Hariharan's MI blog

The burden of heading 1.3 million-strong Army

2012-01-27T05:24:00.000-08:00

Col R Hariharan

The Defence Minister took four months to reject thestatutory complaint from his own Army chief.

Minister of State for Defence M M Pallam Raju hasaptly summed up the government’s largely self-created mess, after Army chiefGen V K Singh petitioned the Supreme Court to get his date of birth in thegovernment records corrected: “It is an unfortunate development and it is not ahealthy precedent either for the ministry or the armed forces…It is anunhealthy precedent. It does not augur well either for the ministry or theforces,” he said.

There are three reasons why this simple administrative matter has blown up intoa national issue. Firstly, it is yet another instance of Manmohan Singhgovernment’s governance deficit. Its impact is disproportionately high when theArmy chief is the affected party. Secondly, the embarrassing controversy hascome at politically inconvenient time. Congress party is facing crucialassembly elections in five states, including the largest of all states – UttarPradesh. Lastly, it comes as the last straw to the armed forces’ long list ofgrievances over pay, status, procurement of arms and so on.

Gen Singh heads an army of 1.3 million soldiers, and even those who do notagree with him on this issue, see the cavalier way the Defence Ministry hastreated his complaint as a reflection of all that is wrong with military-civilrelationship. The media also added its penny’s worth, when it “leaked”innuendoes on the Army chief’s motive.

It is surprising that the bureaucracy and the Defence Minister were notprepared to face the legal consequences of their action when they turned downthe Army chief’s statutory complaint. The Ministry appears to have selectivelydepended upon what they wanted to believe: Gen Singh’s letters agreeing not toraise the date of birth issue were accepted, while rejecting his otherdocuments produced in support of his claim.

Some media stories have discussed the Ministry examining possible “breach ofdiscipline” or “violation of professional code of conduct” by the General. Armypersonnel are governed by the Army Act and Army Rules. The Regulations for theArmy in India lays down the rules of conduct for service personnel. But theseare regulatory in nature and cannot be considered a code of conduct for the Army.

Duty, honour, country

So what is the code of conduct for the Army? In the Chetwode Hall of the IndianMilitary Academy, Dehradun are emblazoned the words: “the safety, honour andwelfare of the country come first, always and every time…that the men youcommand comes next, and your own ease, comfort and safety come last – alwaysand every time.” This may be considered as Army’s code of conduct; broadly italso conforms to codes of conduct of global armies.

General Douglas Macarthur of the US Army, who had his own share ofconfrontation with President Truman, once said “Duty, Honour, Country: Thosethree hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be,what you will be. They are your rallying points: to build courage when courage seemsto fail; to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith; tocreate hope when hope becomes forlorn.” To the civilian mind corrupted by thewords of false prophets of politics, these words may sound clichéd; but not forthe army men who hold “izzat” (honour) as the watchword of their actions.

Breach of discipline

Has Gen Singh breached military discipline by going to the court? If aserviceman has exhausted all the service avenues to seek redress for hisgrievance, he can approach the court of law to seek assistance. From mediareports, the Army chief appears to have followed the correct channels ofgrievance handling. So if the government contemplates disciplinary action itwill only add to the controversy.

Though Gen Singh might have filed his case as an individual, as the servingChief of Army Staff, it has serious organisational connotations. It has put thegovernment and its unsavoury relationship with Army in public glare. Anygovernment action now has the potential of turning into affront to the Armychief in the eyes of soldiers. This could create an awkward situation for thegovernment.

The Army chief must be aware of these implications of his action. If so, whydid he file the petition? Was he pushed to the wall to exercise his right? Orwas the chief assured by any minister, or the NSA, to get the date of birthcorrected if the Army chief withdrew his complaint? Did the failure ofgovernment to live up to its assurance goad the Army chief?

At present, answers to these questions can be speculative at best. However,three facts have emerged: the Army chief had met the senior UPA leader andFinance Minister Pranab Mukherjee to brief him on the issue after filing hisstatutory complaint to the Defence Minister on August 25, 2011. The chief alsomet the National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon on January 5 before histrip to Myanmar. Secondly, the Defence Minister took four months to reject thestatutory complaint from his own Army chief, on December 30, 2011.

Lastly, the Army chief’s explanation that he was running out of legal optionsafter the Supreme Court admitted a PIL filed by the Rohtak Chapter ofGrenadiers Association appears to be correct. As the NGO’s PIL has beendismissed as not maintainable, the options are limited to fighting it out inthe court or work out a compromise. Defence Minister Antony appears to havedecided to take on the General. There are reports of a compromise on the anvilto get out of the gridlock.

The moral of the story is the government has to sort out its style ofgovernance and put in place a structural framework to handle civil-militaryrelations. And the Army chief would do well to consider the burden of being theChief, before jumping into precipitate action.
Courtesy: Deccan Herald, January 21, 2012

URL: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/221150/burden-heading-13-million-strong.html

Sri Lanka: Making LLRC Report Meaningful

2011-12-30T05:40:00.000-08:00

By Col R Hariharan

The Rajapaksa government should be happy with thereport of the Commission of Inquiry on Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation (LLRC)presented to the Sri Lankan parliament on December 16, 2011 as it has notpinpointed responsibility on anyone (other than political and systemicweaknesses and the LTTE) for the mess Sri Lanka finds itself after the EelamWar.

The report provides badly needed breathing spacefor the government, as the Commission has has done a fairly good job if one goes by thePresident’s mandate given to it. The well written report analyses in detail thereasons for past and present discontent of Tamils and has drawn the governmentattention to a number issues that had triggered Tamil insurgency.

The LLRC report is constructive and covers almostall issues that relate to aberrations in governance, lack of transparency andthe need to take speedy action on restoring confidence among Tamil minority. However, the LLRChas tripped on allegations of war crimes and killing of civilians by the armyduring the last stages of Eelam war.

The semantics of its analysis while discussingLTTE’s actions disregarding civilian safety shows clarity. However, in itsdiscourse on the accusations against the army, there is a reluctance to come togrip with the issue. The LLRC was “satisfied” that the military strategyadopted had given highest importance to avoid “civilian casualties orminimising them” based on the evidence given by the military representativesand the Ministry of Defence despite recording evidence to the contrary!

The broad brush given to the issue in the LLRCreport has defeated the very purpose for which it was appointed – to get at thetruth in the allegations and pinpoint those responsible (if any) so that thegovernment can establish its credibility.

Sri Lanka media has been full of articlescritically analysing the report. Almost all of them have touched upon the needfor follow up action. And this has been picked up by the opposition also. Ifthe government is smart enough to take quick follow up action on the wide arrayof LLRC recommendations, it can untangle itself from the post-war mess. Willthe government and the ruling coalition be smart enough to do that remains themoot point?

It is difficult to be optimistic if we look at thecircumstances under which the LLRC was constituted. Thegovernment’s decision to appoint the LLRC was neither spontaneous nor part ofthe post war action plan. It was in response to international pressure afterthe UN focus on its alleged lack of accountability during the lastphase of the Eeelam War in May 2009 started gathering support. The UNrepresentative in Sri Lanka and a number of international NGOs had accused thearmy of inflicting heavy casualties upon civilians trapped in the war zone,including the so called “no fire zone.”

There were also allegations of Sri Lankan armykilling some LTTE leaders after agreeing to accept their surrender. Channel 4TV beamed a number of visuals showing alleged killing of LTTE prisoners by SriLankan soldiers adding yet another dimension to the allegations. And thiscreated uproar among Tamils everywhere, many demanding an international inquiryinto the allegations. There were also calls for an international inquiryparticularly from the West while the US demanded greater accountability fromSri Lanka for its actions during the war.

Sri Lanka was disturbed by the decision of UNSecretary General Ban ki-Moon’s to appoint an advisory panel of experts toadvise him on the war crimes issue under lot of pressure. When the issue cameup at the UN Security Council Interactive Briefing in June 2009, SriLanka’s Permanent Representative spoke about his government initiating a mechanismfor fact finding and reconciliation.

However, the President took a year to decide onappointing the LLRC. There were probably unarticulated reasons for this delay.The President had a real problem in coming to terms with the war crimesallegations as they reflected upon his responsibility as the supreme commanderof the armed forces. Moreover, any action against the victorious army and itsheroes (of course General Fonseka became an exception as he decided to contestagainst the President) could have adversely affected the massive popular supportthe President gained after the war.

On other hand, the UN experts’ panelrecommendations and international campaigns demanding an international inquiryinto war crimes triggered nationalist sentiments and xenophobia in the islandnation. And these feelings were cleverly used to garner votes when thePresident went in for a series of elections. Evidently, considerations ofpolitical gamesmanship prevailed over the government’s need for accountabilityfor all its actions during the war.

Sri Lanka was in a piquant situation whenconstituting the LLRC became inevitable. Locally, it had the unenviable task ofcarrying out a face saving exercise to sell the idea. It struck upon thestrategy of giving the LLRC an omnibus mandate that included human rights issue.It was not surprising when the war crimes issue did not specifically figure inthe LLRC mandate. Its inclusion could have resulted in a moment of truth andcontradicted the strong stand already taken by the government against such aprobe.

The ambit of the LLRC’s inquiry covered the signingof the ceasefire agreement (CFA) and the circumstances that led to its failureand the sequence of events during the Eelam War between February 21, 2002 (whenthe CFA came into being) and May 19, 2009. The LLRC was also tasked to inquirewhether any person, group, or institutions directly or indirectly bearresponsibility in this regard.

In an apparent bid to make the LLRC relevant to thepost war situation, it was asked to draw up lessons learnt from the events, recommendmethodology for institutional action to help those affected by the events andadvise on institutional, administrative and legislative measures to be taken toprevent recurrence of such ‘concerns’ in future.

This mandate had the advantage of weatheringinternational criticism while making such an inquiry acceptable to the people,who have been fed on theories of international conspiracy to deny Sri Lanka thecredit for its victory against the LTTE.

The boycott of the LLRC hearings by the oppositionleader Ranil Wickremesinghe, the largest Tamil party - the Tamil NationalAlliance (TNA), the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International probablysuited the government as their counter arguments never does not find a place inthe proceedings of the Commission. Sri Lanka’s strategic mistake in ditheringon inviting the representatives of the UN experts’ panel to the LLRC hearingsdeprived it of external perspective that would have added to its credibility.Notwithstanding these short comings, the LLRC’s interesting analyses brings outa few home truths on some of the larger issues relating to mediation anddecision making process in insurgency situations.

Human rights and war crimes

The LLRC's recorded evidence on alleged human rights violations and war crimes is useful in two ways. Firstly, it has on record details of complaints on which the government has to take follow up action if it means business. If we go by political reality, such action is unlikely. Secondly, if the government fails to act upon these complaints, the evidence would come in handy for civil society groups and victims to seek the help of judiciary to force the government to act.

In the contemporary global scene, human rights and war crimes issues are likely to be a perennial feature when armies are involved in operations against own citizens or enemy. So the army and the administration should have clear cut policy and structural framework to take action on complaints. Army should also formally take follow up action. And armies have to think beyond including human rights issues as a subject in training programmes. They should be transparent in taking act and provide easy access to information to the public. Such action is not easy because armies have king size egos and governments have political priorities overriding humane concerns.

However if they assume it as a command responsibility and governments show the will, it can be done. India provided a shining example of such commitment when the All India Radio beamed oral messages from each of the 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of the 1971 war for the benefit of their families in Pakistan. Although it is more than two years after the war was won in Sri Lanka, a commission is needed to advise the government on action to be taken after recording evidence of such cases!

Mediation issues

The analysis of circumstances leading to the ‘hasty’ signing of the CFA has clearly brought out the disastrous consequences when the Prime Minister from the majority party in parliament did not see eye to eye with the Executive President. Even under limitations of his office, the Prime Minister was able to sign an important agreement affecting the nation without taking the President into confidence! This resulted in lack of consensus, coherence and continuity in national policy making on the issue. The reasons given for this aberration are not clear as the Prime Minister of the period Ranil Wickremesinghe did not record his statement before the commission. Sri Lanka’s political history is replete with such instances when partisan interests of rival parties had derailed each others’ effort to find solutions to major national problems. Basically it was the inability of the two seasoned rival leaders of the time - President Chandrika Kumaratunga and Ranil Wickremesinghe - to learn from history that contributed to the failure of the peace process 2002 to move forward.

As this phenomenon is firmly established in Sri Lanka politics, the Tamil issue continues to be subject to round robin games of rival parties and coalitions. Can such a political environment bring a bipartisan solution as suggested by the LLRC? I have my reservations. Some political soul searching about finding permanent solution to bring the Tamil issue to a logical closure is long overdue. If a leader with huge popular support like Mahinda Rajapaksa shows reluctance to act firmly to resolve the issue, the chances of it happening in the near future are bleak. Unless the national leadership makes up its mind, tinkering with the Constitution and other exercises are likely to end up only as cosmetic solutions.

The analysis of the failure of the CFA provides useful inputs for peacemakers everywhere. Both the warring sides in Sri Lanka accepted the CFA because of their own compulsions. Probably Norway had not understood the skewed balance of power between the two sides. Sri Lanka’s elected government had greater need to be accountable to electorate, while the autocratic LTTE did not suffer from such democratic niceties as it operated under Prabhakaran’s writ. Treating both sides on par would find no political acceptance in the country unless the insurgent group sheds its violent methods to negotiate a settlement (the decisions of Mizo National Front - MNF in India and the Provisional IRA to sue for peace are examples of this). Unfortunately Norway, which has never faced any insurgency first hand, had not understood this simple truth. As a result the CFA was doomed to die when LTTE did not show visible commitment to the CFA. On the other hand, it used the CFA to expose the weaknesses of Sri Lanka’s political process to work out a solution acceptable to all ethnic segments.

Conceptually and structurally the CFA was flawed. As Prabhakaran was chary of giving up his Eelam dream in favour of a federal solution, the LTTE systematically exploited the built-in weaknesses of the CFA. Compounding Prabhakaran’s reluctance, Norway’s keenness to push through the lopsided CFA draft, and the Sri Lankan failure to read the fine print of the CFA had sowed the seeds of CFA’s failure.

Similarly, the monitoring process had conceptual limitations; it failed to shore up the CFA as it depended upon the sincerity of both sides in preference to using a neutral military interface to ensure the scrupulous observance of CFA. The Norwegian experience clearly shows how ineffective monitoring can scuttle the whole mediation process.

After action on LLRC recommendations

The LLRC’s well meaning recommendations are too sketchy toconstitute a framework for action by all stakeholders, “in particular theGovernment, political parties and community leaders.” So it is doubtful whetherthey would help in “constructing a platform for consolidating post conflictpeace and security as well as amity and cooperation within and between thediverse communities in Sri Lanka” as stated by the commission.

If Sri Lanka’s past approach is any indication thegovernment would opt for committee solutions than clear executive action totake follow up actions. This is the reason why manymembers of civil society and sections of international community includingIndia and the U.S. are keen to see Sri Lanka speedily give form and content tothe recommendations. As far as the Tamil community in Sri Lanka is concernedthe government suffers from a huge credibility gap; there is a lot of cynicismon government pronunciations. These will be further reinforced if thegovernment drags its feet in taking follow up action.

So it is difficult to share the expectation of Indianexternal ministry spokesman for Sri Lanka to “act decisively” to achievemeaningful devolution of powers to its provinces. To quote him, “The LLRCreport has underlined that the present situation provides a great window ofopportunity to forge a consensual way forward towards reconciliation through apolitical settlement based on devolution of power.”

But windows of opportunities are not open forever; theyare fleeting while political opportunism is established firmly. In Sri Lankathe latter has shown an uncanny a knack of walling up such windows. Thedisastrous ending to earlier “windows of opportunity” - the sabotaging of MsChandrika Kumaratunga’s constitutional reform effort and consigning Dr TissaVitharana’s All Party Representative Committee report to the archives – are tworecent examples of purposeless politics.

