Monday, November 30, 2009

Act now, before Mumbai, Kolkata drown!

India , there is a perception that the current ecological disaster is a responsibility of the developed world. If we want to play in the big league we must stop seeing ecological solutions as impositions, say Vikram Sood and Nandita Sood-Perret.

The world's leaders will be meeting in Copenhagen in a few days in what was to be a global effort to save the planet from auto destruct.

It now seems that apart from a few grand declarations, the world will have to wait a while before all our collective fears, prejudices, vested interests portrayed as national interests, complacencies or even denials are fully addressed. The Kyoto Protocol may be dying but the Copenhagen Protocol may be stillborn.

Instead, the entire process has become one of a pretext for protectionist policies under a green label as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh warned in Port of Spain.
"The global discourse on climate change has become enmeshed with arguments about maintaining economic competitiveness or level playing fields," he said. India is willing to make emission cuts and limit the rise of global temperatures, he added, only if there are tangible, equitable commitments on technology, finance and adaptation.

We have all heard the warnings -- Greenhouse Gases, Global Warming -- the terms have come to seem rhetorical. This indifference might be explained by the fact that most of us share a misplaced assumption -- that the planet earth is so big that we cannot possibly have any negative and lasting effect on it.

Doubts about whether or not the earth is actually warming up are very often created by the media and industry. The unwillingness to face facts is explained in the title of Al Gore's famous documentary -- An Inconvenient Truth.

In a span of just 100 years mankind has managed to change its climate. The escape of excess solar radiation is less efficient today than it was a 100 or even 20 years ago -- and this because of the thickening effect that greenhouse gases have on the earth's atmosphere, thus causing global warming. The impending truth is frightening.


The Himalayan glaciers feed rivers that provide fresh water to over 2 billion people. If the current rate of global warming is left unchecked, some predictions go as far as to say that the Brahmaputra, a river whose volume is 100 times that some of Europe's larger rivers such as the Seine and the Tiber, may be seasonal by the second half of the 21st century.

From a situation of excess water that we see in the Brahmaputra basin every year as the rains come down we will then be faced with immense fresh water shortages.

Add to this the so-far-unconfirmed, but possible, stories of the Chinese diverting water from the Brahmaputra to their water scarce north, and we have a major crisis. In a country where provinces fight over water and in a region where countries perennially quarrel over river waters, there could be water wars.


Winters are becoming shorter and milder. Shorter winters mean lighter snowfalls and the ice on the glaciers will not be replaced. This will in turn have devastating effects on agriculture and energy production from dams will also suffer.


Glaciers from the Swiss and Italian Alps, to those of Argentina and Peru have all been receding in this century are now doing so at an accelerated pace.

The Glacier National Park in the United States may soon have to look for another name. Initially melting glaciers will cause an excess of water and therefore flooding. This is not a problem particular to Asia.

These catastrophic floods have already been observed in France in 1999, in Central Europe in 2002 and 2005 and the South American Andes seem ready to follow the trend.

Another vicious cycle is spinning in the Arctic. Ice is one of the best reflectors of solar radiation -- it has a 'mirror effect' on the sun's rays but water absorbs; so as the ice recedes there is greater area to absorb the heat.

Scientists say that this phenomenon means that an increase in temperature of only 0.7 degrees elsewhere on the planet can mean an increase of between 3 and 5 degree Centigrade in the Arctic.

The University of Alaska has documented that the ice floes of the Arctic have melted by as much as 27 per cent between 1982 and 2004.

For instance, if the permafrost in Siberia were to melt, it would lead to the release of naturally occuring methane, a greenhouse gas that is at least 20 times more noxious than CO2, negating all efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions.


Melting ice caps and thermal expansion of water mean rising sea levels. Left unchecked, island nations such as Tuvalu and the Maldives will, quite literally, drown. The world will soon have to deal with a new kind of refugee -- the Eco Refugee. If Greenland were to melt and disturbing changes have already been documented, the sea levels would rise by as much as 20 feet.
The existence of cities such as Mumbai , Kolkata, Shanghai, and New York, is threatened with drowning.

About 60 to 70 per cent of the oxygen we breathe is produced by phyto plankton (tiny algae), that live in the oceans. When CO2 dissolves in the earth's oceans it disturbs the ph balance of the water, the end result of this is that the oxygen producing plankton are also under threat. The earth's oceans and forests not only create oxygen but also stock billions of tonnes of CO2 every year. They are the planet's lungs.

A study by the University of Leeds has shown that the exceptional aridity caused by rising temperatures has transformed the rainforest from a burial pit for CO2 to a CO2 emitter. Too many dying trees liberating CO2 as they decompose is the direct reason for this.
Another study carried out from 1981 to 1990 by a Federal Swiss research group, has observed that the more the atmosphere is carbon dioxide-charged, the less the trees are able to transpire and the end result is less rainfall.

Rising temperatures are disturbing the natural balance and although there may be some debate about the precise mechanisms of climate change, there is no doubt that beyond a given point, nature will be unable to sustain itself.

One of the reasons that the warnings have fallen on the proverbial deaf ear is their vagueness in terms of time. It is widely and wrongly assumed that the world has the luxury of time.
Like any other epidemic, it is assumed by most that global warming will hit the 'other' and not our own part of the world. Both these assumptions are incorrect. We do not have the luxury of time and the epidemic is global.

Further, if not checked now, say in the next 10 years, it will be irreversible. If we are unable to stop the temperatures from increasing in the next 10 years then the planet we leave, not to our future generations, but to very next one, will not be the one we were blessed to be born on.
History has a way of repeating itself and looking back we tend to wonder how people could have acted with such lack of foresight.

In the West, there is a growing awareness and the young have begun to discard the clothes dryers for drying on the string to save energy. Serious attempts are being made to create general awareness with new documentaries.

Today, if we do not act then all our current issues of terrorism, global economic crises will seem like anecdotes to future generations, and it is of the worst kind of negligence that our children will accuse us.

In the West, they have begun to look at climate change as a threat multiplier; in India's neighbourhood, weakened or failing states living on the margins and already under multiple stresses of instability, have little capacity to meet additional pressures from climate change.
Acting to stop climate change should not mean having to deprive developing nations their developmental goals.

While the tendency to ignore consequences of unmitigated development practices in the initial years of development is understandable, it must be remembered that it is not wise to repeat the mistakes developed nations made to get where they are today. It serves no purpose today to condemn science or industry for past errors.

The world's rich nations are having to deal with the 'lock-in' effects of infrastructure and technology decisions that were made long before today's technologies became available.
It is more realistic to assert that science and technology will let us find earth friendly solutions to achieving sustainable development in today's context. There is simply no argument for using obsolete technologies where newer, better and in the long term cheaper technology options are available and have to be shared.

In this country there seems to be a perception that the current ecological disaster is a responsibility of the developed world. If India wants to play in the big league we must stop seeing ecological solutions as mere impositions. We need not be the victims in this case.
In a country where many of our infrastructure decisions are yet to be made, let alone put into practise, we have a unique chance to make the right decisions. This could, in fact, be a win-win situation.

To name just the better known ones, India has the potential to harness substantial amounts of solar power, because of its very abundance, and wind energy, by installing the more efficient offshore windmills along our coastlines.

No one solution exists to replace fossil fuels, but we should instead aim to create an energy infrastructure that is an amalgam of renewable, and therefore sustainable, energy sources in the long term.

On the eve of Copenhagen, where the world's fate is to be decided, we know that the technology exists, however, it is only any good if we can find the political will to drive it. Policy makers must be influenced and this is where each one of us can make a contribution.
Changing development pathways is about navigating through new, unchartered territories, evolving circumstances and not about merely mimicking the west. In the words of Robert Frost, it is about taking the road 'less travelled by'.

By freeing ourselves of the restraints of energy dependence, we will have placed ourselves very high in the global power game. The pay-off will be lower emissions and cleaner air. Who can argue with that?

Source : Rediff.com , 30th November 2009

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Frozen Smiles, limp handshakes

The India-China Relationship


It was good to hear the Chinese ambassador in New Delhi speak of an irreversible China-India friendship. There have been manifest signs of improved ties with burgeoning trade, comprising our raw materials for shoddy Chinese manufactured goods, exchange of high-level visits, quadrilaterals in the form of Brazil, Russia, India and China and a trilateral mechanism with Russia and cooperation on climate change policies. The Chinese foreign minister is now in Bengaluru and Zhou Yongkang, standing committee member of the politburo, will visit India in November. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met his Chinese counterpart in Thailand last Saturday. Quite obviously, the smiles were frozen and the handshakes limp as the Chinese spoke of functional cooperation, which is quite different from President Hu Jintao’s formulation of a vision statement. This is one reality of apparent normality.



There is, however, another reality which cannot be ignored. There has been a gradual and a disturbing shift in the Chinese attitude towards India in the past few years and the voices that one has been hearing from Beijing in recent months have been less than comforting.



From an initial pretence of disdain about India’s economic rise, the mood has switched to some irritation with India’s new relationship with the United States, which the Chinese today probably evaluate as being more strategic than just relating to a civil nuclear deal. In recent months since August 2009, there have been increased intrusions into India, accompanied by a marked sharpness in tenor. The decibel of references to Arunachal Pradesh is higher — protests about the Dalai Lama’s planned visit to Tawang and belated protests about our Prime Minister’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh even in the official People’s Daily that reflects the Communist Party of China’s official position accurately. This message was delivered while Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Nepal Communist Party boss Prachanda were in Beijing. There have been other worrying signs, notably the practice of issuing paper visas to residents of Jammu and Kashmir, thereby conveying that the state was disputed territory. All this underscores the reality that improved trade relations between neighbours do not necessarily mean improved political relations as long as there are undemarcated borders. Questions of demarcation have now been converted into territorial disputes, with the Chinese now repeatedly referring to Arunachal as “Southern Tibet”.



