Indian Express by C. Raja Mohan Posted: Sat Sep 18 2010, 02:53 hrs
Having squandered some of the best years in the history of India’s external relations, the UPA government’s defence policy is now condemned to deal with some of the worst. Through much of its first term in government, the UPA had a relatively peaceful Jammu and Kashmir, a ceasefire on the borders with Pakistan, a measure of stability in Afghanistan, tranquil borders with China, and improving relations with all the major powers.
That was the moment to undertake some comprehensive defence sector reforms, do the groundwork for rapid military modernisation, alter the internal dynamics of Kashmir, and catch up with China’s rising power potential.
Sadly, the UPA government did not. It now confronts the prospect of the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan, a breakdown in the peace process with Pakistan, a stalled boundary negotiation with China, internal turbulence in Kashmir, China’s questioning of India’s sovereignty over J&K, and deepening Sino-Pak cooperation across the board, including in Jammu and Kashmir.
Meanwhile, the government’s hand-wringing in face of a crisis in Kashmir and the serious internal discord in the Congress party raise questions about the political will of the Indian state under the UPA government. It will be no surprise if India’s adversaries want to take advantage of widely perceived fecklessness in Delhi.
Drawn in at the borders: Click here...
People's Liberation Army
China's military which, unlike most military organisations, also shapes (its) foreign policy, has begun to exert an increasing influence over policy decisions. Yet, Indian officials say they have few avenues to engage with the PLA, and warn that a lack of understanding over the PLA's strategic intentions has become an increasing source of mistrust in the relationship.
The PLA is unlike any other military organisation. It is not apolitical – it has an influential political department that also comes up with policies, though is secretive about its functions. It also exists outside the purview of the government, serving the Communist Party and not the State. The PLA has been “an official foreign policy actor” throughout the history of the People's Republic of China, according to Linda Jakobson of the Stockholm.
India to engage China's military as influence expands
Can our Bureaucratic Foreign Policy makers match or stall PLA's aggressive March?
Showing posts with label Taliban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taliban. Show all posts
Monday, September 20, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
South Asia's Geography of Conflict
Center for a New American Security
Washington, D.C., September 8, 2010 – Ahead of the Southeast Asian Summit later this month in New York and President Obama’s trip to Asia in November, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) released a report today by acclaimed author and CNAS Senior Fellow Robert D. Kaplan. In South Asia’s Geography of Conflict, Kaplan provides a detailed analysis of South Asia's history and geography including the broad arc of territory from Afghanistan southeastward into northern India and highlights India’s pivotal role in the region. Kaplan writes, “As the U.S. and China become great power rivals, the direction in which India tilts could determine the course of geopolitics in Eurasia in the 21st century."
South Asia’s Geography of Conflict is a must-read for American policy makers. Kaplan writes, "If Americans do not come to grasp with India’s age-old, highly unstable geopolitics, especially as it concerns Pakistan, Afghanistan and China, they will badly mishandle the relationship." Kaplan writes, "If Americans do not come to grasp with India’s age-old, highly unstable geopolitics, especially as it concerns Pakistan, Afghanistan and China, they will badly mishandle the relationship."
In South Asia’s Geography of Conflict, CNAS Senior Fellow and acclaimed author Robert D. Kaplan provides a detailed analysis of South Asia's history and geography including the broad arc of territory from Afghanistan southeastward into northern India and highlights India’s pivotal role in the region. Kaplan writes, “As the U.S. and China become great power rivals, the direction in which India tilts could determine the course of geopolitics in Eurasia in the 21st century." South Asia’s Geography of Conflict is a must-read for American policy makers. Kaplan writes, "If Americans do not come to grasp with India’s age-old, highly unstable geopolitics, especially as it concerns Pakistan, Afghanistan and China, they will badly mishandle the relationship."
South Asias Geography of Conflict by Robert D Kaplan
Watch a CNAS exclusive interview with Kaplan on South Asia’s Geography of Conflict here.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Consequences of Pakistan racing towards a failed state
Murder on the Khyber Pass express
President Joe Biden, India, China and Iran. They are all terrified of facing a failed state with nuclear weapons, and prefer a functioning but treacherous one.
The released papers - described as one of the biggest leaks in US military history - detail military operations between 2004 and 2009.
The "everybody" involved in this case seems to exclude whomever actually leaked the documents, presumably some element of the US military, which has to absorb the effect of Pakistan's double game in the region in the form of body bags for enlisted men and shattered reputations for commanders. Like the Rolling Stone magazine interviews that led to the firing of General Stanley McChrystal, the America commander in Afghanistan, the WikiLeaks documents suggest a degree of disaffection of the American military with civilian leaders deeper than anything in living memory.
To exit the Afghan quagmire in a less than humiliating fashion, the United States requires Pakistani help to persuade the Taliban not to take immediate advantage of the American departure and evoke Vietnam-era scenes of helicopters on the American Embassy roof. The politicians in Washington know they have lost and have conceded to the Taliban a role in a post-American Afghanistan. They can only hope that once the country plunges into chaos, the public will have moved onto other themes, much as it did after the Bill Clinton administration put Kosovo into the hands of a gang of dubious Albanians in 1998.
India does not want America to call Pakistan to account. In the worst case, Pakistan might choose to support the Taliban and other terrorist organizations - including Kashmiri irredentists - openly rather than covertly. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, of whom the Economist on July 25 wrote "the strength of his coalition depends largely on how weak he is as Prime Minister", does not want to confront Pakistan. If Pakistan's support for anti-Indian terrorism became undeniable, India would have to act, and action is the last thing the Congress party-led coalition in New Delhi wants to consider.
China has no interest in destabilization in Pakistan; on the contrary, Beijing lives in fear that radical Islamists in Pakistan might infect its own restive Uyghurs. And Iran, which shares the fractious Balochis with Pakistan on their common border, lives in terror that a destabilized Pakistan would free the Balochis to make trouble.
Balochis comprise little over 2% of Iran's population, but they have demonstrated their talent at bomb-making on several recent occasions, including the bombing this month of a Shi'ite mosque in southeastern Iran in which 28 people were killed and hundreds wounded. Iran has accused Pakistan of sponsoring Balochi terror attacks, but intelligence community sources in Washington insist that the Pakistanis would never be so reckless as to put bombs into Balochi hands.
With 170 million people - more than Russia - and a nuclear arsenal, Pakistan is too big to fail, that is, too big to fail without traumatic consequences for its neighbors. Whether it can be kept from failure is questionable. Half its people live on less than a dollar day, and half are illiterate. It is riven by religious differences - a seventh of Pakistanis are Shi'ite - as well as ethnic ones.
Read more:
Murder on the Khyber Pass express: courtesy Asia Times Online
By Spengler
President Joe Biden, India, China and Iran. They are all terrified of facing a failed state with nuclear weapons, and prefer a functioning but treacherous one.
The released papers - described as one of the biggest leaks in US military history - detail military operations between 2004 and 2009.
The "everybody" involved in this case seems to exclude whomever actually leaked the documents, presumably some element of the US military, which has to absorb the effect of Pakistan's double game in the region in the form of body bags for enlisted men and shattered reputations for commanders. Like the Rolling Stone magazine interviews that led to the firing of General Stanley McChrystal, the America commander in Afghanistan, the WikiLeaks documents suggest a degree of disaffection of the American military with civilian leaders deeper than anything in living memory.
To exit the Afghan quagmire in a less than humiliating fashion, the United States requires Pakistani help to persuade the Taliban not to take immediate advantage of the American departure and evoke Vietnam-era scenes of helicopters on the American Embassy roof. The politicians in Washington know they have lost and have conceded to the Taliban a role in a post-American Afghanistan. They can only hope that once the country plunges into chaos, the public will have moved onto other themes, much as it did after the Bill Clinton administration put Kosovo into the hands of a gang of dubious Albanians in 1998.
India does not want America to call Pakistan to account. In the worst case, Pakistan might choose to support the Taliban and other terrorist organizations - including Kashmiri irredentists - openly rather than covertly. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, of whom the Economist on July 25 wrote "the strength of his coalition depends largely on how weak he is as Prime Minister", does not want to confront Pakistan. If Pakistan's support for anti-Indian terrorism became undeniable, India would have to act, and action is the last thing the Congress party-led coalition in New Delhi wants to consider.
China has no interest in destabilization in Pakistan; on the contrary, Beijing lives in fear that radical Islamists in Pakistan might infect its own restive Uyghurs. And Iran, which shares the fractious Balochis with Pakistan on their common border, lives in terror that a destabilized Pakistan would free the Balochis to make trouble.
Balochis comprise little over 2% of Iran's population, but they have demonstrated their talent at bomb-making on several recent occasions, including the bombing this month of a Shi'ite mosque in southeastern Iran in which 28 people were killed and hundreds wounded. Iran has accused Pakistan of sponsoring Balochi terror attacks, but intelligence community sources in Washington insist that the Pakistanis would never be so reckless as to put bombs into Balochi hands.
With 170 million people - more than Russia - and a nuclear arsenal, Pakistan is too big to fail, that is, too big to fail without traumatic consequences for its neighbors. Whether it can be kept from failure is questionable. Half its people live on less than a dollar day, and half are illiterate. It is riven by religious differences - a seventh of Pakistanis are Shi'ite - as well as ethnic ones.
Read more:
Murder on the Khyber Pass express: courtesy Asia Times Online
By Spengler
Monday, July 26, 2010
Manoeuvring of Pakistan Army High Command
Chief’s Choreography– Manoeuvring of Pakistan Army High Command by
Hamid Hussain
‘A general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing the disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service to his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.’ Sun Tzu
The Pakistani army is the dominant institution of the country and it has significant control over the decision making process despite the installation of a democratic set up. In the last two years of General Pervez Mussharraf’s rule, the army’s reputation hit rock bottom. General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani was appointed Chief of Army Staff (COAS) in October 2007 and over the last two years he has worked quietly to reassert the control of military high command over all-important areas.
The Army as an institution has always preferred to have a veto power on key policy decisions while not having the responsibility to directly manage a fragile and complex state and society.
Kiyani was faced with three challenging tasks when he took control of Pakistan army. First and foremost was getting control of the army itself by promoting, appointing and posting senior officers to key positions (details of these changes are discussed in a previous analysis, Hamid Hussain. Balancing Act – Change of Guard at Pakistan Army, January 2008 and Hamid Hussain. Careful Choreography - Next Round of Senior Officer Promotions & Postings in Pakistan Army, September 2008).
He moved out several senior officers put in place at key positions by General Pervez Mussharraf prior to handing over charge of the army to Kiyani (details of these changes by General Mussharraf prior to elevation of General Kiyani are discussed in a previous analysis, Hamid Hussain. Shuffling the Deck, September 2007). When Kiyani completed the process, Mussharraf was an isolated man and was pushed out of President House by the new civilian set up once a signal was given from army’s General Headquarter (GHQ) that they would not come to the rescue of Mussharraf.
It was reminiscent of a previous episode when in 1969 Field Marshal Ayub Khan faced with popular resentment was asked to leave President House by his own protégé Commander-in- Chief General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan once he got his own team in place.
The second challenging task for Kiyani was to shift the balance back to the army in dealing with United States. Traditionally, the U.S. Democratic Party favours working with the political forces of a country rather than relying solely on military leaders. When the Democrats with a majority in the U.S. Congress also got their man in the White House, there was a shift towards more constructive engagement with the political leaders of Pakistan.
The Kerry-Lugar bill was the outcome of this shift whereby future U.S. aid was geared more towards civilian sector. In addition, more direct funding was to be provided for strengthening of police and paramilitary forces of the country. The ultimate snub was a clause, which warned the Pakistani Army to keep its hands away from all levers of power and not to subvert political process. Some Pakistanis especially military officers allege that this clause was inserted at the request of the Pakistani political leadership in an effort to strengthen their hand against an omnipresent military. Outraged military brass publicly snubbed United States as well as Pakistan’s political leaders for committing this blasphemous act. In private conversations with visiting military and civilian leaders of United States, Kiyani made this point very clear. The ace card, which the military uses during its independent negotiations with foreign countries, and especially with the United States, is its complete control of country’s nuclear assets.
Washington’s main interaction with Islamabad is in the context of rise of extremism in Pakistan, conflict in Afghanistan and concern about security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets. All these areas are exclusively handled by the military therefore it was no surprise that Washington gave in quite easily accepting the dominant role of military in all affairs. This was a forgone conclusion in view of the nature of the history of U.S.-Pakistan relations. Similar understanding was reached with previous Pakistani military leaders including Field Marshal Ayub Khan (1958-69), General Muhammad Zia–ul-Haq (1977-88) and General Pervez Mussharraf (1999-2008).
The third task of General Kiyani was to work with political leaders in a way to get their support for ongoing military operations in tribal areas and Swat, but not allowing them to encroach on military’s domain. Kiyani has performed all these tasks deftly securing the military’s institutional interests without showing his hand. No wonder that in some circles he is dubbed as ‘master manipulator’ and a master of ‘poker face’. Many people interacting with him admit that it is very hard to guess what is on his mind as he shows no emotions and chooses very few words to express himself.
Kiyani will be retiring in November 2010 and now his main focus is on the coming change in the army’s top cadres. It is in this context that President Asif Ali Zardari comes into the picture. It is quite clear by now that the president will not likely win any popularity contest in Pakistan. The Army in general has no respect for him either. This is the main reason that president is not invited to visit any military installation. However, in the present set up with the president as supreme commander of armed forces holds the authority to appoint service chiefs. The Army does not want him to appoint the next army chief and this factor is contributing to increased pressure on the president from all quarters. The Army wants that the authority to appoint the army chief should revert back to the prime minister.
Recently, pressure was exerted on president to give back the chairmanship of National Command Authority (NCA); a body responsible for nuclear and missile assets to the prime minister. The military has the keys to Pakistan’s ‘crown jewels’ and no civilian leader is allowed in this privileged club. The prime minister may chair the NCA but has no real say about country’s nuclear and missile program. These programs are under the firm control of the military with the Strategic Planning Division (SPD).
