Never, ever forget those sacrifices

It was on February 5, 2013 that the young in Dhaka came out to Shahbag Square to protest and demand capital punishment for the Butcher of Mirpur, Abdul Quader Mollah, along with others who had been sentenced to life imprisonment, for their war crimes during the Bangladesh Liberation War. The movement had quickly spread to the rest of the country and the Jamaat Islami reaction was immediate and has remained violent. Nevertheless, Sheikh Hasina has remained constant in her action against the right wing fundamentalists who, aided by the BNP, acting out of electoralcompulsions and its own convictions, has encouraged nationwide violence.

Sheikh Hasina has remained constant in her action against the right wing fundamentalists who, aided by the BNP, acting out of electoral compulsions, has encouraged nationwide violence

Shahbag was about closure. It was a war against fundamentalism and was not about revenge. Many of the protestors were young boys and girls born after 1971 who gave the famous slogan ‘Joy Bangla’ a new relevance and a new meaning. It is in Bangladesh that they wish to remember the discrimination in all the 25 years preceding 1971 and the genocide in the nine months that preceded that December 16. It was too soon after independence to find out what happened during those horrible months as the new nation had to be built from the debris and the devastation that the West Pakistanis had left behind. Yet they needed to remember all that to build their future.


The then Karachi-based journalist, Anthony Mascarhenas, was the first in June 1971 to break the news internationally of the genocide in East Pakistan, leading the Pakistan Government to white wash the events in its white paper of August that year. The young nation needed more than anecdotal references.
The Bangladesh Collaborators (Special Tribunals) Order soon after liberation and the 1973 War Crimes Tribunals Act were lost in the assassination of Bangabandhu and some members of his family. It took the Awami League twenty years to regain power in 1996 only to lose it to the right wing BNP supported by the Jamaat-e-Islami, the party that had supported the Pakistan Army and had opposed independence.
Attempts at discovering what happened in 1971 and to record Pakistani atrocities remained haphazard. There was no systematic fact finding and War and Secession — Pakistan, India and the creation of Bangladesh by Richard Sisson and Leo Rose in 1991 was more an account covering the military aspects of the war and did not cover the activites of the Pakistan Army before the war.


Robert Payne’s Massacre has several anecdotal references but his book was published soon after independence as was Mascarenhas’ book The Rape of Bangladesh, so could not give accurate estimates. Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will) refers to 400000 rapes by the Pakistan Army and its collaborators, of which nearly 80 per cent were Muslim women.


Centuries of Genocide (4th edition in 2013) edited by Samuel Totten and William S Parsons has a chapter — Genocide in Bangladesh by Rounaq Jahan that has detailed graphic descriptions of the killings and depredations. She also says 3 million were killed. Yet Sarmila Bose's book Dead Reckoning has remained controversial as it sought to find proof for a predetermined finding that the Bengali claim was grossly exaggerated and accepts the Pakistan Army figure of 26,000 Bengalis killed. Bose is dismissive of Bengali claims about the extent of genocide.


It was left to Dr M A Hasan, a medical student in 1971 who had joined the Mukti Bahini resistance movement. He painstakingly researched the events of 1971 through his NGO, The War Crimes Fact Finding Commission established in 1999 produced an accurate report entitled War Crimes, Genocide and the Quest for Justice in 2008. This report should ideally be in research and history libraries given the meticulous details and perhaps not something the average reader would read. Fortunately, Dr Hasan has now published Beyond Denial — The Evidence of a Genocide for the average reader. Hasan’s study says that the figure of 3 million innocent civilians killed is the more likely figure. The book describes in considerable detail some truly blood curdling systematic massacres; only those with strong hearts should read these pages.
Bangladesh needs full closure of this painful aspect of her history and a move away from fundamentalism that threatens it today. Bangladesh has to see the fulfillment of its Shahbag moment. The recent hanging of Mollah, is a process in that closure. But when Pakistan’s National Assembly expressed concern at the hanging of Mollah and Interior Minister Nasir Ali Khan criticised this hanging, this only shows how dangerously delusional Pakistan’s leaders have become. No wonder this prompted Sheikh Hasina to comment that Pakistan had not accepted liberation of Bangladesh.

 
Source : Mid Day , 26th December 2013 

The message stands delivered

Quite often it is a thoughtless or tactless statement but it also serves the desired purpose of saying something and then denying or giving it a spin. The message stands delivered. Maybe that was what Nawaz Sharif intended when he spoke about flashpoints in the India-Pakistan relationship during his visit to Muzzafarabad. It is to be expected that he would talk about some such issue when in POK and he cannot be expected to talk about subjects like the Iran-US agreement at that venue. Denials followed but that evening we watched our own TV channel go ballistic with the usual panelists from across. We still do not know whether or not this was a Freudian slip or a deliberate statement.

In his absorbing book, Magnificent Delusions -- Pakistan, the United States and and Epic History of Misunderstanding, Husain Haqqani describes a conversation between Henry Kissinger and Air Marshall Nur Khan (then Governor) in Lahore in 1969. Nur Khan told Kissinger that in the prevailing situation Pakistan was not going to get what it wanted. A settlement would require appeasement of India, which would relegate Pakistan to a subordinate status in the subcontinent. Consequently, waiting for an opportunity to arise that would force India’s hand in Kashmir and that Pakistan was in a permanent state of war with India. There was no interest in resolving the conflict through talks.

Mending fences? Nawaz Sharif spoke about flashpoints in the India-Pakistan relationship during his visit to Muzzafarabad and expressed his resolve for settlement of the Kashmir issue

Subsequent efforts to destabilise Punjab through assistance to Sikh terrorists in the 1980s, the jihadi hordes that were thrown at us in the 1990s culminating in General Musharraf's monumental folly on the Kargil Heights, the attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001 and the sustained terrorism that led to the infamous Mumbai Terror in November 2008. Apparently there had been no rethinking in Pakistan military circles to what Nur Khan told Kissinger and what in any case many of us have always believed to be Pakistan’s policy toward India.

Pakistan’s proclaimed support for the ‘Kashmiri cause’ and acting or supporting the wishes of the people of Kashmir has begun to sound hollow and unsustainable given its own track record in dealing with the legitimate grievances of the Baloch, victimisation of Ahmediyas and a relentless violent Sunni campaign against Shias. The world was no longer willing to ignore terrorist activities originating from Pakistan and India was not about to succumb. A new cause for staying relevant in Kashmir had, therefore, to be invented.
It was evident at some of the various Track 2 dialogues a few years ago, where water from Kashmir was the issue that Pakistani delegates wanted to discuss saying that this could become the new flashpoint. Actually, water from rivers that flow through Kashmir has always been the real issue for Pakistan and not Kashmiris or their religion. Ayub Khan, in his meeting with President Eisenhower said he did not trust India because that country “had taken away rivers that should belong to Pakistan and upon which Pakistan’s life depended.” Of course, Eisenhower did not know that of the six rivers, only one, Jhelum originated in the Kashmir valley. Pakistan had been claiming that it was necessary for it to have physical control of the territory in order to ensure that water from these rivers would flow into Pakistan.

The Pakistani plank seeks a reinterpretation of the Indus Waters Treaty without amending it, where water must flow unimpeded. There is no question of sharing waters from ‘my’ rivers with ‘yours’, is the new argument. The Kashmiris must not have electricity, even from run of the flow, hydel projects. The constant Pakistani complaint now getting louder is that water from the Indus, Jhelum and Chenab must flow exclusively for their Punjab even though India is not using fully the acreage allowed under the Treaty and could easily within the rules increase this.

J&K Hurriyat leaders, who go off scampering to meet every Pakistani dignitary who visits India, would do well to understand that Pakistani interest in Kashmir is not about the well being of Kashmiris but for the farmers of their Punjab and themselves.

Source : Mid Day , 13th December 2013   

Being there , with friends

Next year we will  have in our armoury, nuclear capable Agni-V  missiles capable of hitting targets 5000 kms away. We already have an aircraft carrier that is the size of three football fields, is 20 stories high and can cover 600 nautical miles in a day. We are the proud owners of the Chandrayan mission to Mars and have the Brahmos missile which is the world's fastest cruise missile and can be launched from submarines, land or eventually be tested for launching from our  Sukhoi SuMk30 aircraft. India is the largest country, with the largest population, the  largest and paramilitaries in the sub-continent backed by the third largest GDP (in PPP terms) in the world. And one day the country aspires to be a permanent member of the UNSC. All this should give us immense confidence in handling our relations with other countries. Yet, when it comes to handling affairs with our neighbours we seem to be diffident and indecisive.

The latest in this are our relations with Sri Lanka, a neighbour where an Indian  Prime Minister last visited in 1998 and that too to attend the SAARC conference. There has not been a bilateral visit all these years, an adequate reflection of our attention span.  There was an opportunity to visit the island nation earlier this month for the CHOGM conference and convey our message but we snuffed it. The reason for our absence was not because the CHOGM in its present form has become a quaint and irrelevant fossil but because we let sectional interests over ride national interests. We were driven by competitive electoral opportunism of regional politics and New Delhi's inability to ride above short term interests and take care of the country's long term interests. 

The decision not to to the conference after weeks of indecision would be defensible if it were in the national interests but becomes inexplicable to the host nation in the context of bilateral relationships. So when President  Rajapakse remarked that he understood why PM Manmohan Singh was unable to come, we all knew what he understood what he meant. In bilateral relations, local conditions and local sentiments in either country do matter but they cannot be allowed to become over riding factors.  In that sense a foreign policy cannot be allowed to become 'federal' where the regional parties  for their local political battles seek to influence national foreign policies to the extent that has happened in this case.

