[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Siachen: Icy Graveyard[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
April 28, 2012
By Nazia Nazar
Exclusive Article

The heart bleeds at the recent Siachen tragedy not because the casualties belong to Pakistan army but also due to the fact that they were all human beings who left behind their families in a state of unending sorrow. Today, the victims are Pakistani soldiers; tomorrow might be horrible for Indian military deployed in Siachen, as you can defeat your enemy but not nature. Siachen is a place where the militaries of India and Pakistan have been engaged at the altitude of 22,000 ft with severe temperatures hovering around –30° Celsius to –60° C. So, the real battle is against deadly weather that causes to kill more troops than bullets. Evidently, the two armies have lost 4,000 personnel primarily due to frostbite, avalanches and other adverse factors. While the surviving soldiers often suffer hearing, eyesight and memory-loss because of prolonged use of oxygen masks, and many others lose eyes, hands or feet to frostbite. How enmity has turned a paradise into hell can be observed in Kashmir, but how distrust can push armies to fight for a pit is evident in Siachen, which is nothing but an icy graveyard of soldiers from both sides of the borders.

Mere thought of deploying soldiers in a barren frozen area – a habitat not conducive to existence – really sends shivers down the spine making this dispute a humanitarian issue. On the other hand, the global environmentalists are making hue and cry over the ongoing military activities on Siachen region that tend to raise grave environmental concerns. The need is to understand that India and Pakistan are not only fighting each other in Siachen but also against nature. They have ‘invited’ its wrath since the heat of enmity and distrust of Indo-Pak relations is causing the extraordinary melting of this glacier. According to a WWF report conducted by Arshad Abbasi, “the melting of Siachen Glacier, which is among the fastest in the world, has not only led to formations of glacial lakes and snow holes, but is also responsible for destructive snow avalanches on both side of the Saltoro ridge (recent avalanche burying the Pakistani military camp can be taken as a case)”. Moreover, the author warns that ‘Glaciers in the Himalayas, including Gangotri, Miyer, Mlion and Janapa are all set to melt and vanish by 2030 to 2050, if war continues. The effects of glaciers’ melting are already evident in the form of worst calamities during the last twenty years. But in coming years, increased floods and droughts are expected.’

Furthermore, the economic aspect of Siachen clash for poverty-ridden third world countries is also a cause of constant concern for thinking minds in both the countries. Siachen war is wasting the resources of both the countries, as it costs the Indians $438 million a year to fight for Siachen, while Pakistan’s bill is estimated at $182 million. Pakistan chief of army staff General Pervaiz Kayani recently acknowledged the fact that Siachen “consumes a mammoth portion of national exchequer that must be diverted to the people of the two countries”.

Now come to the ‘so-called’ strategic importance of this barren, frozen and remote area which has kept both the countries at loggerheads for decades. Many Indian military analysts opine that the Siachen Glacier does not have major strategic significance. Lt. General M.L. Chibber (retd.), who planned Operation Meghdoot to occupy Siachen in 1984, openly declared that “Siachen does not have strategic significance.” Lt. General V. R. Raghavan (retd.), who has served as a division commander in the Kargil and Siachen sectors and a Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) also minimizes the military importance of Siachen in his book Siachen: Conflict Without End.

In his book ‘India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Dispute: On Regional Conflict and Its Resolution’, Robert Wirsing records the opinion of the same Lt. General M.L. Chibber in these words, “Chibber, who retired from the army in 1985, has acknowledged that he was one of the small group of influential senior officers who began lobbying in the late 1970s for a more aggressive Indian policy toward the disputed Siachen territory.” He writes further, “…..Chibbar declared flatly that the Indian and Pakistani armies had ‘stumbled’ into the Siachen dispute. The Pakistanis, he said, had no grand strategic design on the glacier and were not acting in collusion with the Chinese. That idea, he observed, was a post facto concoction of Indian Bureaucrats……At bottom he said, the Siachen conflict was a mistake.”(P.208).

The opinion of Pakistani military is also no more different than the Indian military bureaucracy. Eris S. Margolis in his book ‘War at the top of the world: The struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Tibat’ records the account of his travel to Siachen and opinions of some Pakistani military men. He wrote what a Pakistani commando officer had told him in Peshawar in these words: “Its madness…….Siachen is a Hell on Earth. We’re fighting the bloody Indians to prevent them from grabbing what we say is our rightful part of Hell. That’s how much we hate each other.” (P.120).

Now the question arises as to if the top brass militaries of both the countries have realized their decades-old folly in Siachen, what is actually preventing them to amend this mistake? The answer is simple. The atmosphere of propaganda and distrust being the root cause of this issue is consistently hampering its amicable resolution. Unfortunately, the people in India take it as a symbol of Indian pride and gallantry while in Pakistan it is considered the fallout of Indian aggression, which should be retaliated in equal measure. Whatever be the reason, but India’s claim that Pakistan might be the pioneer in launching operation at Saltoro ridge had India not occupied the territory serves no justification for violating Simla accord, which prevents any threat or use of force to bring change in the LOC resulting from the cease-fire of 17 December 1971. Of course, Kargil was the outcome of this breach because a wrong can lead only to another wrong. It shouldn’t be taken amiss as any justification for Pakistan’s involvement in Kargil but it is meant to identify one of the root causes of Indo-Pak decade’s old disputes.

Kargil adventure from Pakistan was absolutely wrong but as much as India’s pioneer military action in Saltoro ridge in 1984. However, now both the rival countries should bury the hatchet and come to good terms with each other. At least Siachen issue needs an urgent solution with immediate demilitarization from both the sides. Since India was the first one to lead a full-fledged military operation in Siachen, onus lies more on her to demilitarize this region with Pakistan following suit promptly. It should be done without delay not only to break the ice but also for the safety of future generations, who otherwise would likely to bear the brunt of environmental hazards resulting from human military activities in Siachen region.

