Our Correspondent

Doda, April 2

The Army on Monday installed 35 solar streetlights in Thanala village of the remote hilly area of Bhaderwah.

The Army’s initiative brought cheers to the villagers. “There used to be no power in our village. We used firewood while studying at night. But now we can study under the solar streetlights. We can also venture out at night, which was not possible earlier due to the fear of wild animals,” said Nasir Hussain, a Class X student.

Thanala model village, located at an altitude of 11,500 feet above the sea level, is an isolated and the remotest village of Bhadarwah subdivision. Surrounded by high mountain peaks and thick forest cover, the village has around 475 houses.

Moreover, despite being declared a model village in 2005-06, the area lacks even basic facilities such as road and electricity due to government apathy. The power supply to the village is frequently disrupted due to harsh climatic conditions.

“Earlier, we never used to go out at night due to the fear of wild animals. Now, we can go to the mosque to offer ‘nimaz’. We are thankful to the Army for installing the solar streetlights in our village,” Shakoor Ahmed, sarpanch, Thanala village.

Asgar Ali, a local, said, “We were facing many problems in the absence of power but the government never paid any attention. Some leaders came to the village but just to garner votes. However, the Army came to our rescue and provided solar streetlights to our village.”

Meanwhile, Maj Gen Rajiv Nanda, General Officer Commanding, Delta Force, said, “The villagers were facing a lot of problems due to the defunct power infrastructure. So on their requests, we have installed 35 solar streetlights in the village under the Operation Sadbhavana. In future too, we will continue to support the people in need

New Delhi, March 5

Former Defence Minister AK Antony today accused PM Narendra Modi of spreading misinformation on Rafale fighter jets and politicising the armed forces and urged the ruling party to stop using the military for political agenda.

Antony came to AICC headquarters today to counter Modi’s charge that the Congress-led UPA government had delayed the procurement of Rafale. He kept reading from the recently tabled CAG report in Parliament to make his case and said the original order for multi-medium role combat aircraft was placed by the then NDA government in 2001 and until 2004 the NDA government had not reached a conclusion on whether to procure the jets from a single vendor or through tendering.

“The PM is spreading misinformation. He said Congress compromised national security and delayed Rafale procurement because it was not getting commissions. I want to ask the PM is it not true that the past NDA government delayed the procurement until four years starting 2001 when the proposal for MMRCAs was first made?” he asked.

On Digvijay Singh terming the Pulwama attack an accident, Antony said: “In our times the actions of the defence forces were briefed by defence forces. I urge the PM and Amit Shah not to politicise the armed forces. Our forces are beyond politics and religion.” — TNS

Washington, April 3

The US has approved the sale of 24 multi-role MH-60 ‘Romeo’ Seahawk helicopters to India at an estimated cost of USD2.4 billion, the State Department has said.

India has been in need of these formidable anti-submarine hunter helicopters for more than a decade now.

Designed for hunting submarines as well as knocking out ships and conducting search-and-rescue operations at sea, the Lockheed Martin-built helicopters, would replenish India’s ageing fleet of British-made Sea King helicopters.

The Trump Administration on Tuesday notified the Congress that it had approved sale of 24 MH-60R multi-mission helicopters, which would provide the Indian defence forces the capability to perform anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare missions.

In its notification, the State Department told the Congress that the proposed sale would support the foreign policy and national security of the US by helping to strengthen the US-Indian strategic relationship.

The sale, at an estimated cost of USD 2.4 billion, would improve the security of a major defensive partner which continues to be an important force for political stability, peace and economic progress in the Indo-Pacific and South Asia region, it said.

“The proposed sale will provide India the capability to perform anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare missions along with the ability to perform secondary missions, including vertical replenishment, search and rescue and communications relay,” said the Congressional notification.

India would use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defence, the notification said, adding that India would have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support would not alter the basic military balance in the region, it said.

Currently deployed with the US Navy as the primary anti-submarine warfare anti-surface weapon system for open ocean and littoral zones, the helicopters are considered the world’s most advanced maritime helicopter.

According to industry experts, it is the most capable naval helicopter available today designed to operate from frigates, destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers.

