US India Pakistan - The Eternal Triangle

President Barack Obama will soon be sitting with his team to prioritise his to-do-list for his legacy that will be intertwined with how he handles his country’s strategic and national concerns.

Domestically, the most important issue would be the ‘fiscal cliff’, where President Obama’s climb up the hill is being constantly hobbled by the belligerent Republicans. The economic crisis in the US is deeper than one would normally want to admit but 2013 is going to be a difficult year for the US and consequently for the world as well. Externally, the Afghan quagmire continues, the deep seas of the Western Pacific have an assertive China, the bloodied sands of the Middle East provide neither solution nor solace, where the Arab Spring seems to have gone all wrong with the Salafists and Sunni Radicals of various hues beginning to take control from Tunisia to Syria. Of these, the two issues that will affect India most closely both in 2013 and later are the US economy and the manner and aftermath of US exit from Afghanistan.

Need of the hour: President Obama’s primary goal in Afghanistan is to extricate his country with as much dignity as possible. 

 

There have been other economic problems arising from the mismanaged banking and financial crisis following the crash of Lehman Brothers. The financial liabilities incurred after more than ten years of incessant wars in West Asia and Afghanistan adding to the coffers of the military-industrial-intelligence complex but did precious little for the rest of the economy.

There is another looming crisis — the fate of the dollar. A decade ago, one ounce of gold could be had for US$ 250; today it has soared to $ 1,750 while the cost of silver has gone up from $ 4 to $ 34 per ounce. More people are shoring their assets in these two metals than in the past and globally the gold holdings have gone up from 10.5% in 2006 to 12.8% in 2012, holdings in other currencies have gone up from 38.4% to 44.4% while the dollar holdings have shrunk from 36.6% to 28.7% during the same period as economies have shifted to other currencies.

If countries decide to settle their international obligations in currencies other than the $, the demand for the dollar would shrink pushing its value down further. Maybe this is a bit of a doomsday prediction but it would be unwise not to take these factors into consideration while assessing the future. Naturally, a continued decline of the world’s largest economy will impact on India at a time when ours is finally showing signs of serious market and economic reforms so desperately needed in the immediate years ahead.

President Obama’s primary goal in Afghanistan is to extricate his country with as much dignity as possible. The US today has its foot caught in a trap and Pakistan has the key which it periodically threatens to throw away but desists after it is promised some financial compensation. Only very recently the US promised to release US $ 700 million from the Coalition Support Funds for Pakistan, also absolved the ISI of any hand in the Mumbai Terror and has encouraged Pak backed Taliban for negotiations in Paris even as sections of the Taliban continue to kill and assassinate. The US is the biggest donor to Pakistan and also the country that is disliked most in Pakistan. US munificence, and indulgence, towards Pakistan remains legendary and would be truly inexplicable but for self-induced excessive US dependency on Pakistan for the execution of its war on terror and now, equally, for its withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The US needs Pakistan to withdraw from Afghanistan and Pakistan needs all the money it can get. Pakistan also dreads that if the US leaves without helping Pakistan get what it wants from the Indians now, which is a concession on Kashmir, they will never have another chance. The US economy could do nicely with increased access to markets and investments in India, something that India needs the US to do as well. Long held positions by India and Pakistan will not disappear and the sticking points surface very soon.

The US in its own interests needs to give satisfaction to Pakistan to be able to leave. India will, in return, be “allowed” to play a larger role in Afghanistan, something that was strongly opposed not too long ago, on the belief that this would prevent Pakistan from being the sole arbiter in Afghanistan post 2014. The gentle nudge (read pressure), from the West on the Indians (mostly Track 2) to give satisfaction to Pakistan without a quid pro quo on terror, will continue. The hope is that India would be able to oblige and assist the US make an honourable exit from Afghanistan.

   It is a complicated ménage-a-trois in the India Pakistan US triangle for the US. For India this challenge is an opportunity both for our economy and strategic interests.

Source : The Mid Day , Mumbai , Vikram Sood is a former chief of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)

Pakistan triumphs in India

The good cop-bad cop routine is a common practice that investigative and interrogating agencies adopt to break a suspect. This technique is often used by others — politicians and diplomats — to convey a message and deny it subsequently. Pakistan has perfected this to a fine art.

We saw evidence of this when Rehman Malik, Pakistan’s adviser on interior affairs, visited India a few days ago. The only thing was that this time, the affable and free-talking Malik was playing both roles with aplomb.

The Pakistani visitor was coming ostensibly to sign a liberalised visa agreement between India and Pakistan. Aware of the kind of statements he has been making in his own country about India in the past, it was not difficult to anticipate the kind of statements he could make. As good Indian hosts, we gave him that opportunity, he took it, sounded arrogant, made insensitive remarks at first and then pretended to back-track, claiming injured innocence.

Mr Malik was thus able to assert that Abu Jundal, deported from Saudi Arabia as he was wanted by the Indian authorities, was an Indian. Thus implying that the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks were not an act of the Pakistan state but non-state actors from India, Pakistan and the US. We should have known that Pakistan would continue forever to obfuscate and procrastinate on terrorism and on many other bilateral issues. As always, Mr Malik was evasive on Pakistan’s terror icon, “Mr” Hafiz Saeed, and that group, but promised to send a judicial commission to examine witnesses like Abu Jundal. Upon his return to Pakistan, Mr Malik also claimed that in his discussions with the Indian authorities he had taken up the issue of Indian interference in Balochistan.

Inevitably, our media picked up the controversial statements and while the visitor complained that the media was interested only in TRP ratings, actually he was loving it because, as usual, a visiting Pakistani politician, general or diplomat only says things here to be heard in his constituency or by his mentors back home. In this case it is not an elected constituency that Mr Malik was addressing but the khaki and Islamists, both of whom have to be kept happy.

A statement of assertion is one way of making oneself heard, but it is far better to create a controversy because then heated debate is sure to follow. So every time 26/11 is now mentioned, so will be Abu Jundal the “Indian”. The effectiveness of this ploy is Goebbelsian in a way. Mr Malik played it well and we fell for it. He gave us nothing and took away the triumph that 26/11 was a non-state conspiracy among malcontents from India, Pakistan and the US. With Ajmal Kasab dead, it is now the end of story, bar the shouting.
It was advantage Pakistan when we agreed that both India and Pakistan were victims of terrorism, forgetting that the only common factor was that both Pakistan and India were victims of Pakistani terrorism. This allows Pakistan to club the one-off Samjhauta Express with sustained terrorism from Pakistan. It was advantage Pakistan again when we agreed that terrorism would not affect bilateral talks. This has enabled Pakistan to talk of the alleged Indian involvement in Balochistan, deny that 26/11 was a Pakistan-sponsored attack and yet continue talks with India. More than anything else, the references Mr Malik made to various incidents in India, like the Babri Masjid demolition, reflects a certain mindset that exists in the ruling circles in Pakistan. He was definitely not batting on his own when fielding questions.

Our failure to anticipate the likely stance and behaviour of a government with whom relations have remained difficult is inexplicable. Mr Malik was representing Pakistan’s interests and not Indian interests and, by his book, he did it well, because we let him. Nevertheless, the anger and exasperation in India is justified and the only way to avoid such situations would be to stay away from insensitive neighbours as much as possible.

It may be worth recalling Pakistan foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s antics during the visit of external affairs minister S.M. Krishna to Islamabad in July 2010 and the controversial press conference. Or, earlier in February 2010, when the visiting Pakistan foreign secretary dismissed the Indian dossier as being so much literature. In 2001 many of us saw Pervez Musharraf speak to a select gathering of very senior members of the Indian media in what was quite clearly a press conference by subterfuge and a scoop by some standards. It did precious little to improve bilateral relations. Things soured soon after that in Agra. My column of March 24, 2009, in this paper, which was a commentary on what Mr Musharraf said at one of the media events in New Delhi in 2009 was appropriately headlined: “The general spoke here to be heard in Pakistan.” Pakistani politicians have often used India as a platform for anti-India statements to score points at home. Our fetish for correct behaviour as gracious hosts and polite guests leads us into these awkward situations at home and abroad.

Unless, as the Pakistanis will tell you, this is a typical devilishly clever Indian ploy to make Pakistan look the spoiler, but actually the Indians wanted to create this situation by using the media. You cannot win either way.

Source : Asian Age , 20th December 2012 , The writer is a former head of the Research and Analysis Wing, India’s external intelligence agency

It's the politics, stupid

We had record sales, we had record savings, we had record reinvestment back into our capital....” This is what Scott Lee, President and CEO of Walmart, flamboyantly told his audience of its employees or (associates), shareholders and stakeholders in a packed hall some years ago. Lee spoke about profit, and still more profit. The speech was a throwback to the classical principles of capitalism of maximising profits that Adam Smith enunciated in the eighteenth century. This is from a 2005 Robert Greenwell documentary and evocatively called “The High Cost of Low Prices.” This should be mandatory viewing by the rulers and ruled. The documentary highlights the poor wage and working conditions in the anti-union Walmart outlets. It is also about how FDI in China and Bangladesh has functioned which may be a truer indicator of what can happen in India.