If Sri Lanka fails to act upon the latest window ofopportunity, the whole effort put in to produce a useful LLRC report will be anexercise in futility. There had been enough talk in Sri Lanka about what itshould be doing; it is time only for action now.

Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Note No. 641 dated December 30, 2011

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes7%5Cnote641.html

Strategic power play in Myanmar

2011-12-12T21:02:00.000-08:00

By Col R Hariharan

The US Secretary of State Ms Hilary Clinton’s recent visit to Myanmar, the firstever of its kind in the last five decades, is likely to be a turning point inthe estranged relationship between the two countries. And that could bring theUS-China power play closer home to Myanmar.

Myanmar President Thein Sein had been taking many positive steps to establishthe government’s democratic credentials. And as Ms Clinton’s visit comes aftera lot of preparatory work by US representatives, Myanmar had high expectationsfrom the visit. From news reports after her visit, the chances of the twocountries resuming normal relations in the near future appear to have becomebrighter.

Extracts of official transcripts of Ms Clinton’s pressconference indicate that her talks with President Thein Sein covered almost allconcerns of the US. It said the Myanmar President, “laid out a comprehensivevision of reform, reconciliation, and economic development for his country,including specifics such as the release of political prisoners, an inclusive politicalprocess, and free, fair, and credible bi-elections, a rigorous peace andreconciliation process to bring to an end some of the longest-standingconflicts anywhere in the world, and strong assurances regarding his country’scompliance with United Nations Security Council
Resolutions 1718 and 1874, [these related to UN arms embargo on North Korea]and their non- proliferation commitments with respect to North Korea.”

In short, she has appreciated Thein Sein’s sincerity incarrying out the democratic reforms and appreciated his efforts. But on liftingthe US sanctions, she said: “…we’re not at the point yet that we can consider liftingsanctions that we have in place because of our ongoing concerns about policiesthat have to be reversed.” This would imply that while the US appreciated theefforts taken so far, normalisation of relations with Myanmar was possible whenthe reforms process is completed.

She had set the following six preconditions for Myanmarto fulfil before the US can lift the sanctions:

1. Release of political prisoners: The remaining politicalprisoners estimated by her as over 1000 have to be released. [This wouldprobably include ethnic insurgent leaders in jail as well.]

2. An inclusive political process: All sections of society [includingethnic minorities] should be able to enjoy equal rights.

3. Free, fair and credible by-elections: Though theelectoral laws have been amended to remove controversial clauses that excludedjailed political leaders like Aung San Suu Kyi, the US would be assessing the by-electionsfor 48 seats that are coming up for free and fair conduct.

4. Rigorous peace and reconciliation process to end internalconflicts: Evidently this refers to progressing talks to end ethnic insurgenciesto usher in permanent peace.

5. Compliance to UN embargo on arms trade with North Korea:This refers to ending of Myanmar’s military links with North Korea,particularly to procure arms and missiles.

6. Conforming to nuclear non-proliferation commitment:Myanmar should give up its reported moves to develop a nuclear weapon aided byNorth Korea and conform to Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Thein Sein has already initiated action to resolve someof these issues. During his meeting with the US Secretary of State, he isreported to have expressed his “determination to sever military ties with NorthKorea.” However, some aspects might require amending the 2008 Constitution,which could take time. So we can expect the President to continue with the processover a period of time. And the US is likely to ease the restrictions on Myanmarstep by step in keeping with its progress.

However, the President would require the cooperation of the army to carry throughthe process to its logical conclusion. The return of Myanmar to internationalmainstream will not only end its international outcast status but alsovindicate of the government (and as a corollary the military leaders behind thescene) claim to legitimacy. For this reason, the army might continue with itssupport as it is running out of other options now.

Geo-strategic implications

Normalization of the US - Myanmar could usher in irreversible changes the strategicenvironment not only in Myanmar, but also in the region. Opening up the countrywould mean entry of global players posing a threat to the China’s dominant rolein investment, development, trade and commerce activities in Myanmar. In thelong run Myanmar stands to gain by such competition.

Geo-strategically Myanmar bridges rest of ASEAN with South Asia. Even after Myanmarregains its international status its close relations with China are likely tocontinue; however, it would be conditioned increasingly by Myanmar public opinion.This was amply demonstrated when President Thein Sein suspended theconstruction of the Chinese aided Myitsone hydroelectric project. China willhave to work harder and make its Myanmar policies more flexible to respond tothe dynamics beyond its control. And by all indications, Chinese are not averseto do this.

In its Maoist ideological period, China supported Communist insurgents for longin Myanmar. Revival of such an option for China using discontented sections of ethnicminorities in a similar fashion is there. However, the historical situationthat encouraged such exercises does not exist anymore. If Myanmar manages tobring ethnic groups back into political mainstream,China’s temptation to usethem as pressure points would diminish.

China will have to recast its present strategic security perceptions in keepingwith the dynamics of change in Myanmar. China will now be dealing with agovernment with greater accountability to the people, unlike the military-ruledMyanmar. This is unlikely to pose too many problems for China’s relations arefirmly established, thanks to policy initiatives taken over the years to fullyexploit its incomparable geographic, economic and communication advantages.However, as Myanmar opens up, China’s advantages are likely to be constantlychallenged and tested in all aspects, including the strategic sphere, by otherinternational players including the US and India.

Myanmar could become one more country vulnerable to US strategic moves in Southeastand South Asia to keep China’s power assertion in check. As US and Indiaalready have strategic security convergence in this region, China will have toleverage its advantages in Myanmar much more effectively. Such efforts of Chinawould be facilitated with the completion of its pipeline and infrastructureprojects linking Yunnan to Myanmar coast to gain direct access to Indian Ocean.

A democratic Myanmar is likely to strengthen its relations with India as a counterpoiseto China. We are likely to see India’s long delayed land communication projectsto and through Myanmar to gather momentum. Unlike China, India is yet to takefull advantage of the geostrategic advantages it enjoys in Myanmar. To do thisit has to shake off its lethargy in responding to the dynamics of change toincrease India’s competitiveness.

China’s response

China had been investing over the years to build its multifaceted relationshipwith Myanmar to make it a strategic ally in its area of influence in this partof Asia. This was made possible because the military junta that ruled Myanmarsince 1962 found in China a useful ally to ward off international pressures.And the international sanctions regime against Myanmar promoted by the West, ina way made it easy for China to make inroads into Myanmar.

After he assumed office as President, Thein Sein chose to visit Beijing firstto affirm the Pakhpaw (sibling) relationship with China. However, some of hissubsequent actions have caused some unease in China. His decision to go publicon suspending the construction of Myitsone hydro-power project withoutconsulting Chinese partners caused a lot of embarrassment. And Myanmar had torush its foreign minister to assuage the Chinese.

In spite of this, Thein Sein has shown his readiness to take decisions in nationalinterest without unduly worrying about Chinese sensitivities. For instance,last month General Min Aung Hlaing, who has succeeded as the commander-in-chiefof Myanmar armed forces, chose to visit Vietnam in mid-November even before hevisited China. And the visit was made when tempers were running high in Chinaover Vietnam chose to ignore Chinese objections and go ahead with the off shoredrilling project in South China Sea. Undoubtedly, such an action by a Myanmararmy chief would be unthinkable a couple of years earlier!

However, General Hlaing took remedial action to visit Beijing a fortnight afterhis Vietnam visit, and signed a memorandum of understanding on defencecooperation with Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA) counterpart General Chen Bingdeon November 29. On the occasion Gen Hlaing is reported to have assured the PLAchief of continued friendly relations between the two countries “no matter howthe international situation changes,” according to Xinhua news agency.Apparently the Myanmar army chief’s assurance was yet another Myanmar effort tosmoothen the ruffled feathers of China.

China’s reaction to Ms Clinton’s visit to Myanmar also has a larger strategiccontext of the China-US stand-off over China’s undisputable claims insovereignty over South Sea. Though these claims have a long history, theprogressive growth of Chinese Navy’s capability has given more form and contentto Chinese claims now. The US has made clear of its national interest inensuring freedom of navigation and trade and has taken measures to cobble upits strategic security measures in this region. The decision of the US andAustralia to keep 2,500 American troops deployed in Darwin, Australia takenafter a meeting between the visiting President Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Guillard on November 16, 2011 was
a latest manifestation of this. Almost coincidentally, India and Vietnam haveagreed to firm up their strategic defence cooperation.

Perhaps due to these developments, China has shown extreme sensitivity to foreignpresence in these waters to buttress its territorial claims in South China Sea.This has once again brought the issue of contesting territorial claims of othercountries including Taiwan, and four ASEAN members -- the Philippines,Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam into the limelight. In particular, China had beenirritated Vietnam’s equally assertive claim over Paracel Island.

These developments have increased Chinese security concerns. And despite initialfulminations, even in the case of Vietnam, China had signed an agreement withVietnam to contain the dispute in September 2011. At the recent ASEANsecurity forum meeting in Bali China agreed to collectively discuss the newguidelines with ASEAN to ease tensions over claims of four ASEAN members inSouth China Sea. This was a clear departure from its stand of always resolvingissues bi-laterally. China is likely to adopt the same conciliatory approach inthe case of Myanmar also.

However, China’s concerns came out clearly in the party-owned Global Times. In an editorial article commenting on Ms Clinton’s visit titled “Myanmar tipsthe balance but not too far” on November 30, it conceded the US had manyadvantages over China in competing for influence over Myanmar. It said “China'sinfluence with any country will be difficult to keep in the long-term. Chinaand Myanmar had bitter-sweet relations a few years ago. China's ties with Myanmarwere actually a result of Myanmar's own desperation. The ties in the futurewill also be subject to various factors. China needs to have a bigger heart tosupport its broad diplomatic strategy.” It cautioned that while China was not averse to Myanmar seeking improved relationship with the West, “it will not accept this while seeing its interestsstamped on.”

Chinese President Hu Jin Tao gave an overview of China’s views on security developments in the Southeast Asian region while speaking to naval representativeson December 9. He said “The rise of China is a major event for the world. Thegrowing economic power has already brought about anxiety among some players onthe world stage, and the concern about a possible ‘military threat’ comes as nosurprise.”

“To alleviate this uneasiness requires efforts from both China and the outsideworld. It is difficult for either side to adapt to each other, but a sense ofsecurity must be mutual.

“China's restraint is outstanding compared with the powerful countries of themodern era or in history, but some small countries have been taking an unusuallystrong stance towards China. As containment efforts by the US and some otherWestern countries pop up, factors governing security in the Asia-Pacific regionbegin to meld into each other.”

Cautioning about nations going overboard on security concerns, he said “Respectingthe sense of security of others is the first step to ensure a sense of securityfor any country. China understands this and so should other countries. We areall concerned about our security. However, this concern should not gooverboard.”

He claimed that China's accelerating navy transformation and greater readinessfor military conflicts was not only helpful for China's national security, butalso world peace. “The world needs an evenly developed China, whose capabilityto preserve world peace is comparable to its status as the second economicpower in the world. China needs the power to handle any military challenges eitheragainst the country or the region as a whole.”

So that is going to be the bottom line of China’sapproach to emerging strategic security challenges. And Myanmar could become atesting ground of such challenge.

Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group Paper No. 4812 dated December 12, 2011

URL http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers49%5Cpaper4812.html

Sri Lanka Perspectives: November 2011

2011-12-02T20:44:00.001-08:00

By Col R Hariharan

INTERNALDEVELOPMENTS

Internally,the month of November 2011 saw a politically turbulent period and the country’seconomy was facing the heat from the international economic downturn.

Acquiringof private enterprises

Thehurried enactment of the bill “The Revival of Underperforming Enterprises andUnderutilized Assets Bill” to take over 37 private enterprises, which thegovernment said were not performing well, created strong reaction from most ofthe business houses and political parties. The bill had drawn widespreadcriticism from business, political circles and even Buddhist clergy. Even twopartners of the ruling coalition the right wing Jatiya Hela Urumaiah (JHU) andthe National Freedom Front (NFF) abstained from voting although the bill waspassed with 122 votes in favour and 46 against.

Theopposition United National Party (UNP) called the Act as targeted against theUNP as 33 of the 37 affected companies belonged to Sevanagala Sugar IndustriesLtd., owned by Daya Gamage, UNP organiser for Amparai, an important source offinancial support for the party. Their suspicion was further reinforced whenthe government announced the 35,000 across of unused plantation land acquiredwould be redistributed to poor families for development. In the parliament alsothe bill generated a lot of heat.

Theinternational rating agency Fitch Rating commenting on the enactment said,"There is a risk that it will set a precedent for further expropriationand will be applied to a broader range of businesses and assets; this would bea disincentive for both local and foreign investors." The chamber ofcommerce expressed similar concerns. As though to underline their fears, suchprecipitate action without detailed discussion would discourage foreigninvestments. As though to underline this concern, media reports indicate SriLanka's Board of Investment, the state investment promotion agency, has deleteda page which 'guaranteed' investors freedom from expropriation, raisingquestions of heightened political risk, lawmakers said.

Formerarmy chief Fonseka’s second conviction

SriLanka’s opposition parties have rallied against the supreme court’s conviction of former SriLanka army chief Sarath Fonseka to three years imprisonment after finding himguilty of “propagating a false rumour” in violation of emergency regulationsand the Criminal Procedure Code in “the White Flag case” as an act ofvindictiveness. The case relates to Fonseka’s interview given to an English dailyThe Sunday Leader soon after the war. In the interview he had alleged that theDefence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa ordered the killing of LTTE cadres wantingto surrender with white flags. Fonseka pleaded not guilty claiming he wasquoted out of context in the article. The opposition United National Party(UNP) has taken up the issue on the floor of Parliament also; public protestshave also been organised.

Alreadythe former General is serving a jail term of 30 months awarded by an army courtmartial for engaging in politics while in active military service. Oppositionparties had put him up as their common candidate against President Rajapaksa inthe last presidential poll. And they consider the cases have been foisted onFonseka out of vindictiveness for contesting against Rajapaksa. According toSri Lanka media, the U.S. is reported to have warned the Government that theUnited Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) in Geneva would be moved againstSri Lanka unless Fonseka is released from prison. The U.S. also considers him apolitical prisoner.

Politicalconfrontation

Theconfrontation between the ruling United Peoples Freedom Alliance coalition andopposition parties, particularly the UNP, has become sharp as the latter issmarting under the government’s efforts to crush the opposition while ignoringthe misdeeds of its own constituents. The enactment to acquire the 37 privateenterprises and the second conviction of Fonseka have provided rallying pointfor the opposition as they have generated fear and discontent among sections ofthe public.

TheUPFA’s lack of sensitivity in handling these issues in the parliament resultedin fisticuffs between members in the House during the budget presentation. TheUNP’s Deputy Leader Karu Jayasuriya accused the ruling coalition members ofattacking UNP MPs in the presence of President Mahinda Rajapaksa in parliament.In the follow up action, the The Parliament yesterday suspended DeputyPetroleum Industries Minister, Sarana Gunawardena for a week for throwing abottle of water at UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe during what media describedas “a mini-battle” in parliament. The confrontation is likely to continue asboth sides appear to be in no mood to cool their passions and come to operatewithin the norms of parliamentary democracy. Of course much of theresponsibility for this state of affairs lies with the UPFA and the government.

Economy

TheBudget for the year 2012 presented by the President in Parliament on November21 has been structured in response to the gloomy global economic scene. Thesalient aspects of the budget include, devaluation of the Sri Lanka rupee(SLRs) by 3 percent from current level of SLRs 110.40 per US $. It anticipateda fall in gross domestic product to 6.2 percent from this year’s 7 percent. Thegovernment hopes to bridge the gap by achieving 14.7 percent increase in totalrevenue over this year’s figure.

