Tag Archives: India

Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

Building Trust in South Asia through Cooperative Retirement of Obsolescent Missiles

1 Comment

(Mr. Feroz Khan also contributed to the piece.)

Nuclear deterrence is growing roots in South Asia. India and Pakistan have both incorporated nuclear capabilities into their defence planning. Both are guided by a philosophy of minimum credible deterrence, although within this context modest growth is expected to achieve desired force postures. It is natural that asymmetries exist in the forces held by India and Pakistan. These will persist along with different perceptions of strategy and tactics. Despite these differences, we believe India and Pakistan have both reached a point where they should share perceptions about deterrence and nuclear stability in the region.

indiapakThe time is right for India and Pakistan to expand shared understandings through cooperative exchanges of information about their respective deterrence postures. Such understanding could be critical in a crisis. Both India and Pakistan have mutually resolved to enhance strategic stability in our region, as affirmed in the Lahore Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in February 1999.  One possibility for furthering this goal is to consider retiring their oldest, first generation, nuclear capable, short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), which are at the end of their natural lifespan. Pakistan’s HATF 1 & 2 and India’s Prithvi 1 & 2 have served their purpose and will be eventually retired unilaterally according to each nation’s normal decommissioning process.  We propose a plan of mutual transparency measures that would share information about the retirement of these missiles on a reciprocal, bilateral basis — without impinging on the continuing modernisation of both sides’ strategic forces. The retirement of other nuclear capable, obsolescent ballistic missiles can then follow in the same cooperative spirit.

We have participated in an in-depth study and also recently in a mock exercise to explore how information exchanges between our two countries could be conducted. We are confident that such an exchange could be achieved with minimal risk and costs and yet provide important reassurance about significant changes in deterrence postures.

The Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan have recently reaffirmed their commitment to pursue confidence building measures (CBM) in connection with their ongoing Composite Dialogue. A working group on peace and security matters is charged with exploring CBMs in the security area. One candidate CBM would be to conduct a Joint Transparency Exercise (JTE) to exchange information about retired missiles. With the voluntary retirement of these obsolescent missiles already imminent, New Delhi and Islamabad could make a virtue of a necessity by adding reciprocal transparency to the retirement process. Our studies show such a joint CBM is ripe for consideration and could be conducted in the near term. A first step might be to declare these nuclear capable missiles to be non-nuclear delivery systems. Then, as these missiles are removed from the nuclear arsenal, our two countries can build trust and understanding as our respective experts expand cooperation in the drawdown of obsolete forces.

This is a small step. It has been endorsed by several prestigious expert groups. We have studied the practical details of how such ideas could be implemented. We concluded that such exchanges could be powerful tools in enhancing mutual confidence and signal maturity as responsible nuclear powers. The costs and risks for India and Pakistan are small, but the potential benefits are great. It is a step whose time has come.

(Feroz Khan and Gurmeet Kanwal, both retired Brigadiers, are with the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, USA, and the Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi, respectively. Views are personal.)


Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

Capacity Building for Future Conflict

1 Comment

In view of India’s unresolved territorial disputes with China and Pakistan in the mountainous Himalayan region, there is a very high probability that the next major land conflict on the Indian sub-continent will again break out in the mountains and, in order to avoid the possibility of escalation to nuclear exchanges, the conflict will in all probability remain confined to mountainous terrain.

A strategic defensive posture runs the risk of losing some territory to the adversary if capabilities do not exist to be able to launch a deep ingress to stabilise the situation. India’s must upgrade its military strategy of dissuasion against China to that of genuine conventional and nuclear deterrence that can come only from the ability to take the fight deep into the adversary’s territory through the launching of major offensive operations. To achieve this objective, it is necessary to raise and position one mountain Strike Corps each in Jammu and Kashmir for offensive operations against China and Pakistan and in the northeast for operations against China. In addition, other defensive corps must be given limited capability to launch offensive operations with integral resources.