A recent study in the US by the Manhattan Borough found that between 30 and 41 small retailers would be knocked out in the neighbourhood of a Walmart were it to open there. 60 others would similarly suffer the following year. This study is based on an earlier Chicago study in 2009 which had found that 25 per cent shops within a one-mile radius closed after a Walmart store opened in West Chicago. 40 per cent closed the following year. In addition, as the Robert Greenwell documentary found out, owners of small businesses in the smaller towns had to shut down and seek employment in Walmart at much lower remunerations. Today, discussion about FDI in retail has become a discussion about Walmart practices but there are other players also.

The recent debate in our parliament was an exhibition of caste politics, power and opportunism. It was not about a government of the people acting for the people and by the people but a government for some of the people by the few. Handouts promised just ahead of the vote ensured dramatised walk outs or votes in favour. Politicians were thus able to claim their continued opposition to FDI but also helped the government win the vote with their walk out. We must be naive if we accept this logic and it must be insulting if it assumed that we do not see through this charade.

We need increased FDI as our economy slows down. No one denies that. A measure of the success of our economic reforms is the amount of FDI that is flowing in. But we really need more FDI in infrastructure, technology, energy and power production and distribution, education, health, transport and communications and defence. We need assistance to give a boost to our declining capabilities in manufacturing activity, and we need investments in our agriculture sector where 70 per cent of our people live, mostly in abject poverty. FDI in multi brand retail is certainly not a priority for India.
Besides, FDI is not about just removing the middleman or about preserving 65 per cent of our perishable products in refrigerators and minimising wastage. If 70 per cent of the goods to be sold are allowed to be imported then in the case of Walmart, this would be imported from China who would then happily use the distribution system of Walmart in India, keep its factories running, while our neighbourhood kirana stores will shut down but what is more, small factories in India will close.
While we go headlong into FDI in retail, it is worth remembering that China opened 49 per cent of its retail to FDI in 2002, 24 years after the economic reforms kicked in and after its retail firms had grown sufficiently. In the US, Walmart draws maybe 90 per cent of its products from China. In China, it draws 95 per cent indigenously and supplied by about 15,000 suppliers. This is in complete contrast to what we are planning. Maybe, if there were regulations that such retailers who import products from outside would need to export a similar percentage and that the retailers would also bring in FDI for their capital investment, then there could be a way out.

Neither profits nor FDI are an unmitigated evil; only the excess of either can be devastating because everything has a price. A great deal depends on the sourcing of the products to be sold, the shop floor tactics of the management and the relationships the investor works out with his suppliers. In our country, the economic and social merits or otherwise of FDI in multi brand retail have been lost to electoral compulsions and political considerations.

Source : Mid Day , Mumbai , 13th December 2012, The writer is a former chief of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)

Afghanistan: The return of the warlords

So President Obama retains the White House and the power but the Party General Secretary Hu Jintao leaves his throne in March 2013. Nevertheless, the rest of the world is going to see continuity of foreign policy by the two strongest nations as they grapple for global control. The US elections, despite all the excitement here, were not about us.

They were about America and only America. This continuity, including the usual nuances, also means continuity in problems at home and abroad.

Iran and Syria, in fact the entire West Asia, loom large on the American screen and somehow, Afghanistan has to be taken off the list as another unhappy American story that is best forgotten. It can only be taken off the to-do- list if it can be described as a victory because even a stalemate for a superpower is tantamount to defeat.

 

The US had in fact minimised its chances of success the moment it began to concentrate on Iraq in 2002 without settling issues in Afghanistan. Thus at the best of times till Iraq was over, the US and NATO forces remained inadequate. The Taliban made a comeback and the liberators came to be seen as occupiers. It was also a mistake to force a form of governance on a conservative peasant society that had little understanding of democratic practices and that too with inadequate resources and time. This is particularly relevant when we remember that it took beheadings of monarchs, revolutions, civil wars and more than a hundred years to introduce democracies in the West in the backdrop of other earlier reformations, religious and secular. There has been no such thing in Afghanistan which has remained a tribal society with its own rules and practices of governance. Yet Barak Obama must leave a legacy of success in Afghanistan and midway through his second term, in 2014, this must happen. But there are several roadblocks along the way.

Nothing describes the limitations of military power in the present context than the reality that the US can no longer go it alone in Afghanistan. It could in the past intercede on its own but today extrication needs the cooperation of not only Pakistan but Iran, India, China and Russia. Pakistan has played a largely negative role in Afghanistan and has therefore acquired a larger than life profile as the chief spoiler.

There are seemingly insurmountable problems within Afghanistan. The Afghan National Security Forces may have expanded to be about 3,50,000 strong but they remain poor in training, equipment and morale. While the Army has been able to show some resilience, the Police are reputed to be corrupt and loyalties are suspect. The economy, dependent on external infusions of funds, is in a mess and there is just not enough money available to run the country.

The political, constitutional and executive institutions required to run the country are weak. Elections to the Presidency will coincide with the departure of the US and ISAF forces. This is adequate ground for continued instability. The Taliban may be ascendant in parts of Afghanistan bordering Pakistan but in a situation where Kabul is weak, ethnicity and regionalism will rule and a return to warlords and regional satraps is a distinct possibility.

The US, because of its own reservations about Iran has tried to ignore Iran's interest in ensuring that the next regime in Afghanistan is not Talibanised under the influence of Sunni Wahhabism. Apart from wanting to reassert itself in the near abroad, Putin's Russia remains worried about the flow of heroin from Afghanistan into Russia and of Wahhabi influences in Central Asia spreading through the Taliban. China waits in the wings as it sees greater opportunities in Afghanistan in a post 2014 phase as a resource base and as a means to access Iran through Afghanistan, make room for itself in Afghanistan and step into a vacuum in Iran where the US is not even present.

China and Pakistan could cooperate in Afghanistan but at some point Pakistan must decide whether its negative role and patronising attitude towards Afghanistan will actually win it any friends in that country. Pakistan needs to change its tactics instead of perpetually battling to keep India out.
India’s role in Afghanistan is set to increase in the time ahead as it would need to step in with infrastructure assistance and military and police training.

Source : Mid Day , 29th November 2012, Vikram Sood, Former RAW Chief

The cost for staying on; price for leaving

''It is difficult to be optimistic about Afghanistan's future and the effects this will have on its neighbours.''

It is a given fact that the US wants to leave Afghanistan in a substantial manner. This would be President Obama’s legacy about a war that he concluded. The announcement that the date of departure would be 2011, later changed to 2014, was an indication for the Taliban and its supporters, Pakistan, that this was going to be a war they would eventually win. All they had to do was to hang in there till the US left. The announcement had also left those involved in the task of keeping Afghanistan secure with considerable misgivings about the future.

The question is what will it cost Afghanistan to be on its own, both in terms of financial dependence, political stability, military freedom and internal security. Can it sustain itself in all these aspects. Secondly, what will be the price we - the free world - have to pay for this event which will inevitably be described as victory by some and defeat by others.
All four issues of internal security, political and military independence and economic development are interlinked, especially in Afghanistan as it has remained dependent on external sources in all aspects.

One of the foremost requirements for any government in Kabul post-2014 is going to be its ability to ensure internal peace and cohesion, maintenance of law and order and safe borders. The most important aspect of this will be the efficacy and reach of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) comprising the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan National Police (ANP). It is not just the numerical strength and the quality of manpower and equipment that will determine the ability of the ANSF to function effectively. It will be the financial resources to maintain these forces and their training. The second issue will be the attitude of the Pakistan government, especially in areas across Paktika, Paktia and Khost provinces that border the FATA region where the Haqqani Network has been most effective.

Numerically, the ANSF was said to be around 3,52,000 strong by October 2012 of which the ANA numbered 1,95,000 and the ANP 1,57,000. Numbers look impressive but the more important issue is how much and who will pay for these forces. The Chicago Summit of May 2012 had envisaged a provision of US $4.1 billion for a force of 2,28,500. If one takes into account that the essential budget of the Afghan government is barely US $2.75 billion, there is obviously a huge resource crunch.

Critics sceptic

There is another doubt and that relates to the discipline and training. Although NATO sources portray the ANSF has having attained acceptable standards of performance, other critics doubt this claim. Rapid expansion of the force has meant a decline in the standards of training and yardsticks for recruitment. In addition, recruitment has also been on a regional and ethnic pattern and there have been reports of what is now called ‘green over blue attacks’ where Afghan soldiers and policemen have attacked members of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The state of the ANP is even worse as it is considered to be indisciplined and corrupt and faces infiltration and desertions.
The political scene does not give much comfort either. The handover of Afghanistan to the Afghans in 2014 will be at a time when Presidential elections would be due. One of the problems has been that there has been inadequate effort to help build political institutions in the short time available where strong regional ethnic interests dominate. Afghanistan just does not have state institutions, a developed civil society and a civil service, that will ensure legitimacy of the government once fresh elections are held.

US attempts to talk to the Taliban representatives from a position of strength have mostly been prevented by Pakistan’s recalcitrance and duplicity. Back home in America, and Europe there is declining interest and increasing exhaustion about Afghanistan, which means there is declining financial commitment to the country. The Tokyo summit of July 2012 committed only US $16 billion up to 2016, whereas Afghanistan needs about US $10 billion a year for ten years from 2014.