There are international and domestic issues that may be worrying the Chinese. The Tibet disturbances of March 2008 and those in Xinjiang in July this year alarmed Beijing. The decline of Pakistan and the present situation in Afghanistan are both challenges and opportunities for the Chinese. Pakistan’s instability means that an important plank of Chinese policy in the region, to contain India and secure access to the Arabian Sea, has become unsteady and may have an uncertain future. Apart from that, a weakened but Islamised central authority in Islamabad could have repercussions among the restive Uighurs of Xinjiang. The troubles in Xinjiang were serious enough for President Hu Jintao to leave the Group of Eight summit and head home. It is possible that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is now handling the situation both in Tibet and Xinjiang and the hard line from the Chinese foreign office on Arunachal Pradesh and the Dalai Lama’s visit to Tawang may be a result of this change.America’s predicament in Afghanistan provides China an opportunity to raise its profile in Afghanistan/Iran and Central Asia. With a $3.5 billion investment in the Anyak copper project in Logar province, one of the world’s largest copper deposits, China is today the largest investor in Afghanistan. China has also offered to build a railway line and a power plant which would treble its investment.



As India and China seek to progress there will be greater competition for resources, markets and influence. Cooperation will remain an ideal and both would want to avoid confrontation, or worse, conflict. In terms of military spending, India does not have the capability or even the intention to match China weapon for weapon, force for force. It is extrapolated that by 2050 China will be spending $775 billion on defence — three times India’s defence budget despite our huge land and sea boundaries. The high drama in the Indian press that the Chinese were anxious about Indian plans to develop Agni 5 is just that. No Chinese general is too bothered about this considering that the PLA has already covered India and most of the world with its missiles. What irks them really are the graphics that accompany such reportage, showing Beijing as having been brought within range of Indian missiles.



Quite often, many ask if India will ever catch up with China. The figures of military spending, the size of the economies, the rate of growth, the amount of money spent by each country on infrastructure, electricity production, agricultural produce, research and development and reserves held, confirm that the gap is enormous. Mohan Guruswamy and Zorawar Daulet Singh in their latest book Chasing the Dragon: Will India Catch Up with China? make this quite clear. Even though Goldman Sachs predicts that China, the US and India will be the three largest global economies by 2050, it would be more realistic for India to aspire to be a global player whose voice will be heard rather than attaining the status of a superpower. The question we need to ask is can China afford to catch up with India’s raucous democracy and still survive?China has endeavoured to restrict India’s influence to its borders. Only recently, it reminded our neighbours that India had hegemonistic tendencies while extending its “peaceful” relationship with them, while claiming “harmonious rise” in a wary neighbourhood. The prime example of this is the manner in which China has godfathered Pakistan’s India-specific nuclear and missile capabilities.



China is our powerful neighbour and India and China are not in the same league. Pakistan refused to accept this reality in its relations with India and today finds itself adrift despite valiant US efforts to shore up its ally. It is best to accept the India-China reality and fashion our responses accordingly.



There is nothing to be gained either by becoming a hysterical tabloid nation when it comes to a bigger neighbour or a helpless flailing state when we have to deal with a smaller neighbour. We simply have to evolve a method of peaceful cohabitation; there is nothing to be gained by jingoism and everything to be lost by seeming to be weak and succumbing to pressure. It is quite likely that the Chinese leadership will glower at us from across the Himalayas; should that happen we should not blink — and it should not be that His Holiness suddenly develops a diplomatic illness! That would be most unfortunate because that would, in effect, give the Chinese a veto on our relations with His Holiness and decide who visits Tawang.



Thus, we need to be able to protect our interests more effectively, at and inside our borders, in our neighbourhood, the seas that surround us and in Asia. Therefore, massive infrastructure development is required in the Northeast which is people-friendly and not simply meant to cater to our strategic requirements. There has to be two-way socio-cultural assimilation of the region with the rest of India. Instead of buying loss-making companies abroad, we should be adopting regions for development. It is in our interest to develop friendlier relationships with countries on China’s periphery and strengthening relationships with the US and Japan is part of this policy. The armed forces — all three wings — need upgrading, with long-range strike aircrafts as well.



Diplomacy would need to be more nimble-footed and proactive rather than reactive. We have to look at 2050 and work accordingly. Short-term “band aid” solutions will not do. Until then it would be good to follow Sun Tzu’s advice: “The side that knows when to fight and when not will take the victory. There are roadways not to be travelled, walled cities not to be assaulted”.


Source : Asian Age , 28th October 2009

Thursday, October 15, 2009

US just can't leave Afghans to their fate


IT was expected that Gen McChrystal would seek more troops for Afghanistan in his assessment report of June 2009 and that he would scapegoat India for doing good work among the Afghan people. The report also showed up that, eight years into the Long War, the Americans have still not understood the culture of the people they ostensibly went to help while securing themselves.
It was clear from Gen McChrystal’s observations that the Americans were still groping for a strategy against their enemy.



President Obama will now have to live up to his Nobel image as he fights his necessary war. But he is surrounded by military men who determine policy in Afghanistan; not Clinton nor Holbrooke. His advisers include retired Lt General Karl Eikenberry, currently Ambassador in Kabul, Lt Gen Douglas Luke, Presidential Adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan, James Jones a retired Marine Corps general is the National Security Adviser and former CIA Chief, Robert Gates is the Secretary Defence. By inclination they will ask for more troops and funds.
Meanwhile, a Norman Mailer style campaign reminiscent of the Vietnam war era has begun in America.



The argument is that Afghanistan means little to Americans who do not even know where it is located. The fear that if Afghanistan falls to the Taliban then Pakistan will surely follow, is misplaced.



The idea of bombing the country and then offering aid is considered hypocritical and ineffective. Andrew Bacevich begins his most recent article with the comment “ No serious person thinks that Afghanistan — remote, impoverished, barely qualifying as a nation state — seriously matters to the United States.” But surely the Americans went into Afghanistan to make Americans safe from Al Qaeda and to ensure that no terrorist attack would take place from that country against the US and its friends.



Dilemma
The dilemma is that losing is not an option for the US; stalemate is strategic defeat for a superpower; troop augmentation to the extent required is unacceptable, and even a surge of 40000 is difficult. The much talked of Afghan army is still a ghost army. Ann Jones in her report in the Nation ( Sep 21, 2009) describes the Afghan Army as a figment of Washington’s imagination. It does not exist in the numbers claimed, it is poorly trained, many of the recruits/ trainees are repeats who come back with new names for the money, the food and the equipment they can take away and sell. It is a frightening thought to have a man trained with rubber guns for three weeks, then given the real gun and sent off to fight battles for his country.
This became apparent when the Helmand campaign began last July and the ANA could muster only 600 men, far short of the 90000 that are supposed to be enlisted. The hope that Afghanistan will suddenly have an efficient 134000 strong army in two years is very much a false hope.



What should worry Washington is that now there are reports of demoralisation and self- doubts among some sections of the US forces. The state of the Afghan police is even worse with 60 per cent suspected to be on drugs. Ill- equipped and illtrained, they are easy pickings for the Taliban. No wonder Pakistan will continue to hedge its bets with the Taliban, targeting only those that they see threatening them. They are aware also that NATO countries may not be able last out in Afghanistan much beyond 2010.



Vice President Joe Biden’s alternative plan to resort to off shore targeting of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan does not make sense since the Al Qaeda, the Pakistan Taliban and the Afghan Taliban hierarchy are all comfortably located in NWFP, FATA, Balochistan or elsewhere in Pakistan. It is obvious to all that the US/ NATO is staring at a stalemate in Afghanistan.
The US has already spent 50 per cent more time in this war than it did in the two world wars with an estimated military expenditure of US $ 4 billion a month and no light at the end of the tunnel.



There is no getting away from several aspects of this arduous campaign.
The US needs to have substantially increased troop deployment if it wants to subdue the Taliban. There is just no other alternative.



Worse than no troops is an inadequate force which runs the risk of military defeat or overkill tactics.



The present spin portraying the Taliban as a local territorial problem that does not threaten the US is patently shortsighted and leaves no one in doubt that the US is preparing to negotiate with the very force that it has been battling for eight years and which has now regained dominance in varying degrees over 70- 80 per cent of Afghan territory. Negotiating now will be appeasement.
Instead be prepared for the long haul. Any dithering now in Washington will only strengthen the hands of the fundamentalists in the Pak Army.



The Afghans do not understand democracy the way the Americans do but to leave them now in the hands of the Taliban would mean leaving them in the hands of the Al Qaeda, under a strong Sunni Wahhabi Islam preached in Saudi Arabia and increasingly in Pakistan.


Assistance

The American forces must not give the impression that they are fighting for themselves. This makes it America’s war and a war of occupation.



Instead, foreign forces must fight for the Afghans and show it. This means spend more money on them instead of on the forces or the for- profit private military companies or the notfor- profit NGOs. It would be difficult for the ISAF/ NATO to protect themselves without protecting the Afghan from the Taliban and Al Qaeda.