Thetotal expenditure growth has been pegged at 21.2 percent growth marginally lessby 0.2 percent than this year’s growth. To attract investments a tax holiday of6 to 12 years is being proposed to be offered for investments ranging from SLRs300 million to 2.5 billion. A total ofSLRs 190.3 billion is proposed to be spent on urban development and improvementof roads while SLRs 35.8 billion will be spent on irrigation. A 10 percent hike in public sector wages isalso proposed.

However,it is doubtful whether these measures would be able to insulate theexport-dependent economy from the effects of economic slump in Europe and theU.S.and its global fall out.

Miscellaneous

Thegovernment has informed the parliament that 893 persons had been detained underthe Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). Of them 64 were currently on trial, andin the case 259 others cases have not been filed pending instructions fromAttorney General’s office. Ten detainees under PTA have been released.

MrsChandrika Kumaratunga, former President, has strongly criticised the governmentfor the way it has handled the internally displaced persons in the Eelam-waraffected areas. She was critical of entrusting the reconstruction work to thearmy, which had kept 450,000 people confined in camps for two years. She citedher own experience in handling the situation with greater sensitivity afterJaffna was captured during her tenure. She also accused the army of grabbinglarge chunks of land.

EXTERNALDEVELOPMENTS

Belyingthe government expectations, Sri Lanka lost its bid to host 2018 CommonwealthGames to Australia’s Gold Coast by 43 votes to 27. It was expected to promote Hambantota and itsnew port and infrastructure facilities. At the back of the decision could bethe efforts of non-Asian members of the Commonwealth many of who are unhappywith Sri Lanka’s lack of response to international concerns over its humanrights record and alleged war crimes.

PresidentRajapaksa met the Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh on the sidelines ofthe 18th SAARC summit at Addu. The perennial topics of discussion –rehabilitation of war displaced Tamils, construction of houses gifted by Indiaand inevitably, the Tamil Nadu fishermen’s issue (of violence by Sri Lankans) -came up in the discussion at their meeting. The fishermen’s issue has been anincreasing cause of concern as Tamil Nadu chief minister Ms Jayalalithaa isincreasing the hype over the issue much to the discomfort of the Congress partyand the DMK. This issue is likely to stoke more passions inTamil Nadu thecoming months as the state government already has Centre under fire over numberof other contentious issues including the Kudankulam nuclear reactor anddecision to introduce foreign direct investment in retail business.

Anevaluation report of Norway’s peace effort in Sri Lanka from 1997 to 2009commissioned by the Norwegian government last year released during the monthcreated a lot of local interest. The report prepared jointly by experts fromthe Christian Michelsen Institute (CMI), Bergen, and the School of Oriental andAfrican studies (SOAS), London, made a critical analysis of both the positive andnegative results of Norwegian facilitation. However, it stated “The Sri Lankanpeace process is largely a story of failure in terms of bringing an end to thecivil war” although Norway could not be held responsible for this ultimatefailure. The Norwegian report has kindled the report of the Lessons Learned andReconciliation Commission (LLRC) which was also submitted in mid November 2011.However, the government has not yet made the report public.

Written on November 30, 2011

Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, Vol 5 No 11, December 2011

URL: www.security-risks.com

Combating terrorism: three years after 26/11

2011-11-28T07:18:00.001-08:00

By Col. R. Hariharan

How is India’s war on terror going on three years after 26-11 Mumbai attacks? Likethe proverbial curate’s eggs it is good in parts,while bad otherwise.

But overall, it would be realistic to call it “limping.” In a nutshell, at the Central level the progress is somewhat better whileat the state level it is uneven and tardy. At the operational level haltingprogress has been made in structural mechanisms and in force levels. Leadershipdrive and commitment to fight terrorism demonstrated in the U.S. after 9/11attack is missing here. Even well-thought out plans continue to be hobbled bythe deadweight of political priorities and considerations, rather than realtime needs of counter terrorism.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh speaking at theannual conference of the State police chiefs and Inspectors-General of Policeat New Delhi on September 15, 2011 gave an overview of the progress India hasso far made in combating terror. He said, "The security environment in the country continues to be uncertain. Therecent terrorist attacks in Mumbai and Delhi are grim reminders of the gravechallenges posed by terrorism to our national security. Over the last one year,Left wing extremism has also claimed the lives of many innocent persons andpolice personnel." It is doubtful whether thesituation has actually improved since he made the statement.

After the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, Dr Manmohan Singhhad said he would "take the strongest possiblemeasures to ensure that there is no repetition of such terrorist acts." So three years later, when the Prime Ministerspeaks of uncertain security environment, it can only be construed as anexpression of helplessness in getting the act together to fightterrorism.

It must have been a painful experience for the HomeMinister P Chidambaram to speak at the same conference barely eight days aftera terrorist strike in New Delhi. This was evident in his candid comment: "Today, we do not have an organisation devoting itswhole time and energy to that task. I hope to secure a government decision onsetting up the NCTC [National Counter Terrorism Centre]. Once there is adecision, I am confident that the core team of the NCTC can be installed within60 days, and the full structure can be put together within 12-18 months."

Apparently, the Home Minister has now revised his2009 estimate of getting the NCTC going by the end of 2009 to more realisticlevels. The proposal is still bogged down as stakeholders have not beenable to overcome their reservations about the concept and its fall out on theirdomains. Given this situation, perhaps we have to look at a new gameplan.

While the NCTC is yet to make progress, the HomeMinister had been able to get through his pet database project - the NationalIntelligence Grid (NATGRID). In June 2011, the Cabinet Committee on Securityapproved the proposal for creating the NATGRID. The NATGRID conceived after26/11 attack is designed to consolidate and make searchable data gathered byexisting security and law enforcement agencies to prevent terrorist activitywithin the country. P. Raghu Raman, An ex-Army officer and former head ofMahindra Special Services Group, a corporate security consulting firm, has beenappointed chief executive officer of the agency.

The hard truth is that our security environmentcontinues to remain uncertain because we do not have the will to translate ourthoughts into plans and turn plans into action. One cannot entirely blame theHome Minister or the Prime Minister alone for this state of affairs, becausethere is a lack of national goal convergence on the issue of fightingterrorism.

As the Home Minister quoted in his speech a phrasefrom the National Strategy for Counter Terrorism published by the US Governmentin June 2011, the goal must be “to disrupt, dismantle and eventually defeat.” In our country even inachieving this simple goal there are differences in many strands of the nation:between the Centre and states, political parties, among bureaucracy, civilsociety et al. While this is to be expected in a country with so manycomplexities like India, the real ability of a nation lies in rising up to meetan existential challenge like terrorism. Unfortunately, the country has so farnot been able to do this.

But ultimately the responsibility rests with NewDelhi as it is a national leadership issue. The core problem in handlingterrorism is lack of political will rather than administrative lethargy. Inthis context, the reaction of some of the political leaders to the September 7New Delhi terror strike was revealing. Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam SinghYadav’s statement in parliament onthe day of the attack was typical. He said: “whenever there is a terror act, a particular community is looked at withsuspicion. This is not good. It should stop. It is dangerous. It has happenedseveral times and this still continues.” This is how a major terrorist attack is politically viewed even as thewounded were fighting for their life.

As terrorism analyst Ajai Sahni says,“The realpolitical response to the challenge of terrorism in India has been posturing,diversion and deception. The approach has never been pragmatic, seeking, ingood faith to solve a problem, which has been assessed within realisticparameters. Rather, the effort has been to politically exploit both the problemand its purported resolution, or to deflect criticism however this may bepossible…”

The politicians are unlikely to change their styleand culture unless the twin drivers of powerful national leadership and strongpublic opinion push them. The momentum generated by 26/11 attack created such afeeling which is petering out. The inept ministers who had to quit in its wake,are back in cosy positions of power now. And politicians are still not tired oftalking about the actions they would take at every anniversary of 26/11attacks.

At the state level, lack of effective policing -the first line of defence in combating terrorism - continues to be our weakestlink. According to the Home Minister, states were not pulling their weight inmaking their police forces viable entities to fight terrorism. There were stillover 500,000 vacancies in State police forces although funds have been allottedto states to recruit them. Many states have not enacted the new Police Act; norhave they set up the State Police Establishment Board. Not all states haveadopted the Transparent Recruitment Process. This is the state of affairs inspite of the Department of Police Modernisation at the Union Home Ministrydoing all the paper work full of ideas to make the states' job easy.

Poor progress made in coastal security is a typicalexample of the pedestrian approach to the problem at the state governmentlevel. Expensive boats provided by the Centre for coastal police are rotting onthe beaches as there are no police personnel to man them at sea. Coastal policedo not have adequate infrastructure despite Centre’s financial allocation. Police personnel with noaptitude for the job continue to be posted to these forces.

These reflect lack of leadership commitment. Andthat can be traced to the reluctance of our leaders to give up the use ofpolice force as an instrument of political power, and at times even as aprivate army.

The Jihadi terrorism in Af-Pak region is poised tobe stepped up even as American and NATO forces start pulling out ofAfghanistan. The temptation for Taliban to scale up the operations is likely togrow even during the thinning out process. And as India and Afghanistan have astrategic security agreement India is also likely to be involved in the Afghanconflict regardless of its own reservations. With Pakistan locked up inits own internal dilemmas in handling Jihadi terrorism, anti-Indian terror groupslike Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) are likely to expand their activity in India.

Already the extremist and terrorism scene in Indiais undergoing a change with Indian Jihadi terrorists coming into full flow. Inaddition to their Pak connections, they are networked across the length andbreadth of India. There are also a few other disturbing trends noticeable.After the recovery of a car laden with explosives in Ambala in October, thereis apprehension that it was part of a joint plot of LeT and Babbar Khalsa (theSikh extremist group that had been subdued) for carrying out terror strikes inNew Delhi. Talking to the media, Defence Minister AK Antony had called thisincident as the tip of an iceberg and cautioned “We have to be alert 24/7 alongboth the land borders and coast lines.”

In the Northeast, Manipur extremist groups haveshifted to sanctuaries in Myanmar after Bangladesh started taking action tothrow them out of its soil. There are reports of Maoists seeking the assistanceof United Liberation Force of Assam (ULFA) holed up in Myanmar for procuringarms. Of course, the shadowy support of Pak ISI continues to be reported in theactivities of extremist groups in Northeast.

In this emerging environment, the nation cannot becomplacent about its counter terrorism machinery. Present apathy will changeonly when the public demand greater transparency and accountability frompolitical leaders and government. Otherwise, the public and political leadersmay well be shaken up with jolts of few more terror strikes to bring them backto reality. And the nation simply cannot afford it.

Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group Paper no. 4792 dated November 28, 2011

URL:http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers48%5Cpaper4792.html

Myanmar: Fast forward to democracy

2011-11-27T22:48:00.001-08:00

By Col. R. Hariharan

The decision of the opposition NationalLeague for Democracy (NLD) to register as a “legitimate” political party maywell become a turning point in Myanmar’s history. The NLD under the leadershipof Aung San Suu Kyi had been at the vanguard of peoples struggle for democraticreforms during the last two and a half decades. The NLD applied forregistration as a political party on November 23 as per the requirements ofelectoral laws. The 21 NLD signatories of the application included three foundersof NLD – Aung San Suu Kyi, former General Tin Oo, and Win Tin.

The NLD was de-recognized as a politicalparty after it refused to re-register as a political party as required by theelectoral laws for 2010 elections. It had boycotted the 2010 elections as itconsidered both the 2008 Constitution and the electoral laws unjust.

Mandatory conditions for officialrecognition as a political party which have been amended now to accommodate NLDstill include an acknowledgement that they respect the 2008 Constitution. Thuswith the act of registration as a political party now, the NLD would be tacitlyrecognising the 2008 Constitution and its legitimisation of the role of army inthe legislature and government.

The unanimous decision of the NLD’s106-member Central Committee in favour of registering as a political partycomes as no surprise. Aung San Suu Kyi and the other key NLD leaders have beendeliberating over the decision for some time now. The decision was inevitableas President Thein Sein had gone ahead with progressive democratic reformmeasures even as he held out an olive branch to the NLD.

In fact his decision to sus end theconstruction of the Myitsone dam project, a Chinese aided joint venture, indeference to the popular demand had impressed many detractors of the regimeincluding the NLD. After the three contentious classes in the electorallaws, particularly the one pertaining to restriction on political prisonerscontesting the election were changed, and a clause relating to the requirementfor political parties to ‘protect’ the constitution was amended to ‘respect’it, the NLD decision making became easier.

Ignoring President Thein Sein’sovertures would have compelled the NLD to function as an illegal politicalentity outside the government-recognized political stream. Absence frommainstream politics would have resulted in NLD being pushed to the sidelines,conceding more political space to other legitimate parties. In the long runthis would have depleted the NLD of its following, discouraging moderateelements from active participation. Of course at the more practical level,by-elections are on the card for 48 seats in parliament. NLD’sparticipation in the elections would offer a chance to prove its mettle and getits leaders elected to parliament and push through more reforms.

There were other reasons also. Theinternational environment is slowly changing in favour of Myanmar, despite someresidual reservations about it. ASEAN member-nations have alreadyresponded favourably to the democratic reforms undertaken by the government.They have agreed to Myanmar’s chairmanship of the 10-member group in 2014. TheU.S. and the European Union, which have been steadfast supporters of Aung SanSuu Kyi’s struggle, have also been reacting positively to President TheinSein’s reform measures.

The U.S. is seriously re-examining itsMyanmar policy in response to the changes in the country. The U.S. Secretary ofState Mrs Hilary Clinton’s scheduled to visit Myanmar at the end of Novembercould hasten other changes as well. The sanctions regime which had been SuuKyi’s strong suit, may well be eased sooner than later if Myanmar responds tosome of the longstanding U.S. concerns on release of political prisoners andending ethnic insurgencies.

The NLD decision is also likely totrigger other political opposition including the Buddhist clergy and ethnicinsurgent groups to fall in line with the NLD or continue their opposition tothe military-sponsored “democratic” regime.

Ethnic armed groups are in anexistential struggle with the government as their armed cadres have to bemerged with the border guards in terms of the 2008 Constitution.They are averseto do so without a political settlement. As a result they are not likely to beswayed by NLD decisionnless their future ceases to be a question mark under thepresent government. According to The Irrawaddy, “which specializes inreporting on Myanmar”, *already five ethnic insurgent groups –Karen NationalUnion (KNU) and Shan State Army-South (SSA-South), Kachin IndependenceOrganisation (KIO), Karenni National Progressive Party and Chin National Front(CNF) - were holding peace talks in Chiang Mai in Thailand with a governmentdelegation headed by Aung Min, Minister for Railways, on their future. The KNU,SSA-South and the CNF are reported to have informally agreed for a ceasefire.

However, the government had decided onone to one meetings with each ethnic group rather than meet them collectively.As a result smaller groups which have come together to increase theirbargaining power have been left out of these efforts. For instance thegovernment is yet to hold talks with United Nationalities Federal Council(UNFC), a grouping with six full members and six associate members from Kachin,Arakan and Southern Shan states.

The All Burma Monks Alliance (ABMA), anactivist body of the saffron struggle of Buddhist clergy, has expressed itsobjection to the NLD’s registration as a political party. The electoral lawsalso forbid monks participation in politics. The government appears to beconscious of this objection and lifting the restrictions on monks’participation in political activity is said to be on the cards. Thestudent groups also remain an important factor in the democratic struggle. Manystudent leaders and monks are still in prison. Unless they are released boththe clergy and student groups would find it difficult to participate in normal political activity.

President Thein Sein appears to be on afast forward mode in democratic reforms with a series of legislations to makepolitics inclusive and living a little restrictive. The latest in the serieswas the move to allow public protests in the country, which was a taboo in thedays of military rule. The President’s success in bringing back the NLDinto national politics is perhaps the biggest achievement to date.

