‘Ugly Stability’ in Southern Asia

The key geo-strategic challenges in Southern Asia emanate from the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and on the AfPak border; unresolved territorial disputes between India and China, and India-Pakistan; and, the almost unbridled scourge of radical extremism that is sweeping across the strategic landscape.

In May 1998, India and Pakistan had crossed the nuclear Rubicon and declared themselves states armed with nuclear weapons. Tensions are inherent in the possession of nuclear weapons by neighbours with a long history of conflict. The latest manifestation of this long-drawn conflict is the 20-year old state-sponsored ‘proxy war’ waged by Pakistan’s ISI-controlled mercenary terrorists against the Indian state.

While there was some nuclear sabre-rattling between India and Pakistan, particularly during the Kargil conflict, the two nations have never come close to a situation of deterrence breakdown. The “ugly stability” that is prevailing can be attributed primarily to India’s unwavering strategic restraint in the face of grave provocation, democratic checks and balances in its policy processes and tight civilian control over its nuclear forces. However, the Pakistan army, which also controls the country’s nuclear arsenal, has lost India’s trust after the Kargil conflict and the terrorist strikes at Mumbai. It is capable of once again stepping up trans-LoC terrorism or even engendering a Kargil-like situation that could escalate to a major war.

India’s border with China has been relatively more stable than that with Pakistan. However, China is in physical occupation of 38,000 sq km of Indian territory in Ladakh, J&K, and China claims the entire Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh (96,000 sq km) in the north-east. Even the Line of Actual Control (LAC) has not been demarcated on the ground and on military maps. Recently China has exhibited unprecedented assertiveness in its diplomacy and military posture. Until the territorial dispute between the two countries is resolved satisfactorily, another border conflict cannot be ruled out even though the probability is quite low.

China does not recognise India as a state armed with nuclear weapons and demands that India should go back to a non-nuclear status in terms of UNSC Resolution 1172 and, hence, refuses to discuss nuclear confidence building measures (CBMs) and nuclear risk reduction measures (NRRMs) with India. There is also a collusive nexus between China and Pakistan for nuclear weapons, nuclear-capable missiles and military hardware. Most analysts in India believe that this nexus will lead to India having to face a two-front situation during any future conflict.

The prevailing security environment in Southern Asia is not conducive to long-term strategic stability even though in the short-term there is no cause for major concern. India is developing robust military capabilities and is in the process of upgrading its military strategy against China from dissuasion to deterrence. In the nuclear weapons field, India is moving towards the deployment of the third leg of its triad, i.e. a nuclear-powered submarine armed with a submarine launched nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles (SSBN with SLBMs). This will give India genuine nuclear deterrence capability so as to prevent deterrence breakdown and reduce the risk of nuclear exchanges in any future conflict.

(Gurmeet Kanwal is Director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), New Delhi.)

Diminishing Returns from the Pravasi Bhartiya Divas?

Going by press reports, Pravasi Bhartiya Divas (PBD) 2011, the annual 3 day jamboree hosted by the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs seems to have been no different from that of previous years…there was the grand inauguration by the Prime Minister, the usual high-powered seminars on the same topics (investment opportunities in health, education, strengthening bonds between the Diaspora and the mother country, etc), the usual cultural programs and opportunities for networking.  At the end of the three day event, the program was pronounced a grand success, mainly based on the fact that attendance this year was at its highest ever, with over 2000 delegates making the pilgrimage to New Delhi.

Though the event has become well-established on the annual calendar, it still continues to draw as much criticism as it does accolades.  Participation in the PBD is drawn from a hotch-potch of individuals and representatives from Diaspora organizations from around the world. As far as individuals are concerned, the well-heeled have an advantage given the cost associated with attendance. The Diaspora is also not a monolithic group, the two basic groupings of the Non-resident Indians (NRIs) and the Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) have very different priorities and issues vying for attention from the powers that be. This inadequate and distorted representation of the 25 million strong diaspora by a handful at the PBD leads to misplaced priorities and initiatives on the part of the government.