Apart from sheer military force, in a country where 40 per cent of the men are unemployed it is not enough to dole out money. They need jobs and the dignity that goes with it. We cannot get rid of the opium — which is a source of revenue for the Taliban and livelihood for the peasant — unless we simultaneously provide alternative livelihood for the Afghan peasant.



Neighbourhood
The fear is that unable to go in for the long haul, the US may opt for a surge, a quick thrust, parry and withdraw after proclaiming victory. The US is realising, perhaps a bit too late, that Pakistan never intended to be the most suitable boy, who would let his benefactors down repeatedly. In tremendous difficulties in the Punjab, the Pakistan Army is unlikely to be willing to do anything substantial for the Americans, citing dangers from its traditional enemy. It is not that the Pakistan Army fears an assault by the Indian forces but for them to move troops away from its eastern borders would mean that the threat from India is minimal and this would undercut its very own primacy. Then there is China, waiting in the wings for the Americans to get sufficiently unpopular and then move in with its deep pockets. Pakistan would be comfortable with an increasing Chinese profile in Afghanistan but not with an Indian profile.
This is where India comes in. It must stay the course in Afghanistan and concentrate on the various infrastructure projects in the country — roads, dams, bridges, communications, schools, hospitals, power stations and transmission lines. Training of the Afghan Army and police, civil servants, education in various disciplines can be handled by the Indians. This would be far more economical and relevant to local conditions and requirements.



Pakistan will respond in its own way. There will be more bombs and attacks on Indian interests in Afghanistan. Sending troops to Afghanistan is not an option.


Do we back out or do we hunker down, more determined than before?


Source : Mail Today , 16th October 2009

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Corporate Jihad

Book Review of SEEDS OF TERROR – THE TALIBAN, THE ISI AND THE NEW OPIUM WARS by Gretchen Peters , Hachette India,302 pp; Rs 495

INSURGENCIES AND terrorism need ideologies — real or perceived — to start, but need access to weapons, funds and sanctuaries to succeed. Invariably and inevitably, they soon transform into something even more sinister as the need for finances becomes the need to keep terrorism going – to make their millions. The need to keep killing and creating lawlessness is paramount for both the terrorist who needs the criminal for his money, and the criminal who needs the terrorist for protection.

Various solutions to AfPAk have been offered, but the most elusive and essential aspect of the war against terror, which is rarely discussed, is how to curb the money flow from drugs. Gretchen Peters’ book is a chronicle of missed opportunities from the 1980s till today.
It’s assumed that defeating the Taliban or Al Qaeda, through the so-called troop surge and development efforts or a change of guard in Kabul, will lead to a satisfactory solution. The pursuit of happiness through elections and the installation of democracy in an essentially tribal society, without first providing basic law and order or livelihoods, was not going to be a game-changer. Unless the drug menace is tackled, neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda will be controlled.
In 1986, US Ambassador to Pakistan Deane R Hinton was advising his DEA man in Islamabad that for America, drug eradication was a lower priority to defeating the Soviets and preventing non-proliferation. The Soviets withdrew, Pakistan proliferated, the drug trade and terrorism flourished. Two years later, Robert Oakley, Hinton’s successor, cabled Washington that the fight against the ‘heroin-Kalashnikov culture’ was critical to Pakistan’s security; by 2003, Mullah Dadullah Lang announced that the Taliban had regrouped. Today, the Taliban control 80 percent of Afghan territory and the drug trade.

This book disturbingly illuminates the disaster lurking in spreading jihadi extremism in a narco-state. At $400 billion annually, the illegal global drug trade today is 8 percent of total trade (legal trade in textiles is 7.5 percent and motor vehicles 5 percent). Terrorist groups earn $500,000 weekly in the drug trade, which is what 9/11 is estimated to have cost them. By 2004, with the world distracted with Iraq, it was noticed that the money flow had reversed, and dollars were flowing out of Afghanistan and Pakistan to unknown destinations. Both Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar used to hoard opium to manipulate profits. The heroinopium trade is now pegged at $10 billion, far more than Afghanistan’s budget and about a quarter of Pakistan’s GDP. With a fascinating cast of characters (including sheikhs, Dawood Ibrahim, Victor Bout, Pakistani military and Afghan warlords), Peters takes us through the intrigue of this multinational corporation and its unaccounted billions. In the 1980s, armed drug convoys consisting of specially-equipped Pajeros moved to Iran via Balochistan, and were protected by Afghan tribals armed with Stinger missiles, Kabul’s approval and Islamabad’s cooperation. Consignments would reach Europe via Turkey. The ISI was involved and the CIA knew but didn’t want to investigate. Druglords had patrons both in Nawaz Sharif’s PML and in Benazir Bhutto’s PPP. So no one cared when Mohammad Najibullah begged in March 1992 that “if fundamentalism comes to Afghanistan, war will continue for many years”. And so it came to pass, except that it now engulfs both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Any AfPAk policy will fail if it doesn’t control money flows to the terrorists, the drug trade and take on the sanctuaries. Adam Yahiye Gadahn told the author in 2004 that when the next 9/11 comes, “the casualties will be too high to count”. Empty threat? Boastful claim? One wouldn’t want to find out.

Source : Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 39, Dated October 03, 2009

Friday, September 18, 2009

Balochistan-Pakistan's Other Colony

In recent times, Balochistan has always had to live under the shadow of Afghanistan but this cannot take away the intrinsic importance of the province to the renewed Great Game of the 21st century. Pakistan’s largest province and most backward state is resource rich and geo-strategically located astride the energy routes from the Persian Gulf and as a gateway to Central Asia. It is also the least populated state of Pakistan as well as the most isolated where the Baloch have periodically rebelled against the central authority whose only answer has been use of harsh military methods to suppress the revolts under an unthinking and unhelpful political doctrine of zero-tolerance.



IMPERIAL INTERESTS


The British had realised the importance of the region that is now Balochistan as they consolidated their Indian Empire. This was reflected even as they prepared to leave the subcontinent in the 1940s they still assessed the continued importance of the region to contain Soviet expansion just as they had worried about Czarist ambitions in the 18th and 19th centuries and as an important base for controlling the energy rich Middle East.



The sixth Khan of Kalat, Naseer Khan the great, who ruled from 1749 to 1794, was the first ruler of Kalat who succeeded in uniting the various Baloch tribes who had been feuding for centuries. Naseer Khan’s kingdom extended over all the Baloch areas which today straddles adjacent parts of Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. Naseer Khan raised an army of 30,000 and the British curious about what was happening in an area potentially of great interest to them sent in their spy, Sir Henry Pottinger to assess the Khan of Kalat. Nicholas Schmidle in his essay “Waiting for the Worst: Baluchistan 2006” for the Institute of Current World Affairs and republished in the spring 2007 issue of the Virginia Quarterly Review says that Sir Henry found the Khan “a most extra-ordinary combination of all virtues attached to soldier, statesman and prince.” Naseer Khan died in 1794 when the Baloch kingdom was at its zenith and “the Great Game between Russia and England for control of Central Asia was about to heat up – and Baluchistan covered one of the most sought after pieces of real estate in the world.” This is something that has not changed since then although the main players have changed and main game may have altered somewhat.



Even as the British fought their wars in Afghanistan in order to subdue it and keep the Russians away from the warm waters, their eyes were also fixed on the territory of the Khodadad Khan, the ruler of Kalat. Eventually, in July 1876, the British Resident in Dera Ghazi Khan, Sir Robert Sandeman, called on the Khan ostensibly to help sort out some quarrels between the sardars. The Britisher inveigled the Khan into appointing him as the Governor General of Balochistan, Khodadad was thus the last Khan to have actually ruled in Kalat, the British empire had reached the boundaries of Iran (then Persia and southern Afghanistan) and they ruled for the next 70 years.



As the time to go home approached, there were misgivings both in London and New Delhi about securing British interests in post war and post independence India where it was assessed that Indian rulers would not be amenable to playing the game of containing Russia in the Cold War that was becoming colder. The British Foreign Secretary in the Attlee Government, Ernest Bevin, who scarcely hid his dislike for the Indians, said with a certain amount of satisfaction at the Margate Labour Conference in June 1947 that the division of India ‘would help to consolidate Britain in the Middle East.’ (from Narendra Singh Sarila’s ‘The Untold Story of India’s Partition: The Shadow of the Great Game.’)



Archibald Wavell, the Viceroy in India from 1943 to 1747 (prior to Mountbatten) had Britain’s post-independence strategic requirement worked out. Sarila mentions that Wavell had summed that because of the costs of the Second World War Britain would have to withdraw from India eventually. India’s primary usefulness in that case would be in the field of defence and not the market. The Muslim League, which wanted a partition of India would be more co-operative in matters relating defence and foreign policy than the Congress Party could assist in bridging the gap in Britain’s defence of the Middle East and the Indian Ocean if the League succeeded in separating India’s northwest from the rest of India. Linlithgow’s (Wavell’s predecessor) who had developed a friendship with Jinnah could help. Conceivably, Wavell discussed this with Churchill in 1945.



It was also in May 1945, after Germany had surrendered, the US had bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the Post-Hostilities Planning Staff of the British War Cabinet had prepared a long term policy appraisal paper for Churchill. The report spoke of the need to have a military connection with the subcontinent to keep the Soviet Union away from the Indian Ocean. The area would provide a logistic link for sea and air communications to the region, quality man power for fighting battles, and bases against the Soviets. The report even suggested that Balochistan could be detached from the rest of India. Two years later the entire British General Staff was in favour of retaining Pakistan in the Commonwealth as the new country would be a tremendous asset in the region.



