Uneasy lies the head

Vikram Sood

Conventional wisdom has it that Pervez Musharraf is in a spot of bother these days with so many troubles erupting simultaneously. Even the mentor in Washington is uneasy at the way things are not working out in Afghanistan and wants Musharraf to do more. There has been violence and killings in Karachi and Peshawar, Balochistan remains restive, the Islamists continue with their protests in Islamabad, while Waziristan simmers with surface calm. Even democracy was rearing its head in unexpected ways.

The Taliban ideologues have spread to the ‘settled areas’ of NWFP like Tank, Dera Ismail Khan and Bannu. In Charsadda, the home of the legendary Badshah Khan and his heirs Wali Khan and Asfandyar, the Taliban have burnt CD video shops and music shops demanding that they show the CDs they want to be shown and a strict observance of Islamic laws. Interior Minister Aftab Ahmed Sherpao, who belongs to Charsadda, escaped an assassination attempt. The bastion of the liberal secular Pathans is under attack. What we have is a highly Talibanised belt on the unstable and porous Afghan-Pakistan border spreading outwards from there. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are getting closer to Kabul. In Pakistan, they have strongholds in northern Balochistan and the NWFP and have reached Islamabad.

The General would like the world to believe that all is under control in Balochistan. It is just that the media have been frightened into silence after six journalists were shot dead last year. The arrests of numerous over-ground activists have not led to the arrests of the underground activists. Attacks on government troops, bomb blasts and mine explosions continue. Sardar Ataullah Khan Mengal, the veteran Baloch leader, a most prominent leader of the Baloch struggle, confirmed in an interview recently that the Baloch were not willing to live under the tutelage of Punjab-Pakistan. The Baloch were struggling for complete independence and an armed struggle was the only way, he clarified. These are strong and brave words even if made to an English language magazine.

Musharraf is aware that his career is at a crucial point as it is ‘election year’ in Pakistan. In the US too, the Republicans know that they need an exit from Iraq and Afghanistan ahead of next year’s presidential elections. Musharraf can render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, like a prominent Al-Qaeda leader (maybe, al Zawahiri) at an opportune moment. This could help the US declare victory in the war on terror and go home. Musharraf can also pursue his proposal for a Muslim peace-keeping force in Iraq, making himself indispensable to the Americans.

Many Pakistanis believe that the Lal Masjid episode was meant to be Musharraf’s insurance and his price for a secure future. He was the 21st century Casabianca who stood on the deck while the fires of radical Islam raged around him. The dangers he faced for carrying out instructions from his American allies and the risks he was taking had to be compensated. Unfortunately, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry’s obduracy was not part of the script and the drama went awry.

Suddenly, Pakistani politicians discovered that they had a rallying point and the massive demonstrations in Lahore sent Musharraf into a panic. The Chief Justice’s march had to be stopped because a similar demonstration in Karachi would challenge the army’s supremacy, which would be blasphemy, especially now. How long this defiance lasts and how it faces up to the inevitable radical Islamic response is debatable. But with more than 50 (mostly Pathans) — killed in the MQM-led violence in Karachi, one wonders if the price paid for taking succour with fellow mohajirs may be too high for Musharraf in the long-run. There is seething anger against the MQM in the Punjab and NWFP and revenge attacks by Pathans are par for the course. Musharraf may have stopped Chief Justice Chaudhry’s rally in Karachi but it has left him floundering for answers.

The demonstrations in Lahore and killings in Karachi were more an expression of anger against years of colonisation by the army. Ayesha Siddiqa, in her latest book Military Inc, highlights how the army has developed a stranglehold over all aspects of life in Pakistan, corporate and political. From the early days, the civil bureaucracy, the feudals and the politicians used the army to balance each other out, until a serving General Ayub Khan was invited to take over as the Defence Minister. The rest is history.

Over time, the armed forces became a predatory force with an unrestrained and unauditable transfer of public assets and funds to private coffers mostly for the senior echelons of the armed forces and their favourites. The Fauji Foundation and the Army Welfare Trust are two of the largest conglomerates in Pakistan. But no one really knows the financial assets controlled by Pakistan’s military business enterprises. The armed forces have been involved in massive land grabs all over the country — usually the most fertile or most profitable. And they have access to all lucrative civilian assignments.

Such a force will want to preserve its primacy in perpetuity. In fact, it has to do all it can to preserve this; otherwise, the reaction could be devastating. And primacy requires a threat. At the same time, such a force is unlikely to be willing to fight a real war as it has far too much to lose. This fighting would be left to the jehadis — misguided and foolish but effective and dispensable. For India, it means that the jehadi option is a permanent part of the Pak army’s plans.

Pakistan, thus, is not a victim of terrorism, as the Americans would have us believe. But it is a recipient of American largesse of about $ 1 billion annually, ostensibly for fighting America’s war on terror. Pakistan is a victim of its own crony politics, crony economics and sponsored jehad. Years of warped politics have left the State with an imbalanced power structure heavily in favour of the military and its hangers-on who have vested interests in the continuance of the present system. This has created a society sharply divided on ethnic and sectarian lines and deeply suspicious of one another.

There are implications for India. It is virtually certain that before the vote in the US in November 2008, the Americans will declare victory and leave a Talibanised Afghanistan under Pakistan’s supervision. It would not be important at that time if Musharraf were weakened so long as the army remains paramount and is able to exploit any domestic political arrangement worked out in its favour. Pakistan will hope to formalise the Durand Line and exercise unfettered control over Afghanistan. It is unlikely that the Pushtuns will accept a formalisation of the Durand Line. Instability could exacerbate. This would not bring peace to the warring factions in Afghanistan.

This could mean Indian consulates in Kandahar, Mazar-e-Sharif and Jalalabad would be closed and a loss of many good friends in Afghanistan. We will have very little to show for the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in Afghanistan. We should be prepared to see the revival of terrorist camps in Khost and resurgence of terrorism in India. Bomb attacks on the Samjhauta Express, the Mumbai metro, Varanasi and Hyderabad could be part of this scheme for mainland India.

India would have to be prepared for the inevitable departure of the Americans and a Talibanised neighbourhood. Islamic or dictatorial, Pakistan’s future and Musharraf’s longevity look uncertain today.

Source: The Hindustan Times, May 28, 2007

Living on the edge

The warmth with which Bangladesh’s Nobel laureate Mohammed Yunus greeted Amartya Sen, the other Nobel laureate from the subcontinent, when the two met in Dhaka recently, does not unfortunately transmit itself to political masters of the two countries. It definitely does not get transformed into even bare civility between the two ‘Ladies’ of Dhaka. Instead, they have now had years of mutual suspicion and unremitting hostility visible in absolute obduracy and violence on the streets.
Domestic compulsions and truculence translate into not even wanting to help themselves economically, simply because that might help India in the process. Thus, instead of using India’s vast neighbourhood markets and resources as an opportunity, Bangladesh politics demand that India is considered a threat. This can only be countered by cosying up to China, which had opposed Bangladesh’s creation, and Pakistan, which had oppressed it for 25 years, and by using the terrorist weapon as a force equaliser of some sort with India.
New Delhi has taken the right decision to bypass Bangladesh and signed a gas pipeline agreement with Myanmar. Bangladesh has to quickly decide whether it wants to be a member of the South Asian community or metaphorically anchor itself somewhere else or stay in a time-warp.
The endless feud between Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia has polarised Bangladesh politics and given political space to various jehadi groups, allowing them to mushroom all over the country. Quite often this has been with the active encouragement or tacit approval of the Khaleda Zia government. Apart from Jamatul Mujahedeen Bangladesh, whose notoriety emanates from the 459 simultaneous bomb blasts it organised on August 17, 2005, there are several other jehadist outfits like Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh, Hizbul Mujahideen, Al-Haramain Foundation and Al Mujahid.
The prominent Bangladesh newspaper, The Daily Star, had carried out a survey and published some startling findings on August 21, 2005. It spoke of the jehadi nexus with mainstream political parties, about their access to arms and official and political tolerance. Many of the members are Afghan jehad veterans, and funding from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait continues with the aim of introducing a more orthodox system of Islamic education and governance. The argument cannot be that they are fanciful groupings of a few or that they may not be effective; instead the fear is that this shows an evolving mindset in our neighbourhood.
Changes in ideology take place incrementally; these are like continental drifts until it is too late and then tectonic changes occur. In this age of modernity, there is also a move towards religious fundamentalism mixed with politics and militarism. Our neighbourhood is not immune from these influences. All three major parties in Bangladesh have contributed to this shift. General Zia-ur Rahman (now fondly known as Shaheed Zia) resorted to introducing religious concepts in the principles of State policy and removed the word ‘secular’ from the Constitution. His successor, General Ershad, in an electoral alliance with the Awami League, but hounded out by a BNP-inspired campaign for his impudence, declared Islam as the State religion. Both these leaders encouraged the rehabilitation of fundamentalists who had collaborated with Pakistan in 1971. Khaleda Zia cobbled an arrangement with the radical Jamaat Islami and Islamic Oikya Jote as part of a four-party alliance in governance since 2001.
The sudden decision of the Awami League, known for its liberal and secular credentials, to have an election arrangement with the ‘fatwa’ party, the Bangladesh Khilafat Majlis, sent shock waves in sections of Bangladesh society. This rather cynical electoral politics alarmed the minority who had always assumed that the League’s secular credentials would keep it relatively safe. The last bastion for the minorities in Bangladesh — the Hindus, Buddhists and Christians — seems to be crumbling.
Apart from electoral compulsions, there is immense significance in the symbolism of this five-point ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ as the Awami League calls it. One of these is that no law would be enacted that contradicts Quranic values, the Sunnah and the Shariat. The League’s problem has been to counter a vociferous and powerful opposition that insists on describing this adherence to secularism as disrespectful to Islam. Besides, secularism in the subcontinent is too Indian a concept to be readily acceptable in Bangladesh where sections want the country to become increasingly Islamic.
The League has nominated two veterans from the Afghan jehad from, Sylhet-1 and Narail-2 constituencies, apart from other Islamist candidates. Whether or not the arrangement Sheikh Hasina has worked out will last or whether or not she gains from this, the important point is that today the daughter of Sheikh Mujib feels that this alliance could lead to gains that would be greater than the loss from the annoyance of the minorities. And, therefore, considered worth it. In India, we play vote-bank politics by playing to the minorities; in Bangladesh and Pakistan, they play the majority tune all the time.
The stage is now set for the elections scheduled for January 22. The run-up to this has been one of the most violent in recent years and October 28 was the high point. There have been attempted assassinations. Sheikh Hasina had a lucky escape in August 2004 while former Minister S.A.M.S. Kibria was not so lucky in January 2005. Sections of the media have been intimidated very often and the authorities have been more amenable to taking action against minorities than against the majority. The Awami League has suspected, not without good reason, that there would be enough skullduggery so that the League is kept away from governance. The mastaans, who run organised crime syndicates and protection rackets, have had their political patrons but are now striking out on their own and are now part of the problem. The line between politics and crime, business and crime, has blurred.
India has chosen to stay out of any advisory roles because anything we say or do will be held against us. The West has been more explicit in expressing its worries at what might be and Dhaka-based British, US and Canadian envoys have given gratis advice on democracy and the need to hold free and fair elections. They have also been urging the young to exercise their franchise, several of whom are not on the voter lists or have been removed from the lists, because of selective revision. Usually, such mysterious omissions are names of those who belong to the minorities.
It is difficult to predict the outcome of the elections but the BNP government that has handed over power to the caretakerauthority would be carrying the usual baggage of the ‘anti-incumbency factor’ — common in our region unless one is ruled by a military dictator. The threat to boycott elections that the League sounds from time to time is another worrying factor, because sometimes, a threat repeated very often develops its own momentum. That would be tragic and the BNP would get elected unopposed and untested.
It is important for Bangladesh, indeed for the entire region, that free, fair and participatory elections are held. If not, it will be easy for Bangladesh to slip into fundamentalist chaos and radicalism. This will be a retrograde step that could lead the country to violence and extremism.