However, finding an equitable solutionto ethnic minorities, who want meaningful autonomy in their traditionalhomelands, continues to be the single issue with potential to destabilizegrowth of democracy in Myanmar. No leader other than the late Maj Gen Aung Sanhad been able to build bonds with them to achieve national unity. It is tooearly to expect President Thein Sein’s regime to do this as it has manymore miles to go for a full-fledged democracy to even Burmans, let alone theethnic minorities. But it is well worth considering.

Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group Paper No 4788 dated November 27, 2011

URL http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers48%5Cpaper4788.html

China's Impact on India-Nepal Relations

2011-11-22T20:13:00.001-08:00

By Col R Hariharan

The increasingly loud and belligerent assertion of China’s claims in SouthChina has become a matter of strategic concern for many nations for diversereasons. It comes at a time when nations with diverse interest in the SoutheastAsia from the India to Vietnam to Japan and the U.S. are already concernedabout China’s growing strategic strength. Even other nations of the ASEAN group, who do not vocalise their concerns over this development forreasons of real politick, are equally uncomfortable though China is fullyestablished as a trading partner among them. The recent U.S.-Australianagreement to station U.S. Marines in bases in Australia is directly related tothis concern.

For India, it sends clear message of China’s sensitivity to India’s efforts atupgrading its relations in Southeast Asia. Read in the light of escalatingstrategic collaboration between China and Pakistan including the involvement ofPLA troops in the construction of strategic road links in Pakistan OccupiedKashmir, and build up of PLA force levels in Tibet with better strategic accessto Indian borders, the possibility of Chinese belligerence shifting toIndia’s Himalayan frontiers has increased.

India appears to have at last woken up to the gravity of the situation with theIndian Prime Minister and Defence Minister publicly stating their concerns onChina in the recent months. In response to the changing strategic environmentalong the Northern borders, India is in the process of doubling its forcelevels in the eastern sector. India has also strengthened its strategic linkswith Vietnam and Afghanistan. Inevitably, in the coming months Indo-U.S.strategic linkages would also be given more form and substance as indicated inthe latest meeting of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Obama on thesidelines of East Asia summit at Bali, Indonesia.

China’s biggest strength has been its tremendous ability to formulate andexecute timely, objective-oriented, action strategies in diplomatic, economicand military fronts for three decades. China’s multifaceted military capabilityhas been demonstrated in the recent years in cyber warfare, space missions andanti-satellite warfare, developing and producing fighter aircraft, buildingaircraft carrier, and building a modern submarine fleet. India’s modeststrategic response to these developments had been mostly reactive, lacking longterm vision. While its space, missile, naval, air force and electronicwarfare capabilities, the process appears to lack dynamism and commitment toproduce timely results. Due to lack of goal clarity, even the few successfulinitiatives have not been translated to strategic advantage.

India also does not appear to be taking full advantage of the tremendousgeo-strategic advantage it enjoys by virtue of its location between Central andSoutheast Asia. Even in South Asia, only during the last decade or so it hasstarted seriously making efforts to build strategic relations with itsneighbours like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. However, Nepal with which it has a complexrelationship seems to be an exception to this for various internal and externalconsiderations in both the countries.

India borders Nepal with India on three sides while its Northern frontier lieswith Tibet (China).This confers a natural advantage to India as movement fromsouth to north along Terai plains of Nepal is easier than from Tibet across theHimalayan range and through the Northern mountainous regions. So it is notsurprising that hundreds of years of interaction between the populations inboth Nepal and India have created tremendous religious, ethnic and culturalaffinities. The two countries enjoy a special relationship formalised sinceBritish colonial days. Although Tibet also enjoys many cultural, ethnic andreligious affinities with Nepal, these have been marginalised by China afterits occupation of Tibet.

Since the late 90s Nepal had been undergoing tectonic socio-political changesthat culminated in the end of monarchy in 2006 and ushering in of multi partydemocracy. However, political articulation of democracy continues to be stiltedand the country retains the potential for eruption of social conflict onceagain due to political instability.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) CPN (M) – now morphed into the UnifiedCommunist Party of Nepal (Maoist) UCPN (M) - spearheaded the “peoples’ war”against monarchy and has emerged now as a major political factor in thecountry. Its impressive performance in the 2008 constituent assembly electionsdemonstrated its popular support. Its founder Pushpa Kumar Dahal, better knownas Prachanda, had shown strong pro Chinese leanings all along. He has also articulated anti-India sentiments morevigorously than some of the leaders of other political parties. After the endof monarchy, CPN (M) found it difficult to give up its revolutionary idiom andjoin mainstream multi-party politics. Its difficulty in resolving theideological contradictions to suit democratic governance had createdfactionalism within its leadership. These problems of Maoists had held up theprocess of drafting a democratic constitution and usher in functional democracyso far.

Given this setting, the recent visit of Nepal’s Prime Minister BaburamBhattarai, who belongs to UCPN(M), to New Delhi is significant in many ways. Itcame a few days before four leading parties – the UCPN(M), the Nepali Congress(NC), the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist), and the MadhesiJanaadhikar Forum agreed on a 7-point deal on November 1. The deal settled the vexing issue of the future of 19,602 Maoistcombatants; it was agreed to integrate a maximum of 6,500 fighters into theNepal Army, and assist rehabilitation of the rest. They have also agreed tocomplete the stalled peace process by preparing the draft constitution by endNovember 2011.

However, implementing the agreement in full, particularly drafting theconstitution, within 30 days appears a tall order. Already, Prime MinisterBhattarai has suggested the extension of the life of Constituent Assembly bysix months. Much would depend upon the sincerity and determination of UCPN(M)in working with other parties to successfully conclude the task.

There are encouraging indications that increase the chances of success with theUCPN(M) playing a more constructive political role. If Prime Minister Bhattaraican successfully implement the agreement, the country could expect a period ofstability so essential for the young democracy to take roots. This would be awelcome development for strengthening India-Nepal relations. And India has towork on it hard as in the past it had given the impression of taking itsrelation with Nepal for granted.

Among South Asian nations, India’s relations with Nepal are perhaps the mostcomplex, subjected to periodic crests and troughs. Prime Minister Bhattarai,summed up its current state in an article in *The Hindu* on the eve of hisrecent visit to India: “Nepal and India share a very unique relationship. Nepalis sandwiched between two huge states of India and China. But we are virtuallyIndia-locked, as we have an open border on three sides. Most of oursocio-economic interactions take place with India. Two-thirds of our annualtrade is with India, while only 10 per cent is with China. Given this historictilt towards India, our bilateral relationship is unique. When you have moreinteraction, you have more problems and more friction. At times, there are misgivingsand misunderstandings on various issues — some are genuine, while others areborn out of scepticism.”

The pronouncements of Prime Minister Bhattarai on Nepal-India relations shouldgive India hope that Maoists are perhaps softening their attitude to India.This situation could be rudely changed under political compulsions and whenChina takes the initiative to further widen the scope and content of itsstrategic options against India.

Such a possibility is neither remote nor far-fetched in the overall context ofChina’s ambitious expansion of its power and influence in this part ofAsia. When the uneasy relationship between two Asian giants degeneratesinto a confrontation, Nepal will find it extremely difficult to balance itsrelations with them. In such a situation, weaknesses in Indo-Nepal relationswould be open to exploitation by unfriendly elements. This is the reason whyNepal remains the soft underbelly of India’s strategic security.

Nepal’s unique relationship with India was formalised when Nepal and Britainsigned an agreement of friendship in 1923. After India became independent, thetraditional close and friendly relations between the two countries with openborders have continued. Independent India avowed its friendly relations with Nepalwith the signing of the India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship (INTPF) in 1950.

Under this treaty citizens of both nations are treated on par in matters likebusiness, jobs, and owning property. Nepal also has bilateral trade and transittreaties with India. These treaties opened up opportunities for Nepalesecitizens to travel, study, and do business freely in India. The extension ofnon-reciprocal duty free access for Nepalese goods to Indian markets has hugepotential as Nepal develops further.

India has contributed significantly for Nepal’s development over the years.Indian development projects include building schools, libraries, campuses,primary health centres, hospitals, micro hydro projects, bridges, drinkingwater projects, and gift of school buses and ambulances. Major Indian projectsinclude the construction of 200-bed Emergency and Trauma Centre in Kathmanduand assistance to BP Koirala Health Institute in Dharan. Major roadconstruction works include building 1450 Km of feeder roads in the plainsnext to India, cross border railway links, and integrated check posts at fourborder crossing points. These links provide strategic access to Nepal fromIndia. Indian outlay for 411 projects under way in Nepal since 2003 is about Rs4000 crores. The Mahakali Integrated River Project to generate hydro-electricpower to benefit both Nepal and India is yet another on-going project, thoughit is mired in controversy over power sharing.

Though Nepal largely gained from this arrangement, over dependence upon Indiahas created an anti-India backlash. Under the INTPF, Nepal agreed todepend upon India for security, as well as seek Indian consent to import arms,ammunition and military equipment from other countries.

As Nepal gained greaterinternational exposure, these were seen as signs of Indian

domination. As a result Nepal has stopped adhering to such stipulations. Manysaw the India-assisted development projects as more beneficial to India thanNepal. On trade and transit issues also there had been the strong differencesbetween the two countries as land-locked Nepal was keen to diversify its tradeaccess to other countries over riding Indian concerns.

As Nepal tried to assert its independent stance on both foreign policy andstrategic security issues, inevitably the INTPF has come under criticismparticularly since King Bhirendra’s rule (1972-2001). As Indian diplomatRajiv Sikri observed, “Landlocked Nepal’s umbilical and all round dependency onIndia, understandably made anti-Indianism the foundation of Nepali nationalism.Some of the fault for this lies with India. India’s perceived priority toprojects that served India’s security and other needs rather than thedevelopment of Nepal aroused animosity and distrust of Nepal in India.”

Seen asthe ‘Big Brother’, most of the political parties in Nepal find it convenient toflog India for all major problems of the country and Maoists have alwaysfocused on this issue. And this situation is unlikely change in multi-partydemocracy dominated by Maoists. Though India would not like to giveup its advantages under the INTPF, it appears to be reconciled to changes inthe form and content of INTPF as inevitable.

China does not have thesocio-political baggage India carries due to its closely networked relationswith Nepal. It had been cultivating Nepal particularly after Nepal signed aboundary settlment agreement and a separate treaty of peace and friendship withChina in 1960 even as China was increasingly locked in boundary dispute withIndia.

However, China kept away from getting involved in Nepal’s internalaffairs even during the height of Maoist civil war. Actually, it had suppliedarms to King Gyanendra when India had not come forward to do so. However, ithas strengthened its relationship taking advantage of the pro-Chinese leaningsof Maoists. Its long term plan appears to be to link Nepal with Tibet’s largenetwork of road, rail and air infrastructure. This would give a big boost notonly to trade but also neutralise India advantage in having better strategicaccess to Nepal.

In 2007-08, China began construction of a 770-kilometre railway connectingLhasa, the Tibetan capital, with the border town of Khasa in Nepal. Nepal hadrequested the link to be extended to Kathmandu. When China completes theambitious project, it would significantly improve China's strategic access toIndia’s borders as Chinese are involved in other communication projectsunderway beyond Kathmandu.

China’s involvement in a project to build a road link between Kathmandu andLumbini, an important Buddhist pilgrimage site located very close to Indianborder, is one such effort. The Chinese government-backed Asia Pacific Exchangeof Cooperation Foundation (APECF) is involved in the project. APECF has alreadyagreed to provide $ 3 billion for the Lumbini Development Project (LDP). (It is interesting to note that Prachanda is the Vice Chairman of the LDP.)APECF was also to begin a survey for construction of a direct fast railway linkbetween Kathmandu and Lumbini as part of the LDP. According to Nepalesemedia, the $1.5 billion first phase of the project includes construction of aninternational airport and a fast track railway. The project also includes theconstruction of five star hotels, convention centres, new highways, Buddhisttemples and a Buddhist university.

China’s trade with Nepal had been growing fast, although it is overwhelminglyweighted in favour of China. In 2010-11 bilateral trade was at Nepal Rs 45.63billion (Nepal Rs 100=$ 1.2) although Nepal exported goods worth only NRs 746million. But as Tibet develops further the two-way trade would flourish furtherwhen multiple communication links with Nepal are completed.

Thus as India-China relations get more complex we can expect China’smultifaceted involvement in Nepal will also to increase in form and content.And as Chinese land and rail links improve with Nepal, its strategic optionsagainst India will also multiply. So India will have to fine tune itsrelationship with Nepal to be more responsive to changing dynamics of strategicenvironment, drawing upon the advantages it enjoys and try to overcome thelatent anti-Indian sentiment. This is the reality.

During Nepal’s period of political instability from 2006 to 2011, despiteoccasional glitches India had wielded its influence carefully and positively toensure the peace process is not derailed. In appreciation of this, PrimeMinister Bhattarai on the eve of his recent visit wrote “India played apositive role in the peace process in Nepal, and during our transition towardsdemocracy. My visit [to India], at this juncture when we are at the last stageof completing the peace process, assumes special significance.” This probablyreflects the growing realisation in UCPN(M) how Indian influence could beuseful to achieve win-win results in stabilising democracy.

India has also reciprocated this welcome change in the attitude, during theOctober visit of Prime Minsiter Bhattarai with the signing of two agreementswith Nepal. The Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPAA)was a long awaited one; it would smoothen and encourage the flow of Indianinvestments in Nepal. Bhattarai had apparently chosen to ignore theobjection of hard line faction of his party in signing the BIPAA as evident fromthe black flag wielding party cadres who greeted him on his return toKathmandu. However, many analysts in Nepal consider this development as successof the country's economic diplomacy. The other agreement relates to extensionof $250 million Dollar credit line from EXIM bank of India on highlyconcessional terms (1.75% interest with repayment in 20 years). This will beused to finance infrastructure projects including highway, bridges, railway,irrigation, hydro-power etc. Bhattarai had called this development ashistoric and a major step towards removing distrust in the bilateral relationsbetween Nepal and India.

More important from Indian security point of view, both countries have agreedto check cross-border crime including smuggling of fake currency into Indiawhich had been a major cause for concern to India.

India has also agreed to facilitate the speedy execution of construction ofroads, rail and Integrated Check Posts along the border areas of Nepal andIndia. Hiccups in trade and transit issues are also scheduled to be discussedat the ministerial level. India has also agreed to the use of Vishakapatnamport to facilitate Nepal’s third-country trade. It has also conceded Nepal'sdemand for importing 200 MW of power from India.

These developments are strategically significant. It would alsodemonstrate India’s abiding interest in ensuring political stability in Nepaland help its neighbour to take the peace process to its logical end. Inthe current state of India-China relations when both countries are focusing onpositive aspects rather than dwell on contentious issues, a stable Nepal shouldbe welcome to China also. However, both countries cannot afford to ignorestrategic imperatives in their policy perceptions; this would mean continuationof their efforts to further their influence in Nepal.

Theimportance of steps now taken by India and Nepal to strengthen theirrelationship would be taken note of by China. Coming in the wake of two Indianstrategic initiatives - signing a strategic partnership agreement withAfghanistan and strengthening strategic security relations with Vietnam – itsends a strong signal that India is taking significant measures to strengthenits strategic relations with Nepal.

Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group Paper no.4780 dated 20 Nov 2011

URL: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers48%5Cpaper4780.html

Sri Lanka Perspectives: October 2011

2011-11-04T09:45:00.000-07:00

By Col R Hariharan

Overview

In the first half of the month, the Sri Lanka scene was dominatedby the final phase of the local body elections in which President Rajapaksa’sUnited People Freedom Alliance (UPFA) coalition scored a massive successunderlining his continued popularity.

