March 31, 2012
Haider Nizamani

WHAT basic principles should guide India’s foreign and strategic policy over the next decade? Eight eminent Indians with expertise in foreign policy met regularly over a year to answer this question.

The result is a 70-page report released this month titled Nonalignment 2.0: A Foreign and Strategic Policy for India in Twenty First Century. An informed understanding of India’s strategic outlook holds value for Pakistani analysts and policymakers as well.

According to the contributors to the report, the objective of India’s strategy should be to give the country more options in its relations with the rest of the world. The document aims to offer a framework of foreign and strategic policy that is appropriate for the economic development of India. Globalisation provides more opportunities than risks as long as the country uses this window of opportunity intelligently, says the report.

The story of Indian policy is a combination of several unresolved dilemmas. During the Cold War years, geographically distant developing countries saw India as a friendly voice. For its immediate, smaller, neighbours, however, India was a bully that in turn coerced and cajoled. While the US and the erstwhile Soviet Union initially considered India a pesky non-aligned power, for China here was a stubborn neighbour who interfered in its internal affairs in collusion with the US. Some of these perceptions remain intact and India’s strategic
thought and actions appear to suggest that future may not be too different.

Pakistan permeates the 70 pages and, along with China, is allotted independent sections. According to the document, India is widely recognised as an emerging power and its economic, military, and political salience will grow in South Asia and beyond; but sensible Indians know it “cannot hope to arrive as a great power if it is unable to manage relationships within South Asia”. The Gujral doctrine of going the extra mile in dealings with neighbours gets a conceptual facelift in this report, while Pakistan remains an overriding, though somewhat misunderstood, concern. The report incorrectly assumes that everyone in Pakistan’s military and the bureaucratic and political elite believe “that it is only cross-border terrorism that compels India to engage with Pakistan and accommodate its interests” (p.18). And, the authors of the report feel that the presence of nuclear weapons imposes constraints on India’s “countervailing strategy”.

Suggestions on dealing with Pakistan constitute a mixed bag that is likely to keep South Asia hostage to India-Pakistan hostility. Indian policymakers realise the importance of “the US handle” in putting Pakistan under pressure over what they term “cross-border terrorism”, but they are mindful of the limited value of this. In terms of positives, the report
recommends keeping channels of communication open even in the light of any setback such as the Mumbai attacks, seeking more military-to-military exchanges, and facilitating ordinary Pakistanis in visiting India. On the negative side, it calls for exerting diplomatic pressure on Pakistan by expressing concern over this country’s internal issues.

India has become the world’s largest importer of arms and is set to spend about $40.5bn on defence during 2012-13. It will buy arms worth $100bn over the next five years. The “capture of significant amounts of Pakistan’s territory continues to be the primary military objective underpinning the doctrine and organisation of the Indian Armed Forces” (p.39), notes the report. But it points out that this is no longer tenable owing to the nuclear equation and the document asks New Delhi to review its operational doctrine and structures by putting emphasis on air and cyber power. Equally problematic is the claim that China can opt for a land grab policy through the use of force.

India’s arms splurge constitutes the recipe for a classical security dilemma where its adversaries would view development as a source of insecurity. Under such circumstances, an arms race becomes a distinct possibility.

If Pakistan and China occupy the imagination of Indian strategists for mainly traditional security reasons, the Middle East makes it in because the region is the source of 63 per cent of crude oil for India, with trade worth $93bn and six million Indian expatriates remitting $35bn annually.

India will continue to have warm relations with both the US and Russia, says the report. Shared reservations regarding China will bring Washington and New Delhi closer but the report does not recommend entering into a formal alliance. Nevertheless, it points out that overall, the points of convergence in Indo-US interests outnumber the irritants. A groundswell of goodwill for India in Washington will be a valuable source of strength for Indian policymakers in the years to come. Russia remains India’s main source of arms and the latter’s appetite for these goods mean even closer ties in the future.

The contents of the report’s conclusion and the section titled “Way Forward” are apt reminders to Indian policymakers regarding the value of adopting a holistic view while formulating foreign and security policies. A large military and more weapons aren’t the only ways to counter threats to national security (p.63).

In order to have comfortable relations with other countries, it is crucial for the state to have internal legitimacy, and democracy is the best tool with which to foster legitimacy. The provision of public goods to ordinary Indians will help India become not just a major but also secure power, while lifting millions of citizens out of poverty remains the principal challenge (p.69).

