preferences; in the second round, with the field narrowed to two, they reject the one they dislike more.

At the beginning of the campaign in February, there were a dozen candidates but by end-March, most were fizzling out. The first round, held on April 10, showed the decimation of the two traditional parties that have ruled France since the 1960s, the centre-right Republicans and the centre-left Socialists. Republican candidate Valerie Pecresse, had been part of Mr. Chirac’s team and also Higher Education minister with Mr. Nicholas Sarkozy, managed a 4.8% vote share while Socialist candidate Anne Hidalgo, mayor of Paris since 2016, got a mere 1.7%. From the days of Socialist presidents like Mitterand and Hollande, and Republican presidents like Sarkozy, Chirac and Valery Giscard d’Estaing, this was a rout.

These two parties have been losing ground, from a collective 56% of the vote in the first round in 2012, to 27% in 2017 when Mr. Macron emerged on the scene and captured the imagination of voters as a pro-Europe, business friendly, forward looking liberal. In 2017, this enabled him to redefine the Centrist vote, successfully poaching from both the Republican and Socialist bases.

Five years later, Mr. Macron had a record to defend and counter the image of being a pro-rich, aloof and elitist president. His response to the gilets jaunes (yellow vest) protests lacked empathy. Ms. Le Pen capitalised on this by seeking to appear more human and approachable, a single mother and a cat lover.

A rough campaign

In the first round on April 10, Mr. Macron led with 27.8%, followed by Ms. Le Pen with 23.1% and left-wing populist Jean Luc Melenchon (France Unbowed) with a credible 21.9%. Extreme-right-wing journalist turned candidate Eric Zemmour whose presence helped Ms. Le Pen appear relatively moderate also got 7% vote. Other mainstream candidates Jean Lasalle, formerly MoDem (Democratic Movement) and Yannick Jadot (Greens) only managed 3.1% and 4.6% respectively. The fact that far-right and far-left parties accounted for 58% of the vote in the first round reflects the growing polarisation in domestic French politics. Centre-left voters switched from Ms. Hidalgo and Mr. Jadot (Greens) to Melenchon and centre-right from Ms. Pecresse to Mr. Macron.

The slow rightward drift in French politics has sharpened since the terrorist attacks in 2015 and the consequent debates on identity and laicite (French version of secularism) emerged as key themes in the early weeks till the Ukraine war and rising cost of living assumed priority.

Mr. Zemmour’s campaign exploited the ‘great replacement’ theory, (originally propounded by Renault Camus) – that non-white, non-Christian and non-French are gradually replacing white Christian French population. Mr. Zemmour grew his base by asking young French people if they were willing to live as a minority in the land of their ancestors. Ms. Le Pen, conscious of the need to retain her base lest they drifted to Zemmour, promised a ban on the hijab (headscarf) and a constitutional amendment that would distinguish between “native born French” and “others” for access to education, housing and other social benefits and restricting citizenship to only those who have “earned it and fully assimilated.”

Mr. Macron was late to join the campaign, thinking that he could ensure support by appearing presidential, involved with geopolitics of war in Ukraine. Since December when tensions began rising, he has had nearly two dozen telephone conversations with President Vladimir Putin, visited Moscow and Kyiv and had multiple exchanges with NATO and EU leaders. He filed his candidature on March 3, a day before the deadline and spent little time on the campaign trail before the first round. His poll ratings slipped from 30% in early March by five points leading to a strategy shift.

It is only in April that Mr. Macron realised that the “progressive liberal centrist” platform that had delivered victory in 2017 was no longer working. The field was dominated either by a utopian extremism of the Left or a nationalist extremism bordering on racism on the Right. Mr. Macron began to talk about building a ‘dam’ to preserve the Centre. To shift the debate from ‘identity’, he promised full employment in five years, tax cuts for households and small businesses and softened his stand on raising the retirement age from 62 years to 65, spreading it over a nine-year timeframe.

For the second round, the debate turned personal. Mr. Macron highlighted Ms. Le Pen’s ties with Mr. Putin, describing him as her ‘banker’, called her a ‘climate sceptic’, blamed her policy as ‘spelling the end of the EU’ and made the election a ‘referendum on secularism and Europe’. Ms. Le Pen blamed him for ignoring the rising cost of food and fuel and declining pensions, sought a ‘Europe of nations’ rather than an EU, called him ‘a climate hypocrite’, and the election a referendum on “Macron or France’.

The obstacles, from June

Having secured his second term, Mr. Macron urgently needs to douse the flames of polarisation. The 72% turnout on Sunday is the lowest in a presidential run-off since 1969. In addition, of the 34.5 million votes cast, the three million blanks or spoilt ballots reflect disenchantment with both candidates. Mr. Melenchon has declared that Macron’s presidency ‘is floating in a sea of abstentions and blank or null ballots’. Over a third of the voters didn’t vote for Mr. Macron and many left-leaning voters only did so because they hated the far-right Ms. Le Pen more.

National Assembly elections are due in June and if the Left take the Assembly, Melenchon could become prime minister; a prospect of co-habitation that ensures policy gridlock. In such a scenario, polarisation will only increase and Mr. Macron’s centrist experiment would be a short-lived reprieve from the rightward shift.