Considering that some of us are forever keen to talk to Pakistan, to the point of almost wooing them, it is strange logic that we continue to ignore  Sri Lanka. Not talking to neighbours has a negative impact; it is like a silly tantrum by an aged aunt at a wedding who is sulking about an imagined insult. No one pays attention to such sulks and is no substitute to being there at the venue, as the major power of the region and saying your piece. A one-on-one meeting in Colombo with the Sri Lankan President could have been used to convey precisely the concerns we have in Tamil Nadu. Not being there conveys nothing.

The main political protagonists in Tamil Nadu today were perfectly willing, in May 2009, to ignore Sri Lankan Army's action against the LTTE that culminated in the killing of Prabhakaran. The terror of the LTTE had been crushed by the Sri Lankan Army with discreet assistance from the Indian Armed Forces and intelligence.  There was a mutual national interest in ensuring success of this action by the Sri Lankan Army. It was a brutal war as all terrorism and counter terrorism is.  At that time, Tamil Nadu leaders like Karunanidhi went on a fast unto death that lasted all of six hours in sympathy with the Sri Lanka Tamils. That was the extent of empathy for Sri Lankan Tamils and very little has changed except for the forthcoming elections in India and political gamesmanship in the run up that has now become common in india. 

However, elections will not be won or lost because of events in Sri Lanka but Sri Lanka could be lost because of our electoral politics. Our absence at this juncture is akin to a public snub to Sri Lanka and the vacuum that we create and show little intention or urgency to fill, can only be filled by one country - China. This will happen incrementally, one thing at a time as powers seek to protect their growing commercial interests with military power. 

 Source : Mid Day , 28th November 2013 

Looking East, seriously

Judging from the recent stormy exchange between Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her predecessor Khaleda Zia there is little chance that the deep animus between the two will ever disappear. Ultimately, Khaleda Zia declined to attend the all-party meeting to discuss the arrangements for the next parliamentary elections nor agree to call off the hartal demanding a caretaker government for the elections. This hostility does not augur well for Bangladesh as it goes to polls early next year — and for India too, should Sheikh Hasina and her 14-party alliance lose. A Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) victory win would almost certainly mean a setback in India-Bangladesh relations.

Political Game: The hostility between Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina and her predecessor Khaleda Zia does not augur well for Bangladesh as it goes to polls early next year — and for India too, should Hasina and her 14-party alliance lose. File pic

The Awami League government has been far more understanding and co-operative with India’s security interests than the previous Khaleda Zia’s BNP-led right wing combine. Her government had refused to accept that there were camps of India’s North East insurgent groups like the United Liberation Front of Asom in Bangladesh. It was Sheikh Hasina in her second coming who showed courage, understood that harbouring terrorists and insurgents could hurt her own government and people, and therefore necessary for her government to put a stop to these unfriendly practices. Sheikh Hasina did not follow Khaleda Zia’s policy of trying to use India’s logistic vulnerability in the North East by trying to destabilise the region, with assistance from Pakistan.

Internally, Sheikh Hasina’s most significant achievement has been the strengthening of the judicial system in the country through the war criminal trials by collaborating with Pakistan in the Bangladesh war of independence including many Jamaat-e-Islami luminaries who had been sheltered by the BNP.
Hasina has pursued the trial of the killers of Sheikh Mujib ending in the death penalty to five conspirators. Finally, the Bangladesh courts have sentenced 152 soldiers and handed down life sentences to several others for their revolt against the BDR (since renamed Border Guard Bangladesh) in February 2009. The Jamaat-e-Islami has been declared ineligible for the next general elections by the Bangladesh Election Commission following a High Court decision that its registration was illegal.

Faced with several setbacks to its prospects and its ideology, the BNP and its allies which includes the fundamentalist conglomerate the Taliban-like Hefazat-e-Islam, have been leading a campaign of hartals in which at least 18 have died and scores injured. At the same time, despite an overwhelming majority in the last elections in 2008 the Hasina government has been subjected to allegations of incompetence and corruption. As against this, people have not forgotten the predatory corruption of the BNP regime, the anti-Hindu and Awami league campaigns of the BNP and thus fear retrogression to medieval practices should the BNP win the next elections.

Sheikh Hasina realises that pandering to the right wing and encouraging terrorism in the neighbourhood would lead to the kind of disaster that Pakistan faces today and that dealing with India would be beneficial for both countries. An effective judiciary and a disciplined uniformed force under civilian control have been her achievements. Surely, Indians would also realise that with Pakistan lurching towards instability and under increasing thrall of the fundamentalists, we cannot have another neighbour to our east with whom our land border is longer than even with China, similarly succumbing to fundamentalism and anti-India sentiments. Will we see renewed influx of refugees from the Awami League, both Hindus and Muslims, into states bordering Bangladesh? Will we see renewed attempts at fomenting insurgencies in India?

It is therefore in India’s national interest to ensure that there is a friendly stable government in Dhaka which is not swayed by fundamentalist interests. This is not to be done by engineering regime changes and clumsy internal interference. It had to be more subtle where friendship with India is seen as beneficial by the average person in Bangladesh.

Small steps like the proposal to sign the motor vehicles agreement are encouraging but bigger steps have to be taken by India. A deal on the Teesta Waters and the Land Border Agreement would have helped India Bangladesh relations but our compulsions of coalition and electoral interests of different political parties have prevented fruition of both. It may still not be too late to attempt something along these lines because a change of government in Dhaka may not be good news for New Delhi.

If we are prepared to make all sorts of concessions to Pakistan without awaiting action on terrorism, why are we hesitant to help Bangladesh? It is time our famous Look East policy looked at Bangladesh, seriously.

Source : Mid Day , 14th November 2013 

Nepal's democratic hopes, Indian and Chinese interests

Nepal’s efforts to establish a parliamentary democracy have had their difficult and almost hopeless phases for the last decade where political fault lines accentuated since the assassination of King Birendra. The country will hold elections on November 19 if all goes well.

There is still some bad news with threats of boycotts and an armed struggle by breakaway elements of the Maoist hardliner camps. In reality, these groups may just be hoping to scuttle the elections, and chances of political stability in Nepal remain low. Nepalese politicians, with some gentle nudges from India may be able to find their way but what should worry India is the growing presence of China in Nepal.

Between Borders: China and India signed an agreement on October 23 on border defence cooperation after a stand-off along their disputed frontier in April fuelled fears of conflict between the Asian giants. Pic/AFP

 

Chinese long-term planning for its periphery is different. In Nepal, it leaves the political wrangling and sorting out to India. Their suggestion to Nepal that it should consult India and rely on it for economic development is a smart move. Indian involvement, however restrained and subtle to the point of non-existence at times, gives India the role of a marriage counsellor where one of the two parties is always less happy than the other. The Chinese approach in Nepal is similar to theirs in Pakistan. It preserves its ‘higher than the mountains deeper than the oceans’ friendship with Pakistan by playing on that leadership’s fears of India, provides vital military and nuclear assistance and invests in infrastructure projects that benefit China first. The Chinese leave political wrangling and manoeuvring to the Americans who remain prime targets for Pakistani anger and perfidy despite all the assistance they give.

For the present, China may be unable to match India’s economic and political profile in Nepal. It will thus lie low as it gradually builds its capacities over the years. China thus concentrates on strengthening its strategic position by being equidistant from all parties and offering assistance for infrastructure and economic development of the country. China has now become a reliable partner in Nepal’s development, in the areas of infrastructure and human resources development, education, health and food assistance. Tourism and the volume of Nepal-China trade have grown along with the remarkably wide trade imbalance. China has sought to push its business and strategic interests by developing road networks across the Himalayas from Tibet.

China has also successfully sought a thrust towards India’s Gangetic heartland by pushing into Nepal. It took 22 years to construct the Qinghai-Lhasa railway, accompanied by massive infrastructure development in Tibet of highways, airports and military bases. Now China plans to extend the railway from Lhasa to Yadong and Zhangmu on two flanks of the Nepalese border after extending the rail link to Xigatse in Tibet close to the Nepal border. Nepal wants that this link be eventually connected to Lumbini on the Indian border. In response to this, India has proposed six rail links with Nepal in Birgunj, Biratnagar, Bardibas, Nautanwa, Nepalgunj and Kakarbhitta.

In addition to the Lhasa-Kathmandu road link, the Chinese have built a four-lane concrete highway through Eastern Nepal, terminating close to the Siliguri corridor. Nepal too has sought Chinese support to construct four highways on Nepal-China border. While the Indian requests for opening consulates at Biratgunj and Nepalgunj await Nepalese approval, the Chinese will open a consulate in Pokhara in exchange for a Nepalese consulate in Guangzhou. In exchange for all this, the Chinese have succeeded in a change in Nepalese policy towards Tibetans fleeing from Tibet. On a visit to China in July this year, the Nepalese Army Chief, General Gaurav Shamsher Rana, promised that Nepal would take strong action against any ‘anti-Chinese’ (short hand for Tibetan) activities in Nepal. China and Nepal agreed to widen their defence and security ties including training cooperation.

The Chinese have been establishing a number of private language institutions and one Confucius centre in Kathmandu University to “spread Chinese language and culture.” Apart from one such language centre in Pokhara, other centres are along the Nepal-India border

While the Chinese have kept us embroiled with their visa tactics in Arunachal, intrusions in Ladakh as part of an unsettled boundary issue, and nuclear plants to Pakistan they have long endeavoured to seek access and presence south of the Himalayas. They appear to be succeeding in Nepal. India and China signed various bilateral agreements during Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh’s recent visit to Beijing. This should not detract from the fact that an enhanced Chinese presence in Nepal will mean increased vulnerability of our northern states from Himachal to West Bengal.