The twin banes of the state authorities’ dubious internal legitimacy and chronic poverty haunt India and most of its South Asian neighbours. No amount of arms, nuclear or conventional, can cure these maladies. If India wants to lead the region and the world by example, its best bet is to work towards an inclusive and equitable society.

The writer is a Canada-based academic.

hnizamani@hotmail.com
-Dawn

April 1, 2012
By Manik Mehta

India’s tight-rope walk as it tries to strike a balance between its long-term strategic partnership with the United States and its oil dependency on Iran, is being criticised for breaking international sanctions and not doing enough to pressure Iran.

The cosy ties between New Delhi and Washington after a Cold War-conditioned bilateral relationship may prove to be short-lived if India ignores the US message to the rest of the world: Iran’s nuclear ambitions must be stopped at all costs.

The latest bout of sanctions against Iran is hurting that country whose commercial life is being squeezed out as it cannot conduct any dollar-based transactions.

India’s political establishment has not savoured the recent outburst by Nicholas Burns, former undersecretary of state and chief US negotiator on India’s nuclear deal, who criticised India’s alleged soft stand on Iran. Burns described India’s unwillingness to play along with the US sanctions as a ‘failure’ to realise its potential for global leadership, thus ‘impeding’ the building up of a strategic relationship with the US.
Indian diplomats say that this criticism ignores India’s own economic and domestic political compulsions: the nation derives some 12 per cent of its oil from Iran. India, Burns reminded, had “many years to find new suppliers”. Washington has suggested that India should, instead, consider importing oil from Saudi Arabia to compensate for the loss of Iranian crude. But many of India’s state-owned refineries are heavily dependent on processing Iranian crude. India will need huge investments if it retrofitted its refineries to other sources.

India’s reluctance to estrange itself from Iran is also based on strategic considerations. In response to China’s presence in Gwadar port in Pakistan, India is seeking access to Iran’s Chabahar port which is being built with Indian assistance and can be linked by rail to Central Asia through Hajigak, a mineral-rich area in Afghanistan where India has obtained mining concessions. Chabahar port will help India maintain strong ties with Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance.

Regional domination

India also believes it would be a strategic mistake to abruptly cut off oil purchases from Iran because China would step in to fill the vacuum left behind by India.

American policymakers see in Tehran a regime that pursues an atomic weapon capacity while also aiding America’s enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and supporting Hezbollah, Hamas and the highly unpopular Syrian regime, besides threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. An Iranian nuclear weapons capacity, many US policymakers fear, could embolden Tehran to pursue an even more aggressive drive for regional domination in the Middle East.

The new US-led sanctions push may put Washington and New Delhi on opposite sides of this critical issue. A falling out over Iran could have repercussions for the budding strategic partnership, and make everything else — from trade to defence cooperation to diplomatic coordination — more difficult, though Delhi and Washington have so far also underlined areas of agreement such as their unity in casting the International Atomic Energy Agency votes, their shared opposition to an Iranian nuclear weapon, etc.

A genuine partnership on the Iran issue should see India nudging the Iranian leadership to tone down its nuclear rhetoric and aspirations, while the West, particularly the US, could learn from Indians on how to deal with the Iranians.

Unfortunately, India’s foreign policy has become lacklustre and is drifting into a state of inaction and passiveness. India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a financial genius, lacks leadership qualities and the vision to make the country’s foreign policy a beacon in world affairs. India’s mediocre foreign policy has flopped because of the leadership’s appeasement of regimes in Myanmar, Pakistan, China, Iran, etc. The latest gaffe by India, which forcibly removed Tibetan demonstrators from Delhi’s streets as visiting Chinese President Hu Jintao was being serenaded during the Brics summit, can hardly vindicate India’s claim as the world’s largest democracy. India wore the ugly mask of a totalitarian country during Hu’s visit.

India wants to be America’s true friend without jeopardising its commercial relations with Iran. But is it possible to play “true friend” to two sworn enemies? In a recent editorial, The Wall Street Journal called New Delhi “the mullahs’ last best friend”, criticising it for casting its lot with Moscow and Beijing “for a handful of rupees”.

India cannot put its head in the sand and stay aloof from things happening around it. It needs to defuse the standoff between Iran and the West, and urge Iran to sit down and talk to the West. Even if it did not succeed, India would have impressed many that it has the resolve and capability to be a world power. India will be taken seriously only if it takes an active interest in world affairs.

