Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent overtures to Islamabad go well beyond Tsar Nicholas’ nostalgia for Central Asian affinities

FS Aijazuddin

Nicholas Romanov II (once Tsar of all Russias and now St. Nicholas) should congratulate Vladimir Putin (once a KGB operative and now Tsar of a truncated Russia) on reviving Russian presence in the areas that are now in Pakistan. In February 1891, Nicholas (then Tsarevitch) visited Punjab during his grand tour of the East. His scribe described Lahore as ‘picturesque in its oriental flavour’, resembling ‘Central Asia’. That cultural affinity may have inspired Putin to reconstruct a modern monument to Pakistan-Russia connections, albeit on uneven foundations.

Since 1947, Pakistan’s relations with Russia have alternated between Siberian winters and Black Sea summers. The first chill occurred when, in the 1950s, Pakistan played the US card to tantalise Soviet Union. In the 1960s, despite the U-2 spy-plane incident, the Soviets collaborated with Pakistan to conduct oil and gas exploration across Pakistan’s geography. (That was the age of pre-satellite espionage).

The Indo-Pak wars of 1965 and 1971, ironically, threw Russia and Pakistan together, first at the Russian-brokered peace conference in Tashkent in 1966 and then with the Trojan horse gift of the Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM). No one in Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s government had the temerity to examine PSM’s minutiae: the outdated technology, the onerous terms of finance; and the irreversible dependence on imported iron ore in preference to local ore from Kalabagh. The PSM project (conceived under duress) began in 1973 and took over 10 years to complete. After 30 years of mechanical negligence, it has accumulated losses and debts of almost Rs 500 billion.

A thaw in the Pakistan-Russia relations came almost without warning. In 2017, Putin decided to sell four Mi-35 — Hind attack helicopters — to Pakistan (could there have been a more provocative name?). If Putin had offered 400 tons of caviar to Pakistan, they would not have caused the same discomfort to India than these four helicopters did. The paradigm of Indo-US-Russian-Pakistani relations suddenly took on a new configuration. Previous alliances (India/Russia; Pakistan/US) were swapped into new partnerships spawned by unabashed self-interest.

Putin’s recent overtures to Pakistan go well beyond Tsar Nicholas’ nostalgia for Central Asian affinities. Maturely, Putin has chosen to forget the abrupt cancellation of his visit to Pakistan (scheduled for October 2012), citing a ‘lack of substance’.  Now seven years later, that substance has begun to solidify.

In January this year, a large Russian energy company, RAO-Engineering, expressed an interest in investing $2 billion in Pakistan’s cash-hungry energy sector. This was capped by an agreement this month between Pakistan’s Inter-State Gas Systems (ISGS) and Russia’s Gazprom. They signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to conduct a joint feasibility study regarding gas supplies from the Middle East to South Asian countries.

And this month, a Russian state enterprise, Tyazhpromexport, (undaunted by PSM’s insolvency and closure for the past three years), has proposed to the Pakistan government a plan for balancing and modernisation of the huge PSM complex. The plan envisages financing from a loan and support by Russian expertise to run the refurbished mill. It is the promise of a miracle that would have tempted even Lazarus to resurrect.

Will all these Russian MOUs and proposals reach fruition? Only President Putin knows for sure. He is shrewd. He has calculated that PM Narendra Modi may be re-elected, albeit with a reduced majority; Trump intends to quit Afghanistan but not the White House; President Xi Jinping is secure for life; and PM Imran Khan will wear boots for the next four years. Could there be a better time for the Russian bear to emerge from its hibernation and to give its Pakistani neighbour an ominous hug?

NASHIK: Using ultra light Howitzers and indigenous Swathi weapon-locating radar, Indian Army Tuesday demonstrated its artillery firepower at the annual ‘Exercise Topchi’ held near here.

The event took place at the vast firing ranges at Deolali Camp in the morning. It not only showcased the artillery firepower, but also the aviation and surveillance capabilities.

In addition to the gun fire, the display of rockets, missiles, surveillance and target acquisition radars, remotely piloted aircraft and hi-tech equipments was awe-inspiring. The precision of delivering the explosives in the target area, the coordination and timings of the firepower stunned all those present.

Latest ultra light Howitzer M-777, self-propelled gun K-9 Vajra and indigenous Swathi weapon-locating radar is testimony to the increasing lethality and technical threshold of our Army, a defence release said.

The Army’s aviation assets included the indigenous advanced light helicopter, light combat helicopter, Cheetah & Chetak helicopters, it added.