The writer is a freelance columnist based in Pakistan. She can be reached at [email]nazianazar@hotmail.com[/email]

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]The India-Pakistan slow dance[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
April 28, 2012
Irfan Husain

CALL me an optimist, but every time India and Pakistan begin their one-step-forward-two-steps-back slow dance, I get up and applaud.

In a repeated triumph of hope over experience, I anticipate a breakthrough that will usher in normal neighbourly relations, if not close fraternal ties. Never mind that we have been here many times before, only for the dancers to break off their gyrations in mid-step and retreat to their chairs by the dance floor in a sulk.

In 1989, Benazir Bhutto and Rajiv Gandhi, the youthful prime ministers of the day, seemed to have developed a working relationship that promised to bring the two countries closer together. But the Pakistan Army feared just such a development, and conspired with Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the wily president, to topple her government in 1990.

In 1999, Nawaz Sharif struck a similar chord with Vajpayee, his Indian counterpart, and welcomed him to Lahore. Again, our military brass made sure this initiative would be still-born by launching the absurd misadventure in Kargil.

Chastised by the experience, Musharraf reached out to India with some unconventional ideas to break the Kashmir deadlock in 2004. This time, it was the Indian side that felt too insecure to take the Pakistani peace efforts seriously.

Even after this public rebuff, Musharraf was persuaded by his principal civilian adviser, Tariq Aziz, to continue this attempt through discreet, top level channels. According to well-placed sources, the two countries were close to an agreement when
Musharraf became embroiled in the judicial crisis, and the Indians put the process on hold.

So clearly, despite the influence hardliners on both sides exert on relations between the two countries, there is a constituency for peace. In Pakistan, both Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif have repeatedly stated their desire to normalise
relations with India. Sadly, after Kargil and the Mumbai attack, many in India have given up on peace with their neighbour.

But as these two low points indicate, we have allowed violent men in and out of uniform to hold India-Pakistan relations to ransom. The recent progress on trade links indicates that Pakistani generals have finally come around to accept that our
economy desperately needs a shot in the arm.

It has been obvious to even the meanest intelligence that importing machinery from India rather than paying vastly more for western goods would save us a huge amount. The jingoistic argument against this logical step is that it would help Indian
industry. But how is helping western industry any better?

Some 15 years ago, when I was heading the Textile Institute of Pakistan, we needed to import some testing machines for our labs. An Indian firm that manufactured virtual replicas of a Swiss design made us an offer that was three times lower than
the original.

As TIP was a private-sector institution with limited funds, we placed an order for the cheaper option. But despite our best efforts, we could not obtain an import permit for the Indian machinery, and had to go back to the Swiss firm.

Multiply this example by a thousand, and you will get an idea of the real cost of our self-defeating trade policies. India granted Pakistan Most Favoured Nation status over 15 years ago, and it is only now that we have reciprocated. Ever so
slowly, we seem to be heading towards normal trade relations that promise to unlock vast potential across the subcontinent.

There is a fear that cheaper imports from India might harm Pakistani manufacturers. Certainly, less efficient companies might be driven to the wall. But isn’t this exactly what Chinese imports have done already? Ultimately, the consumer
benefits through lower prices and better products. To remain competitive, our manufacturers will have to improve quality and cut costs. If they can’t adapt, they will have to shut down.

This Darwinian process is at the heart of capitalism. ‘Compete or die’ is the driving force behind innovation. It’s not often pretty, and there are winners and losers. Everyday, new businesses open while others close. Many are rendered jobless
while new jobs are created. We may not like how the system works, but it is the most efficient one around.

Many respected voices, my friend Jawed Naqvi’s among them, have argued that trade alone is not enough to lead to normalisation. I disagree. While the European Union is not currently the best example, the fact is that many among its
members were enemies for centuries, and have fought countless wars. But over the last 50 years, close trading links have made armed conflict between members virtually unthinkable.

With trade come travel and tourism. Presently, Indians make up the biggest single group of tourists to Sri Lanka. If the present ridiculous visa regulations are eased, many Pakistanis would travel to India and vice versa. Ultimately, trade and
tourism create their own constituency for peace, if only because war is bad for business.

We should not forget that the military represents the biggest single business group in Pakistan. Through various pension
and benefits funds, it has established a vast network of manufacturing, banking and real estate operations run by and for retired military personnel.

These business interests provide a powerful argument for peace. As the middle class in both countries expands, neither can afford a war. India, with its regional and global ambitions, would prefer to settle local disputes and move on. Pakistan, fighting its self-created monsters, can ill-afford its unending and fruitless confrontation with its vastly more powerful neighbour.

Ejaz Hyder, a friend and fellow columnist, wrote recently that in order to have peace, we have to prepare for war. Again, I disagree: after preparing for war for over 60 years, we have, at best, an armed and uneasy truce punctuated by occasional outbreaks of hostilities. Across much of Europe and Latin America, on the other hand, there is peace, with most countries relatively unprepared for war.

It is true that we live in a tough neighbourhood, and disputed borders do supply countries in the region with excuses to go to war. But as experience over the last 50 years shows, trade can overcome a history of bad blood.

India and Pakistan have been at war several times, and at daggers drawn for the rest of the time. For a change, let’s give peace a chance.

The writer is the author of Fatal Faultlines: Pakistan, Islam and the West.

[email]irfan.husain@gmail.com[/email]
-Dawn

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]After Zardari’s India visit[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
April 28, 2012
Tariq Osman Hyder

The visit of President Zardari to India originally meant for a pilgrimage to the shrine of the Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti in Ajmer was converted into a high-profile event with a lunch held in his honour by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Informal visits such as the one made to India by Prime Minister Zardari this month have always been helpful, permitting the leaders of the two sides to discuss bilateral relations.