For his part, President Zardari believes that current campaign against him has the tacit blessing of the GHQ. This mutual mistrust and suspicion is aggravating relations between two important pillars of the state and in my view both parties have missed the narrow window of opportunity by their own ill thought actions. To some extent President Zardari has kept his side of the bargain by fully supporting the army in its operations against militants. The military could have used the good offices of the president to de-escalate the alarming situation in Baluchistan in view of good relations between the Pakistan Peoples Party and the Baluch nationalist leadership.
The ultimate loser in case of continuing strained relations between army and president will be the state of Pakistan.
In view of the peculiar circumstances, General Kiyani with his three-year tenure will end up promoting and posting a record number of senior officers. The first round of promotions and postings was done in 2008 when a number of key positions at lieutenant general and major general ranks were shuffled. In the fall of 2008, six officers were promoted to lieutenant general rank and in the fall of 2009, four additional officers were promoted to the same rank (prior to announcement of these promotions, an analysis of coming promotions was done in Hamid Hussain. Chief’s Call - Next Round of Promotions in Pakistan Army, July 2009) In early April 2010, five lieutenant generals will be retiring after completing their tenures thus opening five additional slots. In addition, due to an unprecedented situation his year, four additional lieutenant generals will be retiring as they will be reaching the age limit of 58 years although they have at least 2-3 years left as far as tenure is concerned. These officers are currently holding important posts including Chief of General Staff (CGS), Quarter Master General (QMG), DGISI and Karachi Corps Commander.
In the next few months, the whole senior brass of the Pakistan army will be changed. Newly promoted officers will be posted to key positions. In the last few months, new corps commanders have already taken command of Bahawalpur and Multan corps. New corps commanders will be appointed to important Mangla, Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar corps. In addition, we will also see a new batch of Principal Staff Officers (PSOs) at GHQ including Military Secretary (MS), CGS and QMG. Most of these promotions and postings are a routine matter in any army including Pakistan army, but in view of the extraordinary powers of the military in all spheres as well as entitlements which come with these ranks, these changes become topic of speculation as well as lobbying and intense rivalry and competition among contending officers. Most of the time, it leaves a lot of bitterness and strained personal relations among senior officers (a cursory look at the memoirs and recent disclosures on electronic media by several senior officers provides ample proof of this conclusion).
In my view this is the single most important factor responsible for hampering professional development of senior officer corps of Pakistan army. The majority of senior officers are busy in this lobbying effort and engage in too much of socialization with the right group taking away the precious time, which could be used, for professional development and reading serious military affairs.
The most important event of 2010 will be the appointment of the army chief in the winter of 2010. Beleaguered President Zardari knows very well that he has only one card left in his hand and that is the authority to appoint the army chief. If he gives back this authority to prime minister, he will be a lame duck president. Currently, the army is happy to see the judiciary and media taking on the president thus keeping its own hands clean. The Army high command feels that an isolated president busy fighting his own battles against media, judiciary and political opponents will have less desire and time to interfere with military matters.
The Army is in complete control of president’s security and essentially controls all movements of the president as well as access of people to him. They feel this step is essential to prevent the president from making direct contacts with senior military officers. There is lot of competition and rivalry among senior officers for the important post of army chief and president being a shrewd person can play this game quite well.
The military hierarchy wants to continue with the current system and has working relations with prime minister and other political parties as long as long as the president is kept at a safe distance or preferably removed. Someone is busy doing the homework and it is no surprise that in January 2010, parliament’s constitutional reforms committee agreed to transfer the authority of appointing the service chiefs from the head of state to the head of government by amending article 243 of the constitution. If this change goes through then the president will bound to consult the prime minister before appointing the chiefs of the army, the navy and the air force. The decision was taken unanimously which means that all political parties were on board. The committee rejected two suggestions; first one dealing with the issue that the service chiefs should be appointed after parliamentary approval and second that the service chiefs should not be given extensions and should be retired after completing their term in office.
Despite all his shortcomings, the elections were a fair process and gave Pakistanis an unprecedented opportunity to elect the president and it would be unwise to try to remove him by unconstitutional means. The only way president can be removed is by impeachment and if that cannot be done then he is bound to react if he is provoked beyond certain limits. He may not be the smartest chap in the room but he can surely do a lot of damage in view of some powers in his hands.
The military has probably war gamed all the likely scenarios and also covered some administrative bases. The Secretary of the Ministry of Defence usually signs off the final official notification issued by the president in the appointment of the army chief. The current defence secretary is retired lieutenant general Syed Athar Ali and in the worst case scenario is that he maybe the last stumbling block (in 1999 coup, then defence secretary retired lieutenant general Iftikhar Ali Khan was given the file of prime minister’s orders of replacing General Pervez Mussharraf for his signature and official notification. Iftikhar played safely and went to his office with the file but didn’t sign it. He was no fool and was expecting some reaction from the senior brass. He waited to see which way things settle. This point was also not lost on officers involved in the coup. A military intelligence officer was sent to pick up the Defence Secretary and he was taken to the military operations directorate, which was the centre from where the coup was being coordinated. )
General Kiyani has two possible options. First option is that he reaches an understanding with President Zardari where he gets a one-year extension as army chief. If Kiyani is not considering this option then he will try to arrange the cards in such a way that his choice for army chief’s post has the best chance in the winter of 2010. Most likely his choice is current DGISI Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha. The problem is that in the normal course of action Pasha will be retiring in March 2010 (the tenure for a lieutenant general is three years in the rank or reaching the age of 58 whichever comes first). Pasha has less than a year in the rank but will be reaching the age limit in March 2010, eight months before the retirement of General Kiyani. This impediment can be overcome if Pasha is given one-year extension of service, which will make him leading contender for chief’s post in coming winter.
Kiyani may be thinking on these lines as retirement date of current corps commander of Peshawar based XI Corps Lieutenant General Masood Aslam was in September 2009 but he has been asked to continue in view of ongoing operations in North West Frontier Province (N.W.F.P.) under his command. This may have been done to set the precedent so that no one objects if extension is given to Pasha. If Pasha is given an extension of service in the next 2-3 weeks then this will clearly indicate that Kiyani wants him to be the next chief. The other reason to allow Aslam to continue may be the fact that Kiyani has already selected the individual to command Peshawar corps but the officer is waiting in the wings at major general rank. In early April 2010, in the next round of promotions this desired officer maybe promoted to lieutenant general rank and then posted to command Peshawar Corps.
In my view, two possible contenders for this post are Major General Tariq Khan (if he survives internal fights and pass medical fitness) and Major General Waheed Arshad. In my view, Tariq will be a better choice as he has been in the thick of the battle for the last few years; first as General Officer Commanding (GOC) of a division which operated in Waziristan and then as Inspector General of Frontier Corps (IGFC) of N.W.F.P.; paramilitary force operating against militants in tribal areas along with regular troops. There is room for criticism for some of his operational plans but he deserves some credit for handling an extremely difficult situation in N.W.F.P. in 2008-09 and pushing back militants from major centres.
Serious contenders for army chief post are now only three officers; Lt. General Khalid Shamim Wayen (Quetta corps commander), Lt. General Nadeem Taj (Gujranwala corps commander) and Lt. General Ahmad Shuja Pasha (if he gets an extension prior to his retirement. Another thing going against Pasha is that he has not commanded a corps; usually a pre-requisite for army chief post contender. Kiyani after giving him extension can transfer him to the command of a corps for few months thus fulfilling this criteria but this aberration will be quite obvious and may not sit well with many officers). Lt. General Muhammad Yusuf is also a senior officer but in my view he is out of the race when Kiyani recently brought him in as president of National Defence University from Bahawalpur Corps.
If Kiyani is thinking that after handing over the charge to next man he will hit the golf course then I see no problem. However, if he is thinking about some role for himself then there is potential for conflict even if Kiyani’s own hand picked man is selected. To prove this point one need to look at two exhibits. Exhibit A is of General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan; groomed and selected by Field Marshal Ayub Khan who sent Ayub packing in a matter of hours and Exhibit B is how General Kiyani; groomed and hand picked by General Pervez Mussharraf facilitated the departure of the later out of President House when he became a liability to military’s institutional interests.
If Kiyani is thinking about some continuing role for himself then his only choice is to get himself selected as Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) prior to his retirement. There is no problem in pursuing this course, as current CJCSC General Tariq Majid will be retiring in October 2010, few weeks before Kiyani’s retirement. CJCSC is essentially a ceremonial post with no real power. Kiyani knows very well that once appointed, the army chief is the boss and everyone looks to him and who can understand this better than Kiyani in view of his special relations with former army chief General Mussharraf over the last several years?
If Kiyani is looking at this option then he will definitely want to increase the power of CJCSC. One choice could be to have CJCSC sit on the promotion board of senior officers of all three services arguing that being the senior most officers overseeing all three services it is quite natural for him to have these powers. Senior officers in addition to army chief have to look towards CJCSC also thus increasing his influence. If CJCSC is given a say in selection of service chiefs and promotion of senior officers then he can swing things in his favour at two important forums; the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and NCA thus directly influencing the decision making process with some weight behind him. This will invariably dilute the power of army chief.
In my view this is a bad option because it will inevitably result in clash between army chief and CJCSC. Once a new army chief is selected, he should be in charge of running his own organization. However, this power should not be arbitrary and absolute but tempered with restraint and geared towards institutional rather than personal interests. It is important to focus on working relations between different centres of power inside the military i.e. corps commanders and heads of military’s intelligence organizations as well as balance of power between military and civilian authority. Swinging from one extreme to the other will add instability to an already precarious situation.
The senior ranks of the army are not monolithic and there are personal, service arms, ethnic and social groupings inside the army. These differences need to be taken into account when important decisions are being considered as far as army is concerned. People can have different perspectives as well as preferences and this is an accepted factor as far as selection of senior officers is concerned. However, institutional interests must be held above personal wishes. Lieutenant General Masood Aslam should have retired on his due date and allowing him to continue at current post will cause resentment among officers down the line. He has performed to the best of his abilities in a difficult time and military operations under his command should be evaluated carefully. In some areas he has done well while in others things could have been better. In addition, he has gone through a personal tragedy when his young son was killed in attack on the mosque in Rawalpindi in December 2009. He has kept his composure and continued the task but we are all humans and this was one more reason that he should have been given farewell on time.
On the same note, I am of the view that no extension should be given to any officer. In the past, this issue caused resentment and breakdown of even professional relations between senior officers. It gives the impression of favouritism and tinkering with the accepted norms to push a particular officer and creates resentment among officer corps.
The playing field should be level as far as promotion to senior ranks and selection of army chief is concerned. In my view normal institutional process should be allowed to function and it is not appropriate to tinker with extensions, promotions and postings to push favourites. We all know very well that modern armies are large bureaucracies, which encourage conformation for smooth function of the organization.
The only test for a general is war and nothing else. No one expects a Rommel or Guderian emerging from Pakistan army ranks. To date, all heads of the Pakistani Army were average officers who rose to higher ranks after going through normal command, staff and instructional appointments. Most senior officers are average and one can choose from among the available lot without sacrificing much. The appointing authority can choose anyone among the top three or four senior lieutenant generals and he will be no better or worse than the others. The new chief will work to secure Pakistan’s as well as military’s interests. Every senior officer including the chief has the right to select his own team as long as he adheres to prevalent professional standards and accepted norms. Once, the chief starts to play with rules to favour one over the other then there are bound to be repercussions. In the past allegations of such foul play caused resentment and estrangement among senior officers, which is not good for the smooth functioning of the institution. Pakistani Army officers usually accuse civilians of interfering with army affairs but it is the unfair tactics of senior officers for career advancement, which caused the greatest harm.
Unfortunately the ‘indispensability syndrome’ is quite prevalent in Pakistan. All major political parties are run as personal and family business. They cry hoarse about democracy but nominate lifetime chairpersons and leaders groom their children to inherit not only the personal wealth but also the political party.
Senior military officers also get grandiose ideas in their heads and sometimes suffer from the disease of ‘infallibility’ . The only antidote for such ideas is frequent visits to the nearest graveyard, which will confirm to the visitor that every graveyard is filled with the ‘indispensable’ folks. There is no denying the fact that military is the dominant institution in Pakistan completely controlling not only military but also nuclear, missile, foreign policy and domestic arenas. The army as an institution should understand and respect spheres of influence of other organs of the state and try not to interfere in smooth functioning of other institutions. It is an accepted norm that internal matters of the army should be dealt through army chief but it is also important that army chief should clearly understand his own limitations and not extend himself resulting in the imbalance which can not only threaten the current delicate set up but can also cause serious fissures in the military. In current difficult times more transparency in decision-making process is the need of the hour rather than engaging in intrigues fuelled by mistrust and suspicion among decision makers. A working relationship between army, parliament, prime minister, president and judiciary is must to avoid further polarization of society.
'War is won outside the borders of the state, but the general’s merit is established within it'. Tai Kung’s advice to King Wu, 11th century B.C.
Dr. Hamid Hussain is an independent analyst based in New York.
Chief’s Choreography –Manoeuvring of Pakistan Army High Command by Hamid Hussain
Hamid Hussain
‘A general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing the disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service to his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.’ Sun Tzu
The Pakistani army is the dominant institution of the country and it has significant control over the decision making process despite the installation of a democratic set up. In the last two years of General Pervez Mussharraf’s rule, the army’s reputation hit rock bottom. General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani was appointed Chief of Army Staff (COAS) in October 2007 and over the last two years he has worked quietly to reassert the control of military high command over all-important areas.
The Army as an institution has always preferred to have a veto power on key policy decisions while not having the responsibility to directly manage a fragile and complex state and society.
Kiyani was faced with three challenging tasks when he took control of Pakistan army. First and foremost was getting control of the army itself by promoting, appointing and posting senior officers to key positions (details of these changes are discussed in a previous analysis, Hamid Hussain. Balancing Act – Change of Guard at Pakistan Army, January 2008 and Hamid Hussain. Careful Choreography - Next Round of Senior Officer Promotions & Postings in Pakistan Army, September 2008).