Source : Hindustan times 23rd feb 2007

Bear?s back in business

It was Brezhnev’s blunder in Afghanistan that led to the first multi-billion dollar international jehad sponsored by the ‘free world’ out to settle old scores, which had its ultimate ugly trickle-down effects in India. Yet, India had been a treaty ally of the Soviet Union. The treaty had a Cold War relevance to both countries as Nixon’s America and Mao’s China warmed up to each other. But when the Soviet Union fell, India suddenly felt adrift in a Clinton-led world that lacked the vision to be the magnanimous victor and capitalise on this great opportunity. Instead of doing what they had done to Japan and Germany after World War II, the Americans continued to try and grind the Russians down to nothingness. Unfortunately, narcissism on a national scale can make nations forget that a people who resisted Hitler’s German army for nearly 900 days in Leningrad or defeated them in the bloodiest battle in history in Stalingrad were bound to rise again. All they needed was a leader. And Vladimir Putin is that leader.
In the last seven years, he has brought Russia back into international reckoning. Today, the Russians feel sufficiently confident to be able to cancel their production sharing agreement with Royal Dutch Shell in Sakhalin-2 and, Gazprom, the Russian energy giant has taken over. There is steely determination in approach, bordering on ruthlessness at times. Chechnya and the Dubrovka theatre hostage episode are indications of the latter; the manner in which the vast energy resources have been used as a strategic and tactical weapon is a sign of a single-minded desire — to protect Russia’s national interests.
The various tulip and orange revolutions in Russia’s neighbourhood to bring democracy to these countries, quite apparently encouraged by Washington, invited retaliatory action by Moscow. Ukraine flirted with the US and had to pay a price when its gas spigots were switched off last winter. Much of Europe too shivered, more in fright than in the cold. Uzbekistan, the most populous Central Asian State, has joined the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Community that is a customs union comprising Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Belarus was once a faithful Soviet satellite and then Russia’s loyal friend but it dared to step out of line and Putin came down hard to cut off its gas supplies.
Alarmed at the eastward expansion of Nato and US interests in acquiring energy and strategic reserves in Central Asia, the Russians got together with the Chinese to counter US advances. The Russian-Chinese relationship is marked by competition for resources and influence and cooperation against western inroads. The border issue is now settled and there have been military exercises and increased Russian arms sales and energy commitments to China. Forty-five per cent of Russian arms sales have been to China, at the rate of $ 2 billion annually. The first-ever joint military exercise of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) will be held in 2007 in Russia’s Volga-Urals area. Heads of State of participating countries are expected to witness the exercise. SCO observer countries — Iran, Pakistan and India — could also be invited.
There was a time during Boris Yeltsin’s presidency when the impoverished Russians sold their giant companies to eager carpet-baggers in a desperate bid to stay afloat. It was Putin who decided to consolidate Russia’s vital assets of energy and strategic minerals. Gazprom, which today is estimated to control a third of the world’s natural gas reserves, plans to become the world’s largest energy company, once it diversifies into oil production.
The argument is very simple — Western companies will not get access to Russian energy resources unless Russian industry gets similar

Source : Hindustan Times 23rd feb 2007

Out of sight, out of mind

Once again, there was carnage in Assam. Once again, there was widespread condemnation of this obvious ethnic cleansing. Once again, we visited the province to express our sorrow and exhibit our determination to tackle this menace. Once again, the government paid compensation to the victims’ families. But alas, once again, we will all forget about this and it will be business as usual.
Is it because, as Sanjoy Hazarika pointed out, the North-east is closer to Hanoi than New Delhi and, therefore, remote in our collective sensitivities in New Delhi? Or is it because the entire North-east constitutes only 4 per cent of the country’s population and so, matters little on the political map?
Hazarika describes India’s Northeast as home to seven states (eight, if we count Sikkim), where rainforests stretch from the Himalayan foothills to the Gulf of Tonkin that transcend borders. The Thai Ahoms came to Assam in the 15th century. Burmese kings confronted the British in Assam in the 18th century, but backed down in the 1826 Treaty of Yandaboo, giving the British control of Assam.
The original North-east of 1947 has undergone cartographic adjustments. Nefa was carved out of Assam in 1948 to be renamed Arunachal Pradesh in 1987; Tripura and Manipur joined the Indian Union in 1949; Naga Hills became Nagaland in 1963; Lushai Hills became Mizoram in 1972 while Meghalaya came into being the same year. The region has a total population of about 40 million, of which Assam accounts for about 70 per cent. One-fifth of this population in Assam is of recent Bangladesh origin. Nearly half of India’s tribes belong to the North-east and 140 of India’s 415 living languages are spoken here.
Years of exploitation that began with the arrival of the East India Company have continued in Assam, where the human development index is the poorest in the region and population density higher than the national average. Today, Assam, lagging behind in economic growth at 2.47 per cent, stands out as the least improved state in the North-east, dragging down the entire region. This is despite the fact that Assam is the third-largest source for indigenous oil production in India. Even though socio-economic indicators for the North-eastern states are better than the national average, Assam remains an exception. At the same time, while the other states continue to receive higher per capita central assistance, Assam has not received the same sympathetic response for decades. Obviously, there is a disconnect and the sense of alienation needs to be corrected in this strategically vital state.
The perpetrators of the Tinsukia carnage, and the violence that continues by those who had initially made common cause with Assamese students against migrant Muslims from Bangladesh, now target the Hindus of Bihar and beyond. The United Liberation Front of Asom (Ulfa) was formed in April 1979 as an organisation that believed that the agitation of the All Assam Students’ Union against immigrants would not succeed unless there were militant measures taken to assert Assamese rights. It is from this that the separatist movement grew with the goal of establishing a sovereign, socialist Assam. And the Ulfa leadership continues to direct its operations from Bangladesh, having lost its refuge in Bhutan in 2003.
From early on, the Ulfa leadership had established contacts with the ISI and Ulfa cadres had gone for training to Afghanistan and Pakistan. There were contacts with the Kachin Independence Army and the NSCN (before the Khaplang faction broke away) in Myanmar in 1986. And the Ulfa has been the role model for other insurgencies in Manipur and Tripura in recent years.
There is a congruence of interests in stoking the fires in Assam. Pakistan is under tremendous pressure to deliver on its western frontiers, much to the dislike of the jehadis and the Right-wing as well as sections of the army. Musharraf has also been forced to take some hesitant steps on the peace initiative with India. It is tactically expedient to avoid the charge of cross-border terrorism, outsource projects and keep India on the backfoot. Thus, what better way than to let the Bangladesh-based leadership of Ulfa do some ethnic cleansing in Assam, and on Indians rather than Bangladeshis!
The Ulfa leadership is happy to oblige for they need a reason to hang on to their travel agencies, garment factories and hotels that they run in Bangladesh or their investments in transport and trawler companies. The terrorist on the ground needs to justify his existence and ensure that the Assam peace initiative runs aground. The best way to create a scare is to attack soft targets, even if this shows up the terrorist as some kind of psychopathic killer. Besides, any success in the talks threatens their extortion business. Many would recall how Ulfa abducted Sanjoy Ghosh in 1997, when his activities in Majuli on behalf of the people threatened Ulfa’s ‘popularity’ and hold.
As for Bangladeshi attitudes, this seems to be a throwback to the early 1950s in the then East Pakistan. JN Mandal, the Minister of Law and Labour in the Pakistan government, had resigned in 1950 protesting against the persecution of Dalit Hindus. His eight-page-long letter gave graphic details of the riots, the killings and the forced migrations.
In 1947, Hindus constituted 27 per cent of the population of East Pakistan, which is less than 10 per cent today. The All India Muslim League meeting at Dhaka had demanded the formation of Bange-Islam, by merging Bengal and Assam. What is being attempted today may be a reliving of that dream.
There was considerable hope after 1971 that Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rahman would help Bangladesh emerge as a secular State. His assassination and usurpation of power by fundamentalist elements ensured that his daughter was kept away from governance long enough for them to consolidate power. There is political hiatus in Bangladesh today with the army ruling from behind the scenes and no one really knows when and what kind of elections will be held. When an army takes control, it invariably relies on the religious right for legitimacy and both have difficulty in pursuing democratic principles in governance and administration.
There is, of course, no point in blaming neighbours all the time. We need to set our house in order as well. After the Ulfa was evicted from Bhutan in 2003, there was hope that the government would be able to drive a hard bargain. This, unfortunately, did not happen. It is always a matter of judgment when to open negotiations with terrorists. Do it too soon and the terrorist thinks he has won the day; do it too late and the people lose hope. But it is never a good time till the sponsors have been tackled or during counter-terrorist operations. The US failure in Afghanistan has been the fact that instead of tackling Pakistan as a terrorist State, it was co-opted as an ally against terrorism and infrastructure development was slow.
Infrastructure development and visible governance must accompany military victories against terrorists. This cannot be deferred till things become normal. Unfortunately, in the North-east, administrators have come to be known as suitcase officers — they come for short durations, sign some files and leave for safer locations, without touching base with the common man. Life in the North-east will not improve till this happens.