In the second half, the Commonwealth Heads of State Meeting(CHOGM) held at Perth, Australia came into the limelight as it considered thecreation of a Human Rights watchdog for the Commonwealth. Sri Lanka felt this as targeted move againstthe country as it continued to be in a state of denial over the alleged warcrimes committed by Sri Lanka Army during the last stage of Eelam War. However,the proposal sponsored mainly by Britain, Canada and Australia was notaccepted. Similarly Sri Lanka also ran the risk of losing its opportunity tohost the CHOGM 2013 when Canada and the UK suggested changing the venue.However, again thanks to the support of Afro-Asian members this was alsorejected.

CHOGM andwar crimes allegations

Sri Lanka managed to prevent British, Australian and Canadianefforts at the 22^ndCHOGM topush through the controversial recommendation of the Eminent Persons Group(EPG) for establishing “Commissioner for Democracy, the Rule of Law and HumanRights” to monitor members’ performance on this count.

The CHOGM held at Perth for three days from October 28, wasattended by only 51 of the 54 members; Dominican Republic and Jamaica wereabsent while Fiji has been suspended after a military takeover of thegovernment. However, only 35 heads of governments attended the conclave while16 countries were represented by their other representatives.

Sri Lanka also succeeded in ensuring the already accepted venuefor CHOGM 2013 at Hambantota in Sri Lanka is not changed, as suggested by somemembers like Canada and Australia. In fact, Canadian Prime Minister StephenHarper has said Canada would boycott CHOGM 2013 in Sri Lanka unless PresidentMahinda Rajapaksa allowed an independent investigation into alleged Sri Lankanarmy shelling of civilians and bombing of hospitals in 2009.

Notable absentee at the CHOGM was Indian Prime Minister; VicePresident Dr Hamid Ansari represented India at the conference. Sri Lanka hadacknowledged that India played a very important role in helping Sri Lanka onboth the issues before and after the Conference. Even before the start of theconference, India had been among those members opposing the idea, citing threereasons: concerns about finances, external intervention in domestic issues, andunnecessary duplication of the work already handled by the UN.

According to Sri Lanka Foreign Minister GL Peiris, Sri Lanka hadthe support of 15 countries when Canada raised Sri Lanka’s accountability issueunder “anyother business” at the end of the third session of ministerial-level talks.However, Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd ruled out any discussion on itas clearly there was no consensus. Apparently,majority of the Commonwealth leaders perceived establishing a human rights commissioneras being motivated by some countries against Sri Lanka on the human rightsissue.

Though some Sri Lankan commentators hailed it as a victory for SriLanka at CHOGM, it could be a pyrrhic victory as the EPG recommendation onHuman Rights Commissioner has not been dropped. The Conference decided tofurther review it by the Secretary General and a Ministerial Action Group(CMAG), which will report back to leaders at a later date. So there is a possibilityof Sri Lanka confronting the issue at when it is resurrected subsequently.

Moreover, international pressure on Sri Lanka is likely to berenewed when the report of the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission(LLRC) is submitted in mid November 2011. Apparently, wary of its fall out, theLLRC spokesman has said the report would not be made public. Westerngovernments have made it clear that they were awaiting the LLRC report beforedeciding on raising the alleged war crime issue before the March 2012 sessionsof the UN Human Rights Council.

The Tamil Diaspora organisations and LTTE’s cells overseas usedthe occasion of the CHOGM to turn the limelight on the issue of alleged SriLankan human rights violations and war crimes in the Eelam War. They organiseda number of conferences and protests, notably in Australia, Canada and the UK. Significantly,in Canada protesting Tamils carried portraits of slain LTTE leader Prabhakaran,hailing him as their leader.

The Australian Tamil Congress (ATC) and the British-based Global TamilForum (GTF) organised a conference on "Accountability in Sri Lanka: CommonJustice in the Commonwealth" attended by Tamil and Sinhala personalities andtheopposition Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP. Two days before the Conference, Australia'spublic national broadcaster ABC in its prime time news programme showed MeenaKrishnamoorthy, who claimed she was an eyewitness to alleged "massacre ofpeople." The report was based on a complaint made to the AustralianFederal Police by that Australian branch of the International Commission ofJurists. They had claimed that Sri Lanka's High Commissioner, Admiral TisaraSamarasinghe, who was then Commander of the Navy, had "commandresponsibility” for the killings.

The opposition TNA also used the opportunity offered by the globalfocus on Tamil issues to visit the U.S. and meet with representatives of the UNand the State Department to express their concerns in three areas: themilitarisation of the North and the East, the lack of economic opportunities,and the slack attempts at rehabilitation. Presumably, this is the TNA’s followup strategy after its parliament member A Sumanthiran had submitted a detailedreport highlighting these issues.

Local bodypolls

The third and final phase of the elections for local bodies washeld on October 8. Over all, ruling UPFA coalition swept the polls winningcontrol of 270 of the 332 local authorities for which elections were held. TheTNA won 32 local authorities while United National Party (UNP) could win only 9local authorities. The Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) won 5, while one wascaptured by independents backed by the UPFA. This has underlined the continuingdomination of UPFA in Sri Lankan politics mainly due to President Rajapaksa’simmense popularity among Sinhala masses. The sweeping success of TNA in thepolls in Tamil areas of North indicated the Tamil-Sinhala political dividecontinues as before.

The elections were by and large peaceful, though there were someviolent incidents and accusations of stuffing of ballot boxes. However, peacewas marred on the election day in a shootout between two senior leaders of theUPFA - Bharatha Lakshman Premachandra, Presidentialadvisor, and his political rival Duminda Silva,Colombo district UPFA MP. They along with their supporters and body guards cameface to face at Mulleriyawa when the incident was triggered. Premachandra and two others were killed in the shoot while DumindaSilva was critically injured in the shootout. He is recovering now in hospital.This incident has highlighted the growing gun culture in politics and absenceof rule of law. Civil society activists have pointed out that no action hasbeen taken so far against Duminda, who is a friend of Defence SecretaryGotabaya Rajapaksa.

The dismal performance of opposition UNP, and the Janatha VimukthiPeramuna (JVP), which could not capture even one local body, has aggravated theinternal schism continued in both the parties. In the power struggle forleadership, the UNP leader Ranil Wickramasinghe slapped disciplinary actionagainst supporters of those who wanted a change in leadership. The rivalfactions of the JVP are locked in a show of strength to claim legitimacy.

Raising ofintelligence battalions

Sri Lanka army has raised five more intelligence battalions inaddition to the existing single battalion. Recently, Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa while speaking at theopening ceremony of the new Security Forces Headquarters Complex in Kilinochchi,had said the military intelligence apparatus was being increased to sixbattalions to handle external and internal threats. Apparently this was inresponse to the revival of LTTE activities among Tamil Diaspora as hesaid: “Some LTTE cadres escaped capturein Sri Lanka. Those LTTE members as well as the Diaspora have teamed uptogether and are working to destabilise the country and resurrect theirruthless organisation.”

Written on October 31, 2011

Courtesy: South Asia SecurityTrends, Vol 5 No 9

URL: www.security-risks.com

Myanmar’s chances for ASEAN chairmanship brighten

2011-11-01T05:44:00.000-07:00

By Col. R. Hariharan

Myanmar President Thein Sein must be rejoicing atthe visiting Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa’s comment that politicalreforms in Myanmar looked "irreversible." Reuters quoted theIndonesian Minister as saying, “I wish to believe and I get the sense that theyare meant to be irreversible. I did not get any indication that the processwill stop.”

According to the report he said he had urgedMyanmar's leaders to release more political prisoners and take greater steps toreconcile with restive ethnic groups. He expected progress in these areasbefore the country assumes the chair of ASEAN.

Myanmar is in the run for the rotating chairmanshipof the 10-nation ASEAN bloc in 2014. It was a loss of face for Myanmar when ithad to give up its turn to chair the grouping in 2004, when some of the membercountries objected to it. They cited the failure of Myanmar to implementdemocratic reforms in the country to support their objection.

In fact, the purpose of the Indonesian ForeignMinister was to study the progress Myanmar has made in implementing politicalreforms as decided at the 18th ASEAN summit in Jakarta in May 7-8, 2011. Thedecision was taken after the subject of Myanmar’s chair for ASEAN 2014chairmanship was discussed at the Jakarta summit.

After the summit, Indonesian President SusiloBambang Yudhoyono said the leaders of ASEAN "do not object to theidea" of Myanmar’s chairmanship. However, he added, “Myanmar must continueits democratisation progress to avoid negative perceptions from other nations,”reflecting the reservations some of the member nations including Indonesia.These nations felt the matter required certain processes before a decisioncould be taken.

Earlier, the Indonesian Foreign Minister had spokenof some reservations he had on Myanmar. “We're very keen to hear what theimplications of that law [registration of political parties] will be in termsof participation in the election…We want to hear from Myanmar what thepractical implication of this law is vis-a-vis their own commitment to(conduct) an inclusive, multiparty election, and, therefore, we will be lookingfor evidence or proof that the election law does not in any way contravene thatkind of spirit.”

In view of this, the Indonesian Foreign Minister’scomments are important for Myanmar. They are also significant as he had madethe statement after meeting both President Thein Sein and Aung San Suu Kyi, theleader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) during his visit.

Myanmar attaches a great deal of importance tochairing the ASEAN in 2014 as it would an important first step in winninginternational recognition for the military-sponsored process of democratisingthe country and tacit recognition to the flawed 2008 Constitution.

ASEAN chair would also improve the civiliangovernment’s credibility and democratic credentials. It would also endorse the7-step road map to democracy, embarked upon by the military junta, as acredible way to achieve progressive democratic reforms.

However, the chairmanship issue is still open.According to Indonesian media on his return from Nay pyi taw, the IndonesianForeign Minister would further discuss the results of his trip with other ASEANforeign ministers “while taking into account dynamics developing outside theregional grouping.” It could also be on the agenda of the next ASEANsummit.

However, the chances of Myanmar assuming the chairin 2014 appear to have brightened now than before. Presumably, ASEAN could nowhope Myanmar would take more positive steps to usher in genuine democraticprocess.

China’s role

President Thein Sein during his visit to Beijing inMay 2011 had sought the good offices of China in helping Myanmar’s case forASEAN chairmanship. Apparently it was to seek China’s support to the newcivilian government and mend relations with China that had gone a little frostysince 2009. After the President Thein Sein’s visit the two countries are nowspeaking of multi-faceted strategic relations. However, the recent Myanmaraction to postpone the construction of the Myanmar-China joint Myitsonehydroelectric project is reported to have upset the Chinese. In its wake, mediahad reported that Myanmar Vice President Tin Aung Myint Oo would discuss theissue when he visits China in October.

In this context, it is interesting to note theMyanmar Vice President, leading a delegation to the 8th China-ASEAN Expo(CAEXPO) and the 8^th China-ASEAN Business and Investment Summit(CABIS), met with the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao at Nanning on October 20.According to official Myanmar media the subjects they discussed included“matters related to promotion of Comprehensive Strategic Cooperative Partnershipbetween the two countries.”

Other subjects discussed covered a wide ground.They included implementation of projects on oil and natural gas sector,hydropower sector, mining sector, transport sector, agriculture, health andeducation sectors with momentum between the two countries, peace and stabilityin border areas, cooperation in ensuring regional peace and stability betweenthe two countries.

They also discussed bilateral cooperation in issuesbetween China and ASEAN, a subject that had also figured in the joint statementissued after President Thein Sein’s May 2011 visit to China. This wouldindicate probably Myanmar’s ASEAN chairmanship aspirations were also discussedat the October meeting of the two leaders. It is not clear what role China wouldbe playing on this issue. But considering the “paukphaw” (sibling in Burmese)relationship between the two countries, China is likely to be a majorbeneficiary when Myanmar becomes chair of ASEAN with its own strategicconnotations.

Sanctions regime

According to a Reuters, the Indonesian ForeignMinister in a telephone interview had urged the U.S. and European Union to easesanctions on Myanmar as the embargoes have done more harm than good inMyanmar.

However, both the U.S. and EU have reservationsabout lifting economic sanctions on Myanmar, although they had welcomedmeasures taken by the civilian government to usher in a little more freesociety. They want more political prisoners to be freed and political opponentsdisqualified under present electoral law welcomed back to mainstream nationalpolitics. The U.S. has other concerns as well: ending the confrontation withethnic minorities and greater transparency in Myanmar- North Korea relations,particularly nuclear cooperation which had worried the U.S.

Myanmar has already amended the electoral laws tomake them more democratic. The NLD rehabilitation is also likely once morepolitical prisoners are freed. In fact, NLD is speaking of the possibility ofAung San Suu Kyi contesting the bye election. Given these changes, ASEANdecision to welcome Myanmar as chairman for 2014 would be a big morale boosterfor the regime as it would increase the chances of the U.S. and the EU liftingthe sanctions.

Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group Paper no. 4757 - November 1, 2011

URL: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers48%5Cpaper4757.html

Making India-Myanmar relations meaningful

2011-10-30T21:58:00.000-07:00

Col R Hariharan

Myanmar President Thein Sein’s visit to India from October 12th to 15thhad only limited visibility in Indian media that has become characteristic ofnews relating to Myanmar. Unlike the earlier visits of Myanmar’s heads ofstate, Thein Sein’s visit is of special interest on two counts – the changingpolitical environment in Myanmar and India’s slow assertion of its strategicperception. In the near term, these developments might compel India to take Arelook at its Myanmar policy and reshape it in keeping with the changes takingplace both within and outside Myanmar.

President Thein Sein is no stranger to New Delhi as he had visited Indiaa few times in his military days in various avatars. So presumably heknows New Delhi’s thinking on issues affecting its interests. President TheinSein regime carries the baggage of ilitary backing while seeking greaterinternal and external acceptance as a democratic regime.

He has taken a number of initiatives to improve image of the civiliangovernment to show it’s a people-sensitive regime; the recent suspension ofconstruction of the Chinese -aided Myitsone hydroelectric dam is a case inpoint. Over 6,300 prisoners, including about 220 political prisoners, have beenreleased under an amnesty.

More importantly, he has kept the lines of communication open with AungSan Suu Kyi in a bid to bring back the opposition National League for Democracy(NLD) to main stream politics. Apparently both sides are in the process ofevolving a face saving formula to arrive at a win-win situation. In thiscontext, the Myanmar Lower House of Parliament’s approval to amend threeclauses of the Political Parties Registration Law, including the clause thatprevented serving prisoners from being a member of a political party, aresignificant. Other amendments include doing away with the twin requirements forregistration of a political party - contesting at least three parliamentaryseats for registration as party, and replacing the word “protect” with“respect” in the instructions for political parties to conform. Theamended law will come into force when the President gives his assent.

These moves are welcome to India as they reduce its unease in dealingwith the autocratic military regime in the past. Although, there are a numberof outstanding issues to be resolved to make Myanmar a reasonably credibledemocracy, President Thein needs every encouragement from India in going aheadwith this process.

Usually India-Myanmar relations tend to be assessed through thestrategic security prism of China-Myanmar relations. Such comparison isinevitable as China is loudly asserting its political, economic, and militaryclout in ASEAN and South Asia. But for more than a decade now India andMyanmar have tried to broad base their relations focusing on five areas:capacity building of Myanmar in developmental areas, mutual trade, improvingcommunication infrastructure for land and sea links between India's landlockedregions and Myanmar, defence cooperation and coordination, and regionalcooperation. There has also been significant emphasis on furthering historicaland cultural ties between the two countries.

However, officially both countries have avoided making public referenceto strategic security aspects beyond the denial of sanctuaries for Indianinsurgent groups in Myanmar soil and goodwill visits of military chiefs of bothcountries. This has now been broadened (in the context of the current Myanmar’smilitary confrontation with the Kachin Independence Army –KIA) to includedenial of sanctuaries to Myanmar insurgents on Indian soil. Contacts betweenthe armies of both countries have been limited to exchange of visits of seniorofficers, border meetings of sector commanders and limited cooperation at theground level in trans- border operations against insurgents.

