Saying Something Different

2010 was the year of travels and I became a bit of a nomad. Nine holidays must be quite a record. I knew I could do it, so I did! A bit of Kyoto thanks to Stanford, Dubai by the CRS, London with King’s College, Moscow thanks to the ORF, Washington DC organised by the Heritage Foundation and Tel Aviv by the Haifa University, thrown in.

France in the summer, France in early autumn, Goa soon after and I can’t be complaining! It is a hard life and everyone sympathises!

Japan was polite clean orderly with everything in Japanese and you have to love tofu. Everything happens just so. There are no surprises. Kyoto, the city of Buddhist temples, and naturally visits to some of them along the hillside were mandatory.

Moscow, as always, was fascinating with its grandeur and the Zils and Zims have been long been replaced by BMWs, Mercs and Audis. The Tamaras and Irinas of today are svelte, straight from a fashion design magazine and not the ones from Life Magazine of the 1960s. And it was formidable travelling for miles to get to wherever. But Moscow airport was disorganised as always - you never know whether you are going to get on board the flight. A quick mental check about the money in hand just in case one misses the flight is not very comforting.

December in the US was, as always, cold but welcoming; that is after I was able to convince the immigration that I had no intention of staying on and after I had explained what a think tank was. DC was also about exquisite Argentinian wine the Gougenheim Cabernet Sauvignon 2009 with Wild Alaska salmon. Oh heavenly joy.

Dubai was a first time but could not have been much fun in the blistering heat of June. One could see gigantic cranes standing by idle - the slowdown was obvious. London was familiar territory where very serious discussions about the neighbourhood were followed by some even more serious pub crawling ending up at the Spaniard’s Inn in Hampstead. Charles Dickens wrote about it in the Pickwick papers and they say that Keats wrote his Ode to a Nightingale here as he sipped his claret.

Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were hard work starting from seven in the morning till crash time at night. Oh those Israelis... But both in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem there were far fewer policemen on the streets as compared to Delhi.

The French have a word for their holidays. Depaysement. Translated means leaving your country/region behind and adapting to local surroundings. Adapt. Merge. Become incognito. Imbibe. So in Bordeaux, go for the Margaux rouge although the man from Bourgogne would swear by his wine. In St Tropez a person must have the right kind of clothes or a lack of them, to display the right kind of figure, otherwise wiser to stay away and one is bound to be noticed for wearing too many clothes. France part one was about bonding and about enjoying the summer in the valley between the Vercours, Belledonne and Chartreuese mountains in the Alps. It was also about imbibing the wine and the cheese. France part two was wine from Val de Loire and more cheese and finally that most elegant city, Paris where a great deal happens and great deal could happen.

You just cannot visit France without having depaysement with its culture of food. as in bread and baguettes, salades, the main course and the dessert and the cafe , its wines from Bourgogne, Bordeaux or Val de Loire. Its cheeses and it was perhaps de Gaulle (or was it Churchill) who said that a country that produces three hundred and fifty varieties of cheese is not easy to govern. Sarkozy is the latest to discover this. Food in France is both an art and a religion which makes Christianity the second most important religion and Islam the third. So I imbibed the first religion with great enthusiasm. And the restaurants.- don’t ever forget the restaurants of France whether it is the Closerie des Lilas in the 15th District where Ernest Hemingway spent a lot of time, or the La Gare in the 16th built on what was a train station or the La Petite Chaise the oldest restaurant in Paris (1686) down rue de Grenelle. Or in the Alps the Auberge just beyond the golf course of Correncon en Vercours. You have to walk all the way to have the most exquisite omelettes ever. Or the tartes and quiche at the Tarteline in Grenoble or the fish at the restaurant l’Est in Lyon.
When it snows in Champagnier

The French Alps on the way to Chanrousse the ski resort
A four day stay at the charming 13th-15th century farm house - Ferme de la Ranconniere in Crepon, Normandy not far from the coast where the Allies landed in 1944 was a wonderful experience. Crepon had a population of 205 and when the ten of us arrived, the population increased by 5 percent. It did have its cathedral with the soldiers of the Second World War buried there, one boucherie, a small bar and a barber shop. That was the village centre. It was in the battles around Crepon in 1944 that Company Sergeant Major Hollis was awarded the VC. A double espresso at a road side cafe in Bayeaux town was exquisite. The aroma still lingers.

A Bayeaux street
The Baueaux Catherdal associated with Thomas Becket the Archbishop of Canterbury who was a Norman.
Ferme de la Ranconniere at Crepon village looked like this...

Goa teaches you depaysement differently. So it was barefoot beachcombers on Baga beach at sunset and trying tiger prawns at Brittos. Over rated, I thought. Maybe should have tried the pizzas at Fiesta’s but the ‘foreigners’ were keen about soaking in the local flavour. Goa also teaches the meaning of siesta.

The Airport bus at Delhi was full of mehndi & lal chura brides in jeans or khakhi capris looking happily incongruous with the chura climbing all the up to the elbow and mehndi bharey feet in sneakers . Being traditional and practical. Then in the bus there was Permanent Pout in mithai Pink not talking to her Groucho in Grey. Got off the wrong side of their bed maybe? Groucho-in-Grey was to later distinguish himself when he ventured into the aircraft loo but forgot to bolt the door. The lady who unsuspectingly followed.....

It’s amazing how many men sleep with their mouths open. I counted eleven that day on the flight to Goa.

Did the mandatory sightseeing. Fort Aguada for instance. Rugged and austere. Built by the Portuguese in 1612 for security and commerce. Quite unlike our Red Forts which served little strategic purpose and were really dainty palaces with their Diwan e Khas , Diwan e Am & their khwab gahs. Artificial brocade pink saree with sneakers and a funny hat at the Fort was depaysement Indian ishtyle. Then the Sahakari spice farm, the Mapusa spice market, the Salim Ali bird sanctuary and the dolphins. True family bonding.

Three weeks of bliss in France and no thoughts, not even strategic yet the world carried on. How dispensible! In France I noticed happily they didn’t cover India on their TV or news; in Goa they didn’t cover Dilli! Even NDTV or Times Now or whatever wasn’t to be seen. So peaceful. And all was still well with the world.

And how come the Goans had such wonderful roads even in their villages while we don’t even in our national capital. But in Dilli we had CWG and a lot of stories about the games. .
Next time around we must travel with a camera; cell phone photos are just not good enough.

For those interested in the good things in life, this was it ....
Ranaji bhejeo ....
For those wanting peace and quiet

Sunset at Baga beach
For those who want to travel differently it was ....

James Bond’s new Aston Martin on the way into Goa

2011 was different. It was “a stay at home year”; some losses, some gains, like in life. Maybe 2012 will be different – there will surely be some gains and some losses!

Happy New Year to all who read this!

Author : Vikram Sood

Manipulations and deals

It was in 1988 that a Pakistani dictator had to die before the country could have another chance at democracy.

Nearly twenty years later, another dictator had to be thrown out before the people of Pakistan could hope for another shot at democracy. Then, as now, these hopes seem to have been belied.
Then, as now, the Army rules supreme, by remote control most of the time, by manipulation at other times or by revealing its hand when necessary. The doctrine of necessity has been a wonderfully useful and abiding doctrine for the Pak Army. Today we have the President of Pakistan pitted against his Army Chief.

What is happening today in Pakistan borders on the bizarre? It hovers between a Greek tragedy and a march of folly where the protagonists know they are moving towards an abyss but are unable to stop themselves. A letter which is believed to be the handiwork of a maverick and a loose cannon and which any responsible leadership would have scoffed at has become the cause celebre.

The Pak Army, paranoid about most issues, has taken upon itself to convert this letter episode into a national security issue and challenge the civilian government for trying to keep the Army under control. The civilian government of Prime Minister Reza Shah Gilani has taken upon itself rather bravely to challenge the Army's supremacy.

PPP and Pak Army relations were strained ever since the time Z A Bhutto walked out on Field Marshall Ayub Khan in 1966 and formed the PPP. Bhutto's hanging by Zia set the seal on a frosty, mutually suspicious and hostile relationship between the Army and the PPP.
This hostility saw the Army's unsuccessful endeavour to prevent BB from attaining power in 1988. Nawaz Sharif was the Army's candidate then and this is the game the Army has played consistently since then. Having failed in preventing her election, it succeeded in overthrowing BB twice. This is being re- enacted again today.

'They' assassinated Benazir on December 27 and four years down the line the world still does not know who 'they' were and it seems, never will. Asif Ali Zardari who had inherited the PPP throne on behalf of his son Bilawal, installed Hussain Haqqani, an Army-hater and a Benazir acolyte as Pakistan's Ambassador in Washington DC. This was a bit in your face kind of thing although he did try to assuage the Army's feelings by giving both Gen Kayani and Gen Pasha three year extensions.

The political opportunism of Nawaz Sharif got the better of him when he failed to see the signals that the Army was playing one major party against the other. Instead of closing ranks with the PPP and with only the March Senate elections in mind, Nawaz Sharif thought he would go for the PPP jugular and filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the Memogate scandal. Maybe this was the result of some secret talks that PML(N)'s leadership believed to have had with a brigadier of the Intelligence. It is well known that the Supreme Court led by the Chief Justice Ifthikar Choudhry is not well disposed towards Asif Zardari.

Imran Khan is the new hope of many and who see him as the man who will save Pakistan. Other political fortune hunters have also begun to jump ship and members of the PPP and the PML(N) as well as die hard right wingers have sworn allegiance to Imran's Pakistan Tehrik e Insaf. If his latest rally in Karachi on December 25 is anything to go by, then the PPP and the PML(N) have something to worry about and the Army would begin to feel smug.