It was probably in this context that Mountbatten conveyed to the Khan of Kalat ten days before independence that his state was among the two princely states that would gain full independence. Schmidle says the other state was Nepal, but this cannot be because Nepal was already independent. The second state was most probably Kashmir as this fitted into the plan for defence of the imperial interests in India’s northwest and keeping the entire region abutting Afghanistan and Iran under friendly control.



BALOCH UPRISINGS
Bolstered by this assurance, the Khan declared independence on August 11, 1947, four days before Pakistan became independent, (while the Maharaja of Kashmir dithered) and appointed a two-tier legislature with the lower house to have elected representatives. The New York Times reported this the next day with the comment that “Under this agreement Pakistan recognizes Kalat as an independent sovereign state with a status different from that of the Indian States.” This was not to last very long, and in March 22, 1948 three of the other states – Makran, Las Bela and Kharan - that had merged with Kalat, broke away and joined Pakistan, leaving Kalat as a landlocked entity. In April 1952, Kalat also succumbed. In June 1954, Pakistan Government decided to take over the four princely states and merge them with the rest of the Balochistan province. In October 1958, the Khan of Kalat, Mir Ahmed Yar Khan, who had visited the US the previous year, revolted against Pakistan, unfurled his own flag something that Kalat had been using for 500 years. Yar Khan was arrested, stripped of his titles, decorations and his annuity. It is interesting that it was in October 1958 that General Ayub Khan staged the first of many coups in Pakistan and took over after deposing the President and two months later on December 8 1958, Oman formally sold Gwadar to Pakistan. In March 1959, the tribals from Kalat revolted against Pakistan with, as the New York Times reported in May 1959 “with ‘generous backing from Kabul.’” This revolt was put down as would be so many others that followed.
The third Baloch revolt was in 1962 (the first being the declaration of independence and the annexation of Balochistan by Pakistan) essentially by the Marri tribals when they protested against the import of Punjabi settlers, curtailment of some privileges for the sardars and the lack of development in the region.



The fourth revolt from 1973 to 1977 was the big one where all the major tribes – Marri, Mengal, Bugti and Zarakzai – took to arms when Z A Bhutto, the new autocrat disguised as a democrat, refused to concede to the provincial demands on the Baloch. About 50,000 tribesmen in arms (though not the state of art) fought against 80,000 Pakistani forces helped with the Shah of Iran’s money and 30 Cobra helicopters with Iranian pilots and Pak Air Force aircraft. The revolt was suppressed ruthlessly with an estimated death toll of 15,000 Baloch. No Baloch has forgotten the incident of the Chamalang Valley when Pak army aircraft unable to overpower the Baloch guerrillas, resorted to strafing and bombed 15000 families who had taken their livestock out to graze. This had forced the guerrillas to come out of their mountain hideouts and die defending their wives and children. General Musharraf later resorted to even more repressive measures.



The current – fifth - revolt began in January 2005, following the rape of Dr Shazia Khaled and the protection given by the Pakistan Army to the accused Captain Hammad. Nawab Akbar Bugti was enraged because this happened in the Sui (Bugti) area in a protected area and this was slur on the Bugti tribe. Angered by this, the Bugtis attacked the Sui facility and General Musharraf reacted, as he invariably always did, with arrogance and insensitivity. The Baloch revolted and eventually Nawab Akbar Bugti was killed in August 2006. Balochistan erupted in anger which was primarily anti-Army and anti-Punjabi as many Baloch see the Pak Army as a Punjabi Army. Anti-Punjabi sentiments, which are scarcely below the surface in Balochistan were visible in the months after Bugti was killed and many Punjabi were killed in revenge.



Akbar Bugti’s grandson, Brahamdagh Bugti renamed his party as the Balochistan Republican Party (with an armed wing), has since been leading a revolt against the Pakistan Army while Nawabzada Mir Balaach Marri, the second son of Nawab Khair Bux Marri, who had joined in with his group the Baloch Liberation Army was later killed by the Pak Army in November 2007. Balaach’s brother Hyrbyair Marri currently leads the Baloch campaign from England.
At one stage last year it appeared that the new President of Pakistan, Asif Zardari was going to pull off a major success at reconciliation when he apologised to the people of Pakistan for all the excesses against them, promised an all-party conference to look into all the problems of the province and establish a Truth Commission for the Baloch to express their grievances. But this must have been blasphemy to some because Truth Commissions are all very good in distant South Africa but in Balochistan it would mean revealing the embarrassing truth about the several hundred mysterious disappearances of Baloch nationalists under the pretext of fighting the Al Qaeda. The Pak Army could not afford to be shown up in Balochistan and face more anger and disrepute. Further progress on this dangerous path of Zardari was prevented through the disappearance and brutal murder of Ghulam Muhammed Baloch, President of the Baloch National Movement, Lala Munir Baloch from the same party and Sher Mohammed Baloch from Brahamdagh Bugti’s Baloch Republican Party. Violence erupted again, truth and reconciliation are now a thing of the past and this year the Baloch celebrated their independence day on August 11 inside Balochistan by hoisting their own flag and by singing their own national anthem. Elsewhere there were the usual rallies in the US and the UK and demands for human rights and justice. The Khan of Kalat, Mir Suleiman Dawood announced the formation of a Council for Independent Balochistan with Brahamdagh as one of the members. Announcing this from London, Mir Suleiman said that there was no question of reconciliation with Pakistan without the intervention of the UN and EU.



Unlike earlier times, when the Pak Army would put Balochistan in a padded cell and ‘sort out the Baloch’, this is no longer possible in the age of the Internet, Twitter and what have you plus the cell phone. Besides the Baloch all over the world have several websites that keep updating. Of course entry of foreigners into Balochistan is virtually impossible with each arrival notified to seven separate departments. The mandatory minder accompanies everywhere. Despite this, news has been trickling out.



Baloch nationalists have claimed that this year the Baloch National Front hoisted their Baloch flags in Nushki, Kalat, Turbat, Gwadar and Kharan while the Khuzdar Engineering University had to be shut down because a group of students belonging to the Baloch Students’ Organisation wanting to hoist the Baloch flag, clashed with the police.



According to other eyewitness accounts, Quetta looks like a city under siege, with the Army (commonly referred to as Pakistani Occupation Forces - POF) deployed behind makeshift bunkers and barbed wire encampments; armoured personnel carriers and heavy machine guns are meant to intimidate the local population; locals are routinely questioned and humiliated or taken away, especially the ones on motor cycles. In early August they had taken away about 100 persons in their search for the killer of an army trooper. The Baloch refer to themselves as the Baloch Resistance Forces. On August 12, these forces targeted a ‘POF’ convoy with a remotely operated bomb in Quetta destroying two vehicles and killing five soldiers. This was said to be in retaliation to an ongoing operation in Dera Bugti. The Baloch claim to have shot down a helicopter, blown up a 330kv pylon in Dasht, interrupted supplies from Hub, as the people celebrated the Baloch national day all over the province.



The difference between the previous insurgencies and the current one is that the old Lee Enfield .303s have been replaced with AK-47s and the fighting is led not only by the sardars that Islamabad generally tries to ridicule, but also by the middle class and the educated who are politically conscious nationalists. Money from this comes from the Baloch diapsora in the Gulf.
It is difficult to confirm how many troops have been deployed to tackle the Baloch and the estimates vary from 40,000 to 50,000 troops with about 100,000 Frontier Corps personnel. As in the case of the NWFP, deployment of the Army immediately means deployment of a Punjabi Army since there are virtually no Baloch troops in the Pak Army and this means a battle between the Baloch and the Punjabi.



WHY ARE THE BALOCH ANGRY


The British realised very early on that the Baloch, fiercely independent minded by nature and even unruly, were best left alone and they contented themselves with direct rule only in British Balochistan (mainly Pushtun in the northern part of the province) and left the princes to handle their tribesmen. The Pakistanis began to amalgamate the province into Pakistan at about the time gas was discovered in Sui, Dera Bugti in 1953.



Balochistan comprises 48% of Pakistani territory, has only 4% of the total population and despite contributing $ 1.4 billion as revenue in a year gets only US $ 116 million a year on the basis of the population. All or most new employment opportunities are being taken away by the Punjabis because the locals do not meet the required qualifications and that is because literacy is only 16%. The Baloch language is suppressed and the locals have been deprived of prime land in Gwadar to be given away to favourites from outside, they resent the establishment of new cantonments in Sui, Kohlu and Gwadar both because these are signs of oppression and secondly, because this takes away Baloch land at throw away prices. In addition, the US has control of two airbases in Dalbandin and Pangur. The irony of the situation and the degree of discrimination is evident from the fact that although gas was discovered in 1953, the first supply to Balochistan was made only in 1986. The province produces 36% of the country’s gas but gets 12% of the royalties due to it from the gas. Education and health systems are in a shambles and there is acute unemployment. Rural poverty increased by 15 % during the Musharraf years and during the 1999-2000 period while Punjab’s GDP grew by 2.4% annually that of Balochistan grew by .2%. Musharraf promised greater Baloch control of their natural assets and nothing happened like all other promises to the Baloch. The Taliban and their affiliates and loyalists, Pakistanis and Afghans have the freedom to move around in the province; it is the Baloch who are intimidated and killed. The Baloch also fear not only a demographic onslaught but also a Wahhabisation of their essentially secular culture.