Perhaps in deference to Chinese strategic sensitivities, militaryregimes in Myanmar had always given China a preferred status over India in allowingfree flow to its relations. This suited the military junta as it was heavilydependent upon China to overcome international trade sanctions and in wardingoff periodic forays of the U.S. and the West against Myanmar in the UnitedNations. Unlike the tenuous communication links between India and Myanmar,China developed its communication links with Myanmar to further itsinterests.

Myanmar has not shown such attention to Indian sensitivities whileavowing its strategic relationship with China. In fact President Thein Seinvisited China in May 2011, within three months of coming to power. After hismeeting with China’s President Hu Jintao, Myanmar President said “Having beendesignated as partners for multi-strategic cooperation, Myanmar-China relationshave reached a new chapter and the highest level in China’s foreignrelations.”

The title “Joint Statement Between The Republic of the Union of Myanmarand The Peoples’ Republic of China on *Establishing a Comprehensive StrategicCooperative Partnership” *[emphasis added] issued after the Myanmar President’svisit is probably indicative of Myanmar’s desire to indicate that despiteadopting a multi-party parliamentary system, it was business as usual withChina. According to the news website Irrawaddy, President Thein Seinduring his discussion with the Chinese President expressed Myanmar’s backingfor China in its territorial dispute with Vietnam in the South China Sea. Significantly, Myanmar’s support came at a time when tension between China andVietnam was building up over Vietnam’s oil exploration bid in the South ChinaSea.

It would suit both China and India to avoid a military confrontation inview of their fast growing multifaceted relations. This is evident fromIndia’s conscious attempt to play down such a possibility, despiteChina’s frequent show of its muscle to assert its superiority over India.However, India has been concerned for some time now with China’s increasinginfluence in India’s neighbourhood. So when Myanmar’s ‘civilian’ Presidenttalks of “multi-strategic cooperation” in partnership with China, India cannotafford to ignore this emerging strategic equation on its eastern borders. WhenChina completes its ongoing communication projects in Myanmar, increasedstrategic cooperation between Myanmar and China would significantly enhancesecurity threat to India’s weak eastern flanks in any future China-Indiaconfrontation. It would also increase China’s strategic options against India,particularly when China’s visible presence is likely to grow further inPakistan as and when Af-Pak region undergoes a change in the aftermath of theU.S pull out.

Apart from all this, China has a record of providing Indian insurgentgroups from the northeast in the past. Despite, China’s public assertion ofending such practices, increased China-Myanmar strategic cooperation increasesChina’s options to revive it at a time of its strategic convenience. Thisaspect should not be ignored as some of the Manipuri insurgent groups and thebreakaway group of the United National Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) hidingin Myanmar had been trying to procure Chinese weapons for some time now. Recently Indian media reports indicate that Maoists, with the help of the ULFA,were also likely to establish their sanctuaries in Myanmar.

Given these changes, Thein Sein’s Indian visit to India (a few monthsafter his trip to China) at India’s invitation is timely. It shows that Indiahas taken note of the significance of changes in Myanmar and the perceptions ofthe civilian government. It is also a manifestation of India’s desire toimprove its equation with the new players in Naypitaw.

Only weeks before President Thein Sein’s visit to New Delhi, India hadtaken two major strategic initiatives. The first was the signing of a strategicpartnership agreement with Afghanistan, moving beyond India’s developmentalassistance (raising the heckles of Pakistan, China’s close strategic ally inSouth Asia). The second was the India’s hesitant but clear show of strategicsolidarity with Vietnam, particularly at a time when Vietnam is locked in aconfrontation with China over oil exploration in disputed waters. In thisrespect, President Thein Sein’s visit (coincidentally?) came close on the heelsof President of Vietnam Truong Tan Sang’s visit to New Delhi.

In fact, India ignored Chinese caution and went ahead with signing ofagreement between state-owned Indian and Vietnamese companies on cooperation inexploiting oil and gas resources of Vietnam during President Truong’svisit.

India as a large functional democracy at its doorstep can do a fewthings for Myanmar, which China despite its economic and strategic clout wouldnot be able to do. India with its better democratic credentials and closerelations with the U.S. can help the civilian regime gain full internationalacceptability ending the sanctions regime. India can be a usefulcounterpoise for Myanmar in handling China, particularly when China’s strategicambitions override its acceptance of the civilian regime in Myanmar. India’sgrowing economic clout and influence in Southeast Asia could be useful inMyanmar’s desire to play a greater international role in the comingyears. India also needs a friendly and stable Myanmar on its borders forits own strategic reasons. And Myanmar with its strategic location at the gatesof ASEAN can be a useful adjunct to India’s engagement of Southeast Asiannations. Moreover, India’s growing appetite for industrial resources needsaccess to untapped natural resources including gas and minerals ofMyanmar.

Despite this setting, India-Myanmar relations had remained a pottedplant. The democratically elected Indian government had always found itdifficult to publicly proclaim its support to Myanmar’s military regime as itclashed with its democratic value system. As a result India’s relation withMyanmar was closeted at government level, lacking depth. It was devoid ofpeople to people contact. For reasons of realpolitik, both the ruling andopposition parties in India have largely accepted this dispensation asinevitable in the national interest.

India’s appreciation of Myanmar’s actions to usher in democracy, even ofa limited kind, is evident in the joint statement issued after the visit of theMyanmar President. India’s extension of additional $500 million line of creditto Myanmar making a total of $ 800 million in all is a testimony to it.

India is involved in over a dozen projects in infrastructure, IT and oilexploration. Infrastructure projects include up gradation of Tamu-Kalewa-Kalemyo,Rhi-Tiddim and Rhi-Falam roads and the Kaladan Multimodal Transport Project(KMMTP). The KMMTP which links Mizoram with Myanmar and provides a river basedoutlet to the port of Sitwe is perhaps strategically the most important of allprojects. But India had not been able to execute these projects with the speedthey deserve, although the Myanmar bureaucracy is also partlyresponsible.

Indian public sector companies have not shown their readiness to grabfleeting business opportunities that are coming up as Myanmar is widening itsdevelopment and a favourable relation with Myanmar exists. Participation ofIndian private sector companies could be enhanced now as the Indian line ofcredit extended so far amounts to $ 800 million. Indian expertise in IT, realtime communication services, rail construction and maintenance services aresome of the areas not fully exploited to increase Indian presence inMyanmar.

With India-Myanmar trade is set to double at $1.4 billion. Though thismay not look very significant it will be about one fourth of China’s estimatedfigure of $ 4 billion plus. However unlike China, India’s trade lacks varietyand depth. But unless direct communication links between India and Myanmar arebetter established increased trade would continue to be limited to bordertrade.

India as a flourishing democracy has a much bigger responsibility inhelping the growth of democracy in Myanmar. India in the name of strategicsecurity cannot ignore this aspect in its policy making, as it has done since1992. A good beginning would be to persuade the new government in Myanmarto allow greater people to people contacts between the two countries at thelevel of students, scholars and academic exchange.

A second important aspect, which India had ignored for long, is the fateof people of Indian origin in Myanmar. From Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s times,India had ignored the problems of these people. The present citizenship lawsare discriminatory as they do not treat people of Indian origin, born and broughtup in Myanmar, on par with ethnic Burmese. With increased assertion ofdemocratic values in Myanmar, time has come for India to persuade Myanmar toamend its citizenship laws to make them more equitable to people of all ethnicorigins.

To summarise, the weakness in India’s relations with Myanmar at presentis it is largely limited to two governments. The bottom line in improving it isto make it more relevant to the people of both countries by widening its scopeand content. While India’s relations with Myanmar cannot be compared with thatof the U.S., the growth of Indo-US relations offers a very good example of howsuch a growth can be achieved.

This may not come through immediately as Myanmar is undergoing aparadigm shift in its political make up. However, India can succeed only if itinvests time, energy and resources to plan for it now. And probably there wouldbe positive results even if India invests in Myanmar a quarter of the time andenergy it expends on building better relations with Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Wehave a poor record in using fleeting opportunities of grand strategy in ourhistory. It is time we moved away from this inward looking strategy. If Indiawaits too long in taking new initiatives in Myanmar, its interests may bebrushed aside by other nations with strategic interests in the country and theregion around when Myanmar is welcomed back into the international fold.

Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group Paper No 4751 dated October 28, 2011

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers48%5Cpaper4751.html

What is the 'Real Axis of Evil'?

2011-10-15T02:36:00.000-07:00

The phrase‘Axis of Evil’ coined in the wake of rise of Al Qaeda, means many things tomany people. But what is the real ‘Axis of Evil’ that India should be worriedabout?

Well-knowncounter-terrorism expert B Raman’s examines this core concern while discussingthe issue of terrorism in the context of India-Pakistan relations in his mailinterview with Jahanzeb Aslam published in Newsweek Pakistan.His comment “India is fully capable ofdealing with Pakistan and has no concerns. What we are worried about is theincreasing strategic threat from the developing Sino-Pakistani axis….Thisdeveloping axis is the real axis of evil.” is noteworthy. Excerpts of theinterview titled “The Real Axis of Evil” is reproduced here for your reading.

Excerpts:

What has India’s role been in the U.S.-led war onterror?

India’sprimary role is exchange of intelligence, knowledge, experience andcapabilities, and mutual assistance in legal matters with interested countries,including the U.S.

How do you see anti-terror cooperation betweenPakistan and India?

I don’t seethere being much scope for intelligence exchange or mutual legal assistancebetween India and Pakistan since the bulk of New Delhi’s jihadist threatoriginates from Pakistan-based organizations that are allegedly under thecontrol of the ISI. Terrorism has historically been one of the weapons inPakistan’s anti-India arsenal, and it is not in their interest to blunt thatweapon. This does not mean there should be no institutional interface betweenthe ISI and RAW; in fact it is essential to reduce the high level of distrustbetween the two agencies.

What long-term role do you see for India inAfghanistan?

India canhelp prevent the Taliban from regaining a foothold in Afghan society by helpingeconomic development and the spread of modern education. We can also assistAfghanistan in strengthening the capabilities of its armed forces.

Is the Haqqani network still based in Pakistan?

Myassessment is that the Haqqani network no longer operates from NorthWaziristan. It now operates from Pakistan’s Kurram Agency. The cadres and thetraining camps are in Kurram, but the leaders, who are high-value targets forU.S. drone attacks, are spread out across the country to avoid airborneattacks. The cadres carry out hit-and-withdraw raids into Afghanistan.

Does India benefit from souring Pakistan-U.S.relations?

The U.S.will never strategically cooperate with India against Pakistan. While the CIAand the Pentagon are not averse to ideas of limited Indo-U.S. cooperation indealing with threats originating from Pakistan, the State Department has alwaysbeen cautious in endorsing such ideas. I saw this when I was in service and Icontinue to see this in my retirement. The only role India can play is to keepnudging the U.S. to act more strongly against Pakistan without unrealistichopes that the U.S. will, in fact, do so. When the U.S. talks of strategiccooperation with India, it has China in mind, not Pakistan.

Does India still consider Pakistan its greatestthreat?

India isfully capable of dealing with Pakistan and has no concerns. What we are worriedabout is the increasing strategic threat from the developing Sino-Pakistaniaxis. Washington does not seem to view this alliance with the same concern asIndia. This developing axis is the real axis of evil.

Will there ever be peace between Pakistan and India?

It is veryunlikely that Pakistan and India will enjoy good, neighborly relations in theshort- and medium-term. The Pakistan Army still considers India a major enemyand such complexes will always come in the way. This doesn’t mean the twocountries should not try for a more benign, friendlier approach to each other.There is a need for a common vision. The leaders of both countries need to meetmore frequently to get to know each other, and like each other, and workpainstakingly without undue expectations toward a common goal of peace.

After Al Qaeda, which terrorist group is the biggestthreat to stability in South Asia?

Lashkar-e-Taiba,the Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Harkat-ul- Mujahideen and the two Taliban factions, in that order, are probably thebiggest threats to the region. I do not consider the Haqqani network as aseparate terrorist organization, as it is a wing of the Afghan Taliban withsome autonomous operations.

Is Myanmar-China relation entering a tricky phase?

2011-10-10T05:06:00.000-07:00

ByCol. R. Hariharan

Myanmar’srecent decision to suspend the construction of the Chinese-aided IrrawaddyMyitsone hydroelectric dam project in Kachin State comes as a pleasantsurprise, whatever be the reasons behind the Myanmar decision.

However,the moot point is, whether the three-decade old relationship carefully nurturedby both sides is entering a new tricky phase?

China’simmediate reaction to the announcement by the Myanmar President Thein Sein wastinged with irritability in the midst of polite bureaucratic wordings. It would indicate China was not probably consulted before Myanmar Presidentwent public with the decision. This is clearly a case of proverbialChinese loss of face.

However,the very title of the opinion piece - “Dam project stumbled over PR failures” -in the semi-official Global Times by Zha Diajiong, is probably indicative ofthe official line that would be adopted to come to terms with the situation.Zha lamented: “It shows us once again that Chinese enterprises need to improvetheir skill at managing international political risks when runninginfrastructure projects in neighboring countries. Work on the dam began fiveyears ago. How could the project be set up at that time if it didn’t meet thebasic principle of mutual benefit?”

Isit only the PR failure of the state-owned China Power Investment (CPI)Corporation, which is jointly financing the $ 3.6 billion project with Burmesepartners, responsible for this embarrassing situation? After all the Myanmar Ministryof Electric Power No.1 and Asia World - Myanmar-owned conglomerate - are alsoinvolved in financing the project. It is difficult to digest the situationcould have been saved with better PR. There are much bigger issues involved.

Firstis the strong adverse reaction from within Myanmar to the project. The Myitsonedam is the largest of the six dams proposed under the Confluence RegionHydropower Project (CRC) to exploit the hydroelectric potential of Mayhka,Malihkha and Irrawaddy rivers. Chinese have been closely involved with theBurmese since 2005 in the conception, design, and planning of the CRC. Around12,000 Chinese workers are at present involved in the construction work on the4100 Megawatt Myitsone hydroelectric project going on below the confluence ofMayhka and Malihka tributaries since last year.

Oppositionto the CRC had been brewing for sometime among environmentalists andconservationists. It gained momentum when Myitsone project was taken up as itwas expected to inundate 766 sq km of rain forest area including 42 villages,displacing 10,000 ethnic Kachins. This has caused concern not only amongKachins, but also among environmentalists and conservationists.Environmentalists argue the impounding of the river would change the hydrologicalprofile of the river and restrict the flow of sediments that enrich the ricegrowing Irrawaddy delta regions. Conservationists say flooding of large swathof sensitive rain forest region could irreversibly change the ecologicalprofile. Even within the government some concerns have been expressed about theenvironmental impact of the dam. However, the government had insisted theproject was undertaken only after studying all aspects. However,political opposition, and journalists continued to voice their opposition.

PresidentThein Sein had taken a conciliatory line to establish the democraticcredentials of the ‘civilian government,’ which has a military pedigree, eversince he became President in March. He had been trying to bring back theopposition into political mainstream, particularly the Aung San Suu Kyi-ledNational League for Democracy (NLD). Although officially it has ceased to bepolitical party, government representative Aung Kyi has met with Suu Kyi threetimes to discuss the terms for NLD to stage a comeback as a recognizedpolitical party. That would mean NLD’s acceptance of the 2008 Constitutionlegitimizing the role for army in government. NLD’s return is important forThein Sein (and the military junta manipulating the government) as NLD -its most fierce opponent - would cease to be a political loose cannon. Thiswould increase the chances of ending the international sanction regime and helpthe regime spruce up its international and internal standing.

Thecancellation of the Myitsone project had offered an invaluable opportunity toPresident Thein to show how people sensitive the government is. The wording ofhis letter to Parliament on September 30 indicates this. He said, “Ourgovernment, being elected by the people, has to take great consideration ofpublic opinion. Accordingly, we have an obligation to respond to the publicconcern with seriousness. Therefore, we will suspend the Myitsone projectduring the term of our government.” It is difficult to believe this ‘peoplesensitivity’ from a government that still keeps over 2000 people as politicalprisoners.