Manik Mehta is a commentator on Asian affairs.
Source: Gulf News

April 7, 2012
By Kuldip Nayar

However unhappy, I cannot comment on the story of The Indian Express hinting at a coup with the march of 800 troops towards Delhi, because I have no access to the source of that information. Therefore, I confine myself to the witch-hunt on the leakage of a letter by Chief of Army Staff Vijay Kumar (VK) Singh.

The general seems to have spilled the beans on the Indian defence’s unpreparedness. Instead of finding out why the armed forces failed to acquire the much-needed equipment, the government’s attention is concentrated on locating the media man who was able to pry into top secret papers and disseminate the leaked information.

The armed forces are like a sacred cow. No one in India, the media nor the political parties, comment on military affairs. We think that it is not in the interest of the country to say anything derogatory about it. We feel that even a limited criticism may demoralise the armed forces.

As a journalist, I feel proud that someone from my fraternity had the contacts to reveal what the general wrote in secrecy. A media person is a communicator and it is his or her duty to inform others about what happens behind the scenes. The journalist who has the courage to disclose any such information to his fellow countrymen should not be punished for doing so.

Free information is essential in a free society because it evokes free response. India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, said: “I would rather have a completely free press with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed or regulated press.”

Indeed, the unedifying controversy between General VK Singh and Defence Minister AK Anthony has exposed the system and those who occupy the domineering positions. Nearly all former top-brass members in the armed forces have taken the general’s side and those of the civil force have taken the minister’s side. Now, the debate has been reduced to a confrontation between civil and military forces.

The entire gamut of discussion is the stand taken by the general and its denial by Anthony. That both sides have mishandled the situation is an understatement. It looks as if the two have been going out of their way to hurt each other. Some of the observations made by ex-army officers smack of Bonapartism, which they should realise does not fit into the parlance within a democratic system.

Officials working in the defence ministry and the military headquarters are public servants, whether they belong to civil or military divisions. One cannot and should not try to score points against the other because this is harmful to the country. Both have been yoked to the same chariot and must walk in tandem to take it forward so that the armed forces are in fine fettle.

The matter of substandard equipment or not procuring the weapons in time is the fallout of petty differences between top civilian and military officials. They stand on false prestige and delay the supply of much-needed weapons. India lost the 1962 war against China because it fought with substandard equipment which should have been discarded much earlier. Then prime minister Nehru was not aware of this deficiency. Now, current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has also been kept in the dark.

The letter by the general which was leaked out is categorical about the delay in the procurement of equipment. The general says in his letter that the artillery and tanks that make up the backbone of those formations are near-defunct and the air defence systems protecting them are obsolescent. The letter talks about depleted ammunition for tanks, inadequate air defence weapons and the infantry possessing outdated weaponry. That the enemy has come to know our deficiencies is no reason for closing the stable after the horses have bolted. The fault is unpreparedness, not its disclosure.