In towns like Khuzdar south of Quetta, slogans like “Down with Pakistan” can be seen on the walls. Disappearances of Baloch dissidents are common at the hands of the various forces deployed there – the army, police, Frontier Corps, Rangers, and other militia. Bloggers and websites operated by Baloch nationalists outside Balochistan routinely refer to these arrests and disappearances. In fact, these disappearances were one of the issues over which Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Choudhry fell out with General Musharraf who then sacked him in November 2007. Student leaders of the Baloch Students’ Organisation to have been arrested on false charges and is not traceable. Baloch nationalists fear that if Qambar is alive he along with other BSO colleagues like Zakir Majeed Baloch and Shahzaib Baloch would probably be languishing in one of Balochistan’s Guantanamo type along with five thousand Baloch nationalists who have disappeared. Baloch nationalists now allege that CJ Choudhry has begun to distance himself from the issue of disappearances is because this was part of the deal with the Army that led to his restoration.



Baloch nationalists had been threatening Punjabis and asking them to leave. Anti-Punjabi feelings erupted once again last June when Baloch nationalists resorted to killing of Punjabi teachers, including the principal, at the Balochistan Residential College in Khuzdar forcing the closure of the college. Principals of the Government College, Quetta and the Secondary School at Mastung had been killed as well. This has had an effect on the land prices of Punjabi-owned properties in places like Quetta where the owners, feeling insecure have tried to leave the province. Although this sort of killing does have a down side to it, including a distancing from the nationalists among the Pushtun who are the second largest community in Balochistan and could lead to an exodus of college professors, many also say that this was in retaliation to the killing of three Baloch nationalists earlier in April.



Balochistan’s rich natural resources and especially its gas are important for Pakistan’s economy which is nowadays controlled by the Punjabi elite and the Army. They wish to continue to hold this supremacy. All deals that are struck in Balochistan are for the benefit of the Punjabi industrial base – in return for providing 64% of Punjabi consumers with Baloch gas, the Baloch themselves get only 3.4%; the province produces US $ 1.4 billion worth of gas but receives only $ 114 in royalties. No political, bureaucratic or military structure wants to change this.
The Baloch were upset that the Pakistan government was striking deals with Iran and maybe India over the gas pipeline without taking Baloch interests on board. Nawab Akbar Bugti had begun his campaign in 2005, and in June 2006, the Baloch Provincial Assembly passed a resolution demanding transit royalties from the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline and a Baloch presence at the negotiating table. In August 2006, Nawab Bugti was killed by Pakistani forces. In May 2009 Pakistan and Iran signed a Pakistan-Iran pipeline and price agreement in Teheran. The agreement and the price accord stipulates that Iran would sell the gas at a variable rate from US $ 7 to US $ 13 per MMBTU depending upon variation in the price of the Japanese Crude Cocktail rates per barrel. Compared to this, the Baloch gas is purchased at only 63 cents per MMBTU by the Pakistan Petroleum Limited and the entire amount goes to the federal government. The disparity is obvious.



The Baloch also see no benefit for themselves from this or the TAPI pipeline. They fear that gas would be pumped directly to the Punjab and Sindh. All construction work will go to outsiders, the Baloch will be dispossessed of land, security will be enhanced which means more Punjabi forces. Political unrest will continue till this issue among others is resolved.



ISLAMABAD’S REACTION TO BALOCH DEFIANCE


Islamabad’s reaction to the Baloch nationalists is typical. The first strand is the military option. This means increased deployment of the Army, new cantonments in Sui, Kohlu and Gwadar, in addition to the two at Sibi and Quetta, as already mentioned along with other military infrastructure and surveillance capabilities. There are also plans to create local forces but the central aim is to increase the capabilities of the forces to protect energy specific and anti-nationalist capabilities. The thrust is to militarily subdue the nationalists rather than accommodate any of their demands.



The second strand has been to try and manage the situation through political management which consists of political persecution, under which arrests and disappearances are common; the killing of Akbar Bugti and Balaach Marri, leader of the banned Baloch Liberation Army, was part of this muscular policy. The killing of both the leaders had led to widespread resentment and disturbances in Balochistan. This has not abated. They have also tried to divide the nationalists and also create an ethnic divide among the Pushtun and the Baloch, and win over some of the leaders. This is aggravated by the presence of Afghan Pushtun refugees and the Afghan Taliban led by Mullah Omar in and around Quetta for several years with the Pakistan establishment unwilling to take any action against them.



The third course of action is to hermitically seal the province and launch a sustained demonization campaign against the Baloch by either being dismissive of the campaign as the result of the whims a few backward and autocratic Sardars who do not want progress as this would mean a reduction of their traditional influence and hold. The government asserts that modernisation and development of ports like Gwadar would benefit the people, do away with the age-old practice of bonded labour and provide schools, colleges and hospitals.



Not so, say the Baloch. The Baloch movement is no longer one that is confined to the desires and aspirations of the sardars but has a strong middle class educated element to it. All benefits would accrue to the Punjabis, the Army and their henchmen. Baloch nationalists argue that the decisions on these projects like the Gwadar port and the Kachhi irrigation canal project were taken without consulting or involving the Baloch. They say prime land along the Makran coast is being bought off the Baloch very cheap and sold to outsiders (meaning Punjabi) and similarly Baloch land has been acquired by the military to establish additional military cantonments. Huge profits have made by non-Balochis, especially the Punjabis. Outsiders are being shipped into Balochistan to work on these sites so the local Baloch get no employment benefit either along with the fear that they will be demographically disadvantaged over time.



There is another element to government strategy. This is to belittle the nationalist movement and then to simultaneously paint is an Indian-inspired terrorism. While it is fashionable in Pakistan for the media and politicians to blame India for all the troubles in Pakistan recent experience in the NWFP and FATA showed that the Pushtun trooper was reluctant to take on his cousins, brothers and fellow Pushtun and Muslims in the fight against the Taliban insurgency in the NWFP. However, the portrayal of the Baitullah Mehsud’s Pakistani Taliban as Hindu-India aided helped motivate the soldiers. Similar tactics are now being applied in Balochistan.



Perhaps the leader in this campaign is retired Army Chief, General Mirza Aslam beg. His bizarre article of March 29, 2009 is an accurate description of the Goebellsian doctrine at work in Islamabad. The General wrote:


“We have enough information to identify this intelligence network inside Afghanistan, fairly accurately, to determine the dimensions of this Great Game, of the civilised world. The nerve centre is at Jabal-us-Seraj, manned and operated by CIA, Raw, Mossad, MI-6 and BND (German intelligence). It’s a huge set-up with concrete buildings, antennas and all the modern electronic gadgetry one can conceive of. Its out-posts are Sarobi and Kandahar against Pakistan. Faizabad, against China; Mazar-e-Sharif, against Russia and Central Asian States and Herat against Iran.”



He goes on to say “Intelligence Network of Occupation Forces in Afghanistan against Pakistan. Sarobi is the nerve centre headed by an Indian General officer, who also commands the Border Road Organisation (BRO). Its forward bases are Ghazni, Khost, Gardez, Jalalabad, Asadabad, Wakhan and Faizabad. BRO has built an all weather road from Sarobi to Asadabad to Faizabad. Sarobi network, targets the province of NWFP, Pakistan.



“Dissidents from Pakistan, are trained at Sarobi for missions inside NWFP. Wakhan salient has been infested with dozens of electronic outposts, covering Pakistan, China, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.



“Kandahar has its forward bases at Lashkargah and Nawah. Their target area is the province of Balochistan. The dissidents from Balochistan are trained at Lashkargah for undertaking missions in Balochistan as well as in support of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA).



“One of their tasks is to target Chinese working in the province, particularly at Gwadar, Sandak and Hub. The American anchorages, on the Pakistani coast at Jiwani and Kalamat, jointly plan operations with BLA inside Balochistan. They also use the Pakistani out-posts at Mand, for operations inside Iran. The American warships in the Arabian Sea and their intelligence base in Muscat, provide the back-up support. The facilities at Jiwani and Kalamat were provided by Pakistan, as logistic support bases to the Americans for operation in Afghanistan, but the same are now being used, to destabilise Balochistan and Iran.



“The set-up at Faizabad (Badakhshan) holds over personnel mainly Muslim soldiers, engineers and workers from India. It serves as the training camp for the Chinese dissidents from the Xinjiang province. Indian Ulemas impart motivational education, giving the impression that the entire out-fit at Faizabad was run by Pakistanis. The recently acquired facility for military deployment by India, across the border in Tajikistan at Kalai Kumli, adds a meaningful capability to India to operate inside Tajikistan, as well as Uzbekistan.



“Against Russia. The intelligence base at Mazar-e-Sharif is run jointly by CIA, RAW, Mossad and BND. Chechnyan dissidents and agents from Turkmenistan are trained for operations in these countries. Rasheed Dostam and Ahmad Zia Masood are very active supporters of such activitiesin Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.



“Against Iran. The forward base at Herat and Farah are manned by CIA, RAW and Mossad for subversive activities inside Iran. Jointly operating from these bases and the bases inside Pakistan, such as Kalamat, Jiwani and Mand, they have been able to undertake actions inside Iran, killing a number of security forces personnel in the last few years. The terrorist organisation named Jandullah has been used for conduct of such operations inside Iran.
“Pakistan and Iran are being blamed for supporting terrorists in Afghanistan, whereas Afghan territory is being violated so blatantly to destabilise the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan, by nations, who claim to be the flag bearers of the ideals of international norms of justice and fair play. This is the worst kind of ‘Terrorism Through Consensus’, by the so-called civilised nations, in occupation of Afghanistan. The brutal violation of Afghanistan’s sovereignty for the shameful purpose of destabilisation of Pakistan and the regional countries, is condemnable.
“Was this the purpose of the strategic partnership deal between India, United States and NATO”?