Source : Mid Day , 31st October 2013

An Unstable Neighbour

India and Pakistan are currently going through their usual mood cycle of some hope and more depression. The incidents on the LOC have crowded out other possibilities for the time being, one would say about a year before hope surges again. One talks of a year because it is by then we in India would have completed the formation of a new government which might by then begin dreaming new dreams. In Pakistan, the Prime Minister would have found his equation with the the new Army Chief - really the man who matters when decisions on Pakistan India relations have to be taken. 

Meanwhile, with only 45 days to go, Nawaz has not yet nominated his new Army Chief. He could give General Kayani one more extension, appoint the senior most Lt General Haroon Aslam, agree with General Kayani's choice which is Lt General Rashad Masood or go further down the list to select the much talked of Lt General Tariq Khan. General Kayani has assured the world he will not be seeking an extension but Nawaz has not spoken a word yet.

The Nawaz-ManmohanSingh  meeting in New York last month was always a non-starter, and Hamid Mir's studied indiscretion on TV ensured that there was no one-to-one session between the two Prime Ministers, something which the Pakistan Army echelons did not want to happen. The meeting was in the backdrop of increased LOC violations since June this year including the Keran incident which remains quite a bit of a mystery. There was a message for both Prime Ministers in these escalated intrusions making it difficult for them to discuss anything substantive.

Apart from showing Pakistani aggressiveness in recent months, the spate of intrusions also indicate that some portions of the LOC have become more porous which allow such incidents to occur. This is no longer a case of cross border intrusions. It is low intensity conflict just short of Kayani's possible departure. The reality in Pakistan is that no matter who is the Army Chief inPakistan, the mindset does not change. For India to keep merely blaming Pakistan for these intrusions is not enough as we are supposed to prevent them. Just as merely complaining to other leaders about Pakistani behaviour is not only not enough, it may even be avoidable.  As a major power with international pretensions, we are expected to look after our own security and other national interests and demonstrate this ability.

 It is fair to assume that by escalating tensions on the LOC, Pakistan is looking after its own interests, however much we may portray this to be misguided. It is not yet known exactly how many troops and what military apparatus the US will leave behind in Afghanistan after 2014. Whatever be that final number, the US and ISAF will be progressively less dependent on Pakistan for logistic support after 2014 for its military supplies and withdrawal. The US release of Coalition Support  Funds may be fulfillment of an earlier commitment but the timing, just before Nawaz Sharif lands is the US makes it appear to be an appeasement. The Coalition Support Funds will however, dwindle and the money tap will dry for Pakistan. So also will the US attention shift away to other problems and Pakistan will be less visible on its radar. The latest call by Nawaz Sharif seeking US intervention for solving Kashmir is typical GHQ speak which does not want discussions under the Shimla Agreement.

 Now is the time, therefore, in Pakistani calculations to begin to ratchet the tensions so that the US and others remain involved with the India-Pakistan question as nuclear weapons draw considerable traction in the US. This would keep Pakistan relevant in US calculations and there would not be a repeat of 1990 when the US lost interest in Pakistan. In these perceptions, tension between two nuclear powers has to be minimised, if not eliminated. Besides, the latest (October 7 2013) and detailed Heritage Foundation special report - A New View of Asia: 24 Charts That Show What's at Stake for America. The report speaks of Asia as America's 'New West' instead of the 'Far East'  and lists Pakistan as the second most unstable country in Asia (after Afghanistan). Any additional instability in Pakistan will continue to draw American attention. And hopefully, financial support and military sustenance. Pakistan can be expected not to deny this report but instead want to prove it !

 

20th October 2013

India shining or China? Investment plans say it all

 

Instead of creating opportunities for our teeming population and capitalising on our demographic dividend we have launched schemes that only create vested interests and are a premium for not working or making progress

In a burst of enthusiasm I for the country, or panic about the approaching elections, the government took a brave but unrealistic decision some six months ago to accelerate the clearance of pending infrastructure projects that had been lying around in various ministries. The last date for finalisation was fixed as August 15 for many of these seventeen projects.

It now turns out that nine of these projects have not even crossed the preliminary stage of request for qualification.

Some of these projects are the Eastern Peripheral Expressway and the M u m b a i V a d o d r a Expressway. The ultramega power projects in Orissa and Tamil Nadu too have missed the deadlines.
As expected, nodal officers in the ministries dealing with these projects had been appointed who were to report on a weekly basis.

Nothing happened, in true Indian tradition.

The writing was on the wall for quite some time and in its report released in June 2012 the RBI had commented that “envisaged investment in infrastructure declined by 52 per cent to `1 trillion from `2.2 trillion in 2012, with power and telecom accounting for most of this fall. Investment in telecom sector has dried-up, while that in roads, ports and airports has also decelerated sharply. This has had a ripple effect on the economy.” Compare this with some of the infrastructure projects the Chinese are pursuing. There is an old Chinese saying that if you want to be rich then you must build roads. Well, not just roads, but ports, bridges, tunnels, dams, nuclear power plants, gas and oil pipelines, airports, railway lines and stations.

All these one hundred odd mega infrastructure projects ranging from $102 million to $1 trillion that include ongoing, or completed projects both in China and in other countries, notably Africa.
They range from $2.2 billion Qinshan nuclear power plant, to $62 billion for a south to north water diversion project that is expected to divert 44.8 billion cubic metres of water
by 2050, to the $1 trillion on the Tianjin Binhai New Area Investment. The total worth of these and several other projects is nearly $4 trillion.

The Silk road along with pipelines from Central Asia to China and highways to Europe through Central Asia will have considerable Chinese investment.

China will soon be the prime economic power in Central Asia and therefore the most influential leaving the Russians and the Americans behind.

The Chinese have cultivated the Central Asian regimes assiduously since the time Li Peng first visited the region in 1994, followed by Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao in later years.

President Xi Jinping was the latest Chinese

President to visit four Central Asian republics.

Turkmen and Kazhak gas now flow into China. By 2020 about 65 billion cubic metres of gas will flow into China. We have nothing even vaguely similar at a much lower scale that indicates our determination to improve our infrastructure that would be the basis for our growth this century. Instead of creating opportunities for our teeming population and capitalising on our demographic dividend we have launched schemes that only create vested interests and are a premium for not working or making progress.

Thus while India will be spending its money on poverty alleviation through entitlements, China has sought to remove poverty through infrastructure projects that pay for working and not through merely the right to earn without having to work.

India boasts 600 universities and 35,000 colleges yet many of them do not make the grade by our own standards, not one of them figures in the top 200 list of world’s universities, not even our prestigious IITs and IIMs.

No wonder we spend $10 billion annually on educating our children abroad.

China has five in this list.

Fifteen Chinese universities figure in the top 100 list in Asia; we have two.

China’s declared military budget for 2012 crossed $100 billion marking an 11 per cent increase. In comparison, the Indian budget was $40 billion before the collapse of the rupee and this would hurt at a time when most of our capital expenditure is on imports.

China spent $296.8 billion on R&D in 2012 compared to a mere $36.1 billion we spent in 2011. China has established 500,000 vocational schools for mid level skills, we have only 11,000 and this is where real power lies -the power to keep a people employed and, possibly, happy . By some estimates, 500 million young will be in the skills and jobs market in the next decade in India -a huge figure by any calculation.  Our trade deficit with China is embarrassing and our industrial and manufacture base remains a mere 16 per cent of our GDP which prevents any major breakthrough. In the latest WEF Report for 2012, we fare poorly in all social infrastructure (health, education, social security) indicators, way below the Chinese.  On the one hand, we agonise about China’s plans to encircle us through Pakistan and other countries in the neighbourhood, but then let OVL and GAIL participate in the construction of a $4.3 billion oil and gas pipeline from Kyaukpyu in Burma to Yunnan to supply energy to China.

We might as well participate in the construction of similar pipelines in Pakistan or in the development of Gwadar for Chinese use.

When Sri Lanka sought our assistance to redevelop Hambantota we showed no interest but got alarmed when the Sri Lankans opted for Chinese assistance.

Instead of setting our house in order and taking advantage of the free world, we locked ourselves in and for nearly 50 years did nothing, absolutely nothing to develop our infrastructure and the economy in the north east for fear that we would be run over again by the Chinese.

When the opportunities came our way, a blurred vision and diffidence held us back and we have not much time left.

The external balance is changing fast with new equations being worked out we need to set our house in order — refurbish our political apparatus, rebuild the crumbling state of our institutions and reorient and revamp our governance capacities.

Above all, we need to provide skills and high-end education.


Source : Asian Age , 18th OCtober 2013

Why Malala did not get the Nobel

The Nobel Peace Prize is not so much about achievement or ideals of peace, but is also about making a political statement.Thus it is about timing and is unlike other Nobel acknowledgements for physics, chemistry or literature.

Mahatma Gandhi, the world’s foremost apostle of peace, was never awarded this prize and many believe there was not a man more worthy of this acknowledgement.

To others it would have been highly imprudent to honour this ‘naked fakir’ and create a role model for other colonies soon after the Second War and the start of the Cold War. The Quakers got the prize in 1947 and there was no prize in 1948. A war weary world could not find a worthy recipient that year.

Overlooked: Malala’s achievement need not be measured in terms of the award she did not get but in the awakening she can continue to create. Pic/AFP

 

The political context to the peace prize is not meant to undermine in any way the role of two great personalities on the world stage but consider the timing. HH Dalai Lama was awarded this prize in 1989, a few months after Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing in June that year. Aung San Suu Kyi who led the movement against the Myanmar junta from 1988, received the award in 1991 for ‘her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights’.

