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

End India's one-sided love affair

Diplomacy requires us to be courteous, not foolishly soft... There’s no rule in diplomacy that says we should indulge in strategic masochism just to look good

 

Two pictures say it all: Pakistan foreign secretary Jalil Jilani on the extreme left of the frame shaking hands with his Indian counterpart Ranjan Mathai on the right of the frame. The distance is symbolic and possibly the handshake was limp as well. The other picture is of Mr Jilani in a clinch with secessionist Syed Ali Shah Geelani.

 

The contrast is obvious and both happened on my territory. Incidentally, the government has fairly stringent rules for its civil servants about meeting foreign diplomats. Why are there no rules for secessionists?
Yet another exercise in futility has just been concluded and it was expected. Both sides asserted their stated positions. One should be reasonably certain now that the character of the Pakistani state today does not allow it to be flexible; it is fighting too many battles for its ghairat and it is far too down the road on the path drawn by its Islamic radicals. Diplomacy requires us to be courteous, not foolishly soft; it also requires reciprocity. There is no rule in diplomacy that says we should indulge in strategic masochism just to look good; the other side just makes use of us and walks away. No nation works only on theoretical ideals when it deals internationally. It merely pronounces them periodically. Any state worth its superpower status, functions on interests defined by itself for itself, not by others.

The United States coddled Pakistan for decades and got a spoilt child in return. And we coddled Kashmiri terrorists and terrorised the people. Instead of ensuring Pakistan remained out of the equation, successive governments in New Delhi thought it could solve the riddle by pleading with Pakistan. It was obvious to anyone following developments in the region and, given Pakistan’s attitude towards India, that it was never going to want to solve disputes with India. It just did not suit the Pakistan Army and the ruling elite attached to the Army, who had become dependent on a certain way of life and on largesse from abroad, to change its position.

One of the ways of conducting policy includes a determined counter-insurgency operation which is never pretty, but that’s the only option —to tackle the instigator of insurgency at its source. In India, successive governments have assumed that the best way to solve our problems in Kashmir is to try and get Pakistan on board, through grand gestures and grander statements. Pakistan has remained adamant as we have made overture after overture, in the hope that Pakistan would see value in peace. Each Indian government has been disappointed and yet there has been no new thought in changing our tactics.

For more than two decades we have been defensive and apologetic in our policy towards Kashmiris which has brought neither peace nor satisfaction to the people of the Valley. Instead of being stern and firm with Pakistan and instead of showing Pakistan that it has to pay a price for its actions that hurt India, we have been harsh on the people of the Valley. Kashmir’s so-called leaders, in fact, have played havoc at Pakistan’s bidding, so much so that till today one of these so-called leaders, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, has not had the courage to name the killers of his father. He prefers, instead, to break bread with those who ordered the killing. We have another leader, Yasin Malik, now described as a moderate leader, who roams the streets of Srinagar free as a bird after murdering four Indian Air Force officers. We have another, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who openly says he wants to become a Pakistani and take Kashmir there, yet his open secessionism goes unpunished. This is not magnanimity. This is weakness of resolve.

So obsessed have we been with our self-image as a responsible state and the desire to look good in the West’s eyes that we have ignored what our apparent goodness of the heart means to our neighbours. For years, we have ignored what Pakistan was doing to Kashmir and us through terrorist organisations like the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. Instead of making the Pakistan Army pay a price all these years, we chose to take the dossier route. What has it got us? Frustration at home and scorn from Pakistan. Our neighbours must be saying to themselves, if a huge country like India cannot look after its own interests then how or why would it look after their interests. Maybe they say to themselves: it is better to be friends with China and Pakistan, who together can keep India in check.

It is time to change this.

Our interests lie in peace, not in coddling Pakistan, not necessarily in pursuing “most favoured nation” status, trade and visa issues with that country, but in ensuring it remains irrelevant in Kashmir and realises it is irrelevant. This will not happen by our mere say-so. It will happen with a little bit of firmness in New Delhi, which does not include drift and coddling as policy options. The old adage — it is sometimes necessary to be cruel to be kind — remains valid. The two main political parties in Jammu and Kashmir, the National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party, will use the extremist elements for political mileage even though the rest of us know that neither Omar Abdullah not Mehbooba Mufti would want to lose political power to the Hurriyat as they are both the children of the electoral process not the gun. We have to remove the fear of the gun, but this needs firm action at home and, if necessary, suitable action across frontiers.
A state worth its future standing on the international scene especially needs to be seen to be safeguarding its interests. It owes it to its citizens and to the future.