Source : Hindustan times 23rd feb 2007

Client State complusions

ACT I, Scene 1, Islamabad, March 9: General Musharraf in full army regalia summons the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and dismisses him for being too serious about his job.
Act I, Scene 2: the next day stormtroopers smash the office of a private TV channel for telecasting the truth.
Act II, Scene 1, Manchester, March 21: two suspected terrorists are arrested on their way to their alma mater somewhere in Pakistan.
Act III, Scene 5, Jamaica, March 22: the Pakistani cricket team is held for questioning in the suspected murder of their coach. A wonderful global advertisement of rank bad behaviour.
At school, Brother McCann used to say that one could judge the character of a person from the way he behaved on the playing field. He used to say that you could distinguish between the magnanimous victor and the poor loser and how each would play out his life. One wonders how old McCann would have reacted to the Pakistani behaviour in the West Indies. As with individuals, so with nations.
Pakistan has always reacted thus in any adversity. Each adventure with India has led to immediate retribution at home — a change of government (post-1965), division of the country (1971) or a coup on the last occasion in 1999. This is possibly because Pakistan has never been allowed by its military rulers to be what one would call a ‘normal’ country. Mohammad Ali Jinnah had once boasted that he had won Pakistan with the help of a clerk and a typewriter. Pakistan was conceived by a group of the elite that had never lived in the part of the country that was to be theirs.
The campaign was fought ostensibly on behalf of millions who were ultimately willing to stay behind and on behalf of people who were really not interested in this new entity. Some of them like the Baloch led by the Khan of Kalat or the Pathans led by Badshah Khan were opposed to the idea of a merger with Pakistan.
The problems for Pakistan began right at the beginning when governance was hijacked by the Punjabi feudals and their bureaucracy and then with vehemence and tenacity by the Punjabi army. Over time, Pakistan’s USP became its ability to be a nuisance in the neighbourhood while being a client-state of distant powers. It was this military and economic sustenance from friends that gave Pakistani rulers the false sense of power and influence in the region as the people were misled in a march towards a khaki rainbow of greatness and glory.
From its early days, Pakistani rulers denied their new country’s Indo-Gangetic past and promised its people a glorious Islamic future with its moorings away from ‘Hindu’ India. India had a glorious past but its future in 1947 was uncertain. The Cold War painted India as a Soviet ally and we were sneered at for our ‘Hindoo’ rate of growth. With all its institutions of legitimate governance trampled beyond recognition, Pakistan today is a country with a murky past and uncertain future. India, on the other hand, despite its institutions having been mauled, has orderly changes of government and an assured future. Not for a moment can anyone in India dream that the President or the Prime Minister would summon the Chief Justice and then sack him. Nothing defines the nature of Pakistan or its leaders more than this single episode and the contrast between the two countries.
There are many who believe in the glib phraseology of ‘enlightened moderation’ and that Musharraf will restore democracy in Pakistan. But a General who leads an army that wants to retain total control of the country, where criticism of the army is blasphemy and alternative opinion is unacceptable, can hardly be expected to champion democracy.

Source : hindustan times 27th march 2007

Friends in Need

There are storm clouds gathering over the horizon in the Persian Gulf and the drums of war beat louder each passing day.
A wounded American presidency, torn between the need to salvage lost pride and the desire to control the world, glowers at a defiant Iran in the hope that the Iranians will blink.
The rest of us must wait with bated breath for the debris from another costly and destructive war to fall upon us. And no one has the magic formula to stop this inexorable march of folly towards the next episode of 'shock and awe'.
Yet, there are other analysts in the West who do not see this as a war against terror at all, or a war against WMDs, or for democracy and liberty. They see it as a battle for control of oil and, therefore, see it as a victory for Big Oil.
Meanwhile, the Persian Gulf is overcrowded with the US armada of two carrier fleets bristling with state-of-the-art killing machines, making this the largest concentration of US naval forces in history.
A wounded US presidency, torn between the need to salvage lost pride and the desire to control the world, glowers at a defiant Iran Patriot missiles have been deployed to defend friendly and 'moderate' Sunni regimes like the UAE and Saudi Arabia against Iranian attacks.
After spending half a trillion dollars, resulting in the deaths of countless Iraqis and more than 3,000 American soldiers, the US ended up making Iran the primary power in the Gulf.
It must now find ways to overturn this unintended consequence of a wrong war. Therefore, a casus belli is required. Iran is now being accused of meddling in Iraq, supporting Shia insurgents with arms and funds. The Iranian leadership is demonised and being provoked to react.
Preparations for an eventual assault on Iran required other arrangements. It is commonly believed that Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld left because he was too hard on Iraq.
Actually, he had to go because he wanted a rethink of policy. Chief of Intelligence John Negroponte would not, or could not, produce intelligence to confirm Iran was enriching weapons-grade uranium. That was blasphemy and he had to go.
Centcom Generals who objected to escalation in Iraq were sidelined and Admiral William Fallon from the Pacific Command has been brought in to take on what is going to be primarily a naval and aerial battle against Iran, for the protection of sea lanes.
The fact that Iraq had become a quagmire could not be admitted, and the Iraq Study Group established last year was to find a way out to make a defeat seem a victory. But when the report suggested a phased withdrawal, it was discarded.
Instead, there had to be a 'surge' of American forces in Iraq. It is strange that 20,000 additional troops will help in controlling a majority Shia insurgency when 150,000 troops could not control a minority Sunni insurgency.
It is more likely that these troops are only meant to protect American interests in Baghdad’s Green Zone against a possible Iranian retaliation.
Understandably, there has been considerable obfuscation about the US’s intentions, varying from 'all options are on the table' to 'we will not attack Iran'.
This does not mean that the US will not attack in defence of its interests in the region, the definition of which can be fairly flexible.