He moved out several senior officers put in place at key positions by General Pervez Mussharraf prior to handing over charge of the army to Kiyani (details of these changes by General Mussharraf prior to elevation of General Kiyani are discussed in a previous analysis, Hamid Hussain. Shuffling the Deck, September 2007). When Kiyani completed the process, Mussharraf was an isolated man and was pushed out of President House by the new civilian set up once a signal was given from army’s General Headquarter (GHQ) that they would not come to the rescue of Mussharraf.
It was reminiscent of a previous episode when in 1969 Field Marshal Ayub Khan faced with popular resentment was asked to leave President House by his own protégé Commander-in- Chief General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan once he got his own team in place.
The second challenging task for Kiyani was to shift the balance back to the army in dealing with United States. Traditionally, the U.S. Democratic Party favours working with the political forces of a country rather than relying solely on military leaders. When the Democrats with a majority in the U.S. Congress also got their man in the White House, there was a shift towards more constructive engagement with the political leaders of Pakistan.
The Kerry-Lugar bill was the outcome of this shift whereby future U.S. aid was geared more towards civilian sector. In addition, more direct funding was to be provided for strengthening of police and paramilitary forces of the country. The ultimate snub was a clause, which warned the Pakistani Army to keep its hands away from all levers of power and not to subvert political process. Some Pakistanis especially military officers allege that this clause was inserted at the request of the Pakistani political leadership in an effort to strengthen their hand against an omnipresent military. Outraged military brass publicly snubbed United States as well as Pakistan’s political leaders for committing this blasphemous act. In private conversations with visiting military and civilian leaders of United States, Kiyani made this point very clear. The ace card, which the military uses during its independent negotiations with foreign countries, and especially with the United States, is its complete control of country’s nuclear assets.
Washington’s main interaction with Islamabad is in the context of rise of extremism in Pakistan, conflict in Afghanistan and concern about security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets. All these areas are exclusively handled by the military therefore it was no surprise that Washington gave in quite easily accepting the dominant role of military in all affairs. This was a forgone conclusion in view of the nature of the history of U.S.-Pakistan relations. Similar understanding was reached with previous Pakistani military leaders including Field Marshal Ayub Khan (1958-69), General Muhammad Zia–ul-Haq (1977-88) and General Pervez Mussharraf (1999-2008).
The third task of General Kiyani was to work with political leaders in a way to get their support for ongoing military operations in tribal areas and Swat, but not allowing them to encroach on military’s domain. Kiyani has performed all these tasks deftly securing the military’s institutional interests without showing his hand. No wonder that in some circles he is dubbed as ‘master manipulator’ and a master of ‘poker face’. Many people interacting with him admit that it is very hard to guess what is on his mind as he shows no emotions and chooses very few words to express himself.
Kiyani will be retiring in November 2010 and now his main focus is on the coming change in the army’s top cadres. It is in this context that President Asif Ali Zardari comes into the picture. It is quite clear by now that the president will not likely win any popularity contest in Pakistan. The Army in general has no respect for him either. This is the main reason that president is not invited to visit any military installation. However, in the present set up with the president as supreme commander of armed forces holds the authority to appoint service chiefs. The Army does not want him to appoint the next army chief and this factor is contributing to increased pressure on the president from all quarters. The Army wants that the authority to appoint the army chief should revert back to the prime minister.
Recently, pressure was exerted on president to give back the chairmanship of National Command Authority (NCA); a body responsible for nuclear and missile assets to the prime minister. The military has the keys to Pakistan’s ‘crown jewels’ and no civilian leader is allowed in this privileged club. The prime minister may chair the NCA but has no real say about country’s nuclear and missile program. These programs are under the firm control of the military with the Strategic Planning Division (SPD).
For his part, President Zardari believes that current campaign against him has the tacit blessing of the GHQ. This mutual mistrust and suspicion is aggravating relations between two important pillars of the state and in my view both parties have missed the narrow window of opportunity by their own ill thought actions. To some extent President Zardari has kept his side of the bargain by fully supporting the army in its operations against militants. The military could have used the good offices of the president to de-escalate the alarming situation in Baluchistan in view of good relations between the Pakistan Peoples Party and the Baluch nationalist leadership.
The ultimate loser in case of continuing strained relations between army and president will be the state of Pakistan.
In view of the peculiar circumstances, General Kiyani with his three-year tenure will end up promoting and posting a record number of senior officers. The first round of promotions and postings was done in 2008 when a number of key positions at lieutenant general and major general ranks were shuffled. In the fall of 2008, six officers were promoted to lieutenant general rank and in the fall of 2009, four additional officers were promoted to the same rank (prior to announcement of these promotions, an analysis of coming promotions was done in Hamid Hussain. Chief’s Call - Next Round of Promotions in Pakistan Army, July 2009) In early April 2010, five lieutenant generals will be retiring after completing their tenures thus opening five additional slots. In addition, due to an unprecedented situation his year, four additional lieutenant generals will be retiring as they will be reaching the age limit of 58 years although they have at least 2-3 years left as far as tenure is concerned. These officers are currently holding important posts including Chief of General Staff (CGS), Quarter Master General (QMG), DGISI and Karachi Corps Commander.
In the next few months, the whole senior brass of the Pakistan army will be changed. Newly promoted officers will be posted to key positions. In the last few months, new corps commanders have already taken command of Bahawalpur and Multan corps. New corps commanders will be appointed to important Mangla, Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar corps. In addition, we will also see a new batch of Principal Staff Officers (PSOs) at GHQ including Military Secretary (MS), CGS and QMG. Most of these promotions and postings are a routine matter in any army including Pakistan army, but in view of the extraordinary powers of the military in all spheres as well as entitlements which come with these ranks, these changes become topic of speculation as well as lobbying and intense rivalry and competition among contending officers. Most of the time, it leaves a lot of bitterness and strained personal relations among senior officers (a cursory look at the memoirs and recent disclosures on electronic media by several senior officers provides ample proof of this conclusion).
In my view this is the single most important factor responsible for hampering professional development of senior officer corps of Pakistan army. The majority of senior officers are busy in this lobbying effort and engage in too much of socialization with the right group taking away the precious time, which could be used, for professional development and reading serious military affairs.
The most important event of 2010 will be the appointment of the army chief in the winter of 2010. Beleaguered President Zardari knows very well that he has only one card left in his hand and that is the authority to appoint the army chief. If he gives back this authority to prime minister, he will be a lame duck president. Currently, the army is happy to see the judiciary and media taking on the president thus keeping its own hands clean. The Army high command feels that an isolated president busy fighting his own battles against media, judiciary and political opponents will have less desire and time to interfere with military matters.
The Army is in complete control of president’s security and essentially controls all movements of the president as well as access of people to him. They feel this step is essential to prevent the president from making direct contacts with senior military officers. There is lot of competition and rivalry among senior officers for the important post of army chief and president being a shrewd person can play this game quite well.
The military hierarchy wants to continue with the current system and has working relations with prime minister and other political parties as long as long as the president is kept at a safe distance or preferably removed. Someone is busy doing the homework and it is no surprise that in January 2010, parliament’s constitutional reforms committee agreed to transfer the authority of appointing the service chiefs from the head of state to the head of government by amending article 243 of the constitution. If this change goes through then the president will bound to consult the prime minister before appointing the chiefs of the army, the navy and the air force. The decision was taken unanimously which means that all political parties were on board. The committee rejected two suggestions; first one dealing with the issue that the service chiefs should be appointed after parliamentary approval and second that the service chiefs should not be given extensions and should be retired after completing their term in office.
Despite all his shortcomings, the elections were a fair process and gave Pakistanis an unprecedented opportunity to elect the president and it would be unwise to try to remove him by unconstitutional means. The only way president can be removed is by impeachment and if that cannot be done then he is bound to react if he is provoked beyond certain limits. He may not be the smartest chap in the room but he can surely do a lot of damage in view of some powers in his hands.
The military has probably war gamed all the likely scenarios and also covered some administrative bases. The Secretary of the Ministry of Defence usually signs off the final official notification issued by the president in the appointment of the army chief. The current defence secretary is retired lieutenant general Syed Athar Ali and in the worst case scenario is that he maybe the last stumbling block (in 1999 coup, then defence secretary retired lieutenant general Iftikhar Ali Khan was given the file of prime minister’s orders of replacing General Pervez Mussharraf for his signature and official notification. Iftikhar played safely and went to his office with the file but didn’t sign it. He was no fool and was expecting some reaction from the senior brass. He waited to see which way things settle. This point was also not lost on officers involved in the coup. A military intelligence officer was sent to pick up the Defence Secretary and he was taken to the military operations directorate, which was the centre from where the coup was being coordinated. )
General Kiyani has two possible options. First option is that he reaches an understanding with President Zardari where he gets a one-year extension as army chief. If Kiyani is not considering this option then he will try to arrange the cards in such a way that his choice for army chief’s post has the best chance in the winter of 2010. Most likely his choice is current DGISI Lieutenant General Ahmad Shuja Pasha. The problem is that in the normal course of action Pasha will be retiring in March 2010 (the tenure for a lieutenant general is three years in the rank or reaching the age of 58 whichever comes first). Pasha has less than a year in the rank but will be reaching the age limit in March 2010, eight months before the retirement of General Kiyani. This impediment can be overcome if Pasha is given one-year extension of service, which will make him leading contender for chief’s post in coming winter.
Kiyani may be thinking on these lines as retirement date of current corps commander of Peshawar based XI Corps Lieutenant General Masood Aslam was in September 2009 but he has been asked to continue in view of ongoing operations in North West Frontier Province (N.W.F.P.) under his command. This may have been done to set the precedent so that no one objects if extension is given to Pasha. If Pasha is given an extension of service in the next 2-3 weeks then this will clearly indicate that Kiyani wants him to be the next chief. The other reason to allow Aslam to continue may be the fact that Kiyani has already selected the individual to command Peshawar corps but the officer is waiting in the wings at major general rank. In early April 2010, in the next round of promotions this desired officer maybe promoted to lieutenant general rank and then posted to command Peshawar Corps.
In my view, two possible contenders for this post are Major General Tariq Khan (if he survives internal fights and pass medical fitness) and Major General Waheed Arshad. In my view, Tariq will be a better choice as he has been in the thick of the battle for the last few years; first as General Officer Commanding (GOC) of a division which operated in Waziristan and then as Inspector General of Frontier Corps (IGFC) of N.W.F.P.; paramilitary force operating against militants in tribal areas along with regular troops. There is room for criticism for some of his operational plans but he deserves some credit for handling an extremely difficult situation in N.W.F.P. in 2008-09 and pushing back militants from major centres.
Serious contenders for army chief post are now only three officers; Lt. General Khalid Shamim Wayen (Quetta corps commander), Lt. General Nadeem Taj (Gujranwala corps commander) and Lt. General Ahmad Shuja Pasha (if he gets an extension prior to his retirement. Another thing going against Pasha is that he has not commanded a corps; usually a pre-requisite for army chief post contender. Kiyani after giving him extension can transfer him to the command of a corps for few months thus fulfilling this criteria but this aberration will be quite obvious and may not sit well with many officers). Lt. General Muhammad Yusuf is also a senior officer but in my view he is out of the race when Kiyani recently brought him in as president of National Defence University from Bahawalpur Corps.
If Kiyani is thinking that after handing over the charge to next man he will hit the golf course then I see no problem. However, if he is thinking about some role for himself then there is potential for conflict even if Kiyani’s own hand picked man is selected. To prove this point one need to look at two exhibits. Exhibit A is of General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan; groomed and selected by Field Marshal Ayub Khan who sent Ayub packing in a matter of hours and Exhibit B is how General Kiyani; groomed and hand picked by General Pervez Mussharraf facilitated the departure of the later out of President House when he became a liability to military’s institutional interests.
If Kiyani is thinking about some continuing role for himself then his only choice is to get himself selected as Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee (CJCSC) prior to his retirement. There is no problem in pursuing this course, as current CJCSC General Tariq Majid will be retiring in October 2010, few weeks before Kiyani’s retirement. CJCSC is essentially a ceremonial post with no real power. Kiyani knows very well that once appointed, the army chief is the boss and everyone looks to him and who can understand this better than Kiyani in view of his special relations with former army chief General Mussharraf over the last several years?
If Kiyani is looking at this option then he will definitely want to increase the power of CJCSC. One choice could be to have CJCSC sit on the promotion board of senior officers of all three services arguing that being the senior most officers overseeing all three services it is quite natural for him to have these powers. Senior officers in addition to army chief have to look towards CJCSC also thus increasing his influence. If CJCSC is given a say in selection of service chiefs and promotion of senior officers then he can swing things in his favour at two important forums; the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and NCA thus directly influencing the decision making process with some weight behind him. This will invariably dilute the power of army chief.
In my view this is a bad option because it will inevitably result in clash between army chief and CJCSC. Once a new army chief is selected, he should be in charge of running his own organization. However, this power should not be arbitrary and absolute but tempered with restraint and geared towards institutional rather than personal interests. It is important to focus on working relations between different centres of power inside the military i.e. corps commanders and heads of military’s intelligence organizations as well as balance of power between military and civilian authority. Swinging from one extreme to the other will add instability to an already precarious situation.
The senior ranks of the army are not monolithic and there are personal, service arms, ethnic and social groupings inside the army. These differences need to be taken into account when important decisions are being considered as far as army is concerned. People can have different perspectives as well as preferences and this is an accepted factor as far as selection of senior officers is concerned. However, institutional interests must be held above personal wishes. Lieutenant General Masood Aslam should have retired on his due date and allowing him to continue at current post will cause resentment among officers down the line. He has performed to the best of his abilities in a difficult time and military operations under his command should be evaluated carefully. In some areas he has done well while in others things could have been better. In addition, he has gone through a personal tragedy when his young son was killed in attack on the mosque in Rawalpindi in December 2009. He has kept his composure and continued the task but we are all humans and this was one more reason that he should have been given farewell on time.
