Height of folly

Strategic advantage in Siachen can’t be given up for short-term
political gains

THE STORY doing the rounds in Delhi is that in another exhibition of generosity, India is about to withdraw from the Saltoro Ridge (commonly referred to as the Siachen Glacier) in the interest of peace, but without securing the country’s strategic interests.
Search for peace is indisputably desirable but to try and attain it through magnanimity will only trump realism. Peace is usually possible when there is so much mutual trust that agreements are a natural corollary, or when one of the antagonists is so totally vanquished that the victor can make him sign practically anything, or if both the antagonists are completely exhausted and there is a realisation that the only answer is peace.
In the India-Pakistan context, the level of distrust remains very high despite the efforts of some nostalgic dream merchants. Pakistan has not called an unequivocal and permanent end to using its jehadist weapon in India. Worse, it is spreading its use to the rest of India. There is also collusion with Bangladeshi jehadists.
It was this distrust of Pakistan’s intentions that led the Indian Army to occupy the Saltoro Ridge in 1984. Saltoro was attained by our soldiers after considerable sacrifice and at huge costs to the nation. One of the spins currently given to support calls for withdrawal is that the expenses and the loss of life are unbearable. Neither is correct. The army claims it is now down to zero weather- and terrain-related casualty. An expenditure of Rs 2 crore a day out of a budget of Rs 80,000 crore is small change. To give up territory just because there is no habitation there or it is expensive is to let sacrifices go in vain and keep yourself open to repeat intrusions later.
The lay of the land is such that any vacation of this territory without iron-clad guarantees would enable Pakistan to occupy the ridge with comparative ease. Reoccupation by Indian forces would then be virtually impossible and we would have to open another front elsewhere. It is difficult to imagine how this could be achieved as international pressure on India not to retaliate would be immediate and massive. We all know how much pressure was brought upon us following the attack on Indi an Parliament on December 13, 2001.
The Indian Army had climbed to the Saltoro Ridge for a distinctly military objective. This was to cut off Pakistan’s access to areas that would enable it to reach the Karakoram Pass and link with China and be able to threaten Ladakh; the Saltoro Ridge provided Indian forces with strategic heights looking into Pak-occupied Gilgit and Baltistan. Strategic advantage cannot be given up for some obscure short-term political advantage without a document to establish one’s credentials. Withdrawal from the Saltoro heights without any exchange of authenticated documents and carefully delineated positions would be the height of all follies, tantamount to retreat.
Pakistan’s unwillingness to sign any document that authenticates the Agreed Ground Position Line (AGPL) could only mean that it would seek to break it at first dawn. There is neither a change of heart nor intentions. Kargil 1999 was the latest military attempt to alter the ground position in Kashmir and particularly to negate the advantage India had in Saltoro.
India has the dubious distinction of being the only country to give up strategic advantages repeatedly. In 1948, when the Pakistani forces were retreating, we did not secure Muzaffarabad, Bagh, Kotli or Skardu. In 1966, we gave up Haji Pir, through which infiltrators keep coming into the Kashmir Valley even today. In 1972, we gave up territory and 93,000 PoWs for an agreement that Pakistan never intended to observe.
Are we now about to repeat more of this sorry history? One is afraid that this may be so. The problem is that we seem to be eager to give up strategic advantage for short-term political gains and to look good internationally. There is little reason for India to accept an unfavourable arrangement today when our position is much stronger than in the Nineties. It is logical to ask if we are now willing to accept this unfair arrangement with a regime that has not given up its primary goal of creating caliphates in India.
There were times between 1989 and 1992 when it appeared that a settlement on the Saltoro issue was about to be clinched. By then, the Pakistan army was getting ready to redeploy its jehadi army, demobilised from the Afghan theatre to the Kashmir front, and an agreement on Saltoro did not fit into the scheme of things. Boastful Pakistani diplomats even claimed that they would have an ‘agreement’ favourable to Pakistan on Kashmir by 1991. Frustration at the ability of the Indian-State to withstand this ruthless campaign led to the Kargil misadventure in 1999. But by mid-2001, Musharraf had bounced back post-Agra, only to be deflated by an angry America in September 2001.
It is an insecure Musharraf who has to keep reminding Pakistanis that he is the boss when he proclaims all corps commanders are his boys, and the rest of the world that he is no Bush poodle. Washington continues to champion Musharraf as the indis pensable frontline ally and wants to give something to Musharraf so that he can transfer troops facing India to do battle in Pakistan’s turbulent west. But these troop transfers have to be done in an atmosphere of triumph for Musharraf, when he can claim that he got the Indians out of Siachen. Caeser must return to Rome in glory.
It is only then that Musharraf hopes his troops will fight other Muslims in revolt in Waziristan and Balochistan. The US has a requirement to keep Musharraf in position. After all, he heads Pakistan’s strongest, best equipped and financially endowed political party — the Pakistan army. But that is not our requirement. India is not obliged to let Musharraf continue in perpetuity. Any concession to him now will ensure him a life beyond 2007. And beyond 2007, even Bush does not care; his time will have begun to run out. One can understand American anxiety to reward their favourite in their askewed global war on terror and secure Pakistani help to tackle Iran but one cannot understand India’s anxiety to please the Americans.
The only way it would not be perceived as a retreat would be if the Pakistanis first agreed to delineate the AGPL in the Siachen sector, which is a part of the large Saltoro Ridge, authenticate this on maps that would then be signed and exchanged by commanders of the two countries. Pakistan would then project the AGPL in all its maps, making the AGPL an extension of the LoC from Point NJ-9842. After this, the two countries would work out the ground rules for demilitarisation. Only after this has been worked out will there be discussion on redeployment and demilitarisation of this sector. Anything short of this will be a sell-out.
Nothing need be agreed to furtively. There is no need to have deals signed in a hurry under the cloak of darkness. We need to debate this openly, and in our Parliament, without the inane recourse to disruptions and walkouts that negate any debate. We are all stakeholders in the peace process but we need to know why we are agreeing to retreat. One does not become a war-mongering cold warrior simply because one wants doubts cleared. Patriotism is not the right of only peaceniks.

Source : Hindustan Times 11th may 2006

Taking a wrong turn

A Kashmir agreement now will give Musharraf a victory he badly
needs

DIFFERENT STATES react differently to similar situations. When Israel is subjected to ter rorist attacks, which is very often, the State reacts immediately and with force each time. In India, two days after Pakistan-backed terrorists kill innocent civilians in Srinagar, we send an official delegation to talk about cooperation in the war against terrorism with the sponsors of terrorism. There is no pretence of postponing the meeting. It is as incongruous as the London Police seeking the help of Jack the Ripper to find Jack the Ripper.
The Iranians, too, have a lesson to teach. As the world watches, they have shown that if you know what you want, you have the rules on your side and have the courage to stand up to all pressures, the other side will ultimately blink first. One does not have to roll over and play dead at the first opportunity. Talking with the Pakistanis about curbing terrorism is a dialogue of the deaf. We say stop the violence; they agree, but say that Indian security forces must stop killing innocents. We say stop the infiltration; they demand the withdrawal of Indian troops. We call it terrorism; they call it a freedom struggle. When a terrorist is killed, they call him a martyr. They glorify their suicide terrorists by calling them fidayeen; alas, unthinkingly we do likewise.
Meanwhile, Pakistan has no intention of rolling back its jehadi infrastructure. This is a vital lowcost weapon they have. So the embers are kept bur ning with vicious anti-India, anti-Israel and anti-US campaigns that get detailed coverage in the thriving jehadi press. The campaign to curtail the jehadi outfits and control madrassas is an elaborate charade. What really happens is that the Pakistani intelligence establishment periodically does a cleaning operation and shuts down some outfits to launch new ones to prevent anyone from becoming too powerful. This is mistakenly seen as an example of enlightened moderation. In reality, these are just revolving door tactics: exit an old outfit and enter a new one in a different costume. All is not too well with the Musharraf realm as election year approaches. Suddenly, the throne is looking vulnerable with Washington now beginning to grumble sotto voce that Musharraf is not doing enough in the global war on terror. There is irritation with endless Musharraf double-speak along with assistance to the Taliban and a growing realisation that democracy in Pakistan may not be such a bad option. The jehadis are complaining that Musharraf has sold Pakistan to the Americans and lost Kashmir to the Hindus. Balochistan and Waziristan are in ferment. Meanwhile in Pakistan, Sunnis kill Shias, Deobandhis kill Barelvis, Shias and Ahmediyas while they shed crocodile tears for the Kashmiris. And far away, in London, their political voice gagged in Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have issued their magna carta, which seeks and hopes to curb the Pakistan armed forces substantially. Whether this remains yet another Pakistani dream for democracy or becomes a reality depends on how seriously the rest of the world takes this Charter of Democracy. Left to himself, Musharraf would only be too eager to revoke his promises to Pakistanis once again and is working on a scheme to continue as Pakistan’s dictator in democratic clothing beyond 2007. Any agreement on Kashmir now, in any form, will give Musharraf a victory that he badly needs, and ensure his continuance in perpetuity.
In this context, for Indians to scurry around and offer palliatives to Musharraf is completely misplaced. Terminologies like autonomy, selfgovernance, self-rule, joint sovereignty and open borders are being bandied around like some magic solution. How can there be autonomy for Kashmir and not for Haryana? Can there be self-rule in Kashmir but not in Assam? In any case, are not all states in India selfruled by the people of the state? How can there be joint sovereignty with Pakistan when it cannot even grant us MFN status or screen Hindi films? And what is this rubbish about soft or open borders with someone who regularly sends armed terrorists across? How can we accuse Pakistan of aiding terrorism in India and also have open borders?
The Prime Minister’s visit to Srinagar was greeted by a shutdown and a boycott by that group of the ‘unelected and unelectables’ called the Hurriyat. Violence and a rebuff must have been anticipated. So when the visit was cut short by a day, Pak TV smirked and the jehadi underworld gloated. It is not just what a government does but how it does it that is important.
After the Hurriyat leaders’ long sojourn in Pakistan earlier this year, they had met the PM in New Delhi. An arrangement of a cycle of meetings in Islamabad, New Delhi and Srinagar, making it appear a tripartite discussion with the Hurriyat as the third party, has hopefully been abandoned. New Delhi should now be talking with only those who had the courage and the wisdom to participate in the electoral process.
Human beings have the great facility to rationalise situations and pursue a manifestly futile path on occasions. Talking to these so-called moderates is one such rationalisation. The Hurriyat is a secessionist organisation put together by Pakistan. Have we ever heard of a moderate secessionist or a patriotic traitor? And how can there be a meeting of minds with secessionists? Not one of the Hurriyat leaders had the courage to condemn the murderers of innocent civilians. This is not surprising because some of them do not even have the courage to name the murderers of their own fathers.
One could however, pity the Hurriyat for it lives under constant threat — obey or else. It fears its own extremists more than its mentors across. That is why it needs the protection of the Indian State — one of the ironies of the Kashmir question. The other irony of the situation in Kashmir is that all socio-economic indicators compare favourably with the rest of the country. Its per capita income is slightly lower than the national average; its literacy level is on par; its population below poverty line is the best in the country; it receives the largest resource transfer and grants from the central government. Places like Hyderpora, Rajbagh and Barzulla look completely transformed, as palaces owned by locals have mushroomed in Srinagar — wages of insurgency or profits of office, apparently. It is, therefore, not a case of resource crunch in Kashmir. It is abysmally poor governance despite a bloated bureaucracy that simply milks the system. There is little attention to provision of good roads, adequate power or even sanitation. Correct this, provide law and order and a large portion of the grievances will disappear. After all these years of relentless animosity, Pakistan finds itself rated very highly as a failed State by a US think-tank. Obviously, such endless animosity is debilitating. A situation of this kind in our neighbourhood will naturally affect us as well. The solution does not lie in seemingly magnanimous gestures that strengthen the stranglehold of the Pakistan army. This would be a retrograde step for India. Such gestures are sometimes used by victorious States as a weapon of real politik, but in the Indo-Pak context, this stage does not exist. Such gestures are, therefore, invariably portrayed in Islamabad as appeasement.
The reality of the situation is that there are no quick solutions and it is a long haul, chiefly because an increasingly ‘jehadised’ Pakistan army must somehow renege from its Faustian bargain and retrieve its soul from Mephistopheles.

