Bangladesh: A battle for its secular soul

Recent protests in Bangladesh, in support of secularism and freedom, mostly of the post-1971 generation, which began in February this year, are now threatening to become a serious confrontation with right wing religious extremists in an election year. These extremists stabbed and killed young Ahmed Rajib Haidar, a thirty-year old blogger for his opposition to them. As one of the organisers of the famous Shahbagh Movement, Haidar was leading the demand that Jamaat-e-Islami leader Abdul Qader Mollah sentenced to life imprisonment for his war crimes during the 1971 War of Liberation, should be hanged. One of the fears of the Shahbagh Movement was that if Mollah were not given the death penalty he would be resurrected by Khaleda Zia's BNP in case they were to win the next elections in 2014.

Secular view: Former President Pratibha Patil presents the Indira Gandhi Award for Peace, Disarmament and Development for the year 2009 to Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina

 

The Awami League Government had established the War Crimes Tribunal in 2010 to try several Jamaat-e-Islami leaders for their atrocities and collaboration with the occupying Pakistan Army. She did this aware that the BNP and the Jamaat would take the issue to the streets in an attempt to not only scuttle the trials and even try to destabilise her government.

Today, Shahbagh evokes the same imagery and the same hopes as the Tahrir Square protests but one hopes it does not lead to similar disappointments.

Yet, this peaceful protest could well be the last stand by young and unarmed liberal Bangladeshis in their battle against the plans of the fundamentalists to Islamise their country. The Islamists have wasted no time in resorting to violence.

With the sentencing to death of Delawar Hussain Sayedee, Jamaat protests have grown in scale of violence and range with over 60 killed in violence all over the country by early March. The stage is now set for more unrest in Bangladesh as Islamist groups will push for imposition of stringent Islamic codes to mobilise a quick reaction to the growing Shahbagh movement that seeks a banning on the Jamaat and other fundamentalist parties.

The battle victors will be those who have stronger staying power and money power. After years of being active in Khaleda Zia’s BNP government, the Jamaat is known to have developed an extensive reach in the country and huge financial resources. It is generally said in Bangladesh that persons like Mir Quasem Ali, presently in jail for war crimes along with his Al Badr group, de facto treasurer of the Jamaat provide the financial muscle. He is suspected to be Saudi Arabia’s money link.

There has been a strong undercurrent of right wing extremism in Bangladesh. It will be recalled that Jamaat-ul-Mujahedeen Bangladesh (JMB) founded in 1998 shot into prominence countrywide when it organised about 460 bomb explosions in the space of 30 minutes on August 17, 2005 in 63 of 64 districts of Bangladesh. Massive arrests and trials followed and eventually, the caretaker government of the day executed six JMB leaders in March 2007. The JMB and its affiliates have remained active; they were suspected to have been involved in the revolt by the Bangladesh Rifles in 2009 and in January 2011 there were reports of JMB plans to assassinate Sheikh Hasina. There are also suspicions on JMB contacts with the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba in West Bengal and the training of some of its cadres in Pakistan.

Given this, it is unfortunate that 15 Muslim organisations held a big rally in Kolkata on March 30 to protest against the sentencing of Jamaat leader, Maulana Sayedee and very few see this is an ominous sign for ourselves. Islamist terrorist organisations have a tendency to reincarnate themselves and it is conceivable that Hefajet-e-Islami, the new Islamist group which is now leading the counter charge against the Shahbagh group and suspected to be sponsored by the Jamaat-BNP combine, may be an off shoot of the JMB.

Sheikh Hasina has been a bastion for secularism and has rejected the rightist fundamentalists’ demands for the introduction of the blasphemy law and a ban on the intermingling of men and women. Her strong actions against all kinds of terrorism has been of great help to India in the battle against insurgency in our north east.

We need to appreciate Sheikh Hasina’s courage, her predicaments and the reality that should the Awami League lose elections next year, there may not be any more elections after that. It is in India’s prime interest to strengthen her hands without leaving her open to the charge that she is playing to India’s tune.

Source : Mid Day , 18th April 2013

Good guys finish last

A photo gallery of the Chinese leadership is one of look-alikes, with their dark hair, white shirts, dark suits and burgundy/maroon as the preferred colour of the ties. A photo gallery of the Indian leadership is in complete contrast.