India’s role

Almost inevitably, Afghanistan will see a greater Indian involvement in developmental fields and skills training (including the ANSF) in the years ahead. A greater Chinese presence is already visible and Pakistan may hitch itself more closely to China in furthering its interests in Afghanistan. Iran would remain an interested player. But then there is nothing clear and in black and white in Afghanistan. Should things go wrong in Kabul and political fortunes swing, one could see a reversal to the ethnic and regional warlord days and chaos. This in turn could mean a strengthening of the Taliban hold in the Pushtun belt.

Source : Deccan Herald , 25th November 2012 , The writer, former chief of India’s external intelligence service, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)

First things first

There are no two opinions about the need and desirability of peace between India and Pakistan. It is the attainment of this that is the problem. Different panels, groups and Track 2s and Track 3s have, over the years, discussed all that can be done to lead to peace and normalcy. But nothing substantial has emerged from such endless talks at various venues.

Invariably, the Siachen Glacier issue is cited as the one that is urgent, resolvable and doable as an important confidence building measure (CBM). If the two countries could unlock this then there would be a cascading effect on the relationship. The issue seems to have been discussed recently at one of the think-tank meetings where the main participants were from the armed forces of the two countries. A series of meetings had earlier been organised by the Atlantic Council of the US and the University of Ottawa. There are two documents doing the rounds. One on India-Pakistan Military CBMs and the other called the Siachen Proposals.

The documents read like an official agreement on India-Pakistan Military CBMs. True, there has been some forward movement and the list appears impressive as it discusses various military issues. But Saltoro is more than just a military issue. It is a strategic issue that involves various other matters. Here is why.

Earlier, in an article in this newspaper titled The Height of Folly on May 11, 2006, I had begun by saying “The story doing the rounds in Delhi is that in another exhibition of generosity, India is about to withdraw from the Saltoro Ridge (commonly referred to as the Siachen Glacier) in the interest of peace but without securing the country’s strategic interests.” One fears something similar is in the air once again.

There are some important questions we need to ask ourselves. Is the Saltoro Ridge not important in the context of a China-Pakistan collusion north of the Line of Control (LoC) and into the Karakoram Pass? If the Saltoro Ridge is part of territory that belongs to us as defined by the agreement that states the Cease-Fire Line (now LoC) runs north towards the glacier from point NJ9842, then what are we negotiating with Pakistan? Are we negotiating to demilitarise what is in our territory? Is this part of a general CBM to Pakistan? If so, what is it that Pakistan has done to give us comfort on terror, counterfeit currency and on handing over wanted terrorists? Where is the evidence of Pakistani goodwill and resolve on other issues? If the answer to the first three questions is yes and the remaining three is negative, then we have a problem.

As usual, the Indian side seems more willing to concede ground than the Pakistanis. This is because the Indian psyche seems to feel that adhering to the official position is following a hard line and there is need for independent approaches. Therefore, so goes this logic, there is need to be more accommodating to the Pakistani positions. While discussing the Military CBMs it is mentioned that there was an agreement on joint patrolling and non-opening of new posts. This is wonderful news, but what about the tunnels that might have been dug under the border fence? We discovered one, which does not mean there are not others along our long border or on the LoC.

As for Pakistani CBMs for India are concerned, trade concessions or visa concessions are not CBMs. This is being done by Pakistan for itself. There is a problem in granting India transit rights to Afghanistan or with the Urdu nomenclature of most-favoured nation (MFN).

The main CBM that India needs is with regard to terrorism. There has never been any forward movement on this. There has not been any move to even acknowledge the presence of Dawood Ibrahim whose daughter is married to the son of one of Pakistan’s most famous cricketers, Javed Miandad. Or Masood Azhar or any of those involved in the 26/11 Mumbai terror carnage. This, along with the issue of counterfeit currency emanating from Pakistan, was raised by one of the Indian participants, Mohan Guruswamy at one of the previous sittings. One understands that even the Indian contingent gave only half-hearted support to this demand. The irony is that we are preparing grounds for a climb down just four years after Mumbai 26/11 without any satisfaction on this issue.

The reference to the need to exchange advance intelligence and report movement of or sharing information on cross-border movement, sharing databases and so on are naive at best. Pakistan and India do not even agree on what is terrorism and who is a terrorist. Pakistan equates itself or has been allowed to equate itself with India as a victim of terrorism slurring over the reality that Pakistan is a victim of its own terrorism and India has been a victim of Pakistani terrorism.

Military CBMs may be essential but they cannot be the final word. There has to be strategic salience that encompasses the entire issue. The wording of the Siachen proposal is flawed when it describes Siachen as a “dispute”, and adds in bold italics “notwithstanding the claims of each country” and both sides agree to “withdraw from the conflict area while retaining the option of punitive action should the other side renege”.... Thus, we now have an acceptance that it is a dispute, a conflict zone and that each side can take punitive action. It is now a matter of time when this document will become the basis of future negotiations and mark our climbdown from these strategic heights.

Saltoro is strategically important for us and we need to put it on the table last after we have received satisfaction on vital security interests like terrorism. Exhibitions of intent rather than declaration of intent is needed.

Source : Hindustan Times , 20th November 2012,Vikram Sood is former Secretary, Research & Analysis Wing

Misfortunes of Pakistan

Neither knows exactly what the other country thinks of itself, except for the stereotypes carefully cultivated over time and which assumes doctrinaire certitude

The murderous attack on the young Malala Yousafzai by the Taliban continues to be the subject of anguished debate in Pakistan and a cause celebre globally with Hollywood also pitching in. She “trends” on Twitter and is all over on Facebook and YouTube.

We may haughtily describe the Taliban as obscurantist thugs to assuage our anger and frustration but the fact is that their writ does seem to run in north-west Pakistan while their influence within political circles and in other parts of Pakistan is palpable.

No political party, except the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM), named the Taliban for this attack and even Pakistan Army Chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani only condemned the act. The perpetrators have, however, arrogantly described the attack justified but unfinished. This kind of debate in Pakistan has its origins in the slogan of Pakistan’s leaders — political, military and religious — where they equated criticism of Pakistan with criticism of Islam and vice versa. Mixing of loyalty to religion as being the same as loyalty to the nation became the problem.

Pakistani leaders have for long blamed outside forces for their problems of endemic violence, arguing that no Muslim would kill another Muslim. At first it used to be (primarily Hindu) India but now it includes Christian Americans and Jewish Israelis. Unfortunately, having fed this formula to the population, it is difficult to now argue that the attack on Malala had been carried out by a Pakistani group and was not part of an international conspiracy against Pakistan. There is no leader in Pakistan who will stand up and support those who see the dangers of a gathering storm. And that has been Pakistan’s misfortune — that Right-thinking Pakistanis never had the leaders who would lead. Instead, there were those who taught hatred even in mainstream schools. In one Talibanesque swoop, the elitist Lahore University of Management Sciences sacked Dr Pervez Hoodhboy because he was a strident critic of both the fundamentalists and the Army. This is almost like shooting at Malala for her opinions.

Discerning Pakistanis assess that no political party wishes to implicate or accuse the Taliban at this juncture with elections round the corner. This may be out of political expediency but is even more unfortunate if it is out of conviction. This means that there is an assessment that the Taliban and their mindset matter in the elections even if the Taliban themselves may not contest elections as they are not sanctified by the Shariah. The natural corollary to this is that, unless effectively countered and neutralised, the Taliban will gain in strength, reach and influence with every search for democracy.
Recent observations on TV by Pakistan’s aspiring Prime Minister, Imran Khan, on the Hamid Mir show, represent this dangerous equivocation. As an Indian I would worry about his reluctance to say, despite being asked repeatedly, that it is wrong for Pakistanis to go across into Afghanistan for jihad. Transferred to the Indian context, it means that he would approve activities of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba in India assessed by many as the biggest terrorist threat to India. This is the mindset of someone who is described as an emancipated liberal.

Extremists develop their own momentum, they begin to feed upon themselves and their kind and ultimately devour those that nursed and fed them. When good men and women keep quiet, bullies win. Pakistan may not be the only country to suffer thus; we in India have our own demons to contend with but there is no official sanction for religious discrimination. This India-Pakistan story line of suspicion and hostility sharpened with time, wars ensued and stereotypes were established. “To see ourselves as others see us is a rare and valuable gift, without a doubt. But in international relations what is still rarer and far more useful is to see others as they see themselves,” said the French historian Jacques Barzun. This is where both India and Pakistan have a problem, neither knows exactly what the other country thinks of itself, except for the stereotypes carefully cultivated over time and which assumes doctrinaire certitude.
Malala’s case is not the first of this kind nor unfortunately the last. Some in Pakistan worry that this will be forgotten but this violence will be repeated. No one now talks about Dr Shazia Khaled, Mukhtaran Mai or Rinkle Kumari any longer. Meanwhile, the Baloch highlight government atrocities and enforced disappearances as their province burns; Shias are victims of Sunni hostility across Pakistan, while Ahmediyas are routinely discriminated against as apostates.