MH-60 Romeo Seahawks would add lethal capabilities of the Indian Navy which, experts say, is the need of the hour given the aggressive behaviour of China in the Indian Ocean region.

According to US Naval Air System Command, the MH-60R Seahawk missions are anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, surveillance, communications relay, combat search and rescue, naval gunfire support and logistics support.

As the Navy’s next-generation submarine hunter and anti-surface warfare helicopter, the MH-60R Seahawk is considered the cornerstone of the Navy’s Helicopter Concept of Operations. PTI

Squadron Leader Aarti Singh, wife of Squadron Leader Siddharth Vashisht, who was among the six personnel killed in a chopper crash near Budgam in J&K, and other family members during his cremation at Sector 25, Chandigarh, on Friday.

ndian soft power is projected across the world by Bollywood, which is immensely popular both in Afghanistan and the Pashtun belt of Pakistan. Most people, be it in India, Pakistan or Afghanistan, have a better sense of history through popular culture rather than through books. Kesari only serves to pin the blame for British occupation of Afghan lands on Indians.

Aveek Sen
Journalist working on cyber security and geopolitics of India’s neighbourhood

AKSHAY Kumar’s movie Kesari is about the Battle of Saragarhi, fought between Afghan tribesmen and the 36th Sikhs regiment of the British Indian Army in 1897. While the battle showcased Sikh valour, it served British imperial interests and should not have been glorified.

The movie starts off with the narration that following the decline and fall of the Sikh empire, which had extended till Afghan lands, the British took control of the three forts of Lockhart, Gulistan and Saragarhi. From time to time, mullahs (Islamic clerics) would incite Afghan tribesmen to wage jihad.

Saragarhi is situated in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was known as the North West Frontier Province during the Raj. The area is considered to be occupied territory, and till date Afghanistan does not accept the borders the British drew through Afghan and Pashtun land. The region of the Gandhara civilisation had been predominantly inhabited by the Pashtuns not only during the few centuries after the creation of the modern Afghan state by Ahmad Shah Durrani, but also for thousands of years. The Durand Line border drawn through the Afghan heartland is a colonial British creation and Indians should not be sharing the blame for it. Only its colonial masters are to blame for what a colonial army did. The movie has a scene in which Havildar Ishar Singh (Akshay Kumar) laments that they are a ‘slave army’ of the British.

Though the film doesn’t outrightly vilify the ‘other’(Afghans), one would still identify with the ‘us’ (the Sikh regiment) due to the style of the narration. There is token secularism as Sikh soldiers help rebuild a mosque of the local Afghans and the Afridi tribal sardar (head) declares that the pag (turban) of the Sikhs won’t be desecrated. During the fighting, Ishar Singh lies half-dead on the ground and a mullah tries to desecrate his turban. Ishar Singh stabs him in the throat and then tells the invading contingent that they could kill him but shouldn’t desecrate his holy turban. The Afridi tribal sardar then promises him that they won’t defile his turban. In a later scene, the Orakzai tribal sardar tells the Afridi sardar that there isn’t enough time to attack the other two forts but he won’t return just like that. The Afridi sardar tells him that he may do as he pleases but they shouldn’t desecrate the turban of any Sikh. The tribesmen then proceed to burn down sections of the fort and pillage it.

But are the Afghan tribesmen shown as honourable only as a masquerade? In an early scene, there is a depiction of a tribal jirga (panchayat) where a mullah sentences a woman to death by beheading for running away from the house of her husband, to whom she was forcibly married. Ishar Singh intervenes and saves her. Here the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ characterisation is clear. This scene was unnecessary, if not to project the Afghan tribesmen as savages. 

It is not unlikely that such practices were prevalent then because these exist even now. But there is also the modern way of life among the Pashtuns, a large number of whom are Left-leaning. The major party in the Pashtun belt of Pakistan, the Awami National Party (ANP), is a Left-leaning progressive party. The Afghan politicians, too, espouse the cause of women’s rights.