Source : Asian Age  , 12th July 2012, Vikram Sood , Vice President ORF Centre for International Relations.

The power triangle in the India-Pacific region

The evolution of  US-India-China relationship will shape geopolitics of the future
The US-India-China relationship is like an uneven triangle with mismatched sides. The longest side representing the greatest strength in all its meanings represents the US; the second side which is quite a bit shorter represents China and the smallest side represents India. This also means that India has to cover the maximum distance to catch up with the other two. Relationships are variously described as Chimerica in the context of US and China, Chindia for India and China and to this one, would now have to add Amindia representing the US and India.

The strategies are defined as containment, or what’s called ‘congagement’, or pivots, cogs, rims and wheels in relation to how US and China see their relationships and interests in the world and notably Asia. While the region may be in a flux with rising powers and declining powers, neither of which will happen overnight, the one aspect of these three relationships is that neither India nor China will jeopardise their relationship with the US for the sake of preserving their own bilateral equation. The US may be withdrawing from Afghanistan after having done so in Iraq, its military clout has impeded but it still remains a force as the leader of humanitarian causes in West Asia with the Arab Spring is still a work in progress.

These bilateral relationships be zero-sum games even though disproportions in military economic and technological strengths the comparisons in figures of GDP, military budgets and technological strengths will remain huge. The US is still by far the biggest military spender globally which is way ahead of the Chinese budget which in turn is thrice as large as the Indian budget. The American intelligence budget is larger than our defence budget. Various and opposing interests are at play in Asia in a world undergoing economic, military and political change. The 20th century ended with a beginning of the decline of the West and the beginning of the rise of the East even though India may be seen to be floundering currently. Asia’s share of global GDP was 34 percent and that of the US and the West was 43 percent. It is projected that by 2015 this would reverse almost exactly.

How the three relationships evolve in the next few years would be crucial to what geopolitical shape the world would acquire in the next few decades, beginning now.

Photo: gfpeck

The US and China- The big two.
The contest of the 21st century will be between the US and China. The two got together during the Cold War years and economic interdependence in later years has sustained this relationship despite deep ideological differences which may never disappear. Prof Aaron Friedberg says there were seven factors that could shape US China relations. Two of these – the narrowing gap in national power and the continuing deep differences in their ideological beliefs and domestic structures – will tend to push the two towards competition. The other five – economic interdependence, the hope of a possible evolution China toward liberal democracy, its ongoing integration into international institutions, the presence of common threats and the existence of nuclear weapons – could favour peace and cooperation.

Friedberg asserts that “Deep-seated patterns of power politics are driving the US and China toward mistrust and competition, if not yet toward open conflict.” The Chinese are paranoid of a Soviet style collapse and apprehensive the US may be trying precisely that through its friends/allies in the region. The need for resources, markets and even friends makes China seek out Iran, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

The nuclear deterrent between the two powers means that both China and the US will continue to enhance their conventional capability and their allies/friends. As China continues to rise and its power grows while the regime remains unchanged, there will be greater chances of competition between China and the US driven by zeal to democratise the world and shape it to its own image. The Chinese sense that their continued “peaceful” rise in the first decade of this century is accompanied by a relative decline of the power and reach of the US. This is probably reflected in the Chinese attitude in the South China Sea and the Western Pacific even as it makes quiet inroads in West Asia and Afghanistan.
China and India- Nuclear neighbours or civilisational rivals?
There were many hopefuls influenced by the western hype, who believed that India would one day catch up with China or even overtake it. These hopes are best buried because the manner in which we have shaped our policies in recent years, ensures that India is nowhere near the Chinese economic, military and research and development statistics. We are not just behind China; we are falling behind further at an ever faster rate. It is best and far more realistic for India to put its own house in order and compete within itself. Nevertheless, since both countries are rising at the same time, in the same region and separated by a long undemarcated boundary, there are enough ingredients for rivalry and conflict.

Sino-Indian bilateral political relations will not attain their complete fulfilment until the border issue is solved and the Chinese sensitivities about how New Delhi treats the Dalai Lama cease however much trade between the two may flourish. The boundary continues to linger and China, as the stronger power, would be in no hurry to resolve this. The Himalayan watershed remains the most natural border and the Brahmaputra Plains can never be an alignment that India will accept, despite Chinese formulations like Southern Tibet used in reference to Arunachal Pradesh. The best resolution of this would be to make the present de facto holding as de jure, including Aksai Chin, with some adjustments.