Manoeuvre is extremely limited in the mountains due to the restrictions imposed by the terrain. In the plains too India’s Strike Corps cannot execute deep manoeuvres due to the risk of Pakistan’s nuclear red lines being threatened early during a campaign. As firepower is the other side of the coin, it is necessary to substantially upgrade capabilities of the armed forces to inflict punishment and indeed achieve victory through the orchestration of overwhelming firepower, or else India will have to be content with a strategic stalemate.

These capabilities include conventionally-armed SRBMs to attack high value targets in depth. Air-to-ground and helicopter-to-ground attack capabilities need to be modernised, particularly those enabling deep ground penetration and accurate night strikes. In fact, the Indian Air Force should aim to dominate the air space and ground strikes must paralyse the adversary’s ability to conduct cohesive ground operations. Artillery rockets, guns and mortars must also be modernised. Lighter and more mobile equipment is required so that these can be rapidly moved and deployed in neighbouring sectors.

India’s holdings of precision-guided munitions (PGMs) continue to be low. In recent conflicts like the war in Iraq in 2003 and the ongoing Afghan conflict, PGMs have formed almost 80 per cent of the total ammunition used. Indian PGM holdings must go up progressively to at least 20 to 30 per cent in order to achieve high levels of operational efficiencies. India’s defence planners must recognise that it is firepower asymmetries that will help to achieve military decisions and ultimately break the adversary’s will to fight.

Capabilities for heliborne assault, vertical envelopment and amphibious operations are inadequate for both conventional conflict and dealing effectively with contingencies that might arise while discharging India’s emerging regional responsibilities. Two rapid reaction-cum-air assault divisions (with an amphibious brigade each) need to be raised by the end of the 13th Defence Plan, i.e. by 2017-22. The expenditure on these divisions will be highly capital intensive and will be subject to the defence budget being gradually raised to first 2.5 per cent and then 3.0 per cent of India’s GDP.

C4I2SR capabilities are still rudimentary in nature and must be substantially modernised to exploit the synergies that can be achieved by a network centric force. A seamless intelligence-cum-targeting network must be established to fully synergise the strike capabilities of air and ground forces in real time. A good early warning network will enable the army to reduce the number of troops that are permanently deployed for border management and will add to the reserves available for offensive operations. Infrastructural developments along the northern borders have failed to keep pace with the army’s ability to fight forward and must be speeded up.

India-US Relations Blog

Is America Achieving The Improbable in Afghanistan, India & Pakistan?

1 Comment

Recently I returned from a trip to India. The biggest story during my visit was the spectacular raid inside Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden. It was pure shock and awe. There was an instantaneous burst of applause for America’s brilliant action.

Unfortunately, within a day or two, the sentiment changed. India, like Afghanistan, had always maintained that Pakistan provides sanctuary to terrorists and in many cases actively encourages, aids and provides material support to terrorists. This reality, Indians thought, was ignored by America either because of America’s self-interest or gullibility.

The discovery that Bin Laden was hiding in the open in a Pakistani military town confirmed to Indians that they were right and America was wrong for all these years. Indian society then compared the execution of Osama Bin Laden to the complete freedom provided within Pakistan to the terror-masters of the horrific 2008 Mumbai attack.

Indians have always accused America of a double standard for terrorists. This feeling morphed into certainty after the Bin Laden raid. Then came statements by American officials exonerating Pakistan’s Top Leadership and proclamations about how Pakistan was still America’s ally.

The insult and the injury cut very deep. The people I spoke to were quietly livid. I was stunned by the intensity of their feelings against what they see as America’s duplicitous dealings with Pakistan.

These were Lawyers, Doctors, Teachers and others in India’s middle class, the heart of India’s educated society. They understand the good about America. They understand the need for Indo-American partnership. But gone is their euphoria about the heady Bush days of Indo-US Strategic Partnership. Today, their anger and contempt towards America seemed unanimous. As one said simply, “this country (America) cannot be our friend”.

The India-Pakistan relationship has been a zero-sum game. So this sentiment within India should translate into a vote of confidence for America inside Pakistan. Right?