This quotation from an article written by the General is lengthy but necessary. This is the usual Pakistani way of blaming others and comes mainly from a persecution complex that the entire world is to be blamed for Pakistan’s problems, and that the entire world is conspiring against Pakistan. On this one, however, he has let his imagination get the better of him. The General has repeated this argument in other articles too. Since then there has been a concerted campaign in the Pakistani media against Indian involvement in NWFP and FATA with Baitullah Mehsud first described as Pakistani patriot and then an Indian agent. The campaign about 12 Indian consulates in Afghanistan hatching conspiracies against Pakistan and especially in Balochistan is now gathering momentum. The latest in this round accusations against India is that now there are 26 Indian consulates in Afghanistan and Iran along the Pakistan border It was Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebells who said “Tell a lie that is big enough, and repeat it often enough, and the whole world will believe it.” The Pakistani rulers are hoping that the rest of the world will believe this if they say it often enough.



The Pakistani establishment has many reasons for projecting this lie. There was no reason for India to give any credence to this lie which we have done by including this in the Sharm el- Sheikh joint statement of July 16. Since then the Pakistani campaign has become a noisy din. There was no need for us to first raise them to our level by stating that like India they too are victims of terrorism; then we lower ourselves to their level by indirectly admitting that we, like them, are sponsors of terrorism. It is apparent that they need to demonise the Baloch nationalists to be better able to launch assaults against them. The expectation in Islamabad and Rawalpindi must be that there will be pressure on Islamabad to do something against the Afghan Taliban in Balochistan. When that pressure becomes unbearable then this advance demonization against the Baloch will help in going after them under the pretext of hunting for the Taliban. And if the hunt does not succeed then there is a ready excuse to give to the Americans. Machiavellian, no. Too clever by half, yes.



BALOCHISTAN AND THE NEW GREAT GAME


There are three new found roles for Balochistan in the new geo-strategic Great Game in the region. And the main players are Pakistan, China, the US and Iran with India and Russia also on the bench. With the economic rise of China and then of India, energy requirements and energy security have a new meaning for these Asian nations as well. Robert G. Wirsing discusses this at length in his monograph entitled ‘Baloch Nationalism and the Geopolitics of Energy Resources: The Changing Context of Separatism in Pakistan,’ April 2008.



The discovery of gas and sizable reserves of coal in Balochistan, the possibility of discovery of oil and the discovery of the world’s largest copper and gold reserves at Reko Diq, close to the Iran Afghan borders is estimated to be worth US $ 65 billion, makes Balochistan a profitable destination for prospectors and investors. Exploration by Barrick Gold in co-operation with a Chilean company Antofagasta Minerals (the two together own 75% of the shares and only 25% by the Balochistan Development Authority) has already begun. Pakistan’s proven gas reserves in 2006 were estimated to be 28 trillion cubic feet of which 19 tcf (68%) were in Balochistan. The one major problem with the gas production and supply has been the steadily increasing and more efficient attacks on the pipelines and the production facilities by Baloch nationalists since 2002. Nationalist violence has steadily escalated and by 2006 when the latest figures were available, there were 843 attacks that year, including 31 on gas pipelines and others on different targets and mine blasts. Supplies to Punjab have been cut off on occasions but the nationalists have graduated to hitting production sites.



Balochistan’s other importance is that it lies on the routes of two prospective pipelines. One is the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline that originates from the massive South Pars gas fields of Iran crosses into Khuzdar, Balochistan on to Multan and Jhang and then eventually to Delhi and western India via Jaisalmer. The other is the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline that originates from the Dauletabad gas fields and runs through Herat and Kandahar through Quetta, Sui and then to Delhi and western India again via Jaisalmer. Technically sound on the drawing board, there are obvious problems of unsettled areas on of Afghanistan, the nationalist insurgency in Balochistan and above all the attitude of Pakistan especially at times of tension if not hostilities.



Given the state of India-Pakistan relations it would be a miracle if this were to work to the satisfaction of all. Further, the Americans are unlikely to view the Iranian deal with any favour but would rather that the TAPI deal came through by which time Afghanistan would have been pacified. This is a gamble that is most certainly high stakes because 1200 kilometres of the pipeline or 58% would travel through sensitive areas which is substantial. With a hesitant India, the Pakistanis are now looking at the prospect of having the pipeline run down to Gwadar. It is doubtful if any economic or financial benefits will accrue to the Baloch in the near term assuming of course that Islamabad would have been willing to share revenues with the Baloch or allowed the Baloch the employment opportunities these pipelines would have generated. Besides Balochistan is known to be rich in copper and coal; with a good prospect that oil could be found in the province.



The third aspect is Gwadar. The Chinese built this rapidly after 2002 when they saw the Americans entering Central Asia and Afghanistan in their fight against terrorism. The obvious worry was to secure energy supplies and not be dependent on routes that could be subject to interdiction, especially when the Indians and the Americans had decided to co-operate in patrolling the Malacca Straits. Besides the beleaguered Pakistan President General Musharraf had to be given some succour in his hour of need and prove once again China’s steadfastness. The Pakistanis hope that this would be the Arabian Sea’s Dubai or Singapore and the coast line would be its Riviera. Pakistan would then become a key player as transit point into and from Central Asia, into western China and back with pipelines, rail and road links linked to the Karakoram Highway while at the same time firmly integrated into the Economic Cooperation Organisation launched Turkey, Iran and Pakistan. If the TAPI or IPI pipelines were to become a reality then all this could transform Pakistan into a modern economically sound state. Besides, for India this means extending its Navy in times of hostilities.



Unfortunately for the Baloch, they are destined to live under the shadow of Afghanistan. Their problems are likely to remain unnoticed as the US and western gaze is fixed on NWFP-FATA and AfPAk. In fact, Balochistan would be considered an unnecessary divergence. Besides the Baloch problem is that their numbers are not enough and they are scattered in three countries. Iran would not view any pan-Baloch movement very favourably and the Baloch may end up being like the Kurds.



Then there are conflicting and merging interests in the region. China and Pakistan would naturally not want any instability in Balochistan. The Chinese have invested over time with money, military supplies and support in nuclear and missile technology. They see Gwadar as an important stepping stone into the Persian Gulf and overlooking the Arabian Sea lanes. This has become very important for them after the US presence dramatically increased in Central Asia and Afghanistan Pakistan after September 11, 2001. Unnerved by this, the Chinese have begun looking for alternative energy supply routes and would wait for the day when the US and NATO finally quit the region.



For Pakistan too it is imperative that this project in Gwadar takes off with all the other subsequent spin offs not just economic but also strategic that accompany especially in relation to India. It is important also for its general economic survival. So long as Balochistan is unstable the Pakistan economy will struggle. According to one report by Syed Fazl-e-Hyder in the Asia Times of August 14, the Chinese have shelved their multi-million dollar oil refinery project in Gwadar as there had been no progress on the project since the agreement was signed. Earlier in January this year the UAE also pulled out of Coastal Refinery Project at Hub. It is possible both may have pulled out of these projects because of the global meltdown and this stoppage may be temporary but for Pakistan and the multibillion dollar mega oil city project in Gwadar continued delays and uncertainties will cause serious economic and financial difficulties.



For the US, it seems this would be a multipronged weapon. Pakistan is an important keystone on the eastern fringes of a turbulent and resource rich Muslim world but unfortunately it has become equally unstable and volatile. Yet it remains an entry point to Central Asia and the Caspian for access to its energy resources, for a check on Iran but for which Balochistan must remain peaceful and stable. But without sustained American presence and interest, Pakistan would give free access to a rising China that is now getting ready for the day they assess that the US will lower its shadow in the region as the cost in men and material of a war in Afghanistan gets unbearable in the US public perception. Besides, the manner in which the campaign is being conducted by the US and NATO gives little reason to be optimistic about its success. For the present, it seems that Baloch nationalist aspirations are unlikely to draw much international attention and may instead be sacrificed at the altar of geo-strategic interests. Besides, President Obama cannot reasonably be expected to let this become his endless war.



It would be a mistake to ignore Russian interest in this region, particularly attempts to influence its Near Abroad, long considered as its own backyard. Their moves to counter American and Chinese influence designed to bypass Russia in the energy game are not going to be left unanswered. Iran will be a factor in the Russian calculation. Russia may have declined since 1990 but it is far away from oblivion and it still has a strong military machine along with high-technology, especially nuclear, of Indian interest.



India, as the regional power and neighbour, must exhibit this status to secure its national interests. It is only when this is done actively will others learn to respect Indian interests. It cannot sit and watch idly as the others play their role in their national interests because a passive approach or that of conciliation amounts to appeasement in the Pakistani perception. Our national interest demands that we continue to strengthen our relations with Iran and Afghanistan to bypass a permanently hostile Pakistan no matter what it takes. This means that our policies towards Iran and Afghanistan would be determined by our interests first and not by others’ interests.



The Baloch are a secular people, they have been our friends and we must retain their friendship. We do not have to launch any foolish ventures but we can give them moral and diplomatic support for the fulfilment of their natural desire for self-determination and economic and political equality. While Balochistan remains Pakistan’s internal problem, we cannot be seen to be helpless if there is injustice in our neighbourhood. At the same time, what is happening in Balochistan is not India sponsored terrorism unlike what is happening in India where Pakistan sponsored terrorism by the Lashkar e Tayyaba and others continues unabated. War is an ugly option but it is an option that one would not exercise but before that there several intermediate options - economic, political, para-military/covert that can be considered.