So also is the uniformity of policy pronouncements that emanate from Beijing unlike the ones that emerge from New Delhi. China watchers have spent years trying to discern from where and to what extent such contradiction exists. This opaqueness makes China much harder to understand than our cacophony which is also described as our free democratic spirit.


Added to this is long-term continuity in its international relations. For us, Chinese actions in our neighbourhood and at international fora have a special significance. China now looms large on the horizon, not just across an undemarcated border or in the region but globally as well.

China sees itself to be a returning power as a normal state of affairs, according to Henry Kissinger, while Lee Kuan Yew says China intends to be the greatest power in the world. Professor David Shambaugh’s title for his latest book China Goes Global — The Partial Power is descriptive enough. Describe it whichever way one wants, China remains the big story as it begins to impact globally.

China has not come into our neighbourhood with its guns blazing and sackfuls of dollars intending to build its own clones in the region. Instead, it has been more patient but single-minded in building influences around our periphery. Everybody knows that but the notion that China will give us space internationally is flawed.

The India-China equation does not start at our borders. Nor does it merely extend to competition at a future date on the high seas of the Indian Ocean Region. China has been truly active in its neighbourhood with its deep pockets only after it became economically strong enough to do so.

This is apart from Pakistan which was always a low-cost high priority item for China’s leaders as it was one of the factors that ensured the continued ability of Pakistan to be hostile to India. Thus, China’s single-most inimical and unfriendly act towards India has been the nuclear weaponising and arming of Pakistan and allowing the exchange of centrifuge plans for missiles between Pakistan and North Korea.

China’s presence at Gwadar, in the copper mines of turbulent Balochistan and in the Gilgit and Baltistan region widening and strengthening the Karakoram Highway have been carefully thought-out strategic moves. China, thus, strengthens its infrastructure connections between remote Xinjiang and the warm waters of the Arabian Sea, unlike the US which spends billions of dollars annually to sustain Pakistan but remains the most disliked nation on the Pakistani street. Those leaders in dark suits in Zhongnanhai must be chuckling quietly every evening at America’s predicament.

Chinese activities have increased in Nepal, especially in the Terai. The construction of the road from Kyirong in Tibet to Central Nepal and the eventual extension of the Qinghai-Lhasa-Xigatse rail link to Kathmandu in the next few years will bring China strategically closer to India.

Chinese interest in the Indian Ocean Region from Kyaukpyu in Myanmar to our east through Hambantota in the south to the Maldives and Seychelles to our west, have been watched closely by New Delhi. It would be a paranoid and insecure State that would view every Chinese action in our neighbourhood as hostile to our interests.

These moves could be a natural result of globalisation and Chinese attempts to increase trade with Nepal and Myanmar or have infrastructure projects in our neighbourhood including Afghanistan, cannot be considered as aimed against India, particularly when we are ill-equipped or disinterested in handling such projects.

India does not have any quid pro quo to the China-Pakistan equation where India can arm and equip a hostile nation on China’s borders. It would also be suicidal to enter into an arms or missile race with China but it should be necessary to have a capability to have all of China in our missile range as does China for India. These are merely prudent moves for capacity building seeking insurance for the defence of national interests and not hostile acts.

The answer to all this is not to raise a fire alarm and expect rescue missions from the rest of the world. Instead, it is necessary to continue to develop and strengthen our own military, infrastructure and economic development projects in Afghanistan and Bhutan.

If China can build highways through territory that belongs to us or have its labour present there, then surely India has absolute legitimacy to be present in Cam Ranh Bay and have joint energy exploration ties with Vietnam. Trade links with South East Asia, the Republic of Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Australia are equally legitimate pursuits of national interest and should not be assumed to be aimed at any other country.

The development of the Chahbahar port with Iranian help is about Afghanistan and Central Asia as much as it is about bilateral relations. Of course, all this would also need cohesiveness, consistency and sustainability of our domestic economic policies and security issues. If globalisation has worked for China, there is no reason why it should not work for us.

All this is worth aspiring to, but unless India is seen to be able to protect its vital interests, none of our peers will do that for us nor our neighbours respect us for this misplaced magnanimity. If we cannot defend our interests then there is no reason to believe that we would be able to defend others’ interests. They will seek out those who can.

Often when comparing China’s rise and India’s expected rise, we feel consoled when we are told “You have democracy.” The hard truth is that the real world respects power and wealth. As in personal life, so also in the life of nations, the good guys finish last!