There was the curious spectacle of Montek Singh Ahluwalia explaining the government’s rationale for holding the PBD as less to do with enticing the Diaspora to put their money to work in India, and more to do with strengthening their social and cultural bonds with the mother country. The focus this year was on the North Eastern states of India, with the most visible manifestation of this being the many pretty women from the North East performing ushering duties during the event. The other focus was on the youth of the Diaspora, who were largely missing, or invisible.

graph

The event, as usual, culminated with the presentation of the Pravasi Bhartiya Samman awards by the President of India. The geographic spread of the awardees has evened out, after the initial emphasis on the North Americas and then West Asia.  Surprisingly, this year marked the first time the award was handed out to a member of the Diaspora in the sub-continental neighborhood, to Mano Selvatharan of Sri Lanka.

At the end of the day, the question arises as to whether this is one of those exercises that results in increasingly diminishing returns. Granted, the PBD provides an useful fora for a whole lot of activities and interfacing to take place but redressing grievances and acting on ideas, just two of the many outcomes of the PBD, requires more durable mechanisms to be put in place. Next year, the PBD makes its merry way to Jaipur while this year’s regional PBD is scheduled to be held in Toronto in June.

Endnote: While on the subject of the Diaspora, maybe the time has come for a census along the lines of the National Jewish Population Survey (NJPC) to be conducted for the Indian-American community by the Indian-American community. While any census is a potential hot potato, with even the NJPC being discontinued after the last survey in 2000 because of controversies over its findings and methodologies, at least such a survey could put an end to all the nonsensical figures floating around the Internet about the percentage of Indian doctors and scientists in the U.S!

(image credit: wikipedia.org)

‘The Voice of the Majority -1- ‘Don’t Tread on Our Religion, Our Culture’

Every elite American newspaper is full of articles about Pakistan’s descent into religious extremism and the stunned reaction of the “westernized Pakistani elite” (as Washington Post put it) at the popular support in Pakistan for the accused assassin of Governor Salman Taseer. There is no question that successive Pakistani Military and Civilian regimes have nurtured Islamic extremism and built up the Taleban. It is also true that the assassination has severely shaken the confidence of the Pakistani elite and that of the Obama Administration.

Supports of Malik Qadri shower rose petalsI abhor any doctrine, regime or society that chooses to call itself the “Land of the Pure” or Pak-i-Stan. Once you call your society the land of the Pure, you sort of undertake the obligation to rid your society of any impure elements. That is what successive land-of-the-pure regimes have done by trying to cleanse their societies of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Ahmadiyya Muslims over a 60-year period.

But I also recognize that Pakistani society has never elected religious parties in any election. They have usually voted for non-religious parties. So what turned this Pakistani society to shower rose petals on an accused assassin of a popular governor? Below is a contrarian and perhaps controversial answer.

•    The majority in every society or country expects its religion, its culture, its belief systems to be respected and protected by its government. I consider this fact to be self-evident. As a corollary, the majority tends to protest and rebel against any external pressure to modify its religious and social laws. When its own government aligns itself with the external source of pressure, the protests turn vehement. If the external forces are of another religion, then the anger can turn incendiary.

Perhaps, this is what happened in Pakistan. Rather than working quietly and discreetly to free the Christian woman sentenced under the 30-year old Blasphemy law, serious attempts were made to force Pakistan’s weak government to amend or abolish the law. This, I think, was a huge mistake. It changed the nature of the debate from being merciful to a poor woman to pressure from American and Western Christians to force a change in Pakistani society’s sacred religious principles.

In this context, an accused assassin of a popular governor became a symbol of defiance against American & Christian pressure against Muslims and a defender of the Prophet. Perhaps, a Muslim fighter against modern Christian Crusaders?  Is this so hard to understand?