For India, China-Pakistan bilateral relationship has been a source of concern, especially its military, missile and nuclear aspects. Quite often the threat to India is seen through the String of Pearls concept where China is portrayed as encircling India. Chinese assertiveness in its neighbourhood, including with India, in recent years can only be partially attributed to premature hubris. China is definitely making its moves as it sees a lowering American profile, but also this is the way “elections”  are held  in China by nuance and signals. It is a way of telling the PLA that the Party is just as nationalistic. As China readies for the 18th Party Congress, Indian strategists would undoubtedly accept that the Chinese Communist Party remains a powerful machine quite unlike anything we have in India. Therefore, unless there is a total breakdown of leadership in China, it will retain control of the military, intelligence and propaganda. The only issue is how best to retain this control. The issue is not whether this is desirable or otherwise.

India, in its present state of drift will continue to have to deal with a powerful cohesive political and military machine. India’s Agni V test earlier this year is only a step forward in the long march against a country that has at least twice as many as India and with a  far more powerful yield. Any euphoria on this would be misplaced. Nevertheless, as India’s economy and global standing have grown, China has come to view India as a legitimate threat and in some ways it is also a sign of a more assertive India China willing to flex its military and economic muscle in our neighbourhood.

The Chinese remain averse to India-China comparisons and comments vary from being scathing to condescending. They no longer say it in so many words, but the attitude is that India-China relations could improve if India gave up its hegemonic approach in the region.  Chinese remain suspicious about the India-US relationship being aimed at them but do not want themselves to be questioned on their relationships with either Pakistan or Myanmar.

India and the US- Natural allies of just good friends?
India-US relations have for long remained mired in the Cold War rhetoric where India was seen to be in the other camp for long. This was true, especially during the Afghan Jihad where Reagan’s America saw India as a confirmed Soviet surrogate and looked the other way, as Zia nuclearised and abetted the Sikh insurgency in Punjab. The collapse of the Berlin Wall did very little to enhance India-US relations. It took the destruction of the World Trade Centre, the fiasco of the Iraq War, the unending war on terror in Afghanistan and India’s new profile as an emerging economic power- for George Bush to discover India with the civil nuclear deal.

Faced with implacable foes, India viewed other relationships from the prism of how these powers treated Pakistan and China. Circumstances have now changed and India needs to evaluate its relations with the US regardless of Pakistan and China and with China regardless of Pakistan. Just as much that though the US-Pakistan relations may be in a trough currently, it is unlikely that America would let Pakistan become a failed state. India-US relations have to look beyond these restricted prisms. The next decade is going to be crucial for India’s economic development if we are to make the grade as a major power. India would need to put its bilateral relations on a different plane even though there may not be strategic cohesion on many issues.
Yet despite hopeful pronouncements from both capitals about being natural allies the two countries actually have difficulty at times, of being even good friends. The style of governmental functioning, attitudes towards Iran, trade and climate, defence related issues where India remains cautious, are some of the abiding issues. Indians are wary of the American style- coming at them strongly assuming what they recommend is for India’s good. The usual formulations of growing contacts between the world’s oldest democracy and the world’s largest democracy continue as India and the US met for their strategic dialogue in Washington in June.  Here again, the journey is long and we should not be looking for dramatic breakthroughs on every occasion.

The present debate about Chinese assertions in the South China Sea could at a later stage lead to similar assertions in the Indian Ocean Region.  Security of the Indian Ocean Region would be necessary for India for access to energy sources, and trade as well access to Central Asia and Afghanistan because Pakistan is likely to remain. These relationships are necessary even though schemes like TAPI pipeline are what they are – pipe dreams. In the context of US military budget shrinking it is now looking for partners in IOR in India and we too should be seeking stronger relationships with Japan, Australia, Indonesia and South East Asia.

There has been a new found enthusiasm for India as a partner with the US in Afghanistan. The US seeks an active participation of other states in the Western Pacific for the security if the region as it looks to India on the west. There is increasing reference to the region as India-Pacific. Simply because others have thought of this in their interest does not make this undesirable or suspect for India. On the other hand this should be seen as an opportunity for India to strengthen its strategic options.

The future
Yet strategists in New Delhi would have to factor in that a two front confrontation with Pakistan and China cannot be ruled out. US response in this case is an uncertainty. We need to remember that in the ultimate analysis, China is the resident power and the US is a distant power. Over time the military gap between China and India will widen rapidly.