Source : Hindustan Times 14th feb 2007

Patriot games

It was Frederick the Great of Prussia who said that he and his people had come to a mutually satisfactory agreement — they were free to say what they liked and he was free to do what he liked. Frederick obviously was an autocratic monarch who did not worry himself too much about the opinion of his subjects.
Present-day governments can hardly afford not to appear to care, so they do the next best thing. They mould opinions and perceptions, as do toothpaste sellers, fashion designers, car manufacturers or anyone else who can sell anything at profit. By doing this, governments try to ensure their perpetuity while the manufacturer does it for profit. Perception management by governments is called propaganda and psychological warfare (psy-war), while the private entrepreneur calls it advertising.
Psy-war is as old as history and an essential ingredient of Statecraft. It is the fourth arm of combat, usable all the time. Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Sun Tzu’s Art of War refer to this. The Nazis had their Lord Haw Haw trying to undermine the morale of the British forces, while in the 1965 India-Pak conflict we had the popular ‘Radio Jhoothistan’. The Iraqis had someone who the invading Americans called Baghdad Bob, as he tried to boost the morale of his people in 2003.
In the Cold War’s early days, psy-war and propaganda were used to keep communism at bay. Saving Europe from Stalin’s depredations was the rallying call for America. Noel Coward, Arthur Miller, Norman Mailer, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, the Rockefellers and the Henry Fords were part of an endless list of an American Who’s Who involved in this. Eminent Europeans also joined the enterprise. The CIA led this multi-million dollar campaign operating on the principle of plausible deniability. For 17 years, a CIA officer, Michael Josselson, managed the campaign with almost fanatical zeal. At its height, this programme of cultural propaganda had spread to 35 countries under the umbrella of the Congress for Cultural Freedom. The Congress funded magazines, held art exhibitions, organised philharmonic orchestras, ran a radio station from Germany, which quickly acquired 29 other stations, and ran the Encounter magazine.
Sometimes, things do get out of hand leading to spine-chilling realities. The 1960s film, The Manchurian Candidate, was about an American soldier captured by the Soviets and taken to Manchuria for brainwashing into an assassin. While the film was a box-office sellout, the Americans did have their very own controversial project — MK-Ultra — for mind control. There were experiments on unwitting human guinea pigs to assess the effect of mind-altering drugs like LSD — all in the name of protecting freedom. Earlier, the Nazis had similarly experimented and so had the Russians. This was a quest for dominance at its sinister best, showing excessive zeal born of arrogance. The results of these experiments are still shrouded in secrecy.
The Cold War was won not just through ‘Star Wars’, military alliances, friendly dictators, proxy wars and the Afghan jehad that overstretched the Soviet empire. The Berlin Wall came down as much through sustained efforts of the cultural cold warriors who had prevented an exhausted post-war Europe from succumbing to communism. The 1980s Afghan jehad was as much a case of perception management as a campaign on the ground; so was the 1991 Iraq war when instant global TV came of age as did Indian TV during the 1999 Kargil war.
It is more a case of managing perceptions or creating images in peacetime. The more innocuous ones are the larger-than-life images of a minimally clad Lord Greystroke a.k.a. Tarzan swinging from tree to tree in the jungles of Africa saving the British empire from cousin Kaiser Wilhelm, or Superman saving the world from evil.
These days ‘spin doctors’ are an essential component of governance and indulge in George Orwell’s doublethink — the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, accepting them and being able to tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them. The current American concept of preemptive war really means that while war is undesirable, a war to prevent even a remotely perceived war is desirable.
Effective psy-war is to put forward and defend an idea or offer a better way of life. The ultimate test for a successful psy-war is when it appears not to have been carried out at all. The favoured tactic could be the ‘necessary lie’ based on some basic truth for it to be acceptable. It was this absence of any truth in the allegations that Saddam Hussein had acquired WMDs and was in cahoots with al-Qaeda that led to a catastrophic campaign.
In the Indian context, conducting a long-term psy-war campaign during peacetime requires unusual tenacity and hard work. We are dealing with an implacable foe, whose long-term objectives are at variance from current overt declarations, who cheats his benefactor habitually and connives at selling atomic secrets for ideological reasons. Under US pressure, Pakistan has made tactical adjustments without any change of heart. Benazir Bhutto’s disclosures in the revised edition of her autobiography, Daughter of the East, confirm this.
Besides, terrorists use modern communication systems for effective anti-State propaganda. Al-Qaeda leaders have used this from their hideouts in Waziristan. The ISI-backed Lashkar-e-Tayyeba has not only thousands of well-trained fighters, it has a huge propaganda network. Its main publication, Al Dawat, sells more than 80,000 copies at major bookshops across Pakistan.
The net has become the new medium for propaganda by terrorists or insurgent organisations. Easy and unregulated access and anonymity of communication has enabled organisations like the Lashkar, Hizbul Mujahideen and the LTTE to run websites. Nothing helps the terrorist more than having the media show mangled bodies and chaos that follow a terrorist attack. This is striking terror in the hearts of the people at no cost to the terrorist.
Since perception-building is a long haul, relying solely on the transient bureaucrat equipped with opinion but without expertise can leave the system stultified, dogmatic and even totalitarian. It is important for the credibility of such ventures that they are not required to support government policy in all aspects. It has become necessary to involve private entrepreneurs because they have the skills to act.
The Indian challenge is to make our presence felt abroad without this being seen as another boring government endeavour. A country that aspires to greater glory must have a credible voice. Image-building can be a collective national enterprise. Psy-war does not have to be a sinister venture. It is more about spreading the country’s soft power and its voice and influence, at least up to the range of Agni-III

Source : Hindustan Times 18th April 2007

Hands of Clay

China is America’s strategic competitor, not partner

A 72-PAGE study conducted by the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, in 1995 had predicted that if India and China, two of the most heavily populated countries in the world, were to achieve a rapid level of development, it would have a significant impact on world economy. At the time, the Indian economy was barely waking up from its socialist slumber and not quite aware of its potential. But the rest of the world had begun to take notice. Often today, the question asked is whether or not India will catch up with China. But the more important question is whether China will catch up with the US. Since 1978, China has averaged 9.4 per cent annual GDP growth and today holds $ 252 billion in US Treasury Bonds (plus $ 48 billion held by Hong Kong). If the predictions made by Goldman Sachs that China will surpass the US economy by 2041 prove to be accurate, then this will happen in the lifetime of most Indians under the age of 25 today. This would obviously mean that India would be lagging behind unless China runs aground or India shows an unbelievably magnificent late spurt. The Chinese may not want to admit it but competition and rivalry for markets and resources in Asia are inevitable in the years ahead. But all this assumes that the world has factored in peak oil and declining production, which should be starting any time now, and global warming which scientists predict may hit us even by 2010. Should there be no cures, then all bets about global pre-eminence are off.
Today, in search of its pre-eminent role at least in Asia, as worked out by Bill Clinton and Jiang Zemin in 1996, China is far more aggressively active in trying to shore up its position for the future. Alarmed at the post-9/11 moves by the Bush administration, the Chinese have begun to move into energy rich areas around the globe, reorganise the navy and strengthen relations in its periphery.
In recent months, they have repeatedly outmanoeuvred the Indians in their quest for oil and gas in Kazakhstan, Ecuador, Angola, Nigeria and even in India’s neighbourhood — Myanmar and Bangladesh. Myanmar announced last January that its gas would be flowing east to China and not to India. China has upgraded its relations with Bangladesh and is today the largest supplier of military hardware to that country. It has access to Chittagong port. A road link from Bangladesh through Myanmar will help carry goods. It hopes to acquire gas. China would want to secure overland routes rather than be dependent only on sea routes for its energy supplies. China’s role in developing the Gwadar port on the Baloch coast has been described as its biggest harvest. Its consistent and clandestine assistance to Pakistan’s nuclear and missile projects, over the last 20 years and more, must never be forgotten by Indian strategic thinkers when they work on India-Chinese amity. Despite occasional cooperation and joint investments, China is unlikely to give India space, out of magnanimity, to secure strategic supplies. India will have to create suitable incentives and interests through trade, aid and military support accompanied by strenuous and fleet-footed diplomatic efforts that could create economic and security dependencies in the supplier States. The Chinese say that they have to continue to grow at 10 per cent annually in order to be able to provide jobs for the 25 million people who ‘enter’ the market every year. China needs American markets for an economic growth that is essentially export-driven. Therefore, Beijing must maintain acceptable standards of political relations with its trading partners and has near-perfected this art.
Politically, China challenges Japan, reserves its venom for Japanese actions and opposes it, yet receives its maximum imports from that country. With the US, while the vitriol is substituted with histrionics, China does not hesitate to bring down a US reconnaissance aircraft — and then buys Boeing aircraft. China’s quest for energ y in areas that the Americans have long assumed to be their private preserve is most certainly viewed as a provocation in Washington. Beijing has aggressively and systematically pursued its search for oil and gas all across the globe into Latin America and Africa as well. In addition, Beijing’s support to Tehran in the recent uranium enrichment controversy and admission of Iran into the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) as a full member, coupled with what US leaders describe as China’s excessive militarisation, fuels suspicions in an atmosphere already surcharged because of North Korea and Taiwan. This is bound to put the two on a collision course.
American long-term strategy to prevent the rise of another centre of power is now back at the forefront for Pentagon planners after a four-year hiatus during which the Americans were fighting their Global War on Terror. China is back to being a strategic competitor and not the strategic partner of the Clinton era. The Americans have their annual National Security Strate g y and their Quadrennial Defence Reviews premised on a unipolar world of total dominance and unchallenged military power.
The Chinese too explained their national security strategy in a white paper ‘China’s National Defence in 2004’ released in December, which speaks of multi polarity and a bumpy road to globalisation. The posture of active defence implies that the Chinese are willing to be patient, peaceful and accommodating so long as world events turn out according to their expectations. If they do not, then they will change their attitude. And what China desires is total dominance in East Asia which means that the US must withdraw. President Hu may have come away from his recent US visit wondering if the wrong anthem at the welcome ceremony and the Falung Gong protest inside the Rose Garden, were typical US maladroitness or a sinister message.
China seeks a close strategic partner in Russia through purchase of state-of-the-art weaponry and energy from the Russians. Joint military exercises and their together ness in the SCO is designed to checkmate Americans and the Nato in Central Asia. There was a time when there was talk of a trilateral arrangement between Russia, China and India but this has not taken off yet. The Indo-US nuclear deal is likely to dampen forward movement of this tripartite arrangement as Beijing could view this as an attempt to use India to counterbalance it.
The Chinese economic miracle has some flaws. The development has taken place through wholly owned foreign enterprises and joint ventures; private Chinese fir ms have not played any significant role — with a maximum of 5 per cent in electronics and telecommunications and as low as 1 per cent in computers and peripherals. In India, the private sector is playing a much larger role. If there is disenchantment and impatience in India with the fallout of the development, it’s impossible to accept that there is none in China. Only, the rest of the world does not get to know. Unless political reform is attempted, political turmoil later is more or less inevitable. This reform is all the more necessary because China must now continue to seek economic prosperity at a rapid rate to keep rising expectations from blowing out of control. This would require it to seek, even more aggressively, markets and resources.
At the same time, China will strive to keep its image of a peaceful nation, speak the language of moderation till it feels that the Americans have begun to pull out, and then move in to fill the vacuum. Meanwhile, it will seek to strengthen its military muscle.