Kachinorganisations have been petitioning both the Chinese and Myanmar governmentsfor cancelling the project. They fear it would bring in the military and wholelot of bureaucracy into their ethnic homeland. Kachin leaders in exileaver the dam would submerge historical temples, churches and heritage sitesaffecting the Kachin cultural identity. But more importantly recently KachinIndependence Army (KIA), fighting for an independent Kachin State, has opposedthe dam construction. KIA been confronting the Myanmar army after it refused tosubjugate itself under the Myanmar army by mustering its cadres as Border Forceas per provisions of the 2008 Constitution. In April there had been a fewexplosions in the CPC project site suspected to be carried out by insurgents.

Thishas created a tricky situation for the army because KIA claims it is inalliance with other other powerful insurgency groups including the MyanmarNational Democratic Alliance Army (MNDAA) operating along the Chinese border,and the United Wa State Army (UWSA) in the northeastern Shan State, who havealso refused to convert their forces into Border Force. Though individuallythese insurgency groups are not in their prime, collectively they could pose aformidable threat to the civilian government. The army is in no mood to allowany of these groups a free run;. This was evident when it launched operationsagainst the 4 KIA Brigade and overrun their strongholds. So ideally, it wouldhelp the civilian government to improve its acceptance among ethnic minority,and Kachins in particular, if it suspends the Myitsone project, the main focalpoint of Kachin peoples' immediate concern.

Butthe Chinese columnist Zha Diajiong, has glossed over these complexities behindthe situation probably because discussing Myanmar’s botcheddemocracy is never a favoured topic of Chinese media. So he has taken amore favoured line. He says: “In North Africa and Europe, many large dams havebeen demolished and abandoned due to the aging dam structure and the expensivemaintenance fees. The public has also come to a new recognition of dams’environmental impact. So the dam construction in the Indo-China Peninsula bucksinternational trends. There are many sensitive issues around dams, includingthe ecological impact and the treatment of displaced people. The ecologicalchanges along the Mekong River, especially the tropical rain forest, influenceclimate change worldwide. Regional governments, international organizations andNGOs all have their own opinions as to how to protect the rivers’ waterresources.”

Thiswould indirectly indicate the CPC did not undergo the ecological andconservation vetting before it was taken up. This is in direct contradiction ofLu Qizhou, President of China Power Investment Corporation, who has said theproject had undergone thorough environmental vetting by both China and Myanmarbefore it was agreed upon.

Ofcourse, columnist Zha Diajiong, had to acknowledge that the Chinese need to bemore sensitive to these issues. He says: “European and American transnationalenterprises are involved in hydropower and water conservancy projects in thisregion, and it is common practice for them to assess the environmental andsocial impact of projects. Chinese enterprises need to start taking steps todeal with accusations by raising their risk and impact assessment standards tointernational levels.”

PerhapsChinese also hope to retrieve the project at a future date. As Lu Qizhou,President of China Power Investment Corporation said, "If the suspensionmeans stopping construction, it will cause a series of legal problems."This is probably the reason why President Thein in his announcement said “wewill suspend the Myitsone project during the term of our government” ratherthan stating he was giving up the project.

TheMyanmar-China relations are multi-faceted and deep-rooted to be shaken up by asingle decision unfavourable to China. The Chinese would probably not to allowthe suspension of the project to affect this close relationship, particularlyas many strategic projects like the rail and pipeline link from Yunnan withMyanmar coast are still in incubation. We can expect the Chinese to negotiate aface saving formula to arrive at a win-win situation rather than allow it toupset the apple cart of China-Myanmar relations. China has invested inMyanmar politically and economically for both strategic security reasons aswell as energy and mineral resources. And Mynamar needs China not only foreconomic support but also to hold its hands to survive any internal andinternational forays that could destabilize its cosy set up and upset itsnascent experiment with democracy. Having said this, China-Myanmar relations wouldappear to have entered a new, if not tricky, phase.

Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group

URL: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers48%5Cpaper4728.html

Sri Lanka Perspectives - September 2011

2011-10-03T11:43:00.000-07:00

By ColR Hariharan

President Rajapaksa’s address to UNGeneral Assembly

For SriLankans, the highlight of the month was President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s addressat the UN General Assembly. In his speech, the President skirted the humanrights issues and allegations of war crimes for which Sri Lanka had come understrong criticism. Similarly he gave a broad brush to the Tamil politicalquestion also. He focused on the rehabilitation and developmental activityundertaken by his government in the postwar period. He averred “the remarkablegrowth of 22% of the economy of the Northern Province” was a clear indicationof the success achieved” by his government’s initiatives on development in theNorth. The President cited themoving up of Sri Lanka from the 52^nd to 79^th rank in theassessment by the World Economic Forum as a testimony to overall economicprogress made by his country.

During thevisit President Rajapaksa met with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moonat the United Nations Headquarters. The President briefed the Secretary-Generalon the progress since the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka including themassive infrastructure development in the North and the resettlement of theInternally Displaced Persons. The President also explained the measures takenby the government to expedite the reconciliation process, including thecontinuing talks with the Tamil political parties. Rajapaksa complained to theSecretary-General about conveying the U.N. report on alleged rights violationsduring the war against the LTTE to the Commissioner of Human Rights withoutinforming his government of SriLanka.

On September23, 2011, on the sidelines of UN General Assembly meeting, the President metIndian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh. According to Indian spokesman, duringthe meeting Indian Prime Minister “reiterated that a successful conclusion ofnegotiations and discussions with the representatives of the Tamil partieswould in fact obviate the need for outsiders to start passing judgment or toget involved. So, the emphasis was more on the political dialogue within SriLanka.”

In a clear bid to embarrass the President, two law suits were fiiled in Americancourts during his visit. American University Washington College of Law’s Human RightsImpact Litigation Clinic filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New Yorkagainst Sri Lankan General Shavendra Silva, who was Sri Lanka’s ActingPermanent Representative to the United Nations. The General had commanded 58Division during the war against the LTTE in 2009, during which they alleged histroops were involved in killing thousands of civilians by shelling on ‘no firezone’ and hospitals. lawsuitsought damages for violations of international, Sri Lankan and U.S. domesticlaw under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and Torture Victim Protection Act(TVPA). These statutes grant jurisdiction to U.S. courts over human rightsviolations committed abroad.

The Islandnewspaper quoted General Silva as saying that two civil cases had been filed inNew York targeting PresidentRajapaksa and him. The General said that summons had been served on him at hisresidence in New York. General Silva said the government was having legal consultations. The caseagainst President Rajapaksa was fuked by the widow ofLTTE’s “Col” Ramesh - Vathsala Devi seeking compensation for alleged killing Ramesh after he surrendered tothe Sri Lanka army. The case was filed through VisvanathanRudrakumaran, an attorey and “Prime Minister” of the Transnational Governmentof Tamil Eelam (TGTE), which was formed to take care of LTTE interests afterits defeat.

Another former General Jagath Dias who led the 57 Division of the Sri Lankanarmy, who served as Sri Lanka’s deputy ambassador in Berlin and concurrently accredited toSwitzerland and Vatican also faced similar charges filed by two organisationsin a confidential complaint with Switzerland’s attorney general in August 2009.against Gen. Dias of ordering his troops to fire upon civilian and hospitaltargets during the 2009 offensive. However, according to Sri Lanka foreignoffice, he has returned to Sri Lanka at the end of his two-year term.

SriLanka’s continuing “UN trouble”

During themonth UnitedNations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon took two actions that added to SriLanka’s agony over its dismal human rights record and allegations of war crimeduring the Eelam War IV. He forwarded the three-memebr UN Secretary General’spanel of experts report on Sri Lanka’s accountability over allegations of war crime to the Commissionerof Human Rights, Navi Pillay. It wasthen circulated to the delegations from the 47 member-states that comprise theUN Human Rights Council at its biennial session in Geneva, despite strongobjections from Sri Lanka on propriety of circulating an advisory panel reportto UN members without informing Sri Lanka government.

The Secretary General also has initiated a review of theUN’s actions regarding the implementation of its humanitarian and protectionmandates during the Eelam War IV and its aftermath. On September 24, 2011 heannounced the appointment of Thoraya Obaid former executive director, UNPopulation Fund to conduct the review. Apparently the UNSG action is based the UNSG advisory panel recommendation inits report a review as it found that during the final stages of the war,the UN political organs and bodies failed to take actions that might haveprotected civilians. These actionstaken despite President Rajapaksa’s meeting with the Secretary General wouldindicate that the issue is likely to progressed further at the UN Human RightsCommission (UNHRC) meeting in March 2012.

In this context, it is interesting to note thethreat of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to boycott the 2013meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) stated to behosted by Sri Lanka unless the counry improved its human rights record andwould encourage other Commonwealth leaders to do the same. The Sri Lanka HumanRights issue is likely at the forthcoming CHOGM summit at Perth, Australia in October this year. UK has alsoexpressed serious concerns over the issue of Sri Lanka Human Rights aberrations.

IndiaSri Lanka joint naval exercise

Indian and SriLankan navies carried out a five-day joint naval exercise, SLINEX 2011, said tobe the largest ever joint naval exercise held in Sri Lanka since independence. Six Indian navalcraft - the frigate INS Shivalik, destroyer INSRanVijay, missile corvette INS Khanjar, a Landing Ship INS Gharial and two FAC(fast attack craft) participated in the exercise. Sri Lankan naval participantsincluded two offshore patrol vessels SLNS Samudura and SLNS Sagara, missilegunboat SLNS Nandimithra, two fast gun boats SLNS Prathapa and SLNS Ranavijayaand six FAC.

According to a reportin Lakbimanews, high speed boats of Sri Lanka Special Boat Service commandosswarmed INS Shivalik, “despitemanoeuverings by the high-tech Indian warship to create waves in a ploy knownas a shimmering tactic, in order to keep boats at bay.” The report quoted ViceAdmiral Somathilake Dissanayake as saying the exercise was repeated at requestof the commanding officer of the Indian contingent who was impressed by the SBScommandos.

The two navies have alwaysenjoyed close relations; however, the large exercise is significant in thecontext of increasing Chinese trade and economic presence in South Asia andassertion of new found strength of Chinese navy in international waters. But the significance of the event wasthat New Delhi went ahead with the exercise particularly after the rulingCongress-led coalition came under flak for its ‘soft’ Sri Lanka policy from almost all partiesincluding some of its coalition partners. In Tamil Nadu, the Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) known for its pro-LTTEleanings, called for cancellation of the exercise. This would indicate thatthere would be no shift in the fundamentals of India’s Sri Lanka policy. Theexercise is also significant as early in September the Indian media quotingIndian government sources alleged that a Chinese spy ship disguised as afishing trawler which was tracked in the Indian Ocean recently by the IndianNavy, had moved towards Sri Lanka and docked at the Colombo port. Sri LankaNavy had denied such a visit by a Chinese spy ship.

Internal developments

In a bidto overcome the anamalous situation after the Sri Lanka Government decided toabolish the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), it proses to enact a law alongthe lines of the US Homeland Security Act before the commencement of the nextUNHRC session in March 2012.

The Sinhala Marxist Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP)party has split into two factions due to internal differences. Media spokesmanof the breakaway faction Jagoda said thatideological differences between two groups within the party hierarchy haddeveloped since the decision to support former Army Commander General SarathFonseka at the last Presidential election. "This has now snowballed into amajor internal crisis, which we no longer can hide from the general public. Wedemand that the party desist from forging electoral alliances anymore.” JVPPropaganda Secretary, Vijitha Herath, MP accuses the government of havinginfiltrated his party. Both the factions propose to hold separate conventionspresumably as a test of strength. The JVP's split will be a big setback to theOpposition as already the major opposition United National Party (UNP) riven byinternal differences has been weakened. Thus politically the JVP splitstrengthens President Rajapaksa’s hands further.

Written on September 30, 2012

Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, Vol 5 No 9 URL: www.security-risks.com

Army's Deepening Crisis of Amorality

2011-09-17T22:48:00.000-07:00

When I see the present state of our Army, I cannot but agree with Gen Baljit Singh who has highlighted the growing amorality within the Army [in the article reproduced below]. I have my own recollection of the days when the Army scrupulously stuck to its straight path ; it was applauded by the public for it. But sadly those days appear to become part of our regimental histories. Perhaps the Army's record of punishing the guilty is better than the civil services; but that is no consolation for any army. Indian Army had always proudly set its own high standards and lived up to it. Is it not time for the Army bosses look at themselves and set an example and clean up the scene before the stink hits the ceiling?

Army's Deepening Crisis of Amorality

By Lt Gen (Retd) Baljit Singh

Of late, the Indian Army’s proud image has been severely dented. The discerning Indians as well as the aam-admi is beginning to question whether those who lead the Indian Army are men of straw? A few years ago, a Maj General commanding an infantry Division pleaded guilty of misappropriating CSD liquor and was cashiered with seven years RI in a civil jail. About a year later, another Maj General was served a show-cause notice for acts of omission and commission while ironically he headed the Army’s Judicial Department. In 2009, the CBI filed a charge-sheet against yet another Maj General (since retired) and his spouse for possessing assets to the tune of 3.37 crores while in service, grossly disproportionate to their known incomes and family inheritances. In 2010 a General Court Martial cashiered a Lt Colonel and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment for irregularities upward of ten crore. And now 30 officers are facing trial; surely a dubious record for any army.

It is a common human trait to stand up for one’s entity, no matter what. But there are moments when truth stares at and stabs the viewer so hard that he cannot evade the moment of reckoning. Recently, I was dumb-struck when a young lady in the family group I was traveling with, asked politely but candidly "Now, is that not a misuse of the Army, uncle? "I had not noticed but when I turned to face where she was looking, I was shocked and dismayed. Gathering composure, I responded, "Wait a minute. Let me enquire". Well, there was this load-carrier of the Army which had ferried to the site, materials needed perhaps for a grand regimental function? There were heaps of carnations, rose-buds, gerberas and gladiolus, so fresh and sparkling in different colours that they had to be the pick-of-the-best, from top-of-the-line florists. And of course, mounds of plastic chandeliers and mountains of furniture in poor Chippendale design and gaudy tapestry, covering a space the size of a hockey field.

The time was about 3.30 pm and a smart young lady stood issuing instructions to her staff to arrange the "marriage-palace" to her design and time. Three soldiers in Army uniform stood close to the load carrier (a Jonga and a Gypsy were partially hidden behind) and jaded looks on their faces betrayed that they were on a regular, routine mission. On inquiry whether they were preparing for a regimental memorial function, they replied promptly and matter-of-factly, "Nahin. Hamaari madum nay yehaan contract lay rakkha hey." We had entered this imposing courtyard in need of a public convenience. The guards at the entrance readily informed us that an evening’s charges for using the establishment (exclusive of meals and drinks) are a neat four lakh rupees. It would not be far fetched to assume that the organiser ("Hamaari madum") would have a net earning of at least ten percent of the rental. And if at an average there are four such engagements for the month that would be an impressive income; close to the month’s basic salary of the Army Chief, post the sixth pay commission.

That Army spouse has every right to work and earn. But was there no one to guide her that for a mere one per cent of her earnings (hire for a civil truck), she was besmearing in dirt the Army’s ethos of "Izzat, Imaandari and Wafaadri"? And jeopardizing her family’s future? And corrupting the three army drivers and countless others? Not many can deny that the Army’s leaders are fully intent upon rooting out moral and material corruption. But punishment alone seems perhaps not an adequate deterrent any more. May be the Army now needs to delve deep into the mind-set of its wrong-doers by commandeering the services of the best psycho-analytical experts. The defenses of the guilty must simply be pulled down (even at the promise of remitting their punishment) so that we can get to know their motives for corruption. The sooner we understand their compulsions the better will we be able to rid the Army of this all devouring monster.