Lt Gen YVK Mohan, Commandant of Defence Service Staff College (DSSC), Wellington, near here, Lt Gen R S Salaria, Commandant, School of Artillery and Colonel Commandant Regiment of Artillery and other Army officials were present on the occasion.

The French side took advantage of parallel parleys by the PMO that weakened Indian team’s position.

At the height of the negotiations over the controversial €7.87 billion Rafale dealbetween India and France, the Defence Ministry raised strong objections to “parallel negotiations” conducted by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) with the French side. Stating that it was clear that such parallel discussions by the PMO had “weakened the negotiating position of MoD and Indian Negotiating Team,” a Defence Ministry note dated November 24, 2015 brought this to the attention of the then Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar.

Stating that “we may advise PMO that any Officers who are not part of Indian Negotiating Team may refrain from having parallel parlays [parleys] with the officers of French Government,” it suggested that “in case the PMO is not confident about the outcome of negotiations being carried out by the MoD, a revised modality of negotiations to be led by PMO at appropriate level may be adopted in the case.”

According to the government’s submission to the Supreme Court of India in October 2018, the negotiations over the Rafale deal were conducted by a seven-member team headed by the Deputy Chief of Air Staff. There was no mention of any role for the PMO in these negotiations.

Official documents available to The Hindureveal, however, that the Defence Ministry protested that the position taken by the PMO was “contradictory to the stand taken by MoD and the negotiating team.” The then Defence Secretary, G. Mohan Kumar, made this official notation in his own hand: “RM may pl. see. It is desirable that such discussions be avoided by the PMO as it undermines our negotiating position seriously.”

The Defence Ministry’s internal note dated November 24, 2015, in facsimile

Firm opposition

His firm opposition was recorded on November 24, 2015 on a note prepared by S. K. Sharma, Deputy Secretary (Air-II), and endorsed by the Joint Secretary & Acquisition Manager (Air) and the Director General (Acquisition) in the Ministry.

The new Rafale deal, which bore little resemblance to the original deal under prolonged negotiation, was announced in Paris by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in April 2015. This was followed by the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between India and France when President Francois Hollande visited Delhi on the occasion of Republic Day in 2016. The inter-governmental agreement for 36 Rafale fighter jets was eventually signed on September 23, 2016.

According to the Defence Ministry note, the details of the parallel negotiations conducted by the PMO came to the Ministry’s notice only from a letter of October 23, 2015 from General Stephen Reb, the head of the French Negotiating Team. The letter “made mention of a telephonic conversation between Shri Jawed Ashraf, Joint Secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office and Mr. Luis Vassy, Diplomatic Adviser to the French Minister of Defence, which took place on 20.10.2015.”

General Reb’s letter was brought to the notice of the PMO by the Defence Ministry. The head of the Indian Negotiating Team, Air Marshal S. B. P. Sinha, AVSM VM, Deputy Chief of Air Staff, also wrote to Mr. Ashraf.

In his reply to Air Marshal Sinha on November 11, 2015, Mr. Ashraf “confirmed that he had held discussion with Mr Luis Vassy, Diplomatic Adviser to the French Minister of Defence,” adding that Mr. Vassy “spoke to him on the advice of the French President’s office and the issues referred to General Reb’s letter were discussed.”

President Hollande had told AFP, as reported by Le Monde in September 2018, that “asked by Agence France-Presse on the sidelines of a conference in Montreal on Friday, he said that the name of Reliance Group had appeared as part of a ‘new formula’ in negotiations over the Rafale deal, decided by the Modi government after it came to power.” The reference was to the Anil Ambani-owned Reliance Defence.

The Defence Ministry note also stated that “the discussions between Diplomatic Adviser to the French Defence Minister and Joint Secretary to PM tantamount to parallel negotiations while the Indian Negotiating Team constituted by the Ministry of Defence is undertaking the process of formal negotiations with the French side.”

Detrimental to interests

“Such parallel negotiations may be detrimental to our interests as the French side may take advantage of same by interpreting such discussions to their benefit and weakening the position taken by Indian Negotiating Team. This has precisely happened in this case,” the note added.

 

Citing “a glaring example”, the Defence Ministry note pointed out that General Reb in his letter had stated that “taking into consideration the outcome of discussions between Diplomatic Adviser to the French Defence Minister and Joint Secretary to PM, no Bank Guarantee is provisioned in the supply protocol and the letter of comfort provides sufficient assurances of the proper implementation of the supply protocol by the industrial suppliers.”

This, the note stated, was “contrary to the position taken by the MoD and conveyed by Indian Negotiating Team that the commercial offer should be preferably backed by Sovereign/Government Guarantee or otherwise by Bank Guarantee.” Another instance of a contrary stand taken in the parallel negotiations was on the arbitration arrangement, the note pointed out.