Source : Hindustan Times 26th April 2006

The New solar system

The US National Security Strategy of March 2006 is an upgrade version of the 2002 version which had originated in the September 11 attacks. The present one seems to be a slight rethink of its predecessor but the essentials are the same. Introducing the new doctrine President Bush had declared rather grimly “America is at war.” He referred to a wartime national security strategy to counter the rise of terrorism and America had an unprecedented opportunity to lay the foundations of peace. Ironically, the day he spoke about bringing peace and democracy to Iraq, US aircraft were pounding that country in some of the biggest air raids in recent months.

The new doctrine is a tacit admission of the failure of unilateral preemption and also a denial of the true reality in Iraq. It therefore gives a rallying call for the spread of democracy and freedom as a means for extending US influence and interests while also retaining the right for pre-emptive action to defend these objectives. The US “will seek to shape the world, not merely be shaped by it; to influence events for the better instead of being at their mercy.”

Given the magnitude of potential harm that adversaries could cause with their choice of weapons the US could not let them strike first. The doctrine of pre-emption is intact. Iran is a major threat, tyranny has continued in parts of the world, Russia and China were not free enough and India was a country of growing importance willing to share its global responsibilities alongside the US.

This new doctrine of democracy and preemption is the result of some rethink in nuance in the State Department and the Pentagon in the aftermath of the failures in the last four years. Paradoxically, this very failure in Iraq means that the US has to stay on in the region, for withdrawal now would be construed as defeat in the Islamic world. This is another reason why regime change in Iran has to be attempted.

The US Department of Defence Quadrennial Review of 2006 released in February is a 20-year battle plan and speaks of the requirement to wage long wars. It pays particular attention to the growing military might of China and seeks to follow a policy of encouraging peaceful economic growth of China. Simultaneously, American forces should be ready to maintain forces capable of sustained operations at great distances into denied areas.

The QDR takes into account the threat from international terrorism requiring complex operations of long duration that would involve the US military openly and clandestinely in multiple countries. The War on Terror became Global War on Terror and now The Long War. Thank you very much, says the military-industrial complex, for now the Long War can go on and on. Spending US $ 693 billion for US defence in the next budget is an example.

The Pentagon’s own new counter terrorism strategy requires that US Special Operations Forces be deployed in US embassies abroad. They would collect and act on intelligence relating to terrorist threats to US interests with a capacity to operate in dozens of countries simultaneously. They would also train foreign militaries.

Thus, while counter terrorism, tackling growing Islamic radicalism and preventing the spread of WMDs is a top Pentagon priority, “shaping the choices of countries at strategic cross roads” – like China and India remains an important US security interest. The Pentagon retains its position as the world’s largest spender on defence; its expenditure is more than the next eighteen biggest spenders including the EU, West Asia, Russia, India, China and Japan. The US policy is going to be increasingly Pentagon-driven.

According to Thomas P.M. Barnett (The Pentagon’s New Map) the world has a Functioning Core which is integrating into the world of globalisation and this includes India, China, Japan, Russia, the EU, North America, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and Australia and New Zealand. The rest of the world -- the entire Islamic world, Africa, parts of Latin America and Central Asia—was a Non-Integrating Gap disconnected from the rest of the world and subject to instabilities. The thesis is that decreasing this disconnectedness and increasing connectivity in the Functioning Core of globalisation would ensure lasting peace.

This disconnectedness can be cured through deconstruction and reconstruction. This is the kind of thinking that has gone on in Washington as late as mid-2005. William Pfaff had disclosed in the July 4, 2005 issue of the American Conservative that “A new Bureau of Reconstruction and Stabilization in the State Department is charged with organizing the reconstruction of countries where the United States has deemed it necessary to intervene in order to make them into market democracies. The bureau has 25 countries under surveillance as possible candidates for Defense Department deconstruction and State Department reconstruction. The bureau’s director is recruiting ‘rapid-reaction forces’ of official, nongovernmental, and corporate business specialists. He hopes to develop the capacity for three full-scale, simultaneous reconstruction operations in different countries”. The point is not whether this is feasible or serious but that such schemes are actually being thought about and worked at.

The Pentagon thesis of long wars and global reach is not really contrary to the policy of regionalism enunciated by Condoleezza Rice when in January this year she explained how US global policy would operate. She spoke of promoting democracy and greater US engagement in the emerging power centers in Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East in preference to Europe and US yet she singled out “good partners like Pakistan and Jordan” neither of which are democracies. The gap between intentions and practice continues.

The new US foreign policy of “transformational diplomacy” is not just about just reporting the world as it is but about replicating Nation-States into US clones. Post conflict multinational reconstruction and stability teams consisting of lawyers, engineers, economists will be deployed. It is more about access diplomacy. Arab analysts point out that US Embassy officials began to tour the corridors of government buildings in the countries to which they were posted on grounds to monitor the progress of irrigation, healthcare and other development projects sponsored and funded by US aid agencies. Soon there were whispers that American directives to local government agencies on purely sovereign concerns were being received.

There are many who believe that India’s path to greatness lies through Washington and that the US is going to help India become a major power. Similarly, they also believe when the US talks of new centres of power and balance of power she means balance of power with the US. Banish the thought. What this really means is that the US will remain the centre of the Universe while the others China, Russia, India, Japan and Brazil, will revolve around equidistant from the US. The US is the hub with the other powers revolving on the wheel and controlled by the US. These powers regional would ideally be balanced with each other that may require corrections through Pentagon or State Department interventions from time to time. No power should be weaker than the other and no power should be strong enough to challenge the US in this scheme of things.

The strategy of pre-emption and the conduct of a long war on terror along with a renewed urge to democratize the world is part of the ultimate goal of spreading economic globalisation, with the US undoubtedly as the leader. In the months, years ahead, the test of Indian diplomacy and strategists would be to maximise gains from proximity to the US and minimise loss of independence of policy that a partnership with the rich and powerful will inevitably threatens to bring.

Source : Hindustan times 25th marh 2006

Chicken fed for the soul

The US has flattered India into believing it’s now in the Big League.

The Bush visit was a giant step forward for Indo-US relations and India was elated to be in the Big League. Now that he has gone and the protests of the Left were only that much bushfire, the euphoria of the visit has evaporated somewhat, it is time to evaluate just what this win-win situation might mean. There is no doubt that we appear to have given less than what we had either initially promised or what the Americans expected. And it is not just about the nuclear deal, which in many ways is about as significant as our agreement with the USSR in 1971, but the other agreements or understandings that we seem to have missed out while pursuing the nuclear story. For instance, what does this joint pursuit of democracy mean?

The question also is what has President Bush taken with him that makes it a win-win deal for him too. Surely not just the pumpkin or the mangoes because however astute our diplomacy and dogged our stand might have been, the Americans are no rabbits either. As the Brazilian President Lula once remarked, the US thinks of US first, then it thinks of the US again, and for the third time also. If there is still time left, it thinks of itself again.

It is difficult, therefore, to believe that such a country that had made nuclear non-proliferation an article of faith, launched a foolish and costly war in pursuit of WMDs, subjected India to sanctions for more that 30 years, has suddenly given all that up. What is more, has it thrown open the doors of hi-tech denied to us all these years, just for the market of 300 million Indians or a possible counter to China?

The US could have had this market any time it wanted, it could have sold weapons that it wanted to sell; it did not need this nuclear deal to be able to do that. The US President heads a system that believes in domination and control and not in charity. There has thus to be something more because in any deal there has to some give also. Either we do not know yet or we are not telling.

The neo-con policy of pre-emptive action was largely nascent till 9/11 happened. This was immediately invoked and led to the hugely costly and mistaken Iraq action. The failure of this attempt to go it virtually alone, led to re-evaluation of tactics and strategy, not of goals.

There were three major threats perceived to the American way of life. One, the rise of China. Second, the rise of Islam reaching out to its lost empire from Spain to the Philippines but for the moment is without a King Emperor or a centre. Third, and connected to the second, extremism that was virulently anti-American and could become nuclear-armed. The US could not tolerate that states should hold nuclear weapons but where control on these weapons could not be verified.