But the anger against America seems to be even more intense within Pakistan. From reports in the New York Times and the Washington Post, the rank and file of the Pakistani Army is “seething with anger” against America. Most Pakistanis seem convinced that America is trying to bring mayhem and terror to Pakistan to meet its own objectives in Afghanistan.

What about Afghanistan? America is pouring billions into Afghanistan every year to protect Afghans from the Taliban. This seems more and more like a waste of money and more importantly lives of young American soldiers.

credit: static.guim.co.ukThis week, the Taleban launched attacks in the northern cities of Herat and Taloqan. Also this week, about 200 Afghan militants crossed into northwestern Pakistan and engaged in a gun battle with Pakistani security forces. Rather than work even more closely with American forces, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan issued an ultimatum this week to American Forces and NATO to cease all strikes against Afghan homes. Why?

As Stratfor, the widely respected geo-strategy firm wrote this week “Opposition to the ISAF and the counterinsurgency-focused campaign across the country is on the rise among even anti-Taliban elements of the government and general population…… the trajectory of declining patience and tolerance of and increasingly virulent opposition to ISAF military operations across broader and broader swaths of Afghan society continue to worsen,…..”.

America is deeply involved in these three countries in different ways. American leadership would like to be a mediator between these countries and facilitate accommodation between them, if not peace. Unfortunately, America seems to be achieving just the opposite.

These are three societies at conflict with one another. When you are a friend or enemy of one society, you automatically are not an enemy or a friend of the other society. But today these vastly different societies have developed the same image of America.

If this isn’t an improbable achievement, I don’t know what is!

Indian-Americans and U.S. Politics Blog

Secretary Clinton’s Diaspora Engagement Alliance: Opportunities for the Indian Diaspora

1 Comment

Guest post by Madhavi Bhasin

In the same week that President Obama delivered his much awaited Middle East speech, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton inaugurated the State Department’s new diplomatic outreach initiative – The Global Diaspora Forum held from May 17-19, 2011. The initiative, christened as idEA (International Diaspora Engagement Alliance) is based on simple understanding: Diaspora communities often have the local knowledge and contacts; US Government agencies have the technical expertise, global presence, and convening power. Based on these complementarities, the State Department shall develop new diaspora-centric partnership models and undertaking new programs to encourage intra-diaspora collaboration and learning.

newDuring the Forum, hosted jointly by the State Department, USAID and Migration Policy Institute, a host of initiatives were launched to partner closely with the diaspora communities to further United State’s international diplomacy and development efforts. The goal of the Forum, as stated by Secretary Clinton was to 1) recognize and celebrate the contribution of diaspora communities to America’s relationship with their countries of origin or ancestry, 2) foster diaspora-centric partnership models, and 3) encourage intra-diaspora collaboration and learning.

It is somewhat strange that given the usual hype over any development in Indo-US relations, the Diaspora Forum was overlooked in the mainstream media as well as social media avowedly utilized by non-profits based out of US. This could be attributed to the fact that diaspora philanthropy and partnership for social entrepreneurship between U.S. and India is considered less important than the bilateral political and strategic partnership. However, the programs launched during the Forum present an important window of opportunity for the Indian Diaspora to deepen social, economic and cultural partnership between the two countries.

Secretary Clinton during her speech identified the diaspora communities as wielders of smart power. According to her, “You [the diaspora communities] have the potential to be the most powerful people-to-people asset we can bring to the world’s table. Because of your familiarity with cultural norms, your own motivations, your own special skills and leadership, you are, frankly, our Peace Corps, our USAID, our OPIC, our State Department all rolled into one.”

According to the Migration Information Source, U.S. is home to 1.6 million Indian immigrants, the third largest migrant group in the country. Given the numbers and potential of the Indian Diaspora, the Forum offers great opportunities to forge creative partnerships. Some of the proposed avenues for collaboration include the following.