Both these awards were timed to exert pressure on the two regimes. It is another matter that the Chinese regime has not changed its attitude towards Tibetans, if anything has hardened over time. The Myanmar Generals took more than a decade to relent to Suu Kyi. The former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev was given this award in 1990 soon after the break-up of the Soviet Union ‘for his leading role in the peace process which today characterises important parts of the international community’. This was a reward to Mikhail.

So what about young Malala Yousafzai? Many of my Pakistani friends were campaigning for her. For them and others in Pakistan and indeed on the subcontinent, Malala signified a new hope. They saw the possibility of a prize as recognition of her dreams and their hopes for a liberal Pakistan. But for some cynics, who would rather call themselves realists, this award was not going to happen.
Look at the timing -- it is just short of the Year of the Pullout. A Nobel Peace Prize to a young Pushtun girl from SWAT would inflame passions as the bigoted Taliban would surely resort to renewed violence against women and young girls, attack the education system or anyone or anything else they consider opposed to their obscurantist beliefs and violent tactics.

So if 10 or 20 Pakistani students, teachers, women or girls or God knows how many more were killed by these self-appointed soldiers of Islam in retaliation, how was the state expected to respond, beleaguered as it is with other forms of countrywide terror. It was in March this year that suspected Taliban shot and crippled 11-year-old Atiya Arshad in a Karachi school but she is not an international heroine. The anger would also be directed against the ‘foreign forces’ which is something that is surely not required, especially in 2014. Nobody wants additional problems at this stage.
Besides, it is not just that Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Party that has a bizarre attitude towards the Taliban, terror and democracy. The Nawaz Sharif government has its own pressures and inclinations. It was Nawaz who ensured passage of the Islamic Qisas and Diyat Law in 1997 and this was about blood money and retribution.

It was possible to release General Musharraf on bail despite charges of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Nawab Bugti,but he was immediately locked up for the attack on Lal Masjid,a mosque whose activities and congregation have come to epitomise the growing radicalism in Pakistani society. At one level, a country that has difficulty acknowledging its Nobel Laureates like Dr Abdus Salam would surely have had similar problems with Malala, on grounds of religious beliefs, must seriously introspect about its future. Most of all, Pakistan will have to find a way to stop the seemingly unstoppable Taliban instead of wanting to negotiate with retrogression.

At another level, Malala’s achievement need not be measured in terms of the award she did not get but in the awakening she can continue to create. For this, she and her kind, all over, need more than just periodic rewards. Sure these help, but what the Malalas of the world need is sustained support from the rest of us because the battle ahead is long and hard and will not bewon by a few medals but could be lost to a few or more bigots.

Source : Mid Day , 17th October 2013

Nawaz Sharif’s ‘Yo Blair’ moment

This was Nawaz Sharif’s Yo Blair moment. It was at the St Petersburg G8 Summit in 2006 when a microphone picked up George Bush beckoning Tony Blair, and which was later converted to mean Yeah Blair. Except that in Nawaz Sharif’s case it was not an inadvertent comment that a microphone picked up but a deliberate disclosure post event. The difference being that this was not live but reported after the event by one of Pakistan’s most well-known journalists.

Hamid Mir in his interview on Geo TV on Saturday night (September 28) following his breakfast meeting with Nawaz Sharif quite unequivocally and with considerable authority said that the Pakistani Prime Minister, in an off-the-record comment, had said that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s complaints to Barack Obama were like those of a “dehati aurat”.

Hamid Mir went on to embellish this disclosure by analysing the prospects of the Prime Ministers’ meeting. He said that Nawaz Sharif was not very hopeful about the outcome of talks and he did not expect any breakthrough as the Indian Prime Minister was considerably weakened. It seemed that Nawaz Sharif would await the outcome of Indian elections before having serious negotiations with India.

No meeting between heads of Government of India and Pakistan is complete without high drama. These occasions are like any sub-continental wedding which is never complete without the usual tamasha where some aged aunt or uncle has to sulk. In this case Nawaz Sharif was sulking and Hamid Mir provided the band, baja and barat. This one was no different and the usual convoluted cover-up spin and gloss has followed, although with delay. By itself, the expression ‘village woman’ may not be derogatory but the context is relevant and if spoken in chaste Punjabi could be quite expressive. It is the sort of joke that only the narrator finds funny.

The Hamid Mir disclosure and subsequent commentary one saw on Twitter was a kind of a guerrilla psywar operation. The sort of comment that says it is off the record but is brought on record, discussed extensively with some amount of ill-concealed glee and then withdrawn. The message has been delivered, an embarrassment created. The tactic reminded one of the TV conference by subterfuge that Pervez Musharraf had organised at his breakfast meeting in 2001 in Agra where a number of our newspaper mighties were present. Some were caught on camera applauding Musharraf after he had delivered a scathing diatribe against India.

One thing is certain though. Hamid Mir did not concoct this out of thin air and there was that a time lag before damage control was sought to be rolled in. A senior journalist of the reputation of Hamid Mir would not disclose this unless this had actually happened and perhaps even had some clearance from somewhere, not necessarily from Nawaz Sharif himself.

Obviously, Nawaz Sharif did make this comment in some form or the other as he was conceivably upset with the discussions Manmohan Singh had with Barack Obama and the significant declaration about an India-US strategic and global partnership at the end of the talks. His own rant to the UN General Assembly notwithstanding, it must have hurt Nawaz Sharif’s ego when the Indian Prime Minister announced in advance that he did not expect much from his talks. Then, somewhat uncharacteristically, Manmohan Singh proceeded to name Pakistan as the epicentre of terrorism in his UN General Assembly speech.

This would certainly have not gone down well in Rawalpindi or in the various jihadi centres of Pakistan which function like retail chain stores. Nawaz Sharif had to play to the two important lobbies at home, the Army which is sufficiently Right wing and the jihadis who are extremely Right wing and anti-Indian, and his outburst against India comes to him easily as he himself is inclined towards the Islamic Right wing.

The issue then is that possibly an exasperated, frustrated, Nawaz Sharif stifled by an ever-watchful Army, may have had an impetuous outburst. Pakistani journalists, if they were interested in ensuring that this disclosure could remotely jeopardise the meeting, would have kept quiet. The outburst may have been involuntary but the disclosure was deliberate and intentional.

Source : Niti Central , 2nd October 2013

Too many balls up in the air

For some weeks it appeared that a war in, and about, Syria was likely. The US president was having to live up to his red lines in Syria even though no one seriously believed that an America pulling out of Afghanistan was going to put its boots on the ground in Syria. Then came the move from arch rival Putin that gave the US a way out of having to implement the threat. Ultimately, one was left with the rather quaint declaration from US secretary of state John Kerry about the possibility of an ‘unbelievably small’ attack. Now the UN Security Council has voted unanimously on a resolution to destroy Syria's chemical weapons and accord greater access to inspectors.

The US is the sole acknowledged superpower in the world with the largest economy; it has the biggest defence budget with 700 military bases across the globe and the only country that divides the rest of the world into military commands. Yet, every now and then, it feels insecure about its status. Consequently, there seems to be a repetitive desire to pick on a weaker non-nuclear country, slap it around, create a mess and then retreat to its own fortress. Once safely home, it puts on its earphones, listens to every phone call in the world, reads every mail, anything else on the Internet, manufactures new miniaturised and lethal weapons and glowers at the rest of us. US exceptionalism and unilateralism still rule even though the limitations of military power are increasingly evident.

The failure to get a consensus at the G20 meet on the US position and a lukewarm response at home, made Obama rethink. In all this din, it is often forgotten that the Syrian government had first complained in March 2013 that some insurgents had used chemical weapons in Aleppo and sought UN investigation. This was postponed on some pretext or the other. UN inspectors arrived on August 17 and sarin was used on August 21. Whatever else Bashar al-Assad might be, he was certainly not going to use the gas when UN inspectors were in Damascus. The US insistence that the only verification required was whether or not gas was used and not who used the gas makes the ploy all the more suspect.

The truth about Syria is now blurred and depends on what a person has read last. The situation is going to remain messy with so many crossed wires and short circuits that could blow up the entire region even though a truce of sorts operates. The interests are so deeply conflicted that it takes a while understanding where each of the players is positioned. The US disapproves of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, and al Qaeda but supports Israel, Syrian rebels, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The Syrian rebels are supported by Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Turkey and al Qaeda, apart from the US and Israel. Al Qaeda hates the US, Israel, Assad, the Saudis and the Gulf states. Iran hates the Syrian rebels, Israel, Saudis, the US and the Emirates but supports Hamas, Lebanese Shias and Assad. Israel dislikes Assad, Hamas, al Qaeda and Iran but supports Syrian rebels. Qatar dislikes General al Sisi of Egypt, Assad and supports the Muslim Brotherhood and Syrian rebels. Turkey also dislikes Sisi and Assad and supports both the Muslim Brotherhood and Syrian rebels. The Russians dislike the Syrian rebels, support Assad and Iran. Additionally, the US, it seems is confused about who to support in Egypt — General al Sisi or the Brotherhood. Sisi along with the Saudis and the Emirates dislike the Brotherhood.

China supports Iran and Syria but would not be willing to annoy the Saudis or the Emirates unlike the Russians who seem to be playing for higher stakes and higher energy prices with a more aggressive role in the region. The threat of retaliation by al Qaeda affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra against any strike, limited or otherwise was very real with the possibility that Iran might intervene. A regional conflict out of control would have sent oil and gas prices through the roof and the battered Indian economy further.