The West did not pay much attention to Rimsha Masih, the Christian teenager from Punjab, when she was hounded on charges of blasphemy, perhaps not wanting to make it appear to be a Christian-Islam religious issue. Malala Yousafzai, on the other hand, epitomises a young Pashtun girl’s defiance of Taliban diktat and possibly aroused hopes of an Arab Spring in Pakistan. The enthusiasm in the West and in parts of Pakistan is understandable but one should realistically be prepared for disappointment. Overeagerness to own and adopt causes may actually prove to be counterproductive. In the present context, the Taliban and their apologists are portraying this as an affirmation of their charge that Malala was an anti-Islamic American agent and justify their decision to press for the installation of their system in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The ideology that has been allowed to spread out from the Pashtun belts has become strong in southern Punjab and parts of Sindh. The malaise has spread wider than many in Pakistan wish to accept. External pressures and influences may help in a limited way but it is ultimately up to the Pakistani people themselves and their leaders to decide what kind of a future they want for themselves, their children and how they wish to be seen by the comity of nations.

Until then, Pakistan’s neighbours will worry but will also hope to applaud.

Source : Asian Age , 26th October 2012, The writer is a former head of the Research and Analysis Wing

Ind-Pak -- Much ado about nothing, again

External Affairs Minister SM Krishna is back after a three day visit to Pakistan along with his entourage including a 70-strong media team. One would have expected a mega media event but apart from the liberalised visa agreement what we got was lengthy speeches and interviews with Pakistan Foreign Minister Khar. Reading these reports or watching/hearing her, one came away with mixed impressions. Was Ms Khar being insensitive, patronising or making it a convenience?

Insensitive, when she advised us to forget incidents like November 2008 and ‘move on’. The past need not be a millstone but surely history’s milestones teach both nations a great deal. In her speech at the Press Conference the loquacious Khar said not a word on terrorism much less 26/11. By stressing instead on the doable she was telling us there will be no joy on these issues. To now say that the younger generations do not carry the ‘baggage of history’ is typical salon talk. There are thousands of bereaved Indian families who lost their young to terrorism in wars thrust upon us. We owe it to these families to show that their sacrifices were for a cause to secure our nation and will not be beguiled into a false peace.

No breakthrough: Indian Foreign Minister S M Krishna shakes hand with his Pakistani counterpart Hina Rabbani Khar during a meeting in Islamabad last week. Pic/AFP 

Patronising when she said Pakistan would take the lead in the peace effort forgetting that it was Pakistan that led the war by all means all these years. It was amusing to hear the Pakistan Foreign Minister claim that Pakistan’s politicians would now lead India to neighbourly peace. This could not be left to unimaginative bureaucrats and in Pakistan’s case, the powerful military bureaucracy. Yet, in Pakistan, open and liberal minds have spoken of a thousand year war, of a thousand cuts and the determination to eat grass, or provocative calls for Azadi at the LOC. How many remember that the Taliban that threatens Pakistan Army was born during the second term of Benazir Bhutto. It was Zulfiqar Bhutto who opened the doors to Islamic fundamentalists when he declared Ahmediyas to be non-Muslims. Later, Zia-ul-Haq led the Pakistani people down this slippery regressive path and efficiently Islamised the Pakistan Army — the country’s core and mindset.

Or was FM Khar merely making a virtue of necessity, a convenience, while talking of peace beleaguered as her country is currently in all sorts of turmoil and needs a few moments of breathing time before reverting to old habits.

Pakistan has spent its entire existence either trying to be India’s equal or trying to reduce India. Now unsuccessful, it turns the argument around and urges that as the bigger neighbour India ought to be more generous. Statecraft is not a TV soap opera. It is about preserving or enhancing national interests. Acrimony and hostilities are debilitating for any country. It is here Pakistan has to take the lead by showing that it means what it says and is not merely playing for time. A mere declaration of intent is not enough. There has to be a demonstration of intent. How about a demonstration that Pakistan does not support any form of terror and then proceeds to round up all those terrorists, knock off their training camps, cut off their finances, shut down their propaganda outfits including those on the Internet?

Hina Khar was not even willing to condemn Hafiz Saeed or his policies of jihad and violence beyond saying that the government had nothing to do with his policies or his ilk. These are obviously domestic compulsions as indicative of extreme radical reactions to the assassination of Punjab Governor or the blasphemy charges against a sub-teen girl and the government’s timid reactions. Pakistan had privatised jihad decades ago which provided some deniability. Rehman Malik now says the Pakistan government is unable to control the terrorists operating in his country. Is that a confession or a threat that terrorist acts could continue in India ?
Pakistan has been duplicitous with the US, its main benefactor, on the War on Terror, so there is enough reason to assume that Pakistan will be even more so with its declared arch enemy, India. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the world cheered Gorbachev. But the West did not wind down NATO. Instead it expanded. The moral is that nations may forgive but they must not forget. Let our enthusiasm for peace be tinged with a heavy dose of realism. When dealing with Pakistan, the dictum should be verify and then trust and not trust but verify.

Source : Mid Day , Mumbai, 13th September 2012.

Social media -- Liberty of man at what price?

Let us face reality. In the real world there is no such thing as complete unfettered freedom of speech. My liberty is restricted by the other man’s liberty and sensitivities. Similarly, I cannot (although it happens in India all the time) play my 2000 watt music system at full volume just because I have one, start my prayers on the loudspeaker at the crack of dawn when most of the rest are enjoying their last hours of blissful sleep, block the road for my daughter’s wedding and disrupt traffic or drive on both sides of the road.

Article 19(2) of our Constitution places some caveats to this freedom, including for reasons of morality, decency, incitement to offence, defamations and the expected reason security and sovereignty of the state. These constitutional provisions and exceptions were made when there was no Internet that is controlled in areas outside the sovereign control of any country, except in those where the servers are located. Besides, the communications revolution transcends boundaries and has not yet discovered its ultimate frontier.

Wrong call: Instead of blocking the Jihad Watch site, Indian intelligence should be watching sites like Jamat ud Da’wah, the ideological mentor of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba

If the information highway had the width of a narrow mountain trail a few decades ago where we moved at the pace set by the mule, today in comparison the highway is more than five kilometres wide and growing, with information exchanged in microseconds and also growing. As before, terrorists, criminals and other malcontents have misused all facilities the society has provided. The trick then is to prevent misuse of the highway, not just blocking it for everyone. That is retrograde.

The use of Internet, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other sites by Pakistani anti-Indian and jihadi organisations is well known. Jamat ud Dawah, the ideological mentor of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba has its own website and a Twitter account and uses YouTube to propagate its radical ideology. The Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, the military arm of the rabid Sunni organisation, Sipah-e-Sahaba renamed Ahlesunnat Wal Jamaat also has a Facebook account and several Twitter accounts with a strong anti-Jewish, anti-Christian and anti-Hindu content. These, and a host of similar other accounts and sites are the kind that Indian intelligence should be watching instead of blocking sites like Jihad Watch considered to be a counter jihad movement and especially after the experience of Tahrir Square.

It is ironic that India is now being hectored on the issue of freedoms whereas we know that US citizens are covered by one of the world’s most extensive surveillance programmes today. There is an old motto of the National Security Agency of the US — the world’s largest surveillance agency for its Interception staff, “In God we trust, the rest we monitor.” This dates back to the Cold War much before the Global War on Terror.

Post September 2001, US intelligence agencies as part of what was initially called Total Information Awareness, outsourced 70 per cent of its activities of its US $ 70 billion budget. Consequently, private corporations like Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin, SAIC, CACI International who became partners with the CIA, NSA and Pentagon for the most sensitive foreign and domestic intelligence operations. By 2006, the NSA was looking at mass harvesting of information on social networks on the Internet.

There are protests but surveillance has to be an accepted fact of life. It also means that this capacity to eavesdrop cannot be unfettered either. The US Department of Homeland Security creates fake Twitter and Facebook accounts to scan social media networks and blogs by using key words and then tracking people through this. The FBI has also been pushing for a more intensive monitoring of Internet traffic. The former head of the British GCHQ, equivalent but much older than our NTRO, Sir David Ormand had, in April this year, recommended that social media sites be covered strictly.

This, however, is not to justify the gaucheries of the recent past when a panicky government over reacted to curb genuine civil dissent. A democracy must allow freedom of speech which must include satire and strident criticism, for this is one of the most essential ingredients of democracy. The rulers must know what the people are saying and what bothers them the most. This is a far better open source intelligence and a better yardstick than any other intelligence output on the mood of the people. We thus need to have the facility to keep a watch and separate the genuine critic and dissenter from the terrorist or agent provocateur.
In the end, ‘what price liberty of man’ remains the most difficult question.

Source : Mid Day , Mumbai , 30th August 2012, Vikram Sood , Vice President ORF Centre for International Relations.

Oh what a tangled web we weave

He was influential in the highest circles of power globally, master of intrigue, trusted by his King yet his name figured in dubious arms deals. He was phenomenally rich and travelled in a 75 million dollar Boeing 737 gifted to him by the BAe as part payback for the forty billion dollar Al Yamamah arms deal with the BAe in 1985. He was his country’s Ambassador in the US from 1983 to 2005. After that, he maintained a low profile till the onset of the Arab Spring in 2011. Gifted in arranging covert deals it is suspected that he was involved in negotiating the purchase of nuclear missiles from Pakistan. Meet Bandar Bush aka Bandar bin Sultan Al-Saud. The famous photo that showed his closeness to George H Bush with a jeans clad Bandar seated on the arm of a sofa chatting to the President says it all. It was Bandar who had helped convince Reagan to aid the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s.