SOurce : Hindustan Times 6th June 2006

Intelligence Quotient

The R&AW must retain a dedicated staff if it’s to remain alert to
threats

INTELLIGENCE AND the world of espionage are as old as history. Rameshwar Nath Kao, the first chief of R&AW, used to say that his friend, Comte Alexandre de Marenches, the French chief of intelligence during the Seventies, described this world as the best. Marenches used to say that espionage was an unscrupulous game played by gentlemen.
The world of intelligence is not just the James Bond kind of fantasy, although the point about willingness to take the initiative is valid. Intelligence is more the dogged George Smiley kind of life — patient and painstaking. It needs the skills of total recall and the ability to relate to events, like those of Connie Sachs, the former queen of research at the Circus. Marcus Wolfe, the East German spy chief, was Le Carre’s Karla. Romanticised in novels and vilified in real life, ultimately an intelligence agency becomes what its government wants it to be.
Any government keen on staying ahead of competition and thwarting threats would need a first rate external agency manned by men and women of honour who care for the organisation to which they belong. External intelligence, espionage and covert operations are a country’s first line of offence and defence. Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and, years later, Atal Bihari Vajpayee realised this. They understood the benefit of advice from an agency that would tell them the truth as it existed and not as was desired or wished for. For this, they kept the agency in a cocoon, sheltered from coalition or regional politics.
With time, the targets of espionage have changed. Newer and more complicated threats have been added to traditional military and political threats. Globalisation has brought threats to markets and resources; global terror has spawned a thriving global terror economy, where human trafficking, narcotics smuggling, gun running and money laundering feed on each other. Many of the threats are technology-driven.
Intelligence is neither a science nor an art that can be taught from a textbook. It is a craft that requires aptitude and a life-long commitment. Modern-day espionage also needs super specialisations — of languages, areas and issues, of tradecraft skills acquired over years of experience in the same field and analytical skills honed over years of study of the same topic or region. Intelligence is not something that can be bought off the shelf and its analysis requires uncommon rigour and discipline.
In India, too, there is a growing need to have in-house expertise dedicated to these specialisations, along with traditional espionage skills that are not lost every few years to transient passengers. It is not enough to recruit talent, difficult as it is with more lucrative and less dangerous avenues available. It is a problem of retaining talent and a problem equally of suitably handling talent that has either run aground or outlived its utility. It is no longer possible to assume that a civil service exam passed years ago qualifies a person to be an intelligence officer. The system of recruitment through a normal civil service exam was acceptable when job requirements were different. The multiple talents and expertise now required are no longer available in the civil services because people with skills and qualifications do not find government career paths attractive enough. The head of the organisation should, therefore, have the flexibility to temporarily outsource talent for specific requirements without disturbing the organisational hierarchy. Besides, each rookie who joins the R&AW must believe that the rules permit him to have a fair chance to make it to the top slot. Otherwise he will not give in his best or will drift to greener pastures midstream, taking away with him years of experience. But if it is decided to deliberately downgrade a service and make it less attractive, the results will be commensurate.
The R&AW is the only organisation in the Government of India that has a dedicated service and yet has been made to have a quota for birds of passage. The Indian Foreign Service does not have this, nor do the Railways or some others. Often, the organisation is considered a safe haven for those from uncomfortable cadres and services seeking temporary refuge till avenues at home improved. There was a time, at its inception, when the organisation needed experience and expertise from elsewhere, but once it was decided to form a service, the role of the transients was intended to gradually disappear. There is no reason why the R&AW should not follow the successful experience of other intelligence agencies and also recruit from outside the civil service.
Intelligence agencies function best when they are not stultified into bureaucracies since this only kills initiative, discourages risk-taking and frowns upon innovation. Intelligence agencies are like restricted clubs, elitist and exclusive in many ways, which cannot afford to have nasty little sub-groups plotting against each other. It has to be a life-time commitment, not an arrangement, however long, with the officer constantly looking at his parent service to return to, should the grass get greener there. You either belong fully or you do not. There is no room for those who treat this as a part-time pursuit because of lack of other avenues. There is no revolving door.
Periodic reform and upgrading to cater for future threats are necessary. But an intelligence agency loses its way if this reform is carried out by those who neither understand the system, nor empathise with it, or suspect it for its secret ways, or have a pre-determined agenda and are, at times, hostile to it. Reforms have really been more about creating quotas (how we love that word), which, instead of unifying, have only been divisive or about promotion avenues for a few. It does not really address core issues like strengthening élan in an organisation that has no other outlet, increasing professionalism and making it an attractive career opportunity in today’s context.
Reform endures when it evolves from within, as with all societies, and is carried out by those who understand the system. Rather than perennially tinker with and unsettle the system, it is time for the arbiters of the organisation’s destiny to hold out their hand to the men and women in the battlefield of intelligence, give them an assured future and encourage them to perform better for they fight a lonely war in silence.
Other countries have had reason to view the R&AW as a sinister organisation but that should be no reason for Indians to view it similarly. On the contrary, the image of a benign external intelligence agency should worry Indians just as much as a sinister internal agency should frighten them. Just because in the nature of things an intelligence agency is required to work in secret does not make it suspect. Consequently, over the years, there has been an unfortunate tendency to exercise greater and greater remote control but in reality this is only an exercise of authority without responsibility.
In India, the danger is that as we globalise and privatise, there may be a tendency to believe that traditional threats have disappeared in the blossoming global bonhomie, new threats do not exist and the future holds no devils. International threats do not emerge suddenly — at least not in the intelligence world. They take time building up, bit by bit. An alert and well-endowed intelligence outfit collects the straws to weave a mat but a distracted bureaucratised agency will miss out the signs again and again.

