Monthly Archives: August 2018

In retrospect, 9/11 was the defining moment of the re-engagement and recalibration of the US-Pak dynamics that till then were nestled in favour of Pakistan as a ‘major non-NATO ally’. After the Cold War ended in the 1990s, Pakistan had fallen off the immediate radar as Washington was busy meddling with the affairs of the Middle East. In the process, it effectively overlooked Pakistan’s dangerous transgressions as in Kargil, its support to terrorism in Kashmir or even its surreptitious stockpiling and proliferation of its nuclear wherewithal.

The ‘Bush-Mush’ equation underwent a sudden reality-check as the simplistic ‘with us or against us’ spirit accompanying the looming ‘war on terror’ was evident when the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage threatened Pakistan’s Intelligence Director ~ “Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age”, in case Pakistan failed to join the US-led initiative against Al Qaida and the like.

Since then, Pakistan has undertaken a delicate dance of pandering to contradictory pulls from both the external and internal constituencies, leading to the perfection of its famed and patented ‘double game’. The coercive tone of the US notwithstanding, the Pakistanis had managed to extract three important concessions from Washington ~ an assurance that India and Israel would not join the mopping up operations, an undertaking that the US will not act unilaterally inside Pakistani territory and above all, securing the invaluable ‘reimbursements’ in exchange for its operational costs and commitments towards the ‘war on terror’. And yet, a reluctant and visibly embarrassed Pervez Musharraf had to publicly retract from his erstwhile policies of open-patronisation of the terror groups like the Taliban, and join the chorus of ‘war on terror’, albeit, selectively.

As per the US Agency for International Development (USAID) data, the US had sanctioned up to $33.4 billion during the past 15 years, of which 44 per cent ($14.57 billion) was earmarked for logistics and aerial support in the Afghan war, whereas the remainder $18.8 billion was meant for civilian and internal security-related infrastructure. However, given Pakistan’s track record of misuse, persistent ‘double game’ and cozying-up to the Chinese, the levels of US support and aid for Pakistan are steadily declining and the relationship is on a functional lifeline. According to opinion polls, the societies in both Pakistan and the US have the most negative perceptions of each other. This trust deficit between the two ‘allies’ has led to bitter counter-accusations, with Pakistan claiming $123 billion as the financial cost and the loss of 60,000 Pakistani lives, on account of its commitments towards the ‘war on terror’. The US administration, on its part, is increasingly talking about getting ‘ripped off’, with routine threats of cutting all military aid to Pakistan.

China has strategically moved into the vacuum created by the US disinterest in Pakistan, and is trying to plug the financial-military-diplomatic gap. As per the official Board of Investment figures released by the Pakistani PMO, the foreign investment inflow into Pakistan by the US in 2008-09 was $ 869.9 million and that of the Chinese was a negative $ 101.4 million. The figures for the July-November 2017-18 period read as $42.6 million by the US and $837.4 by the Chinese. The latest Pentagon report to the US Congress has upped the ante by reiterating, “To move forward, we must see fundamental changes in the way Pakistan deals with terrorist safe havens in its territory”. Rather provocatively, it suggests the “use of a range of tools to expand our cooperation with Pakistan in areas where our interests converge, and to take unilateral steps in areas of divergence”. This is virtually forcing Pakistan to drop its deliberate ambiguity and duplicity of the ‘double game’, failing which it will be left with only one recourse ~ sovereign sustenance, via China.

Beyond ‘all-weather-friendship’, the Sino-Pakistan equation is bereft of any civilisational, cultural or ideological convergence; it is an outright case of hardnosed realpolitik and compulsions. This over-dependence on Beijing is fraught with risks for Islamabad, as the implications of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) are gradually unfolding. Already rumour mills in Pakistan are awash with the hard bargaining that the Chinese have done in the CPEC projects, with the Pakistan government giving up a lot more than it secured in the bargain. Demeaning suggestions like making the Chinese yuan the free-usage currency in the Gwadar Free Zone has growing portents of compromising on Pakistan’s ‘economic sovereignty’.