Earlier on December 18, the so-called Difa e Pakistan (Defence of Pakistan Council) rally in Lahore must have sent shivers down the spine of Pakistan's major political parties and the democratic forces. About 40-odd Islamist and jihadist parties had got together under the banner of Difa e Pakistan which was actually a show of force by the Jamaat ut Dawa (the cradle to which the Lashkar e Tayyaba belongs) threatened the US and NATO and India with jihad (with special reference to violent jihad in Kashmir) as that was an obligation upon all Muslims, that that there was no question of MFN status for India. This combination is presented both as a terrible alternative to Tehrik Insaf and a reworked version of either the IJI of Nawaz Sharif time or the MMA of Musharraf's time.

Everyone knows that the JuD is only a proxy for the military in Pakistan. And we still hear comments that the Pakistan military is on board for a more normal relationship with India. Or we take solace in the fact that the US is Pakistan's enemy number one, almost as if we are grateful to be let off the hook.

The Pakistan military has been having problems in 2010 mostly connected with the war on Terror. The US raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad in May, the terrorist attack on PNS Mehran in Karachi a few days later and the Mohmand attack in November by NATO forces that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers only heightened the image that the Army was incapable of performing its primary role - the defence of the nation. The image of the Army has to be refurbished once again. The PPP has to be finished forever through what is now called a soft quasi judicial coup that would bring in the likes of Imran Khan centre stage with the Army controlling events backstage.

And Islamabad must have a more amenable person leading the civilian government who is also acceptable in the West.

This may be part of a typical sand model exercise of the Army but there is nothing in politics that works according to sand models. (ANI)

Source: ANI , 27th December 2011, The views expressed in the above article are that of Mr. Vikram Sood

Pak is China's low hedge against India

It was a very perturbed Sardar Patel who wrote to Jawaharlal Nehru on November 7, 1950, pointing out that by our silence at the UN we had accepted Chinese suzerainty over Tibet.


In a forceful letter, the Sardar, not a man to mince words, warned that "The Chinese Government has tried to delude us by professions of peaceful intention" but in fact "it is not a friend speaking in that language, but a potential enemy."


He then detailed ten steps that needed to be considered to strengthen our internal border security and defences, especially in the north-east. The tragedy is that this letter was apparently never discussed. Till 1950, India had borders with Tibet not with China and by accepting China's suzerainty we became direct neighbours. Also, this concession in effect gave China a border with Bhutan, Nepal, India and Pak-Occupied- Kashmir. China now had the potential to be a player in South Asia.

Forging selfish ties: China is using Pakistan as a stepping stone for
regional dominance and not as an end in itself

Mao's China was turbulent. The Korean War was followed by the disastrous experiments of the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution. The revolt in Tibet in March 1959 leading to the Dalai Lama's flight to India added to China's paranoia. The Chinese thought it necessary to warn India through its Ambassador Pan Tzu-li in a letter to Prime Minister Nehru in May 1959, saying that China would make common cause with Pakistan. This would force India to face diplomatic and military pressure on two fronts. Therein lay the beginning of an all-weather affair that is deeper than the oceans and higher than the mountains.


1962 and 1965 were landmark years when India was involved in conflicts with both her neighbours. This provided an opportunity for Pakistan to get closer to China and the two have remained locked in a warm usually unquestioned embrace. For China, becoming Pakistan's largest arms supplier to match Indian acquisitions ” conventional, delivery systems and nuclear weaponry was a convenient hedge against India, and Pakistan thus strengthened by American indulgence and Chinese connivance felt emboldened to hone its assistance to terrorists as a low cost, highly effective foreign policy option.


Revived by Deng Xiaoping's four modernisations, China has used Pakistan's hostility towards India as a bridge for accessing West Asia not just as a counter to the US. It seeks geostrategic space and the rich mineral deposits of oil and gas, copper, gold, zinc, lead, iron-ore and aluminium in these countries including Afghanistan and Central Asia. There have been reports of a Saudi-Pakistan-China tie up on nuclear issues as well.


A Chinese official once told US officials that Pakistan was China's Israel. Pakistanis see China as an assured guarantor against India. The Deep State of Pakistan ” run by its military-jihadi combine, has to realise that the hard state of China is using Pakistan as a stepping stone for regional dominance and not as an end in itself.


Chinese ambitions extend beyond using Pakistan as a low cost secondary deterrent to counter India. Ayesha Siddiqa, one of Pakistan's better known analysts, makes a very valid observation when she says that China is an 'empire by stealth' which is "growing steadily without necessarily taking on the socio-political or economic liabilities of its client states." China will invest only in the extractive industries of Pakistan not in the country's development.


Gwadar on the Makran coast has significance and importance for China only if it has unimpeded access through Gilgit and Baltistan. There has been increased Chinese presence and activity in this region. The additional manpower is ostensibly meant for the several infrastructure projects in Gilgit-Baltistan.


Over time, as India has progressed, China's stance has hardened. It has played up issues ” like paper visas to residents of J&K or not granting visa to the Northern Army Commander and continued intrusions into Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh. It has continued with its concerted attempts to keep both Myanmar and Pakistan under its influence to cover both Indian flanks.


Had India heeded Sardar Patel's advice in 1950 we would not perhaps been in this state of feeling surrounded by China in our backyard and the prospect today that Pakistan could become China's Somalia instead of its Israel is no consolation to India.


Source : Mid-Day , 22nd December 2011

Now that Iraq's done

The Great Game of the 21st Century is being played out in West Asia . This time round, it's about the control of Iran's vast energy resources.

The US’s war in Iraq is over but it has ended in a fiasco. Iraq is unstable and Iran is emerging as the strongest force in the region. However, some believe that Washington has accomplished its mission in Iraq: the US and its allies have managed to regain control over the oil business in the country, which threatened to slip out of their control in 2002. Today, despite the West’s dubious success in Libya and Egypt, and the uncertainties in Syria, Iran remains a prime target for the US and its friends.

Iraq was accused of possessing (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction; in Iran’s case, the target is Tehran’s nuclear weapons programme. The US’s logic is that since Iran is rich in energy resources, it has no reason to produce nuclear energy, which they see as the first step towards achieving Tehran’s final goal of becoming a nuclear State. Iran’s attitude has been ambivalent. Tehran dared to move out of its dependency on the dollar for its energy revenue when it faced sanctions. Since the US and its allies were keen on preventing this, they unleashed a combination of war games, mind games and spy games against Iran. What is unfolding in the region now is a 21st century version of the Great Game. And the targets are oil and gas resources of Iran.

In the media, experts often discuss how Israel, surrounded by hostile nations, is determined to prevent any State from acquiring nuclear weapons and how it might strike Iran. The list of targets in Iran includes nuclear facilities at Isfahan, Natanz and Arak. They also discuss the possible routes the attackers could take, much in the style of the Osirak attack of 1981. But many may not remember that the Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence, and the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission had opposed the Osirak attack. Even today, they are against any such attack. The decision was political then — and would have to be even so today.

However, the US is no longer leading the charge against Iran. In fact, former defence secretary Bob Gates and his successor Leon Panetta, and former senior military commanders, have opposed any Israeli strike. The US has a formidable force in the 6th Fleet patrolling the Mediterranean and the 5th Fleet operating from Bahrain. The Gulf Cooperation Council countries have bought US weapons worth $22 billion in recent years and the Saudis have a deal worth $60 billion pending. With so much firepower in the neighbourhood and hostile Sunni-Arab neighbours, Iran has reasons to worry.

Simultaneously, there is an open discussion about Iranian reactions, which includes the possibility of a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Playing its own version of mind games, the Iranian National Security Committee on December 12 announced that the country would hold a military exercise on how to close the strait. A closure of the strait could push up oil prices astronomically. About 75% of the oil for Asian markets including India, China, Japan and South Korea passes through the strait daily.

Other possible Iranian reactions could include the use of (barely concealed) proxies. Iran could use the Hezbollah and the Hamas to target Israel. Lebanon is also dependent on the Iran-trained Hezbollah, which runs its espionage system, immigration and databases, communication and surveillance. It is the Hezbollah that regularly nabs foreign spies and cripples the Central Intelligence Agency’s security networks.

A covert war-game between Iran and the West is an old story with reports of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists or attempted assassination of the Saudi ambassador in Washington. The use of the ‘incredibly precise’ Stuxnet worm or the Duqu virus to cripple Iranian systems is now being talked about. The November 12 explosion at an Iranian missile base was suspected to have been the work of the Israeli intelligence. The West seems to be working on new sanctions and an oil embargo.

Meanwhile, Iran and Syria also have their supporters. The Russians have decided to move their nuclear-armed aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov to the shores of Syria along with a flotilla from the Black Sea. The Russians also have geo-strategic interests in Syria and, along with China, have watched the Nato exceed the UN mandate in Libya. Both these countries have been opposing sanctions against Syria, have even larger interests in the oil- and gas-rich Iran and have signed strategic cooperation agreements with Tehran. Russia has been supplying high-tech military technology along with nuclear hardware and hopes to build more nuclear plants in Iran. China, with its growing energy needs, is a major investor in Iran’s energy and infrastructure sectors and has a thriving trade with the country.

It is the control of production and distribution of oil that has helped America’s military and economic rise. The gigantic oil conglomerates bankrolled its post-World War economic boom. The West endeavours to retain control of both. Oil major BP has calculated that the world consumed 13.2 billion tonnes of oil in 2010. In the same year, oil production was only 82 million barrels a day as against the estimated 97 million barrels a day. Future predictions about increased production are not very encouraging either. Worse, the world would need a 40% increase in fossil fuel supplies by 2030 for industrial powers and for sharply increasing demands from China, India and other nations. West Asia’s multiple insecurities affect not only Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States but also global growth which depends on uninterrupted energy supplies.