• diasphilanthropy: Diaspora Philanthropy is not a new phenomenon. Indian Diaspora has been actively involved in philanthropy over the past decades through professional associations, faith-based groups, hometown associations and individual contributions. However, the community needs to invest more thought and effort into ensuring mechanisms for strategic giving. Philanthropy is not merely an emotionally induced social commitment but is also a strategic economic decision. While the community is fervently involved in making donations, it is equally important to invest in research to identify the most urgent social challenges, explore innovative solutions and ensure goal compliance. While giving is important, it is critical to ensure that the donations are impactful on the ground. It would be helpful if some members of the community devise and publicize tools to identify social causes demanding urgent action, provide lists of organizations involved in advocating the causes, offer secure and easy options to make donations and provide regular updates on progress made and challenges encountered. Making philanthropy simpler and strategic is both desirable and necessary.

• diaspora 2.0: The Indian Diaspora in the U.S. is uniquely positioned to foster communication and information technologies for enhancing and deepening engagement. Given the diaspora’s extensive talent in ICT it is possible to create virtual communities and devise ways sharing information and resources online. While social networks have emerged as the best medium to engage the diaspora, it’s essential to bring some order to the chaos of information available online. For example, several U.S. based non-profits working on social empowerment projects in India are currently competing for the Chase Community Giving Event. Though each organization approached its faithful supporters through Facebook and twitter, there was no attempt to involve the diaspora as a community by providing information on various organizations and monitoring the vote count for each. By voting for different charities, the collective strength of the diaspora was reduced with the possibility that no non-profit working on challenges in India secures the top slot. It’s important to use the communication tools to operate as a collective force rather than contribute individually.

• diasporacorps: Apart from sharing monetary resources it is important for the Indian Diaspora to share time and talent to make a difference on the ground. There is great scope to encourage diaspora volunteerism among the members of the Indian community based in US. Teach for India and Indicorps are some platforms that offer such opportunities. However, most of these volunteer opportunities tend to target youth and students, leaving a huge resource pool untapped. Technology professionals, teachers, small business owners, home-makers, farmers, nurses – Indian immigrants in every walk of life can contribute to social innovation in their own ways. It’s important to mobilize these members of the community and provide meaningful volunteer opportunities to them. Every member of the diaspora needs to be made aware of his/her potential as a volunteer.

• diasplomacy: Diaspora diplomacy is traditionally related to political lobbying for issues such as work permits, migration status or bilateral trade and strategic relations. Kathleen Newland of Migration Policy Institute has discussed in a Report, published in November 2010, the advocacy and lobbying trends and techniques among the various diaspora communities in the US. The Report appreciates the efforts of the USINPAC (US India Political Action Committee) in persuading the U.S. Congress to pass the 2008 Indo-U.S. Civilian Nuclear Agreement. Non-traditional mediums such as sports, arts and culture (which contribute to creating the image of India) need to be used strategically for advocacy purposes. Advocacy and diplomacy are the strengths of the Indian diaspora that can be employed in promoting creative partnerships.

• diaspreneuership: The entrepreneurial spirit of the Indian Diaspora has received numerous accolades in the U.S. and across the globe. It’s time to utilize the entrepreneurial skills in identifying opportunities in India, to exploit such opportunities as “first movers,” and to contribute to job creation and economic growth. The State Department plans to support diaspora entrepreneurs in investing and building enterprises as well as stimulating trade in countries of origin. This provides the Indian Diaspora the encouragement and support to contribute to India’s economic growth.

The Secretary’s Global Diaspora Forum sought to challenge diaspora communities to forge partnerships with the private sector, civil society, and public institutions in order to make their engagements with their countries of origin or ancestry effective, scalable, and sustainable. It is essential for the Indian Diaspora to take this challenge and actively contribute to idEA. Hopefully, the Indian Diaspora will contribute to this Alliance by providing innovative ideas for partnership and mobilizing the immigrant community to get involved in the emerging venture.

(Madhavi Bhasin is a Visiting Scholar at Center for South Asia Studies, UC Berkeley and Program Coordinator at Global India Foundation. All views expressed here are those of the author and do not releflect the opinions of USINPAC.)