Close ties: Condoleezza Rice talks with Bandar bin Sultan Al-Saud, as former US President George W Bush embraces present Saudi King Abdullah at his Texas ranch in 2005. File Pic

According to Craig Unger (House of Bush, House of Saud), it was Bandar’s influence on the Bush administration that ensured that all Saudi notables, including many from the bin Laden family, were successfully airlifted out of the US two days after the September 11 terrorist attacks. This was done despite a total ban on all flights in US airspace. Almost an eminence grise to successive Saudi kings, Prince Bandar was also mortal and on July 26 he disappeared, believed killed, barely a week after he was appointed chief of Saudi intelligence. The unintended consequences of unacknowledged actions.

The Saudis had made use of the intense hatred and fear the Americans have for the Hizbollah to launch into Syria. The Syrians had long suspected Bandar of aiding the Al Qaeda in Syria and earlier in the Lebanon. What must have stunned the Saudi government into silence was not just that Bandar was killed but that the Syrians had the reach to strike deep in Saudi Arabia.

The Arab Spring, which has had mixed results in the Arab world, has not bloomed in Syria and all that has has happened is that a lot of blood has been spilt. What we have instead, are endless threats from the West, Chinese and Russian determination to continue to support Syria, and doggedness from Bashar al Assad. The entire movement threatens to degenerate into a Shia-Sunni struggle for supremacy with the trophy actually being Iran, always seen by the neighbouring Sunni regimes as a threat to themselves. While the Syrian opposition to Assad gets equipped, armed and assisted in propaganda by a friendly West, various intelligence agencies have been playing their own shadowy games. Videos depicting violence in gruesome detail are in circulation via Beirut which will provide ammunition for a full blown civil war in the country.
Inevitably it becomes necessary to involve intelligence agencies when there is a lot of dangerous and dirty work to be done, there being no such thing as a clean war. The ubiquitous CIA and the much feared Mossad are said to be involved in Syria. The German intelligence, BND was perhaps the first to attribute bombings in Syria to Al Qaeda. The SIS (MI 6) of the UK has recently emphasised the importance of covert operations in Iran especially in the context of Iran’s nuclear programme. Egyptians have been carrying out their own battles in the Sinai against what is feared to be Al Qaeda terrorists; and, the KGB’s successor, the FIS is present in Syria and the only agency that one does not hear of is the Chinese.

The US having gone into Iraq with misplaced intentions found the regional rival, Iran on the ascendent by the time the US declared victory in 2009. This had to be rectified. Seymour Hersh, the well known investigative journalist had also said the then Secretary of State made it quite apparent that the US would support the Sunnis against the Shias in any struggle. In the games being played there is a real possibility that future conflict in the region will increasingly acquire a sectarian character with the Shias arraigned against the Sunni majority. It is not clear yet if the map of the region is being attempted to be redrawn on ethnic or religious lines or both.

Source : Mid Day , 16th August 2012, Vikram Sood , Vice President , ORF Centre for International Relations,

Let's think smart

Today is the 37th death anniversary of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Bangladesh's first president. His assassination by army officers in 1975 was followed by years of dictatorial military rule till 1991 when elections took place. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), a creation of General Zia-ul-Rahman, won the elections that year. But it was only two decades later that India had a friendly government in Dhaka when the Awami League (AL) led by Sheikh Mujibur's daughter, Sheikh Hasina, won in 1996.


For Bangladesh, 2013 is crucial - it goes in for elections when Sheikh Hasina's current (and second) term ends. The two main parties, the ruling AL and its rival the BNP (led by Begum Khaleda Zia) have begun jockeying for position. The fate of this bitter rivalry will determine Bangladesh's future and will also have a bearing the country's relationship with India.

The race to the top will be a close one. Since 1991, the BNP and AL have alternated in power, but the important thing is that the two had won roughly the same percentage of votes till the 2008 elections: the AL collected 49.2 % of the votes for its 230 seats while the BNP had 32.7% for its 30 seats. Can the AL repeat its victory? If so, what does it have to do retain its hold and what should the opposition do to defeat the AL? The answers will probably become clearer in the next few months.

There are several crucial issues that Sheikh Hasina will have to fix before the elections and India will be concerned about the course of events there. The India-Bangladesh relation is somewhat like the India-US relations - despite all ingredients, the full potential for a close relationship has not been realised.

One of the issues that need a closer watch - and which may cause problems - is the progress of the war crime trials on the atrocities committed during the 1971 War of Liberation. So far, the tribunal has indicted seven prominent leaders of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) and two who had later joined the BNP. The nine have more than 100 charges against them. It will be a difficult task for the Sheikh Hasina government to bring about a closure before the next elections. Already the BNP has begun its belligerent protests against these trials.

Both the BNP and the JeI have dismissed the proceedings of the International Crimes Tribunal as a mockery and in June, the BNP acting secretary general threatened that the party would not contest the next elections if it is not held under a caretaker government, an arrangement that the AL has done away with. Obviously, the BNP-JeI gameplan is to ensure that the proceedings are delayed till the elections.

Sheikh Hasina has shown courage and determination to come down heavily on terrorists and has launched these long-delayed trials. With elections approaching, the issue has begun to transform into a bipartisan struggle between the AL and the BNP. Sheikh Hasina has had to battle the distorted history crafted by the army-led government and the two BNP governments. School textbooks removed all references to the war crimes and collaborations, and resorted to vague generalities about the killings and rapes up to December 1971.

A 1981 United Nations Human Rights Commission report had described the genocide in Bangladesh as the worst in history with at least 1.5 million people killed in 267 days of carnage. Other estimates say there were 3 million deaths and 200,000 women were raped. The JeI will undoubtedly appeal to its religious ideological base and allege that the government is using the trials as a means to suppress the JeI politically.

It was during the second term of Khaleda Zia that many Islamic radical groups joined forces (including the JeI and the Islamic Chhatra Shibir) and this cross-fertilisation among the groups eventually led to massive bombings on August 15, 2005, when 500 bombs exploded simultaneously in 50 cities of Bangladesh. Although the group was banned and its leaders convicted and executed, followers of organisations like Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh and Jamaat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh still exist and the JeI would want to make use of them for its agenda. There is an apprehension that should the BNP-JeI combine regain power, this may be the last election in a long time in Bangladesh.

Sheikh Hasina has had her share of problems with the army too - there was a revolt in the ranks earlier this year. Although successfully foiled, there has been growing resentment within the army about the government's policies on fundamentalism and India, the growing influence of radical organisations like the Hizb-ut Tahrir and dissidence within the army.

Some recent developments also do not help Sheikh Hasina's cause: the Teesta water sharing agreement has not taken off and if New Delhi keeps succumbing to Kolkata's pressures, it may never come through. This failure will be exploited by the opposition. The Indian government has to be more assertive as the gains to India would also be immense.

The World Bank's abrupt withdrawal from the $2.9 billion Padma Multipurpose Bridge, a major infrastructure project that would connect south-western Bangladesh to the rest of the country, was a setback to Sheikh Hasina. While India dithered, the Chinese were off the mark quickly and offered to finance the construction; indecisions like these and the Teesta waters issue often lead to the comment: "India promises, China delivers."

As a neighbour, India would remain keenly interested in developments in Bangladesh. India should be innovative and more proactive. Otherwise, a slide into right-wing religious fundamentalism in Bangladesh will be dangerous for India.

Source : Hindustan Times, 14th August 2012, Vikram Sood , Vice President ORF centre for International Relations .

A clash of the titans

The US-led war against Iraq in 2003 was never really about Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons programme or the presence of al-Qaeda in that country. It was about gaining control over Iraq's oil. As the US planned to pull out, ExxonMobil, an American multinational oil and gas corporation, moved into Iraq and eventually won the contract to exploit the West Qurna oil field in 2009. The firm owned some of the best oil fields after World War II, before being thrown out by Hussein in 1972. The firm has now bid for oil exploration in Afghanistan just about the time when the US is planning to pull out of the country.

For some of us, it might escape notice that ExxonMobil represents American power as much as the Pentagon and Centcom do. The company's annual revenues are larger than the economy of a large number of countries and wherever it operates, it exerts influence over the politics and security of those countries.
Given the need for natural resources and access to oil and gas, areas of the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf along with the continental and sea routes through the Indian Ocean up to East China have become extremely vital for continued global economic development. For the foreseeable future, till the discovery and mass usage of alternative sources of energy, the nation which controls these areas, largely controls the world. National strategies, global politics and power are thus tied with oil as a commodity.

But this time round, ExxonMobil has competitors in Afghanistan apart from Chevron. The Chinese Metallurgical Group Corporation was awarded a 30-year-old, $3-billion contract in the Anyak copper mines in 2007. The Steel Authority of India Limited (Sail) has won a $10 billion bid for investment in iron ore and Pakistan Petroleum and India's Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) are now bidding for six exploratory blocks varying from 1,220 to 2,200 square miles north of Mazar-e-Sharif. There are other contenders also but it is suspected that the Chinese have withdrawn in favour of the Pakistani bid. The blocks are estimated to contain a billion barrels of oil. Besides, India is also the largest donor of aid to Afghanistan ahead of Japan and the US.