Former Ambassador Rajiv Dogra, who has written a book on the Durand Line and British occupation of Afghan lands, says that let us not confuse a battle with the war. A movie on a specific battle will give the impression that the battle is greater than the war. The valour of the Sikh soldiers of the colonial British army is unquestionable, but it has to be seen in the larger context. The Afghan tribesmen were reacting to the British occupying their lands by forcing Afghan king Abdur Rahman Khan to sign the Durand Line agreement. Moreover, Sikhs and Pashtuns have a history of antagonism. The Sikh empire’s writ didn’t go beyond Peshawar when parts of the Afghan territory were under Sikh rule. The British feared the Pashtun and used the antagonism the Sikhs had for them. This took the form of heroism in this battle. The antagonism carried on till Partition when the Pashtuns and Sikhs were at each other’s throats. A movie can’t span centuries and delve into philosophical issues, but this is the larger context.

Human rights activist and advocate Tariq Afghan from Upper Dir, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, questioned why only the ills of Afghan society are shown in such movies. There could be a movie on Khushal Khan Khattak, who fought against Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, says Tariq. Khattak was a warrior, poet, writer, politician, tribal chief and a great military leader of that time. Why not glorify him as he was a strong liberal voice during Aurangzeb’s reign? Aurangzeb imprisoned him in the Fort of Ranthambore. Why not a movie on Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Frontier Gandhi), who was a close aide of Gandhi and fought for the independence of the subcontinent. In Pakistan, people call us Indian agents because we are the followers of Frontier Gandhi, says Tariq. “Many books have been written by Indian authors on Ghaffar Khan, but Bollywood has ignored him and his struggle. This is injustice with Pashtuns who supported the Congress before Independence.”

Indian soft power is projected across the world by Bollywood, which is immensely popular both in Afghanistan and the Pashtun belt of Pakistan. One wonders why a movie like Kesari has been made. Most people — whether in India, Pakistan or Afghanistan — have a better sense of history through popular culture rather than through books. As such, the film only serves to pin the blame for British occupation of Afghan lands on Indians.

PAKISTAN can easily claim the world record for banning terrorist organisations. Ever since 9/11 it hurtled down the road of proscriptions and has rarely lifted its foot off the pedal. The problem is that the banned organisations do not remain cowed down for long. Their leading stars continue to rain down invectives on the Pakistan army’s enemy of the day, while public prosecutors fail to press home the charges, leading to courts repeatedly letting off the hook these terror-cum-charity outfits. Evidence suggests that the ban serves each time the purpose of getting the monkey off the army’s back. In the latest replay, Pakistan has banned two terror outfits led by Hafiz Saeed and its administration took over the Bahawalpur headquarters of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar.

Clearly, the problem is in implementation. First banned in 2002, Hafiz Saeed’s Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and JeM would have been decimated by now, had there been a determined effort by Pakistan. After the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, it again proscribed 16 terror outfits, including the two anti-India terror outfits. Saeed’s principal gunslingers were jailed and it appeared, for once, that the centrist government of Asif Ali Zardari had got the measure of the radicals. But two dead public prosecutors later, the trial petered out. Even the US, which freely indulges in drone hunting of terrorists on Pakistani soil, was unable to get at Saeed despite a multi-million bounty.

But Pakistan is under the pump after the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) gave it a three-month deadline to sharpen the implementation of its anti-terror financing laws. The recent Saudi bailout may have been the last act of generosity by Pakistan’s all-weather friends. Its impending blacklisting by the FATF could deter foreign investors and hinder Pakistan’s access to international markets. The road ahead for Pakistan is already tough without the distraction of a large neighbour unveiling all available tools of coercion. As India determinedly tightens the political screws — it has gained access even to the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) where Pakistan till now had the field to itself — and leverages its geo-economic charm, PM Imran Khan may find himself bereft of viable options.

Tribune News Service

Srinagar, April 1

Ahead of the parliamentary poll, Commander of the Northern Army Lt Gen Ranbir Singh arrived in Srinagar on Monday for a two-day visit to review the security situation in the region. “Accompanied by the Chinar Corps Commander Lt Gen KJS Dhillon, Lt Gen Ranbir visited the forward areas in the frontier district of Baramulla, where he was briefed by commanders on ground about the current situation,” an Army statement said.

“During the visit, the Army Commander was briefed on the counter infiltration grid and operational preparedness of the formations, apart from the various developmental works being undertaken to improve the life of the people residing in remote areas,” it stated.