Economically, the US remains the biggest trade partner (four times that of China). Militarily, Pakistan needs the US drones to target specific areas in the restive Af-Pak frontier. The bulk of Pakistani military hardware still has US-markings (F-16 fighter planes, Lockheed C-130 transporters, Cobra Attack Helicopters, M113 APC’s, artillery guns, Aati-tank missiles and so on). Therefore, beyond the political theatrics and sabre-rattling, a sudden freeze of US support could be devastating for the Pakistanis, both economically and militarily. Equally for the US, avoiding the Pakistani land routes and ‘airlifting’ the wares for its men and material deployed in landlocked Afghanistan, would be impractical and prohibitive.

There is an obvious urgency to curb the menace of extremist ideologies and the terror industry that is consuming, bleeding and sapping the vital interests and energies of both Pakistan and the US. Towards that end, Pakistan has to overcome its traditional instincts and confidence in retaining leverage with select terror groups (e.g. the Haqqani network that faces Afghanistan and Lashkar-e-Taiba, that faces India). It will have to dispense with its flawed belief in China adequately stepping in to fill in the vacuum caused by US disinterest.

The principal institutions in Pakistan ~ the military, the political class and the clergy ~ must desist from misusing the ‘extremist’ elements for furthering their own institutional interests in the ongoing turf wars for control of power. The US-bashing may make political and emotional sense in the short-run. However, for Pakistan to retain the economic-military control over its own sovereignty and destiny will call for Islamabad to make peace with its hypothetical “ghosts”, ulterior motives in the neigbourhood, and a reality check of the efficacy of its fabled ‘all-weather-friendship’ with China.

The writer IS Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), Former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Puducherry

Two years after special request made to hold aircraft, defence ministry committee clears signing of contract.

New Delhi: India is now set to snap up the world’s last available C-17 heavy transport aircraft after a last-minute approval by the defence ministry last week, two years after a special request was made to Washington to reserve the plane.

A meeting of the defence acquisition committee (DAC) headed by minister Nirmala Sitharaman cleared the procurement that will take the total number of the transport aircraft in the Indian Air Force to 11.

US manufacturer Boeing has shut down the production line after producing 279 aircraft and the last C-17 Globemaster had more than one global contender given its unique role as a large airlifter optimised for special operations, humanitarian assistance missions and carrying troops over large distances.

The lone aircraft is likely to cost India over Rs 2,700 crore and could arrive within a few months after the formal signing of the contract. The plane is being bought under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) or direct government purchase route from Washington.

With the clearance, the defence ministry will now send a formal ‘letter of acceptance’ (LOA) to confirm the sale.

As reported by ThePrint, India had lobbied hard to get the last plane since 2015 but bureaucratic red tape had created the possibility of the aircraft being taken up by another buyer. Sources said that the aircraft – which has been produced and kept mothballed – will be prepped up and will go through a set of tests before being delivered.

In 2015, the Air Force had cleared a proposal to buy three of the heavy lifters at a cost of Rs 8,100 crore but as procurement process dragged on, its manufacturer Boeing ran out of aircraft to sell as the C-17 production line was shut down.

In 2011, India had bought 10 aircraft for $4.7 billion. The contract also had a follow-on option clause to procure six more aircraft. However, with limited resources available, the Air Force had asked for an additional three, impressed by its operational abilities.

A NEW US national security strategy under Donald Trump was bound to induce great interest, especially about India’s place in how the global system should be ordered. The 68-page document is confined to a macro view of the world’s complex and interconnected problems. However, India clearly emerges as a useful cog in US attempts to prevent a shift in the balance of power in the Asian heartland. More than West Asia, the US has chalked out a more prominent role for India in the maritime domain in line with its strategy to prevent a free hand to hobble China’s bid to expand its regional influence. What are the payouts? Trump explicitly asks India to loosen its purse strings in Central and South Asia, perhaps as compensation for declining to put Indian boots on Afghan soil.  The price for partnering the US in the Indo-Pacific is both tangible — more orders for US military companies at a time when the US budget is facing constraints — and intangible — greater Indian visibility in the near neighbourhood. Just as the US is single-mindedly devoted to advancing American influence, India will have to cut its cloth according to its own national interests. It cannot view Russia and China from the American lens of unremitting hostility: its only two make-in-India defence projects are of Russian origin and there is already word that a Sino-India trade-off on NSG and One-Belt One-Road may be in the offing. India can ill afford to shrink the room for dialogue with both Russia and China.A reality check is also in order: the US mentions India as only one of the eight potential allies in the Asia Pacific. If India is described as a  “leading world power”, there is approbation for the others: Japan is a “critical ally”, Australia “a key partner”, and friendship with South Korea “forged by trials of history”. In West Asia too, India has a marginal role as the US has several irons in the fire. Whether it was Obama earlier or Trump now, proximity with the US has its limits as well as advantages.