Source : Hindustan Times, 16th April 2013

Afghanistan - Future Uncertain

 Events in Afghanistan had gathering momentum in March and quite apparently preparations for end 2014 were now looking serious and urgent.

Closely following the visit of Defence Secretary Chuck Hegel to Kabul earlier in March, Secretary of State John Kerry visited Kabul on an unannounced private visit to repair the damage.

This was after the fiasco when the plan to hand over Baghram Prison to Afghan authorities was postponed during Hegel's visit.

Separately, Hamid Karzai was planning to go to Qatar to talk to the Taliban representatives there which he subsequently did.

Interestingly, on his way to Afghanistan, on March 24, Kerry met Pakistan Army Chief General Kayani, who happened to be on a visit to Jordan and the two discussed peace prospects in Afghanistan.

There was another setback after the Afghans cancelled the visit of 11 Afghan officers to Quetta in response to Pakistan army shelling in Kunar in March.

There are quite a few certainties amidst all the prevailing uncertainties in Afghanistan. Despite the vague statements emanating from Washington and allies, the local perception is that US/NATO drawdown is an inevitable retreat without achieving many of the earlier announced objectives.

Meanwhile, there will be continued uncertainty in Afghanistan; the state of internal turmoil and the country's role in Pakistan will remain important and inimical to Indian interests.

On the other hand, the former U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, asserted that there was no question of a "zero option" in Afghanistan, adding that the U.S. and allied forces intended to remain there for the long term.

This is probably nearer the truth and the U.S. is expected to retain a presence in Afghanistan. A complex of military and civilian advisers would remain along with mobile forces.

What is sometimes forgotten is the sheer logistics of vacating Afghanistan. It is not simply a question of loading troops and their weapons before flying out. There are about 30000 combat vehicles all over the country and along with other war material will be loaded into more than 100000 containers and shipped across Pakistan for the next one year and more. This could cost the US exchequer around US $ 6 billion.

Afghan national security services - the ANA, the ANP and the ALP, its judiciary, bureaucracy, legislature, financial institutions and the economy are unable to function in the manner that they should. Poor law and order conditions, lack of funds and trained manpower are some of the obstacles.
There is no magic with interested/involved powers to overcome some of these obstacles and make these institutions functional in the short time available between now and December 31, 2014.
The U.S. policy of trying to achieve its aims with inadequate means, an extremely dubious ally who was willing to hide the main US enemy, Osama bin Laden, has left Obama with very few options. Essentially it means withdrawing from an unwinnable war by trying to declare some sort of victory. This may sell at home but the perception in the region is that the US retreated in the face of an onslaught by forces armed by the faith.

Already, the discourse in the West had changed. Analysts are now saying more frequently that there is very little reason for the US to be in Afghanistan, there are no strategic interests involved and American soldiers were dying needlessly while the US exchequer was pouring in US taxpayers' money into a futile war.

The lofty ideals of nation building, creating functioning democracies, ensuring government reform, and ensuring Afghanistan does not again become a sanctuary for anti-US terror, have largely been downgraded. Lieven, for instance, recommends that US should dump Afghanistan and try to save Pakistan, a far more strategic country for the US and the rest of the world. He recommends that the US should concentrate on strengthening Punjabis and the Pakistan Army rather than the illiterate Pukhtun or the wild and numerically inconsequential Baloch. Save Punjab and the Pakistan Army to save Pakistan, the nuclear armed country, is the Lieven Doctrine.

There are many who now argue that there have been successes and Afghan forces have shown an ability to operate against the Taliban independently and were able to lead in more and more operations. Others doubt this. Optimists in the West also say that Pakistan was behaving much better than in the past and cite some recent statements by Gen Kayani as a declaration of honest intent for the future. U.S.-Pakistan history is replete with examples where perceptions about various political generals of Pakistan from Ayub down to Kayani have conveniently oscillated between being Angels and Demons.

The Taliban also use force and terrorise to maintain order but they do not prey on the population like the police does through extortion and other violations. If the Taliban are now seen to be delivering kangaroo justice in Karachi, it is much more likely that this is happening in parts of Afghanistan which only erodes the writ of the Karzai government.