Defence And Strategic Affairs Blog

New UNSC member India takes firm, ‘mature’ stances on international issues

1 Comment

By Nilova Roy Chaudhury
Indian Review of Global Affairs

A key new aspect of India’s foreign policy positions in 2011, to coincide with its assumption earlier this month of a non-permanent seat at the United Nations’ high table, will be “firmness and maturity”, a government official said, indicating that New Delhi would increasingly articulate positions on issues on which it would earlier have remained silent.

Whether it was an unequivocal condemnation of terror or quiet satisfaction at the exit of the UNMIN from Nepal, or the strong affirmation of support for the referendum in South Sudan while expressing “concern” over “a high and worrying level of violence in the region of Abyei which led to loss of lives” and urging an expeditious return to dialogue for “the situation in Darfur (which) also remains a cause for concern”, or firming up a position on issues as delicate as the report of the UN Security Council – mandated Special Tribunal on Lebanon on the Hariri assassination, India’s foreign office is working overtime to ensure it will not be caught unawares and will make its presence felt.

Hardeep Puri, India’s Permanent Representative at the UN, has articulated Indian positions strongly at every opportunity, most recently reiterating “India’s unwavering support for the Palestinian people’s struggle for a sovereign, independent, viable and united State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital living within secure and recognized borders, side by side and at peace with Israel as endorsed in the Arab Peace initiative, Quartet Road map and relevant UN Security Council Resolutions,” clearly indicating that New Delhi will not shy away from taking positions when required.

What will test this uncharacteristically forthright set of positions from South Block will be issues that more directly impact India’s bilateral relations with strategically sensitive countries, particularly like Iran and Myanmar. With the P-5+1 (five permanent UNSC members and Germany) countries beginning another round of talks with Iran about its nuclear programme on Friday, the issue will sorely test New Delhi’s diplomatic manoeuverability. However, according to senior officials, the idea is to show that it can take positions and be firm when required to do so.

Equally, sources indicated, India would not get provoked into responding to “regular pinpricks” from neighbouring countries like Pakistan, or to China’s aggressive, even expansionist posturing,  like the official launch this week by China of its state-run mapping website called ‘Map World’ (that Beijing has authorised to rival Google Earth), showing Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin in Jammu and Kashmir;  two key areas of its long-standing boundary dispute with India; as part of its territory.

As it articulates its positions on strategic issues more strongly, India is also pushing an agenda for reforms of UN organs including the UNSC, a text of which is circulating with some speed among members of the UN General Assembly. Also, working with two key allies from the Group of four, Germany and Brazil, India is aiming to ensure that its non-permanent presence on the UN Security Council translates into a permanent presence by the end of its current tenure in December 2012.

The United States is clearly upbeat about India’s so-called “coming out party” with State Department Spokesman PJ Crowley saying, “India is an emerging global power in its own right, and it is increasingly involved and engaged in global challenges from regional security to the environment. So we value the role that India is playing on the world stage and look forward to working with India on the Security Council,” Crowley said. U.S. President Barack Obama had, during his visit to India in November, articulated U.S. support for a permanent place for India on the UNSC after reforms. Strong expressions of support have also been made by French President Nicholas Sarkozy, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev and British Prime Minister David Cameron.

India’s neighbour China is, however, wary and has cautioned patience, though its Premier Wen Jiabao claimed Beijing “understood” New Delhi’s aspirations. The China Daily said reforms at the United Nations could not be achieved “overnight” and the complex issue requires a lot of patience.”UNSC reform will not occur overnight, or in a few years. It will require many rounds of thorough consultations and negotiations. Therefore any attempt to set an artificial time limit for UNSC reform is both far-fetched and reckless,” the state-run daily said in a recent editorial.

India, meanwhile, has been elected to chair several UNSC subsidiary bodies, including two crucial committees on counter-terrorism, a committee on sanctions against Eritrea and Somalia and a working group on additional measures against terrorism.

(The article originally appeared at www.irgamag.com. USINPAC and IRGA are content partners.)