Such visits provide opportunities for the assessment of where relations now are, and how they may develop. After the hiatus caused by the Mumbai terrorist incident in 2008, the peace process and dialogue was put back on track last year.

Pakistan, amid the continuing turmoil in Afghanistan and an increasingly stressful relationship with America, made space for itself by continuing its policy of engagement with India. In a major reversal of a six decades policy it decided to open trade with India despite worries that its industries would suffer.

To maintain public support for this move towards India the government expects some forward movement finally from the Indian side on the major issues continuing to bedevil the two countries, the long standing Kashmir dispute, the Siachen Glacier, the Sir Creek maritime boundary and the flow of rivers into Pakistan from India, subject to the Indus Waters Treaty.

The structured composite dialogue process is back in place. But India had been pressing, even before the restoration of formal dialogue, for restoration of the backchannel diplomacy of the era of Gen Pervez Musharraf. India’s objective is to try to erode the Kashmiri intefada and sabotage Pakistan’s long-standing position on the Kashmir dispute, a position which is based on the UN Security Council resolutions recognising the right to self-determination of people of Jammu and Kashmir. While backchannel diplomacy may well be restarted, the mandate of the Pakistani negotiator now flowing from a democratic government will not allow India any arbitrage between Pakistan’s public and backchannel positions on this core dispute.

Demilitarisation of the Siachen Glacier is the most amenable measure for settlement. A high-level agreement was reached as far back as in 1989. The only factor preventing its implementation is the obstinate position of the Indian army, currently showcased in India itself. Indians snipe at Pakistan claiming that the military remains dominant. However, on this issue the leadership of India has been unable so far to assert its will on its army which is meant to be subservient to the civilian government. If it does so, the pace of bilateral improvement will dramatically change.

The trade opening will enhance India’s exports and access to Pakistan’s market. Pakistan will not benefit in the same way due to Indian non-tariff barriers. Pakistani planners will have to act smartly: encouraging imports from India which cost less than elsewhere; adding items to the negative list if local industries come under severe strain; and accessing intermediate Indian technologies to enable the engineering hubs of Karachi and Gujranwala to fulfil their promise of becoming regional workshops.

On the cautionary side, the overarching dimension which governs the relationship is the two countries’ objectives towards each other. At the public level Indians and Pakistanis visiting each other’s countries, or when they meet abroad, experience friendship and absence of hostility. This is not new. In the early 1950s Indians crossing the border for cricket matches between the two countries in Lahore used to bring bananas as gifts, because were rare in what was then West Pakistan, and were brought to Lahore in horse-drawn carriages from the border.

However, in the Indian media, Pakistan is demonised as a terrorist country, despite India’s readiness to support anti-state elements in Balochistan through Afghanistan. Indian politicians and government representatives in international conferences needlessly criticise Pakistan.

An Indian ambassador in Pakistan, at a time when America was demanding that Pakistan “do more,” gave the advice that “Pakistan should move closer to India.” added: “Yes, you will face some problems with us as well, but much less than in relying on the Americans.”

That advice sums up the Indian attitude towards Pakistan. For India the objective is Pakistan as a junior partner which accepts such a status. An equal partner which has equally good relations with other countries, such as America and China, does not equate with the traditional vision of India’s policy makers. Pakistan recognizes it is a smaller country in terms of population and the economy and will remain so with all the resulting plusses and minuses. However, as a nuclear power with a 180 million population it will not accept a relationship purely on Indian terms.

India has to change this mindset. Once it does so, it will find that it’s troubled relations with all its neighbours will improve. Without that happening India’s quest for the status and recognition it craves will remain illusionary.

The writer is a former ambassador who headed Pakistan’s delegations in talks with India on nuclear and conventional CBMs.
-The News

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]The horror called Siachen[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
Posted on April 28, 2012 by admin786| Leave a comment
Maj (r) Usman Tahir

Much is being said and written about the Siachen tragedy. The Siachen Glacier, by virtue of its difficult terrain and unpredictable weather, poses a huge risk to our soldiers who operate in that terrain.

It is important that before commenting on why the rescue operation of this magnitude is not bearing fruits, we should know the demography and other important conditions which are making this operation unsuccessful. The sheer enormousness of the landscape makes one wonder as to what really was the reason for the tragedy.

It is only the first time since 1984 that an incident of this magnitude has occurred. But every year we have fatalities which are mostly weather-related, and not resulting from combat. They are left unreported.

I remember an early morning in December 2003. I prepared my subordinates who were proceeding on leave after they have completed their tenure on the post. After the prayers and duas, the group left the post. They had travelled only three hours when a huge avalanche engulfed the five- member team and within seconds they were nowhere to be seen.

I was informed immediately about the incident. On hearing the news I remained for a few seconds in shock, after which In order to save my colleagues, I hurriedly wore my equipment and slid down around 2,000ft wearing a parka. I had no idea what to do. It was only at that moment, once I put my ice axe in the snow of the avalanche, that I realised I had lost them. Tears rolled down my eyes but I quickly had to control them in order to motivate my team members who had joined me for the rescue.

It was horrifying to see that the avalanche had actually become rock-hard. From that day onwards we carried the rescue operation for 17 days amidst the extreme temperature but in vain. Eventually the operation was called off due to lack of ration that was dumped on the post to be consumed for 14 people in five months, whereas I had almost 60 people consuming it. The operation was halted immediately in January.

It was only after the temperature rose and water started flowing that we resumed this rescue operation in August 2004 after 8 months with 125 people digging almost 12 hours a day. We devised a strategy to dig tunnels at 5 different places. It was a challenging operation as my men were getting tired and exhausted but we were unable to find a trace.