On the same note, I am of the view that no extension should be given to any officer. In the past, this issue caused resentment and breakdown of even professional relations between senior officers. It gives the impression of favouritism and tinkering with the accepted norms to push a particular officer and creates resentment among officer corps.
The playing field should be level as far as promotion to senior ranks and selection of army chief is concerned. In my view normal institutional process should be allowed to function and it is not appropriate to tinker with extensions, promotions and postings to push favourites. We all know very well that modern armies are large bureaucracies, which encourage conformation for smooth function of the organization.
The only test for a general is war and nothing else. No one expects a Rommel or Guderian emerging from Pakistan army ranks. To date, all heads of the Pakistani Army were average officers who rose to higher ranks after going through normal command, staff and instructional appointments. Most senior officers are average and one can choose from among the available lot without sacrificing much. The appointing authority can choose anyone among the top three or four senior lieutenant generals and he will be no better or worse than the others. The new chief will work to secure Pakistan’s as well as military’s interests. Every senior officer including the chief has the right to select his own team as long as he adheres to prevalent professional standards and accepted norms. Once, the chief starts to play with rules to favour one over the other then there are bound to be repercussions. In the past allegations of such foul play caused resentment and estrangement among senior officers, which is not good for the smooth functioning of the institution. Pakistani Army officers usually accuse civilians of interfering with army affairs but it is the unfair tactics of senior officers for career advancement, which caused the greatest harm.
Unfortunately the ‘indispensability syndrome’ is quite prevalent in Pakistan. All major political parties are run as personal and family business. They cry hoarse about democracy but nominate lifetime chairpersons and leaders groom their children to inherit not only the personal wealth but also the political party.
Senior military officers also get grandiose ideas in their heads and sometimes suffer from the disease of ‘infallibility’ . The only antidote for such ideas is frequent visits to the nearest graveyard, which will confirm to the visitor that every graveyard is filled with the ‘indispensable’ folks. There is no denying the fact that military is the dominant institution in Pakistan completely controlling not only military but also nuclear, missile, foreign policy and domestic arenas. The army as an institution should understand and respect spheres of influence of other organs of the state and try not to interfere in smooth functioning of other institutions. It is an accepted norm that internal matters of the army should be dealt through army chief but it is also important that army chief should clearly understand his own limitations and not extend himself resulting in the imbalance which can not only threaten the current delicate set up but can also cause serious fissures in the military. In current difficult times more transparency in decision-making process is the need of the hour rather than engaging in intrigues fuelled by mistrust and suspicion among decision makers. A working relationship between army, parliament, prime minister, president and judiciary is must to avoid further polarization of society.
'War is won outside the borders of the state, but the general’s merit is established within it'. Tai Kung’s advice to King Wu, 11th century B.C.
Dr. Hamid Hussain is an independent analyst based in New York.
Chief’s Choreography –Manoeuvring of Pakistan Army High Command by Hamid Hussain
Friday, June 4, 2010
For US, India is just a market
Daily Poineer Thursday, June 3, 2010 by Shobori Ganguli
Once feted as a “natural” and “strategic” partner of the United States, India must prepare to reconcile itself to the changed terms of relevance that the Americans have now laid out for this partnership. Even as External Affairs Minister SM Krishna and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meet in Washington for the inaugural session of their Strategic Dialogue through this week, media reports and opinion-makers in the US point to an element of mistrust and pessimism that has crept into Indo-US relations of late. This, largely owing to the Obama Administration’s disposition towards China and Pakistan — the former, India’s biggest challenge to the number one position in Asia; the latter, an imploding neighbourhood with a committed anti-India policy.
Indeed, India’s relevance to the US must be re-measured according to President Barack Obama’s priorities which, as things stand today, are somewhat different from those of his predecessor, Mr George W Bush. The first, of course, is Mr Obama’s AfPak policy. Having committed a complete withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan by 2011, Mr Obama envisions a Pakistani role in that country to be played purely to American direction. In this scenario, India seems a stumbling block to Mr Obama as it seeks a legitimate and rightful role in Afghanistan’s reconstruction, as much for strategic depth in the region as to contain Pakistan’s influence in that country. This is clearly not to Mr Obama’s liking as he would ideally wish Pakistan, after all a proxy state, to wield greater influence in Afghanistan once the Americans have technically vacated that theatre. Therefore, any attempt by India to enhance its relevance in Afghanistan would not be a truly welcome step for the US.
Another source of discomfort to Mr Obama, of course, is India’s attempt to paint Pakistan into a corner on the issue of terrorism. While New Delhi has done its share of protesting against Islamabad’s sponsorship of terror in India, Washington has remained largely unimpressed. The official US position is that terrorism is a “shared challenge that the United States, India, Pakistan, other countries have”. Such is Mr Obama’s compulsion to keep Pakistan in good humour on this so-called war against terror that he actually put pressure on India to cede ground after the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack and invite Pakistan for resumed negotiations on all issues, including Kashmir, as Islamabad so pointedly boasted about. Clearly, India is expected to de-prioritise its concerns about Pakistan and maintain peace on its western border only so that the latter is not distracted from its job — that of securing American interests in the AfPak arena.
Read more: For US, India is just a market
Readers Comment
This is the way the US Presidents operate. For Obama and the Democratic Party, the most important thing is his re election.
Also USA is so concerned about the economic, financial and military potential of China. India has made itself not so relevant in the critical schemes of things for the US President. The Americans also know that India is a paper elephant!!!
Pakistan is playing to the US tune and is critical for any stability in Afghanistan. Even though the US Authorities know the double game always played and being played by Pakistan, they need Pakistan.
Good Indo-US relations can help in keeping Pakistan under control. During the cold war US did not trust Indian leadership. Hence agreeing to US requests like starting dialogue with Pakistan is not too big a price to pay. Of course the Indian leadership has to always weigh, how much to go along!!
So India should take care of its own interests. We need tough leadership.
Lt Gen Harbhajan Singh (Retd)
Once feted as a “natural” and “strategic” partner of the United States, India must prepare to reconcile itself to the changed terms of relevance that the Americans have now laid out for this partnership. Even as External Affairs Minister SM Krishna and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meet in Washington for the inaugural session of their Strategic Dialogue through this week, media reports and opinion-makers in the US point to an element of mistrust and pessimism that has crept into Indo-US relations of late. This, largely owing to the Obama Administration’s disposition towards China and Pakistan — the former, India’s biggest challenge to the number one position in Asia; the latter, an imploding neighbourhood with a committed anti-India policy.
Indeed, India’s relevance to the US must be re-measured according to President Barack Obama’s priorities which, as things stand today, are somewhat different from those of his predecessor, Mr George W Bush. The first, of course, is Mr Obama’s AfPak policy. Having committed a complete withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan by 2011, Mr Obama envisions a Pakistani role in that country to be played purely to American direction. In this scenario, India seems a stumbling block to Mr Obama as it seeks a legitimate and rightful role in Afghanistan’s reconstruction, as much for strategic depth in the region as to contain Pakistan’s influence in that country. This is clearly not to Mr Obama’s liking as he would ideally wish Pakistan, after all a proxy state, to wield greater influence in Afghanistan once the Americans have technically vacated that theatre. Therefore, any attempt by India to enhance its relevance in Afghanistan would not be a truly welcome step for the US.
Another source of discomfort to Mr Obama, of course, is India’s attempt to paint Pakistan into a corner on the issue of terrorism. While New Delhi has done its share of protesting against Islamabad’s sponsorship of terror in India, Washington has remained largely unimpressed. The official US position is that terrorism is a “shared challenge that the United States, India, Pakistan, other countries have”. Such is Mr Obama’s compulsion to keep Pakistan in good humour on this so-called war against terror that he actually put pressure on India to cede ground after the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack and invite Pakistan for resumed negotiations on all issues, including Kashmir, as Islamabad so pointedly boasted about. Clearly, India is expected to de-prioritise its concerns about Pakistan and maintain peace on its western border only so that the latter is not distracted from its job — that of securing American interests in the AfPak arena.
Read more: For US, India is just a market
Readers Comment
This is the way the US Presidents operate. For Obama and the Democratic Party, the most important thing is his re election.
Also USA is so concerned about the economic, financial and military potential of China. India has made itself not so relevant in the critical schemes of things for the US President. The Americans also know that India is a paper elephant!!!
Pakistan is playing to the US tune and is critical for any stability in Afghanistan. Even though the US Authorities know the double game always played and being played by Pakistan, they need Pakistan.
Good Indo-US relations can help in keeping Pakistan under control. During the cold war US did not trust Indian leadership. Hence agreeing to US requests like starting dialogue with Pakistan is not too big a price to pay. Of course the Indian leadership has to always weigh, how much to go along!!
So India should take care of its own interests. We need tough leadership.
Lt Gen Harbhajan Singh (Retd)
Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal to overtake India’s
03/06/2010
Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal to overtake India’s: SIPRI
"Our conservative estimates are that Pakistan has sixty warheads and could produce 100 nuclear weapons at short notice. In comparison India had also 60 to 70 nuclear warheads," the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said. Pakistan has 60 nuclear warheads and with two new plutonium reactors nearing completion in Khusab, its weapons grade plutonium production will jump seven-fold, according to latest figures released by Swedish institute.
Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal to overtake India’s
VAIDYANATHAN K IYER says:
Thursday, 03 June 2010 23:35:18
When on economic point of view Pak is like a begging country. The have not learnt any lesson from encouraging terrorism. As they sow they will reap is the proverb. It is eccentric that people are boasting about their capability to destructive weapons rather than constructive way of developing their nation. God alone should save their country which has got its own destruction on its head and exposing pompous living.
Nuclear Terrorism
Is Pakistan heading for Nuclear terrorism or is the country being taken over by Taliban type Terrorists alongwith the Nuclear assets. Pakistan style democracy is a fake and a farce. The world needs to see Pakistan's game plan in a holistic manner. The Chinese who are assisting them now are likely to see red soon!
Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal to overtake India’s: SIPRI
"Our conservative estimates are that Pakistan has sixty warheads and could produce 100 nuclear weapons at short notice. In comparison India had also 60 to 70 nuclear warheads," the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) said. Pakistan has 60 nuclear warheads and with two new plutonium reactors nearing completion in Khusab, its weapons grade plutonium production will jump seven-fold, according to latest figures released by Swedish institute.
Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal to overtake India’s
VAIDYANATHAN K IYER says:
Thursday, 03 June 2010 23:35:18
When on economic point of view Pak is like a begging country. The have not learnt any lesson from encouraging terrorism. As they sow they will reap is the proverb. It is eccentric that people are boasting about their capability to destructive weapons rather than constructive way of developing their nation. God alone should save their country which has got its own destruction on its head and exposing pompous living.
Nuclear Terrorism
Is Pakistan heading for Nuclear terrorism or is the country being taken over by Taliban type Terrorists alongwith the Nuclear assets. Pakistan style democracy is a fake and a farce. The world needs to see Pakistan's game plan in a holistic manner. The Chinese who are assisting them now are likely to see red soon!
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Indo-Pak relations continue to frustrate the US agenda in Afghanistan
The Telegraph Monday , May 24 , 2010: An American dilemma by Ashok Mitra
Indians generally love the colour of money; whatever the shade of that colour. Americans are making huge outlays in Afghanistan aimed at setting up a solid defence infrastructure against the Taliban. They are building airstrips, helipads and army barracks, widening highways and laying new ones and installing sophisticated communications networks, apart from constructing structures for hospitals and schools. Technologists and technicians of diverse backgrounds, civil and mechanical engineers as well as skilled and unskilled workers from India have crowded in Kabul and sometimes fanned out from there, under military protection, to the outlying provinces to participate in such works in progress. When the Taliban strike, they have no particular programme to spare Indians; it would not be logistically possible to do so either. There is, of course, also the theory that whoever supports the heathen Americans deserve to perish along with the Americans. Casualties are therefore mounting among Indians, a development New Delhi cannot afford to ignore. India’s prime minister communicated his government’s sense of disquiet over the matter to the Afghan president, who in turn will, it is expected, convey the substance of it to the American authorities.
Read the full article:
An American dilemma- Indo-Pak relations continue to frustrate the US agenda in Afghanistan
Indians generally love the colour of money; whatever the shade of that colour. Americans are making huge outlays in Afghanistan aimed at setting up a solid defence infrastructure against the Taliban. They are building airstrips, helipads and army barracks, widening highways and laying new ones and installing sophisticated communications networks, apart from constructing structures for hospitals and schools. Technologists and technicians of diverse backgrounds, civil and mechanical engineers as well as skilled and unskilled workers from India have crowded in Kabul and sometimes fanned out from there, under military protection, to the outlying provinces to participate in such works in progress. When the Taliban strike, they have no particular programme to spare Indians; it would not be logistically possible to do so either. There is, of course, also the theory that whoever supports the heathen Americans deserve to perish along with the Americans. Casualties are therefore mounting among Indians, a development New Delhi cannot afford to ignore. India’s prime minister communicated his government’s sense of disquiet over the matter to the Afghan president, who in turn will, it is expected, convey the substance of it to the American authorities.
Read the full article:
An American dilemma- Indo-Pak relations continue to frustrate the US agenda in Afghanistan
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Afganistan: Dependency of failed state on drug trade
KABUL, 10 May 2010 (IRIN) - It is well known that the Taliban, local criminals and international drug cartels profit enormously from the drug trade; that corruption is rife; and that huge amounts of aid money are pouring into Afghanistan. Less clear is the effect of all this on government power and the rule of law on which humanitarian aid organizations depend to carry out their mandate.
The drugs trade and corruption generate more money than lawful economic activities in Afghanistan. Opium sales generated an estimated US$2.8 billion in 2009, while in the same year Afghans paid $2.5 billion in bribes to government officials, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
The drug-cum-corruption economy of $5.3 billion in 2009 is more than the $4.4 billion earmarked in 2010 for running the government and financing the development budget.
The overwhelming victims of corruption and drug-induced insecurity are ordinary Afghans, according to the Ministry of Counter-Narcotics (MCN).