Not on: The conspiracy theory against senior Opposition leaders is a new low.

S Nihal Singh

THE roles of a Prime Minister and the rabble-rouser in state assembly elections do not mix. Although Mr Narendra Modi had given us a foretaste of it by discarding convention and practice that the person holding the highest political office in the land does not do politicking at the state level, Mr Modi was single-minded in his devotion to collect votes with crowd-pleasing themes and scorn for the Opposition.Mr Modi’s extravagances were bound to descend to the depth of low politics, and an address of his at a Gujarat election rally was so shocking that it demeaned the office of Prime Minister and shook the country to its foundation.Mr Modi insinuated that his predecessor and a number of other notables, including the former Vice-President and Army Chief, had a private dinner with Pakistani officials in Delhi to help plot Pakistan’s efforts to defeat the BJP in the Gujarat election.The charge was so ridiculous that Mr Modi should have been red-faced and although Dr Manmohan Singh was sharp in his response, many Opposition  parties condemned this election rhetoric as a new low. Government spokesmen’s efforts to answer the near universal condemnation were feeble and unconvincing. Is there a method to stooping so low to conquer? It would seem so. Basically, the Sangh Parivar wants to outflank the middle class and concentrate on the masses, usually swayed by emotion and religiosity. The government’s ultimate aim is to build a Hindu rashtra to transform the country into a majoritarian state and it is imperative for the BJP to win votes, from Parliament and state assemblies to panchayats, to be able to alter the Constitution. The BJP’s eyes are fixed on the 2019 general election and all efforts are concentrated on how to undercut Opposition-ruled states either through subversion or by forming coalitions of convenience. Present efforts are concentrated on West Bengal, Karnataka and Kerala although Odisha is claiming some attention. What is the Opposition doing in the face of the BJP’s assault to alter the country’s moorings from secularism to majoritarian rule? Changes are already being made at the fringes to signify the primacy of Hinduism. After all, the Parivar’s attempt is to marry nationalism with Hinduism much like Israel runs the Jewish state by excluding non-Jews from citizen rights. As usual, the Opposition is divided. The Congress remains the only party with countrywide support, greatly diminished as it is. With Mr Rahul Gandhi taking over the party from his mother, his task is to form a priority-related programme with an energetic set of workers. Whatever the result of the Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh elections, Mr Gandhi has been learning on the job with quick repartees and giving selfies to members of the public. It would be too optimistic to believe that the Opposition parties will come together like a happy family. The splintering of parties in Indian politics is often determined by leaders seeking greater honours. Second, the tendency of opposition members to gravitate towards the ruling party for the loaves and fishes of office is common.For ideological parties of the Left, the end of the heyday of Communism has presented problems, like in the rest of the developing world. There was for a time the Russian and Chinese models to choose from, with Russia after the demise of the Soviet Union living through the chaotic era of nationalism, with Yeltsin passing the baton to Mr Vladimir Putin who retained the one-party Communist structure while marrying it to Orthodox Christianity.The Chinese have climbed on the bandwagon of economic capitalism while maintaining tight state control of key economic sectors. Their goal has been to take over advanced technological innovations by buying them or copying them or simply stealing them. They have been singularly successful in their endeavours and are now the largest exporters of solar equipment, to give one example. But the Chinese have married their Communism to ultra-nationalism.The short point is that Indian Communists, like their brethren in the rest of the developing world, have to fend for themselves. The CPM might still fly the flag of Marx and Engels but no one, including its followers, take these symbols seriously notwithstanding their rhetoric. The sooner the Left parties behaved like other organisations the better.It is up to Mr Gandhi to get all Opposition parties together to work out a basis of fighting the general election instead of waiting till the last minute for seat adjustment. Pulls and pressures for the number of seats is par for the course but the Congress leadership must persuade others of the benefits of a rational approach.The first-past-the-post system of parliamentary democracy would seem to favour the populist and rabble-rouser, but any system can be subverted, given determination and money. The BJP and the larger Parivar have both these assets in ample measure.Obviously, the country wanted a change when the BJP won the last general election under its own steam. In Mr Modi the RSS saw a leader with wile and determination to change the country’s direction and plumbed for him, instead of relying on senior leaders like Mr LK Advani who are past their prime. Thus far, Mr Modi has served the cause dear to them well to the extent of partially ruining the rural economy in Uttar Pradesh in particular. And the Prime Minister had to eat his words when reprimanded by the RSS on the number of cow vigilantes operating in the country.Mr Modi’s election rhetoric will make his task of wooing the middle class that much more difficult. Many of the extravagances of poll rhetoric are taken as fair game. But the charge that a man of the stature of Dr Manmohan Singh is plotting against his country in league with Pakistan is preposterous and must be addressed by the Prime Minister after the results are out.It is a sad moment for Indian democracy that we should be discussing such insulting language of abuse and charges just to win votes.