This is not the only instance of “parallel negotiations” in which the Indian side took contrary positions. It has already been reported elsewhere that the National Security Adviser, Ajit Doval, negotiated with the French side in Paris in January 2016 and The Hindu has access to documentation that confirms this. Mr. Doval’s advice to Mr. Parrikar on doing away with a sovereign guarantee or bank guarantee for the Rafale deal was also recorded by the then Defence Minister in a file noting.

Lahore, February 4

Pakistan’s former dictator Gen Pervez Musharraf was responsible for no breakthrough on the Kashmir issue as he launched the Kargil operation without the civilian government’s approval to “sabotage” the talks with India and topple the Nawaz Sharif government, a close aide of the then Prime Minister said on Monday.

Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader and Senator Pervaiz Rashid told reporters that “Sharif and the Indian leadership were holding talks on Kashmir and the latter was ready to resolve it, but Musharraf launched the Kargil operation to sabotage the talks and topple the Sharif government”.

General Musharraf, 75, who lives in Dubai, is facing several cases, including a treason case for suspending the Constitution in 2007. The former military ruler left for the UAE in 2016 for medical treatment and has not returned since. He was the Pakistan army chief during the Kargil War in 1999.

“Gen Musharraf is responsible for the blood of Kashimiris. Musharraf was the reason behind the suffering of Kashmiris as he did not let this issue resolved,” he said, terming the Kargil operation a “misadventure”.

Ajay Banerjee

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, January 29

During his tenure as the Defence Minister, the late George Fernandes presided over Kargil war, oversaw one of the biggest post World War-II movement of troops and scientists working under his ministry conducted the second nuclear test at Pokhran in May 1999. He nudged the forces into modernising for the 21st century.

Fernandes, who passed away today, had two tenures—March 1998 to March 2001 and October 2001 to May 2004—as Defence Minister during the six-year (1998-2004) NDA regime led by BJP’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

At the beginning of his tenure, the nuclear test happened and India ended up with sanctions imposed by the US and faced an angry Japan—both ironically are quite close to India now.

During the Kargil war in 1999, Fernandes refused to accept the theory of intelligence failure and ordered the forces to throw out the Pakistani troops; India attained a moral victory. In New Delhi, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) rolled out one of biggest compensation packages for soldiers martyred in the war. Then came the biggest change as the MoD okayed addition of more troops in eastern Ladakh—Kargil is part of the Army’s Leh-based 14 Corps that was raised after the war.

In the aftermath of the attack on Parliament in December 2001, Indian forces launched ‘Operation Parakram’, the biggest movement of troops after World War-II (1939-45). The 10-month-long deployment that saw nuclear-armed neighbours India and Pakistan in an eyeball-to-eyeball scenario yielded some important military lessons.

From this was born the concept called ‘cold start’ that envisages the military to be ready to go to war at a short notice. The purchase of 126 MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) jets initiated during his tenure and so was the Scorpene submarine deal. It was in 1999 that the MoD okayed the artillery modernisation plan and the submarine action plan—both are being fructified now with the induction of new artillery guns and submarines.

Old timers remember that Fernandes had “earned” the sobriquet of a “Soldiers Minister”. Once during his more than 16 visits to Siachen, he ordered that mail be delivered to troops once a week, and not fortnightly.

In 2003 when the media was unkind to him over frequent MiG-21 crashes and dubbed the aircraft as a “flying coffin”, Fernandes undertook a sortie on the backseat of the jet to drive home the point these were safe.

No PC/FVR/18/09                                                   Dated 09 Oct 2018.

To,

            Parliamentary of India,

            Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Grievances;

            New Delhi, 110001.

PUBLIC COMPLAINT.

ELECTIONS ANNOUNCED IN 5 STATES – NOT LIKELY TO BE FREE & FAIR SINCE FOOLROOF REGISTRATION SYSTEM FOR MILITARY & PARA-MILITARY FORCES AT PLACE OF SERVICE – NOT EVOLVED, WHEN ONLY THOSE LISTED IN ELECTORAL ROLLS HAVE RIGHT TO VOTE.

Sir,

            Ref your No RS.7/1/2006-P&L dated 5 Dec 2006 to Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances & Pension, Sardar Patel Bhavan, New Delhi & Adjutant General Branch letter No B/25222/AG/PS-2C of 16/17 Nov 2007 & No 34891/EC/MP-8 (I of R)(ADP) of 15 May 2018 with a copy to undersigned.