The Express Tribune

April 11, 2012
SHAHID ZAHUR, Rawalpindi

The whopping $38.6 billion Indian defence budget is having 17 per cent substantial increase from the yester year. India is spending a huge amount on the war machinery and since last 5 years she is the number one buyer of the arms in the world. This budget is besides the long term huge commitment and deals with different countries like, purchase of 129 Rafal combat aircrafts, 145 light Howitzer, 49 War Ships and up gradation of more than 50 Mirage 2000 fighters. India is flexing its muscles and with the support of USA is trying to become the dominant power of this region. US-India civil nuclear cooperation, support for a permanent seat in the Security Council and enhanced role in Afghanistan is part of this grand strategy. It’s very unfortunate that the country which advocates peace, whose people are suffering from grinding poverty and has the largest concentration of the world’s illiterate people is busy in pilling the weapons. Soviet Union collapsed due to huge spending in defence and I am afraid that same may be the case with India. As per Indian leaders their preparations are for China but in this arm race who will be the winner, the time will tell. However, seeing the Chinese growth rate, economic domination and her influence in the world market it’s not difficult to predict that who would be the looser. I think Indian people must ask their government on such spending because playing in the hands of foreign powers will not yield results. USA and West are running their economies on the sale of these death machines so wars and conflicts are their life lines. As per Stock home Pease International Search Institution’s report, in sale of arms, USA is leading following by Russia, Germany, France and England. It is interesting to note that after World War- 11 these countries learnt a lesson and never went in to war with each other but are keeping the pot boiling around the world.Being the immediate neighbor, Pakistan has to be concerned and safeguard her interests but it’s a healthy sign that Pakistan is not getting in to this arm race. Pakistan’s defence budget which was 4.6% of GDP in 2003 is now less than 2.4% i.e. $5.75 billion only for the year 2011/12. But we should not lower the guards because the battles are and will be fought with conventional weapons. Similarly, a disinformation campaign has been started against our forces and security agencies to create gulf between people and them. We are unintentionally falling prey to this negative propaganda and are targeting them on every right and wrong issues. Pakistan has always tried to go an extra mile in having good relations with India but unfortunately response from other side is very slow. No progress has been made on the issues of Kashmir, Sir Creek and Siachen and now the water stoppage, interference in Baluchistan and opening of number of consulates in Afghanistan are further compounding the problems. There is always a talk about solving the problems bilaterally and working on the confidence building measures (CBMs) but now we should move forward towards solving the irritants. If we remain hostage in the hands of non state actors then I am afraid that we can’t progress. The trust deficit needs to be bridged with solid actions which will of course speak louder than the words.

-Pakarticleshub

April 17, 2012
By Amulya Ganguli

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s career provides a classic example of how a kinky ideology can thwart political ambitions in a pluralistic society. Yet, when the same ideological outlook enabled him to scale the heights of political power by winning the 2002 assembly elections in Gujarat, he must have presumed that even greater successes were in store for him.

What he hadn’t taken into account were the imperatives of a multicultural country. Till the 2002 elections, Modi was operating within the parameters of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) worldview based on the concept of cultural nationalism or one nation, one people, one culture.

The obvious similarity of this slogan with Nazi Germany’s ein volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer (one people, one nation, one leader) underlines the fascist basis of the idea. But neither Modi nor the BJP was bothered. They believed they were on a roll at the time. However, it was the jolt of the defeat in the 2004 parliamentary polls which woke them up to the realities of Indian broadmindedness.

Moreover, Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s belief that the 2002 Gujarat riots were responsible for the BJP’s defeat two years later might have also induced both Modi and his party to mull over their past policies.

Hence, the chief minister’s new emphasis on development for all the people of Gujarat. There was no more mocking of the minorities by him as when he crassly described the camps of riot victims as child-producing factories or took care to pronounce the then chief election commissioner’s full name of James Michael Lyngdoh to stress his Christianity, which, according to V.D. Savarkar, leading Hindu ideologue, is a religion alien to India, like Islam.

But none of it has helped Modi, the man who was described by Ashis Nandy as a ‘textbook case of a fascist and a prospective killer, perhaps even a future mass murderer’. Indeed, this is the charge he still faces and even after his latest exoneration by the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigating Team (SIT) — the Nanavati commission had earlier given Modi a clean chit in its interim report — the public perception about his complicity continues.

Cleansing his image

Of course, no final word has yet been said about Modi’s role. Even the SIT report was only about the mob violence in the Gulberg housing society where the former Congress MP, Ehsan Jafri, was killed. The report will now be considered by the trial court while the views of the ‘friend of court,’ Raju Ramachandran, are yet to be made public.

However, the point is not the prolonged legal battles but the fact that Modi’s strenuous attempts from the post-2004 poll results to put the riots behind him haven’t cleansed his image.

Even if he does say sorry at some point, it may not make much of an impact for two reasons: one is that the BJP itself remains committed to its ‘one culture’ ideal for India, which emphasises the country’s Hindu character to the exclusion of all minority cultures, as in a theocracy.

The other reason is that Modi represents, perhaps because of his grim visage, the type of person who can be expected to implement this sectarian vision.

Modi, then, is fighting a losing battle. Moreover, he has fallen between two stools. He can no longer resurrect his minority-baiting self which he flaunted from the time of the anti-Christian disturbances in Gujarat’s Dangs area, where the present terror suspect, Assemananda, was an activist, to the 2004 elections.

And he must have realised by now that all his sadbhavna (goodwill) fasts in aid of social harmony, and all his success in providing bijli, sadak and pani (electricity, roads and water) to the voters, which help other politicians, will not enable him to play a national role, which he apparently intends to do.