“It is almost impossible to obtain a public service in Afghanistan without greasing a palm: bribing the authorities is part of everyday life,” said a UNODC survey, which described corruption as “the biggest problem” in the eyes of Afghans. “Bribery not only robs the poor and causes misallocation of resources, it destroys trust in government.”
Jean-Luc Lemahieu, UNODC’s country representative, was skeptical of the notion of linking drug money with corruption “yet nobody can argue that drug money and corruption are one unholy alliance sharing the same sick bed,” he told IRIN.
International mafia to blame?
MCN officials blame a powerful international mafia for the drugs trade.
“The mafia kills our counter-narcotics forces, abuses our institutions and even threatens the minister of counter-narcotics,” said Zalmai Afzali, MCN’s spokesman.
Hamidullah Farooqi, a former minister and economist, said drug money had deep roots and involved powerful circles both within and outside government.
“Whether Afghans or foreign mafia are nurturing the drug trade is less important than why the problem is not being effectively addressed,” Farooqi told IRIN, adding that there was a lack of commitment in government to tackle the booming illegal economy.
Afghanistan is the world’s top opium producer, according to UNODC, and its government is the most corrupt in the world after Somalia, according to Transparency International.
The opium trade employs about 1.6 million people (6.4 percent of the population), according to the World Bank.
Backed by donors, the government has tried several counter-narcotics and anti-corruption strategies and approaches over the past eight years.
Too powerful
Tackling drugs and corruption, however, is risky as law enforcement institutions are weak and those with vested interests in the illicit economy powerful.
“The so-called elite that thrives on the illegal economy is so powerful that it can destabilize the country if revolutionary steps are taken to change the status quo,” said Saifuddin Saihoon, a professor of political economy at Kabul University.
“Corruption and drugs undermine the rule of law, erode peoples’ confidence in the government, fuel insecurity, contribute to poverty and derail development efforts,” said former minister Farooqi.
“We all eat corruption and drug money, albeit in different quantities,” said an official in the Finance Ministry who preferred anonymity.
Read more
AFGHANISTAN: Running on drugs, corruption and aid
Question
Is US and Indian humanitarian aid going down the drain or increasing drug trade? Is the drug trade financing terror factories in Pakistan and Afghanistan?
The drugs trade and corruption generate more money than lawful economic activities in Afghanistan. Opium sales generated an estimated US$2.8 billion in 2009, while in the same year Afghans paid $2.5 billion in bribes to government officials, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
The drug-cum-corruption economy of $5.3 billion in 2009 is more than the $4.4 billion earmarked in 2010 for running the government and financing the development budget.
The overwhelming victims of corruption and drug-induced insecurity are ordinary Afghans, according to the Ministry of Counter-Narcotics (MCN).
“It is almost impossible to obtain a public service in Afghanistan without greasing a palm: bribing the authorities is part of everyday life,” said a UNODC survey, which described corruption as “the biggest problem” in the eyes of Afghans. “Bribery not only robs the poor and causes misallocation of resources, it destroys trust in government.”
Jean-Luc Lemahieu, UNODC’s country representative, was skeptical of the notion of linking drug money with corruption “yet nobody can argue that drug money and corruption are one unholy alliance sharing the same sick bed,” he told IRIN.
International mafia to blame?
Too powerful
Read more
AFGHANISTAN: Running on drugs, corruption and aid
Question
Is US and Indian humanitarian aid going down the drain or increasing drug trade? Is the drug trade financing terror factories in Pakistan and Afghanistan?
Monday, May 10, 2010
National Security: India warns US against military aid to Pakistan
New Delhi (AFP) May 7, 2010
India's defence minister cautioned the United States on Friday against military supplies to rival Pakistan, saying the hardware could be diverted to target India.
The warning came after the US in March said it would deliver unarmed drones to Pakistan and less than a month after it unveiled plans to transfer 600 million dollars to Islamabad to pay for anti-militant operations.
A. K. Antony told reporters in New Delhi that India's concerns had been conveyed to Washington.
"Even though the US is giving equipment to Pakistan to fight against the Taliban, we feel there is every possibility of (Pakistan) diverting most of them to the Indian borders," Antony said.
India warns US against military aid to Pakistan
Diplomatic Negligence: The Obama administration fumbles relations with India
India's defence minister cautioned the United States on Friday against military supplies to rival Pakistan, saying the hardware could be diverted to target India.
The warning came after the US in March said it would deliver unarmed drones to Pakistan and less than a month after it unveiled plans to transfer 600 million dollars to Islamabad to pay for anti-militant operations.
A. K. Antony told reporters in New Delhi that India's concerns had been conveyed to Washington.
"Even though the US is giving equipment to Pakistan to fight against the Taliban, we feel there is every possibility of (Pakistan) diverting most of them to the Indian borders," Antony said.
India warns US against military aid to Pakistan
Diplomatic Negligence: The Obama administration fumbles relations with India
Pakistan Terror Factories: Taliban behind Times Square incident
Sunday 09 May, 2010.
US said it has evidence that the Pakistani Taliban was behind last week's failed attempt to detonate a car bomb at Times Square in New York and that terror suspect Faisal Shahzad was "working at their direction".
The evidence has given new direction to the fight against terrorism, as investigations into the Times Square incident has revealed that the Pakistani Taliban has the "aim" and "capability" in carrying out attacks against the United States.
"We've now developed evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack," US Attorney General Eric Holder told a news channel on Sunday.
"We know that they (Pakistani Taliban) helped facilitate it. We know that they probably helped finance it, and that he (Shahzad) was working at their direction," he said.
30-year-old Shahzad, a Pakistani who became a naturalised US citizen, was arrested on Monday last for attempting to detonate the car bomb in New York.
The FBI has said that Shahzad, son of a former Pakistani Air Force officer, has admitted to attending a terrorist training camp in Pakistan's restive Waziristan tribal region.
US has evidence that Pak Taliban behind Times Square incident
Comment: Pakistan is home to all forms of Terrorists. How are these terrorists being financed and trained is the mute question which the world at large and India specifically needs to address! Is the Pakistan Government blind to the terrorist factories in their own land?
US said it has evidence that the Pakistani Taliban was behind last week's failed attempt to detonate a car bomb at Times Square in New York and that terror suspect Faisal Shahzad was "working at their direction".
The evidence has given new direction to the fight against terrorism, as investigations into the Times Square incident has revealed that the Pakistani Taliban has the "aim" and "capability" in carrying out attacks against the United States.
"We've now developed evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack," US Attorney General Eric Holder told a news channel on Sunday.
"We know that they (Pakistani Taliban) helped facilitate it. We know that they probably helped finance it, and that he (Shahzad) was working at their direction," he said.
30-year-old Shahzad, a Pakistani who became a naturalised US citizen, was arrested on Monday last for attempting to detonate the car bomb in New York.
The FBI has said that Shahzad, son of a former Pakistani Air Force officer, has admitted to attending a terrorist training camp in Pakistan's restive Waziristan tribal region.
US has evidence that Pak Taliban behind Times Square incident
Comment: Pakistan is home to all forms of Terrorists. How are these terrorists being financed and trained is the mute question which the world at large and India specifically needs to address! Is the Pakistan Government blind to the terrorist factories in their own land?
Sunday, January 3, 2010
War on terror: Pakistan Terrorists escape
3 Pak terrorists escape from Delhi hospital IANS 2 January 2010, 06:56pm
NEW DELHI: Three Pakistani terrorists who have already completed their sentences and were soon to be deported home on Saturday escaped from a city hospital after giving immigration officials the slip, police said.
The trio managed to slip out of the clutches of Foreigners Regional Registration (FRRO) officials at the G.B. Pant hospital in central Delhi.
"There were not in the custody of the police. But they were under restraint orders of the FRRO. We have registered a case and are searching for them," Joint Commissioner of Police Karnal Singh said.
The hospital administration feigned ignorance about the incident.
"I do not remember any such case in last few days. We are verifying our records," the hospital's Additional Medical Superintendent, Shashi Gururaja, said.
The police said the three Pakistanis were arrested in 2000 for planting a bomb near Delhi airport. A large amount of RDX was seized from them.
3 Pak terrorists escape from Delhi hospital
NEW DELHI: Three Pakistani terrorists who have already completed their sentences and were soon to be deported home on Saturday escaped from a city hospital after giving immigration officials the slip, police said.
The trio managed to slip out of the clutches of Foreigners Regional Registration (FRRO) officials at the G.B. Pant hospital in central Delhi.
"There were not in the custody of the police. But they were under restraint orders of the FRRO. We have registered a case and are searching for them," Joint Commissioner of Police Karnal Singh said.
The hospital administration feigned ignorance about the incident.
"I do not remember any such case in last few days. We are verifying our records," the hospital's Additional Medical Superintendent, Shashi Gururaja, said.
The police said the three Pakistanis were arrested in 2000 for planting a bomb near Delhi airport. A large amount of RDX was seized from them.
3 Pak terrorists escape from Delhi hospital
Monday, December 28, 2009
Pakistan continues to struggle for survivial
Things do not change
"Pakistan Struggles For Survival - Religious Warfare and Economic Chaos Threaten the Survival of this Nation".
Above was the heading of the Life Magazine article on Pakistan in January, 1948 when Pakistan was just 5 months old!!
Lt Gen Harbhajan Singh, PVSM (Retd)
A few years ago a friend gave me a wonderful gift. A copy of the January 4, 1948 issue of LIFE magazine. This is the issue with a rather unflattering portrait of a clearly ailing ‘Jinnah of Pakistan’ on its cover.
For most part the cover story- with pictures by Margaret Bourke-White- is as unflattering as the picture of Mr. Jinnah on the cover. Margaret Bourke White is an important chronicler of the events of 1947 and beyond in both India and Pakistan. She has strong views on these events, including on the creation of Pakistan and on Mohammad Ali Jinnah. These views, also reflected in the LIFE article, are much discussed and sometimes debated in academic and popular treatise.
What has facinated the readers are the pictures and accounts of everyday life in Pakistan at its birth. How severe were the existential challenges of survival the country faced at that time. How much has changed. And how much has not?
Life in Pakistan at its birth. How much has changed. And how much has not...Click here to read more
"Pakistan Struggles For Survival - Religious Warfare and Economic Chaos Threaten the Survival of this Nation".
Above was the heading of the Life Magazine article on Pakistan in January, 1948 when Pakistan was just 5 months old!!
Lt Gen Harbhajan Singh, PVSM (Retd)
A few years ago a friend gave me a wonderful gift. A copy of the January 4, 1948 issue of LIFE magazine. This is the issue with a rather unflattering portrait of a clearly ailing ‘Jinnah of Pakistan’ on its cover.For most part the cover story- with pictures by Margaret Bourke-White- is as unflattering as the picture of Mr. Jinnah on the cover. Margaret Bourke White is an important chronicler of the events of 1947 and beyond in both India and Pakistan. She has strong views on these events, including on the creation of Pakistan and on Mohammad Ali Jinnah. These views, also reflected in the LIFE article, are much discussed and sometimes debated in academic and popular treatise.
What has facinated the readers are the pictures and accounts of everyday life in Pakistan at its birth. How severe were the existential challenges of survival the country faced at that time. How much has changed. And how much has not?
Life in Pakistan at its birth. How much has changed. And how much has not...Click here to read more
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Can India unearth Money Launderers who fuel World Terrorism?
India, Switzerland to renegotiate tax treaty
October 21, 2009 17:05 IST
The government on Tuesday said it would renegotiate the taxation treaty with Switzerland under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Model Tax Convention.
"...There is a provision in OECD...The article 26," Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee told reporters when asked about the proposed talks with Swiss authorities later this year.
The negotiations are expected to take place in the wake of the issue of black money stashed away in Swiss banks that has created a political furore in the country, and India has sought details related to the same from Swiss authorities.
OECD sets the international tax standards. Article 26 of the OECD Model Convention on Income and Capital, covers "tax of every kind and description" and allows for exchange of tax-related information between two countries.
In August, Mukherjee had said that India and Switzerland would meet in December to negotiate amendments in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The Swiss banks in August had said that India could not come on a fishing expedition for secret bank account details.
Mukherjee had later made it clear that India was not interested in a "roving inquiry" over unaccounted money stashed away in Swiss banks.
The Swiss Ambassador to India had recently said that Switzerland was willing to open negotiations on disclosing data information about black money. "Switzerland will completely live up to the legitimate expectations out of the treaty... For release of data in the future. The (amended) treaty would be possibly adapted, revived and then we will live up to the new obligations...," he had told a private news channel.
According to him, most probably Indians would ask for the inclusion of tax evasion in the set of provisions of the treaty, which would mean that the release of data would be possible.
India, Switzerland to renegotiate tax treaty: October 21, 2009 17:05 IST
Can India match US- IRS in unearthing money launderers?
Swiss Banking Terror is more dangerous than Pakistan- Taliban Terror
Swiss banking giant UBS will give the IRS the details of more than the client accounts under a deal to end a contentious international lawsuit. Keystone/Walter Bieri/AP/File
IRS cracks open 4,450 Swiss bank accounts
Deal with Swiss banking giant UBS gives access to 4,450 secret accounts of Americans evading tax authorities.
October 21, 2009 17:05 IST
The government on Tuesday said it would renegotiate the taxation treaty with Switzerland under the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Model Tax Convention.
"...There is a provision in OECD...The article 26," Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee told reporters when asked about the proposed talks with Swiss authorities later this year.
The negotiations are expected to take place in the wake of the issue of black money stashed away in Swiss banks that has created a political furore in the country, and India has sought details related to the same from Swiss authorities.
OECD sets the international tax standards. Article 26 of the OECD Model Convention on Income and Capital, covers "tax of every kind and description" and allows for exchange of tax-related information between two countries.
In August, Mukherjee had said that India and Switzerland would meet in December to negotiate amendments in the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement. The Swiss banks in August had said that India could not come on a fishing expedition for secret bank account details.
Mukherjee had later made it clear that India was not interested in a "roving inquiry" over unaccounted money stashed away in Swiss banks.