The players may have changed from the 19th century but the game goes on and Balochistan could well be the centre piece for exercising control in a world that is running out of energy sources. The situation is going to remain fluid in the years ahead and only the powerful and nimble footed will win.

Source : Eternal India ,September 2009

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

India scoring own goals against Pakistan

Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani must have gone home chuckling, for never in his wildest imagination would he have assumed that the Indians would score so many own goals in less than an hour especially after the drubbing his President Asif Ali Zardari received at Yekaterinburg, barely two months ago. The score at the end of play was Pakistan four, India zero. This sudden loss of form remains inexplicable and has bewildered and angered many. Some have attributed this to American coaching. The Pakistani commentator Ayesha Siddiqa rubbed salt into our wounds, when she said that "This is an Indian government which is under the influence of the United States."



The four goals came in rapid succession. These were:



"Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats." Now it is a basic and essential truth of life that we share secrets with those we trust or with those where we have an identifiable common interest or target. Do India and Pakistan have this? There is a clear divergence between pious hopes and attainable goals.



"Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas". The incongruity and irrelevance of these 16 words jars. Pakistan has been blaming the rest of the world, chiefly India and now its benefactor and protector, the US, for its current troubles. It conveniently ignores the fact that its present problems emanate from the Taliban and the Lashkar-e-Tayiba ,both of which creations of its own malevolence. Pakistan is today paying the price of fighting a two-front jihadi war. Besides, the implication of the words "and other areas" is particularly sinister. Already there are wild accusations of Indian involvement in the terrorist attack on the Lahore Police Academy and on the Sri Lankan cricketers. More terrorist attacks by the Taliban or whoever wants to do this will surely take place in Pakistan. We can be certain that the evil Indian hand will be seen in this. And what if there is an attack on an American facility by the Pakistani Taliban and the orchestrated allegations are that there is an Indian hand?



In Havana, we had raised Pakistan to our level by describing it as a victim of terrorism. In Sharm el-Sheikh, we downgraded ourselves to their level by allowing them to describe us as sponsors of terrorism.



"Both prime ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister (Manmohan) Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues." The eagerness to resume the Composite Dialogue is mystifying if we at the same time insist that Pakistan must give us satisfaction on the issue of terrorism. Clearly the two -- Composite Dialogue and terrorism will now operate in separate, unconnected silos. What is the leverage that we will have on Pakistan if we are not even going to insist that we be given reasonable comfort before we resume dialogue? Ironically, and after years of hard fought battles with Washington, we now hear voices that suggest that they too have begun to understand and acknowledge the root cause of the problem. There is an increasing acceptance that the war on terror cannot be disaggregated and fought selectively. Admiral Mike Mullen ,chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke about the need for Pakistan to control terrorism both on the eastern front and the western front. Just when this is beginning to happen, we have wilted.



"Prime Minister Singh reiterated India's interest in a stable, democratic, Islamic Republic of Pakistan". Now why on earth do we have to say this? In the past also we have had our leaders signing at the Minar-e-Pakistan while the Pakistanis mounted assaults on Kargil , we rush off to Karachi and want to certify Mohammad Ali Jinnah's secular credentials and now this. Has Pakistan ever expressed that it wishes to see a democratic secular Republic of India? At least they are honest about this one because no Pakistani leader can afford to say this and get away as this expression undermines the very basis of the two-nation theory that the leaders still cling to in search of an identity that is non-India. For 60 years Pakistan's leaders have been trying to undermine India through the jihadis. It has not worked but it has not been given up either.



S Akbar Zaidi, a Karachi based analyst, was right when he said that India had to acknowledge that Pakistan, the intelligence establishment and groups like the LeT were not going away. In this triangle, Pakistan cannot survive without the other two, the Lashkar survives because of the other two and the intelligence rules over both. In other words, so long as there is Pakistan there will be the LeT backed by the Inter Services Intelligence backed by the army. Zaidi also added that the Pakistani establishment would not pursue cases against the Lashkar operatives involved in the Mumbai attacks and feared that there could be another Kargil or a Mumbai.
In dealing with Pakistan we must accept that its policy on jihad can no longer change. It has pursued this policy for far too long and the belief apparently is that the only way to get out of this mess is to get deeper into it. In the process it is also a state that is increasingly obscurantist with an acknowledged reputation that the country is now ground zero for global jihad. A terribly frightened and miniscule moderate section stands by, unable to stand up to the jihadis' interpretation of Islam.



All this has been said in these columns before but two important writings in recent months would testify to this. One is Arif Jamal's book Shadow War: The Untold Story of Jihad in Kashmir . Jamal's book confirms that Mumbai 2008 was a continuation of Baramulla 1947. The other is an essay by John R Schmidt in the Survival journal entitled The Unravelling of Pakistan which is one of the most honest and sombre accounts of what is happening in Pakistan today and the dangers ahead that threaten the existence of Pakistan with the Taliban now sitting west of the Indus and threatening both Punjab and Balochistan. Since one author is a Pakistani journalist and analyst and the other a former member of the US Foreign Service their views cannot be attributed to Indian prejudice.



What we need to understand is that when Pakistan feels cornered its leaders will seek assistance and sympathy and export mangoes; their purpose served, they will revert to form and export jihadis. The way to handle Pakistan is not through kind gestures and misplaced magnanimity; these are taken as signs of weakness and generally used to bargain for more.



The Pakistani establishment has made full use of its feeling of indispensability to the NATO effort in Afghanistan through provision of intelligence and logistics. As the US has begun to realise coddling Pakistan is counter-productive it needs to disabuse Pakistan of this and explore the routes through Iran and Russia . For this naturally it must stop needling both these countries; if India is required to give comfort to Pakistan to allow it to assist the US effort why not the US give some comfort to both Iran and Russia to enable them to help the US in Afghanistan. Indian presence in Afghanistan is benevolent and it would be unfortunate if this is reduced as this is the one country that has rendered assistance to the Afghan people. Pakistan does not have to be given comfort on this issue. Carrots must reduce and sticks must increase.
Pakistan has to be reinvented before it morphs into something very frightening.




Source : Rediff.com , 28th July 2009

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Sleeping with the Enemy

The Sharm el-Sheikh declaration is perhaps the shortest, the most perplexing and worrying piece of drafting that has been signed by two heads of government. It now exists as a document that would be the basis for continued acrimony between India and Pakistan and among Indians. Never have so few led the country so astray as in this document.



One of the sentences that has generated considerable debate is when it states that “Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats.” It is information that will be shared not intelligence; information being something that could well appear in the newspapers but intelligence presumes that information which has been gathered from secret sources. The sentence does not talk of ISI and RAW co-operation. Presumably, therefore, the reference is to exchange of information about terrorist acts.



Although Pakistan has been sponsoring jihadi terrorism against India for decades it does not consider this to be terrorism. The instruments have been Lashkar-e- Tayyaba or Jamat-ut-Dawa is it is now called, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and a host of other jihadi organisations that keep mutating according to the needs of the ISI. Since this is a low cost foreign policy option against India and since the Pakistan Army also believes in jihad as a doctrine it is unlikely that it will co-operate with India or share any real time credible actionable information following any Indian request. On the contrary, one should now expect a great deal of ‘information’ about Indian agents active in Pakistan. General Mirza Aslam Beg’s bizarre allegations of multilateral co-operation between the CIA, the R&AW, the MI6, Mossad and the German BND, all working to destabilise Pakistan and Afghanistan, will now acquire respectability.



Besides where is the trust that is so essential before such sharing begins. Even PM Gilani admitted this after his return from Sharm el-Sheikh. There have been contacts between the heads of ISI and RAW in the past but these never led to anything substantial. This was before the ISI went berserk with its jihadi agenda on Kashmir and the rest of India in the 1990s. This has only sharpened with time and one can hardly visualise the ISI leading the Indian intelligence agencies to terrorists hiding in Pakistan or planning terrorist acts against India. In their book they are mujahideen, ghazis and fidayeen but not terrorists and instead Baloch nationalists are the terrorists.



An establishment that has handled Hafiz Saeed with kid gloves, has never handed over any of the terrorists like Masood Azhar or mafiosos like Dawood Ibrahim, is hardly likely to co-operate. Besides one is not even sure whether or not the Indian intelligence agencies would be willing to share all the details with their Pakistani counterparts for fear of exposing their sources of intelligence thereby jeopardising an operation or a source. The present DG ISI Lt Gen Shuja Pasha is known to described the Taliban as Pakistan’s assets while Pakistan’s military spokesman Gen Athar Abbas was quite categorical in his CNN interview when he said that in the Taliban context Pakistan expected some concessions from Washington over his country’s concerns with India. Given this frame of mind, co-operation on terrorism aimed against India is likely to remain either frozen and lead mostly to one-up man ship with misleading and frustrating results. Although an India Pakistan intelligence co-operation between the two intelligence services may be desirable more as a means to keep channels of communication open, nothing extra-ordinary should be expected from this. The level of trust is just not there. This has to be built and this is not available at the flick of a switch.



Besides trust, intelligence co-operation, like any other co-operation but on a far higher plane of understanding, needs an identity of interests and targets. India and Pakistan have not identified the common threat or targets despite the Havana Declaration. There is no congruence of interests beyond noble pronouncements and naïve assumptions when leaders meet. Seeking Pakistan’s assistance in tackling terrorism in India is like asking a murderer to help investigate in the murder he has committed. He might, under duress, but there is no evidence of that being attempted by India.