Source : Hindustan Times 21st June 2006

The Grand Ilusion

The Indo-US nuclear agreement intrudes on India’s strategic policy

EMINENT INDIAN nuclear scientists have been expressing their concern about the contents and direction of the Indo-US nuclear deal signed last July. Strategic analysts, former diplomats, prominent politicians and knowledgeable commentators have repeatedly cautioned the government about the minefields ahead. Ought not the government pause and clear these doubts? There is little effort towards this end, and we all seem to be running blind.
The concern is not that India and the US have a nuclear deal or that the two countries have begun to warm up to each other. Not at all. The issue is that this deal will lead us to the NPT through the backdoor, cap our weapons potential and reduce India to a perpetual secondary status, and that supporters of the deal have not read the fine print. The manner in which the deal was signed, and the manner in which it has been made to stand on its head with all the new conditionalities, also make it suspect.
We are told that the sceptics do not understand the big picture and are out of the loop. The fear is that the deal will tie us down in a bind forever and that in our eagerness to clinch the deal we are rationalising irrationality.
After the deal was signed last July, Parliament was told that there was going to be reciprocity. India would submit its plan of separating civilian and military nuclear facilities, after which the US would seek amendment of US laws in the Congress. It would be the US’s responsibility to approach the Nuclear Suppliers Group for waivers. After this, India would negotiate safeguard agreements with the IAEA. Instead, what has happened is that the US House of Representatives and the Senate have proposed Bills that put the deal upside down as we understood it. The US executive wants us to fall in line and we have begun to do so already. Negotiations with the IAEA have begun.
The trick item in the US House of Representatives Bill of June 26 is that the President would have to submit periodic reports to the Congress beginning January 2007 and thereafter every year. The reports would have to describe, in considerable detail, India’s nuclear-related activities in the previous year and the extent to which progress in achieving US foreign pol icy objectives had been made.
These objectives include achieving a moratorium on production of fissile material for nuclear explosive purposes by Pakistan, India and China; adherence to the FMCT to which both India and the US will be signatories; India’s full participation in Proliferation Security Initiative and its interdiction principles; India’s conforming to the Wassennaar Arrangements (conventional and dual-use weapons) and the Australia Group policies (chemical and biological weapons); and India’s full compliance in the US policy on Iran’s nuclear programme. There is also the mandatory punitive clause, should India decide to test.
Whatever be the Sense of the Congress, the intention is unambiguous — it seems designed to not only control India’s nuclear capabilities, but also makes it appear that our foreign and strategic policy is being outsourced to the US. Our executive will be answerable to the US Congress through the US President.
This confirms the earlier misgivings of many. Indian fears are sought to be assuaged by suggesting that not all sections of the Bills are binding; that we need not worry; the Congress is simply acting out of pique at not having been consulted initially; that these are only paper formalities and that we will get over them when the actual time comes.
We can never be sure of this especially if one recalls the statements Nick Burns and George Joseph made soon after the deal was signed. The slide continues.
The challenge is to preserve Indian interests in the context of US global security and foreign policy objectives, because the US is offering this deal to India only in the pursuit of its own interests, and not out of any altruism. It is widely acknowledged that US global interests are immutable and there is bipartisan support. From the time that Thomas Jefferson said, “What a colossus shall we be” in 1816, to the National Security Doctrine of September 2002, a common thread runs through US foreign policy doctrine — of global dominance. George Kennan, one of the most respected strategic thinkers in the US, asserted in 1948 that the US had to maintain the prevalent position of disparity. “To do so, we have to …dispense with all sentimentality, cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation,” he said. This remains the underlying goal as elaborated in the various security doctrines that speak of dominance and pre-emptive action in the present neo-con era, and not what Condoleezza Rice may say of balance of power. This merely softens the hard stance and means there has to be balance of power between regional powers with no peer competitor for the US.
Large countries like Russia have begun to feel irked at the increasing intrusiveness of the US. Even Mikhail Gorbachev, the man who mid-wifed the birth of independent Soviet States, in a recent interview with The Times, London, spoke of the US building a new empire. The US set out to befriend the Vietnamese but destroyed them, like they have the Iraqis and Afghans now. Japan and Germany were first devastated, then helped in reconstruction. It was Henry Kissinger who had remarked that it was dangerous to be America’s enemy but it was fatal to be America’s friend. It may be worth remembering this as we seek to improve our ties with the US.
The US has always held an ideology that has a global mission of deconstructing ‘evil States’ and reconstructing them as American clones. This ideology is, today, backed by unchallenged military power and an increasing propensity to use it as a first option.
Protagonists of the deal now perpetuate myths about it and, unable to convince critics, abandon logic in favour of jargon, with convoluted explanations in place of reason. They seem to be opting for selective reality. It is better to be a doubting cold warrior than a neo-con acolyte.
We are forgetting that we are being sucked into a situation that will hobble the independence of our foreign policy. Evidence of this is in the manner in which we scored a self-goal on the Iran nuclear issue. We had a say in the IAEA and then let the issue go to the UNSC. Today, India is not even consulted on this subject after having voted to please the US. We were unable to attend the SCO summit where some of the most prominent Asian leaders and Russia were present, for fear of annoying our new friends. We could not test Agni-III until General Pace had visited India. There is no joy for us in our ill-advised quest for the UNSC. We are to be a major market, not a major power.
India is described in glowing terms nowadays, flattered as an emerging power, an India rising; the Grand Illusion perpetuates. We are on the front pages of The Economist and Time, who not many years ago referred to India with condescension. Will India fly, they now ask.
We need to remember that Icarus became careless when he soared too close to the sun, so when the wax melted, he lost his wings. He had forgotten the advice Daedalus gave him; do not fly too close to the sun or too close to the ocean.

Source : Hindustan Times 19th July 2006

Securing the State

To tackle jehadi terrorism, India needs a whole new paradigm of
Governance


NEARLY SIXTY years of uninterrupted Pakistani interference in India’s internal affairs, from the time of infiltrating Afridi tribesmen into Kashmir accompanied by Pak troops, assistance to Phizo, assistance to Sikh terrorists and down to Kashmir today, nearly 40,000 killed, innumerable assassinations, 70,000 wounded, 25,000 AK-47/56/74s, 50,000 grenades, 4,000 rockets and 5,000 kg of RDX captured, and much more, yet the US asks India for evidence about Pak complicity. Ironically, for years we went scurrying all over the world complaining about Pakistani involvement but were unwilling to do battle ourselves.
Instead, India is now being unceremoniously asked to restrain itself despite far greater evidence than for which Iraq continues to be ravaged. The evidence is also the mindset of the various jehadi organisations and their leaders’ relentless campaign against Jews, Christians and Hindus. They stand in the open in Rawalpindi, the headquarters of the all-knowing Pakistani army and openly command their followers to a jehad against Jews and Hindus. The evidence is in the newspapers and periodicals of these organisations that sell openly in which they spew venom on those from other religions. It is this that explains relations between India and Pakistan. This and the army’s vast corporate interests and its own mindset are the core issue. Kashmir is the excuse not the core issue.
Anyone interested in finding out more should read Ghazwa Times or Mujalla al Dawa for blood-curdling experiences, although quite frequently even mainstream Urdu papers Nawa-e-Waqt and Jung can be pretty nasty. Jehadi indoctrination begins early in Pakistan. The evidence is in the curriculum of the mainstream schools of Pakistan where jehad is still taught as a subject, not just in the madrasas. The Lashkar-e-Tayyeba has a special magazine for the young called Nanhe Mujahid that teaches hatred to the young. The evidence is in the continued activity of the jehadi or sectarian organisations with titles like Lashkar, Jaish or Mujahideen dropped and reborn with new nameplates. The list is endless. They are not short of funds, weapons or manpower. Hamid Gul, the former ISI chief, has described the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba as Pakistan’s frontline soldiers in Kashmir. If this is not Slam Dunk, Mr President, then what is?
All this is being ignored because Pakistan is a useful piece of real estate available on rent to the highest bidder with an endless supply of cheap labour. Pakistan is today led by a group that lies to the US, cheats Indians and Afghans. Yet, there is no fairy godmother who is going to come and wave her wand for terrorism to disappear from India. On the contrary, the fairy godmother will show impatience and command that we get back to the negotiating table fast and ‘stop all this shit’.
Meanwhile, the US will arm and equip her favourite with new gleaming weapons. These arms are not for equipping Pakistan in the so-called war against terror but are a reward to Pak rulers for helping the US in the fight against terror, for services and instructions carried out. Weapons like Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missiles, 2,000pound bombs (bunker busters) and guided bombs are of no use against terrorists. Instead, they are extremely handy against the Indian Army and Air Force. And, of course, the F-16s, the Awacs and the Harpoon missiles. It is immaterial to the US if, in the bargain, the Pakistanis get the periodic itch to use this equipment against India.
The anomaly of the situation is that we want to have soft borders and still accuse Pakistan of cross-border terrorism. The former only means that we are not serious about the latter. Consequently, Musharraf of Kargil is today asking us for proof after all these years of jehadi activity, with terrorists wanted in India kept in Pakistani safe havens. Musharraf is comfortable today with the backing he will continue to receive from the US. He will not be condemned, reprimanded or disciplined so long as he has his uses.
For Musharraf, it is enough to merely keep the peace process going with new absurd, unworkable ideas thrown at India while he rearms and relocates the jehadis. In this context, Mumbai was a new upgradation of the jehad and more such attacks are inevitable. Terrorists have struck at our democratic institutions, communications networks, at our financial capital, at our transport systems — air, bus and rail. Only the maritime option remains. As Musharraf ’s domestic troubles and uncertainties mount, recourse to diversionary adventurism will always be a tempting option for him.
Meanwhile, we have to do quite a few things simultaneously. India has to show itself as a caring State. Caring not because the politician turns up offering platitudes but by hunting for terrorists ruthlessly, for only then can the common citizen be protected. Instead, inadequate intelligence and incomplete data banks lead to indiscriminate hunts after every incident giving the entire episode a communal colour. It is like tainting the entire Hindu community with suspicion after allegations of moles and spies in high places.
We have to increase our deterrence capability against terrorists and make terrorism more difficult and expensive in every way; sharpen the reprisal and the covert option so that it begins to hurt the opposition where it hurts most; curb the urge to seek assistance from external sources; improve the policing and morale of the security forces; empower the intelligence services; provide good and fair governance; and reform the judicial process so that delays in justice are minimal. If our courts could reduce the present delay of justice from six to seven years in the lower courts to a year as it used to be some years ago, a lot of our problems would be solved. For this, the number of courts has to double every five years. This may not automatically improve the quality of justice but the number of disgruntled and disaffected would reduce dramatically and the swamp for the various militant, communal and unscrupulous groups would shrink. Our media must resist the urge to have a breaking story out of every event; this hyper-coverage is what the terrorist wants but there is life beyond TRP ratings. None of this easy or instant; it will take time and will be arduous and has to cut across party and religious lines.
We insult our own Muslims whenever we soften our reactions to Pakistan’s actions for the unfounded fear that this will hurt sentiments here. This is not how it works. Instead, we should learn to treat Pakistan just as another country and not be forever conscious about their religion. This two-nation stuff is their business; in India it is ‘my religion but our country’, while in Pakistan it is ‘my religion therefore my country’.
One word and that is the gulf between us and them. This is the world of difference between the mindset of the likes of Hafeez Saeed, LeT’s mentor and Abdul Batin Nomani, the imam of Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi. Pakistani rulers just cannot afford to have a successful and secular neighbour (not perfect, flawed but still secular) because then the slogan in that country ‘Forever Pakistan’ becomes ‘Why Pakistan’.
As Pakistan’s rulers and mullahs push their reluctant people to medieval obscurantism, in the process killing more Muslims in India, Afghanistan and their own country, Pakistan has forfeited the self-proclaimed title of being a home for the subcontinent’s Muslims. It also suffers from the effects of blowback — ‘the unanticipated consequences of unacknowledged actions in other people’s countries’, (Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire).