I was scared that maybe water underneath has taken bodies away. But due to continuous prayers and hard work we were finally able to locate the finger of a brave shaheed. The morale and motivation of our men rose immediately. We found a main source and in next two days we found all five shuhada.

My reason for writing this article is to explain that it is not an easy task to undertake operation in these areas. Only people who have operated in this area can understand the complexities of the Siachen Glacier. We have no doubt that the rescuers are working hard but then it is the terrain which is making their work even more complex.

Lastly, the Siachen tragedy should be an eye-opener for the leaders of India and Pakistan and a reminder to the world community to see for itself the cost paid by the forces of two neighbours. The world must exert full pressure on India to vacate Siachen so that both India and Pakistan could divert the colossal amount spent on the maintenance of troops to alleviation of poverty in the two countries.

Siachen is a challenge only the brave and patriots can face. Shame on those who are out to appease and please the enemy by humiliating our gallant soldiers and officers.

The writer was posted on the Siachen Glacier for two years.
-The News

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]A window for peace has opened[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
April 28, 2012
By Kuldip Nayar

India and Pakistan are seldom on the same page. Partly, it is because they carry the baggage of tragic history and partly because they have no trust in each other. Above all, there is a general perception in India that since the army is a decisive factor in the affairs of Pakistan, it is not possible to foster any meaningful relationship until it becomes a democratic polity in the real sense. In fact, from the time General Mohammad Ayoub Khan took over the reins of Pakistan in 1958, India has assumed that no peace between the two countries was achievable.

After becoming the Martial Law Administrator, General Ayoub offered even a ‘joint defence pact.’ India’s then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru spurned the offer with the remark: “Joint defence against whom?” The leaders of the two other military regimes in the seventies and later — General Zia-ul Haq and General Pervez Musharraf — were never taken seriously because New Delhi believed that their say from the military point of view would never allow any exercise for peace to succeed.

Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Pervez Kayani has jolted India’s past thinking by advocating “peaceful coexistence” between the two countries. Gen Kayani’s proposal does not stop at the Siachen Glacier. He has hinted at a follow-up and has thus belied the impression that peace between India and Pakistan is a hostage to the army’s hawkish thinking. He has given a window of opportunity which the governments on both sides should grab with both hands to normalise relations.

Unless there is a back channel working on Kayani’s suggestion, New Delhi is not reacting officially. The media has by and large welcomed Kayani’s proposal but otherwise comment has been guarded. The question is whether the Indian forces would withdraw from the Siachen Glacier because President Asif Ali Zardari has rejected the unilateral withdrawal as was suggested by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif.

However, if Pakistan were to do so, it would put India under a lot of pressure to reciprocate. Morally, New Delhi’s position would be so untenable that it would have to withdraw the forces. Even if we rule out this line of thinking, Pakistan would have to assure India that Islamabad would not try to occupy the vacant area if and when New Delhi withdraws. After all, when India sent its troops to Siachen Glacier in 1984, it suspected that Pakistan was going to do so. (Indian intelligence agencies found that Pakistan had ordered high-altitude mountaineering gear from a London trader who used to supply the same to New Delhi).

Whatever Pakistan decides, it has to have the nod of Gen Kayani. He cannot go against the wishes of the Pakistani people who want peace with India. Gen Kayani can neither be oblivious to the fact that a military takeover in Pakistan is well-nigh impossible when all political parties have now joined hands to uphold the dictum of democratic change.

I wish the reaction in India had been more forthcoming. There is a long dreary period of mistrust. But it has to be dispelled by sitting across the table and not putting any conditions before doing so. The starting point can be the Siachen Glacier as Gen Kayani’s remarks indicate. After visiting the sites where more than 100 Pakistani soldiers were buried in snow he was moved and saw the futility of perching his forces at the height of some 23,000 feet. The same is the case with India which too has lost hundreds of soldiers on the Siachen Glacier over a period time. But the main worry is that what happens when its forces withdraw from the glacier?

Climate for dialogue

The solution to Siachen Glacier should present no problems because both sides have gone over the details in the last several years. There was a time when former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi had initialled a settlement, agreeing to a no-mans land status. But the signatures could not take place because some Indian army commanders had a different point of view. They saw some strategic advantage which some other commanders dispute. If the Line of Control could be delineated after the Shimla Conference up to the area near the glacier, the same line can be extended right up to the end.

The climate for a dialogue on all problems is conducive. People on both sides want it. Gen Kayani said that the army understood well the need to bring down the defence budget, adding, “we would like to spend less on defence” because ultimately “security doesn’t only mean secure border but the welfare of the people.” This means that the army is ready to take cuts. This also means the reduction of troops on the border.

The solutions to Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek, which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said are “doable,” will create an atmosphere of give and take and some way out may be found to solve Kashmir. If Gen Kayani, a soldier, can talk of permanent peace between the two countries why not the rulers? By not trusting, both have fought three wars, apart from the Kargil incursion. Let them, for a change, trust each other. Otherwise, history will hold the present governments responsible for letting the opportunity for peace go by.

Kuldip Nayar is a former Indian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and a former Rajya Sabha member.
Source: Gulf News

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Indian threat moves to space[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
April 29, 2012
By:Arif Ansar

As the saga of Prime Minister Gilani’s contempt case continued, some other crucial developments were taking place in the region. The first ever Bangladesh-US security dialogue was initiated on April 19th in Dhaka, the same day the country bowed out of its cricket tour to Pakistan even after assurances. Coincidentally, India lunched its Agni-V long-range ballistic missile, which it claims to be an Inter Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), on April 19th as well. While the domestic political scene of Pakistan is moving excruciatingly slow, the nature of its external security environment remains as dynamic as ever and is shifting from the realms of land, sea and air, to the final frontier, the space.