2. Only those registered in Electoral Rolls have Right to Vote – Section 62 of RP Act 1951. No ERO nominated for Military Stations till date, amounts to breach of Official Duty in connection with preparation of Electoral Rolls – punishable with imprisonment / fine / both, under Section 32 of RP Act 1950 overlooked by ECI/MoD. CEOs of 62XCBs nominated as EROs, illegally directed not to enumerate Soldiers residing in such Cantonments, amounting to breach of Right to Equality to those who protect sovereignty & integrity of India at any cost.

3. Election Nodal Officers nominated instead of EROs for Military Stations, overlooking RP Act / Rules. Ignorance, exploited to facilitate Politicians, hence FIRs against Stone Palters withdrawn by CM J&K, not objected by COAS / GOC-in-C responsible to protect interest of innocent Soldiers. However good the Election Law may be; if badly executed, it is no good. AIR 1971 SC 2123; ruled Right to be Registered at place of Service, cannot be taken away, if residing there – case pertaining to Naga Land but Adjutant  General illegally issued SAO 16/S/72 that AFs entitled to be registered at home town, not objected by MoD/ECI, facilitating Politicians, who started getting better wages.

4. Section 20(7) of RP Act 1950; ‘if in any case a question arises as to where a person is ‘Ordinarily Resident’, at any relevant time, the question shall be determined with reference to all the facts of the case and to such rules as may be made in this behalf by the Centre Govt. in consultation with ECI. RP Act 1950 – the meaning of ‘service qualification’, under Section 20(8) of RP Act 1950 is – being a person who is employed under the Govt. of India, in a post outside India, read in conjunction with sub-sections 20(3) – is deemed to be ‘ordinarily resident’ on any date in the constituency in which, but for his having such ‘service qualification’, he would have been ‘ordinarily resident’ on that date.All Govt. Servants employed in India are deemed to be ‘ordinarily residents’ at their place of posting, without any option of availing the facility of “fictional domicile”, hence wrongly applied to AFs only.

5. Amendment Act 2/56 – Section 20(8)(a)&(b) were added – ‘Service Qualification’ was made applicable / extended to those AFs personnel posted abroad, in the light of Section 20(3).  EC a single service commission, applied ‘Service Qualification’ to Soldiers posted in India, amounting to gross misuse of authority, with the intension of illegally neutralizing ‘apolitical vote bank of AFs’ – not objected by RM / COAS suiting convenience of Politicians. Under the Act/Rules, there is no term called “Service Voter’; coined by MoD, to confuse innocent Soldiers – Chapter X of DSR 1960’.

6. Registration of Electors Rules 1960 – under Rule 7(3) – Statement under Section 20 of RP Act 1950 shall cease to be valid when the person making it ceases to hold declared office or, as the case may be, have a ‘service qualification’.It implies AFs personnel like other Govt. Servants, on posting back to India, cease to have ‘service qualification’ but MoD/ECI continues to apply ‘Service Qualification’ to those posted in India, since no Military Officers is posted to ECI / MoD.

7. Law & Order a State Subject hence, Forces deployed to maintain Law & Order (Naga Land/J&K) supposed to be working for State Govt., hence have a similar right to be registered at their place of service, as applicable to that State Govt. employs upheld under AIR 1971 SC 2123.

8. Amendment Act 33/64 – Home Ministry recommended Postal Ballot for Para Military Forces, based on the premise; it is permitted to AFs – Section 20 (8) (c) was added – being a member of an Armed Police Force of a State, who is serving outside that State or (d) being a person who is employed under the Govt. of India, in a post outside India, ignoring‘Service Qualification’ is demitted on posting back to India under Rule 7(3) Registration of Rules 1960. Amendment Act 33/64 could not have been passed by the Parliament, if ECI had interpreted Registration Rules 1960 correctly. 

9. Amendment Act 47/66 – ECI proposed omitting of words when posted abroad from Section 20 (3), with the mischievous intention of covering-up the corrupt practice of applying‘Service qualification’ to those posted in India since 1952, amounting to lack of professional integrity. 

10. AIR 1971 SC 2123 – Assam Rifles personals & their family members posted at Wokha – Naga Land registered, at place of posting – challenged by the Candidate, who lost elections.  SC ruled ‘the statutory fiction is intended to confer the right to be registered as electors at their home town or village but the fiction cannot take away the right of person possessing service qualification to get registered at a constituency in which they are ordinarily residing though such place happens to be their place of service’.Adjutant General misused authority issued SAO 16/S/72 – AFs can vote only through Postal Ballot, overreaching SC ruling. Military Pension reduced from 70% to 50% compensation for early retirement & Civil Pension increased from 33% to 50% after full service, without fear of electoral loss.