The Swiss Ambassador to India had recently said that Switzerland was willing to open negotiations on disclosing data information about black money. "Switzerland will completely live up to the legitimate expectations out of the treaty... For release of data in the future. The (amended) treaty would be possibly adapted, revived and then we will live up to the new obligations...," he had told a private news channel.
According to him, most probably Indians would ask for the inclusion of tax evasion in the set of provisions of the treaty, which would mean that the release of data would be possible.
India, Switzerland to renegotiate tax treaty: October 21, 2009 17:05 IST
Can India match US- IRS in unearthing money launderers?
Swiss banking giant UBS will give the IRS the details of more than the client accounts under a deal to end a contentious international lawsuit. Keystone/Walter Bieri/AP/File
IRS cracks open 4,450 Swiss bank accounts
Deal with Swiss banking giant UBS gives access to 4,450 secret accounts of Americans evading tax authorities.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
War in Afganistan
Who's Running the Afghanistan War, Anyway? By Mark Thompson / Washington Tuesday, Oct. 06, 2009
WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
War in Afghanistan seems to be going the Vietnam War way. Too many arm chair experts in Washington DC are trying to interfere in the strategy and even tactics of fighting in Afghanistan.
Stop and go method, troop level debates, undue rules of engagement, political agenda, next Presidential elections, all are reminiscent of Vietnam War.
In the bargain, the US is conveying an impression of being indecisive, lacking courage to get to grips with the war and accept casualties and finish off the war in Afghanistan on a winning note.
The Pathan is a willy fighter but he is no super human. Hari Singh Nalwa, Maharaja Ranjit Singh's famous general, subdued Afghanistan. And for a century at least, afghan women would use his name to quieten the crying children!!!
The only way is to increase the troop levels, use all the sophisticated bombs, rockets and wweaponryand defeat the Taliban right and square, at the earliest. Half way measures will not do. And for that the US and NATO will have to be prepared to accept casualties. War is not a business deal where we haggle over prices and delivery etc.
And once on a winning note, the US should not repeat the mistake of the situation arising when the Soviets pulled out from Afghanistan, of leaving too soon. They have to stay put and ensure that Afghanistan is governed efficiently and has the required security apparatus. Some military assets like air power may have to stay put for long haul!!
In addition, Pakistan has to be kept under control to ensure that they do not upset the apple cart by surreptitiously helping the Taliban/ Al Qaeda.
Lt Gen Harbhajan Singh (Retd)
WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
War in Afghanistan seems to be going the Vietnam War way. Too many arm chair experts in Washington DC are trying to interfere in the strategy and even tactics of fighting in Afghanistan.
Stop and go method, troop level debates, undue rules of engagement, political agenda, next Presidential elections, all are reminiscent of Vietnam War.
In the bargain, the US is conveying an impression of being indecisive, lacking courage to get to grips with the war and accept casualties and finish off the war in Afghanistan on a winning note.
The Pathan is a willy fighter but he is no super human. Hari Singh Nalwa, Maharaja Ranjit Singh's famous general, subdued Afghanistan. And for a century at least, afghan women would use his name to quieten the crying children!!!
The only way is to increase the troop levels, use all the sophisticated bombs, rockets and wweaponryand defeat the Taliban right and square, at the earliest. Half way measures will not do. And for that the US and NATO will have to be prepared to accept casualties. War is not a business deal where we haggle over prices and delivery etc.
And once on a winning note, the US should not repeat the mistake of the situation arising when the Soviets pulled out from Afghanistan, of leaving too soon. They have to stay put and ensure that Afghanistan is governed efficiently and has the required security apparatus. Some military assets like air power may have to stay put for long haul!!
In addition, Pakistan has to be kept under control to ensure that they do not upset the apple cart by surreptitiously helping the Taliban/ Al Qaeda.
Lt Gen Harbhajan Singh (Retd)
Sunday, September 27, 2009
ISI offering covert support to Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan
September 27th, 2009 - 5:15 pm ICT by ANI-
Kabul, Sep.27 (ANI): A senior advisor at the Afghan Foreign Ministry has seconded General Stanley McChrystal’s stance that the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) is still offering covert support to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Daoud Muradian said Taliban’s recent resurgence in Afghanistan is being funded by Pakistan’s intelligence services.
“What we face in Afghanistan is a triangle of terror - it comprises Taliban, al-Qaeda and the ISI of Pakistan,” Muradian said in an interview to Al Jazeera.
“Pakistan uses the Taliban as a leverage against us, against India and also as a leverage against the international community - to blackmail them. What we are facing in Afghanistan is state-sponsored terrorism,” he added.
It is worth mentioning here that General McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, had recently submitted a report to the Obama Administration, which stated that insurgency in Afghanistan was being fanned by Pakistan.
“Afghanistan’s insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan,” McChrystal said in his report.
McChrystal also identified that the Taliban’s Shura Council (leadership council) in Quetta led by Taliban chief Mullah Omar, as the biggest force fighting the NATO-led troops in Afghanistan.
In his report General McChrystal has underlined how efficiently Mullah Omar is running his ’shadow government’ in Afghanistan. (ANI)
ISI offering covert support to Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan: Expert
Kabul, Sep.27 (ANI): A senior advisor at the Afghan Foreign Ministry has seconded General Stanley McChrystal’s stance that the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) is still offering covert support to the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Daoud Muradian said Taliban’s recent resurgence in Afghanistan is being funded by Pakistan’s intelligence services.
“What we face in Afghanistan is a triangle of terror - it comprises Taliban, al-Qaeda and the ISI of Pakistan,” Muradian said in an interview to Al Jazeera.
“Pakistan uses the Taliban as a leverage against us, against India and also as a leverage against the international community - to blackmail them. What we are facing in Afghanistan is state-sponsored terrorism,” he added.
It is worth mentioning here that General McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, had recently submitted a report to the Obama Administration, which stated that insurgency in Afghanistan was being fanned by Pakistan.
“Afghanistan’s insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan,” McChrystal said in his report.
McChrystal also identified that the Taliban’s Shura Council (leadership council) in Quetta led by Taliban chief Mullah Omar, as the biggest force fighting the NATO-led troops in Afghanistan.
In his report General McChrystal has underlined how efficiently Mullah Omar is running his ’shadow government’ in Afghanistan. (ANI)
ISI offering covert support to Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan: Expert
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Mumbai Mayhem: Pakistan's war against terrorism is a farce
B Raman
June 09, 2009
Some years ago, when General Pervez Musharraf, the blue-eyed warrior against terrorism of the then United States President George W Bush, was the President of Pakistan, its police had arrested an individual on the charge of belonging to the Al Qaeda.
When he was produced before an anti-terrorism court, it asked the government lawyer to produce a copy of the notification under which Al Qaeda had been declared a terrorist organisation. After some days, the lawyer went back to the court and told it sheepishly that the government had overlooked declaring Al Qaeda a terrorist organisation.
He promised that a notification would be issued shortly and requested that the arrested person continue to remain in custody till then. The court did not accept the plea. It ordered his release. It held that even if it was a fact that he belonged to the Al Qaeda, he had not committed an offence because Al Qaeda was not a terrorist organisation under Pakistani laws.
Some years later, in December 2008 to be precise, the Pakistani government placed Professor Hafeez Mohammad Saeed, the Amir of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the political front of the Lashkar-e-Tayiba [Images], under house arrest in the wake of the Mumbai [Images] terrorist strike of November 26. The action was taken following the decision of the anti-terrorism sanctions committee of the United Nations Security Council to include the JuD and the LeT as associates of the Al Qaeda.
Saeed went to the Lahore high court to challenge his house arrest. The government lawyer told the court that the action of the UN Sanctions Committee obliged the government to act against him. When the court did not agree with that contention and asked the lawyer whether the government had any independent evidence of its own, the lawyer met the three judges privately and showed them, what he claimed, was independent evidence of the LeT's links with Al Qaeda. The judges wanted to see a copy of the government notification under which Al Qaeda was declared a terrorist organisation.
After some days, the lawyer went back to the court and told it sheepishly that the government had not yet declared Al Qaeda a terrorist organisation. The court told him that if that was so, the LeT's having links with the Al Qaeda is no offence under the law.
The court, which ordered the release of Saeed on June 2, released on June 6 the details of the grounds on which it ordered his release. One of the grounds says: "The security laws and anti-terrorism laws of Pakistan are silent on the Al Qaeda being a terrorist organisation."
The court added, "Even after the perusal of these documents we do not find any material declaring that the detention was necessary for the security of the petitioners and there was no evidence that the petitioners had any links with Al Qaeda or any terrorist movement."
Thus, eight years after 9/11, Pakistan is yet to declare Al Qaeda a terrorist organisation. Is this sheer, shocking negligence or is there something more sinister to it? Does one require any more evidence to show that Pakistan's so-called war against terrorism is a farce?
Pakistan's war against terrorism is a farce
June 09, 2009
Some years ago, when General Pervez Musharraf, the blue-eyed warrior against terrorism of the then United States President George W Bush, was the President of Pakistan, its police had arrested an individual on the charge of belonging to the Al Qaeda.
When he was produced before an anti-terrorism court, it asked the government lawyer to produce a copy of the notification under which Al Qaeda had been declared a terrorist organisation. After some days, the lawyer went back to the court and told it sheepishly that the government had overlooked declaring Al Qaeda a terrorist organisation.
He promised that a notification would be issued shortly and requested that the arrested person continue to remain in custody till then. The court did not accept the plea. It ordered his release. It held that even if it was a fact that he belonged to the Al Qaeda, he had not committed an offence because Al Qaeda was not a terrorist organisation under Pakistani laws.
Some years later, in December 2008 to be precise, the Pakistani government placed Professor Hafeez Mohammad Saeed, the Amir of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the political front of the Lashkar-e-Tayiba [Images], under house arrest in the wake of the Mumbai [Images] terrorist strike of November 26. The action was taken following the decision of the anti-terrorism sanctions committee of the United Nations Security Council to include the JuD and the LeT as associates of the Al Qaeda.
Saeed went to the Lahore high court to challenge his house arrest. The government lawyer told the court that the action of the UN Sanctions Committee obliged the government to act against him. When the court did not agree with that contention and asked the lawyer whether the government had any independent evidence of its own, the lawyer met the three judges privately and showed them, what he claimed, was independent evidence of the LeT's links with Al Qaeda. The judges wanted to see a copy of the government notification under which Al Qaeda was declared a terrorist organisation.
After some days, the lawyer went back to the court and told it sheepishly that the government had not yet declared Al Qaeda a terrorist organisation. The court told him that if that was so, the LeT's having links with the Al Qaeda is no offence under the law.
The court, which ordered the release of Saeed on June 2, released on June 6 the details of the grounds on which it ordered his release. One of the grounds says: "The security laws and anti-terrorism laws of Pakistan are silent on the Al Qaeda being a terrorist organisation."
The court added, "Even after the perusal of these documents we do not find any material declaring that the detention was necessary for the security of the petitioners and there was no evidence that the petitioners had any links with Al Qaeda or any terrorist movement."
Thus, eight years after 9/11, Pakistan is yet to declare Al Qaeda a terrorist organisation. Is this sheer, shocking negligence or is there something more sinister to it? Does one require any more evidence to show that Pakistan's so-called war against terrorism is a farce?
Pakistan's war against terrorism is a farce
Friday, May 29, 2009
Pak's n-assets may fall into terrorist hands: US report
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Washington: Chronic political instability in Pakistan and the current offensive against the Taliban has raised fears that Islamabad's strategic nuclear assets could be obtained by terrorists or used by elements in the Pakistani government, US lawmakers have been told.
While US and Pakistani officials have expressed confidence in controls over Pakistan's nuclear weapons, continued instability in the country could impact these safeguards, according to a new US Congressional Research Report on "Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues."
"Some observers fear radical takeover of a government that possesses a nuclear bomb, or proliferation by radical sympathisers within Pakistan's nuclear complex in case of a breakdown of controls," says the report prepared by two non-proliferation experts for US lawmakers.
Pakistan, which already has a nuclear arsenal of about 60 nuclear warheads, continues fissile material production for weapons, and is adding to its weapons production facilities and delivery vehicles, notes the report by Paul K. Kerr and Mary Beth Nikitin.
Pakistan does not have a stated nuclear policy, but its "minimum credible deterrent" is thought to be primarily a deterrent to Indian military action, the report suggests.
Read more:
Pak's n-assets may fall into terrorist hands: US report
Washington: Chronic political instability in Pakistan and the current offensive against the Taliban has raised fears that Islamabad's strategic nuclear assets could be obtained by terrorists or used by elements in the Pakistani government, US lawmakers have been told.
While US and Pakistani officials have expressed confidence in controls over Pakistan's nuclear weapons, continued instability in the country could impact these safeguards, according to a new US Congressional Research Report on "Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and Security Issues."
"Some observers fear radical takeover of a government that possesses a nuclear bomb, or proliferation by radical sympathisers within Pakistan's nuclear complex in case of a breakdown of controls," says the report prepared by two non-proliferation experts for US lawmakers.
Pakistan, which already has a nuclear arsenal of about 60 nuclear warheads, continues fissile material production for weapons, and is adding to its weapons production facilities and delivery vehicles, notes the report by Paul K. Kerr and Mary Beth Nikitin.
Pakistan does not have a stated nuclear policy, but its "minimum credible deterrent" is thought to be primarily a deterrent to Indian military action, the report suggests.
Read more:
Pak's n-assets may fall into terrorist hands: US report
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Taliban: When attacked, we must hit back- Response
Hello Everyone,
An article by Mr. Vir Sanghvi published in The Hindustan Times dated 25 Apr When attacked, we must hit back: Vir Sanghvi, Hindustan Times
I could not help responding to it. My message to Mr. Vir Sanghvi is given below his Article. Some of you might also like to write to him.
Best wishes.
Harbhajan Singh
Dear Mr. Vir Sanghvi,
DER AAE LEKIN DARUST AAE!! This is my first reaction to your column. Appreciate what you have written.