After the April 19th Agni-V test, India launched the RISAT-1 radar imaging satellite on April 26. RISAT-1 usefulness will be in disaster prediction and for agriculture, forestry and defence purposes. However, Chinese media has called it a spy satellite. Not long ago, in 2009 India had acquired Israeli manufactured RISAT-2 that has night scanning capability. The capabilities of these satellites make them instrumental in monitoring the moves of unfriendly neighbours such as Pakistan and China 24/7. Reportedly, India has the world’s highest number of remote sensing satellites (11) in orbit and is a leader in the remote sensing data market.

These recent moves are part of Indian focus to modernise its military based on cutting edge warfare strategies and tactics, such as the Network Centric Warfare (NCW). This ambition was reflected in the comments made by Indian Army Spokesman Colonel Jagdeep Dahiya, as he talked about the large-scale military exercise Shoorveer (Brave Warrior) that is presently ongoing,

“Battlefield transparency and operational plans based on real-time situational awareness will be enhanced using intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) inputs from Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Drones), radars and satellites,” he stated.

Space based assets have become an integral part of a strategy to maintain a control and dominance over land, sea and air. All leading world powers are in the process of developing technologies for its surveillance, through Space Situational Awareness (SSA) and Anti Satellite (ASAT) capabilities. Mainly because the geospatial intelligence, missile defense systems, global positioning and targeting mechanisms used by ground and air forces, are dependent on these satellites.

India has also shown interest in developing Anti Satellite (ASAT) weapons. According to the Indian media, this focus developed after China’s 2007 use of an ASAT weapon to destroy an old satellite. The Director General of Indian Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) VK Saraswat had stated in 2010,

“India is putting together building blocks of technology that could be used to neutralise enemy satellites. We are working to ensure space security and protect our satellites. At the same time we are also working on how to deny the enemy access to its space assets.”

Moreover, India performed its latest test for Anti Ballistic Missile System in February. The nation successfully tested the interceptor defence shield, which detects and destroys incoming ballistic missiles. DRDO jointly developed the system’s tracking and fire control radar with Israel and France. India is the fifth state to achieve this missile defence technology.

While India conducted its Agni-V test and launched RISAT-1 satellite, Pakistan successfully tested a nuclear capable-intermediate range ballistic missile Hatf IV (Shaheen-1A) on April 25th. The exact range of the missile was not announced. A few unconfirmed media reports have claimed the range to be around 4,500 km. On April 26th, Pakistan had also commissioned its first fast attack craft, PNS Azmat, built in cooperation with China.

“Its immense firepower coupled with stealthy features makes it a real versatile platform which would not only prove vital for ensuring effective presence in our area of operations, but would bring a new dimension of operation of stealthy platform of this tonnage,” Admiral Muhammad Sandila of Pakistan Navy stated at the commissioning ceremony.

The key word in Pakistan’s strategy to counter Indian space advancements is ‘stealth’. While Pakistan’s space program (SPARCO) and capabilities have remained highly secretive and limited, the country has focused on developing stealth missiles and technologies to avoid detection by Indian missile defence system. This, in addition to concerns of Chinese getting access, were perhaps the reasons US was emphatic about the return of its stealth Black Hawk helicopter that went down in Abbottabad during the Osama operation.

In October last year, Pakistan tested a stealth cruise missile, Hatf VII (Babur). The Hatf VII is speculated to be a copy of American Tomahawk cruise missile. A few of these missiles had crashed in Pakistani territory in 1998 when US targeted militant camps in Afghanistan, in retaliation for attack on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Hatf VII has a range of about 700 km and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead with multiple tube missile launch vehicle (MLV). MLV considerably increases the targeting and deployment options. The country is also reportedly working on a stealth version of its fighter jet J17 Thunder.

Pakistan has adopted a strategy similar to Russia, to counter the controversial American missile defence system being deployed in Europe, and other regions of the world. Russian ICBMs are equipped with Multiple Independently Targeted Reentry Vehicles (MIRV), which makes the Anti Ballistic Missile Systems (ABMs) ineffective. Commander of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces Lieutenant General Sergey Karakayev stated in May 2011 that the new Russian RS-24 ICBMs will become ‘invincible’ as they will be capable of overcoming any missile defence system for the next 15 or 20 years.

In short, the scope of Pakistan-India rivalry that was once limited to land, sea and air, have now clearly entered the domain of space. Although major world powers are against militarisation of space, they are nonetheless not reticent in outdoing each other in space, the final frontier. It is not a matter of choice but survival.

The writer is the chief analyst for PoliTact ([url]www.PoliTact.com[/url] and http:twitter.com/politact) and can be reached at [email]aansar@politact.com[/email]
-Pakistan Today

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Security and development[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
May 2, 2012
Naila Aman Khan

Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani recently suggested a withdrawal of troops from the Siachen glacier. This is a significant development and may trigger the process of change within the well-entrenched strategic culture of the country. Kayani’s statement came in the wake of the loss of more than hundred Pakistani soldiers, when an avalanche hit the Gayari Sector of Siachen in April.

General Kayani while suggesting simultaneous troops’ pullout by India and Pakistan from Siachen also said “we” should spend less on defence and more on the well-being of the people and development. The words seem to be from a statesman who has an eye on the future. However, certain politicians have dismissed the proposal of troops’ withdrawal from Siachen but they are just playing to the gallery without seriously understanding the inherent problems and cost of such interminable and futile deployment.

Pakistan and India have lost more soldiers in Siachen to climatic conditions than to combat. Kayani’s statement in the context of Siachen is more relevant to the overall concept of security, development and welfare than military strategy. One has to agree with the COAS’s observation that states (read Pakistan) should spend less on defence and more on the welfare of the people. Spending on human welfare and security rather than state’s military security is a relatively modern truth which the civilised world has arrived at after hundreds of years of warfare and bloodletting. If today, Pakistan’s army chief speaks unequivocally of prioritising human welfare and development rather than merely defending the state’s frontiers or for that matter ‘ideological frontiers’ then there can be no better occasion for Pakistanis to rejoice.