11. AIR 1984 SC 921 – EC cannot override RP Act / Rules.ECI continues to overlook Rule 7(3) by applying ‘service qualification’ to those posted in India, when it ceases on posting back to India for other services amounting to discrimination not objected by COAS/Adjutant General facilitating Politicians. 

12. Army Order 15/95 (EC letter of 20 Mar 1995) – EC diluted/changed the Supreme Court ruling that – Soldiers & their Family Members staying with them, can vote at place of posting (instead of they have a right to be registered), if they don’t want to avail the facility of Postal Ballot amounting to overreaching the Supreme Court when ECI is executing agency without powers to frame Rules.

13. Army Order 15/95 stipulates, AFs can get themselves registered during house-to-house enumeration never conducted by ECI for Military areas, amounting to derelict performance of election duty not objected by Station Commanders. Intensive revision in Punjab in progress except Military Areas not objected by Commanders / Secy. RSB Punjab to facilitate Politicians.

14. Parliamentary Committee on Grievances – letter of 5 Dec 2006, desired foolproof system of registration for Soldiers be evolved, which requires sensitizing innocent Soldiers about their Constitutional Right to be Registered at their place of posting & the Postal Ballot only when posted abroad, by nominating dedicated EROs – not done amounting to disrespect to the Parliament.

15. On the contrary – EC under Hand Book – 2008 – debarred EROs to enumerate Armed Forces & family members during intensive / summery revision of rolls, amounting to looking Tokyo talking London. The Center Commandants rightly register those posted abroad for Postal Ballot but also illegally register those posted in India for Postal Ballot without logic overlooked by ECI under lame excuse authenticated by another Commissioned Officer.

16. EC under letter dated 28 Dec 2008 desired Chief Electoral Officers of all States to increase numbers for the Postal Ballot when no Gazetted Officer is supposed to influence elections. CEOs of all States blindly followed instructions of the EC – increased numbers for the Postal Ballot for those posted in India, amounts to unduly influencing elections – rigging of elections / discrimination against Soldiers; a separate class of people promoting enmity between Classes in connection with Elections Section 125 of RP Act 1951. ECintentionally didn’t apply election law, in respect of Forces for the last 68 years & there is no hope of justice, till Multi Service ECI is not constituted.

17. CWP 3775/2009 filed at Chandigarh High Court by Brig HS Ghuman, SC, Retd, & others for not enumerating Soldiers at their place of posting in India, when those registered in Naga Land during 1967 elections defended by ECI – AIR 1971 SC 2123 which should have been filed by Secy. Defence / COAS if they had any respect for the Election Law of the Land.

18. CEC of India knows14.5 Lakh Soldiers & their family members posted in India illegally registered for E-postal Ballot overlooked by COAS amounts to indulging in Politics. Need exists to post Military Officers to ECI & State CEOs to protect democratic right of Military Forces.    

19. Elections announced by CEC of India for 5 States (Chhattisgarh, MP, Mizoram, Rajasthan & Talangana) will not be free & fair since Military & Para-military Forces deployed in these States to maintain Law & Order as also to protect sovereignty of India, at any cost, not registered at place of service, overlooking AIR 1971 SC 2123 defended by  ECI. Need exists to constitute Multi Service ECI to protect democratic right of Soldiers.

Brig. HS Ghuman, SC, Retd.

President AIVCG NGO Registered.

Copy to; RM, ECI, COAS, Adjutant General, COR Punjab Regt, RSB Punjab, KSB New Delhi, RSB Punjab. 

New Delhi, January 26

Continuing his style of greeting the crowd after the Republic Day parade, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Saturday walked on the Rajpath greeting people amid chants of “Modi, Modi”.

Modi has undertaken similar walks earlier too. He broke his security cover after last year’s Independence Day speech at the Red Fort when he stepped out of his car to meet schoolchildren.

Donning a yellow orange headgear with a red tail and kurta pyjama and Nehru jacket, Modi waved to the crowds enthusiastically as he zig-zagged the Rajpath, closely followed by security personnel and his slow-moving motorcade.

The Prime Minister started his walk soon after President Ram Nath Kovind and his South African counterpart and chief guest at the Republic Day parade, Cyril Ramaphosa, left Rajpath.

The crowds appeared pleased to get a glimpse of the Prime Minister from close.

As Modi went close to the seating enclosures, some chanted “Modi, Modi” while others captured the moment on their mobile phones and cameras.

Many came near the makeshift barricades to greet him. IANS