Intelligence co-operation covers various bilateral interests like tackling terrorism, insurgencies, geo-political studies and assessments, training and supply of equipment. This is the standard practice and quite often intelligence agencies serve as the secret and reliable means of communication between two countries with adversarial relations; they act as the ice breakers or deal makers.



The Iran Contra deal of 1980 could not have been worked out without the active and discrete cooperation of the CIA, the Mossad, the French and the Iranian intelligence and other reliable but not always desirable intermediaries. In fact, legend has it that George Bush senior himself flew into Paris on 18 October 1980 along with CIA Director –designate William Casey to work this deal out just three weeks before the US presidential elections. This was a co-operation that served various needs – political, military and operational where the contracting parties got what they wanted. Reagan got acclaim for the release of the American hostages, the Iranians got the weapons they needed to counter Iraq, Israel sold their weapons and the Nicaraguan Contras got the money. A win-win situation for all.



There is another kind of need based strategic-tactical co-operation that is open ended. The ECHELON scheme is a multilateral sigint co-operation between the five Anglo Saxon countries - US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Originally put together to spy on the Soviets, it later landed itself in some controversy when the Europeans complained that this was being used for industrial espionage in Europe. In the intelligence game, liaison and co-operation does not preclude spying on friends or trying to suborn them.



The surveillance operation had been stepped up after the September 11 attacks and according to James Bamford, the author of the book ‘Body of Secrets’ and an intelligence expert, the US and British intelligence agencies intercept millions of telephone calls, emails and faxes every hour. Working together, the National Security Agency, the US eavesdropping organisation, and its British counterpart, GCHQ, remain the largest espionage organisations the world has ever known which can eavesdrop any conversation virtually anywhere in the world. This capability has been further refined and upgraded with the outsourcing of a substantial portion of techint collection in the US. All this requires a high level of mutual trust and identity of interests.
India and Pakistan are a long way away from this kind of identity of interests.



Source : Mail Today , 25th July 2009

Friday, June 19, 2009

US predominance is unlikely to fade away

The US spent more than $607 billion on defence in 2008 according to SIPRI statistics and this constitutes 41% of global expenditure on defence. This far exceeds what the next nine countries spent during the same year. The Chinese spent $85 billion, the Russians $59 billion and the Indians $30 billion.

The Brazilians, the fourth member of the newly founded BRIC, spent even less. There are others who calculate that the US spends far more than this in its endeavour to maintain global primacy. America maintains about 750 military and intelligence bases world-wide and its intelligence budget exceeds India’s defence expenditure. Consider also the reach of the US Navy and Air Force and we have a clear idea of the extent of the difference between US forces and the rest of the world. The fact that the US ability to influence events in its favour is not commensurate with its expenditure and reach is ultimately immaterial since the power to deconstruct remains overwhelming.

It is for good reason therefore that the BRIC combine will remain, for the foreseeable future, a body that will concentrate on global economic, financial and climate issues while trying to build an increasingly multi-polar world order. All of them seek a bigger role in the management of the financial global order and are not prepared to pay for their own encirclement by allowing the US to overspend in dollars. Barring the Brazilians, the others have concerns in how the Great Game would play out in the 21st century.

American attempts to seek a role in Central Asia and the Caucasus worries the Russians, Indians fret about US military assistance to Pakistan and the Chinese remain concerned about US involvement in west Pacific and Taiwan. These are the geo-political drivers. The instrumentalities are going to be economic and financial and not military with China, for instance, willing to trade with Argentina and Brazil in renminbi. Sceptics argue that once multi-polarity is achieved the grouping will wither away under its bilateral contradictions and ambitions.

It is too early to predict as the US predominance is not likely to fade away soon but change is inevitable and BRIC will continue to hold for the time ahead.
Source : Economic Times , 19th June 2009

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

India can’t simply wait for America to deliver on Pak

In 1999, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, mentor of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Jamat-ut-Dawa, had announced in one of his numerous sermons that have been allowed to continue unchecked: “Today I announce the breakup of India, Insha Allah. We will not rest until the whole of India is dissolved into Pakistan.” Nearly 10 years later, in October 2008, Saeed ranted: “India understands only the language of jihad, which cannot be suppressed. In fact with some support, jihad can break up India like the former USSR.” For decades this man has poured pure vitriol on India under the benign eye of his benefactors and today he walks free in Lahore.



It has never been adequately understood in India that the Pakistan Army will never give up its perception of India as a threat, seek to avenge 1971 and use Hafiz Saeed and his hordes as an important weapon for this. Saeed has been an enduring favourite of the Pakistan security establishment and could not have been allowed to remain in any kind of custody for too long. The Pakistan Army cannot afford to have peace with India because should peace break out, then the primacy of the Pakistan Army will be lost. Its extensive business empire, valued at $38 billion, will be in serious jeopardy. The jihadis will become jobless and threaten Pakistan even more than they do today. It should not, therefore, surprise anyone that Saeed was released.



Pakistanis once again showed an impeccable sense of timing and disdain. They had just “won” the Swat battle, launched with great fanfare and huge hidden costs just ahead of President Asif Ali Zardari’s visit to Washington. A grateful West, desperate for some success story, then burst into adulatory gestures and found new reasons to ply their ally with even more funds. Saeed’s release was lost in the din of this praise. Besides, the release happily coincided with the visit to Pakistan by Richard Holbrooke, who dismissed the release as an “internal matter” of the Pakistanis. This has been a favourite escape route, used by many previous administrations whenever they wanted to cover up Pakistani transgressions.



In contrast, India’s sense of timing has been appalling. One day after Saeed’s release amid the usual round of angry reactions and soundbites, reports started circulating that India was about to resume the long-suspended dialogue with Pakistan. Everyone knew that pressure by the United States on India had abated only temporarily and that it would resume soon after the elections. It was also generally understood that the dialogue would be resumed after Pakistan had given India some satisfaction on issues relating to terrorism. One does not know who worked out this brilliant spin for the resumption, but it reflects poorly on our sense of timing and tactical wisdom. To say that we are not under anyone’s pressure and yet say the dialogue will resume prior to Hillary Clinton’s visit, so that she does not pressure us, only means we have wilted even before the heat has been turned on. The other reason put forward — that this would hopefully enable Pakistan to rein in its jihadis and prevent another Mumbai-type attack — can only be called supplication by a would-be major power to a failing state.



A few days prior to these events, The Nation of Lahore, in an editorial on May 29, referred to a report on “secret talks” between India and Pakistan which “could get underway in the near future in an attempt to resolve the Kashmir dispute.” It went on to add: “In public statements in response to Islamabad’s calls for resumption of talks, the Indian leadership continues to insist on the precondition of punishment for the Mumbai ‘culprits’ and destruction of the ‘terrorist infrastructure’. But it seems that covert pressure from outside is working, and New Delhi has decided to initiate secret diplomacy with the aim of resolving the dispute.” So was our leak a clumsy coverup for another leak?



New Delhi’s subsequent reaffirmation that there would be no dialogue till the preconditions were met is a relief, but there is also more than a hint of a flip-flop. It shows inconsistency where hope is confused with reality and tactics are mistaken for policy. But there is another dialogue which must be conducted in all seriousness and sincerity. This is a dialogue with all those Kashmiris who voted the Omar Abdullah government into power. They have shown faith in the system, and their trust must be upheld. Those who advocated a boycott of the elections and those who receive instructions from across the Line of Control are irrelevant because their “mother country” is in a shambles, unable to protect its own Muslims. Pakistan has thrown everything at us, including the Americans, but it has not worked.



For some time, during the last administration in Washington, there was a sense of exultation in New Delhi that we had at last managed to get India and Pakistan “de-hyphenated” in American eyes, a lot of it credited to our newfound “status” as an emerging major power. We felt vindicated that the US too was getting apprehensive at the direction Pakistan was taking, and that at last the US would now read the situation as we did and act on the lines we thought they should. Unfortunately none of this happened. We failed to fully appreciate just how dependent the US had become on Pakistan as the linchpin of its war on terror in the region. The reality, of course, is that the US exerts influence in different ways in the two countries. It keeps reassuring Pakistan that India is not a threat to it, and so it could safely move its troops to the western border. At the same time it keeps arming it with weapons that can only be used against India — a fact that the Pentagon appears to be slowly acknowledging. At the same time it keeps nudging India to give Pakistan confidence on Kashmir so that it can fight a little better on the western front.



Let us, not, therefore depend on the US to deliver on Pakistan unless we show much greater determination and will ourselves. We have concentrated far too much and too long on verbosity, when reciprocity should have been the keyword. When Hillary Clinton arrives, we need to tell her that we will resume the dialogue with Pakistan in our own time, when our security concerns have been met, not just US security interests. We need to assert that if another Mumbai-type attack takes place, when US state department advisories claim is possible, then it would be politically unacceptable in India to respond only with a diplomatic response. In such an event, we expect the US and the West to warn Islamabad in no uncertain terms that India’s reaction would be justifiably harsh. In fact, it may be wiser to send messages to Pakistan in advance, advising restraint. The onus of preventing another war lies with Pakistan, not with India. Good relations with the US is important for us and also for Americans (though in their present state of confusion they might not think so); but this cannot be at the cost of India’s security. Kashmir is not on offer, and India is not willing to be the sacrificial lamb.



Source : Asian Age 8th June 2009