We remember that immediately after 9/11 the anthrax scare overtook all of America. Unknown to the rest of the world, US intelligence was also working on reports that a suitcase nuclear bomb was around. The Afghan War was on, the massive attack on Tora Bora had not led to Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants had disappeared into Pakistan and the nuclear scare brought visions of Armageddon. “Go massive. Wrap it all up” was the clarion call in the early days of the War on Terror.

Pakistan was the problem country. It was required for the War on Terror but was also a country most prone to pass on nuclear secrets and material to Al Qaeda and other groups. Musharraf had to be strengthened but Pakistan had to be neutralised without the Indians taking advantage. Thus the nuclear trigger and arsenal had to be controlled in both countries but the two had to be tackled differently. It would be easier to coerce the Pakistanis into submission, accustomed as the Pakistanis were, to receiving orders from above. The Indians, on the other hand, tended to snarl and bite at coercion but were extremely susceptible to adulation and praise. That would be the route to take.

George Friedman, whose organisation STRATFOR, is sometimes described as the shadow CIA, in his book “America’s Secret War” makes the startling disclosure that in March 2002, US forces from the Special Operations Command and other specialised units along with scientists from NEST (Nuclear Emergency Research Teams) were deployed simultaneously to all of Pakistan’s nuclear reactors. Friedman says it is not known whether Musharraf had caved in or had simply been presented with a fait accompli. He does however say that once Musharraf had agreed to abide by the new rules and started arresting some of the extremists in Pakistan, he had become dependent on the US for survival.

This is the genesis of the civilian nuclear deal and all its preconditions. The ultimate goal is to cap the Indian nuclear deterrent. The best way to do this was to build bridgeheads through illusions of grandeur into various instruments of policy and influence in India, think tanks and strategist thinkers, the armed forces, the media, the polity and civil society more at ease with the US than its own 700 million Indians and eager to identify itself with America. The Americans were in the ideal position of having got the Indians to ask for something they would give subject to preconditions. There are glimpses of this when we are lauded for voting with the US on Iran or advised on where to get our energy resources rather than from Iran. It would not be surprising if the US Ambassador tells us that the recent photograph of President Kalam with the Myanmar leader Gen Than Shwe did not go down well with the US Congress. These are only early days.

The other threat the US assesses is the rise of anti-Americanism in Islamic countries but the US forces are overstretched. The unilateral policy of shock and awe had not worked but the Islamic world had to be contained. The new route would be to spread democracy and freedom in selected countries of this region but friends like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would be spared this ordeal.

This is where it is important to know what India might be required to do as a member of the Budapest-based International Centre for Democratic Transition following our agreement to co-operate in the promotion of democracy. This organization is an offshoot of Communities off Democracies programme of the US State Department which is an off-shoot of the National Endowment of Democracy (NED) formed in 1983 and now controlled by neo-cons. The NED set up to "support democratic institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts has a history of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries. Pax America in a different lane.

India will be expected, as a “responsible major power”, to provide democracy’s foot soldiers to tackle jehad’s foot soldiers because the US has the means but not the manpower to deliver. We are going to get caught in schemes about which we have very little idea and no control. So far we have been on the radar screen of international jehadis as a minor blip. As a partner of the US we are going to reap economic advantages but also become more prominent targets of the jehadis. Akshardham, Ayodhya and Varanasi are curtain raisers for an assault on India.

Source : Hindustan Times 15th March 2006

Faster, higher, stronger

Indo-US relations began to warm up after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. All of a sudden, the New World Order had arrived, yet no one really knew how to adjust to this new reality. Old enemies and old friends had gone, new enemies, threats and friends had to be found — for a State, to survive, needs all three. In Asia, China and India were rising — one dictatorial but market savvy and the other democratic but market-innocent. There were roadblocks along the way but India and the US seemed keen to find ways around them. However, the US dilemma was how to treat China — a future military opponent, a market opportunity or as a competitor in the new global economic system? India's strategic relevance would be in the context of how China was to be perceived.Strategists in the US have consistently favoured global military supremacy. The Defence Policy Guidance of 1992, prepared under the guidance of Paul Wolfowitz, merely stated the obvious when it said that the first objective was to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival who would pose the kind of threat as had been posed by the former Soviet Union. Therefore, the US would have "to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power".This desire for global supremacy is not a neo-con mindset alone; it is mainstream American — Republican or Democrat — and it is immutable. Clinton's Pentagon talked of 'full-spectrum dominance', his successor has talked of 'pre-emptive unilateralism' and his may-have-been-successor Kerry would've talked of 'muscular internationalism'.Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security advisor, had said in 1997 that economic subjugation of the Soviet Union and the control of Central Asia and the Middle East were US priorities. According to Brzezinski, "the three grand imperatives of the imperial geo-strategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security-dependence amo-ng the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected and to keep the barbarians from coming together." Whether a country is a vassal, a tributary or a barbarian largely depends on how a country wants to be treated. Better a barbarian than a vassal.George Bush had barely settled down in his first term when 9/11 happened. This event was not scripted and the plot went haywire. The entire first presidency was spent fighting invisible foes and costly wars with no attention to critical long-term strategic interests of the country. The military-industrial complex was getting restive. While the global war on terror gave the US opportunities to move into Central and West Asia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, it relied essentially on small-budget (in American terms) force options and equipment. The other major strategic rival, competitor and adversary, China, had to be countered with state-of-the-art sophisticated military. Alliances had to be strengthened or put in place.The year 2005 was China's year. The US and Japan signed an official declaration in February calling for enhanced security ties. Beijing saw red, particularly in the reference to Taiwan and the possibility that US-Japan would encourage a peaceful solution. Later in June at the Singapore security conference, Defence Secretary Rumsfeld referred to China's expansion of its missile capability allowing them to reach many areas of the world — and went on to say China was not threatened by any other nation. The Chinese were not amused. The Pentagon report on Chinese combat capabilities that followed in July assessed that the Chinese had developed a capability to operate beyond the Taiwan Straits and that this constituted a challenge to global order. Once again, the Chinese were livid and said so. The testimony of Admiral William Fallon, Commander, Pacific Command in March 2005, that Indian and American security interests' continued military cooperation would lead to a stronger strategic partnership, would not have been lost on the Chinese.The July 18 US-India agreement on civilian nuclear energy would have convinced the Chinese that India was now part of the American ring around China. The Chinese offer of civilian nuclear reactors to Pakistan is a counter to this and the recent offer by Pervez Musharraf to provide a link between Xinjiang and the Gulf through Gwadar is only stating the known — Pakistan has become useful real estate for anyone willing to pay the rent. China has worked to keep India restricted to the subcontinent and India's neighbours have sought alliances with China.While the US may continue to sell automobiles, aircraft and sophisticated manufactured goods to China and import cheap durables, and also let China buy US debt through Treasury Bonds, one can see a costly Asian Cold War looming as the two struggle for supremacy in the energy-rich West and Central Asia.An economically rich China is not only in a better position to arm itself but also needs to buy larger quantities of oil and gas to sustain its economic and military growth. By 2020, China will need to import 9 million barrels and the US would need to import 16 million barrels from imports. What is worse, the Chinese would try and get this from wherever possible including from some 'problem' countries like Iran, Sudan and Venezuela (this applies to India also, but we are probably considered more manageable). If production does not keep pace, as it is not expected to, fierce competition between the two giants — for energy and military supremacy — is inevitable.Bush's speech to the Asia Society prior to his departure sets the tone of his visit. The US will make the rules on the nuclear game and either we play it their way or count ourselves out. India has to be credible, transparent and have a defensible plan that will satisfy the US Congress. Transparent with the Americans and opaque with the Indians? Boldness, therefore, lies in acquiescence.The other offer to India is joint promotion of democracy globally. Surely, this will mean democracy not just in Mali or North Korea but also Myanmar and China? Are we prepared for this? Considering that recent attempts by the US to impose democracy through the barrel of a gun have been messy and costly, it may be prudent not to get become someone else's Sancho Panzas.What we should be doing is to engage corporate US with corporate India. This will keep our strategic interests separate from business and investment. The Chinese and the Americans trade and invest feverishly with each other but they have kept their strategic goals separate. Instead, we tied our strategic interests first, hoping that these would lead to better economic relations.Whether India will ever catch up with China is not important. What is important is whether democratic India can give its citizens a better quality of life, knowing that it'll take more than a century to catch up with the West in per capita GDP or quality of life? What is important is whether China can continue to grow economically if it gives its citizens the kind of democracy, however flawed, or the kind of freedoms, however irresponsible, we have in India.Finally, all this is academic if we listen to environmentalists who say that two planets are needed if the Indian and Chinese economies continue to grow at the rate they are growing today, and the US continues to consume and pollute the way it is doing today.

Source : Hindustan Times 28th feb 2006

Hunting grounds

The count down to strike Iran may have begun

An international posse led by the United States has set off along with a motley crowd hunting for one of the two remaining leaders of the Axis of Evil. The British are there, as always, galloping along close to the Americans. The Germans and the French have returned to the fold after staying away in the hunt for Saddam Hussein. The Chinese and the Russians are there too; somewhat reluctant and tentative but there, nevertheless. We are there too, hunting with the Big Boys. Meanwhile, the quarry waits, defiant and refusing to run.