The Great Game of the century in West Asia is ultimately about the control of the region and its energy resources.


Source : Hindustan Times , 21st December 2011

The road to Tehran lies through Damascus

There is a serious crisis brewing in West Asia as the US and other Western nations tighten the noose on Syria and Iran. There is no knowing how the denouement will work out. The charge against Iran is the old one -- about its nuclear weapons ambitions -- while the Syrian people must be helped to get rid of their dictator. It would be unfortunate if Iran were to go for the nuclear weapons option.

Yet, drawing lessons from what happened to Libya after it gave up the nuclear option and what has not happened to North Korea because it did not give up, it is difficult to see the present regime or any other regime in Iran, giving up the nuclear weapons option.

Dubious successes in Egypt and Libya have not deterred the West from focusing on Syria and then ultimately, Iran. China is not on board with any harsh action against Iran and Syria. Russia has already despatched its aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov", along with a destroyer and a frigate from Murmansk to reach the Syrian port of Tartus along with reinforcements from the Black Sea. The US nuclear powered aircraft carrier USS George HW Bush and some naval vessels are anchored off the Syrian coast. Tartus incidentally is defended by the Russian S-300 air defence missile system (comparable to the Patriot).

For the present, the idea seems to be to glower at Iran, indulge in some sabre rattling and sponsor leaks about how the next attack would be configured. The Iranian regime is unlikely to be impressed. Apart from the overt, a ruthless covert war has also been in action in Iran and, surely in Syria too. About three weeks ago there were reports of a major setback to Iran's most advanced missile programme following a huge explosion at a major missile testing site near Tehran.

While the official version described this as an accident, suspicions that this might have been sabotage carried out by the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), persist especially after the Stuxnet worm incident that had attacked Iran's uranium production facility at Natanz last year. The Iranians have accused the Americans and the Israelis of espionage, surveillance and sabotage. In a recent incident, the Iranians claimed they had shot down an advanced American RQ-170 drone in eastern Iran.

When the British lifted the ban on the MeK an enraged Tehran saw this as another move to try and destabilise its government. The recent anti-British protests in Tehran were also a reaction against the British move to impose new sanctions against Iran even before the EU had taken a decision. Generally speaking there is a strong move to tighten the sanctions regime against Iran and cripple all industry and financial systems even further.
This is not to suggest that Iran and Syria are angels.

They have supported and built the Hizballah into a formidable force in Lebanon. It has placed thousands of rockets aimed at Israel; has de facto control over Lebanese intelligence, immigration data bases, and the capability to conduct electronic surveillance. Hizballah exhibited its counter-intelligence abilities recently in June this year when it arrested two of its own members as CIA agents. This was followed by assistance in the arrest of 12 CIA spies in Iran in the last week of November.
Surely, the West is not risking a catastrophe to exhibit a sudden upsurge of love for the Syrian people. Damascus is only a stepping stone for the ultimate destination, Tehran. Just as the declared targets in Iraq were its non-existing WMDs in March 2003, Iran's nuclear weapons ambition may really be the camouflage for actual goals.

These would be Iran's abundant oil and gas reserves, its strategic location sitting atop the Persian Gulf, its relative strength compared to the various Arab regimes in the neighbourhood who remain in awe of Iranian power. If the West wishes to retain global dominance, it is imperative that it should have unimpeded access to cheap and abundant oil for itself. Also, that its distribution to rising economic powers and rivals like China and even friends like India, should be controlled. The danger with war rhetoric is that this develops a life of its own and its own deadly logic.

Source : Midday Mumbai , 8th December 2011

Policy Sans Frontiers

If India leaves Afghanistan at this juncture, it would accept the Chinese game of restricting our role to our national borders

When Jawahar Lal Nehru India’s first Prime Minister tried to explain to Parliament the significance of Aksai Chin, he referred to it as an area where not a blade of grass grew. He was stressing that Aksai Chin was barren, desolate and inhospitable. By implication, therefore, that India had lost only some useless piece of real estate to the Chinese. Mahavir Tyagi, Nehru’s friend and critic, shot back and pointing to his bald head asked “Nothing grows here ..... should it be cut off or given away to someone else?”

This is similar to a suggestion recently that we should leave Afghanistan to Pakistan and come home because we have no interests there anymore. This sounds very much like the proposal from the former US commander in Afghanistan Gen McChrystal who, exasperated by his own lack of success, advocated that India should adopt a lower profile in Afghanistan. There have been many suggestions from US circles that India should satisfy Pakistan by withdrawing from its interests in Afghanistan. They do not recognise regional interests or strategic needs of a nation trying to establish its role in the region.

The argument that we back off Afghanistan is one step ahead of the one offered by Sherry Rehman led report of the Jinnah Institute released in September. The report, that of the elite of Pakistan, accepts India’s role in Afghanistan in a limited way for economic development but suspects that India is far too deeply involved which was against Pakistan’s interests.

There is more than one reason for India to remain engaged in Afghanistan and let us not forget that India would like its extended neighbourhood to be friendly and aware of India’s interests. It is not understood how a Pakistan rampant in Afghanistan will serve Indian interests, even if it is for a short while. A country that has played duplicitously for so long with the US, its main benefactor, is hardly likely to give us great comfort. It will use its strategic depth, something it has striven so hard for so long, to launch attacks on India and still have the deniability that these attacks do not originate from Pakistani soil. It has taken the world two decades and a few hard knocks to accept that Pakistan has been the epicentre of terrorism and this sort of retreat by India will take away this dubious title.

One of the arguments for withdrawal is that no Afghan has ever been involved in nor has the Afghan soil been used for anti-Indian activities. There are today 14 Afghan terrorists in custody in Jodhpur and 7 in Srinagar for terrorist activity in India. We all know the extent of involvement of the Taliban and the ISI in the IC-814 episode in Kandahar in December 1999. Afghan and Pakistani border regions have been notoriously porous and Pakistan has used this for its strategic interests ever since the first Afghan jihad.

Besides, the powerful Haqqani Network, close to the ISI and operating both in Pakistan and Afghanistan is avowedly anti-India. It was this group that carried out the suicide attacks on the Indian Embassy in Kabul. Pakistan’s active role in the insurgency in Afghanistan is far too well known and they have also used the Afghan Shura of Quetta and even inducted elements of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba for both battle inoculation and as a policy hedge against the Taliban. Training camps like Khost in Afghanistan raided by Clinton’s cruise missiles showed up Pakistani terrorists from Harkat ul Mujahedeen.

The first premise should be that Afghanistan is for Afghans and not Pakistanis, nor is Afghanistan a desolate piece of territory of little or no significance to India and therefore for Pakistan to have. Located as it is, Afghanistan is rich with an estimated US $ 3 trillion worth of vital mineral resources. The Chinese have already moved in with a US $ 3 billion investment in the Anyak copper mines along with a power station and a rail link. We are not far behind with a US $ 6 billion contract for a SAIL-led consortium to develop the rich Hajigak iron ore mines in the Bamyan province, construct a steel plant and a railway network. This is besides the US $ 2 billion that India has committed to Afghanistan.

India and Afghanistan signed the wide ranging Strategic Partnership Agreement last month. This was Afghanistan’s first such agreement signifying the country’s closeness to India and mutual trust between the two nations. In this context, some might even argue that we should be sending troops to Afghanistan to protect Indian investments, and if need be Indian strategic interests. India is poised for a breakthrough and any recommendation calling for withdrawal at this stage makes very little sense.

Afghanistan is not just about India and Pakistan in a supposedly post-US phase. China, because of its growing interest in the region and has strategic interests in trying to reach the Gulf through Afghanistan and Iran. It eyes Afghanistan’s rich mineral resources as vital for its continued economic development especially of the Xinjiang and Tibet regions. It would seek an alternative route to the Gulf and not remain completely dependent on Pakistan seeing how it has used its location to blackmail the US.

Simultaneously, China continues to strengthen its presence in the vital Gilgit-Baltistan area which would ultimately give it better access to Afghanistan. Besides, Iran has abiding interests in Afghanistan as it sees and worries about the growing hold of the radical Sunni Islamist Taliban in that country.

We need to think beyond today and tomorrow but the hereinafter. We need to think of our geo-strategic requirements and geopolitical situation twenty or thirty years from now. A retreat from Afghanistan now would mean accepting the Chinese game of restricting our role to our national frontiers. Nations that think only short term are doomed to oblivion. Nations that think of only their own national boundaries without a forward policy are doomed to remaining small nations. The 21st Century belongs to Asia and we are an important part of that new Asia. Let us not choose a destiny that casts us aside.

Thinking differently is always desirable but thinking dangerously can be fatal.

Source : Hindustan Times, December 5 2011

Pakistan : Life After Mohmand

When 9/11 happened, the Americans were livid and they descended on Islamabad, Rambo style, threatening General Musharraf with the famous "either you are with us or against us" threat.
Musharraf quickly acquiesced at that time, but played the game for the long haul.
Soon he had beguiled the Americans to airlift stranded Pakistani soldiers and ISI personnel in different parts of Afghanistan but chiefly from Kunduz, Northern Afghanistan. These Pakistanis were assisting the Taliban in final assault on Ahmed Shah Massoud's Tajik fighters of the Northern Alliance.