Source : Hindustan Times 2nd August 2006

Point of departure

THE HEATHROW conspiracy is a measure of the deadly determination and resolve of the con spirators and their masters. It is a measure of their anger and hatred that they are willing to die and kill innocent people of all nationalities and faith, including their own. It is a measure of a world going mad. And this Heathrow anger predates Lebanon. So, logically, one should expect another wave. It is too early to say who masterminded the plot. Counter-terrorism experts are divided on whether this has Al Qaeda fingerprints but there is finally a realisation of the Pakistani connection. The suggestion that a Pakistani, Matiur Rehman, wanted for an assassination attempt on General Musharraf, was the mastermind has been denied by Pakistani authorities. British authorities suspect that more than a thousand people in Britain are involved with terrorism; there may be dozens of plots with hundreds of people involved so that the potential for more terrorist attacks is very real.
Had the terrorists succeeded in destroying even three of the 10 aircraft they wanted to bring down as part of their diabolical plot, the loss of life, the economic and financial costs and panic would have been unimaginable. British intelligence, the police and others worked overtime to prevent a catastrophe over the Atlantic Ocean. Within a day they released the names and addresses of those arrested. All this is in sharp contrast to our performance — where we have been running around without a clue about the Mumbai bomb blasts.
The British must have had the data and information to act upon. They would have had photographs, access to phone taps, bugs in rooms and surveillance reports charted over months. Suspects’ bank accounts were checked and the trails led to the US, North Africa, Germany and, inevitably, Pakistan.
Some reports mentioned that the British intelligence had a mole in one of the terrorist cells. This time around the Pakistanis had a dual role — the ISI assisted in unravelling some of the terrorist links while others conspired to kill innocent people. Would Pakistan ever assist India in a similar situation? Pakistani authorities arrested three of the terrorists (all of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir origin) who had gone to Pakistan where huge sums of money were wired to them by a UK-based charity in December 2005. The money was ostensibly for ‘earthquake relief ’ but actually meant to help them carry out the Heathrow bombings. Pakistani authorities would like to see this as a possible al-Qaeda plot, but one has to keep in mind the possibility of a Lashkar-e-Tayyeba connection for two reasons. One, that al-Qaeda does not have members from South Asia and is primarily an Arab outfit. Second, the Lashkar is extremely active in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir from where, with ISI assistance, it launches its operations into India and has become immensely popular after the October 2005 earthquake. The Lashkar’s mother organisation, the Dawa, was the first off the mark with relief assistance. It would be more natural for the three to gravitate towards the LeT rather than opt for Al Qaeda. After 25 years of terrorism in India, the question still is why we are not able to act in this fashion while the British have been able to. The Americans have ensured that there was no terrorist incident in the US after 9/11, there has been one in Britain and at least one calamity prevented. In India, we have had 100 major incidents in J&K alone and about 4,200 security personnel and civilians have died since 9/11.
Soon after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Americans promulgated their Patriot Act and the British followed it up with a somewhat less severe Anti-Terror Act. We, on the other hand, abolished Tada, abolished Pota despite December 13, despite Kaluchak and left no single law in the hands of the counter-terror establishment.
But mere enactment of laws is not enough. Laws by themselves do not prevent terror any more than the Indian Penal Code prevents crime. One permanent federal law that is stern yet humane would enable prosecution of cases and hopefully, if there are fast track courts, assure speedy justice and be a deterrent to would-be terrorists. On the other hand, multiple laws lead to confusion and possible misuse. In all such cases, there have to be witnesses secluded by a fool-proof witness protection scheme. We have nothing like that and no witness is willing to risk his life. Our in-camera trials are a joke where almost every one plus one is present. Of course, there will be mistakes, horrible ones at times, or misuse; society has to decide what it wants — unabated terrorism and communal fires or peace and tranquility. Above all, there has to be the political will to sustain this campaign for decades and not use each crisis for political gains. The battle against the terrorist is a long haul. We cannot ask Bhutan to throw the Ulfa out of its territory and then call off our own operations against these secessionists.
The US and other Western governments realised that the counterterrorist establishment had to be equipped and reoriented to handle the new task. Western governments, therefore, strengthened their intelligence networks, spent huge sums of money to equip them, hired experts and strengthened coordination between the various agencies. For India, there is still a long road ahead and we have lost so much time. Our Multi-Agency Centre, designed to coordinate the fight against terrorism, is, from what one hears, languishing. We had a warning in February 1998 when Osama bin Laden formed his International Islamic Front with Pakistani participation. In 1999, Yossef Bodansky, Director of the House of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, wrote in his book Bin Laden — The Man Who Declared War on America that bin Laden had struck a deal with the ISI, in the spring of 1998. This agreement enabled the ISI/Lashkar-e-Tayyeba combine to carry out attacks in India under the ‘banner’ of Al Qaeda while the ISI gave logistic support in Pakistan for al-Qaeda to carry out attacks in the rest of the world. Terrorist attacks in the rest of India would indicate that this agreement is in force. Bodansky also speaks of the Talibanisation of Pakistan and how Nawaz Sharif was warned by the Islamist army and the ISI that the only alternative to chaos was to Islamise in the extreme. Prophetic, one might say, for that is the way Pakistan is unfortunately headed.
Khalid Mohammed Sheikh, the master planner of the 9/11 attacks, surfaced in Pakistan. So did others — Ramzi Yousef, who carried out the first attack on WTC in 1993, was arrested in Pakistan. He had escaped from the Philippines after their Bojinka plot to target 11 aircraft over the Pacific in 1995 was discovered. Rashid Rauf, whose arrest in Bahawalpur (headquarters of Jaish-eMohammed) on August 4 triggered the arrests in Britain is another link in the Pakistani terrorist chain. Who knows, even the brains of the Heathrow conspiracy might surface in Pakistan one day. The Americans, blinded in their love for Pakistan, have refused to see the ugly warts while the Pakistani chest-thumping for its dubious contribution in the latest episode is a show of low opportunism and hypocrisy as they shelter and inspire terrorists. It is time for us and the rest of the world to take the Pakistani threat seriously before we run out of time and options.
The writer is former Secretary, Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW)