The Iran nuclear crisis continues to gather steam as the world watches. A good deal of hope is pinned on the February 16 meeting between the Russians and the Iranians but the latter are saying they won’t talk any more. There is no point, they say. The Iranian leader is neither crazy nor is the regime worse than that of the Nazis as his Western detractors would have us believe. On the contrary, the regime has gathered domestic support for standing up to the Great Satan.

The tactics used at the time of the build up preceding the Iraqi invasion have been used once again. A scare scenario, with the neo-con sections of the US media pitching in, threatening statements from US leaders and Condy Rice saying the time for talking is over. Other dire warnings are becoming shriller and more frequent. There is elaborate discussion about military strikes.

US intelligence assesses Iran is a decade away from making the bomb but Administration officials chose to ignore this. They say Iran has the capability to make a bomb. It has the intention to make a bomb. This situation was intolerable but that they will give diplomacy a chance. And if that fails then obviously the course of action recommended by Richard Perle, a powerful neo-con who was one of the chief advocates of the Iraq invasion and Chairman of the Defence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2003, will be followed.

Recently, on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, Perle told the Reuters correspondent that “if you want to wait until the very last minute, you’d better be very confident of your intelligence because if you’re not, you won’t know when the last minute is.” He also said “And so, one of the lessons of the inadequate intelligence of Iraq is you’d better be careful how long you choose to wait. I can’t tell you when we may face a similar choice with Iran. But it’s either take action now or lose the option of taking action.” This makes it appear that the countdown may have begun.

It is also unlikely that the CIA has had any great intelligence from Iran and it may be of the same level as in the case of Iraq. Whatever intelligence it may have would be from defectors of the same kind as in Iraq. There are some other possibilities. James Risen in his unflattering book on the CIA called “State of War – the Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration” has described a clever by half CIA operation in which some dud intelligence about making a nuclear bomb was passed on to the Iranians through a Russian defector. The underlying assumption was that the Iranians were too dumb to understand this game. As it turned they were not – the Russian was working for them. It is also possible that in this hair brained scheme the CIA gave away more intelligence than they intended facilitating the making of the bomb.

The additional possibility could be General Musharraf has now come clean about the extent of assistance the Pakistanis gave to the Iranians in the making of the bomb. A. Q. Khan is only a convenient fall guy in this for he could not simply have given away secrets without approval from on high. In the past the CIA had shielded Khan when the Dutch wanted him arrested for stealing secrets. It is possible all this may be causing the Americans some anxiety although if there were something substantial to this, then they would have broadcast it far and wide.

The Russians see this as an opportunity to get into a position to play a role in West Asia, apart from the Bushehr nuclear plant that they are constructing on the Persian Gulf coast. They would also have worries that some of the secrets or material that might have been passed on to Iran or purchased by the Iranians of in the chaotic days that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union. There is an oil swap arrangement with the Russians who ship crude to Iran where it is refined for domestic consumption. In return Iranians give the Russians an equivalent amount of oil for shipment to non-European buyers. Sanctions would cut off supplies to Europe from Iran and increase its dependence on the Russians.

The Chinese have huge stakes in the Khuzestan province of Iran, which produces 90% of the oil. The China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation has a 50% stake in the Yadavaran oil field. On the one hand, the Chinese would not want to be a party to any sanctions on Iran, as this would affect its supplies. On the other, neither Russia nor China would really mind if the Americans got sucked in deeper into the Iranian quagmire that threatens to be far worse than the Iraqi quagmire.

The US seems determined to go ahead with destabilising the Ahmedinijad regime. There were reports earlier of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, till recently on the terrorist watch list, being rehabilitated and used from Afghanistan and Balochistan to incite trouble in eastern Iran. Similarly, there is renewed interest in the Khuzestan province in southwest Iran on the Iraqi border. Since last year more and more incidents have been reported from this area with a predominantly Arab Shia population akin to the population in Iraq. Control of this province will enable control of the wealth of Iran leading to a possible regime change and the return of US companies to Iran.

As Iran gets closer to the proposed date of opening its oil bourse dealing in euros on March 20, the petrodollar is at risk of ultimately losing its pre-eminence in oil dealings. Neither the Russians nor the Europeans would mind selling or buying oil in euros. Oil may cease to be billed in dollars. So far the US has been able to go to war despite its massive budget and trade deficits because major buyers like Japan, China, the EU and oil producers have purchased US debt and hold dollar denominated assets. All these countries have to do is to dump the dollar precipitating a crisis in the US economy. Naturally the US cannot allow this to happen.

The Iranians are to be denied the bomb while US nuclear weapon scientists at Livermore and Los Alamos are working on a new hydrogen bomb design which, if successful, will lead to highly automated factories producing more warheads and new kinds. But it is more than just the nuclear bomb. It is more than the charge that Iran is aiding terrorism. It is ultimately a question of command and control. Halford Mackinder, the British geographer, economist and politician said about eighty-five years ago

Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland:
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island:
Who rules the World-Island commands the World.

Today, instead of East Europe, it is the Caspian region that commands the Heartland.


Source : Hindustan Times 15th feb 2006

Pakistan occupied Pakistan

With Pakistan drifting towards a mullah State,Kashmir is a handy digression

Seven years ago when Karan Thapar interviewed General Musharraf, he was self-assured and voluble. That was before 9/11 but after Kargil. This time he was voluble and when not talking about himself the General was talking about Kashmir. But his body language showed nervousness, impatience, an edginess and even tiredness. And Karan Thapar drove a hard bargain.
Pakistan’s troubles began at the beginning in two ways when incompetent and selfish politicians anxious to prove their “non-India Muslim” identity began to use religion as a means to win over unenthusiastic Punjab and NWFP and the positively hostile Balochistan to the new Pakistan. The constitution of 1956, abrogated in 1958, provided for an Islamic Republic of Pakistan – the first of its kind in the world. Since then most politicians and all military rulers have made manipulated religion in an attempt to strengthen their hold or to cling to power. This alliance between the purveyors of religion and the military has been forged over time, through the Zia years and the Afghan jehad, transferred to the Kashmir theatre and even used to control internal opposition.

The second mistake was that politicians, unable to handle the new country, let the reins slip into the Army’s hands. And the Army, after each war it fought and lost, went back to proclaim that the threat to the country had increased. In the process it acquired the country for itself. Each General is today estimated to be worth thirty crores in personal wealth. The well-known corporate interests of the Pakistan Armed Forces are immense and are derived from its present privileged status which in turn is derived from the perceived threat perceptions from India.

Ayesha Siddiqa-Agha has calculated that the Pak Armed Forces own seven to ten per cent of the private sector assets, controlled business worth Rs 200 billion and if the real estate owned by the military were added, then this figure is about Rs one trillion. With such a lucrative occupation and all the power and the glory, it is difficult to accept that the Pakistan Army, the final arbiter on Pak-India relations, will ever be serious about solving Kashmir.

Over time, the evolved equation has been that loyalty to Pakistan is equated with adherence to Islam and vice versa and that this is best maintained under military guidance. Therefore, opposition to the regime becomes opposition to Islam and dissent becomes muted. Few in the elitist Establishment will ever have the courage or the inclination to point out to their leaders the huge economic price the country is paying for their obsession with Kashmir. The trend in Pakistan and also in countries like Egypt, noticeable in the recent elections, has been that the Islamists have begun to use the ballot box route to political power and Islamisation of the country and not just through violence and jehad.

The Islamist rightwing MMA, in power in the NWFP and in coalition in Balochistan, is the beginning of this trend in Pakistan. The ultimate target will be the central legislature in the political vacuum created by the forced absence of secular political parties.

Thus the longer the General stifles democracy in his country, the greater the drift towards an Islamised Pakistan. The drift will be incremental not perhaps noticeable in the sophisticated drawing rooms of Lahore but out there in the madrassas, in some of the small town schools where jehad and hatred is the menu, and whose alumni provided recruits to the Army and the jehadi outfits. Consequently, right wing fundamentalists are encouraged to expand their activities politically and legitimise themselves while the Army and its associates keep the jehad factory running because the covert option was still valid. Recent events in Delhi and Bangalore only indicate that the jehad is being extended.

Inadvertently and subconsciously many of us forget that in Pakistan it is the Army that determines the country’s security and foreign policy as well as the future of its politicians, where the inconvenient ones are banished. Negotiations with the civilian leadership in this situation or with the Foreign Office in largely a futile exercise. At the same time, negotiating with Armed Forces is also pointless because they are not just interested in results fearing that this would reduce their primacy. Besides they would have to accommodate the unemployed jehadis returning home from the Kashmir theatre.

Although Musharraf admitted that Pakistan had sponsored ‘militancy’, an euphemism for terrorism (just as fidayeen is a glorification of suicide terrorists) and that he could control this to quite an appreciable extent, he equated stoppage of this with demilitarisation by India in Srinagar, Kupwara and Baramulla. Demilitarisation by India is not to be reciprocated by demilitarisation by the Pak Army in POK, even though Musharraf was pushed adroitly into accepting this from at least one POK town.

Musharraf’s anxiety to have India pull back troops may have something to do with new requirements for additional deployments in restive Balochistan and Waziristan. Pakistan and those who sponsor quick fix solutions must also understand that India cannot be expected to save Pakistani face by cutting off its own head.