Also perhaps for first time in recent years US relations with both China and Pakistan are frosty. But if we are linchpins today, then Pakistan was a stalwart ally not too long ago. Equations can change fairly rapidly.
Russia has been a strong factor in our strategy in the past, it still is and it would be good to remember this fact. That could be a window for us to capitalise on because post elections, the equations may change. India has to do perspective planning for the next ten years but maybe more. But a statement attributed to the nuclear physicist, Neils Bohr, sums up the predicament – “Prediction is difficult, especially about the future”.

Source : , Pragati , The Indian National Interest Review, 7th July 2012, Vikram Sood is the Vice President , ORF Centre for International Relations

The Director General and I

It was an unexpected pleasure to be on the same panel with former DG ISI, Lt Gen Hamid Gul, the other day on NDTV. It was unfortunate, though, that he had to leave the discussions abruptly, leaving Ronen Sen and I feeling somewhat let down. The General’s assertion that the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba was a Kashmiri organisation fighting for the Kashmiri ‘cause’ whatever that might mean surprised us and reflected the General’s state of denial.

Of course the General, himself an eminent member of the Difa-e-Pakistan of which the Jamat-ut-Dawa is the leading light, would naturally have considerable sympathy and fellow feeling with their ideals. I did challenge the General’s contention pointing out that LeT’s recruits came mostly from the Punjab province of Pakistan especially from districts like Multan, Dera Ghazi Khan and Bahawalpur. However, there never is enough time on such shows to make detailed assertions.

Shocker: Former DG ISI, Lt Gen Hamid Gul’s assertion that the LeT was a Kashmiri organisation fighting for the Kashmiri ‘cause’ surprised us and reflected the General’s state of denial

I do so now, not on the basis of any classified sources, but what has appeared in the open, particularly the Pakistani media. I shall restrict myself to three detailed works by those who have studied the Lashkar in detail, one by an American, Ashley Tellis, another by a Britisher, Stephen Tankel and finally, by an Indian, Wilson John.

Ashley Tellis from the Carnegie Endowment for Peace in a detailed essay in March this year (The Menace That is Lashkar e Tayyaba) made some significant observations confirming and embellishing what we have been saying for a long time. For instance, he says “LeT seeks first and foremost to establish a universal Islamic caliphate ...” Tellis also says that in the organisation’s world view, its focus on India was driven as much by ideology as by convenience. “To begin with India’s achievement in becoming an economically dynamic, multiethnic and secular democracy remains an affront to LeT’s vision of a universal caliphate.”
This matches with the doctrine of rulers in Islamabad who see the success of a secular democracy in its neighbourhood as a challenge to their two-nation theory. Tellis adds that .. “the ISI has maintained strong institutional links with LeT and has supported its operations through generous financing and, as required, combat training.” Kashmir and India have been on the agenda of the LeT and the Pakistan Army, except that the former now has a much wider agenda. This is a clear example of the jihadi-military complex that increasingly runs Pakistan. Aware of the growing menace, Tellis cautions that it would be a gross error to treat terrorism facing India as merely India’s problem.

Wilson John’s book “The Caliphate's Soldiers” highlights the global aspirations of the Lashkar e Tayyaba. The author gives details about the origins, growth and aims of the LeT; detailed description of the recruitment and training in Pakistan, including one training camp Baitul Mujahedeen near Muzzafarabad and the finances of the organisation. There is one important aspect about the LeT that explains its mindset. Usually we describe the LeT to mean an Army of the Pure. That would be inaccurate. The word Al-Taiba or Al-Tayba refers to the city of Al-Medinah from where a Muslim army had set forth to conquer the Arabian Peninsula and other territories.

The Lashkar’s global mission is quite extensive, something the West has now begun to realise. The Lashkar concentrates first on expanding and strengthening its alliances with groups in South Asia including Pakistan. Second, it deals with recruitment and training of foreigners, mainly from the US and Europe, using religious contacts and finally, has a fund raising programme that focuses on West Asia, UK, Europe and the US. The LeT is known to have a presence in many parts of the world. Many now assess the LeT to be a bigger eventual threat than the Al Qaeda because the Lashkar has state sponsorship.