The riots, for which the Gujarat high court has castigated the state government, and the demolition of the Babri mosque 10 years earlier, were the fallout of the Hindu nationalist camp’s virulent communal propaganda. While the 1992 destruction of Babri Masjid helped the BJP attain power in New Delhi, the 2002 Gujarat riots outbreak made the party lose it. Evidently, the square peg of communalism cannot fit into the round hole of a secular democracy.

— Indo-Asian News Service

Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst.
Source: Gulf News

April 23, 2012
Eric S. Margolis

India launches first intercontinental ballistic missile. True enough, India did launch a new, 5,000 km-ranged Agni-V missile that can deliver a nuclear warhead to Beijing and Shanghai.

Previously, India’s 3,500-km Agni-III did not have the range to hit China’s major coastal cities.

But Agni-V is not an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), as wrongly reported. Nor was the missile North Korea launched on April 15 that fell apart soon after liftoff. Some media wrongly claimed it was an ICBM that could hit the United States. One longs for the days when media employed real war correspondents who understood military affairs.

A true ICBM has a minimum range of at least 8,000km and more likely 12,000km. India and North Korea’s missiles were medium ranged ballistic missiles (MRBM’s). The difference is important because MRBM’s are theatre weapons while ICBM’s threaten the entire globe. India crowed with pride over its Agni-V launch. One government scientist claimed Agni-V made India “a major missile power.” By contrast, India’s growing rival, China, dismissed the launch with a disdainful sniff.

But, as this column has been writing for years, India is indeed emerging as a major military power.

In 1999, this writer’s book, War at the Top of the World, began examining the growth of India’s military and postulated that India and China would one day go to war over their ill-defined Himalayan border and Burma.

Today, India has become the world’s largest importer of arms. India’s navy is to deploy three aircraft carriers, nuclear-powered submarines with ballistic missiles, a powerful air force, and armed forces of 1.3 million. India has long land and maritime frontiers and needs large, well-equipped military forces.

Why India, a nation of deep poverty, needs a missile that can deliver nuclear warheads to New York or Paris, remains a mystery. The most likely reason is prestige and a seat on the UN Security Council. But there is also the possibility that one day India may confront the United States over Mideast oil, or confront Russia and China in Central Asia.

India’s deliverable nuclear arsenal, like those of all other nations, is designed for strategic deterrence – a national life insurance policy. Delhi has masked development of an ICBM behind its space launch programme. As Washington tartly noted last week about North Korea’s attempt to put a satellite into orbit, a booster that can place a satellite in orbit can just as well deliver a nuclear warhead. The same applies to India. For now, India is a close US ally, and the recipient of the US and Israeli help in building its nuclear arsenal.

India’s purported ICBM is named “Surya” and is believed to have a planned range of 12,000km. The missile is said to be composed of the main stage of its PSLV space launcher and Agni-V. Its development remains shrouded in secrecy. The programme has had many failures and misfires. The third maritime leg of India’s nuclear triad provides a secure second-strike capability after a surprise nuclear attack. But is also gives India the ability to attack most of the world’ capitols from the sea.

Eric Margolis is a veteran US journalist
Source: Khaleej Times

By Kunal Majumder
Published: May 13, 2012

The writer is a senior correspondent at Tehelka newsmagazine and can be followed on Twitter @kunalmajumder

Every time there is a Maoist orchestrated kidnap or a killing in India, we hear the same old arguments in the streets of Delhi and Mumbai. The rightwingers speak about getting rid of the menace through armed action. The leftwingers and the liberals speak about the state-sponsored violence and the state of development in the Maoist-infected areas of the states of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. Of course, there will also be some who openly speak in favour of the Maoists. But it surprises and even shocks me that people of all ideological hues refuse to understand the true nature of this ‘movement’. People speak about the poverty, the deprivation, the state-led violence or even the corporate-led “stealing” of resources in these mineral-rich areas. But they fail to see that these are mere causes. The actual threat is from the ideology.

Finally, there is now a shift in the discourse of mainstream media on Maoism. Liberals often make the mistake of mixing up the Maoist movement with the tribal developmental cause. Popular middle class understanding fails to look at history. The Maoist movement in West Bengal in the 1960s had almost nothing to do with that of the tribals. It was a fight for land rights. In Bihar, the Maoist struggle came about because of caste conflict. In Andhra Pradesh again, it was land. It is in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh that the movement has taken up the tribal cause. However, if one looks at Jharkhand Maoists, at the moment there is a presence of a strong caste factor which is leading to factionalism.