Afghanistan has become an investment-cum-exploration destination only recently, but the Chinese have been active there for nearly a decade. Despite the efforts made in the last 17 years, Steve Levine, author of The Oil and the Glory, writes that the West has been unable to access the oil and gas fields of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. On the other hand, the Chinese were able to get a deal for an on-shore natural gas field in Turkmenistan in 2006 and build a 1,700 km pipeline into China by 2009.

The Americans have talked of a grand plan with Afghanistan as the hub connecting it by road, rail, pipelines and electricity grids to the Arabian Sea and India, but the Chinese already have their version of the new Silk Road connecting western China to Europe via Central Asia. This would exclude the US from the scheme of things. The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (Tapi) pipeline, driven by American interests to keep Russia, China and Iran out of the equation, while controlling the distribution of resources, is a non-starter. It is difficult to realistically visualise a pipeline that goes through Afghanistan and Balochistan. The ONGC and China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) signed an agreement in June for joint exploration in the Sudan, Myanmar and Syria, something that is viewed with scepticism. This shows just how intricate the world has become. Meanwhile, the southern route from Kunming, Yunnan to Kohima via Mandalay is something that could be considered by strategic planners.

China has taken advantage of the earlier US retreat or disinterest in Africa following its preoccupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and moved in there in strength. It has long-term interests in the Indian Ocean Region. Eventually, China will build a strong enough navy to be present in the region.

The strategy evolved in the past by former American vice-president Dick Cheney stressed on increased domestic production, controlling the oil and gas flow from the Persian Gulf, dominating the sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to the East China Sea, and ensuring Europe reduces its energy dependence on Russia. US President Barack Obama has followed this policy. Libya was more about its oil resources for Europe. The Arab Spring was collateral profit.

We have to always remember that we have an unsettled border with China, a country that has encouraged Pakistan to become nuclear and challenge our conventional superiority. Indian strategists have to keep in mind the possibility of a two-front military situation one of which may be conventional and the other sub-conventional with a perennially recalcitrant Pakistan with its jihadi brigades and China armed to the teeth in Tibet. We need to tie up with the US and South East Asia, including Japan and Australia, for the security of the Indian Ocean. India would need Iran for undersea gas pipelines and road and rail connections from Iran into Central Asia via Mashad for access to Afghanistan as well and these are our abiding interests. Relations with the Central Asian Republics and above all Russia have to be maintained. India must continue to strengthen its own naval and air strike capability for an effective deterrent and retaliation. Only when a nation has capacities can it have capabilities.

The clash of the titans is inevitable in our region and staying aloof may no longer be a viable option. We will have to manage all these contradictions in our interests.

Source : Hindustan Times , 2nd August 2012, Vice President , ORF Center for International Relations .

How many more Kokrajhars?

The seeds of violence in Kokrajhar were sown decades ago. Years of political perfidy, bureaucratic apathy and national neglect led to the present tension and violence, which is a repeat of earlier such incidents. Illegal immigration first from East Pakistan and then from Bangladesh has been the cause. Throughout these years, the politician, interested in his vote banks, had little time for national interests as he played his games, the civil servant played truant and the men guarding the borders found this game lucrative. Over time, the rights of the illegal migrant became equal to the rights of the local. Let us not obscure this basic fact.

Besides, the North East is somewhere remote for those in Mumbai and New Delhi; Guwahati the main city of the North East is 1,930 kilometres away from the national capital and 2,740 km from the commercial capital. The road from Guwahati to Kolkata is 1,003 km long just 125 km shorter than the road to Kunming, Yunnan. Many here in Delhi still look vaguely at a person from the region and wonder if he or she is an Indian. We also do not realise that the problem in the Valley of Kashmir is far less intricate than the one in the North East. We do not adequately realise in our public discourse the importance and the richness of the entire north east and therefore the need to work it into an economic infrastructure grid with the rest of India and Myanmar. Distance lends enchantment, it also creates indifference.

Not again: Bodo tribals flee their village and make their way to a camp, as paramilitary soldiers walk past in Gambaribil village, Kokrajhar district, Assam. Pic/AFP

Seething with rage at New Delhi's sustained apathy, the north east went up in flames in 1979 once the talks with the All Assam Students Union and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad collapsed. The secessionist ULFA and the BDLF resorted to armed rebellion, demanding the repatriation of illegal migrants. Others in other states followed in the pursuit of their grievances.

Insurgent organisations mushroomed encouraged by the Khaleda Zia government and its ally the Jamat-e-Islami. Sanctuaries in Bangladesh, financial assistance, weapons and training were provided and insurgency itself became a lucrative profession in the north east.

Terrorism watch portals like the South Asia Terrorism Portal of the Institute of Conflict Management have listed as many as 36 terror organisations in Assam, (many may have become defunct or were merely front organisations), there were 39 in Manipur, 30 in Tripura while a far fewer number in Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Mizoram. Most of us do not realise that the problem in the north east is far more serious and intricate than we care to believe. Bangladeshi immigrants have established their own organisations like the Muslim United Liberation Front and others, in retaliation to the ULFA and other forces like BTF.

The controversial IMTD Act took 22 years to be overthrown by the Supreme Court in 2005, by which time enough damage had been done to the socio-economic and political landscapes. Local leaders now seeking vote banks have converted immigration into a Hindu-Muslim issue whereas this is a local-immigrant problem. This includes other immigrants too. This just cannot be sidestepped or swept under the carpet forever.

We also need to have mutually cordial relations with Bangladesh to succeed in our efforts to control immigration. Today we have a government in Bangladesh which has co-operated in tackling our security related issues. There is no guarantee that Sheikh Hasina will retain power in the next election. The known alternative is unlikely to be too friendly to India, if not hostile. India’s interest lies in securing the peace in our north east, encouraging Bangladesh to continue to cooperate with us. In order to succeed we need to give some adequate quid pro quo, whether in the form of a Teesta Water treaty, economic and financial assistance which encourages Bangladesh’s manufacturing and trading capacities which in turn discourages search for livelihood in India. There has to be waiver of tariffs and duties of all kinds while ensuring regulated entry.

At all times, the state must have the ability to react quickly to situations, something that is always lacking. For this we must ensure adequate systems that identify illegal immigrants for repatriation while fresh immigration is prevented. Work permits are for the future not for the past. All this needs is political will, strong borders and bureaucratic determination. Otherwise we will continue to have more Kokrajhars.

Source : Mid Day , 2nd August 2012 , Vikram Sood , Vice President , ORF centre for International Relations.

Battle Zones in Pakistan

The Zardari Government continues to be involved in a long running feud with the Judiciary led by the Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry. It is a battle of more than just egos but also a battle for survival for the President as the Chief Justice continues his relentless campaign.

So far the Executive has tried to ward off attacks from the judiciary through legislative enactments that seek to provide legal immunity to the President.

The zealous Chief Justice has expanded his campaign to target the mighty ISI on the issue of missing Baloch nationalists. Maybe he is opening too many fronts but time will determine this.

This might be fool hardy considering that he would surely have weakened after his son Arsalan got involved with some malpractices and allegations of blackmail. The Chief Justice is also being seen to be pro-Nawaz Sharif i.e. pro-Punjabi and pro-PML(N) and anti-Zardari therefore anti-PPP and anti-Sindh.

Violence has Many Excuses

Elsewhere in the country there seem to be several little bloody wars being raged, some connected with each other and some autonomous.

In Balochistan, Baloch nationalists continue their struggle against Islamabad, which is no longer merely a nationalist struggle but has now become complicated with layers of both sectarian and ethnic killings. Punjabi Shia pilgrims, on their way to Iran are routinely killed in Balochistan by Punjabi Sunni militant groups like the Lashkar-e- Jhangvi and Sipah-e-Sahaba. Baloch nationalists too have targeted Punjabi settlers apart from the Pakistan Army or Frontier Force troops. There have been eight incidents of sectarian killings since June this year, six of which have been in Balochistan. Karachi and FATA have been the other areas where similar incidents have taken place.

Karachi remains lawless with bloody battles between the powerful MQM and Pushtoon groups that represent vested transport interests and as the MQM alleges also Taliban interests. Maybe these will be ultimately manageable but the main problem that seems to be rapidly spinning out of control in the situation on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border particularly in FATA and the Afghan provinces facing FATA.

The Battle of the Drones

Various battles are going on simultaneously in FATA as well. . The US is continuing its Battle of the Drones against the Al Qaeda and Taliban as well as other ISI-backed groups like the Haqqani Network that have been attacking Afghanistan from their sanctuaries in FATA. The latest drone attack was on July 23, which killed 10 militants in Dray Nashtar village in the Shawal area 65 kilometres north of Miranshah in North Waziristan.

Lt General Zaheer-ul Islam, the ISI chief is expected to discuss the subjects of drone attacks and intelligence co-operation with his US counterparts when he visits the US next week. This is generally seen as an attempt to mend relations that had badly ruptured after the killing of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad in May 2011 followed by the killing of 24 Pak soldiers in Salala in November that year.