I guess it is if you are a member of the American Elite and Media Elite in particular. If you think, I am being harsh, think back to their coverage of the Tea Party in America in 2010. This is the same elite section of American Establishment that once derided Core America as “small town people clinging to religion and guns”.  These are the same people who expressed outrage that over 70% of Americans were against construction of a new Mosque near the sacred Ground Zero. These American Elite accused Core Americans for becoming intolerant. It was preposterous.

There are over 90 Mosques in New York City, by some counts. So why did Americans protest so passionately against one new Mosque in New York? It was because that project seemed to symbolize an “in-your-face-America” message. It came across as a deliberate affront to America’s sacred memories and beliefs. So the American majority stood up and said, “Don’t tread on us”. The American Elite still don’t get this.

The American Elite express disapproval of religious beliefs and promotes an arrogant secularism. If they approve of someone, they call him or her “liberal”. If they don’t, they call the person “traditional” or “religious”. They misuse America’s clout to force their “secularism” on governments of countries that depend on American aid. They do not get the basic fact that the core of most societies is religious. They do not understand that their demands come across simultaneously as arrogant “irreligiousity” (to paraphrase Stratfor) and as attacks on sacred principles. So is it any surprise that their actions usually misfire as they did in Pakistan!

Perhaps they should watch Bill O’Reilly of Fox speak of “secular-progressives” in his tone of dripping contempt. If the American Elite cannot convince Bill O’Reilly, why do they think they should pressure Pakistan? If they cannot understand Core America, why do they think they can understand Core Pakistan or Core India?

How does this discussion lead to core India or to US-India relations? That is a topic for the next article.

Is there merit in NRIs contesting elections in India?

The Indian Oversees Congress (IOC) has announced plans to field Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) in the Punjab State Assembly elections next year. The party plans to field about 10 candidates on the Congress Party ticket next year according to IOC President Vikram Bajwa.

According to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 a person can contest elections if he is also an “elector for a Parliamentary constituency in India”. Or simply put, being a voter is the primary prerequisite for contesting elections in India. In a recent amendment to the 1951 Act, NRIs who have not acquired the citizenship of another country can now register as voters in India.*

This means that a non-resident India could contest elections in India at the local, state and federal levels if he is a registered voter. It would be a great opportunity for NRIs to participate and make a difference in the political process and policy-making of their country. Their international experience could be put to good use in improving governance and bringing new ideas to the administration of their states/country.

However, it might not be in the interest of the voters if the individual is required to reside in or cannot leave his host country for long stretches of time. It could affect the elected NRI’s parliamentary attendance and actual participation in debates and discussions on the floor of the House. Questions need to be raised if such a candidate would be attuned to the needs and interests of his constituents, and can serve them efficiently. Or will he be an arm-chair philosopher? Governance is a full-time responsibility, and if a representative cannot be present with and for his constituents at all times due to other work/ business obligations and financial constraints, it would be a big loss for the voters. (Would the travel expenses of the NRI, traveling to be with his constituents, be charged to the taxpayer?)

The IOC’s decision to field NRIs in Punjab is commendable, but it should be scrutinized if the purpose is to provide representation to the NRI community and its needs; or allow a distinguished member of a constituency to represent and give back to his community; or simply appease the NRI community with the purpose of acquiring more support and funds for the party? If the decision is about representing NRIs, then a different process of nominating such a member of the non-resident community to the Assembly or Parliament should also be considered. The Ministry of Oversees Indian Affairs has already been created with such a mandate to look into the concerns of the community.

The right to contest elections for NRIs could be an important event in the political evolution of India. But it first needs to go through the right process of deliberations. The opinions and interests of the voters, the intentions of the political parties and an objective analysis of what the NRI community can contribute to the governance of the country should be considered before allowing NRIs to contest elections in the country. The sentiment of participation if commendable, the practicality of it is suspect.