Musharraf's Pakistan became America's stalwart ally and a major non-NATO ally. The Americans poured in money and goodies for their newfound friend. But soon enough, the friendship began to sour. The U.S., unable to get a hold of Osama Bin Laden, also got diverted to Iraq and the Afghanistan-Pakistan theatre went backstage.

Over time, when the Americans returned, matters only became worse. Pakistan had consolidated with the Taliban in its quest for strategic depth in Afghanistan.

It was apparent to all that Pakistan remained duplicitous, although the U.S. went through its customary denial as it followed a policy of public approbation of the ally while there might have been private reprimand.

The strategic interests of the two countries were totally divergent and it was going to be a matter of time before the rupture became fairly open.

On the one hand, Pakistan saw U.S. engagement in the region as being guided by its 'selfish' interests of Afghanistan and terrorism, and suspected that the Americans have been chasing Pakistan's nuclear 'assets'.

On the other hand, Pakistan was equally selfish when it saw this engagement as an opportunity once again, for tackling only its primary enemy, India.

The last decade was symptomatic of a mutually suspicious, exasperating and hostile relationship where Pakistan consistently double-crossed its benefactor, the United States, and maintained a duality in its relations with the various terrorist factions on its soil and in Afghanistan.

Relations nose dived on May 2 this year after the heli-borne U.S. Navy Seals attacked Osama bin Laden's well protected hideout in Abbottabad, close to Pakistan's premier military training academy, Kakul. Osama was killed in the attack and quickly buried at sea, hundreds of miles away.

The attack left the Pakistan Army, which was barely recovering from the vicious and violent onslaught of the Tehrik Taliban Pakistan in the heartland of the Punjab, looking silly and helpless. There was anger that the U.S. had cheated Pakistan by not trusting Pakistan about this attack on its soil. There was double embarrassment that Pakistan was caught out hiding the world's most wanted terrorist with red faces at the GHQ in Rawalpindi that the much vaunted Pakistan Army had been caught napping.

A frustrated and angry Pakistan Army reacted by arresting the doctor who was suspected of having given the information about Osama to the Americans, the TTP fundamentalists reacted by attacking the PNS Mehran Naval base and destroying two of the navy's PC-3 Orion aircraft.
The mutual bickering continued and many Americans were convinced after the OBL incident that Pakistan was consistently double crossing them.

Perhaps at this stage, sometime after May 2011, a decision was taken that the U.S. was on its own and that Pakistan was not a reliable partner.

The extent of duplicity is measured by the fact that Pakistan was using American money to arm terrorists and target US/NATO positions through the Haqqani Networks and sheltering the Afghan Shura, while allowing the use of Pakistan territory at the Shamsi air base to target terrorists - but only those that Pakistan thought were expendable.

The attack, about a mile inside the Mohmand Agency on Pakistan Army positions on November 26 that killed 28 Pak army soldiers, was partly a result of this exasperation in Washington D.C.
There were reports and complaints that in the past six months, Pakistan military positions had been shelling Afghan positions from Mohmand, Dir and Chitral. The targets were in Khost, Nangarhar and Kunar provinces, and according to reports, the shelling between May and August had killed 42 Afghans and wounded 48 others.

Afghan officials also claimed in mid-October that between September 1 and October 17, there were eight cross border incidents from Mohmand into Kunar.

Besides, the NATO/US dependence on Pakistani territory for logistic supplies to their forces in Afghanistan, has reduced over the last few months. Estimated to be down to about 30 percent, the calculation might have been that the possible reaction by Pakistan of closing the crossings from Khyber and Chaman, was a manageable risk.

The reaction from Pakistan has been predictable. The killing of OBL, the attack on the Mehran naval base, and now the attack in Mohmand has grossly undermined the image of the armed forces. There was anger in the rank and file of the Army, causing some concern to General Kayani, who had barely succeeded in restoring morale after the incidents in NWFP and Punjab.
The anger on the street probably forced Islamabad to ask the U.S. to vacate the Shamsi air base in Balochistan, close the border for NATO supplies, approach the UNSC and decided to stay away from the forthcoming Bonn conference on Afghanistan.

The other anger was among the Islamic extremists and, there have been reports of an attempted assassination last Tuesday of a very senior ISI official close to its headquarters in Aabpara, Islamabad.

Official angry responses at the violation of Pakistan sovereignty sits strangely on an administration that has violated these principles on both its neighbours for decades. The excessive display of response is partly for domestic consumption, to cover its own acts in the past and at being caught out as somewhat incompetent to defend the country.

The Muslim world is far too involved at this moment with its own problems to pay much attention to events in Pakistan.

Similarly, Europe is embroiled in an economic crisis and wants to vacate Afghanistan as soon as possible.

Apart from a proforma show of support from China, there would also be concern in Beijing about the growing instability in Pakistan while deteriorating U.S.-Pakistan relations would increase Pakistani dependence on China and the eventual thinning down of US presence in the region would leave a vacuum in South Asia. Given these future changes, China may eventually face a more difficult decision regarding how best to manage relations with Pakistan in order to ensure domestic and regional stability. The question is how.

In America, a survey conducted one day after the Mohmand attack, showed that 55 percent of those polled considered Pakistan as the enemy, and only seven percent considered it a friend. More Republicans (70 percent ) as compared to Democrats (47 percent) considered Pakistan is the enemy.

No wonder Pakistan watcher Bruce Riedel called his book on Pakistan the "Deadly Embrace"; this explains the idiom of the US-Pakistan relationship.

We ourselves are far too involved in our domestic crises to pay any great attention to Pakistan and, the danger for us is, a reaction by thinking out of the box in an absent minded sort of way. It must be lonely out there in Islamabad/Rawalpindi, but histrionics and bravado apart, there is not very much Pakistan can do for its economic survival today without U.S. benevolence.
It is difficult to believe that the NATO attack was an error or that NATO was misled by conniving Afghanis to settle old scores with the Pakistanis. Given the background of repeated attacks into Afghanistan after the May 2 killing of OBL, this was more likely to have been a punitive raid.

It is also likely that this will be ultimately shown as a mistake to provide a fig leaf for restoration of relations. Pakistan now wants a written agreement with guarantees about further co-operation with leaked suggestions that without this Pakistan would pull out of the war on terror, implying also pulling back troops from the western border.

Ultimately, a solution will have to be found and most likely, it will be blood money, a la Raymond Davis, although it will be couched in grand diplomatese. Latest statements from the Pentagon say that this was not a deliberate attack without indicating how the attack took place.

In the immediate short term, India will have to decide its role at the Bonn conference that Pakistan plans to boycott despite pleas from the U.S., Afghanistan and Germany.

It is true that without Pakistan, the Bonn conference will be stultified; at the same time, Pakistan would be reluctant to let India have a field day in Bonn.

Most probably, the West, anxious to have an early settlement and exit, would not still want India to run away with an agenda that does not suit them or Pakistan.

The U.S. wants a higher strategic relationship with India, which does not include agreeing with Indian views on Pakistan.

Our participation in the Bonn conference should bear this in mind.

Whatever happens on Pakistan's western front, nothing is expected to change for India on our border with Pakistan.

The estimated 2500 terrorists that Indian intelligence agencies say are waiting to cross over to India is an indication of the 'war preparedness' in Pakistan.

India is yet to receive voice samples of those who carried out Mumbai 26/11 three years ago.
The attitude of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, more than the speeches of politicians and diplomats, along with the protective attitude of the regime towards these groups, are true barometers of the attitude of the powerful Pakistan Army toward India.

Source : ANI , 2nd December 2011

Pakistan-Intrigues ,Manoeuvres , Aspirations and Turbulence : Memogate -Who Dunnit and Why

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. But not in Pakistan, where things evolve in a convoluted and conspiratorial fashion. The replacement of Pakistan’s Ambassador Hussain Haqqani was not through a direct Prime Ministerial order but intrigue through a memo supposedly written by or on behalf of the country’s political leadership to American leadership seeking protection against its own Army and then leaked to seek the removal of those seeking assistance.

Here was a man representing his country’s sovereignty arraigned publicly and equated with a con man known for his propensity to drop names and fabricate information. Nothing indicates the mind of the powers that be in Pakistan than this equation and the eagerness to condemn and punish Haqqani. Surely, Haqqani knew of and about Mansoor Ijaz. Besides, it is indeed very strange that Haqqani should need Ijaz to deliver such a sensitive message. In fact such a memo would not even exist. Discussions of this kind would be only oral.

The contents of the memo are also odd. Five of the six offers are about giving comfort to the US on terrorism; unavoidably, as this has become Pakistan’s identity and chief export. That bit about India and 26/11 Mumbai was odd but designed to convince the Americans that they were serious about changing policy. The received wisdom on this is that this memo is an elaborate and a clumsy fake.

An Army that had been reeling under multiple embarrassments after the Osama bin Laden killing in May needed a come back. Their constant refrain that they did not know the whereabouts of OBL, was exposed. They had been caught harbouring the world’s most wanted terrorist and their most valuable strategic bargaining chip with the Americans. The US trusted the Army even less, loud proclamations notwithstanding. They were shown as incompetent by one section of the population that believed in the creed of OBL and untrustworthy by the rest.
The truth is that the Pak Army has been stalking Husain Haqqani even before he became his country’s representative in DC. He had earned the Army’s permanent enmity after he wrote the book “Pakistan: between mosque and military” in 2005. His appointment as Ambassador in 2008 had left the Army seething. There was no likelihood of Zardari agreeing to remove Haqqani, especially when he was delivering in Washington. There had to be recourse to subterfuge.