The military has often been criticised for not letting the country and society develop by forcefully diverting essential finances from the human development sectors to defence. This criticism has a lot of substance but on its part the military, which for a considerable period has dominated the state’s policy making, has been arguing that without state security, which can be guaranteed by a huge and viable security apparatus, no economic and human development is possible.

General Kayani’s statement suggests that a change is taking place within the traditional strategic culture of Pakistan. This is indeed a welcome development. Now the ball is in the court of the political government, and parliament needs to come up with policies that lead to reduction in defence spending and increase in funds allocated for human development and welfare sectors. Already the military backs parliament to reassess its terms of engagement with the United States through the Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS). During its deliberations of the PCNS Senator Mushahid Hussain very appropriately asked parliamentarians to come forward and change the country’s foreign policy. However, the MPs seemingly have failed to play their role.

The concept of security is indeed elusive. Security in the modern sense is a multi-dimensional, rather an all-encompassing concept. Its various aspects include economic, political, environmental, food, health, human security etc. Barry Buzan in his book People, States and Fear, advocates that security must be considered a concept which includes political, economic, societal, environmental as well as military aspects. The problem with Pakistan has been that its decision-makers have solely concentrated on the military-strategic concept and aspects of security. The problem with this kind of notion about security is that it only seeks protection of the state not the people living within it.

Pakistan needs massive development in almost all sectors of human activity but the process could start and, most importantly, sustain if certain key issues are addressed. The foremost is the national consensus regarding the key development goals. Pakistan faces the problem of lacking consensual development goals. This is because of the social anomie from which the Pakistani society is clearly suffering from. Moreover, we cannot prioritise which goals need to be given priority.

Secondly, development can only take place and the process can only move forward within a community and society if the developmental needs of its members and community as a whole are discovered. The development practitioner or more importantly the decision-makers must take cues from the demands for development of a particular community and society and then look for the available human and material resources to design the most appropriate policies and strategies for development.

Taking cue from the army chief’s call for prioritising human welfare, security and development, the political government should have no pretexts to cry foul and lament the unavailability of resources. If there is commitment on the political side even the military can be convinced of putting on hold the disposal of man-and-material resources currently being used in Siachen for the massive developmental efforts, provided the government has tangible elaborate, achievable and time-bound developmental goals.

The writer is a sociologist based in Peshawar. Email: [email]nailaqazi@hotmail.com[/email]
-The News

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]The folly that is Siachen[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
May 2, 2012
Najmuddin A Shaikh

THE deadly avalanche that buried 139 Pakistani soldiers has once again brought Siachen into focus as not only one of the issues that bedevils relations between India and Pakistan.

It is also a particularly egregious example of a poverty-stricken region wasting precious lives and resources for prolonging a political and military stalemate that serves no purpose other than to make improvement in India-Pakistan relations more difficult.

It is a tragic reminder that what sensible thinkers in either country would see as a monumental folly in relations with another country is seen as acceptable in India-Pakistan ties, because conjuring up unwarranted bogies can drown rationality.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had during his visit to Indian troops in the icy reaches of Siachen suggested making the latter into a ‘peace mountain’. (Ironically, in the Balti language, Siachen means a ‘place of roses’ — ‘sia’ is rose and ‘chen’ I assume means place.) The time has come, he said, to convert it from “a point of conflict to a symbol of peace”.

In 2008, during his visit to Pakistan, the then Indian foreign secretary and now national security adviser, not only reiterated this but went on to suggest joint environmental mountain survey expeditions as an important measure that could reduce mistrust between the two nations and implicitly help in resolving other issues.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had said in Siachen that “there could be no redrawing of boundaries” but implicit in this was also a reiteration of his view that this red line in Siachen as in other parts of Kashmir could be finessed by making “borders irrelevant”.

As is known, this effort at resolving the issue and creating a positive ambience for further negotiations on more intractable issues foundered on the Indian army’s insistence that if the political leadership asked it to withdraw from the positions it was holding, the leadership should not expect the army to retake these positions if the Pakistanis ‘treacherously’ moved in and occupied them.

I remember having long discussions separately with two retired foreign secretaries of India during a visit to Delhi about the possibility of a bilateral agreement on Siachen being reneged upon or breached by Pakistan.

I suggested that in making policy or in deciding upon the merits of an agreement one could try and cater for a one-in-a-hundred possibility but that given the relative conventional strength of the two countries did the possibility of a breach appear to be more than a one in a million?

One agreed immediately that even while the possibility of a breach may not be seen to be as remote as I made it out to be the benefits of disengaging far outweighed what was admittedly a minimal risk. The other was more circumspect, pointing out that for the Indian security forces the risk loomed larger after Kargil even though foreign policy experts might be inclined to agree with my argument.

What is forgotten or not sufficiently emphasised on either side is the past history of India-Pakistan negotiation. From October 1993 to 1997 Pakistan refused to talk to India in a formal setting. It demanded that such talks would be held only after India proved its willingness to resolve the Kashmir issue and as a first step took measures to alleviate the hardships imposed on the Kashmiris by Indian security forces and the draconian laws under which they operated.

It was only at the Maldives Saarc summit that Pakistan agreed to a resumption of talks in what was termed as the ‘composite dialogue’ to discuss a range of issues. In so doing, Pakistan accepted the Indian premise that Kashmir was an intractable issue the solution to which was difficult when relations between the two countries remained tense. A resolution of more tractable issues would create an ambience in which a solution of Kashmir would become possible.