It is believed that Pakistan is looking for precision guided munitions for their F-16 military aircraft to target Al Qaeda and Taliban hideouts in North and South Waziristan. However, the US may not be inclined to provide these saying that drones are more effective weapons. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta was very specific when he said "We have made clear that we're going to do everything we can to defend this country using every means possible and the means we use are those we feel are the most effective to go after Al Qaeda."

The debate i

n the US Congress that urges the Obama government declares the Haqqani Network as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation which would invite immediate sanctions. It seems that the Haqqani group has suddenly and advisedly, become very quiet.

The Pakistan Army has continued its campaign in FATA against the Tehrik Taliban Pakistan. Pakistan Air Force was pressed into service on July 22 and its military jets attacked four locations of the TTP in the Orakzai agency of FATA and an estimated 15 militants were killed. Pakistan military have lately extended their artillery campaign into Afghanistan alleging that the TTP have sanctuaries in Afghanistan.

The Afghan Connection

Afghan officials have claimed that Dangham village in the Kunar province was attacked by Pakistani artillery on July 21 and four villagers were killed. They also have claimed that 300 shells were fired on this occasion as part of a pattern that began four months ago. Shelling from Pakistan continued on the weekend of July 22-23.

This in turn has brought retaliation from the Afghan Army against Pakistani positions in FATA. Afghan troops intruded into the Upper Kurram Agency on the morning of July 25, attacked the Diassa outpost injuring two soldiers. The Pakistanis allege that earlier on July 12 Afghan troops had killed two civilians in an exchange of fire in the same area.

Mutual recriminations inevitably followed and there has been growing Afghan-Pak tension. An indication of this was the Pakistani decision to revoke the refugee status and repatriate 3 million Afghan refugees by the end of the year. Afghanistan on the other hand has protested saying that this has to be a bilateral agreement.

Meanwhile, 26 persons were killed in separate incidents of violence all over Pakistan during the week ending July 21. Nine persons, including some children were killed in a suicide attack against a rival militant group in the Orakzai agency on July 21.

Other incidents were from Upper Dir of Pakhtoon-Khwa province, Gwadar in Balochistan and Shikarpur in the Sindh province. Seven people died in a bomb explosion in the northern most agency Bajaur of FATA on July 25. (Bajaur borders Kunar province of Afghanistan, from where Pakistan alleges that the Taliban launch attacks in the Dir, Bajaur and Mohmand tribal regions). Earlier in the month, TTP had attacked an army camp in Gujrat, Punjab on July 9 killing seven soldiers and then attacked a prison guard residence in Lahore on July 12 and killed nine staff members. These attacks had come soon after Pakistan formally announced reopening of the NATO supply routes to Afghanistan.

Despite repeated claims by the Pakistan Army that these region shave been cleared of insurgents, attacks continue to take place. Maulana Waliur Rehman, originally from the Jamat-e-Ulema-e-Islam, and one of the founding members of the Tehrik Taliban Pakistan and currently its deputy leader, warned Islamabad against any action against the Haqqani Network. In a secret interview in the North Waziristan Agency, Rehman said that "This is a final conflict taking place between Islam and infidel forces, and our struggle will continue till the final conclusion, whether it is in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India or Western countries."

Members of the Afghan High Peace Council like Maulvi Qayamuddin Kashaf and Ahmed Zia Massoud (brother of the slain leader Ahmed Shah Massoud) insist that Pakistan controls the Taliban and the Haqqani Network, using them for its own ends.

As 2014 Comes Closer

Pakistan is looking at the post 2014 situation and would neither want to lose control of the Taliban and similar groups, nor would it want the Afghan National Army to become strong enough to challenge Pakistan on the western front, especially on the Durand Line.

As the 2014 deadline edges closer, there is urgency and apprehension both in the US and Pakistan. The former would like to have an understanding with the Taliban, but is unable to trust a Pakistan that may not be able or even willing to maintain stability in Afghanistan. Pakistan is apprehensive of a deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan especially on its borders after the withdrawal of NATO forces.

Given the unsettled security situation in the region, Pakistan military deployments will remain in position, which could become a source of resentment among the locals in election year in 2013.

Source :ANI, 27th July 2012

Sri Lanka might lose the peace dividend

 

Three years ago when the war was over in Sri Lanka and the LTTE defeated, this writer had observed in a discussion with a Sri Lankan diplomat that winning the war was the relatively easy part; the more difficult part — of reconciliation and winning the peace had now begun. If this was not done well and quickly enough, the situation could deteriorate just as easily and may be even worse with repercussions beyond Sri Lanka. Fears in New Delhi are precisely these

.
Today, the Tamil-populated Northern Province remains the most militarised and does not have an elected provincial council. The political process has not really begun. It is true that this is an internal political process, but as a neighbour, India would want to remain interested to ensure early reconciliation.

Unrest: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa has demanded that India insist that Sri Lanka hold a referendum for the creation of Tamil Eelam 

There are several opposing interests at work, Chennai against New Delhi, Colombo versus the Northern Province, Sinhala versus Tamils, Colombo versus the Tamil diaspora and Colombo suspicious of New Delhi. There are anxieties in New Delhi too that the pace that Colombo has adopted in reconciling is painfully slow and there is not enough desire to speed this or act in a manner that would bring satisfaction to the Tamils.

The recent shifting of the Sri Lanka Air Force technical personnel on training at Tambaram, Chennai to Bengaluru at the insistence of the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa was a result of her confrontation with her rival, M Karunanidhi the DMK leader. The AIADMK leader has also demanded that India should insist that Sri Lanka hold a referendum for the creation of Tamil Eelam. This is in direct conflict with the Indian stand for a united Sri Lanka. The demand that international action be taken against the Sri Lanka Army and politicians for alleged war crimes has also not gone down well in Sri Lanka. Colombo and the Sinhala population felt let down with India’s vote against Sri Lanka at the UN Human Rights Commission.
Colombo’s slow response has resulted in rumblings within the Tamil diaspora and there are indications that the LTTE is getting a fresh lease of life. The Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam formed just as the LTTE faced defeat, is now understood to be active in 12 countries. Another group, the Global Tamil Forum, is active in the UK and has been campaigning for an international investigation of war crimes. Possibly more such groups will begin to act together with Karunanidhi having revived Tamil Eelam Supporters Organisation working with the Tamil diaspora. There is great danger that both the Tamil Nadu parties would, in competition with each other, exacerbate the situation.

New Delhi must stop viewing its foreign relations with Colombo from the Chennai prism alone just as it was a mistake to view our relations with Bangladesh through Kolkata’s priorities. Tamil aspirations in Sri Lanka are important but there are other abiding interests too.

In fact it is precisely this kind of talk about Tamil Eelam emanating from Tamil Nadu that would worry a smaller country like Sri Lanka and affirm suspicions in the minds of the Sinhala majority about the intentions of Chennai and New Delhi. We need to be building bridges, literally, across the Palk Straits not creating bigger ditches. These bridges have to be not just between Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu but all the way up to Odisha inclusive of other southern states for the mutual economic and development benefit of the region.
Sri Lanka sits astride the Indian Ocean whose importance will grow in the decades ahead. So will Sri Lanka’s importance as China, the US and India become more active in the littoral and on the high seas, trying to protect their economic and security interests. While national reconciliation, rehabilitation and fulfilling political aspirations would be beneficial to Sri Lankans and Indians, the protection of India’s national interests are solely New Delhi’s concern.

These concerns will not be met through the dharma of coalition politics but through a stronger national concern that prioritises these interests over electoral compulsions. We cannot have a situation where our regional leaders want to run a foreign policy independent of the Centre.

The waters are choppy, there are obstacles and future turbulence is feared unless both New Delhi and Colombo act together with finesse and soon.

Source : Mid Day , 19th July 2012, Vikram Sood , Vice President , ORF Centre for International Relations .

Psywar for India or against India

The report that India was favourably considering lifting a ban on the airing of PTV and private channels one sincerely hopes is not true for a number of reasons. If true, this shows our propensity to want to look good, reasonable and large hearted in our dealings with Pakistan as the main plank of our policy towards that country.

It also shows that we have not thought this through nor worked out the implications about how to deal with a country that has not called off its terror war against India.

country that has for decades carried out the kind of terror and media campaign against India and has been singularly reluctant to co-operate on issues like Mumbai 2008 is hardly, unlikely to give up this option against usree exchange of media and easy transmission of channels is a laudable objective provided there is reasonable exchange of ideas including political ideas, culture, arts and entertainment and provided the debates are reasonable and measured. This is not what Pakistan will feed the Indian audience because has given little reason to show responsibility especially on issues concerning India.

As it is, Pakistan TV channels show blood curdling speeches of hatred and revenge from luminaries like Hafiz Saeed, Samiul Haq and those others who represent the multi-group Difah-e-Pakistan Committee. Some Pakistan TV channels also have individuals like Zaid Hamid, who diligently campaign on TV against India, Israel and the US (read Hindus, Jews and Christians). In Zaid Hamid's mind, there is a crush India brigade.