Source : Hindustan Times 16th August 2006

No News is good news

The media, hungry for Breaking News & exposés, grow vacuous by the
Day

MUSHROOMING TELEVISION-TRAINING academies, which churn out TV journal ists with shaky credentials, are rather like the kerb-side ‘speedily speaking English teaching’ schools whose alumni speak Inzamam-ul-Haq’s English. That is why one hears of young enthusiastic journalists that BBC’s Paul Donahar spoke about some years ago. Donahar described a young journalist chasing the former Home Minister, Indrajit Gupta and when he did catch up with Gupta, the first question was “Sir, would you say something?” And the second question was, “And, sir, who are you?” This was when TV was not what it is today.
There are over 350 TV channels in India today, a far cry from the single channel 20 years ago. India has become the third largest television market in the world. Along with Bollywood, radio, the newspapers and magazines, India is set to become one of the largest entertainment markets in the world. The global entertainment industry is expected to grow to $ 1.8 trillion by 2015 and India’s share will be $ 200 billion. There are 36 TV news channels in India and growing with the channels tying up with Bollywood films. News is likely to mutate into entertainment and the hunt for ‘Breaking News’ and ratings will most definitely bring down credibility. Serious journalism will suffer. In fact, one can see early signs of this when news gets sensational and unverified reports are pushed on to the screen, taken off the next day and forgotten. Even the responsible and staid mainstream print media, one of the best in the world, showed signs of succumbing to this temptation when they put out full-page hatchet jobs on individuals.
It is perhaps this pressure that leads to the great media hype about breach of security at the PM’s residence by three young persons who probably did it for a dare rather than for any other purpose. Surely, our sense of proportion demanded that we first find out what happened and then go to town with this one. In the end, it was an exercise that probably led to tightening of restrictions and the unfortunate dismissal of the two air-hostesses.
Another channel swung into action and we had the story of the three Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists in the CRPF guarding the PM with graphics to show how dangerous it had been for the PM. Again, mass hysteria followed on TV — only for the discovery made that this was an old story that the CRPF knew three years ago and that the three men had faked their credentials as reformed terrorists to find employment. The bigger story was that one has to fake credentials as reformed terrorists to get employment while the others do not get a chance. Quota raj with a difference. But no one followed this one. Then we had the great spy story of the IB man caught in an attempt to flee the country. Whether or not he was a spy is not established simply because he was foolish enough to try and escape from India for what he considered a better life. From the story given out, the man appears to have been guilty of a gross violation of rules. It seems we are doing stories on the run — literally like one-night stands.
Then there was the story of Prince, the boy who fell into an abandoned tube-well. True, it was traumatic for the boy and his parents. But his rescue was possible only because the army was close-by and had the equipment. The endless ‘live coverage’, for 60 hours or more, had glassy eyed and bored viewers merely flipping channels. A clear case of overkill. Rescue over, every one packed up and left but no one wanted to find out how that tube-well was left uncovered. Who was responsible? Is he going to pay the government compensation for negligence and the cost of the equipment and manpower deployed for the rescue, the trauma of the boy and his family? Instead, some compensation was hastily sanctioned for the boy’s parents and everyone went home. How many more such accidents take place every day in India that go unreported?
Some years ago there were reports about young children in Sivakasi being trundled off 15-20 kilometres everyday for 11-hour shifts to work in the fireworks factories for two rupees a day. This was no story till the factories caught fire and the children died. Today, the Kareena-Shahid or the Mika-Rakhi Sawant stories are better headline news. Our liberal media has paid inadequate attention to the Surat floods probably because it is in Modi territory.
Cynics even remark that the extensive coverage of Hindu festivals on TV in recent weeks was because most channels expected ‘something’ to happen. Why do we not instead have documentaries of the kind that we see on National Geographic, Animal Planet or Discovery? Why not a documentary on the Naxal problem, on the effects of poor governance, water shortage in the country or whatever else that will make us a better civil society? Or that India is becoming a dumping ground for the world’s ‘e-waste’? The media needs an Erin Brokovich. It is no longer the media’s business just to inform but also to reform. Criticism or alternative opinion is necessary and desirable in a free society. It is even enjoyable as some of the spoofs on TV are these days. But exposés and sting operations are dangerous trends and half-baked exposés can be a disaster not just for the individual and, ultimately, for all of us but there will be nothing left — to praise or run down. Exposés on the run can be as oppressive to individual liberties and privacy as the midnight-knock is in totalitarian societies. A sting operation must serve a public purpose to expose corruption, harassment or other wrong-doing. But setting up a sting merely for the sake of entrapment will make the media a loose cannon — armed and dangerous.
It is not what we report but how we report that is important. This is particularly important for us in India so long as we are prone to vicious terrorist attacks. American psychologist Jessica Hamblen had recently conducted a study of the effects of media coverage of terrorist attacks on viewers. Her findings were not unexpected. Those who watched coverage of the September 11, 2001, attacks for about eight hours had more substantial stress reactions than those who did not. It had the same effect on children after three hours.
Two hundred and thirty-seven Israelis were divided into two groups, one group made to see terrorist related clips while the other shown ordinary news. The former came out of it showing far greater signs of anxiety. The media have a very important role in the aftermath of any disaster. It has a role to provide information, make announcements, convey instructions about services available to victims and their families. It can be a great source of strength and hope to the community. But unremitting coverage of a carnage and mutilated bodies has a negative impact and, further, hands a victory to the terrorist.
It is always better to exercise freedom with restraint before that freedom is taken away. And if that freedom is taken away, we will all lose. Our future also depends on our past. But unless we improve our present, we will keep repeating the past. Maybe the media managers need to step back for a while and introspect.
The writer is former Secretary, Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW)

Source : Hindustan Times 30th August 2006

Syrian in real lIfe

Stephen Gaghan’s fast paced film Syriana is about several plots and sub-plots all told in two hours. It is about the struggle for control of oil, about dubious business mergers worked out by two Texan oil companies for oil rights in Kazhakhstan; about a “bad nationalist” Arab prince who gives his country’s drilling rights to the Chinese but angry Americans ensure a violent regime change; and the “good” Arab brother is rewarded for his willingness to help some American companies sell their military hardware; there is torture and one could say predictably and inevitably, the suicide terrorist who is a Pakistani. There is intrigue, treachery and ruthlessness in the pursuit of wealth and power. Clearly, a case of reel life imitating real life.

Outside the cinema hall, the real world looks pretty much simiar. The US has been there for over 60 years ever since they displaced the Brits when Roosevelt promised American protection to the Saudis in exchange for uninterrupted supply of cheap oil. Since then there has been a steady accretion of US power where the US CENTCOM’s area of responsibility coincides with the entire energy rich Gulf and Caspian region.

America’s neo-cons have consistently professed that America had a global mission, that military power was the indispensable foundation of American foreign policy, and stressed the importance of the use of military superiority to help introduce democracy. The debate in the last two decades of the 20th century provided the real foundation of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive action which means an America driven forward by unrivalled military power and the growing profits of the world’s largest multinational corporations. Iraq may have been an unmitigated disaster according to most but for US oil corporations it has been a glorious war. Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhilips earned US $ 64 billion between them in 2005.

The US may today have a Bureau of Deconstruction in the Department of Defence that would deconstruct 26 regimes and a Bureau of Reconstruction in the State Department that would reconstruct these countries into democratic American clones.. Others like Seymour Hersh have talked of ten countries that are up for facelifts while Ralph Peters has redesigned maps of the region. The Global War on Terror is not about defeating terrorism, but is a handy means for re-ordering the world and retaining US pre-eminence.

It is, however, becoming increasingly costly and difficult to retain this position. It is axiomatic that without access to assured cheap and abundant energy supplies, the US cannot maintain its way of life and its full spectrum global dominance. A Russia that was supposed to have been finally defeated after the Afghan jehad and the fall of the Berlin Wall is resurgent under President Putin. The rise of China, as a global power, is another phenomenon that Washington must deal with.There is competition for resources and markets; energy as a weapon of influence, has been used by Putin. Neither threatens the US militarily but its economic interests and those of its allies as well as political influence are being challenged. Equally, without access to similar energy resources China will not be able sustain its scorching rate of growth required to keep its economy growing and prevent an internal political upheaval.

Having won the Cold War, the US continued to needle the Russians, in areas the Russians have long considered their own backyard, confirming earlier prognosis that the US and Russia would always be adversaries even if there had been no Communism to defeat or defend. The US today wants all energy supplies meant for the West to bypass Russian and Iranian territory as these provide both with the leverage that the Americans do not want them to have.

As a vital supplier of gas and oil to Europe and Japan, Russia exhibited its new-found strength at the start of the year when it shut off gas supplied to Ukraine as part of a bargain for a higher price. Possibly, the Russian president had learnt these tactics of using energy reserves for geo-strategic advantage at the St Petersburg Mining Institute where he did a dissertation on “Toward a Russian Transnational Energy Company” soon after making a career change post-KGB. Russia-China relations have been on the upswing with mutually beneficial military and technology deals. They are also working some deals with Saudi Arabia. Russia may have lost the Cold War but is not going to lose the Energy War.

Elsewhere, the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation comprising China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, has enrolled Iran into its membership. This could be early signs of moving towards a Central Asian version of OPEC or NATO.. The propects of a triangular relationship that has Russia, China and Iran as the three sides with the energy rich Central Asia boxed in, is fast becoming America’s geo-strategic nightmare especially after its collosal failures in West Asia. Iran has 11% of the world’oil and 16% the world’s gas. Although Saudi Arabia has more oil and Russia has more gas, no other country has more of both of these resources combined. Iran is geo-strategically located as the only country that has borders with the vital Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea. This, rather than the nuclear issue, is the real reason for US anxiety about the way Iran will turn. Iran is the only country that has gained from the failed US campaign in Iraq. No wonder, less than spontaneous anti-Tehran demonstrations seem to be taking place in Iran’s Azerbaijan province and in Khuzestan bordering Iraq.

American attempts to snub the visiting Chinese leader, Hu Jintao, last April when they ‘mistakenly’ played the Taiwanese anthem and then had a Falun Gong member demonstrate loudly, left the Chinese leader unfazed. He took off for his Saudi Arabian visit, struck a deal ensuring access to Saudi oil in exchange for sophisticated weapons and new technologies. China has ventured into the American backyard by recently hosting Hugo Chavez, the defiant Venezuelan leader; nor has China taken American advice to cancel its US $ 100 billion deal with Iran. China has worked out several pipeline and exploration deals globally and also hopes to use the Gwadar port for overland energy routes in preference to sea lanes that are subject to American control.

Experts predict that global oil production is peaking and the era of cheap and abundant oil is gone forever. Apart from traditional guzzlers, other claimants like China and India and major Western oil companies, will now compete increasingly for this diminishing resource. But India is still on the reserve bench in this Big Boys League.

India joined this energy race not only late but with other handicaps, without Russia’s energy reserves, China’s deep pockets nor American military might and no direct access to energy areas.. Since India cannot sustain its economic growth without an assured and cheap energy supply, civilian nuclear energy is important. The hope is that the US Congress does not force America to lose a deal by converting the original energy deal into an NPT that would force India to rethink. As the US eyes Indian markets as a means to revive its economy, only a mutually satisfactory nuclear deal will hold. Further, nuclear energy will provide electricity to the industry but will not turn the wheels of the transport sector. No amount of increased supplies will help unless we collectively learn to be less extravagent than we are today and the government is prepared to spend huge sums on a cheap and efficient transport system, beginning today.

Source : Hindustan Times 18th September 2006

How and why it works

Intelligence co-operation or liaison, as it is called, is not a game for the novice or the uninitiated. Only a select few in an intelligence organisation are normally allowed to handle the arrangements and that too after having worked in the system for years. Intelligence co-operation goes beyond mere exchange of information. It can include help to upgrade abilities and facilities in each other’s countries. It is a vital and safe channel of communication even at times of near ruptured or in the absence of diplomatic relations. In today’s world, intelligence liaison has become fair game for all. Spying on friends is not taboo in this game and the best time to make inroads is when relations are warm and comfortable.