Sarin gas was not the main issue in the conflict. These weapons had been used in the past by America’s ally, Iraq against Iran. Syria’s crime has been that it has remained close to Iran. Syria is also about isolating Iran and is one of those countries left where the West can still practise its principles of protecting human rights through a show of force. North Korea, Pakistan and Iran are no go areas for such adventurism because the first two possess nuclear weapons and the last is just too difficult to handle directly.

Conventional wisdom is that when a deadline is postponed, the threat is off. There will now be the usual spin to this and once again the US and its friends will declare victory and walk away, especially after the agreement. President Putin’s homily in the New York Times cautioned against a strike in Syria fearing that this would spread beyond Syria where the battle is not for democracy but between a government and an opposition that is mostly religious and extremist. Just about now, we also hear that the CIA has begun supply of weapons for Syrian rebels.

The West has no designated heir apparent to replace Bashar al-Assad in case efforts to remove him succeed. The main contenders could be the rebels and al Qaeda affiliates and that cannot be a comforting thought. This could lead to an enlarged conflict with Syria, Iraq and Iran conceivably on one side against Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE on the other. Whatever the immediate outcome of the Syria crisis, normally Iran would have been more determined than ever to speed its uranium enrichment, seeing how Syria has been subjected to US bullying. However, it now appears that there are some early signs of a thaw between the US and Iran after several positive signals from President Rouhani.

For the moment it may be quiet but uncertainties remain and Israeli perceptions will be an important factor.

Source : Hindustan Times , 29th September 2013

Can Pakistan reinvent itself?

Before meeting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in New York next Sunday September 29, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would have met President Obama and the two would have discussed Pakistan among other issues. The Indian leader may well be on his last visit in his current assignment while his Pakistani counterpart is still learning to cope with new problems of office. When they meet, both prime ministers will undoubtedly assert their desire for improved relations despite the latest terrorist attack in Samba which killed an officer of the Indian Army and two other soldiers. However, neither jingoist rhetoric nor sentimental gibberish can deliver peace. Only cold pursuit of the national interest can succeed and until two quarreling neighbours get this right there will be no closure. Have India and Pakistan got this right and at the same time?

Prime Minister Sharif has the obvious problems of a floundering economy, a foreign currency crunch and an ever growing terrorism that has spread all over the country except that the Punjab is quiet, for the present. In fact, in the period up to September 24, Pakistan had over 350 terror attacks, big and small with Pakistanis killing more than 1100 Pakistanis. The country faces multi-faceted Sunni Islamic terrorism of various hues exhibiting a new level of intolerance against other religions or Islamic sects. There has been tension on the LOC but fortunately has not escalated beyond local exchanges.

Nawaz has still to find an equation with the power that matters, the Army, which is expected to see General Ashfaq Kayani end his extended tenure of office in November. It is unlikely that the Pakistan Army will cede ground at a time when there will be uncertainties in Afghanistan and continuing suspicions about India generally and more specifically, in the unfolding Afghan situation. Supremacy over the Army is thus still a distant dream for Pakistan’s political leaders and this will remain a limiting factor in any India-Pakistan dialogue.

Nawaz meanwhile must select Kayani’s successor and choose either on the basis of seniority which could mean Lt General Haroon Aslam or Lt. General Rashad Masood , currently CGS and conceivably Kayani’s preference or go down the list in which case Lt. Gen Tariq Khan currently GOC 1 Corps at Mangla emerges the strongest candidate. His acolytes describe him as a hard task master who leads from the front with wide military experience and could be Nawaz’s choice.
The Americans would like that too especially at this juncture when they are preparing to leave Afghanistan. Some say that General Khan’s daughter is married to his nephew who lives in the US and whose mother is a born American. If true, the daughter’s sasural is American. However, Nawaz would be haunted by his disastrous experience the last time when he chose Pervez Musharraf. The other possibility could be another year for General Kayani. This too would please the US and there could be rewards for this statesmanship.

India cannot run away from geography. This means having to deal with one’s neighbours. In the India-Pakistan context case, the lesson for India has been that a country cannot fight terror only with good intentions and grand statements. A state is a state that demonstrably protects itself and its people at all times. No other state will protect our interests if we are not willing or able to do this.
Our effort to deal with the terrorist threat has been erratic. It swings from empty jingoism, mostly on TV, or statements promising the fire next time to peace overtures and concessions that are not reciprocated. We get confused with Pakistan’s seeming rationality in an irrational stance that threatens nuclear war at the first opportunity and answer it with our irrationality with a seemingly rational stance which offers peace based on the hope of good behaviour.

The political psychology of our leaders is defensive and takes great moralistic pride in saying we have never attacked any other country. Thus good wars are defensive wars fought on our soil. This is flawed and defeatist. Our Armed Forces and security agencies must be encouraged to be able to take the war to enemy territory, in pre-emption if necessary but usually in retaliation. For this, they need a doctrine backed by means and political will.

For Pakistan, the lesson is that supporting terror mixed with religion as an instrument of foreign policy is a deeply flawed weapon. From its early days, Pakistan, fearful of a stronger India, sought security in excessive militarism that led over time to militancy, later religious militancy that eventually turned inwards. This has spread cancer within the body politic of the nation from which a return to normalcy is never easy. Pakistan needs reinvention that only Pakistanis themselves can do. So, reinvention includes redefining identity away from a radical sectarian Islamic one and readjustment to realities of geography, history and culture. Pakistan also cannot escape from geography which is Indo-Gangetic, not Arab and where India happens to be the larger country. It will stay like that.

Today’s cold reality is that as the constant transgressor, it is up to Pakistan now to show faith and rethink. India cannot be seen to move forward without some visible irreversible forward movement by Pakistan on terrorism aimed at India, including action against the 26/11 perpetrators.
Together India and Pakistan can achieve their own destinies. Separately, India still can but Pakistan cannot. If Pakistan is unable to reinvent itself, the fear is that it will get reconfigured. For the moment there does not seem to be any possibility of this reinvention happening. Instead, Pakistan’s military and jihadi leaders are getting ready for a multi-front jihadi war, with India and Afghanistan and with its own jihadis the TTP along with nationalists in Balochistan.

Unfortunately, Pakistan’s unfolding tragedy is that for every sane and brave Pakistani patriot who sees and writes about what is happening there are ten bigots who will want to silence him or her. Patriotism to Pakistan is defined in harsh and very narrow Islamic terminology and only loyalty to this extremist creed is accepted as loyalty to the country. Unable to evolve a coherent policy on tackling the jihadi terrorist threat, recourse is invariably to dangerous denial by the authorities. Repeated attacks on Christians, Hazara Shias that kill them in scores and brutal killings of Baloch nationalists throughout the year have been reported. The government is unable to control the TTP and vacillates between overtures to them or talks of overpowering them.

Jihad, under the cover of a nuclear umbrella, may have been useful options for Pakistan in its policy towards India and the US but this obviously has diminishing marginal returns. Once the US has left Afghanistan, these very issues will become millstones around Pakistan. This is the ultimate result of Pakistan’s outlaw policies of blackmailing the international community and simultaneously pushing its own people towards obscurantist beliefs in the 21st century.

For America, Pakistan has been the dearly beloved enemy. The US assisted Pakistan in the hope that it will behave according to US interests and Pakistan misbehaved knowing that the US will assist Pakistan in trying to make it behave. This game has been going on for decades and Pakistan has won each time in a manner of speaking. Actually, the gains were essentially restricted to the ruling elite who benefited throughout from American largesse. This has had a devastating effect on the state itself and the people.

All is not very certain in the Indian political scene as we get into the pre-election mould, with grand promises by political aspirants, bitter battles and a faltering economy. This is still far better than the system Pakistan’s leaders have evolved for their people and Nawaz has to tackle his internal demons before he can secure an India-Pakistan normalcy. However, for us to assume that concessions to the political establishment in Pakistan will help strengthen democratic processes in that country is monumental folly. We have no such influence in Pakistan. Only Pakistanis can help themselves once they understand and accept the advantages of peace with India. It does not have to be over weaning cordiality, just normal relations for normal interactions will do nicely.

So, while talking to a neighbour is often unavoidable, a solution is not necessarily attainable. At the same time, Nawaz has to choose between applying the seniority principle, accepting the recommendation of General Kayani or doing a deep selection. It is only after this, that a new equation between the politician and the soldier can be worked out, by which time it could be election time in India.

Source : Niti central, 26th September 2013

How to lose a winning game

I learnt some of my economics from luminaries like Jagdish Bhagwati and Amartya Sen and no wonder my economics remained befuddled. However, it did not require a post-graduation in economics to understand that I could only spend what I earned and if I wanted to earn more, I produced more, worked harder, saved and invested. Alternatively, one could beg, borrow or worse, steal. In each case, you had to pay for it. We seem to have forgotten this basic lesson of life.
The citizen’s hard earned money has been taken away with no other source of income left, in pursuit of grandiose schemes that he does not understand nor does he agree with. Money is borrowed from the public and more will be borrowed to pay back previous loans, or in other times, simply by printing more notes. It is forgotten that if this common Indian does not earn the government cannot collect revenue from him. If he cannot earn, he simply dies.

This is what we are doing to our economy -- simply shutting it down. From a robust 8% rate of growth we have reduced ourselves to less than 5% and slowing, through our special genius for spoiling a winning game. The rate of growth, according to some economists, will hit a low of less than 3%. Vegetable prices have risen by 48% and, surreptitiously, the cost of electricity has been pushed so that my electricity bill is up 40% from two months ago. And this happened before the just announced 10% pension DA hike. The new land acquisition bill will knock off 2 % of our GDP. The price of petrol rises regularly, our energy import bill accounts for 80% of our foreign exchange earnings and we import 90 % of our defence needs.