Synchronising with the Pak-India Social Media Mela being held in Karachi, a website called Pakistan Ka Khuda Hafiz carried two reports; one called Pak-India Social Media Mela Decorated in the Carcass of the Youm-e-Shuhhada (on July 13) and the other one was Kashmir: Hell in Paradise (July 14).
Here is an extract of what PKKH said: "The nation must decide, as we are already surrounded by war and terror from all sides and the veins of our water are being cut by Indian dams and the blood of our economy is being readied for transfusion under the MFN-status granting (sic); are we also ready to let our enemy play the 4th generation warfare with us, from within us, in a most fashionable way."

Patriotism is increasingly measured by hatred for the "other" now, in these groups and they wish to spread their creed. It is tempting to dismiss this as the ranting of a miniscule minority. This is the mistake we make in assessing how things have begun evolve in Pakistan in the future despite a few reasonable men and women.
Imagine now if these vituperative and hate filled items were to figure on Pak TV. They figure on social network sites like Twitter, so why not on TV? Individuals like Zaid Hamid and organisations like PKKH routinely ridicule other institutions like SAFMA and the movements like Aman ki Asha and they are getting support for their anti-Indian or anti-peace campaign.

A campaign sustained over a period of time and seen in Indian households and elsewhere with its anti-India slant is bound to inflame passions across India's multi-religious society with grave repercussions on societal harmony.

It was India's External Affairs Minister who told the Associated Press on June 13, 2012, that Hafiz Saeed, the man behind the Mumbai attacks, continued his "hate India campaign", adding that India had to tune into Pakistan TV to see the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba leader remains free. It is never easy to see the black and white flags of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba fluttering on Indian TV screens, as they demand jihad against infidel India.

This is in normal times. Now imagine if there is another Mumbai 2008 type attack and there us reasonable certainty here that it will happen. It is not difficult to imagine how some channels in Pakistan will react to this and the reactions this would bring across India. As it is, the gradually changing attitude toward show Mumbai 2008 is to be handled is gradually changing from obduracy to denial.

Psywar should be seen an essential part of our campaign, internally and externally. It is particularly relevant for country like ours with its various security and developmental problems and our perceived role in global affairs. Perceptions are as important as awareness.

Only we can ensure our voice is heard. No private agency will be able to create this and sustain this abroad without government assistance and policy direction. Yet the government itself cannot do this on its own; it will be just too bureaucratic and ham handed thereby losing its credibility at the start.

It has to be on the pattern of the BBC Overseas Service and CNN TV. There is governmental financial support, policy guidelines for overseas use but editorial freedom as a result criticism and exposes are accepted risk. Psywar only gives intangible but important results that need to be synchronised with policy and national aims.

In its campaign against India, Pakistan has used terror and its electronic media to great effect proving how useful a psywar campaign is in these adversarial situations. This will not change and let us not be under any delusion about this.

What we are now agreeing to is that Pakistan be allowed to carry on its campaign in India, while we shut off our psywar campaign, as a measure of good faith.

We need to change all this and ensure we do not succumb to the temptation of wanting to look good.

Source : ANI News , 14th July 2012, Vikram Sood , Vice President , ORF Centre for International Relations .

By the Right, Quick March

A recent picture in the Dawn newspaper of Pakistan has Awami Muslim League Chairman Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, fresh from a trip to the U.S. along with Jamaat-ut-Dawa chief and founder of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Hafiz Saeed, the co-chairman of the Difah-e-Pakistan and father of Taliban, Maulana Sami-ul Haq who also runs Pakistan's second largest Darul Uloom madrassa, (Jamia Haqqania), Syed Munnawar Hasan, the Jamaat-e-Islami chief and retd ISI chief Lt Gen Hamid Gul, on stage together.

It is obvious this is a meeting of Pakistan's most powerful radical anti-US anti-Jewish and anti-Indian combine. Not in the photograph but equally important in this jihadi Politburo were Maulana Ahmed Ludhianvi, leader of the radical Sunni and rabidly anti-Shia Sipaha Sahaba now renamed Ahl-e-Sunnat Wal Jamaat and Fazlur Rehman Khalil ,founder of the Harkat ul Mujahedeen, which had been responsible for the hijacking of the IC 814 in 1999.

This galaxy was meeting to discuss the future course of action to protest against the Pakistani decision to reopen the land routes for NATO supplies.

Other pictures of the day were thousands of supporters of the Difah-e-Pakistan out on the streets of Lahore waving mostly the black and white striped flags of Jamaat-ut-Dawa.

The long march had reached Islamabad on July 10 and would reach Torkham on July 16-17. Another group was scheduled to reach Chaman from Quetta on July 14-15.

The speeches were true to form. Sami-ul Haq said "This long march is against the Crusaders (US) and the Jews." Hafiz Saeed added his bit when he said, "Pakistan's original problem is slavery to the US. We won't accept it. We want freedom." The favourite slogans with the crowd were "Death to America," "One solution for America, jihad, jihad."

This kind of a reaction from the religious right to the Pakistani decision to reopen the NATO supply routes was expected. It is still early days to judge whether this campaign by the religious right, discretely supported by elements from Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehrik Insaf and Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Musliim League, will be able to put enough pressure on Islamabad and more importantly Rawalpindi.

It is widely believed that the Pakistan Army has used the Difah-e-Pakistan as a pressure tactic against the Americans ever since relations between the two countries began to sour last year.

However, it is always very difficult to calibrate such movements and their responses; they tend run out of control and begin to have a life of their own.

The Pakistani military leadership, followed by the political leadership, had miscalculated the US resolve especially in an election year and after Osama bin Laden had been killed in Pakistan.

It was President Obama himself who had said that there 'had to be some sort of support network for bin Laden inside Pakistan.' This was as close as he would get to accusing Pakistan of harbouring bin Laden in a fortress close to the Pakistan Military Academy in Kakul. In the end, the U.S. apology was really a condolence message about loss of life and not an unqualified apology.

Having pushed the country to the brink, it will be difficult for a weak government in Islamabad to put a stop to the protests. Having encouraged anti-Americanism, the army may not be able to reverse the trend.

The radical mullahs will increasingly call the shots. They will increasingly become liabilities for the Army in the future. For instance, Maulana Fazlur Rehman has been close to Ayman al-Zawahiri and it would suit Al Qaeda to ensure that Pakistan-US relations remain sour.

Unable to get the financial concessions from the Americans (Pakistan had demanded an enhanced fee per truck of US $ 5000 up from US $ 250), nor did the US agree to stop the drone attacks, Pakistan agreed to the next best deal.

The Northern supply route (NDN) through Central Asia and Russia was costing US $ one million a month, but a cash-starved Pakistan lost a billion dollars during the stoppage. Unless the cash started flowing in and the IMF was kind, Pakistan was going to be in a financial mess. Its choices were limited in the end.

The usual spin has been attempted by sections of the Pakistan media. It has been depicting the US Department of Defence and the CIA who would no longer play the spoilers between the two countries as the prime losers.

So also the NDN countries in Central Asia and Russia as they would be losing revenue. Inevitably, India is portrayed by the spinmeisters as the biggest loser on the grounds that Pakistan remains crucial to US interests in the region, in this stand-off.

A perceived loss by India is still the biggest victory in many sections of Pakistan and a measure of a successful foreign policy.

Elsewhere, it was business as usual for other terrorist groups in Pakistan. Al-Badr Mujahideen, a breakaway faction of Hizbul Mujahideen group, organised a two-day 'Shuada Conference' in the Swan Adda area of Rawalpindi on July 8 to seek recruits and raise funds.

The group's chief Bakht Zameen Khan announced that his commanders were seeking funds to keep the 'jihad' going in Kashmir and Afghanistan.

Sectarian and other violence continued during the week indicating the deteriorating law and order situation. There was continued violence in Karachi where 12 persons including a senior officer of the Intelligence Bureau was shot dead.

There were more Shia killings in Balochistan when 18 Shia pilgrims were killed on July 6. An army post in Gujrat, Punjab was attacked by motorcycle and car borne terrorists on July 9 killing seven soldiers.

Pakistan completed its obscurantist image by disowning once again, its only Nobel Laureate Abdus Salam because he was an Ahmediya and therefore not accepted as a Muslim in Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the Judiciary, the Executive and the Military have been fighting their own battles for supremacy and survival. The Executive presented a draft bill -Restructuring Security Services - proposing internal accountability of the ISI on July 8 only to be withdrawn a few days later upon sane advice from elsewhere.

As the Supreme Court expanded the bench for hearings on the implementation of the National Reconciliation Ordnance where the newly appointed Prime Minister Ashraf was expected to depose on July 12.

Pre-empting the possibility of a contempt charge, the PPP government pushed through an amendment to Redefine Contempt of Court Legislation on January 11, which would provide immunity to the Prime Minister. This many-sided tussle among the civilians only means that the Army will continue to gain in credibility and strength.

At the end of the day, when all the shouting is over, it must be remembered that the US will not walk away from Pakistan just yet, may be never. There may be one change though, post-2014.

US-Pakistan relations will become increasingly transactional as it is unlikely that any government in Washington will be able to trust any government in Islamabad.

Source: ANI News, 11th July 2012, Vikram Sood , Vice President , ORF Centre for International Relations