The Maoist movement, wherever it has spread across India, has picked up the issues that are troubling the local population. We have even seen Maoist statements supporting separatism in Jammu and Kashmir and northeast India. Maoist ideologue Varavara Rao speaks about the “common enemy” of the Maoist and the separatist, i.e., the Indian state. Though there is still no evidence to show a direct link between Maoists and the terrorist groups operating in these regions, such statements only help create the image of bonhomie between forces who are fighting the Indian state.

The biggest setback to the idea of India came 65 years ago when the country was divided on communal lines. Over the next six decades, the leadership and the intelligentsia tried their best to keep this original idea intact — a secular free society where caste, creed, religion and region didn’t matter. It faced numerous challenges in the form of separatism, communalism and even regionalism. Yet the broader consensus about this Idea of India managed to survive. But in the last few years, the biggest threat to this idea of India has come from another idea — rather an ideology — Maoism.

Both the Left and Right and the Indian state fail to understand that you cannot treat an ideological movement as a law and order issue, nor can you deal with it just as a developmental problem. Violence — Maoist sponsored or state sponsored — and kidnapping are just methods used in an ideological game the two sides are playing. The tribals, ordinary policemen and paramilitary soldiers are mere pawns. Ideological games cannot be won by a military victory or by merely developing a region physically.

One must not confuse between an ideology and a fight against injustice, though often ideology takes up the fight to justify its survival. The conflicts in Jammu and Kashmir and in India’s northeast have weakened primarily because it’s been a fight without an ideology. The challenge for India in both these regions will be to ensure that any ideological group — such as the Taliban or the Maoists — stays far away from the fight on the ground.

Ideologies are creatures which know various survival tactics. That’s how Maoism spread across one-third of India. Look at al Qaeda’s ideology and how it is spreading in India’s immediate neighbourhood. For them, America is the enemy today, tomorrow it will be someone else. Ten years down the line, the Americans have failed to contain this idea. Why? Because it made the same mistakes as the Indian state is making at the moment.

The Express Tribune

May 24, 2012
Nilofar Suhrawardy

Indian secularism faces a severe test when Indian Muslims are given greater attention than ever before, that too for wrong and highly contradictory reasons.

This trend surfaces strongly during elections and when some terrorism-related incident hits the headlines. During elections, the focus is on so-called Muslim votes in areas where their electoral population is more than 20 per cent and several parties are in the fray.

Isn’t making noise about Muslim-vote, when in essence it doesn’t really exist, equivalent to polarising politics along religious lines giving advantage to extremists keen on communalising this phase? Secularism decides electoral decision of Muslim voters and not religious identity of candidates and/or parties fighting the political battle. This point is proved by there being absence of any national Muslim leader or party with considerable appeal among Muslim voters to turn the electoral tide.

Undeniably, their prevails a trend even among secular parties to display their concern for Muslims by giving substantial importance to clerics during their campaign and giving tickets to Muslims for contesting elections. But this is reflective of political strategy exercised by non-Muslim, secular parties and not the electoral decision taken by voters. There has been no instance of Muslims of any constituency having voted en-bloc to ensure victory of a particular Muslim candidate. In fact, unnecessary hype has been deliberately raised about the so-called Muslim-vote to try and polarise vote banks along communal lines.

Sadly, Muslim secularism continues to be virtually ignored to this day. What else is suggested by ease with which Muslims are held as suspect terrorists even when there isn’t substantial evidence against them?

It is, indeed, intriguing that amidst the wake of concern voiced by centre and state governments on countering terrorism, little attention has been paid to rectifying lapses in existing policies, because of which Indian Muslims continue to be the worst sufferers. While referring to security agencies’ failure to take timely action, Home Minister P. Chidambaram pointed out that most of these cases concerned so-called “jihadi terrorists and cadres of CPI (Maoist).” It is amazing that central government has not displayed similar concern regarding terrorist-incidents for which members associated with saffron brigade have been held as responsible. Should this be viewed as a biased approach held by the central government towards linking Muslims with terrorism and sparing non-Muslims, even when there is ample evidence against the latter being responsible for several terrorist incidents?