We were told that our young population was going to be our strength for the future, that this demographic dividend was of such a magnitude and advantage that it would not happen again for another 300 years. Yet what did we do? Our populist policies have taken away their future, and that of the entire nation. Our priorities should have been to create skills and employment for the 500 million young by the next decade, where each individual is an asset to society, contributes meaning- fully to the net national product and to his own self-respect. Instead, our policy seems to be keep people perpetually on the dole and create additional burdens to society. Where will the money for all these pre-election entitlement schemes come from when the economy is declining and government revenue too will decline? How will this government or successive governments provide for the jobless hopefuls on the street with their dreams soured?

Our problem has been we never corrected the faults and punished the defaulters. Instead, if there was a coal mining scam, we stopped the mining of coal. If there was a scam in the mining of iron ore, we stopped exporting iron ore and starved both our power and steel industries. Instead, we began importing both coal and iron ore. If there was a defence scam, we stopped buying defence equipment and endangered our security. We perfected decision-making to taking no decisions.

Incidentally, where is our corporate sector in all this, the shining example of our success story, which has not been wary of bending the law or subverting it when a quick buck was to be made but which has promised to lead us to our El Dorado? Scared of investing in their country of birth because of the fickleness of the politician, the capricious nature of its laws where they can be taxed with retrospective effect and the whims of the all powerful bureaucrat, they seek to invest abroad. This is hardly the best advertisement for greater foreign investment in India.

A government cannot legislate the poor into prosperity but can legislate the wealthy out of prosperity; it cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. The greatest danger is when half of the people begin to believe that they need not work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half believes that there is no point in working because somebody else is going to get what they work for. That is the beginning of the end.

From being a soney ki chidia that we used to call ourselves, we now have a brass albatross around our neck.

Source : Mid Day , 21st September 2013

The reel spy world

It has been a good year for the Intelligence world, courtesy Bollywood. First there was Kahani last year; then came Vishwaroopam, Ek Tha Tiger, D-Day and now Madras Cafe, in rapid succession. Kahani was excellent, Vidya Balan was superb and the story kept you engrossed till the end.
Ek tha Tiger was more sitting through that rather unwatchable James Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, with songs thrown in. It is somewhat like an advert join the R&AW and see the world from Turkey to South Africa with mostly implausible escapist stuff that was popular in the 1960s but fun for most of us, anyway. This was a time-pass story where our man came out smelling of roses having won the heart of a Pakistani ISI girl. That was the icing on the cake.

Madras Cafe alternates between the Tamil insurgency in Sri Lanka and the assassination of a former prime minister

 

Vishwaroopam was better, with an intricate plot and the R&AW agents cover story as a Kathak dance instructor in New York was a bit novel for some but hopefully everyone appreciated the kind of things intelligence officers have to endure for king and country! This was a film definitely worth watching as it helped enhance one’s feel good factor. It is believed that there will be a sequel to this and one did not quite understand the Tamil Nadu angst about this film.

It got even better with the next film, D-Day. One reason perhaps was that this was based on a well known fact that was thinly disguised in the film — the hunt for Dawood Ibrahim. As always Irrfan Khan’s acting as the R&AW deep cover agent in Karachi and his typical understated power was evident. The pace was fast and it held one’s interest till the end even when there was a tragedy in the triumph and the loneliness of an agent on the run. The death of an agent in an enemy country is a particularly poignant moment for his handler because he cannot ever acknowledge the agent’s contribution.

The last one on the list, Madras Cafe, has perhaps been the best, once again because it is based on some historical facts and an imaginative use of some incidents. The film alternates between the Tamil insurgency in Sri Lanka and the assassination of a former prime minister. One can always quibble about some detail but the essential point in the film are the tensions and anxieties in the lives of intelligence officers at headquarters or those assigned to a mission and the ultimate nightmare of an intelligence agency — the mole.

When the lead character, Vikram Singh (nice ring to that!) explained to his frightened wife about the protocol for wives in his trade, it touched a chord. This protocol was the rule of not telling one’s wife, children and families about the nature and dangers of assignments for their own safety. A life of several passports and several identities, a life that has its adrenaline moments but can be boring, repetitive, frustrating and heartbreaking far away from fast cars and faster women. The sadness of a personal tragedy and professional disappointment has been portrayed with sensitivity.

There is excitement in the film as the communications surveillance begins to deliver results. It is of course not so simple. In real life it can be excruciatingly dull and boring listening to intercepts, the crackle and the noise that goes for sound, the frustration of the link snapped, the questions not answered, the riddle not solved. But the search must go on. Those were the days of only telephone and wireless intercepts.

Today we have the wide universe of the Internet, smartphones, e-mail, social media and whatever else. Imagine now a terrorist using all these channels for the same message sent in parts and in code. Catch him if you can.

All four films have a larger than life image of the main character but alas this is only the reel image, satisfying though it might be. There is more of Sean Connery or Matt Daemon in our films and not of Alec Guinness or Richard Burton. We have some way to go to catch up with classic espionage stories as in the BBC serial Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and films like The Spy Who Came in from the Cold, Our Man in Havana and The Quiet American. These were based on novels written by master storytellers like John le Carre and Graham Greene, both having lived and worked in the intelligence world.

Source : Mid Day ,5th September 2013
 

If ever the twain should meet...

The attack across the LoC by the Pakistan Army on August 6 was soon after Pakistan Prime Minister called for better relations with India. This act and the continuing provocation is meant to convey to peace seekers in Pakistan that peace was possible only under certain conditions beyond the reach of a civilian Prime Minister. This heightened tension is only another episode in the troubled India-Pakistan relationship and not the last.

Despite this and other catastrophic incidents, which are symptomatic of Pakistan’s continuing stance on India, there are many in India who still hope that normal relations with Pakistan are possible under the new dispensation in Islamabad. It is better to make a realistic assessment about possibilities of normalcy and not get disappointed by our own rhetoric and false hopes.

There are three essential ground realities. The civil-military relations in Pakistan remain tilted overwhelmingly in favour of the military. Second, the manner in which Pakistan society is getting radicalised with the liberal elite marginalised or co-opted for their own survival. The discourse even among the liberals is that Pakistan is as much a victim of terror as India, conveniently overlooking that Pakistan is a victim of its own demons and India is a victim of Pakistani terrorism. Moreover, the present Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, a Punjabi, favours the religious right and this should put him more in natural harmony with those of the powerful Pakistan Army.

Benazir Bhutto’s swearing in was delayed until General Aslam Beg extracted a promise from her in 1988 that there would be no change in the Afghan, nuclear or defence (meaning India) policies and that Zia’s family would not be harassed. This time too, General Ashfaq Kayani met PM-designate Sharif before he was sworn in. Surely, all false notions about peace with India were cleared and the nature of civil-military relations reaffirmed.

The Kashmir issue has remained an obsession with the Generals especially post-1971, post-Siachen and post-Kargil. Bhutto, had confirmed that both General Aslam Beg and later Pervez Musharraf had boasted to her about the Army’s plan that would end with a victory in Srinagar. On both occasions, Bhutto had thrown these plans out as recipes for disaster. The persistent and near-suicidal adventurist Musharraf, now Sharif’s handpicked Army Chief, revived it in 1998-99.

Even as Atal Bihari Vajpayee was commemorating the Minar-e-Pakistan in Lahore, Musharraf was supervising the Kargil Double Cross on his own government as much as on the enemy. Sharif denied any knowledge of the plan but Musharraf insisted that he had briefed him on January 29, 1999 (in the Northern Areas), and again on February 5 (Kel), and March 15 (ISI headquarters).

If this version is correct, then Sharif had been briefed twice before Prime Minister Vajpayee arrived in Lahore on February 19. It seems a broad Kashmir plan was discussed by Musharraf with the Prime Minister in early 1999, although details are scanty. General Ziauddin, Sharif’s loyal DG ISI later disclosed that emissaries were sent to Kabul (probably by Sharif) in early 1999 seeking reinforcements from the Afghan President Mullah Rabbani, who surprised his Pakistani visitors by offering 500,000 volunteers in response to a request for 20-30,000 for jihad in Kashmir.

Two of the major incidents that occurred in India — the Mumbai bomb blasts of March 1993 after which the perpetrators landed safely in Karachi and Kargil 1999 — happened during the watch of Sharif. It is unthinkable here in India that any intelligence chief or an army chief would launch such operations, which have immense political and military consequences without political clearance. There was some convenient double speak from Sharif claiming total innocence. It is an extremely frightening prospect that today we have a Prime Minister in Pakistan who says he was clueless that his Generals were pushing his country towards an Armageddon.

Sharif and his brother Shahbaz have been close to the Tableeghi Jamaat from where vulnerable young men are then recruited by jihadi groups. Javed Nasir, Sharif’s DG ISI, at the time of Mumbai bomb blasts in 1993 later joined the Tableegh. In 1990, Sharif was ready to introduce Shariah and in his second term toyed with the idea of declaring himself as Ameer-ul-Momineen (commander of the faithful) like the first four Caliphs.

Stories about Sharif having met Osama bin Laden several years ago refuse to go away. According to an ex-ISI agent, PML (N) received financial assistance from Osama for their election campaign at a time when the ISI was helping him too. Money was routed through Samiul Haq and Sharif had promised a hard-line Islamic government. This was the nature of the man then and one is not sure if Sharif has since changed his mind.