* An NRI can vote in an Indian election if he is present in the constituency where he is registered on the date of voting. Unlike earlier provisions that automatically removed a person’s name from the list if he were not living in India for a stretch of six months, the new bill will allow voters to stay away for more than six months and continue to exercise their vote.


The Obama Visit and U.S.-India Relations

During those remarkable years when Indian students were flocking to U.S. colleges, acquiring skills and reputations that eventually made them the highest earning ethnic group in the U.S, the two governments were doing their damnest to destroy the relationship. Many in both governments still don’t know any better, although it is the government in Delhi that is drifting closer into dangerous waters, led by a captain without the strength to curb odd ministers running their own foreign policy. The reasons the U.S. government didn’t like Delhi in those years lay chiefly in Indira Gandhi’s bizarre attempt to enter the nuclear club in 1974, and of course the CIA’s mischievous assessment that India was a Soviet ‘ally’. The end of the cold war and George Bush’s nuclear deal should have flattened those hurdles, once and for all. The hurdles are gone, but ending a bad relationship is not the same as getting into a new one. Manmohan Singh’s courageous and tenacious performance in Parliament on the nuclear deal saw Indian political leadership at its best. The U.S. government’s worldwide arm twisting to get India the NSG waiver, demonstrated what a super power can do, when it stretches itself for a friend. Since then it’s been all downhill.

France and Russia have got the civil nuclear contracts, after the U.S. did the heavy lifting. Russia has been given the fifth generation fighter contract after the U.S. promised 100 GE 414 jet engines for India’s collapsed jet fighter project. Despite the government’s directive to all ministries to crank up the agenda for President Obama’s visit, a huge hole was created by Antony’s Ministry of Defense which is facing in a different direction. The Ministry believes that the Communications Security Agreement (CISMOA) is a devious and deliberate American plot to eavesdrop on Indian communications, as if the National Security Agency in Washington has no other means to achieve the same objective. The Logistics Agreement would have been hugely beneficial to the navy and air force to extend their reach, using U.S. assets worldwide. It was an agreement that the PLA would have paid billions for. Reciprocal facilities for unpopular U.S. wars could always have been turned down in special circumstances as Turkey did in 2002.The Indian MOD has shut the Indian armed forces off from advanced world technology by refusing to consider both. The U.S. President’s visit was eventually carried off by President Obama and Michelle Obama’s hugely effective public posturing, and some heroic behind the scene actions by corporate India and the U.S.-India CEO’s forum. Even so, the French and the Chinese signed an equal if not larger clutch of business deals with India. The President of the U.S. has a limited charter, unlike New Delhi, where there are Ministers for Coal, steel, petroleum, water, fertilizer, shipping, airlines, roads etc. So New Delhi has not yet grasped the essentials of the new world that it has to live in.

China has overtaken Japan as the world’s second wealthiest nation. Its GDP is $ 5 trillion against India’s $1.3 trillion. By 2020 both GDPs could quadruple, thereby increasing the gap from $ 3.7 to 14.8 trillion (India $ 5.2 trillion vs. China $ 20 trillion). From dams on the Brahmaputra to the Tibetan border, to the Indian Ocean – China’s power and arrogance is something India will have to live with. But how?

Will we see another Krishna Menon cozying upto China, our great Asian ‘brother’, when eventually Nehru had to write to JFK for 12 squadrons of fighter bombers, ‘flown by U.S. pilots’? There are even more unanswered questions. Will the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy sit out a Himalayan war, as they did in 1962 in the collective belief that their contribution to help the army could only make things worse? We don’t need an alliance with the US. We don’t need to get into a fight with China- not now, not ever. But how do we avoid one? Only by playing to China’s belief in Real Politik. To do that, India needs the U.S’ world class defense technology. Israel, France and Russia are alright for the middle level stuff. To get the world class stuff from the U.S. we need a relationship run by governments. The U.S.-India business councils, the Indian-Americans and the CEO’s forum can only do so much. India’s MOD cannot run its own foreign policy either.