Heads of Government have quite often used their intelligence chiefs to convey sensitive messages to their counterparts or maintain contact with each other, especially where in the absence of formal relations there was need for political deniability. Effective intelligence is also a by-product of a sound relationship and trust between the intelligence chief and the chief executive of a country.

Intelligence co-operation need not only be a bilateral arrangement. Immediately after the end of the Second World War, the English-speaking victors of the war – the US, Canada, the UK, Australia and Canada got together to exchange information about the common threat which was the Soviet Union at that time. Communications intelligence was exchanged by these countries and at times about uncomfortable political opponents who could not be covered by agencies because of domestic laws that prohibited such espionage. In the 1980s the exchange evolved into Project Echelon, which graduated from exchanging processed intelligence to ‘raw’ intercepts. Echelon monitors about 120 satellites all over the world, includes nonmilitary communications of governments, business houses, private establishments and individuals.

When stories about the Echelon leaked that one section of the allies were snooping on the other, Europeans like the French and Germans were livid. There was uproar in the European Parliament and the US and British were accused of ‘state-sponsored information piracy’. There were accusations/suspicions that the US used this system to advise its negotiators in the trade talks with the Japanese, on another occasion to help Boeing beat Airbus in the deal with Saudi Arabia and clinch the Enron deal with India beating the British bid this time.

The volume of traffic intercepts is indeed huge; the volume of international telephone traffic, including from cell-phones, is now estimated to be approximately 200 billion seconds a year. Any communication sent into space is susceptible to monitoring thus needs equally massive downstream activity to process this. Reliance on key words and voice recognition has its problems; the former can cause communications traffic jams and the latter is not completely reliable. In addition there is coverage through reconnaissance satellites which are like vacuum cleaners sweeping in everything and take high resolution photographs, keep the entire globe under watch, can detect nuclear blasts, warn of missile launches and can record the telemetry of missile flights. Bases strewn all over the world help download this data. It could be a comforting thought that one lives in such a stratospheric cocoon or highly disconcerting that we live in Orwell’s world.

The CIA and the KGB maintained contacts with each other even when the Cold War temperatures were near freezing. At about the same time, the US had two listening posts in Qitai and Korla in the Xinjiang province to listen into Soviet Russia in the 1980’s. The Germans also had an intelligence relationship with the Chinese service at least as far back as in the 1980s. The French intelligence chief, Alexandre de Meranches, founder of the secretive Safari Club that included other friendly and trusted intelligence agencies, had foreseen Soviet intrusion into Afghanistan and had advised the newly elected Reagan to prepare for a counter offensive in Afghanistan.

Apart from the obvious influence mechanisms, the Western power elite functions in many secretive ways. Many years ago, Robert Ludlum in one of his earlier novels had four powerful international individuals as the secret controllers of the world. It did not seem real then as Ludlum’s multi-talented covert cold warriors fought ruthless wars against enemies of the free world. But Ludlum obviously based some of his novels on the realities of the day and his fantasies were more real than those of General Musharraf.

There are other influential secret societies in the West like the Bilderberg Group formed in 1954 by a small group of rich and powerful trans-Atlantic individuals to help keep Europe allied to the US and communism at bay. This group (named after the hotel in Arnhem in the Netherlands where they first met) remains an exclusive and secretive group that includes politicians, financiers, the media moghuls and the corporate world. The group allows no reporters, there is only an answering machine and no minutes are issued which-leads to various interpretations about its role. For instance, the Serbs blamed Bilderberg for the war that led to the ouster of Slobodan Milosevic.

Another secret society, that has a number of former intelligence officers as its members, Pinay Circle (earlier known as the Cercle Violet), described as a secret right-wing transnational intelligence and direct action group used to fight communism. The Circle is said to be more in the business of regime change in the West to keep the US and Europe close to each other and right-wing. The group continues to exist although communism is no longer the threat it was. Its members have been persons like Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, (all three associated with the Bilderberg Group), George Soros, Paul Volcker, Turki Al-Faisal, the former CIA Chief, Willam Colby, and numerous other US, British and German intelligence officers like Frank Wisner jr. Nadhmi Auchi, a one-time Saddam Hussein confidante was also a member of this secret group. British luminaries have included Lord Julian Amery and James Goldsmith. The Circle is also linked to other influential groups like the Heritage Foundation and Opus Dei, often through its members. There were allegations that in the Seventies the group helped in the downfall of British Premiers Harold Wilson and Ted Heath, Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, French President Francois Mitterand and the beneficiaries included Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

Additionally, like any other system, intelligence functions best in a certain milieu. Many of the major powers of the world have treated their intelligence services as an important sword-arm for providing internal security and for securing foreign policy objectives or denying adversaries and even friends their objectives. When the Mossad was hunting for the Black September terrorists in the 1970s, one of the agents had to masquerade himself as a woman. This agent was Ehud Barak, who later became the Israeli Prime Minister. Many others who headed their countries’ intelligence services switched to overt governance with ease and distinction. Bush Sr in the US was one; Andropov, Primakov and Putin in Russia, Kang Sheng and Chiao Shi in China became members of the Politburo, Klaus Kinkel became Germany’s Foreign Minister, Hosni Mubarak looked after the Egyptian Intelligence during Sadat’s Presidency.

In a world of globalised terror, globalised economics and competition, the traditional threats to the developed world have changed. Democracy and its preservation remains serious business extending beyond the tinsel and glamour of the screen and the rhetoric at election rallies. The system of global surveillance with and against friends will remain with all levers of control lying with the rich and powerful.

Source : Hindustan Times 21st oct 2006

The Gaze is upon you

Intelligence cooperation serves as a powerful tool to achieve
global influence

INTELLIGENCE COOPERATION or liaison, as it is called, is not a game for the novice or the uninitiated. Only a select few in an intelligence organisation are normally allowed to handle the arrangements, that too, after having worked in the system for years.
Intelligence cooperation goes beyond mere exchange of information. It can include help to upgrade abilities and facilities in each other’s countries. It is a vital and safe channel of communication, even in the absence of diplomatic relations or near rupture in the same. In today’s world, intelligence liaison has become fair game for all. Spying on friends is not taboo in this game and the best time to make inroads is when relations are warm and comfortable.
Heads of government have quite often used their intelligence chiefs to convey sensitive messages to their counterparts or maintain contact with each other, especially when, in the absence of formal relations, there was need for political deniability. Effective intelligence is also a by-product of sound relationship and trust between the intelligence chief and the chief executive of a country.
Intelligence cooperation need not only be a bilateral arrangement. Immediately after the end of World War II, the English-speaking victors of the war — the US, Canada, Britain, Australia and Canada — got together to exchange information about the common threat, which was the Soviet Union at that time. Communications intelligence was exchanged by these countries. At times, this intelligence was extended to uncomfortable political opponents who could not be covered by agencies because of domestic laws that prohibited such espionage. In the Eighties, the exchange evolved into Project Echelon, which graduated from exchanging processed intelligence to ‘raw’ intercepts. Echelon monitors about 120 satellites all over the world and includes non-military communications of governments, business houses, private establishments and individuals.
When stories about the Echelon leaked — that one section of the allies was snooping on the other — the French and Germans were livid. There was uproar in the European Parliament and the US and British were accused of “State-sponsored information piracy”. There were suspicions, even accusations, that the US used this system to advise its negotiators in trade talks with Japan. On other occasions, it was apparently used to help Boeing beat Airbus in the deal with Saudi Arabia and to clinch the Enron deal with India, beating the British bid this time. The volume of traffic intercepts is indeed huge; the volume of international telephone traffic, including that from cellphones, is now estimated to be approximately 200 billion seconds a year. Any communication sent into space is susceptible to monitoring. Thus, there exists the need for massive downstream activity to process this. Reliance on key words and voice recognition has its problems; the former can cause communications traffic jams and the latter is not completely reliable.
In addition, reconnaissance satellites — ‘vacuum cleaners’ that sweep in everything and take high resolution photographs — are used to keep the globe under watch. These can detect nuclear blasts, warn of missile launches and record the telemetry of missile flights. Bases located at varied points all over the world help download this data. It could, perhaps, be comforting that one lives in such a stratospheric cocoon. On the other hand, it could be highly disconcerting to realise that we live in Orwell’s world.
The CIA and KGB maintained contacts with each other even when the Cold War temperatures were near freezing. At about the same time in the Eighties, the US had two listening posts in Qitai and Korla in the Xinjiang province to listen into Soviet Russia. The Germans also had an intelligence relationship with the Chinese service at least as far back as in the Eighties. French intelligence chief, Alexandre de Meranches, founder of the secretive Safari Club that included other friendly and trusted intelligence agencies, had foreseen Soviet intrusion into Afghanistan and had advised the newly-elected Ronald Reagan to prepare for a counter-offensive in Afghanistan.
Apart from the obvious influence mechanisms, the Western power elite functions in many secretive ways. In one of his earlier novels, Robert Ludlum had four powerful international individuals as the secret controllers of the world. It did not seem real then, as Ludlum’s multitalented, covert cold warriors fought ruthless wars against enemies of the free world. But Ludlum obviously based some of his novels on the realities of the day and his fantasies were more real than those of General Musharraf.
There are other influential secret societies in the West, like the Bilderberg Group formed in 1954 by a small group of rich and powerful trans-Atlantic individuals to help keep Europe allied to the US and communism at bay. This group (named after the hotel in Arnhem, in the Netherlands, where they first met) remains an exclusive and secretive group that includes politicians, financiers, media moguls and the corporate world. The group allows no reporters, there is only an answering machine and no minutes are issued. This leads to various interpretations about its role. For instance, the Serbs blamed Bilderberg for the war that led to the ouster of Slobodan Milosevic.
Another secret society with a number of former intelligence officers as members is Pinay Circle (earlier known as the Cercle Violet). It is believed to be a secret Right-wing transnational intelligence and direct action group used to fight communism. The Circle is said to be mainly in the business of regime change in the West to keep the US and Europe close to each other. The group continues to exist although communism is no longer the threat it was. Its members have included Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, (all three associated with the Bilderberg Group), George Soros, Paul Volcker, Turki Al-Faisal, former CIA chief William Colby, among other US, British and German intelligence officers. Nadhmi Auchi, a onetime Saddam Hussein confidante, was also a member of this secret group. British luminaries have included Lord Julian Amery and James Goldsmith. The Circle is also linked to other influential groups like the Heritage Foundation and Opus Dei, often through its members.
There were allegations that in the Seventies, the group helped in the downfall of British premiers Harold Wilson and Ted Heath, Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and France’s President, Francois Mitterrand. Beneficiaries included Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
Like any other system, intelligence functions best in a certain milieu. Many world powers have treated their intelligence services as an important sword-arm to provide internal security and to secure foreign policy objectives.
When the Mossad was hunting for the Black September terrorists in the Seventies, one of the agents had to masquerade as a woman. This agent was Ehud Barak, who later became the Israeli Prime Minister. Many others who headed their countries’ intelligence services switched to overt governance with ease and distinction. Bush Sr in the US was one; Andropov, Primakov and Putin in Russia; Kang Sheng and Chiao Shi in China were members of the Politburo; Hosni Mubarak looked after the Egyptian Intelligence during Sadat’s presidency.
In a world of globalised terror, economics and competition, the traditional threats to the developed world have changed. Democracy and its preservation is serious business, extending beyond the tinsel and glamour of the screen and the rhetoric at election rallies. The system of global surveillance with and against friends will remain, with all levers of control lying with the rich and powerful.
Vikram Sood is former Secretary, Research & Analysis Wing