I was not then associated with policymaking but Indian officials with whom a degree of informal contact had been maintained even during the official ‘freeze’ on talks identified two items on which progress could be made immediately — Siachen and Sir Creek. This even while progress on other items then identified as primarily of interest to India — expanding people-to-people exchanges, enlarging trade and economic ties — would be slower.

It was recognised that realistically we could not expect much progress on Kashmir and on security issues where the positions of the two sides were far apart. But there was hope that the discussions on these subjects would also proceed and perhaps some innovative ideas for a solution would emerge in the medium if not the short term. Siachen and Sir Creek were then low-hanging fruit that could be plucked immediately.

What has happened subsequently suggests that using Kargil and terrorism and the heightened distrust this has engendered as the reason, India has in effect reneged on the understanding on which the dialogue resumption was based. It is ironic that in pursuing relentlessly an expansion of trade and economic ties — admittedly of benefit to both sides — India has not been inhibited by distrust. In asking for transit facilities similarly, India does not seem to be distrustful. Equally importantly today, Indian participants in Track II dialogues present cogent arguments for India and Pakistan to work together to ensure peace and stability in Afghanistan because on that depends peace and stability in the region as a whole.

One can only find it strange that this manifest contradiction is not recognised or corrected in policymaking circles in New Delhi.
It is fitting that on the occasion of Youm-i-Shuhada Gen Kayani paid tribute in his remarks to the soldiers who lost their live in the avalanche.

Writing on this subject in 2002 I had said: “Even in times of tension and distrust some degree of rationality must come into play. We must realise that cutting off the Indian nose to spite the Pakistani face or vice versa is really cutting off the nose of the South Asian region as a whole.

“As in other regions but more so in South Asia, ‘beggaring thy neighbour’ is ‘beggaring thyself’. In South Asia, one does not have to invoke the ‘interdependence flowing from globalisation’ for substantiation; our overwhelming and common dependence on water from the Himalayas is enough.”

The loss of life at Gayari and what we have learnt about the quickening pace of glacial melt because of our military presence makes disengagement even more urgent.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.
-Dawn

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]A short walk to sanity
[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]

Ghazi Salahuddin
Sunday, May 06, 2012


What will have to happen so that the little girl who begs at a traffic signal in Karachi – or Lahore – is able to grow up into a literate, self-confident individual, perhaps a working woman?

Among other things, Pakistan and India will have to be peaceful neighbours, with goods and people freely able to move across the frontier. In short, the focus will not be so much on national security as on the welfare of the citizens.

But can the dark shadows that are cast by the Himalayas on this jinxed region be finally lifted in the near future? It is possible that the gentle breeze that is blowing, once again, in the affairs of the two countries will spiral into decisive winds of change. After all, there is a limit to the capacity of our two countries to continue to defy the logic of history.

There are signs that we have almost reached that limit and some good sense has been injected into the conduct of our bilateral relations. This time, the spotlight is on trade. And if the two countries proceed on this front, the route to peace will be almost automatic. When we look around, we find that strong economic relations between neighbours have brought prosperity and peace in regions that were previously afflicted with hostility and tension.

In this perspective, the economic conference that is being held in Lahore tomorrow and the day after under the aegis of Aman ki Asha is a major initiative. Aman ki Asha, of course, is a campaign for peace between India and Pakistan initiated by the largest media groups in the two countries – the Times of India Group and the Jang Group.

Building on commendable efforts that have for years been made by civil society organisations to promote peace in South Asia, Aman ki Asha has been able to generate a lot of enthusiasm and energy in the process. Its activities, involving influential groups and individuals, have ranged across the entire spectrum of bilateral relations, including healthcare, sports, and culture. But the core issue that it has ardently pushed is economic collaboration because it obviously is the single most important driver for peace.

The proceedings that will begin tomorrow – on Monday, May 7 – are in fact a follow-up of the first economic conference held in Delhi two years ago, in partnership with the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). As many as 65 Pakistani businessmen and CEOs had travelled to India for a fruitful interaction with about 250 Indian businessmen and corporate heads.

The Lahore conference is bound to be of greater significance against the backdrop of the recent developments in trade diplomacy. Pakistan’s decision to grant India the ‘Most Favoured Nation – MFN – status by the year end has been described by the Indian commerce secretary Rahul Khuller as a “game changer”.

Essentially, improved commercial ties underline the relevance of the private sector in building peace in the region. At the Pakistani trade fair held in Delhi recently, Commerce Minister Anand Sharma said that “there is no other option but economic interdependence between India and Pakistan which will lead on to other partnerships”.

In fact, on Wednesday, President Asif Ali Zardari described the granting of the MFN status to India by Pakistan as a paradigm shift. He was addressing a dinner hosted by the Lahore Chamber of Commerce and Industry at the President’s House in Islamabad. He said the decision would reconstruct the region’s economies and increase its stability.

We cannot over-emphasise Pakistan’s yearning for peace and stability. On the face of it, some of our most pressing issues such as terrorism and religious radicalism have little bearing on our relations with India but, in a deeper sense, it was our India-centric national security policy that almost defined our sense of direction. We can hope to be more rational and realistic in our policies when our relations with India are normalised.

Siachen, incidentally, has been the most glaring example of how unwise or downright foolish the two establishments have been in pursuing their animosity. The heartbreaking tragedy we suffered when our army camp was buried under an avalanche is not easy to contend with or to understand. The cost of a senseless military confrontation at that forbidding and icy altitude, including in human lives, ought to be measured in the poverty and deprivation of the people in both countries.

Hopefully, the Siachen tragedy will also induce some sanity in the evolution of strategic policies at the military and political levels in both countries. In the context of trade and economic relations, it has been noted that officials in India and Pakistan are now looking at the so-called “China option”. The idea is that economic ties can bring peace to a troubled region.