Stephen Tankel’s book “Storming the World Stage: The Story of Lashkar e Taiba” says that the LeT’s activities were deeply intertwined with the strategic objectives of the Pakistani military, it was therefore protected by the military as its most reliable proxy and the organisation’s goals were compatible with those of the military. The Lashkar views Kashmir as the most crucial front in a larger jihad against India. Tankel describes LeT as an organisation that toes the Pakistan Army’s line on India and increasingly in Afghanistan. I rest my case.

Source : Mid Day , Mumbai 5th July 2012. Vikram Sood , Vice President , ORF Centre for International Relations.

Getting it all wrong

India has undermined its own electoral process and the authority of its elected leaders by allowing Pakistani officials to meet Hurriyat leaders.

Foreign secretary of Pakistan Jalil Abbas Jilani met Hurriyat Conference leaders on Tuesday, a day before his meeting with his Indian counterpart, Ranjan Mathai. It is difficult to accept that those who have talked of secession of Kashmir were allowed to meet those who have encouraged them. If

Jilani wanted to meet the elected representatives of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), it could have been seen as a legitimate interest shown by a visiting official from a neighbouring country. However, by repeatedly allowing such meetings, Pakistani officials and ministers think that it is their right to meet those who do not accept India’s electoral process and ignore those who represent J&K.

The last elections in J&K registered a 60.5% voter turnout — higher than the national average — and it was free and fair. So only the elected representatives can represent the people of the state. Two days after the assembly elections, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists struck in Mumbai and killed innocent people. As the people of J&K prepared to elect a new government, those across the border were putting final touches to their murderous assault.

It’s been alleged that Hurriyat Conference chief Mirwaiz Umar Farooq wrote in support of the US-based Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agent Ghulam Nabi Fai. In the past, the Hurriyat Conference leaders have declined to meet the country’s prime minister, the chief minister of J&K and even interlocutors. But its leaders have always been willing to meet a visiting Pakistani foreign minister or a foreign secretary. Such concessions that were granted earlier have now become a norm.

We must remember that we are dealing with secessionists and terrorists, not just political dissenters. Please also remember that Pakistan may have, for the moment, accepted that Kashmir need not be a part of Pakistan but it is still interested in a change in the status quo. Let us not delude ourselves about what the future could look like. We are allowing a meeting between secessionists and a visiting foreign secretary to take place in a safe haven like Delhi. By doing this, we are also undermining the state’s chief minister and the electoral process.

The world does not appreciate such gestures because it shows a country’s weakness, not the power of its democracy. The British Broadcasting Corporation did not allow Gerry Adam, an important figure in the Northern Ireland Peace Process, on TV without a voice over even though negotiations were on between the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the British government. When IRA prisoners in the Maze prison in Northern Ireland went on a relay fast-unto-death, Britain stood firm. Some prisoners died and ultimately, exhausted, the IRA called off the campaign. By then, 10 IRA prisoners had died. At that time, Margaret Thatcher was the prime minister and the lady did not hesitate to take a strong stance. The world moved on. The world respects, even fears, a liberal democracy’s strength, firmness of action and resolve.

Conversely, it sniggers at those who seek support by being virtuous. International relations are about interests and not about accolades for being good.

There was a time when India tried hard to convince the world about Pakistan’s role in J&K. Even though the world has begun to realise the true nature of Pakistan’s involvement in terrorism, we are still allowing its leaders to negotiate with secessionists. When the world wants to put pressure on Pakistan, we weaken our case by providing it solace and comfort. We cannot insist that the Hurriyat Conference has lost its relevance and also give it importance.

It is ironic that nine years ago, India had expelled Jilani, who was then the acting high commissioner of Pakistan, for funding Kashmiri separatists. Nine years later, he was allowed to meet the same separatists. We seem to be carrying our ‘atithi devo bhava’ dictum a bit too far.

Let’s also see this from the point of view of soldiers posted in Bandipur and Kupwara: the same people who instigate individuals to kill innocent people move around with government security and live in opulence. If newspaper reports from Srinagar are to be believed then some of these people have been driving around in expensive sedans. Other reports state that the J&K Police has sealed Hurriyat leader Ghulam Muhammed Khan Sopori’s house in Srinagar, alleging that he used hawala funds to construct it. Similar action was taken against others with militant links. This is a step in the right direction. Though every positive step counts, the Valley needs more than just summer tourists to heal its wounds. We must not allow a few to benefit from the profits of conflict and also preserve their interests. Also, let us not undermine our own electoral process by allowing unelected, and unelectable, individuals to set the agenda.

Source : Hindustan Times, 3rd July 2012 , Vikram Sood is Vice President , ORF Centre for International Relations.