I am same age as Dr. Manmohan Singh. Was in high school in Lahore, when the Partition took place. So have vivid and clear memories of the Freedom Struggle and the communal violence during 1947. In Jan 1949 joined the First Course of NDA, at Clement Town, Dehradun. Did three stints in J&K.
So one has experienced the Pakistani mind set from the childhood and during Service. The Pathans, Jehlam Wallas made excellent drivers, waiters, Darbans. Were loyal by and large.The Punjabi Muslman was crafty. Punjab, Delhi, Agra etc all experienced Hindu Sikh riots in independent India, mostly due to intolerance of Muslims. Where ever, the Hindus and Sikhs stood up, the Muslims behaved. All of them respected STRENGTH.
Let me tell you, that it is the Jan Sangh (RSS) which saved thousands of Hindus and Sikhs in Lahore, in particular. They were so well organized on Military lines and dared to strike back. It is unfortunate that due to assassination of Mahatma Gandhi they got a bad name. I still believe, that if they shed the Hinduvta face, they can be an excellent organization for the youth of India to keep Indian values, bring in discipline and even wean them away from excessive Western culture.
In J&K along the LOC, Pak troops create pin pricks, encroach on Indian land, fire rounds on our picquets on daily basis. When a tough and good Indian battalion takes over a portion of the LOC, they do not allow such activities and shoot down one or two of the Pakis. They immediately realize that the Indians mean business. They wave white flags and approach the Indian troops and say, GALTI HO GAI, AAGE SE AISA NAHIN HO GA"!!
We have seen the Pak Establishment's mind set since Oct 1947, when they invaded Kashmir. Ever since, things have only deteriorated. They are compulsive lairs, Musharraf included and so crafty. Ever ready to do down India.
Pakistan's India policy is decided by the Pak Army, who so ever may be the President/Prime Minister and will continue to be so decided!! Pak Army will always see India as the main threat. Of course, break up of Pakistan in 1971, has cemented their thinking that India is bent upon undoing Pakistan!! They have some how managed to have enough well equipped conventional forces to ensure a stalemate in wars and with their nuclear and missile capability they feel emboldened to even do a Kargil on us!!.
Pakistani propaganda, doctored history being taught in schools and colleges, Islamization of the society, penchant to identify with the Arab Muslims, nostalgia for hay days of Mughal Empire, break up of Pakistan in 1971 and the Kashmir problem, will never allow them to be at peace with India. They will find some or the other excuse to make enemies with India!! WE TWO NATIONS CANNOT EVEN PLAY A HOCKEY OR CRICKET MATCH WITHOUT RAISING THE EVIL PITCH!!
So what is the answer to deal with this sore in India's side.
1. India must become more strong militarily, along with economic development.
2. India needs military reforms to make its forces more lethal, mobile and modern.
3. The higher Defence Management needs to be streamlined including having a CDS.
4. The media needs to pay more attention to the Strategic scenario around India and this not be left only to the Military Think Tanks.
5. The Nation needs to be made alive to long term strategic requirements, keeping in view rise of China and not only the threat from Pakistan. Our domination of the Indian Ocean is necessary for India's economic and industrial growth. MR. SANGHVI, MAJORITY OF LEADERS/ PEOPLE IN MUMBAI, CHENNAI, BANGALORE ETC FEEL THAT ALL THIS TALK ABOUT PAKISTAN AND CHINA DOES NOT CONCERN THEM MUCH. IT IS THE PROBLEM OF NORTH INDIANS. This is a fact!! It is people like you and the TV Moghuls whose responsibility it is to highlight the Strategic aspects of India's security impinging on economic development.
6. The record of the Congress Party has been dismal as far as India's National security are concerned. 1948 J&K premature Cease Fire, 1962 war defeat by China, 1965 War giving back territories, 1971 though Pak was dismembered, we failed to cash on so many Pak prisoners held by us and solve the J&K problem, Sri Lanka Operations, very poorly dealing with internal insurgencies and for over two decades terrorism in J&K and rest of India.
7. The Congress now led by a foreign Lady (she can never never) feel truly like an Indian and has no Strategic culture/expertise. She, her son and daughter, have never visited any military troops. Why should not Rahul Gandhi join the TA?? They just depend on the bureaucracy. Dr. Manmohan Singh may be a great economist but basically he is professor and a bureaucrat. He has no strategic bent of mind. He has also not visited any forward troops!! THE WAY THE CONGRESS PARTY/THE PM HAVE HANDLED THE AGITATION BY THE EX SERVICEMEN AND 6TH PAY COMMISSION RAMIFICATIONS FOR THE DEFENCE SERVICES, IS AMPLE PROOF!!
8. The Chinese are a day's travel from Terrai through Maoist Nepal. Who cares!! The Prime minister is more pre- occupied with G8 and G20!! Another 1962 is not too far!!
9. Sadly, history is against us. We always let the invaders come in and fought them at Panipat! We failed and are failing to realize that OFFENCE IS THE BEST FORM OF DEFENCE!!
10. Against Pakistan and China, India needs to take a tough stand. Pakistan in particular needs to be deterred from fomenting trouble inside India, including J&K. We have let them believe for too long that INDIA IS A SOFT STATE AND THAT ITS LEADERSHIP CANNOT TAKE TOUGH DECISIONS. Striking back is reacting!!
11. We must dispel this feeling by openly laying down our response options ie our doctrine against acts of terrorism etc and then implement it. Pakis will buckle down in no time. They do not have the stomach for big fight. They are good at pin pricks only.
12. People to people dialogue may continue but all other parleys should be kept on hold. We should warn Pakistan and the World about continued following of Indus Water Treaty. Such treaties are only possible between countries following normal norms of behavior.
13. We need to tell the Americans bluntly that they have now realized that Pakistan is the epicenter of terrorism. What we are doing will be for their good to put Pak in its place. In fact the US should encourage a conventional war between India and Pakistan to put Pak military in its place and then deal with the Taliban freely in the NWFP!!
14. Above all, Pak nuclear and missile assets must be taken out by surgical strikes and other means by Israel/the US. This will ensure that these lethal weapons do not fall in the hands of Taliban and keep Pakistan in line.
Please do write more on Strategic topics. Best wishes.
Harbhajan Singh
Lt Gen (Retd)
Former Signal Officer-in-Chief
An article by Mr. Vir Sanghvi published in The Hindustan Times dated 25 Apr When attacked, we must hit back: Vir Sanghvi, Hindustan Times
I could not help responding to it. My message to Mr. Vir Sanghvi is given below his Article. Some of you might also like to write to him.
Best wishes.
Harbhajan Singh
Dear Mr. Vir Sanghvi,
DER AAE LEKIN DARUST AAE!! This is my first reaction to your column. Appreciate what you have written.
I am same age as Dr. Manmohan Singh. Was in high school in Lahore, when the Partition took place. So have vivid and clear memories of the Freedom Struggle and the communal violence during 1947. In Jan 1949 joined the First Course of NDA, at Clement Town, Dehradun. Did three stints in J&K.
So one has experienced the Pakistani mind set from the childhood and during Service. The Pathans, Jehlam Wallas made excellent drivers, waiters, Darbans. Were loyal by and large.The Punjabi Muslman was crafty. Punjab, Delhi, Agra etc all experienced Hindu Sikh riots in independent India, mostly due to intolerance of Muslims. Where ever, the Hindus and Sikhs stood up, the Muslims behaved. All of them respected STRENGTH.
Let me tell you, that it is the Jan Sangh (RSS) which saved thousands of Hindus and Sikhs in Lahore, in particular. They were so well organized on Military lines and dared to strike back. It is unfortunate that due to assassination of Mahatma Gandhi they got a bad name. I still believe, that if they shed the Hinduvta face, they can be an excellent organization for the youth of India to keep Indian values, bring in discipline and even wean them away from excessive Western culture.
In J&K along the LOC, Pak troops create pin pricks, encroach on Indian land, fire rounds on our picquets on daily basis. When a tough and good Indian battalion takes over a portion of the LOC, they do not allow such activities and shoot down one or two of the Pakis. They immediately realize that the Indians mean business. They wave white flags and approach the Indian troops and say, GALTI HO GAI, AAGE SE AISA NAHIN HO GA"!!
We have seen the Pak Establishment's mind set since Oct 1947, when they invaded Kashmir. Ever since, things have only deteriorated. They are compulsive lairs, Musharraf included and so crafty. Ever ready to do down India.
Pakistan's India policy is decided by the Pak Army, who so ever may be the President/Prime Minister and will continue to be so decided!! Pak Army will always see India as the main threat. Of course, break up of Pakistan in 1971, has cemented their thinking that India is bent upon undoing Pakistan!! They have some how managed to have enough well equipped conventional forces to ensure a stalemate in wars and with their nuclear and missile capability they feel emboldened to even do a Kargil on us!!.
Pakistani propaganda, doctored history being taught in schools and colleges, Islamization of the society, penchant to identify with the Arab Muslims, nostalgia for hay days of Mughal Empire, break up of Pakistan in 1971 and the Kashmir problem, will never allow them to be at peace with India. They will find some or the other excuse to make enemies with India!! WE TWO NATIONS CANNOT EVEN PLAY A HOCKEY OR CRICKET MATCH WITHOUT RAISING THE EVIL PITCH!!
So what is the answer to deal with this sore in India's side.
1. India must become more strong militarily, along with economic development.
2. India needs military reforms to make its forces more lethal, mobile and modern.
3. The higher Defence Management needs to be streamlined including having a CDS.
4. The media needs to pay more attention to the Strategic scenario around India and this not be left only to the Military Think Tanks.
5. The Nation needs to be made alive to long term strategic requirements, keeping in view rise of China and not only the threat from Pakistan. Our domination of the Indian Ocean is necessary for India's economic and industrial growth. MR. SANGHVI, MAJORITY OF LEADERS/ PEOPLE IN MUMBAI, CHENNAI, BANGALORE ETC FEEL THAT ALL THIS TALK ABOUT PAKISTAN AND CHINA DOES NOT CONCERN THEM MUCH. IT IS THE PROBLEM OF NORTH INDIANS. This is a fact!! It is people like you and the TV Moghuls whose responsibility it is to highlight the Strategic aspects of India's security impinging on economic development.
6. The record of the Congress Party has been dismal as far as India's National security are concerned. 1948 J&K premature Cease Fire, 1962 war defeat by China, 1965 War giving back territories, 1971 though Pak was dismembered, we failed to cash on so many Pak prisoners held by us and solve the J&K problem, Sri Lanka Operations, very poorly dealing with internal insurgencies and for over two decades terrorism in J&K and rest of India.
7. The Congress now led by a foreign Lady (she can never never) feel truly like an Indian and has no Strategic culture/expertise. She, her son and daughter, have never visited any military troops. Why should not Rahul Gandhi join the TA?? They just depend on the bureaucracy. Dr. Manmohan Singh may be a great economist but basically he is professor and a bureaucrat. He has no strategic bent of mind. He has also not visited any forward troops!! THE WAY THE CONGRESS PARTY/THE PM HAVE HANDLED THE AGITATION BY THE EX SERVICEMEN AND 6TH PAY COMMISSION RAMIFICATIONS FOR THE DEFENCE SERVICES, IS AMPLE PROOF!!
8. The Chinese are a day's travel from Terrai through Maoist Nepal. Who cares!! The Prime minister is more pre- occupied with G8 and G20!! Another 1962 is not too far!!
9. Sadly, history is against us. We always let the invaders come in and fought them at Panipat! We failed and are failing to realize that OFFENCE IS THE BEST FORM OF DEFENCE!!
10. Against Pakistan and China, India needs to take a tough stand. Pakistan in particular needs to be deterred from fomenting trouble inside India, including J&K. We have let them believe for too long that INDIA IS A SOFT STATE AND THAT ITS LEADERSHIP CANNOT TAKE TOUGH DECISIONS. Striking back is reacting!!
11. We must dispel this feeling by openly laying down our response options ie our doctrine against acts of terrorism etc and then implement it. Pakis will buckle down in no time. They do not have the stomach for big fight. They are good at pin pricks only.
12. People to people dialogue may continue but all other parleys should be kept on hold. We should warn Pakistan and the World about continued following of Indus Water Treaty. Such treaties are only possible between countries following normal norms of behavior.
13. We need to tell the Americans bluntly that they have now realized that Pakistan is the epicenter of terrorism. What we are doing will be for their good to put Pak in its place. In fact the US should encourage a conventional war between India and Pakistan to put Pak military in its place and then deal with the Taliban freely in the NWFP!!
14. Above all, Pak nuclear and missile assets must be taken out by surgical strikes and other means by Israel/the US. This will ensure that these lethal weapons do not fall in the hands of Taliban and keep Pakistan in line.
Please do write more on Strategic topics. Best wishes.
Harbhajan Singh
Lt Gen (Retd)
Former Signal Officer-in-Chief
Pakistan Taliban: When attacked, we must hit back
Vir Sanghvi , Hindustan Times
Consumed as we are with the hurly-burly of the General Election, we may have lost sight of an important development in our neighbourhood. As the Pakistan government tries to persuade the Taliban to retreat from its latest encampment a mere 100 kilometers away from Islamabad, the world — and Washington, in particular — has finally come around to the view that Pakistan is on the brink of becoming the next Afghanistan.
As the steady slide into Talibanisation continues, it is also clear that we are at a watershed moment in our policy towards Pakistan. We need to decide, once and for all, how we are going to treat our north-western neighbour.
There have been two broad strands in India's attitude to Pakistan. The first is the view of much of the media, many liberals, and a large chunk of the political establishment. This view has as its basis the proposition: “A strong and stable Pakistan is in India's best interests.” My own view is that the “strong and stable Pakistan is in India’s best interests” proposition has failed.
And how does India help bring this about? Well, according to proponents of this view, we must extend support to the democratic process in Pakistan and help civilian governments. We should encourage people-to-people contacts and abandon the Pakistan-is-an-enemy rhetoric. We must recognise that Indians and Pakistanis are really the same people, divided by unscrupulous politicians.