It is ironical that while Prime Minister and Home Minister strongly referred to measures that need to be undertaken to counter terrorism at various levels, including cyber-terrorism, they ignored shortcomings in the present policy, which need to be corrected. This refers to numerous cases of fake encounters, in which usually the innocent have been targeted. There are also numerous incidents of innocents being held as suspect terrorists — primarily because of their religious identity. Besides, there has been no report on day-long meeting referring to compensating Muslims and/or their families who have been killed in fake encounters and/or have been wrongly held as suspected terrorists.

Electorally, despite Indian Muslims having strongly asserted their secular identity, it is indeed a tragedy that politically there prevails a communal bias against them. What is worse than ignoring Muslims’ secular credentials is holding them as targets of communal frenzy, in the name of countering terrorism!
Nilofar Suhrawardy is a India-based writer
Source: Khaleej Times

May 26, 2012
Sidin Vadukut

When I look at the incompetence in the corridors of government in New Delhi, the sheer social depravity showcased in Aamir Khan’s television show, the insensitive squabbling over what daily income qualifies you to be poor, the diseased semi-corpse that is the Indian rupee, the mediocrity of media and the daily self-flagellation that my fellow Indians engage in on a daily basis on Twitter, Facebook and other online avenues, there is only one thought that can come to the mind of a young, passionate, patriotic, idealistic and ruggedly handsome Indian like me:

This is a wonderful opportunity for foreigners to come and write profoundly moving books about the riveting contradictions that is India and its people!

(Sample contradiction: On one side of a wall in Mumbai is an apartment complex housing dozens of CEOs and other millionaire types. On the other side of the same wall is a dirty, disheveled roadside beggar who actually own above mentioned apartment complex, and approximately seven per cent of ICICI Bank.)

Over the past many decades and centuries India has been a motherlode of fictional and non-fictional inspiration for dozens of foreign writers. Driven to creative apotheosis by India’s unusual but photogenic melange of rich and poor and thin and fat and good and evil and alive and prime ministerial, journalists, especially from the English speaking nations, have thronged to our lands. They then go undercover in our slums and villages, and write illuminating, heart-rending, often accurate portraits of life in India.

And there has never been a better time to ply this trade.

For instance just the Indian Premier League is a phenomenon positively heaving with “book about India” possibilities and delightful contradictions. However, as far as I know, not a single foreign writer has stepped up to leverage this pregnant opportunity.

This injustice must end now.

In order to catalyse thinking amongst authors and publishers I am going to put forth some sample ideas below. I encourage all interested parties to freely pick any of these up, or modify them for your own purpose.

Remember, the ultimate objective here is simple: Indians cannot wait to read your books about them. Please write them urgently.

Idea 1: Columnist with major American magazine moves into a slum in Mumbai and closely observes how a family of seven are responding to the Indian Premier League. He contrasts this with how another family, chock full of typically eccentric Oxford and Cambridge graduates, enjoy Test cricket in England. A heart-rending saga of contrasts and contradictions bound together with a love for cricket and Pulitzer Prize.

Idea 2: Enterprising British journalist goes undercover as an agent for IPL cheerleaders. He then cosies up to the high and mighty who run the league. His idea is to write an expose on the chicanery that goes on behind the scenes. However, in a bizarre turn of events, he ends up being hired as a foreign player for the Pune Warriors. The hilarious memoir is soon to be made into a motion picture directed by Michael Bay, and starring Ashton Kutcher as BCCI Chairperson N. Srinivasan.

Idea 3: Rising star Canadian journalist simultaneously profiles $2 million dollar man Ravindra Jadeja and Jadeja’s driver Sanjay Singh. The idea is to investigate the lives of two people who are so near, yet so far. Realising, halfway through, that both Jadeja and Singh are as interesting as used towel socks, the writer cleverly decides to include one more profile: that of Mahatma Gandhi. The book, immediately banned in India, sells 123,000 copies in Delhi alone.

Idea 4: A superb retelling of the genesis and growth of cricket’s shortest format and the IPL. But, arrestingly, told entirely through an interview with Nandan Nilekani. To be called “The wicket is flat: A brief history of Twenty-Twenty”.