Source : Hindustan times , 25th oct 2006

On Hu's Visit

On Hu's Visit


The theme song almost everywhere these days is “Will India catch up with China”? The prominent French daily, Le Monde had a special 8-page supplement on “Chindia” in October this year. Eric Le Boucher predicted that by 2035 China would have overtaken the US and India would have the third largest economy. Even though there were going to be problems in both countries the 21st century would belong to them. Jean-Francois Huchet talked of the advantage the Chinese had with their access to energy sources while India had the advantage in its youthful population. The difference is that by 2035 India will be dependent up to 95% on imported energy while China’s dependency will be 75%. A country that is almost totally dependent on external sources of energy is obviously going to be at a disadvantage. There are also several predictions that while China may keep winning the sprints, India will win the marathon.

For those of us who are taken in by these rosy projections about the future, it would be useful to remember a few random statistics. The Chinese today produce thrice as much electricity than we do, their railways haul five times more freight traffic than ours do and their container traffic is fifteen times higher. Nearly half our roads are unpaved while 90% are paved in China. Their foreign exchange reserves are six times ours and manufacturing adds twice as much to the value to China’s GDP than in our case. China has a huge trade surplus, while India has had a continuous trade deficit for over 50 years. More than that, the Chinese produce major weapons systems that they then supply to their friends quite often at cut rate prices and use their deep pockets to buy influence globally. So, while there is a lot to exult about in India, the reality is that we have a long way to go. Mere aggregated GDP figures does not make for a major power usually defined as one whose voice is heard and reach felt across the globe.

China became a major power in a couple of decades because there was a tenacity of purpose, a clear long-term perspective uninhibited by contrary political pressures and their own world-view of their position in the world. Having decided what they wanted they went about it systematically; the state committed itself to health and education, reduced its size of governance and made foreign investment attractive. Rapid economic growth brings its problems. Shanghai today is China’s showpiece and has twice as many skyscrapers than in New York City. But it is also known that these modern day Potemkins hide the desolation of poverty and inequality in the interior.

The rise of China and India and the emergence of Japan as a ‘normal’ country is taking place at the same time for the first time in history. But this is happening amidst unresolved territorial disputes and historical animosities accompanied by competition for new resources, markets and rising military expenditures. The transformation of Japan into a country capable of rapid militarisation along with an enhanced military and naval presence of the US from the Mediterranean to the western Pacific makes China want to break out and ensure its future. China sees the growing warmth in the India-US relations as a part of this encirclement.

Today China considers US as sinister and Japan as antagonistic but keeps its economic relations with both very strong. On the other hand, China treats India with some disdain, never willing to accept it as an equal and ensuring India does not have a seat on the High Table of international affairs. This is partly our fault for we revel in equality with Pakistan; Havana was just another landmark. China seeks to be treated with awe and respect. India, on the other hand, seeks approval and acceptance from the West while wanting to be loved and liked in the neighbourhood. China has exercised strategic military options with Pakistan and North Korea and strategic market options with India and Japan. Consequently, China has two nuclear allies in Pakistan and North Korea, having helped them to get there in the pursuit of its own big power ambitions and the West, for all its machismo has been unable and, at times, even unwilling to prevent this.

The Chinese have always believed that neighbouring states must be respectful and obedient. This may not cower India but the game to hem India to the Asian sub-continent remains part of Chinese policy. The tactics were simple, keep borders with India tranquil but do not solve the dispute; trade with India but arm Pakistan and wean away Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar. As India retreated strategically from Tibet over the past sixty years, Han Chinese and missiles moved in -- the former to change the demography and the latter as an exhibition of Chinese muscle and future intent.

The recently inaugurated rail link from Qinghai to Lhasa is more than just a spectacular engineering marvel. It is an exhibition of Chinese determination and the rail-road will reach Xigatse near Nepal by 2010 and maybe up to Kathmandu. The road infrastructure along the entire India-Tibet border has strategic implications for India in the context of an unresolved border. The Chinese aim to use their ‘soft’ economic power to reach our northeastern states, Chittagong and Myanmar through these trade links via Nathu la. The lateral roads from China into Pakistan and Myanmar, along with access to the ports in Pakistan, Myanmar and possibly Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are designed to put India in pincers.

It can be argued that these so-called threats are really challenges and every challenge can be an opportunity. Since it does not make economic sense that Chinese freight trains and trucks that come to the border should go back empty the opportunity will be with Indian entrepreneurs. That is perfectly rational if one side views this as purely an economic venture and the other is ready to exploit this. The answer to both is - no.

President Hu’s visit to India may be a part of the India-China friendship year but it is also part of a four-leg tour that includes Vietnam, Laos, and finally Pakistan where at least 20 agreements will be signed at a time when more and more Pakistanis seem virulently anti-American. One would expect the border issue, trade and Tibet would be discussed when the Chinese leader is in India. There are no quick solutions to the first because the Chinese do not seem to be in a hurry. But if the Chinese want a consulate in Calcutta then surely the least we can expect is one in Lhasa.

All this hoop-la about growing trade misses the point that the Chinese are flooding our consumer markets with manufactured goods (some quite shoddy), while taking away our raw materials like iron ore and steel for their growth industry. We need to correct this. Tibet is also more than just a territorial and emotive issue. It concerns Asia’s environment as well. The Indus, the Sutlej and the Brahmaputra originate in Tibet. Should the Chinese decide to divert the Brahmaputra to feed their arid north and generate some 40,000 mw of electricity, all of our northeastern states will become dry. A river water agreement with China is perhaps more urgent for India than a border settlement. This issue, along with improving the quality of life for all Indians, rather than being led into a steeplechase with China, should be some of our major concerns.

Source : Hindustan Times 4th Nov 2006

Chewing over China

The theme song almost everywhere these days is “Will India catch up with China”? The prominent French daily, Le Monde had a special 8-page supplement on “Chindia” in October this year. Eric Le Boucher predicted that by 2035 China would have overtaken the US and India would have the third largest economy. Even though there were going to be problems in both countries the 21st century would belong to them. Jean-Francois Huchet talked of the advantage the Chinese had with their access to energy sources while India had the advantage in its youthful population. The difference is that by 2035 India will be dependent up to 95% on imported energy while China’s dependency will be 75%. A country that is almost totally dependent on external sources of energy is obviously going to be at a disadvantage. There are also several predictions that while China may keep winning the sprints, India will win the marathon.

For those of us who are taken in by these rosy projections about the future, it would be useful to remember a few random statistics. The Chinese today produce thrice as much electricity than we do, their railways haul five times more freight traffic than ours do and their container traffic is fifteen times higher. Nearly half our roads are unpaved while 90% are paved in China. Their foreign exchange reserves are six times ours and manufacturing adds twice as much to the value to China’s GDP than in our case. China has a huge trade surplus, while India has had a continuous trade deficit for over 50 years. More than that, the Chinese produce major weapons systems that they then supply to their friends quite often at cut rate prices and use their deep pockets to buy influence globally. So, while there is a lot to exult about in India, the reality is that we have a long way to go. Mere aggregated GDP figures does not make for a major power usually defined as one whose voice is heard and reach felt across the globe.

China became a major power in a couple of decades because there was a tenacity of purpose, a clear long-term perspective uninhibited by contrary political pressures and their own world-view of their position in the world. Having decided what they wanted they went about it systematically; the state committed itself to health and education, reduced its size of governance and made foreign investment attractive. Rapid economic growth brings its problems. Shanghai today is China’s showpiece and has twice as many skyscrapers than in New York City. But it is also known that these modern day Potemkins hide the desolation of poverty and inequality in the interior.