In few countries does the Army sit in on judgement about the behaviour of the country’s diplomatic representatives. In the end the Army reasserted its pre-eminence because Haqqani has been replaced by another Benazir acolyte, Sherry Rehman considered to be close to the Army. The difference is that while Hussain Haqqani was an avowed Army-hater, his equally suave successor belongs to the elite of Pakistan which survives through traditionally clever arrangements with the Army. They criticise the Army to show their freedom and independence but that is restricted up to very carefully defined red-lines. For instance, the policy on India will be laid down by the Army; that on Afghanistan similarly defined by GHQ Rawalpindi, currently Pakistan’s real capital. For every crime there has to be a motive and one looks for the obvious gainers. In this case it is the Army of Pakistan.

Pakistan’s Jinnah Institute of which Sherry Rehman was the Chairman till her recent appointment had prepared a report along with the United States Institute of Peace had been released in September this year. The report, titled ‘Pakistan, the United States and the End Game in Afghanistan: Perceptions of Pakistan’s Foreign Policy Elite’ seems to reflect the Army’s point of view.

The report identifies identify three main objectives which the “elite” considered necessary in Afghanistan:

· Pakistan’s interests were best served by a relatively stable government in Kabul that is not hostile towards Pakistan and that persistent instability in Afghanistan would have numerous and predictable consequences for Pakistan that it is ill-prepared to tackle.

Pakistan should seek a negotiated configuration with adequate Pashtun representation which would necessarily require the main Taliban factions – particularly Mullah Omar’s “Quetta Shura” Taliban and the Haqqani network – to be part of the new political arrangement. This implies that the Taliban and all Pushtun are interchangeable.

· There was need to restrict Indian presence to development activities and participate in Afghanistan’s economic progress and prosperity. The elite view is that the present Indian engagement was going beyond strictly development. Greater transparency on Indian actions and objectives was needed.

It is believed that Sherry Rehman’s endorses this report. The report is that of the Pakistan’s foreign policy elite. And the elite in Pakistan has always taken care to remain close to the Army for therein lies its security and prosperity.

POLITICAL FORTUNES
The Army having emerged stronger in the latest bout, political parties like the PML (N) and PTI are making the appropriate overtures unlike the PPP which is handicapped by its past animosities with the Army. The PML(N)’s uncomfortable and tenuous honeymoon is over, and sees this as an opportunity to gain ground at the expense of the PPP and also wishes to consolidate against the new player, the PTI of Imran Khan. For this it is necessary to prove loyalties to the strongest force in the country –the Army. Nawaz Sharif has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a probe into the memogate. This follows his demand in Faisalabad on November 20 for a judicial enquiry into the episode with other party stalwarts describing the government as Zardari mafia and Imran Khan as a pawn of the Army.

At this stage, should the Supreme Court decide to hasten the NRO case against Zardari, his government will be under threat. Beleaguered in this fashion, the PPP will have to rely more and more on the Army. At the same time, the Army probably sees its best chance to finish PP for good. Other politicians like Mian Azhar, have started to hedge and have joined Imran Khan. Maybe they sense a snap election. Political uncertainties of this kind only help strengthen the Army’s stranglehold. In all this infighting and the question of survival of some, relations with India will take a back seat. We should forget about issues like MFN that we have been so eager about and cosmetics apart, there is hardly any likelihood of new breakthroughs in the immediate future.

THE STRANGE CASE OF TALKS WITH THE TALIBAN

The case of the on-off talks between the Government and the Tehrik Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is getting curious and curiouser. The Pakistan Taliban declared on November 21 that the talks had commenced, the next day there were denials by the Pak Army; thereafter even the Taliban – or sections of the Taliban also announced that there were no ceasefire talks. To prove their point, they attacked a police station in Dera Ismail Khan killing an officer at dawn on November 22 whereas another Taliban leader had asserted that there was going to be a ceasefire in the South Waziristan area, to allow the month old talks to go ahead. The received wisdom is that there are factions within the TTP with senior leaders close to Hakimullah Mehsud asserting that Mehsud was in favour of a ceasefire. What however, seems to have upset all arrangements is an attempted suicide attack on a very senior ISI officer on Tuesday November 22 near the ISI headquarters in Abpara, Islamabad. Obviously there is a strong faction within the TTP that is opposed to the peace overtures.

There has been a decline in the TTP activities since 2007-08, suggesting a division within the TTP and possibly this has led the government to adopt a harder stance against them. Interior Minister also declared that talks with the TTP were possible only if they were to lay down their arms. The Pushtun does not lay down his arms even in peacetime; to expect him to do so now is being very optimistic.

Peace deals with the TTP have never endured in the past and there has also been a feeling in the government circles that the TTP uses these opportunities to regroup. This scepticism about the present state of affairs is not without substance. It would be extremely difficult to get all the groups to agree to a peace deal and once agreed how long such a deal would last. The future here, which would be the Pakistan government’s first priority on the insurgency front, remains uncertain.

Source : 29th November 2011, Published in DNA Mumbai via ANI News

Assaults on India

The India Pakistan relationship in recent years has been to a pattern. They hit, we appease. The massive train bombing in Mumbai in 2006 was followed by the NAM Summit in 2007 where we lowered ourselves to Pakistan's level by agreeing that both countries faced the common threat of terrorism.

We ignored that India had suffered from Pakistani terrorism and innumerable killings for decades and Pakistan had just begun to suffer from Pakistani terrorism. Thereafter, the commonality ended. The carnage of Mumbai on November 26, 2008 -- something all of us watched in horror and anguish -- was really Gen Kayani's Kargil against us. It was a declaration of war.

In response we did not even formally suspend the Composite Dialogue. Instead, we had the sell out at Sharm el-Sheikh in July 2009 where we scored a number of own goals.

That has been the pattern since then, beginning with the Delhi fiasco of the Foreign Secretaries' meeting followed by the Islamabad fiasco of the Foreign Ministers' meeting interspersed with dreamy eyed hopes of building trust at Thimpu and ending with the latest foray in the Maldives. Our problem has been that we have made hope a principle of foreign policy and Pakistan has made terrorism a weapon of foreign policy and we are not able to see the futility of the first and the reality of the second.

The reality is harsh and frightening. The reality is that of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, its linkages with the Deep State of Pakistan embodied in the Pak Army and the ISI and the jihadi paraphernalia. They draw sustenance from each other. While the world is now waking up to the threat, we in India should by now have a clear idea of the kind of threat we face from this terrorist outfit masquerading as a social service NGO. We should be under no delusions about what the future entails as this organisation has the full support of the state.

Three years after Mumbai, despite all our entreaties and dossiers, there has been no joy from Pakistan. Instead we have the Pak Interior Minister suggesting that we hang Qasab, and thereby close the case implying quite clearly we are not going to get what we want from Pakistan. Three years after Mumbai the LeT has grown in strength and range of activities with a presence in at least 22 countries and making it a far more potent threat than any other terrorist organisation.

The LeT's vast terror network extends beyond Pakistan; its terror training establishment of military-jihadi expertise teaches an international alumni. Jihadi training schools are now a lucrative post retirement avenue for retiring Army officers and men who provide international consultancies and specialised training, like creating deep cover operatives. It is estimated that the LeT has over 2,500 offices, employing over 25,000 persons. While its main centre remains at Muridke, near Lahore where it has a sprawling campus, students' hostels, technical institutes, medical centres, its second major infrastructure facility is in Shahdodpur in Sindh.

Its financial resources are enormous -- both domestic from charity contributions, compensation/subsidy from the Army, global donations from Pakistanis abroad and from Saudi Arabia and UAE charities. There is enough money in the LeT coffers to enable purchase of new property worth US $ 6 million in Punjab and Sindh in 2003. Since 2001 a new centre, the Markaz Qadsiya was built in Lahore at a cost of US $9.5 million. All this and more can be found in Wilson John's book "The Caliphate's Soldiers," which is guaranteed to leave many of us very frightened.

Today the LeT is the world's most powerful trans-national, but essentially Punjabi, terrorist group enjoying unending state support. There are no signs that the Pakistani state has any intentions of either even disengaging from LeT's activities to say nothing of dismantling this group.

The fear that there could be a major terrorist attack in India by the LeT or its proxies, is very real. This threat will begin to recede only when the Deep State realises it has to pay a price for such activities. Mere threats to break dialogue, display of misplaced magnanimity or appeals to the international community are unlikely to impress the LeT or its mentors.


Source : Midday, Mumbai , November 24, 2011

Keep the flag flying

For a country like ours, situated in a tough neighbourhood with no hope of changing our neighbours, it is imperative that we remain prepared for the worst. There is no other choice. The Indian Air Force (IAF) must re-invent itself, not just to ward off threats but with the ability to carry the war into the adversary's camp, and retaliate with speed and massive fire power at targets that impose unacceptable damage. Only this would reflect the reach of a regional power.

The rise of China, the intransigence of Pakistan and India's rise have made it necessary that we prepare today to meet the challenges of tomorrow. Should there be an open conflict, it is more likely to be short, sharp and rely heavily on the use of aircraft, as other nations would want to prevent the escalation to a nuclear exchange. The nation that acquires an upper hand will naturally strike a better post-conflict bargain. The IAF has begun a serious attempt to modernise. India is to acquire six more of the versatile C130J transport aircraft, in addition to the six contracted in 2008. The IAF will induct 10 C17 Globemasters beginning mid 2013 and then acquire six more later. These acquisitions would enhance the IAF's logistic capabilities in the mountainous north and north-east where new air bases are being constructed. Equally important is our strike capability beyond the national frontiers.