In that sense, tomorrow’s economic conference will also be a tryst with destiny for both countries. That it is being held in Lahore is providential. It was in Punjab that the most blood was shed at the dawn of freedom, when unprecedented communal riots and mass migrations had taken place. That traumatic experience must have contributed to the hostility of later years.

But times have surely changed and Lahore now pulsates with a desire for peace and amity. I happened to be in Lahore in March 2004 when the Indian cricket team was received with unparalleled love. It was a unique certification of the ordinary citizens’ craving for peace and friendship, particularly in Punjab. And I was lucky to have witnessed this hospitality reciprocated in Delhi when our cricket team was in India the next year.

Hence, Lahore is the appropriate stage for the launching of a new phase in relations between the two countries. According to the programme of the economic conference, the Indian delegates will arrive through the Wagah border around noon today, Sunday. That they can cross the border on foot and literally walk into Lahore is truly remarkable.

That is how borders should be – to allow goods and people to cross them freely. And we should be able to live happily in our respective countries and our homes. This is what ‘Aman ki Asha’ is all about.

Both India and Pakistan are vast countries and among the most populous in the world. There are and will remain a number of issues that have to be resolved. We should have realised by now that our disputes cannot by settled through military means. There is no point in scaling the killing heights of a glacier and not even being in hearing distance of each other when it is possible to take a short walk and meet in Lahore. Does it not make more sense?

The writer is a staff member. Email: ghazi_salahuddin@hotmail. com

[CENTER][B][FONT="Georgia"][SIZE="5"]Increased trade to spur growth[/SIZE][/FONT][/B][/CENTER]
May 14, 2012
Michael Krepon

PAKISTAN and India have not fared well over the past two decades in negotiating confidence-building and nuclear risk-reduction measures.

Existing measures, such as prior notifications for certain military exercises and ballistic missile flight tests, have been useful, but regrettably sparse. Many believed that these CBMs would lead to progressively more ambitious and stabilising measures.

Instead, the process of negotiating military- and nuclear-related CBMs has been like peeling an onion, one thin layer at a time.

Officials in Pakistan and India have viewed these CBMs as devices to alleviate external pressures after a crisis, as trading material, or as add-ons when bigger issues like Kashmir are properly dealt with.

If government officials viewed CBMs as worthwhile steps in and of themselves, a cruise missile flight test notification agreement and an agreement to prevent incidents at sea would have been negotiated long ago. Deals on a mutual withdrawal from the Siachen Glacier and a settlement of the Sir Creek dispute have also been within grasp for many years.

An agreement to permanently demilitarise Siachen appears stuck over whether or not to recognise in some fashion positions seized by the Indian Army in 1984.

The continuing dispute over Sir Creek revolves around the extension of the land border seaward. Both countries capture fishermen that have crossed this imaginary, disputed line and then release them when they want to signal a warming trend.

This ritual of rounding up and freeing the usual suspects no longer counts as a CBM because it has become a thoroughly expected peel of the onion.

If India and Pakistan actually traded more onions, as well as other goods and services, this disappointing, familiar script might change. Increased trade could engage powerful cross-border constituencies to support more normal relations
between India and Pakistan.

If significant trade occurred between Sindh and Gujarat as well as across the Punjab divide, it would be hard to reverse course.

Trade expansion, like military CBMs, would also proceed in stages, but is likely to move at a faster pace because entrepreneurs have more clout and are in more of a hurry than diplomats.

Increased cross-border trade is resisted by the privileged few who stand to lose profits if hard-pressed customers benefit from lower prices. Trade with India is also staunchly opposed by Hafiz Saeed, chief of Jamaatud Dawa, and his followers. It would not be surprising if die-hard groups seek once again to target iconic targets in India to halt improved bilateral ties.

The governments of Pakistan and India have been widely dismissed as being weak and beleaguered by scandal. And yet Islamabad has taken constructive steps to increase direct trade with India. Pakistan has now given India Most Favoured Nation trading status and is switching from a positive to a negative list of tradable items.

This could become another exercise in onion peeling; after all, India accorded Pakistan MFN status in 1996, and the results
have been negligible.

At least now, prospects for direct trade are better than before. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh appears quite ready to reciprocate Islamabad’s moves.

Pakistan cannot hope to increase its rate of economic growth, which now lags behind population growth, without more normal ties and more direct trade with what should be its largest natural trading partner. Instead, direct trade between
Pakistan and India was $2.7bn in 2010, less than India’s trade with Sri Lanka. Pakistan exports more goods to Bangladesh than to India.

This abnormal situation could now change if Pakistan’s military leadership is on board. Islamabad’s trade initiatives imply Rawalpindi’s consent, perhaps because Pakistan’s military will benefit from economic growth, and because a well-funded
army that resides within a weak economy will generate increased public resentment.

But Pakistan’s army retains an abiding distrust and deep grievances against India, and no large institution holds monolithic views. Since improved trade can be short-circuited by mass-casualty attacks in India, the test of the intentions and
competence of the army leadership is whether it gains advance warning of future attacks and takes effective measures to prevent them.

India, boasting an economy over eight times larger than Pakistan, also has much to prove. Generous terms of trade can serve New Delhi’s interests as well as Pakistan’s. But India’s civil servants and diplomats take a back seat to no one when it comes to onion-peeling.

Political leaders who want to accomplish something important and unusual in India will have to ride herd over a government and civil service bureaucracy that stubbornly resists change. The same holds true for Pakistan.

It is unclear whether Prime Minister Singh and President Zardari can follow through with real growth in direct trade. They have both expressed longstanding, oft-repeated desires to normalise relations. This is the most convenient way to do so.

The writer is co-founder of the Stimson Centre.
-Dawn