The U.S. may have been able to have taken a heavy toll of the Al Qaeda but the Taliban remains a problem. Pakistani assistance through succour and advice, along with US eagerness to negotiate with the 'good' Taliban has given the Taliban a high profile. This is partly because of US failure to understand that Pakistan selectively helped in the war against the AQ while protecting OBL, was an elaborate and intricate pantomime to keep the US interested in being the paymaster and military provider. Pakistani authorities did not help in the fight against the Taliban or the Haqqani faction. Hunting Al Qaeda was not a Pakistani interest beyond being a trump card against the US. Their real interest was always keeping the Taliban safe and under their control, as much as possible. But this is the short version of a long US-Pakistan story.

Events after December 2014 in Afghanistan will have a bearing on India's security. Whatever happens, India will remain peripheral to events in Afghanistan if we remain merely reactive to events. India needs to make a near accurate assessment of what might happen (not at all easy), after the Americans leave, and regardless of how others will behave, evolve a policy for the times ahead and have the stamina to abide by these policy options. There is not much time left. (ANI)

Source : ANI , 10th April 2013 

BRICS: A wall for some and a platform for others

Success at multilateral events like the recently concluded BRICS-5 summit at Durban would be difficult to measure. Nevertheless, members of BRICS must have done something right to have attracted considerable, and one can see clearly, some caustic and dismissive write ups in the West. If envy is a measure then the Summit has made an impact and if concern is an indication, then too it was a success.

BRICS 5 may be seen as a disparate bunch, belonging as it does to different continents, languages and culture. Even their strategic and security interests vary. Over time, the grouping has been increasingly seen in West as a group resisting some of their proposals on markets and agriculture, climatechange and even on Syria, giving the Club a political thrust.

Unity in diversity? BRICS 5 may seem a disparate bunch, belonging as it does to different continents, languages and culture. Even their strategic and security interests vary. PIC/AFP

 

However, China as the leader of the pack, will use this organisation for control and dominance. The West will see this as a threat to existing arrangements and try to pull it down before it takes off. Xi Jinping, by choosing to visit Russia and then Africa was making a point. The move to Eurasia and Africa is the pivot in return for the much talked of US pivot to Asia. Russia, endlessly battered by the West seeks an ally in China and institutions like BRICS help.

Indian presence will remain weak so long as our economic reforms and progress remain slow and our internal political and policy frameworks remain uncertain. South Africa and Brazil have their own reasons for being members of BRICS but our desire apparently is to be members of any grouping that is seen as global acceptance of our major power status and as compensation for our less than satisfactory relations with our neighbours.

China and Russia seemed to have used their presence in South Africa and in Africa to greater effect than we did. Our PM could not meet the host in a bilateral, while both Presidents Xi and Putin did. Whether this was for reasons beyond astute and alert diplomacy or greater strategic salient of the other two, is not yet clear but it is probably a bit of both. China as Africa’s largest trading partner (US $ 200 billion in 2012) with an investment of US $ 20 billion, was the friendly dragon around.
The announcement about establishing a BRICS Bank could be unsettling for western domination in the future as China with its deep pockets will most likely set the rules. The present international financial structure has been built by the west for itself and it is unlikely that it will allow this dominance to recede easily.

So far all the three biggest financial institutions of the world, the World Bank, the IMF and the US Treasury that, among other things, prints the US dollar, are located in the US. It is the financial control that the West exercised, not just the Pentagon’s $ 700 billion budget and its 700 bases all over that helped exercise dominance.

Almost a century ago, victors of the First World War met for a peace conference in Paris in 1919. America, France and Great Britain represented one tenth of the global population but were deciding the future of the remaining nine-tenths. When the BRICS 5 met now they represented 40% of the world’s population and foreign exchange reserves and accounted for 20% of the GDP.

When China becomes the world’s largest economy as it is destined to, it will be the first time in 250 years that the global economy will be led by a non-English speaking, non-Western, non-democracy. And that country will head BRICS. A global realignment is taking place faster than we think.
As former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd remarked “History teaches that where economic power goes, political and strategic power usually follows.” The much vaunted US pivot to Asia is already being countered by China and one can discern early signs of a Chinese pivot to Eurasia and Africa. Besides, as Tom Watkins, economic and business consultant pointed out, the US borrows 40 cents for every dollar it spends, owes China a trillion dollars and has a 14 trillion dollar deficit. Add to this the cost of the Afghan and Iraq wars to the American people and we are looking at another $ 4 to 6 trillion.

This could lead to a bizarre situation where the US will need to borrow from China to counter China globally. One wonders what would be the price the US will be willing or able to pay to manage BRICS.

Source : Mid Day , Mumbai ,  4th April 2013