The contrary view is the position of the Army, the intelligence establishment and many security analysts. This view states that a strong and stable Pakistan is not necessarily in India’s best interests. A weakened Pakistan is often the best guarantor of peace. For instance, after the 1971 defeat, when Bangladesh broke away, Pakistan did India no harm for nearly two decades.
According to this view, we should never let our guard down, put no faith in the so-called brotherliness of the Pakistani masses, distrust every civilian politician and recognise that the Pakistan army’s raison d’etre is the alleged threat from India. Proponents of this view say that the only language the Pakistani establishment understands is strength and the best way to check the threat posed by Pakistan is by running clandestine operations inside that country and financing such local trouble-makers as the Baluchis and the MQM.
Of the two views, the first one has held sway for many years. The security establishment is treated with scorn by many educated Indians and its hawkish views are dismissed with contempt. During his brief stint as Prime Minister, Inder Gujral even asked the R&AW to roll up its clandestine networks within Pakistan, one reason why Indian intelligence now finds it so difficult to get accurate information out of that country.
But with the current situation in Pakistan threatening to spin out of control, this might be a good time to stop and think about our policy in the future.
My own view is that the “strong and stable Pakistan is in India’s best interests” proposition has failed.
Over the last several years, we have done everything we can to help Pakistan. We have hosted General Musharraf, we have offered talks on Kashmir, we have supported civilian politicians and welcomed Asif Zardari with open arms. We have tried our hardest to understand the mindset of civil society, with a steady stream of Pakistani intellectuals arriving in India, and, each evening, our channels offer endless TV time to Pakistanis to tell us what their country’s position is.
Here’s what this policy has got us: General Musharraf is still blatantly hostile to India as his last rant at the India Today Conclave demonstrated. Asif Zardari has refused to help in the investigation of the Bombay attacks. Terrorists continue to be sent across the border to foment trouble in India. Far from following a liberal policy, the new civilian government has done deals with the Taliban and imposed the medieval Sharia law in parts of Pakistan.
All opinion polls suggest that the average Pakistani hates India, loves Osama bin Laden and believes that 9/11 was a Jewish plot to malign global Islam. Worse still, the evidence suggests that if you push the Pakistani masses about their true identity they would pick Muslim over Pakistani. Do you have to be a genius to see that the good neighbour policy has been an utter and complete disaster?
What Indians find shocking is the extent to which so many educated Pakistanis seem unable to divorce their Islamic identity from political discourse.Is it not time to concede that General Musharraf’s attitude is symptomatic of the view of the Pakistan army: India is the enemy and must always be fought? Shouldn’t we accept that Pakistan’s civilian politicians are such untrustworthy sleazeballs that they make Mayawati shine like a goddess in comparison? Even if a crook like Zardari is sincere (which I doubt; his ultimate loyalty is to Credit Suisse) he simply does not have the clout to deliver on the kind of peace and love nonsense that he gushed about at the HT Summit.
More worrying is that Pakistan’s civil society seems to have only the most minimal commitment to the liberal values that we in India enshrine in our Constitution. Even someone like Imran Khan, who improved his mind at Oxford and developed his loins on Sloane Street, turns into a reactionary when he addresses his own people, going so far as to praise Sharia law.
What Indians find shocking is the extent to which so many educated Pakistanis seem unable to divorce their Islamic identity from political discourse.You and I can get up and say that Hindu fanatics are thugs and goons or even that Narendra Modi is a mass murderer. How many Pakistanis get up and say that about their own fanatics? We speak up for MF Husain’s right to paint Hindu goddesses in the nude. How many Pakistanis speak up for the Danish cartoonist?
As for people-to-people contacts, I am still in favour of letting Pakistanis come to India to see what a liberal society looks like. But I have given up all hope that it will make a difference to the general Pakistani mind-set. After all, if you’re dealing with a country whose people have bought Al-Qaeda propaganda about how all terrorism is really an American and Israeli plot, a people who are content to live off the Yankee dollar while simultaneously hating the US, and a people who venerate the suicide bombers that bin Laden dispatches around the world, then do you really believe that they will suddenly see the light when they land in Bombay and discover that our three biggest stars are all Muslim?
It’s gone too far for people-to-people contacts to make much difference.
So, what do we do? I think we should accept that the intelligence establishment may have had a point. We should resume clandestine operations, we should do to the Pakistanis what they are doing to us, and hit back every time we are attacked.
We should tell the US that we are tired of this policy of equivalence. When America attacked Afghanistan, we did not treat the US and Afghanistan as moral equals. Similarly, America should stop treating India and Pakistan on the same plane. One of us is the world’s largest democracy. And the other is a terrorist state.
But if we are to ensure that the world sees through Pakistan’s pretensions and recognises it for what it is, then we must first rid ourselves of our own illusions. Let’s stop kidding ourselves about the true nature of the enemy. Let’s recognise the magnitude of the threat — growing by the day as Taliban influence spreads — and work out a strategy to fight it.
The time for lighting candles at the Wagah border has long since passed.
When attacked, we must hit back: Vir Sanghvi, Hindustan Times
Consumed as we are with the hurly-burly of the General Election, we may have lost sight of an important development in our neighbourhood. As the Pakistan government tries to persuade the Taliban to retreat from its latest encampment a mere 100 kilometers away from Islamabad, the world — and Washington, in particular — has finally come around to the view that Pakistan is on the brink of becoming the next Afghanistan.
As the steady slide into Talibanisation continues, it is also clear that we are at a watershed moment in our policy towards Pakistan. We need to decide, once and for all, how we are going to treat our north-western neighbour.
There have been two broad strands in India's attitude to Pakistan. The first is the view of much of the media, many liberals, and a large chunk of the political establishment. This view has as its basis the proposition: “A strong and stable Pakistan is in India's best interests.” My own view is that the “strong and stable Pakistan is in India’s best interests” proposition has failed.
And how does India help bring this about? Well, according to proponents of this view, we must extend support to the democratic process in Pakistan and help civilian governments. We should encourage people-to-people contacts and abandon the Pakistan-is-an-enemy rhetoric. We must recognise that Indians and Pakistanis are really the same people, divided by unscrupulous politicians.
The contrary view is the position of the Army, the intelligence establishment and many security analysts. This view states that a strong and stable Pakistan is not necessarily in India’s best interests. A weakened Pakistan is often the best guarantor of peace. For instance, after the 1971 defeat, when Bangladesh broke away, Pakistan did India no harm for nearly two decades.
According to this view, we should never let our guard down, put no faith in the so-called brotherliness of the Pakistani masses, distrust every civilian politician and recognise that the Pakistan army’s raison d’etre is the alleged threat from India. Proponents of this view say that the only language the Pakistani establishment understands is strength and the best way to check the threat posed by Pakistan is by running clandestine operations inside that country and financing such local trouble-makers as the Baluchis and the MQM.
Of the two views, the first one has held sway for many years. The security establishment is treated with scorn by many educated Indians and its hawkish views are dismissed with contempt. During his brief stint as Prime Minister, Inder Gujral even asked the R&AW to roll up its clandestine networks within Pakistan, one reason why Indian intelligence now finds it so difficult to get accurate information out of that country.
But with the current situation in Pakistan threatening to spin out of control, this might be a good time to stop and think about our policy in the future.
My own view is that the “strong and stable Pakistan is in India’s best interests” proposition has failed.
Over the last several years, we have done everything we can to help Pakistan. We have hosted General Musharraf, we have offered talks on Kashmir, we have supported civilian politicians and welcomed Asif Zardari with open arms. We have tried our hardest to understand the mindset of civil society, with a steady stream of Pakistani intellectuals arriving in India, and, each evening, our channels offer endless TV time to Pakistanis to tell us what their country’s position is.
Here’s what this policy has got us: General Musharraf is still blatantly hostile to India as his last rant at the India Today Conclave demonstrated. Asif Zardari has refused to help in the investigation of the Bombay attacks. Terrorists continue to be sent across the border to foment trouble in India. Far from following a liberal policy, the new civilian government has done deals with the Taliban and imposed the medieval Sharia law in parts of Pakistan.
All opinion polls suggest that the average Pakistani hates India, loves Osama bin Laden and believes that 9/11 was a Jewish plot to malign global Islam. Worse still, the evidence suggests that if you push the Pakistani masses about their true identity they would pick Muslim over Pakistani. Do you have to be a genius to see that the good neighbour policy has been an utter and complete disaster?
What Indians find shocking is the extent to which so many educated Pakistanis seem unable to divorce their Islamic identity from political discourse.Is it not time to concede that General Musharraf’s attitude is symptomatic of the view of the Pakistan army: India is the enemy and must always be fought? Shouldn’t we accept that Pakistan’s civilian politicians are such untrustworthy sleazeballs that they make Mayawati shine like a goddess in comparison? Even if a crook like Zardari is sincere (which I doubt; his ultimate loyalty is to Credit Suisse) he simply does not have the clout to deliver on the kind of peace and love nonsense that he gushed about at the HT Summit.
More worrying is that Pakistan’s civil society seems to have only the most minimal commitment to the liberal values that we in India enshrine in our Constitution. Even someone like Imran Khan, who improved his mind at Oxford and developed his loins on Sloane Street, turns into a reactionary when he addresses his own people, going so far as to praise Sharia law.
What Indians find shocking is the extent to which so many educated Pakistanis seem unable to divorce their Islamic identity from political discourse.You and I can get up and say that Hindu fanatics are thugs and goons or even that Narendra Modi is a mass murderer. How many Pakistanis get up and say that about their own fanatics? We speak up for MF Husain’s right to paint Hindu goddesses in the nude. How many Pakistanis speak up for the Danish cartoonist?
As for people-to-people contacts, I am still in favour of letting Pakistanis come to India to see what a liberal society looks like. But I have given up all hope that it will make a difference to the general Pakistani mind-set. After all, if you’re dealing with a country whose people have bought Al-Qaeda propaganda about how all terrorism is really an American and Israeli plot, a people who are content to live off the Yankee dollar while simultaneously hating the US, and a people who venerate the suicide bombers that bin Laden dispatches around the world, then do you really believe that they will suddenly see the light when they land in Bombay and discover that our three biggest stars are all Muslim?
It’s gone too far for people-to-people contacts to make much difference.
So, what do we do? I think we should accept that the intelligence establishment may have had a point. We should resume clandestine operations, we should do to the Pakistanis what they are doing to us, and hit back every time we are attacked.
We should tell the US that we are tired of this policy of equivalence. When America attacked Afghanistan, we did not treat the US and Afghanistan as moral equals. Similarly, America should stop treating India and Pakistan on the same plane. One of us is the world’s largest democracy. And the other is a terrorist state.
But if we are to ensure that the world sees through Pakistan’s pretensions and recognises it for what it is, then we must first rid ourselves of our own illusions. Let’s stop kidding ourselves about the true nature of the enemy. Let’s recognise the magnitude of the threat — growing by the day as Taliban influence spreads — and work out a strategy to fight it.
The time for lighting candles at the Wagah border has long since passed.
When attacked, we must hit back: Vir Sanghvi, Hindustan Times
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Mumbai Mayhem: Taliban new hierarchy emerges
Taliban sources in Pakistan and Afghan intelligence sources say that the Taliban now has a recognizable hierarchy of leaders - some operating from Afghanistan and some from the Pashtun tribal areas of Pakistan's volatile Northwest Frontier Province.
At the top of the military command structure is Mullah Beradar, who hails from Deh Rawood in Urozgan, the home village of former supreme Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Underneath Mullah Beradar are a number of Taliban commanders and religious leaders assigned to different territories.
The most active region - from Nimroz Province to Helmand, on up to Kandahar, Zabul, and north to Urozgan - is under the joint control of Beradar's top three deputies. Akhtar Usmani was the Taliban corps commander in Kandahar. Mullah Abdur Razzaq was the Taliban Interior Minister. And Mullah Dadullah was the military chief in the northern city of Kunduz, on the front lines against the Northern Alliance when the Taliban lines crumbled.
According to eyewitnesses, the men who captured an Ecuadorian Red Cross aid worker, Ricardo Munguia, in Urozgan Province last month, called up Mullah Dadullah on their satellite phone and under Dadullah's orders, shot Munguia dead.
Taliban appears to be regrouped and well-funded
Narco-trafficking is fueling the Taliban, and fat profits from poppies and opium are partially responsible for the militants' resurgence. Indeed, Afghanistan is supplying about 90 percent of the world's opium and nearly all of the heroin that ends up in Europe. Emerald trading from SWAT Valley has been taken over by Taliban. Smuggling and gun running go hand in gloves.
Losing the war in Afghanistan
Pakistan blames Taliban for Lahore attack which leaves 11 dead
Indian Army Ready for Tackle Any Threat from Pakistan
At the top of the military command structure is Mullah Beradar, who hails from Deh Rawood in Urozgan, the home village of former supreme Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Underneath Mullah Beradar are a number of Taliban commanders and religious leaders assigned to different territories.
The most active region - from Nimroz Province to Helmand, on up to Kandahar, Zabul, and north to Urozgan - is under the joint control of Beradar's top three deputies. Akhtar Usmani was the Taliban corps commander in Kandahar. Mullah Abdur Razzaq was the Taliban Interior Minister. And Mullah Dadullah was the military chief in the northern city of Kunduz, on the front lines against the Northern Alliance when the Taliban lines crumbled.
According to eyewitnesses, the men who captured an Ecuadorian Red Cross aid worker, Ricardo Munguia, in Urozgan Province last month, called up Mullah Dadullah on their satellite phone and under Dadullah's orders, shot Munguia dead.
Taliban appears to be regrouped and well-funded
Narco-trafficking is fueling the Taliban, and fat profits from poppies and opium are partially responsible for the militants' resurgence. Indeed, Afghanistan is supplying about 90 percent of the world's opium and nearly all of the heroin that ends up in Europe. Emerald trading from SWAT Valley has been taken over by Taliban. Smuggling and gun running go hand in gloves.
Losing the war in Afghanistan
Pakistan blames Taliban for Lahore attack which leaves 11 dead
Indian Army Ready for Tackle Any Threat from Pakistan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