There are three kinds of aircraft that seem to be or should be under consideration: the much talked about Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MRCA), the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) at present being jointly manufactured by Russians and Indians the top of the range F35, which the Americans have now offered. What should be under consideration is the long range bomber that has the ability to strike deep.

The MRCA is now a choice between two aircraft — the French Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon — in a deal that could be much higher than the original figure of R42,000 crores. A strict comparison between the two is not realistic. The Rafale weighs 10,000 kg empty and has a maximum weight of 24,500 kg with a combat radius of 1,800 km. The Eurofighter weighs 11,000 kg empty, maximum weight of 23,500 kg with a combat radius of 1,400 km. Moreover, the latter has super cruise capability that allows it to fly at speeds greater than Mach 1 for longer periods. Other aircrafts can only attain this in short bursts during a dog fight or while evading missiles. But since Rafale is wholly French, technology transfer will be easier and the IAF, which has the Mirage on its inventory, presumably feels more comfortable with this kind of aircraft. The multi-nation Eurofighter does not have these advantages, as it is manufactured jointly by countries some of whom have strong embargo laws. One way or the other, a decision on the MRCA is expected to be taken shortly.

Since the MRCA is essentially a replacement for aging aircraft, in the process, it incorporates the natural upgrading of equipment and allows the air force to attain its optimum squadron levels in the future. Would this take care of all our future threats? Any future threat scenario must factor in that the Chinese air force, with its 2,900 fighter aircrafts, is numerically far superior to the IAF. Aircraft like the JH7 with an 1,800 km radius could be deployed from bases in Tibet to strike deep into India. This is apart from the missile deployments in Tibet. The IAF, even after the acquisition of the MRCA, will not have the capability to strike deep into the Han homeland in retaliation to a major strike in our heartland. A retaliatory strike has to make news as well. For this, the IAF would need the Russian TU-22 or SU-34 bomber. Deep penetration aircraft need two pilots in a pressurised cabin with a sleeping bay, a galley and toilet. Pilots on long flying missions need facilities to relax and stretch out. True, retaliation with the BrahMos missile is possible; but a strike by an aircraft deep inside the heartland of the adversary has a different connotation. Besides, the capacity to strike with long-range heavy bombers is a crucial part of any nuclear triad.

The two-seater FGFA being planned with the Russians would have a combat radius of 1,500 km, and is expected to be inducted in 2017. The offer of the F35, a single-seater state of the art multi-role stealth aircraft, is being described as a measure of US confidence in India. The aircraft has three variants priced from $110 million to $140 million and not $65 million, as has been quoted elsewhere. This means that there will be extra/hidden charges. Apart from the initial cost of purchasing any aircraft system, the purchaser has to factor in almost a similar amount for maintenance and upgrade through the life of the machine, expected to last about 40 years. India will have to keep in mind the stringent US EUMA (End Use Monitoring Agreement) while negotiating with the US.

There is still some hesitation in New Delhi about such offers from the US. Pakistan is a US ally and China is America's main economic partner. It would be unwise to expect the US to ignore these interests in favour of India. The F35 may not be faulted on technical qualifications but political considerations would be an important factor. Somewhere in the strategic minds in DC and New Delhi, the ghost of the Cold War and its suspicions still lurk. The US looks for allies in the region as it lowers its profile, India can only offer friendship.

Vikram Sood is former secretary, Research & Analysis Wing. The views expressed by the author are personal.

Source : Hindustan Times , 21st November 2011http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/771820.aspx

National Security and Intelligence Reforms

National security and intelligence reforms
India's external intelligence service the Research and Analysis Wing was formed in 1968, and 43 years later, we are still trying to determine what sort of an organisation would best serve the national purpose. This is a sad reflection on our strategic mindset because although periodic reforms are necessary, we in India are still debating how the organisation should be manned. Some of the questions we should be asking are: What are the security threats that India would face in 2025 or 2030? What kind of an intelligence organisation would thus be needed either to protect our interests, prevent others from upstaging us or, if required, reversing the trend among our rivals. Does the present organisation have the ingredients to deliver? If not, what needs to be done so that we are not found wanting in 2025? In doing so, we have to evolve our own systems and not just copy other systems.Intelligence agencies can prevent wars but cannot by themselves win the wars. This has to be done by the armed forces, or if the threat is economic or technological (cyber, for instance) other experts are required. In India, reforms have been episodic, usually following a debacle and not based on periodic threat assessments. In house reviews have been about cadre reviews and career prospects fixing deputation quotas. Reform has to be more fundamental and far deeper. It must be borne in mind that intelligence agencies and reforms have to be done in the fullness of time and not when a crisis has begun to loom.National threats have changed. There are other transnational threats that no single agency or a single country can handle. Besides, there is no knowing how the new threats will evolve. The rapidly changing technological applications bring their own threats. Catastrophic terrorism, cyber terrorism, remote control missile attacks and virtual wars are the other new threats. International trade and commercial transactions have become faster and more intricate; banking transactions move at the speed of lightning. IT-driven globalisation also covers the criminal world. Interaction between narcotics smugglers, arms merchants, human traffickers and terrorists is that much easier, faster and safer. They all have access to sophisticated denial and deception techniques. Add to this, radical religious terrorists who are affecting India most dramatically and are supported by Pakistan in every way. Intelligence organisations need language skills, interrogation skills, ability to deal with hostages, area and issue expertise, apart from operational skills of a special kind. The normal civil servant, however bright, just does not have these skills or the aptitude. There is no option for the intelligence organisations in India, but to follow the pattern elsewhere --recruit from the open market through advertisements. The ideal of an intelligence organisation is that it has to be unique and is not like any other organisation, department or a ministry. It cannot exist without its mystic; a life of mirrors and masks. It is therefore a system with a mission which then becomes a crusade -- be it downsizing Pakistan, matching up to China or piggy backing on friendly powers. As the CIA used to say, "the secret of our success is the secret of our success"; there are no heroes and the medals are secret. What is the price the government is willing to pay a band of men and women who sacrifice their individuality for anonymity and go against the grain of human nature, is a question that needs to be asked and replied all the time. As with all institutions, intelligence organisations also occasionally face a decline -- for a number of reasons, -- bad internal leadership or disinterest by the political leadership. Robert Gates, who later headed the CIA, describes this well in a long memo he wrote to the then chief, Bill Casey in1981. He said that the CIA was "a case of advanced bureaucratic arteriosclerosis: the arteries are clogging up with careerist bureaucrats who have lost the spark." Any intelligence organisation that is manned by careerists, who are either too old to be moulded or are risk averse, is on a sharp downhill slope. Any government of the day must guard against this because faulty or inaccurate intelligence is far more dangerous than no intelligence.

Midday, Mumbai November 10, 2011

Imran Khan- Just landed or has he just arrived

Gurgaon, Nov.3 (ANI): The speech (at least on YouTube) lasted about 50 minutes, the mood euphoric, the crowd was raucous at times and the slogans were the usual eulogies ‘Pakistan Zindabad and Imran Khan Zindabad’ almost in the same breath.

The Doyen, Founder and Leader of the Pakistan Tehrik Insaf Party, Imran Khan, perhaps got carried away by the response of the 100000 strong crowd (some say 200000), and said that the only other person who refused to beg was the Qaid-e-Azam that is, apart from Imran himself, he modestly announced.

Imran, the latest political kid on the block, had just elevated himself to new heights. Speaking to the noisy crowd at the Minar-e-Pakistan Lahore on October 30, Imran claimed that what he was starting was not a movement, but a Tsunami that would sweep away corrupt and ineffective leaders.

The question some ask is whether Imran had in fact arrived or had merely landed; meaning that he had a long way to travel. Would Imran be able to overcome the threat from the entrenched feudal lords who run political parties in Pakistan, win electoral battles for his party, something he has not done so far, become a force to reckon with leave alone running the government.

Imran’s attacks on President Asif Zardari and Mian Nawaz, the PML(N) leader, brought the strongest approval from the crowd; anti-Americanism was popular of course, but when he mentioned Kashmir (after several promptings) did not evoke the kind of response politicians in earlier times were able to elicit. It was the economy and the corruption and the hope for change that brought the loudest applause.

A good deal of the response is because of the follies of the other two major parties in Pakistan who matter in Punjab – the PML (N) and the PPP. The PPP is involved in protecting its leader Asif Zardari with cases of corruption pending against him along with several of his close confidantes and cronies, and bolstering the other heir apparent, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

The other party, which is in power in Lahore, the PML (N) run by the Sharif brothers like a private fief is also bereft of ideas beyond trying to overthrow the PPP-led government from Islamabad. Ever since democracy was restored, in a manner of speaking, in 1988 after the assassination of Zia-ul-Haq, the longevity of civilian governments has been limited to two or three years.

The only government that lasted more than this was the military government of Gen Musharraf. The present Zardari-Gilani combine is now in its third year. Going by the law of precedence, the grace period for the present regime has run out, the people of Pakistan have run out of patience and they want change.

The powers that be in Rawalpindi, the omnipotent Pakistan Army have their own demons to handle. The US is doing a good deal of heavy breathing while showing sign of getting closer to enemy India, the Chinese are strangely ambivalent on a number of issues despite loud proclamations by Pakistani leaders, the terrorists are running amuck and the assets of Pakistan – the Haqqanis of Waziristan and the Taliban of Quetta are also under the microscope.

The Baloch are restive and sectarian violence continues unabated with Shias the main targets of Sunni groups. Continued instability in Pakistan and an ineffective government, a crumbling economy offers very little hope. The prospect of a military takeover is unthinkable for the present military leadership. Therefore, the facade of a civilian government has to be preserved.