There has been a noticeable increase in the influence of sectarian organisations like the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat) and other similar organisations in Punjab in the last few years marked by increased killings of Shias and other minorities. The PML(N) had sought the help of the ASWJ and other similar groups allowing the party to campaign all over Pakistan for the May elections. Jamaat-ut-Dawa, the mother of LeT, has received financial assistance from Shahbaz’s government.

Sharif’s closeness with the Saudis who had given him shelter in his days of exile, his natural inclinations towards Islamic right, and his Punjabiyat should eventually bring him closer to the Pakistan Army. He may be able to convince the Generals that he has abandoned his earlier ambitions to rein them in. His equation with the Army and the jihadis will determine his conduct towards India.
Therefore, the questions that remain are whether or not Sharif is now a changed man and seriously intends to carry the peace process forward, or is this merely a ruse to buy time as Pakistan attempts to first strengthen its position in Afghanistan. Also whether or not he is naturally inclined towards discarding the jihadi option by shutting down the infrastructure permanently and has the ability to do. Reasonable talks can only be possible then and not before.

We take immense pride in our ancient civilisational history. It is equally important though, to remember and learn from our contemporary history, act with prudence instead of conjuring starry-eyed emotion, which makes us rush into unwanted situations.

Source : Asian Age , 31st August 2013

The unending turmoil in Egypt

The Egyptian crisis extends beyond Egypt and Egyptians in the complicated Middle East. It is not even merely about the deeply entrenched Egyptian military versus the Muslim Brotherhood. There are conflicted US economic and strategic interests in the region and an assertion of Saudi Arabian interests. Ever since the US dumped Hosni Mubarak in 2011, Saudi and Gulf monarchies have feared regime instability following the success of Muslim Brotherhood’s political Islam in overturning existing systems. There is sectarian conflict in Iraq and increasingly in Syria with the involvement of the Al Qaeda creed. The world generally overlooks the fate of the Kurds who live across four countries.

Resentment: A protester holds up a poster of Egypt’s ousted president Mohamed Morsi during a protest in front of Saudi Arabia’s embassy in Paris. Pic/AFP

 

The July coup by Gen Al-Sisi had received assurances in advance from the Saudis and UAE of assistance worth US $6 billion to offset any cut off by the Americans. This was tantamount to challenging decades’ old US pre-eminence in Egypt and also brought the 68-year old US Saudi security arrangement under some stress. The latest outburst by King Abdullah accusing the US (without naming) of “ignorance” about Egypt and “interference” in the Arab world is a new low in Saudi-US relations. The financial guarantee from Arab monarchies also deflated US pressure on Egypt that IMF conditions would have to be met for additional financial assistance.

There were suspicions of contacts between Morsi’s Brotherhood with the Iranian Ayatollahs and there have been fresh allegations about the Brotherhood’s plans to resort to terrorism. No wonder then that the global response to the bloodletting by the Egyptian military as it removed President Morsi has been mixed, barring condemnation in the Muslim world.

The US has to deal with its global interests conflicting with interests of the regional powers. Qatar, the home to the US Centcom’s Forward Base and to US efforts to strike a deal with the Taliban had initially supported Morsi pouring in billions of dollars in Egypt, Syria and Gaza. However, the kingdom abruptly changed policy in July, the day Saudi Arabia decided to support the military coup in Egypt. The Qataris were thus acknowledging that when it was a question of regime survival, the Saudis were the bosses.

The US is caught in its own dichotomies of having to talk to the Taliban without militarily defeating them, of fighting against Bashar Assad in Syria on the same side as Al Nusra, the Al Qaeda franchisee in Syria or inability to prevent the sectarian civil war in Iraq. It still does not have an answer to the rising power of Iran nor the ability to adequately assure its ally Israel.

Possibly the lines that Sykes and Picot had drawn in the Middle Eastern sand are being redrawn brutally. One would think that the US is running out of viable stable friends in the region at a time when the Chinese and the Russians remain interested in strengthening their positions in the region. Russian military supplies to Syria are matched by American supplies to Jordan.

As with many global American interests, they are quite often defined by financial considerations. The US $1.3 billion military assistance to Egypt has a strong US connection as several companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and others benefit from this assistance. Add to this the strategic importance of the Suez Canal to meet military and commercial requirements.

The Americans had supported Morsi and the Brotherhood last year hoping that they were the moderates who would help them stem the radical tide in the region. The US could not achieve this, nor could it support Morsi when he was deposed, nor condemn the coup and nor even support Al Sisi. In the end, America could only watch helplessly, paralysed by its own contradictions. The traditional US policy of picking pliant dictators and then plying them with dollars and weapons has been showing diminishing marginal returns. But some suggest an alternative possibility. This draws a deep Machiavellian plot where the US pretends to withdraw support in Egypt while the Saudis step in as the saviours, thereby portraying themselves as the new guarantors of peace and stability in the region.
Meanwhile, there are reports that Hosni Mubarak may be set free soon and the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood has been arrested. The banning of the Muslim Brotherhood would push them underground and into the arms of the Al Qaeda.

Is the Empire striking back or is this a case of overkill? The threat of retaliation by the Al Qaeda and its affiliates is going to keep all intelligence agencies working overtime.

Source : Mid Day , 22nd August 2013 .

No lunch in Lahore yet

Peace with Pakistan is desirable . But it's also a grievous error of judgement to misread smiles when behind them lie murderous intentions , writes Vikram Sood.

Peace between nations is a laudable objective and countries have fought wars in the name of peace. Pakistan started four wars against India, not counting the skirmish in the Rann of Kutch and the endless proxy wars that it has pursued since 1989. Despite such experiences, there are many in India who exult every time there is a change of guard in Islamabad, hoping for a peaceful future.

They argue that the new Nawaz Sharif regime in Islamabad is different from the previous one and that there are enough indications to show that a new deal can be worked out and the ‘breakfast in Amritsar and lunch in Lahore’ dream could become a reality.

They dream of a future when Pakistani goods would travel through India to Bangladesh and Indian goods would cross the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan unhindered, Mumbai and Karachi would be twin cities and Indian movies will be a rage in Pakistan. Is this a dream or a vision? It could have been a vision worth pursuing by both nations but it is a mirage because the reality of Pakistan is different.

We are so anxious about our good boy image that we are prepared to overlook the decades of depredations of the Lashkar-e-Taiba and its masters. We are prepared to jettison our demands that Pakistan gives India some sort of satisfaction on terrorism.

We should not be held hostage to the ranting of the likes of Hafiz Saeed is the argument. Pakistan’s extensive anti-India terror battalions should be ignored. This is precisely the argument that the Pakistani establishment expects India to adopt: rationalise a soft stance as magnanimous and visionary when it is nothing but appeasement. At other times, they will continue to seek equality.

We are being encouraged to forget the reality of Pakistan at our peril. Pakistan is home to the al-Qaeda and its second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri is in that country. At this juncture, it is prudent for both the US and Pakistan to not talk about the whereabouts of Zawahiri.

The new leadership in Islamabad today is sending emissaries to India to talk about how the new democratic Pakistan is forward looking and it is India which is stuck in a groove. This is glib talk akin to an insurgent opting for ceasefire not with peace in mind but only to buy time.

It would be difficult for even a realist to ignore that Pakistan’s leaders creamed a gullible — or a willing US — of $28 billion in the last decade as it pretended to fight their war on terror. If they could do this to a benefactor, think what they would do to a declared adversary. One has to listen to a former Pakistani foreign secretary spouting venom on their TV channels to understand that this frame of mind is far more pervasive than we are led to believe.

Reports about the Inter-Services Intelligence financing the Haqqani network to target the Indian ambassador in Kabul now and the embassy in the past reconfirm the extent of Pakistani attempts to frighten India out of Afghanistan.

The recent attack on the Indian consulate in Jalalabad took place after US secretary of state John Kerry’s visit to Pakistan. Surely, the Pakistanis would have repeated to Kerry their fears about Indian intentions in Afghanistan and how the Indian presence could upset the fine balance in that country after 2014.

The recent killing of five Indian soldiers in the Poonch sector is par for the course for the Pakistan army. It now seems that our anxiety to give alibis to the Pakistan government in exchange of a vague promises of talks is also par for the course for them.

Transgressions like the last two — Jalalabad and Poonch — need immediate and appropriate retribution and not convoluted statements from the Indian government. Further the argument that India and Pakistan should resume dialogue to give Pakistan the comfort it needs on Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek and the water issue is even more untenable today.

There is a message in the attack in Jalalabad for Sharif: the road to peace with India lies through Rawalpindi and the jihadi headquarters and not via Islamabad. The age-old civilian versus military equation in Pakistan is not going to tilt overnight in favour of the former. At present, the army is far more useful to the US than Pakistan’s civilian leadership.

The extended term of General Parvez Kayani is scheduled to end later in the year.

Ideally, the Americans would want to continue to deal with the man they know rather than a new chief of the army at a time when they are departing from Afghanistan. The familiar interests of the army that emanate from its primacy and its vast corporate interests in Pakistan are also at stake in any redefining of the civil-military relationship.

So unless Sharif can sort out his equation with the army first and get the jihadis on his side, the question that we need to ask ourselves is who do we talk to, about what and when.

Peace and stability are desirable objectives. Talking to one’s neighbour is both unavoidable and necessary in the two countries’ interests and not in the interest of other powers. But it is also a grievous error of judgement to misread smiles when the intentions are murderous.

Pakistan is unable to live with its own minorities and there is very little scope for hoping that the leadership there will want to make peace with India — a country it obsessively considers a threat at best or an enemy at worst.

