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Moscow, as always, was fascinating with its grandeur and the Zils and Zims have been long been replaced by BMWs, Mercs and Audis.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