Imran Khan not considered a serious option until recently, is suddenly emerging as the new messiah. But is that really so? One rally does not necessarily translate into electoral victory. Imran Khan has not even reached southern Punjab and Lahore is no longer Punjab.

His party, the PTI, has no standing against the entrenched parties in Sindh – the MQM in the urban areas and the PPP in the rural areas. The party has no presence in Balochistan and is unlikely to make any headway there.


The PTI may be successful in the PakhtoonKhwa-Khyber province largely due to the ineptitude of MMA and the ANP. Even in the Punjab, neither the PPP nor the PML (N) can be considered as washouts although the party could gain in urban areas.
Imran Khan had a dual image. One of a westernised Oxford educated playboy abroad which makes him acceptable outside and the other of an Urdu speaking pro-Islamic politician speaking at home which makes him acceptable to domestic audiences.
He was known to be close to the Jamaat e Islami chief Qazi Hussein Ahmed, was in favour of Islamic laws like the Hudood and Blasphemy laws. Those who have read his autobiography, feel that his comments have been restrained. But this might be an attempt at an image makeover with the western audience that may be willing to accept a man close to the Islamic groupings so long as he promised stability in a turbulent region. It is Imran’s views expressed in Urdu to domestic audiences that will remain more relevant.

It is too early to say if Imran Khan will be able to make a dent in the political structure of Pakistan. One rally in Lahore does not make a Tsunami. To use the cricketing analogies that Imran used in his speech, Pakistan’s best known cricketing legend is batting on a sticky wicket. It is always possible that the forthcoming matches have been fixed elsewhere in Rawalpindi and Abpara to ensure a favourable result. (ANI)

Source : Yahoo News , 3rd November 2011 .

Confused on Kashmir

It has been said so often by so many but it still bears repetition that Pakistan’s foreign policy agenda has only one item on it — India. For pursuit of this obsession, Pakistan has followed policies in the region that allowed itself to be in a situation where US secretary of state Hillary Clinton rebuked Pakistan while in Pakistan recently. Those of us here who delude ourselves that this would galvanise Pakistan to now quickly change policy might do well to shed this delusion. The rest of us know that Pakistan will not change its policy and indeed it cannot afford to.

Pakistan’s quest for equality, if not supremacy over India, has rested on the tripod of the nuclear option, terrorism and strategic depth in Afghanistan. The China-Pakistan nexus was and is a valuable add-on to both because it continues to give Pakistan added muscle to take on India. Although Pakistan had taken the terror route much earlier, its missile and nuclear capability with a loudly proclaimed low threshold has impressed the West enough, leading to greater adventurism. If China found a low cost option in Pakistan’s ambitions and fears, the Pakistan Army found the terrorists useful and expendable cannon fodder. The nuclear and terrorist weapon provided the Pakistan Army security and primacy.

Pakistan intransigence in meeting US strategic interests along with its duplicity has hobbled US policy rendering it unable to deal with Pakistan either as an enemy or as an ally. Pakistan’s refusal to deal with the Haqqani group as demanded by the Americans indicates the extent to which the former is willing to go down the road on this one. The stoppage of military aid and the fear of a possible stoppage of funds have not deterred Pakistan. If Pakistan can throw out US objections or ignore its protests there is no reason to believe that Pakistan will change its stance on India. The terrorist option will not be scaled down nor will the nuclear option surrendered.
Thus flummoxed by Pakistan obduracy and exasperated by its duplicity, the Americans have been looking for escape clauses, one of them being pressuring India to raise Pakistan’s comfort level on bilateral (read Kashmir) issues so that Pakistan cooperates fully with the US. That is the US position, but that does not mean that this should be India’s position too. And even if it is accepted that talks will do no harm, unilateral concessions under the mistaken belief that we should be magnanimous are counterproductive.

That said, it is worth remembering that Pakistan does not really want to resolve the Kashmir issue because if it does, then the Pakistan Army will lose its most important cause celebre that allows it to retain ownership of Pakistan. There will be a huge problem of redeployment of the jihadi foot soldiers rendered unemployed after Kashmir is “solved”. We should not expect Pakistan to shut down the 42 training camps it has in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Pakistan to train its jihadis against India. Therefore, for us to be continually making concessions reveals a confused policy both with regard to Pakistan and internally with regard to Kashmir. In Kashmir we must learn that we need patience and the urge to do something for the sake of doing something is deeply flawed. Further, that political expediency in Kashmir or anywhere else will always be subsumed by national security considerations.

Take the case of the withdrawal of AFSPA from certain districts of Jammu and Kashmir, come what may. This may be needed to show some political results in the Valley and a measure of independence from New Delhi, and also to blunt the People’s Democratic Party opposition and hastily provide a positive gesture to Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s offer to talk to New Delhi. The issue of the withdrawal of the AFSPA has been discussed in various contexts in the country. The four main provisions of the AFSPA are authority to the Army to arrest, search, engage and destroy. It is only fair that if we expect our Army to counter insurgency within our borders we must provide it legal cover. These powers are much less than what the police has in the state.
Besides, one does not see the wisdom of withdrawing the AFSPA from the border districts knowing that the Pakistani Lashkar-e-Tayyaba is forever trying to infiltrate. Partial withdrawal also means that terrorists could commit terror acts in one district and run to the other for a safe haven. One also wonders if a chief minister can take unilateral decisions on such issues. If Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah is really interested in making progress on ensuring the withdrawal of the Army, then he could begin by withdrawing the Disturbed Areas Act, which is within his power. Meanwhile, it would be best not to play politics on such issues.
There was an air of inevitability about incidents in Kashmir on the Diwali eve. To suggest that the Army itself orchestrated this is a measure of the general negativity in the country that we are prepared to believe the worst about all our institutions. Mustafa Kamal’s outburst against the Army was irresponsible and unfortunate; subsequent recantations were received with amusement at best or cynicism at worst. We ought to also factor in that if there is peace and tranquillity in Kashmir, Pakistan ceases to be relevant. Pakistan will never want that situation and more, the Pakistan Army cannot afford this.

Eventually, the AFSPA will be withdrawn from Jammu and Kashmir, maybe next year but that should happen as a result of a consensus among all those involved. Till then, we must work towards that consensus. It cannot be that one arm of governance can hold the Centre to ransom. It cannot be that we want to give concessions just to look good. Or shore up domestic political standing. Emotions run high in Srinagar from time to time, but decisions cannot be based on emotion and sentiment; instead there have to be reason and realism. Partial withdrawal of AFSPA is an idea whose time may not have come yet.


Source : Asian Age , 28th October 2011

Balochistan - The Forgotten Province

Balochistan, the forgotten province
By: Vikram Sood
Date: 2011-10-27

Abductions of Baloch nationals and their disappearances are now routine. In a matter of three days in October, nine mutilated bodies of Baloch missing persons were found from different parts of Balochistan like Khuzdar and Gwadar. This list is endless. The rest of the world is, however, far too involved with what is happening in the Arab world or Afghanistan- Pakistan.

The Baloch have had a long list of economic, political and social discrimination against Islamabad. There are a few courageous writers, and the diaspora that feeds the websites and Twitter. The Human Rights Watch (HRW) in its report, 'We Can Torture, Kill, or Keep You for Years: Enforced Disappearances by Pakistan Security Forces in Balochistan,' says hundreds of people have disappeared since 2005 in Balochistan. The HRW has documented 45 cases of enforced disappearances and torture by Pakistani security forces in 2009 and 2010.

No one really gets to hear of what is happening in the padded cell. The largely forgotten and ignored Baloch however keep reminding the world that they are in the midst of their fifth war of independence against their Punjabi oppressor. Here in India too the Baloch issue is hardly noticed mostly because the western press has not commented on it for months.

This is despite the fact that we are routinely accused of interference in Balochistan and we even admitted to discussing this allegation. (Anyone remember the inglorious communiqu © at Sharm el Sheikh two years ago?) Balochistan has suffered not only from neglect by its own governments but also by the rest of the world.

The nationalists among them insist that Balochistan had declared its independence on August 11, 1947 and want a reversal of that. Their problem is that they are divided, the political structures are weak and that traditional leadership of the Mengals, Marris, Bizenjos and Bugtis has weakened, dispersed or been eliminated. Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, the leader of the Bugti tribe was killed in August 2006.

Akbar Bugti's grandson escaped to Switzerland while Khair Bux's other sons Hyrbair, Mehran and Ghezen live overseas. Balaach Marri, the son of Nawab Khair Bux Marri who himself has campaigned for Baloch independence, was killed in Afghanistan in November 2007.

The Baloch believe that both Akbar Bugti and Balaach Marri were killed under orders from General Musharraf. Added to this have been the killings of Shias, carried out in recent times by the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.

These Sunni extremists, are possibly in league with the Taliban's Quetta Shura, adding to the confusion about what is happening in the province. Baloch nationalism is, as before, sought to be suppressed through the use of religious forces.

Balochistan always had a strategic relevance for the West. After Germany surrendered in May 1945, a reappraisal of the long term policy of interests of the British empire argued that Britain must retain its military connection with the subcontinent and that, if necessary, Balochistan should be detached from India.

As it turned out, all of Pakistan came under Anglo-American influence after independence. When the massive Baloch insurrection of 1974 broke out Zulfiqar Bhutto had to resort to the use of the Air Force. Peace was restored after General Zia assumed power in 1977. Since then, till today, the struggle has been intermittent but has never died down.