That is why at his victory speech at the foot of the Eiffel tower, Mr. Macron struck a conciliatory note, thanking those who helped defeat Ms. Le Pen and “promising to be a president for all.”

Relief in Europe, India

Such was the concern in Europe about the election that in an unprecedented move, Portugese and Spanish Prime Ministers Antonio Costa and Pedro Sanchez and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz co-authored an op-ed in Le Monde on April 21, urging French voters to reject Ms. Le Pen. The congratulatory messages pouring in from western capitals reflect relief as a Le Pen victory would have severely damaged western unity, at a critical moment in Europe.

India too has reason to be happy with Mr. Macron’s victory. India and France have enjoyed a solid strategic partnership, established in 1998 that has expanded to cover cooperation in defence, nuclear and space sectors, climate issues and renewables, cyber security and counter-terrorism. French presence in the Indo-Pacific has prodded the EU too to shift towards an Indo-Pacific strategy.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be traveling to Germany and Denmark on a bilateral visit in the first week of May. It provides a welcome opportunity to spend a day in Paris to congratulate Mr. Macron and impart new momentum to the relationship.

*****

The Challenge Ahead For Terror-Hit France

Posted on by
Reply

Published in the Hindustan Times on 1st November, 2020

France has faced its own share of terrorist attacks, including from among its own radicalised Muslims. The latest cycle, which has left the country in shock, began with the beheading of Samuel Paty, a school teacher on 16 October killed by an 18 year old Chechen refugee who was enraged because Paty had shown caricatures of Prophet Mohammed during his lecture on “free speech” to the students, after advising them that those offended could leave. This was followed by a fatal stabbing of three, in a church in Nice by a 21 year old recently arrived Tunisian migrant on 29 October.

Global reactions
President Emmanuel Macron’s statement at Paty’s memorial service describing him as a symbol of “freedom and reason” and vowing that French freedom of expression means that “we will not give up our cartoons” has provoked angry reactions from Muslims in other countries, fuelled by incendiary responses from Turkish President Erdogan, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan and Malaysian leader Mahathir bin Mohamed.

Erdogan said that “Macron needs a mental health check” followed by calling for a boycott of French goods leading France to recall its ambassador in protest. Behind his animus are growing differences on Turkish military interventions in Libya, in eastern Mediterranean against Greece and in supporting Azerbaijan against Armenia.

If France sees itself as the torchbearer for democratic, liberal and secular values, Turkey under Erdogan (who has been in power since 2003 and ensured his continuation till 2028 through constitutional manipulations) has reversed the Ataturk reforms of the 1930s to reclaim its Islamic identity and role in a neo-Ottoman avatar.

Imran Khan, facing domestic political unrest, issued a series to tweets blaming Macron for “encouraging Islamophobia” and “hurting the sentiments and provoking millions of Muslims”. Parliament passed resolutions seeking recall of its ambassador from Paris before realising that there was none as the new appointee hadn’t joined.

Mahathir Mohamed’s tweet that Muslims have the right “to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past” was taken down by Twitter for being offensive. Ironically, none of them has uttered a word about incarceration of a million Uighur Muslims by China.

Other European countries demonstrated solidarity. Germany, UK, Italy and the Netherlands issued strong statements of support and condemned terrorist acts. In Delhi, the Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement “deploring the personal attacks” on Macron while condemning the “brutal terrorist attack” on Paty. In a subsequent tweet, PM Modi condemned the terrorist act conveying solidarity with France, even as Foreign Secretary Shringla was in Paris yesterday for talks where the radicalisation of Muslim communities would have been discussed.

Macron’s challenge
Secularism or laicite, separating ‘religion’ and ‘state’ was legalised in France in 1905. A 2004 law prohibits the ostentatious display of “conspicuous religious symbols” in public institutions. While it alienated sections of Muslims by prohibiting the ‘hijab’, it applied equally to Catholics wearing a large cross or Jews wearing the yarmulke (skull-cap). Faith was restricted to the privacy of the home in order to promote civic nationalism, in keeping with the sense of French exceptionalism.

France is home to 6 million Muslims, the largest concentration in Europe. It has been aware of growing radicalisation in certain sections of the community. Earlier this month, in a long-awaited speech on 2 October, Macron cautioned about the risks of ‘Islamic separatism’ leading to a ‘counter-society’ and said that new legislation would be introduced to prevent it. This would include measures to improve prospects for socio-economic mobility as well as tighter controls on financing and instruction in mosques and madrassahs as well as monitoring cultural and sports organisations. The suggestion that Islam was ‘in crisis’ and needed its own ‘enlightenment’ elicited a mixed response within France but little comment outside.

The challenge for France is not easy. The idea that education, hard work and following French laws and customs led to upward mobility has been challenged in recent years and Covid-19 has only highlighted it. A recent opinion poll among Muslims in France revealed that while an encouraging 60 percent believed that ‘freedom of expression’ should include satire, the same poll also indicated that over 75 percent were unwilling to include caricatures of Prophet Muhammed as acceptable satire. This is the gap that Marine Le Pen, Macron’s most likely opponent in the 2022 election, will exploit with her populist, nationalist and anti-EU platform. This is also the gap that Macron needs to bridge with his proposed legislative initiative.