“He was appreciative of the measures and standard operating procedures instituted by the units and formations,” the statement read.

Later in the day, the Army Commander was briefed on the prevailing operational aspects by Lt Gen Dhillon at Badami Bagh Cantonment.

Sandeep Dikshit in New Delhi

If External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj was prescient while speaking in Parliament a week before the Pulwama attack, she would have eschewed the part commending the Indian diplomatic community for getting Pakistan “successfully blacklisted by the comity of nations”. The talk of diplomatically isolating Pakistan entered the governmental lexicon in January 2016 after a spate of attacks rocked the government’s equanimity. Since then, the only two successes chalked by Indian diplomacy is getting Pakistan blackballed by the Financial Action Task Force and preventing it from hosting the SAARC summit, which was in the nature of a self-goal, for the move has wrecked the organisation that India had created.

Since then, there have been pyrrhic victories or even verbal slugfests touted as diplomatic wins such as young Indian diplomat Eenam Gambhir berating Pakistan as “Terroristan”. Pakistan has, in the past, endured such barbs from more powerful countries and bigger statesmen like John McCain and Barack Obama.

There are many tools for isolating a country and diplomatic isolation of the kind India professes to practice would rank as the lowest on the scale. The successful deployment of policy tools hinges on the offended country’s economic and military power, besides its interconnections with the target country.

The attempt at isolation is long drawn out and the outcome is unpredictable. Venezuela and Iran are two test cases where the US is attempting a regime change by strangulating their economies. As India-Pakistan ties are skeletal, all that New Delhi had to be content with is withdrawing the Most Favoured Nation status.

If Sushma Swaraj was correct in stating in May last year that Pakistan is trying to reach out to India because it senses isolation on the issue of terrorism, Islamabad wouldn’t have managed to gather representatives or ships of 46 countries for a five-day multinational exercise that ended a week back.

And while the foreign office talks of diplomatic isolation, it later emerged that the national security advisers of both countries had secretly met. Pakistan even managed to cadge generous assistance from Saudi Arabia, which is now said to be in India’s corner on the strength of PM Modi’s personal chemistry with the sheikhs of West Asia. Diplomatic isolation also does not cut ice with other countries when India not just keeps alive the back channels of communication, but also sends two union ministers to Pakistan for the Kartarpur project ceremony.

India needs to spell out, like the US or Russia, what exactly does diplomatic isolation mean? Is it hot words at international meets or a sustained multi-dimensional effort with an end goal in sight? Does the UNSC blacklisting of Masood Azhar achieve anything? The US has, in the past, put hundreds of Taliban fighters on the UNSC blacklist only to pull some of them out when it felt the need to negotiate a settlement.

The end game of demolishing terrorist headquarters at Muridke (Hafiz Saeed) and Bahawalpur (Azhar Masood) and killing both the leaders entails a degree of ruthlessness, pain and risks an embarrassing blowback. Is Modi up for it? He should have in mind that his “dear friend” Benjamin Netanyahu owes his political longevity in part to his older brother’s heroics in rescuing Israeli hostages from a hijacked plane at Entebbe. Or that Barack Obama’s path for re-election was smoothened by the capture of Osama bin Laden. That, however, means moving from diplomatic isolation to military action, firm in the belief that the diplomats have insured against any other country coming to the offending country’s aid as was the case with Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

If India’s past wars are any guide, Pakistan was not exactly friendless during the 1965 and 1971 hostilities. In 1971, the Shah of Iran supplied military equipment as well as diplomatic support against India. In 1965, Indonesia offered to seize Andaman and Nicobar Islands to spread Indian forces thin. But Kargil provided a different benchmark. Hardly any country spoke in favour of Pakistan. In the end, US President Bill Clinton browbeat Nawaz Sharif into handing back mountain peaks that hadn’t been recaptured by the Army. As long as a former Pakistan military chief heads the 41-nation Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition, the sledgehammer approach is unlikely to work. The limited conflict of Kargil and the preceding diplomacy makes one long for the measured escalation of those days by the trio of Vajpayee, Jaswant Singh and Brajesh Mishra.

The dividing line between military transparency vis-a-vis military secrecy has been much debated.