Musharraf’s back handed invitation to PM Manmohan Singh implying -- come if you want to talk business otherwise do not waste my time -- is indicative of behind the scenes pressures on him from the right wing and the corps commanders who have possibly begun to question his tactics. The problem is how does a man representing a billion people negotiate with a man who essentially represents only himself or the Army which he heads and whose word may not last beyond his mortality. It is also true that repeated high profile summits can be counterproductive until there is some ground broken behind the scenes. In today’s Pakistan, with each province involved in its own unhappiness, they have little time for the Kashmir or the peace process which is increasingly a Punjabi phenomenon – on both sides of the fence.

Musharraf says he has thrown some bombshells at us. Later, as the visit of President Bush approaches one would not be surprised if a few bombs are thrown around to draw attention to Kashmir while the US is offered some more important Al Qaeda terrorists, presumably kept in Pakistan’s safe custody, as pre-visit gifts. At the same time, more highly publicised but vague offers of quick fix solutions that do not take into account the trust deficit, would be made to show to his mentors Pakistani flexibility and Indian rigidity. In reality, these are smokescreens to be used till the Americans lose interest in the region and go home. Till then, Pakistan’s leaders will continue to pretend to be under extremist threat for external consumption and external (Indian) threat for internal consumption.

Unable to develop its own identity, Pakistan has lived far too long as a utility agency or a service industry where jehad has been outsourced. It has denied its sub-continental moorings and tried to drop anchor elsewhere. It is time to come back to the subcontinent and learn to live at peace with itself and its neighbours. Unless Pakistani leaders learn to do that, the fate predicted by the American National Intelligence Committee that by 2015 Pakistan would exhibit signs of a failed state seems all too close. If you want to save your country, General Musharraf, it is best for the Pak Army to retreat from Occupied Pakistan.


Source : Hindustan Times 19th january 2006

Fission for Compliments

It’s US self-interest, not American largesse, that is pushing the India-US nuclear deal

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 pages of Congressional record. It is only this that clearly shows that the debate was about protecting and strengthening US security interests. Largesse to India is meant to be only incidental and 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 administration’s original plan, the agreement would have come into force within 90 days unless both the Houses of 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 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, which was smarting for having been misled into supporting the catastrophic war on Iraq, which cost American lives, for non-existent WMDs.
Senators Kennedy and Clinton made it more apparent that the debate was about nuclear non-proliferation, curbing India’s ability to make weapons and 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 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 agree 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 programme” and other similar omissions.
Senator Barak Obama’s questions and the replies Lugar gave him 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 cooperation 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 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 cooperation with India, the US 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 was 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 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 its fissile material stockpiles. Either this will be a formality where the US administration will fudge figures to keep 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 cooperative 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 dev ils in this.
One might first want to have a look at what the NNSA is capable of doing. Established in 2000 as a semiautonomous 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 nonproliferation regime. It has a multibillion dollar budget with an intelligence and counter-intelligence component.
Among its many global achievements, the NNSA has had a robust programme with Russia and claims to have secured over 80 per cent 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 18month 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 July 18 accord. Maybe that will happen but the underlying message from the US Congress is that the July 18 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 Congress has for the administration, given that the US is unable to hold its sway even in its own backyard, it is doubtful if 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 : The Hindustan Times, December 7, 2006

Afghanistan: Going -Going ?

The scores of well-equipped and well-armed Europeans and Americans who thought they had gone into Afghanistan as liberators and dispensers of freedom and democracy are increasingly being seen as infidels belonging to an occupying force. That is how an Afghan today sees the NATO/US forces. Unable to receive the promised security or basic law and order nor economic reconstruction, livelihood or rehabilitation, most Afghans have begun to climb on to the fence and not take sides between the resurgent Taliban and the ‘firangi’ forces, waiting for the end game to play itself out.

Meanwhile, sitting on top of the crumbling heap is a good but helpless man, imported from Washington, but then not given the freedom to act nor the authority or the equipment to impose the will of the state on the rest of the country. Real oversight lay with Zalmay Khalilzad, a White House consigliere, who acted as a pro-Consul. Thus, from the very outset, Hamid Karzai’s authority was hobbled in a world of powerful warlords who commanded strong ethnic loyalties. Afghanistan is a land where the main ethnic groups the Tajiks, the Uzbeks, the Hazaras have not concealed their hatred and suspicion of the main ethnic group the Pushtoons. And each successive year is a bumper year for opium production as the economy continues to sink to newer depths.

Those of us who have had to deal with insurgencies and terrorists for decades know that there has to be an adequate and mobile force that militarily engages the opposition before the political process can be attempted. In Kashmir, Pak-sponsored terrorists have never numbered more than 3000 to 3500 in an operating season yet the Indian force deployed along with the para-military has been anywhere up to 100,000. Assuming that there are 10,000 Taliban loose in Afghanistan, a force of 250,000 would be needed to engage the Taliban. What is needed is boots on the ground not aerial attacks that create more enemies than they destroy. The present NATO/US force of 40,000 is not only inadequate, it is also counterproductive to deploy a force thinly.

Added to this, has been this futile attempt to introduce democracy in a society that is conservative, strongly divided into ethnic groups and tribes and loyalties are very much hierarchical as well. Afghanistan is not ready for this experiment and has to be left to be governed in a very Afghan way. Ironically, democracy has been sought to be introduced with the help of a dictator who has no such visions for his own country, Pakistan, where the people are ready for this experiment. Frustrated at the increased activities of the Taliban, Hamid Karzai has not hesitated to blame Pakistan for his troubles and Karzai and Musharraf have ended up having slanging matches more than once.

No one today remembers the first mistake when an angered America launched a massive air attack in October 2001. This over-muscular response had the fly-swatter effect. A few Taliban and Al Qaeda did get killed, the Big Ones disappeared and the rest dispersed in different directions but chiefly into Pakistan to re-establish themselves in the FATA area that became Pakistan’s Special Terrorist Zone. Into this STZ came various jehadi foot soldiers from Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and even Chechnya who at times were in Iraq. Helping this rapid deployment force of the jehadist soldiers was a benign Pakistani government that looked the other way and provided the additional man-power. Foreign Direct Investment into these joint ventures came from Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

The original sin continues. Wars fought from the comfort of air-conditioned consoles thousands of miles away or bombardment seen as blips on LED screens do not record the sound of pain or the anguish of death that a cluster bomb dropped from the air brings. Cluster bombs are nasty pieces; they come in various sizes and can be as heavy as 1000 kilos and 3 metres long. They come in canisters that are dropped from the air or lobbed as artillery shells and are designed to explode before impacting on the ground. Lethal bomblets are let loose over an area that can be as large as two cricket fields and many can lie unexploded for decades; while others kill without distinguishing between an innocent citizen, terrorist or soldier. They go down in records as ‘collateral damage’. Thus while the Soviets left a legacy of landmines all over Afghanistan, the Americans are going to leave behind unexploded cluster bombs. What started off as Enduring Freedom has in reality become Enduring Hatred.

In its latest report of December 11, the Brussels-based International Crisis Group has described the agreement that the Pakistan government entered with the Taliban in September 2006 as appeasement. The report states, ‘Following the September accord, the government released militants, returned their weapons, disbanded security check posts and agreed to allow the foreign terrorists to stay if they gave up violence. While the army has virtually retreated to the barracks, this accommodation facilitates the growth of militancy and attacks in Afghanistan by giving pro-Taliban elements a free hand to recruit, train and arm.’ Three months ago, writing in these columns (‘Addicted to the Talib’, September 25, 2006) it had been mentioned that realizing that the Taliban could not be militarily defeated Musharraf had thought it better to strike a deal with them as the next force in Afghanistan. Also that FATA would become a safe haven for Arab and Central Asian terrorists.

The situation has continued to worsen in the country. With over 4000 killed this year alone, there seems to be no let up in the suicide attacks even in the winter. Canadian troops in southern Afghanistan continue to face Taliban attacks that are increasingly sophisticated and frontal and not just hit and run. Islamabad probably calculates that it is in a win-win situation. The continued trouble in Afghanistan retains Pakistan’s relevance to the US and may eventually force the US to sub-lease Afghanistan to Islamabad. What Pakistan does not calculate is that, listed ten in the failed state index, Afghanistan may just implode one day. Neither of these options is acceptable. The consequences of a failed state in our neighbourhood are far too dangerous for India and for Afghanistan’s other neighbours including Pakistan. Afghanistan is far too close and too vital for India to remain indifferent to what is happening there.

The international force has to be increased substantially and given the mobility and firepower to tackle the Taliban. Such a force has to be seen to be effective and visible which it is not at present not only in tackling the Taliban but also providing security to the average Afghan. The force must have the choice to exercise hot pursuit. Countries like India that have a stake in a peaceful and stable Afghanistan could look after the infrastructure and human development through hospitals, schools and road construction. The UN, the US, and NATO must insist with Musharraf that his doctrine of enlightened moderation dictates that Islamabad should stop aiding the Taliban and abide with the wishes of his main benefactor and protector, the US. There should also be no deal with the Taliban under the mistaken and naïve assumption that there are moderate Taliban. There is no such thing and moves to strike deals with such self-proclaimed groups only indicate a readiness to cut and run. This in turn strengthens the bargaining power of the opposition, would be suicidal for the region and must not be allowed to happen.

Source : The Hindustan Times , December 18 2006