The urge to try something ‘zara hatke’ might work for Bollywood. It is dangerous when national interests are involved and the issue has not been thought through. The defence minister has warned Pakistan that the consequences of such transgressions will be severe next time and so be it.

Source : Hindustan Times , 12th August 2013 .

A dossier on war and winning

 

By Jeremy Scahill

Rs 899

They used to call them torture taxis that carried their high-value human cargo on a mission of extraordinary rendition for enhanced interrogation techniques at places outside the country.
This was shorthand for kidnapping terror suspects from one country to locate them at black sites in countries that were friendly — usually run by autocrats not known for observing the niceties of human rights. The US did not want to be accused of violating the Geneva Convention on human rights but wanted terror-related intelligence even though it was known that interrogation is not the best way to elicit accurate or reliable intelligence. Even so, terror suspects were subjected to the most horrendous forms of torture to get information for America’s counterterror experts fighting their country’s Global War on Terror. An unconventional war was being fought with equally unconventional methods, no holds barred. The US had established its own Gulags.

Recall the notorious Abu Ghraib prison photographs of torture of naked Iraqi soldiers that were posted online by Lynddie England and her boyfriend and caused a furore because of the methods and techniques that had been adopted by US forces. Both served jail terms but this and other similar acts left scars in the region. Tragically, the discourse at that time in the US was not just torture but more torture as Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney pushed their agenda in Iraq.

Jeremy Scahill, in his book, Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield, recounts those days in the court of George W. Bush where there was intrigue, subterfuge, conspiracies and rivalries as ambitions and egos clashed. It was the Pentagon versus the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) versus the CIA and the state department versus the Pentagon and, outside the US, the CIA versus the Inter-Services Intelligence. Scahill’s book is more than just about intrigues. It is a detailed tour of terror lands across the globe — Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and Iraq. This war on terror was fought from cloistered rooms in the White House, Langley and the Pentagon from where Rumsfeld had declared his own war against the CIA. It is the story of US might represented by the US Special Operations Command and Joint Special Operations Command and the CIA in their charge against terror.

Secrecy and secret operations are seductive. Within weeks of taking over, US President Barack Obama declared his intentions to continue with his predecessor’s counterterrorism policies. These included targeted killings, warrantless wiretaps, secret prisons, rendition programmes and deployment of mercenaries along with covert CIA operatives as the US went in hot pursuit of Osama bin Laden and the Yemeni-American Anwar al-Awlaki who was finally killed in a drone attack in Yemen and so was his 16-year-old son a month later. By January 2011, when the Raymond Davis incident occurred in Lahore, there were 851 Americans with diplomatic immunity in Pakistan of which 297 were not working “in a diplomatic capacity”.

The chapter on the storming of the Fortress at Abbottabad on May 2, 2011, has the details but seems too laid back. The extreme tension and nervousness that must have prevailed is missing. Maybe it was intended so, to convey the strong steely temperament of the Navy Seals even with one Blackhawk down. Nevertheless, here was a hands-on President sitting on a folding chair in the Situation Room watching the event unfold in real time. Obviously, this was something President Obama wanted done, to explain that with the killing of the prime target, the global war on terror which his predecessor had started 10 years ago was coming to an end, and it was time to bring the boys back home.

Dirty Wars is not a book one can read lying in bed. It is too thick any way with its 500-odd pages with another hundred pages of citations. It is serious stuff and frightening too. It shows the character of a nation determined to succeed at any cost. It is about those who ran the government and the tasks they set for themselves. It is about people who, in their hubris of power, ended with the nemesis of rising Islamic radicalism from the Indus to the Nile and threatening to go beyond. Tragically, and maybe inevitably, we see them today anxious to talk to the scourge they set out to remove and failed.
Americans tend to overplay both friendship and enmity, dangers and capabilities. Other countries, less well-endowed, cannot emulate them but there are certain essentials necessary if the war on terror has to be won. One of the more important lessons is that counterterror is a long war; it is apolitical and needs tenacity of purpose.

Scahill’s detailed accounts of the American counter-terror effort should be read by those who make policy and have to fight terror wars. As the author himself says, the book is a story of the expansion of covert US wars, the abuse of executive privilege and state secrets, the embrace of unaccountable elite military units that answer only to the White House. More important, the book reveals “the continuity of a mindset that ‘the world is a battlefield’ from Republican to Democratic administrations”.

Source : 11th August 2013 , Book Review of Dirty War by Jeremy Scahill in Asian Age by Vikram Sood .

Kerry in Pakistan

New Delhi, Aug.9 (ANI): Karl Inderfurth, former Assistant Secretary of State and now a fellow at the CSIS, Washington, commenting on U.S.-Pakistan relations said "One has to keep expectations low for any dramatic improvement in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. We've been in a very deep hole for a long time. At the end of the day, we can't live with them and we can't live without them. That's true on both sides."

The U.S.- Pakistan relationship has been transactional from the very beginning. High expectations on both sides have been matched by bitter disappointments but, neither side has been willing to let go.

Today, Pakistan needs the U.S. to help it tide over the economic and power crisis and the U.S. needs Pakistani cooperation to make an honourable exit from Afghanistan, while Pakistan wants a pliable regime in Afghanistan.

In today's reality, the U.S. is Pakistan's most strategically crucial ally with the most investments in the country. It influences decision-making in many other aspects in Pakistan. For instance, the U.S. threatened that it would impose sanctions if the USD 7.5 billion Iran Pakistan gas pipeline were pursued.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was the highest American diplomat to have visited Pakistan (July 31 to August 2) since 2011 when relations had hit rock bottom following the Raymond Davis affair, the U.S. Seals raid that got Osama bin Laden in May 2011 and the Salala attack in November 2011 which killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Anxious to work on a time line up to end of 2014, it is the Americans who seemed to be anxious to kick start the talks after the Doha fiasco. Actually the Americans had been working on Pakistan for some time now and Secretary Kerry had met President Karzai and General Ashfaq Kayani in Brussels in April this year. The meeting was frosty and Karzai had difficulty being civil to the General. However, this was followed by another meeting between Kerry and Kayani in Amman in May just after the elections in Pakistan.

Pakistan remains India-centric in Afghanistan and Kashmir and sees this as a last opportunity to extract its pound of flesh from an increasingly desperate and hapless U.S. Therefore, it has worked on a discourse playing on U.S. perceptions, urgencies and vulnerabilities in the region. The usual Pakistani argument is that it could help the US and global cause much better if India could be persuaded to be flexible and reasonable on the various outstanding India Pakistan issues and reduce cross border tensions. This narrative has resonance in Washington DC. Sections of influential U.S. think tanks and Beltway policy makers have been buying and selling this line - that a successful outcome for the U.S. in Afghanistan depends on Indian concessions to Pakistan, both in Afghanistan and on issues like Kashmir, Siachen.

The mood in DC is vastly different from a decade ago. The "can-do" spirit has been replaced by "can't do" or "don't know how" feeling so let us get the hell out of Afghanistan. The argument now is on the following lines, probably. We do not understand Afghanistan and any way it is of no importance to US. Let the locals sort it out and if they want Taliban, then it is their choice. It would help if India and Pakistan made up with each other, but the U.S. should get out from the mess for which Indian obduracy and Pakistani interests are the basic cause. The U.S. administration and policy circles are now unwilling to see the Indian point of view.

Soon after Kerry left Islamabad there was a suicide attack on the Indian Consulate in Jalalabad on August 3 that killed 12 civilians including children. It was suspected that this attack was carried out either by the Haqqani Network or the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba both of whom are close to the ISI. There were other reports that the ISI had offered prize money for the assassination of the Indian Ambassador in Kabul. Translated it was meant to show the fragility of peace in Afghanistan because of Indian presence.

Around the time of a global of a possible Al Qaeda strike in the Middle East leading to closure of 21 U.S. missions, there was a terror alert in Islamabad as well. This was meant to show perhaps that Pakistan was a victim of terrorism as well camouflaging the fact that these terrorists were their own creation.

Finally, the killing of five Indian soldiers on the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir on August 5 was designed to depict how tenuous peace between two nuclear powers was in the region.

Former U.S. Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill's repeated warning about the likely course of events in Afghanistan-Pakistan, should be taken seriously but that is unlikely to happen because facts do not suit the desired outcome. He points out rightly that Afghanistan will be a mess after U.S. withdrawal and attributes this to Pakistan's obsession with wanting to check India's rise in the region. Pakistan finds India's presence in Afghanistan to be unacceptable. For this it continues to need its jihadi option in the east under a nuclear umbrella operating under a low threshold. The U.S. has accepted this discourse - which is that India is Pakistan's enemy twice over in Afghanistan and in Kashmir, India. Besides, the fading story of an Indian economic resurgence that would have benefited U.S. economic interests does not help the Indian cause.

It would be tragic that U.S. and India - two countries whose interests in the region will be most affected by what happens inside Pakistan - are unable to see the situation from the same prism. Once the American forces withdraw, the Taliban backed by Pakistan will take control of the Pushtun belt in the south and east of Afghanistan. The route to Kabul will lie through Kandahar and Nangarhar if the other ethnic groups, the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, are willing to accept Pushtun suzerainty. How long the Taliban retain control of Afghanistan and now long Pakistan retains control of the Taliban or even the Pushtun, is a subsequent story but the interregnum is going to be violent and destabilising, even for Pakistan.

The U.S. would be making a grievous strategic error by walking away from Afghanistan and leaving it to be over run by the Taliban at a time when it has no presence in Iran and an increasingly tenuous presence in Pakistan with China peering over the Hindu Kush. This would be happening at a time when Pakistan itself is dangerously teetering towards radicalism.

Source : ANI , 9th August 2013 .