The rise of China and India and the emergence of Japan as a ‘normal’ country is taking place at the same time for the first time in history. But this is happening amidst unresolved territorial disputes and historical animosities accompanied by competition for new resources, markets and rising military expenditures. The transformation of Japan into a country capable of rapid militarisation along with an enhanced military and naval presence of the US from the Mediterranean to the western Pacific makes China want to break out and ensure its future. China sees the growing warmth in the India-US relations as a part of this encirclement.

Today China considers US as sinister and Japan as antagonistic but keeps its economic relations with both very strong. On the other hand, China treats India with some disdain, never willing to accept it as an equal and ensuring India does not have a seat on the High Table of international affairs. This is partly our fault for we revel in equality with Pakistan; Havana was just another landmark. China seeks to be treated with awe and respect. India, on the other hand, seeks approval and acceptance from the West while wanting to be loved and liked in the neighbourhood. China has exercised strategic military options with Pakistan and North Korea and strategic market options with India and Japan. Consequently, China has two nuclear allies in Pakistan and North Korea, having helped them to get there in the pursuit of its own big power ambitions and the West, for all its machismo has been unable and, at times, even unwilling to prevent this.

The Chinese have always believed that neighbouring states must be respectful and obedient. This may not cower India but the game to hem India to the Asian sub-continent remains part of Chinese policy. The tactics were simple, keep borders with India tranquil but do not solve the dispute; trade with India but arm Pakistan and wean away Nepal, Bangladesh and Myanmar. As India retreated strategically from Tibet over the past sixty years, Han Chinese and missiles moved in -- the former to change the demography and the latter as an exhibition of Chinese muscle and future intent.

The recently inaugurated rail link from Qinghai to Lhasa is more than just a spectacular engineering marvel. It is an exhibition of Chinese determination and the rail-road will reach Xigatse near Nepal by 2010 and maybe up to Kathmandu. The road infrastructure along the entire India-Tibet border has strategic implications for India in the context of an unresolved border. The Chinese aim to use their ‘soft’ economic power to reach our northeastern states, Chittagong and Myanmar through these trade links via Nathu la. The lateral roads from China into Pakistan and Myanmar, along with access to the ports in Pakistan, Myanmar and possibly Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are designed to put India in pincers.

It can be argued that these so-called threats are really challenges and every challenge can be an opportunity. Since it does not make economic sense that Chinese freight trains and trucks that come to the border should go back empty the opportunity will be with Indian entrepreneurs. That is perfectly rational if one side views this as purely an economic venture and the other is ready to exploit this. The answer to both is - no.

President Hu’s visit to India may be a part of the India-China friendship year but it is also part of a four-leg tour that includes Vietnam, Laos, and finally Pakistan where at least 20 agreements will be signed at a time when more and more Pakistanis seem virulently anti-American. One would expect the border issue, trade and Tibet would be discussed when the Chinese leader is in India. There are no quick solutions to the first because the Chinese do not seem to be in a hurry. But if the Chinese want a consulate in Calcutta then surely the least we can expect is one in Lhasa.

All this hoop-la about growing trade misses the point that the Chinese are flooding our consumer markets with manufactured goods (some quite shoddy), while taking away our raw materials like iron ore and steel for their growth industry. We need to correct this. Tibet is also more than just a territorial and emotive issue. It concerns Asia’s environment as well. The Indus, the Sutlej and the Brahmaputra originate in Tibet. Should the Chinese decide to divert the Brahmaputra to feed their arid north and generate some 40,000 mw of electricity, all of our northeastern states will become dry. A river water agreement with China is perhaps more urgent for India than a border settlement. This issue, along with improving the quality of life for all Indians, rather than being led into a steeplechase with China, should be some of our major concerns.

Source : Hindustan Times 13th Nov 2006

The nuclear deal once again

Reading US Senate proceedings may not be as entertaining as Stella Rimington’s “At Risk’ – ‘a cracking good thriller’ as the Observer put it, but those interested in the US-India nuclear deal should take the trouble of going through the 50-odd page Congressional record. It is only this record that shows clearly that the debate was about protecting and strengthening US security interests. Largesse to India is meant to be only incidental granted under strict ground rules. Disagreement during the debate was accepted and not construed as being anti-American. Incidentally, many of the prominent Democrats voted for the ‘killer amendments’.

Senator Lugar introducing the Bill commented that under the original plan of the administration the agreement would have come to force within 90 days unless both the houses of the Congress voted against it with such a majority that a presidential veto would not have been possible. Senator Biden, opening the discussion, said that the US administration had suggested to the Congress that the July 18 2005 Indo-US Agreement could be treated as having met the requirements of Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act. A horrified Congress disagreed not just in an assertion of ‘turf’ but because Congressional oversight “protects the balance of power, the separation of power, which is essential in the formulation of a policy.” Obviously, the White House had miscalculated the mood of the Congress that was smarting for having been misled into supporting the catastrophic war on Iraq for non-existent WMDs that cost American lives.

Senators Kennedy and Clinton made it more apparent that the debate was about nuclear non-proliferation, curbing India’s ability to make weapons, diverting uranium and not about civil nuclear energy. Kennedy was not willing to believe that the agreement would enable India to cease production of fissile material. He said that he would support the agreement if it could be shown that India would take steps to become a full fledged member of the non-proliferation community and agreed to cut off production of fissile material. Kennedy was particularly upset with the “White House’s decision to withhold until after the vote on the Iraq war, North Korea’s admission about its nuclear weapons program[me]” and other similar omissions.

Senator Barak Obama’s questions and the replies Senator Lugar gave him are illustrate the fears US legislators have about the agreement.
Obama: Is it the managers’ belief that section 129 of the AEA will apply prospectively to India…?
Lugar: …the full force of section 129 would apply to any detonation of a nuclear explosive device, any termination of IAEA safeguards by India and material violation of IAEA safeguards…
Obama: …in the event of a future nuclear test by the Government of India, nuclear power reactor fuel and equipment sales and nuclear co-operation would cease… and the US would have the right to demand the return of nuclear supplies?
Lugar: Yes ….. the United States shall have the right to request the return of the supplies as you have stipulated.
Obama: …Is it your understanding that that providing a fuel reserve to India is not intended to facilitate a resumption in nuclear testing?
Lugar: Yes, I hope that would be the case.

Throughout the debate those opposing and supporting the agreement refer to nuclear weapons and fissile material restrictions. Very few spoke of civilian nuclear energy for India. While supporting the agreement, Senator Voinovich said that by expanding civil nuclear co-operation with India the United States has an opportunity to bring India into an arms control regime that will guarantee greater oversight and inspection rights.

The general fear was that uranium supplied to India would enable India to divert its own uranium for nuclear weapons manufacture. At least two senators cited an article in the Times of India of December 12, 2005 suggesting that India should declare as many power reactors as civilian ones which would use imported fuel as this would enable conservation of “our native uranium for weapons grade plutonium production.” This article had been written by K. Subrahmanyam, clearly an example of overstating one’s case.

Section 108 for instance lists out innumerable steps to be taken for the implementation and compliance of the agreement. The US President has to keep the Congress fully and currently informed of any material violation by India on non-compliance under the July 18 2005 agreement, the separation plan presented by India on March 7 and May 11, 2006. the safeguards agreement between India and the IAEA and so on. The lengthy list mentions uranium production figures, including the amount assigned for weapon production, US efforts to promote national or regional progress by India in disclosing, securing, capping, and reducing their fissile material stockpiles. Either this will be a formality where the US Administration will fudge figures to keep the Congress happy. Or there will be a serious effort that would need a concerted intelligence effort in India requiring Indian participation.

It is with this intention that Section 115 was quietly introduced and passed without debate. This section empowers the US Secretary of Energy acting through the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to establish a co-operative threat reduction programme jointly pursued by scientists from India and the US to strengthen non-proliferation goals. It can be argued that this is a necessary scientific venture and non-proliferation is something India believes in without signing the NPT, therefore one need not see any devils in this.

One might first want to have a look at what the NNSA is capable of doing. Established in 2000 as a semi- autonomous agency within the Department of Energy, the NNSA’s aims are to maintain the US nuclear deterrent, protect and revitalise the weapons complex, respond to nuclear emergencies world wide, support the nuclear Navy, develop space and land-based detection systems, secure and eliminate nuclear materials and strengthen the non-proliferation regime. It has a multi-billion dollar budget with an intelligence and counter-intelligence component. Amongst its many global achievements, the NNSA has had a robust programme with Russia and claims to have secured over 80% of Russian nuclear weapons storage sites, improved security at all 39 Russian Navy and 14 Russian Strategic rocket forces sites. The NNSA is simultaneously responsible for enhancing and achieving an 18-month underground nuclear test readiness within the next decade for the US while reducing the threat from other sources to the US. The NNSA will be the means for intrusive verifications in India to enable the US president to give his certifications. Indian counterparts would surely be from our DAE and given our experience with the joint task force of cyber security it would be a very wary India that would step into such an arrangement.

It can doubtless be argued that all this is so far only proposed US law and there has to be reconciliation, enactment and then a treaty to be signed. Much of it could get diluted to bring it on par with the July18 accord. Maybe that will happen but the underlying message from the US Congress is that the July18 agreement is not so much about civil nuclear energy as it is about getting India into the NPT regime through the back door. Given a weakened President desperately looking for a foreign policy success, given the distrust the Congress has for the administration, given that the US is unable to hold its sway even in its own backyard, it is doubtful if the Congress will allow a final bill that will be very much different. It would be wise to carefully assess all our options next year.

Source : Hindustan times 3rd dec 2006