“Complete operational autonomy had been given to commanders, we were geared up for a long haul. As we saw Doklam coming, additional formations had been moved beforehand Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi (retd), then GOC-in-C, Eastern Command

Vijay Mohan

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 8

As the confrontation with China at Doklam in the Northeast began to unfold earlier this year, an Indian Brigade Commander, accompanied only by his buddy, had walked across the border and warned Chinese troops to step back. China did not advance an inch thereafter.Revealing this here today, Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi (retd), the then General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Eastern Command, and the senior-most commander in the theater, claimed the Doklam (or Doka La) episode had been anticipated by the Indian establishment.(Follow The Tribune on Facebook; and Twitter @thetribunechd)Though China upped the ante through media and diplomatic channels, the spectre of war was very low, he said. There, however, was a possibility of China opening another front or a skirmish breaking out, Lt Gen Bakshi said at the two-day Military Literature Festival being organised by the Punjab Government.Interactions with the Chinese commander in Tibet during his earlier visit to India had indicated his operational interest in that region, and heightened Sino activity in the sector was observed too, he said.In June-August, Indian and Chinese troops had been locked in a 73-day confrontation at Doklam, a pass situated on the tri-junction of Sikkim, China and Bhutan, over the construction of a new road by China in the vicinity of a territory disputed by China and Bhutan.On August 28, it was announced that the confronting troops had disengaged, though reports were still emerging that the two sides continued to maintain troop formations in the sector.“Complete operational autonomy had been delegated to the commanders on ground and we were geared up for a long haul. There were clear-cut operational directions, requisite coordination among government agencies and the wherewithal was made available. As we saw Doklam coming, additional formations had been moved to the area beforehand and the troops were well acclimatised,” said Lt Gen Bakshi.The engagement with the Chinese government was only through the Ministry of External Affairs. At the same time, serious internal disturbances in neighbouring Darjeeling region resulted in New Delhi sending a firm message to the West Bengal government.Maintaining that psychological advantage lay with India, he said troops, while forming human chains, refused to back down and not even once did they break ranks. The area was under constant surveillance and a few instances of Chinese troops, who were mostly conscripts and regularly resorted to propaganda and playing loud music, breaking ranks at night were observed, he claimed.Calling for an analysis as to who or what prompted Chinese action at Doklam and at what level were the decisions taken, Lt Gen Bakshi said China now viewed India as a threat and the standoff had forced Sino troop deployment along the Line of Actual Control. “Earlier, they only used to patrol the area. But now they have started building defences,” he added.Another lesson from Doklam was that the border management of disputed boundaries needed a complete re-look and there could not be multiple agencies for a single border.