Balochistan has enormous reserves of gas, gold and copper, as well as untapped sources of oil and uranium. Its strategic importance is also as a prospective energy transit route. It adjoins the Arabian Sea and the Straits of Hormuz, through which 40 per cent of the world's oil resources pass annually. The exploitation of these natural resources in combination with repressive and discriminatory state-run policies have led to armed uprisings in the province.

Logistic supplies to US and NATO forces in Afghanistan which land in Karachi are also routed through Balochistan. This explains why the US/NATO prefer to ignore events in Balochistan. This could, however, change once the US dependency on routes through Pakistan changes to the Northern routes.

Source: The Midday Mumbai, October 27, 2011

The Nature of Our Neighbour

One was reasonably sure many years ago that Osama was hiding in Pakistan, most probably in the Abbottabad area. Pakistan authorities, however, consistently denied Osama's presence in their country.

But, as it embarrassingly turned out, Osama was living with his family, along with an entire terrorist and communication paraphernalia. This was despite the country's ubiquitous intelligence machinery with its close contacts with the terrorist underworld.

If Islamabad did not know, then its is clear that the terrorists there are running out of control. If Islamabad did know, then it obviously chose not to disclose the information and assist the US in its effort against terrorism. This was either a strategic decision of the rulers for use of assets later, or a tactical decision to keep the ultra radicals at bay. Both underscore a natural desire to play the terror card.


House of terror: Pakistan authorities had repeatedly denied Osama's
presence in their country, even as he lived a short distance away from
the country's capital.

Pakistan is to try Dr Afridi, who is suspected to have given information to the US, which led to the famous SEAL assault on May 2 and the subsequent death of Osama. Is it treason to help the US find the world's most wanted terrorist? It was rather a service that he did to the US and the world. Yet, the attitude is that not helping the US find Osama was an act of supreme loyalty by the ISI and the Pakistan Army.

These are unfortunate directions Pakistan is taking, egged on by an increasingly intolerant section that is strident, violent, and at times vicious. Just looking at photographs of thousands of Islamists protesting against the sentencing of Salman Taseer's killer, juxtaposed with the news that 13 innocent Shias were taken off a bus, lined and killed in cold blood by Sunni radicals, has a chilling effect. It is not that radicalism spreads in one massive tsunami. It creeps in slowly and all it takes is a few good men to keep quiet for the virus to spread. It happens when a small child is accused of blasphemy for misspelling, when Ahmedi children are banned from attending school, or when religious laws that discriminate against women are espoused.

Why is it that Pakistan chooses to behave in a manner that has made it an international pariah with a broken economy and a rundown social structure that can't give its young the gift of modern education, but subjects them to the medieval obscurantism of many madrassas? Soon after its birth, Pakistan was naturally anxious to make its formation a success. Its mistake was to perennially seek equality with India. Since then it has boxed above its weight. It decided to play its locational card with the West. It offered its territory for US Cold War objectives, then for the Afghan jihad and then again, ostensibly against terrorism. Pakistan's leaders also learnt that delinquency could be rewarding, so they either played the victim or spread terror, assured protection by the country's status as a nuclear power.

The West, especially the US has continued its policy of coddling Pakistan. What were considered startling accusations by the outgoing American Chief of Joint Staff Admiral Mullen 10 days ago, are already being watered down. True, there are many Pakistani men and women who shudder at the direction their country is taking. It is also true that there are far more in Pakistan who believe in the ideology of the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba that promises ultimate and global Islamic dominance.

The only thing they dislike is violence against Pakistanis. The main worry in India is not that Pakistan will use the nuclear bomb; the main worry is that it will continue to use militias like the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba as a veritable arm of the Pakistan Army whose own motto is 'jihad f'isb illah' (jihad in the name of Allah). Our fear should be that hordes of militant believers could be let loose by their mentors. If a country's rulers can be duplicitous with their benefactor there is very little reason to believe they will not do likewise or worse with their 'sworn enemy'.

The writer is former chief of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)
Mid-day October 13, 2011, Mumbai

HAVE WE LEARNT ANY LESSONS

Whenever there is a terrorist incident in India we hear the same rhetoric and promises. The same repetitive promises to root out terrorism, about zero tolerance, promises of compensations to those killed or wounded, gory pictures on front pages, excited TV channels in competition to cover the horror in detail (just what the terrorist wants), experts’ panels on all channels showering wisdom, VIP visits to the scene throwing all other arrangements out of gear, politicians seeking vote banks and allegations of intelligence failure in a trial on the camera. That is until the next terrorist incident.
Terrorism or terrorist acts are about murder and killing innocents in pursuance to causes real, contrived or imagined, and counter terrorism can get ugly because there is no polite way of dealing with those willing to kill innocents or themselves. Further, terrorism is a cost effective weapon and the state response has to be cost-intensive and manpower intensive to the nth degree. In addition there are hidden costs calculated by Levitt and Dubner in their book Super Freakonomics. Even though the shoe bomber Richard Reid failed in his attempt, this forced the US authorities to introduce the practice of passengers having to remove shoes for inspection at airports. Levitt and Dubner calculated that this meant the loss of time equivalence of 14 lives per year in America.
Terrorism evolves and terrorists innovate as they have moved from individual acts of terror, hostage taking, IED attacks, suicide terrorism, attacks by assault teams of terrorists and then cyber terrorism and catastrophic terrorism. They have used all forms of terrorism as vehicles of their attacks, except naval/sea craft; the counter terrorist is worried about WMD terrorism. Yet whatever be the provocation, democratic governments are expected to react to terrorism with sensitivity to the cause and with determination to eliminate violence. In addition, the counter terrorist lumbers along circumscribed by its own principles of propriety and floundering in the massive bureaucratic labyrinth. Consequently nothing ever gets done, either adequately or in time.
What is wrong with us? Why is it that after 60 years we have not been able to root out terrorism or prevent terrorist attacks? What is it that we, as a country, as a people and as a government must do to rid ourselves of this problem and have failed to do all these years? Is it a lack of political will? Is it a poor set of priorities? It is true we cannot compare the Indian situation with the US or even Europe. The US does not have a neighbour like ours and we live in a tough neighbourhood.
Usually, the lament is that the state should be addressing the causes and grievances first. These require deeper and philosophical handling but the solution to the problem of acts of terrorism and their prevention lie in solving the problems themselves.
Despite the best intelligence and counter terror organisations terrorist attacks can take place simply because the terrorists got lucky . Normally, an individual terrorist attack is successful because of poor intelligence, inadequate and poor policing, imperfect communications. It is not enough that individual terrorist attacks be countered but the phenomenon has to be defeated, made at least costly, if not impossible, for the terrorist and his mentors.
In India, after every crisis the tendency has been to create new super-bodies to oversee existing ones or share their work, achieved mostly by cannibalising the older agencies. Today we have the existing intelligence agencies, the Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing at the centre, supported by state structures. Add to this the Multi Agency Centre superseded by the National Counter Terrorism Centre assisted, supervised or coordinated by the top heavy cost intensive gargantuan National Intelligence Grid. Yet the NATGRID is only intended to be a gigantic clearing house of different data banks without any commensurate downstream arrangements. The National Investigation Agency is designed to investigate post event acts and is not a preventive mechanism and it seems in clash with state agencies who are expected to have better local intelligence.
It is true that sound and timely intelligence is the starting point of an effective counter intelligence effort. Maybe an improvement in HUMINT requires changed recruitment and training systems and revised policies for mid career corrections. We seem to have followed the US pattern in excessive reliance on TECHINT but there is no short cut to having sound HUMINT. Technology is a service an enabler not the main instrument of intelligence operations.
Action on the data accessed from NATGRID would be taken by the local police force. The poor state of these forces is common knowledge. The state police forces are hopelessly undermanned undertrained and under equipped. An all India average of policemen per 100000 people is 125 against the global average of 250. The country is deficit in police recruitment to about 2 million; this is in a country that has no shortage of manpower. The system of the beat constable is now dead and gone because either he is deployed on VIP security or busy pandering to the mafioso who owns the kholi in which he lives. There is thus very little possibility that this poor constable (admittedly no angel most of the time) can carry out his duties diligently.
Counter terrorism cannot be communalised or politicised with terrorism defined in terms of Hindu or Muslim origins. This not only affects investigations but also the communities. There is an enthusiastic attempt in the aftermath of a terrorist incident to acquire political capital. This is something we will have to live with but good ground intelligence and a reasonable data bank (not the overpowering kind imagined by the NATGRID) would help in keeping the counter terror effort as a neutral force.
There is also a feeling that there is very little awareness among the security personnel, both men and officers, about the changing dynamics of global terrorism, the impact of internet, the consequences of AfPak situation on India. There is little awareness about the way Indian terrorist/extremist groups have been evolving in the past ten years and their linkages with other insurgent/extremist/criminal groups operating across borders.
There is little interaction between the state agencies and think-tank community on issues of terrorism and violence. It is time that the state outsourced this expertise as it does not have the time or the manpower to handle this. The state could benefit from understanding the dynamics of terrorism, objectives and support bases of terrorist groups and the extent of state sponsorship of terrorism.
Repeats of terrorist attacks depend upon the efficacy and force of reactions of the state to each terrorist act. One is not sure if there have been adequate lessons learnt apart from constituting new organisations. The state must have and be seen to have, a quick and massive response capability, hostage negotiating and rescue capability, locally trained counter terrorist teams, well organised emergency responses (fire and hospitals) and an effective information management. All these were inadequate in during the Mumbai massacre and the most frequently heard comment was “paralysis” and “chaos”. One can only hope that we have learnt our lessons and this is not repeated the next time an attack occurs which one is reasonably sure will happen.

Mail Today New Delhi October 6, 2011