Idea 5: “Chindiket: How China, India and Cricket Will Change The World”. The content is irrelevant as the cover is a stunning picture of a traditional Indian snake charmer with a dragon emerging ominously out of his basket. Sachin Tendulkar looks on.
Sidin Vadukut is a columnist and foreign correspondent for the Mint-WSJ and contributor to NYT’s India Ink
Source:Khaleej Times

By: S M Hali | March 20, 2013 . 21

The Indian military build up way above its genuine defence needs is a source of concern for all its neighbours. By flexing its muscles, raking problems for its neighbours and accusing them of fomenting trouble, India is causing instability in South Asia.

In the latest incident, according to media reports, Kashmiri militants attacked the Srinagar camp of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) on March 13, 2013, in which five Indian soldiers lost their lives, while two militants were killed. At the drop of a hat, Pakistan was blamed, but its Foreign Office rejected the Indian Home Secretary R.K. Singh’s allegation: “Prima facie evidence suggests that the militants, who attacked the members of the CRPF, were from across the border; they were, probably, from Pakistan.”

Earlier this year, India had deliberately rekindled tensions across the Line of Control (LOC), infiltrating in Pakistan controlled territory, killing three Pakistanis in two separate incidents. To rub salt in the wound, India accused Pakistan of beheading two of its soldiers across the LOC. Although it offered no evidence and saner elements in the Indian media also poked holes in the frivolous claim, India continues to harp on the same tune despite the fact that both its Home Minister and Secretary had admitted that Hindu extremist outfits like Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) operate in India with full authority targeting Muslims.

It is obvious that the Indian armed forces, riddled with problems of indiscipline and corruption, are looking at ways and means of diverting the attention of the Indian public and probing eyes of investigation agencies from the real problem, making Pakistan a scapegoat.

The Indian army has been rocked by series of corruption and discipline cases in recent years, with land, liquor, sex and other scams involving General officers. Two fresh cases merit mention.

A recently completed Indian Army’s Court of Inquiry (CoI) has blamed 56 personnel of the Indian armed forces, including five officers for scuffle between officers and soldiers of an Artillery Regiment that took place on May 10, 2012, at Nyoma, south-eastern Ladakh. The CoI has recommended disciplinary action against 16 personnel, including the Regiment’s Commanding Officer, Second-in-Command and three other officers for failure of command and control, assault, indiscipline and other lapses, while administrative action against 40 other personnel for their role in the incident. In another most recent incident, Lieutenant Colonel Ajay Chaudhary was arrested for smuggling Rs 24 crore worth of illegal drugs to Myanmar this month.

To make matters worse, according to the Indian media, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) detectives raided the home of former Air Chief Marshal S.P. Tyagi as part of an investigation into alleged bribes paid to secure a $748 million contract for 12 Italian helicopters.

The CBI had filed a “preliminary enquiry” report last month into the alleged scandal, linking four companies, four Westerners and seven Indians to the bribery allegations. India put payments to the Italian company Finmeccanica on hold last month and threatened punitive action against the firm if any wrongdoing was uncovered.

The chopper deal was cleared by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, whose Congress-led government has been buffeted by a series of corruption scandals that analysts say could affect the party’s electoral chances in 2014 polls. India has already received three of the choppers. The rest were to be delivered by the end of 2014.

This is not the first time that a military chief has been named in a case of alleged manipulation of military contracts against favours received from middlemen. The first being in 1987 when CBI had raided former Navy Chief Admiral S.M. Nanda in the HDW submarines scandal. Similarly, Former Navy Chief Admiral Sushil Kumar was named in CBI’s FIR in 2006 into Barak missile purchase.

The arms trade in India has often been mired in controversy with allegations that companies have paid millions of dollars in kickbacks to Indian officials. In the 1980s, the government of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi collapsed over charges that the Swedish gun manufacturer Bofors paid bribes to supply Howitzer field guns to the Indian army. Following Rajiv’s posthumous conviction in the scandal, India banned middlemen in all defence deals.

The Indian Army Chief now finds it expedient to oppose ending the draconian laws, like the AFSPA in Indian-Occupied Kashmir and the northeast, that offer the security forces near complete legal immunity. The method in the madness is diverting attention from the Indian armed forces’ own transgressions, but should not be at the cost of South Asian stability.

The writer is a former group captain of PAF, who also served as air and naval attaché at Riyadh. Currently, he is a columnist, analyst and host of programme Defence & Diplomacy on PTV. Email: sultanm.hali@gmail.com Twitter@nairangezamana

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-ne...al-instability