Philip Mason, an officer from the erstwhile ICS wrote an absorbing history of the Indian Army entitled "A Matter of Honour" in the 1980s. The book begins with the statement, "Fidelity to an oath, loyalty to comrades and courage on the battle field are the qualities without which an Army is nothing...". And from there he launches into the genesis of the beginnings and the growth of the Indian Army of today, having all the attributes required of a force which can never be vanquished by any foe!!

It is time that the country also stood by and proved itself worthy of its splendid Armed Forces, that is, not to constantly erode their inter-se status vis-à-vis the other Central Services as was the unwritten convention till August 1947. Our Armed Forces are a breed apart and if the India of post 1947 procrastinates on this issue further, the evil of moral degeneration may spread so deep and wide among their rank and file that the foundations of the structure built assiduously over the previous two hundred years, may crumble in a heap.
Courtesy: http://www.purpleberet.com/details/lifestyle_detail.aspx?id=89

First takeaways from Delhi blast

2011-09-07T22:12:00.000-07:00

By Col. R Hariharan

Terroristshave struck once again in Delhi taking the historical count of such attacks tomore than a dozen. Apart from the tragic loss of lives of innocent public, therepeated terror attacks in Delhi have exposed the soft underbelly of India'sfight against terrorism.

Unfortunatelyin our country one can almost predict the immediate response to terroristattacks because it is so pedestrian - Prime Minister assures the nationterrorists would be brought to book, opposition leaders blame the governmentfor its soft attitude to terrorism, media blames the police, and everyone callsit intelligence failure.

Lashkarterrorists struck Mumbai and went on a rampage on a fateful day - November 26,2008 - many probably expected India to react like the U.S. did after 9/11 AlQaeda attacks. But India is not the U.S.

India hascertain special features - a strange disconnect between thought and action,lack of strategic focus in fighting terrorism and a national inability to focuson core issues for immediate response.

Thesefeatures condition our thought and action in almost all spheres of governance. Forinstance India's 11th five year defence plan is yet to be approved even thoughit will end next year! So it is not surprising that procrastination isaffecting India's readiness to fight terror.

Even the26/11 attack which paralysed the nation for three days, despite all therhetoric, has served the limited purpose of policy makers deciding to shake offtheir lethargy and gear up their act to fight terrorism on a national format.

But thepolicy formulations of newly appointed Home Minister P Chidambaram spelled outafter his take over in 2009 are not yet fully translated into action.

Forinstance the Cabinet Committee on Security approved in principle the proposalfor National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) -- an integrated facility to linkdatabases of 21 departments and ministries - to improve the capability tocounter terror threats was given only in June 2011, nearly three years after26/11 attack demonstrated lack of coordination of government agencies as thenumber one problem in fighting terrorists. Similarly the proposal of the HomeMinister for creating a national centre for counter terrorism is yet to becomea reality.

AmmoniumNitrate which is freely available in fertilizer shops had been one of theingredients in many of the blasts.

Though itis at best a low intensity explosive, its use in conjunction with a highexplosive like PETN enhances blast intensity. A proposal to ban free sale ofammonium nitrate taken up by Home Ministry is still to be implemented due toobjection from Fertilizer Ministry.

Despitethese handicaps, if we take a cursory look as the news bytes of Delhi blasttrickles in, there are some positive signs to show we are learning.

Forinstance, the police response was fast, in 40 minutes the injured were admittedin hospital, and despite the rains, effort was made to save the evidence atsite.

The bombsite was cordoned off. National Intelligence Agency (NIA) was on the scenealmost on the heels of the police.

Byevening, police had interviewed eye witnesses of the blast and preparedsketches of two suspects for rounding up.

Thecomposition of the debris has revealed a nitrate explosive was used in making asophisticated bomb.

The exitroutes from Delhi to neighbouring states were blocked. These may not appearmajor actions but successful investigation of any terrorist act requirescollection and analysis of each and every bit of information, as they help inthe logical analysis of forensic, human and technical intelligence.

Thepublic also showed increased awareness despite the initial panic. In theirreaction people had higher expectations from the government which in itself isa good thing as it showed greater public interest in protective measures beingtaken by government.

Much hasbeen made about the absence of CCTV at the gates of the Delhi High Court whichis indeed a lapse. But even CCTV coverage is more handy to identify the culpritafter the blast than the limited role it can play in preventing a terrorstrike.

In the fight against terrorism, there is no end to preparedness. India is in astate of transition from the bullock cart age to space age; so to galvanise thenation to fight terrorism is no easy task.

It cannotbe left only to politicians or bureaucrats. There is a need to create greaterawareness on counter measures against terrorism.

There hasto be closer interaction between law enforcement agencies and non governmentbodies. And the media has to play a responsible role, and think well beyondhigher TRP ratings.

It istime we stopped finger pointing and scoring political brownie points. We need totake a look at where we have failed and how we can overcome them.

But atthe same time we should dispassionately look at some of the glaring weaknesses.These include:

Absence of motivated leadership to discourage the terrorist fromattacking the national metropolis. To achieve this, political leadership has totake some bold actions, beyond making political statements with an eye on votebanks.
Coordination among government agencies both at the state andcentral level continues to be a weak link. Bureaucracy has to demolish mentalblocks and give up turf wars to achieve real time coordination of theirefforts.
Police modernisation in the states is woefully lagging behinddesired levels of preparedness. As Delhi borders five states it is essentialthis issue is given top priority.
Our judicial system has not been able to catch up with themodernisation process affecting the whole country. There is a need to usetechnology tools to speed up delivery of justice. Similarly, we require stringentlaws to ensure terrorists do not use structural weakness to act with impunity.

Courtesy: www.weekendleader.com

http://www.theweekendleader.com/Columns/115/Lessons-from-the-blast.html

Sri Lanka Perspectives - August 2011

2011-09-03T21:13:00.000-07:00

By Col R Hariharan

Overview

President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s announcement that the state ofemergency in force in the island nation since 2005 would be allowed to lapse inSeptember 2011 was the key development during the month of August. Sri Lankagovernment showed its mounting concern over erosion of its international imagedue to unrelenting international focus on its lack of accountability over humanrights violations and alleged war crimes in the last stages of war.

In particular, the increasingly vocal expression of concerns by Indiaand the U.S. showed that Sri Lanka would have to come up with concrete measuresto convince the international community of its sincerity on tackling thesubject. A strategy for doing this appears to be eluding Sri Lanka still. Atthe same time, Indian government is under tremendous pressure for proactiveaction on Tamil issues including the alleged Sri Lankan war crimes which werediscussed in Indian parliament. This could further increase the internationalmomentum building against Sri Lanka as the issue might figure in the meeting ofthe High Commission for Human Rights at Geneva in September 2011.

On the economic front heavy power shortage continued to dog thecountry. However, the country’s exports appear to be on the upbeat achieving 56percent of the annual target in the first six months of year. Inflation ratehas continued to hover around 7 percent, although high food and fuel pricescontinue to be cause of concern for the common man.

Internal situation

Therehad been a spate of reports of Grease Yaka (Grease Devils) appearing in ruralareas and terrorising villagers in eight districts populated by Tamils andMuslim minorities. Traditionally a grease yakka is a prowler in the dark whoattacks women; he is said to wear only a loin cloth and cover his body with oilto escape capture. Five people including a traffic policeman have been in morethan 30 incidents of vigilantism against grease yakas by paranoid villagers. Inone incident naval sailors and the public got into a fracas over grease yakka attack.

Whilemany villagers have accused the armed forces and police personnel of shieldingthese culprits, the administration has called them as imaginary. These attacksare probably a manifestation of feeling of insecurity triggered by increasinglawless in North and East. However, two battalions under the newly formed 224thBrigade have been moved to Kinniya in Eastern Province in order to assist thepolice to ease the tense situation after several clashes took place in the area recently. Similarly theelite paramilitary force Special Task Force (STF) has been moved to control thesituation at Puttalam, another ‘Grease Yaka’ trouble spot, North of Colombo.

Ending the Emergency

President Mahinda Rajapaksa has announced that the Emergency which hadbeen in force since 2005 will be allowed to lapse on September 8, 2011. SriLanka had come under strong criticism for continuing state of emergency evenafter two years of ending the war. It is perhaps the first concrete movetowards ensuring normalcy in the country although the Prevention of TerrorismAct (PTA), draconian powers to the security forces, continues to be in force.In fact, immediately after the President’s announcement AttorneyGeneral Mohan Peiris clarified that President Rajapaksa had invoked regulationsunder the PTA to ensure that the authorities continue to hold suspects detainedunder emergency laws. There are at present nearly 10,000 suspects awaitingclearance.

The announcement is likely to strengthen Sri Lanka’s recently launchedmulti-pronged international campaign to tackle criticism of its human rightsrecord and rehabilitation effort of war affected Tamil population. Though ExternalAffairs Ministry Secretary Karunatileka Amunugama, described the international campaign againstSri Lanka as “a bigger challenge than winning the 30 year war as the governmenthad to deal with millions of people, billions of resources, big governments andlarge international media organisations” it was largely self inflicted due toshowing total indifference and insensitivity to international criticism.

The Sri Lankan campaign started with the release of a Ministry of Defencereport titled “Humanitarian operation factual analysis – July 2006-May 2009” onthe entire military campaign and a video cassette “Lies Agreed Upon” focusingon the Channel 4 videos on alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka. A collection of aseries of articles critically analysing the UN Secretary General’s advisorypanel report (Darusman Report) by President’s advisor Prof Rajiv Wijesinha hasalso been published in a book form. Presumably as a part of this campaign,External affairs minister Prof GL Peiris addressed the diplomaticcommunity in Colombo and explained action taken by the government to providerelief to those affected by the conflict. He also briefed them on thegovernment efforts to resume talks with the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) ondevolution issues even as the Parliamentary Select Committee deliberated on thesubject at the same time.

TheEmergency imposed after the assassination of Lakshman Kadirgamar, ForeignMinister under President Chandrika Kumaratunga in 2005 has a long history inSri Lanka. Its imposition for long periods had eroded public accountability oflaw enforcing agencies and stifled media freedom.

The UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and India, USA and Australia havewelcomed the move and expressed the hope further measures would be taken tobring ease the situation. However, President Rajapaksa’s announcement oneasing of emergency is sure to evoke further expectations. Unless the liftingof emergency shows visible results in people exercising their freedom withoutfear and intimidation the credibility of the government could be affected.

Economyand business

CeylonChamber of Commerce (CCC) has welcomed the government move to resume stallednegotiations for a comprehensive economic partnership agreement (CEPA) withIndia. The CEPA encompasses closer links between the two countries in trade inservices and investments apart from trade in goods. The Department of Commerceinformed the chamber with India. The CCC said in its annual report “improvedmarket access to the growing Indian economy is essential for Sri Lanka tobecome an economic centre in the world."

Sri LankaPresident had proposed the CEPA with India for the first time in 2008. However,lobbying by some industrialists and professionals opposed the move as theyfeared Indian goods and professionals would flood the market. They apprehendedunder CEPA local industries would suffer and the complicated bureaucracy ofeach Indian state would make life difficult for Sri Lankan exporters. Tocertain extent the latter fear is correct as state bureaucracies in India hadnot allowed the unfettered growth of trade under Free Trade Agreement betweenthe two countries. However, according to media draft CEPA documents indicateIndia had responded to the concerns and proposed creation of more access to SriLanka, while Sri Lanka indicated specific areas open to India, in terms ofsector and number of professionals allowed matched by investment.

SriLanka's port authority has asked China for $40 million loan to demolish amassive seabed rock obstructing the entrance of its new $1.4 billion Hambantotaport. Sri Lanka launched the port inAugust 2010 with an initial target of handling 2,500 ships annually. It was dueto start commercial operations this year. However large ships are yet to callupon due to the obstructing entry. This is likely to delay the exploitation offull potential of the port. The fuel bunkering terminal is to start operationsnext month, four months behind schedule.

India-SriLanka relations under strain

DrManmohan Singh’s government already beleaguered by the massive campaign againstcorruption spearheaded by social activist Anna Hazare had a difficult time inhandling the strong criticism of its handling of Sri Lanka Tamils issues inboth houses of parliament. All major opposition political parties and representatives from Tamil Nadu demandedspecific action by India on Sri Lanka’s human rights violations, war crimes anddevolution of powers Responding toconcerns raised by members on human rights violations during the armed conflictwith LTTE and after the defeat of the Tamil Tigers, Krishna said New Delhiwould like Sri Lanka to make "transparent" investigations into suchallegations and that the probe should not be a "make believe" one.

However, he added that India would not like to "endanger" itsrelations with Sri Lanka and work with it for relief and resettlement ofinternally displaced people. He said since India has always championed thecause of human rights, it has taken up "in strongest possible terms"to address the issue of human rights.

On the issue of the UN panel report and concerns expressed bymembers about atrocities against Tamils, the External affairs minister saidIndia was “just waiting for this to come up in any one of the IntergovernmentalBodies before the United Nations, so that India can take a position to expressits views on that.”

Regarding the harassment of Indian fishermen "allegedly" by the SriLankan Navy, Krishna said Colombo has denied the role of its navy in suchincidents and promised to investigate "some of the incidents". Theminister said the incidents of Indian fishermen either being killed or missinghave come down in the past three years and this year only six Indian fishermenhave died.

With such pressures and political sensitivity, Indian governmentis likely to exercise extreme caution in handling issues relating to Sri Lanka.

On thesidelines of Sri Lanka issue, Indian government is facing piquant situation thePresident of India turned down the mercy petition of three men (including twoSri Lankans) facing death sentence for their role in Rajiv Gandhi’sassassination case. The mercy petition had been pending for 11 years and afterit was turned down a date for their hanging was fixed. The pro-LTTE fringeparties in Tamil Nadu under Vaiko, leader of Marumalarchi Dravida MunnetraKazagham (MDMK), successfully orchestrated a widespread public campaigndemanding clemency to the three persons facing death. And Tamil Nadu assemblypassed a unanimous resolution recommending the commutation of their deathsentences.

For thetime being some reprieve has come as Madras High Court has stayed the hangingfor two months, pending the disposal of a fresh petition to the President bythe affected parties. The government is on the horns of dilemma as it faces twoproblems: its response on this case could set a precedent in 11 other caseswhere mercy petitions were pending; and the risk of any sympathetic action tothe prisoners being twisted into a major victory by sections of Tamil Diaspora.That could help them to revive LTTE activity.

Miscellaneous

Nearly 2500 personnel from Sri Lanka’s three services including 1600 army commandos and special forces participated in a six day-long exercise ‘Comoran Strike’ in the Trincomalee area. According to military spokesman, the exercise involved amphibious landing and carrying out special task involving mainly army and naval forces.

Sri Lanka and Pakistan secretaries of commerce met at Colombo to discuss ways of improving the operation of Pakistan Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (PSFTA) and to overcome difficulties faced by Pakistani traders in exporting to Sri Lanka.

Written on August 31, 2012

Courtesy: South Asia Security Trends, Vol 5 No 8

URL: www.security-risks.com

Why Anna Hazare's movement is first of its kind?

2011-08-31T04:11:00.000-07:00

I am amazed that Anna had been able to achieve what no politicalparty or movement has ever before been able to do -- create a national focus,says Col (retd) R Hariharan [ Images ]

Thisis the first poser that comes to mind when we see thousands of people in whomhe raised hopes rejoicing in the streets. The answer depends upon how we seeAnna Hazare's campaign. We can answer the question better after understandingwhat he did achieve and what he did not. Here is my take.

Ihave been listening to cliché-ridden sanctimonious speeches of politicalleaders delivered in a monotonous tone that put me to sleep for nearly fourdecades now; the latest one of this genre was Dr Manmohan Singh's [ Images] Independence Day address. This painful exercise coupled with watchingcorpulent Parliament members walking in and out of Parliament on non-issueswith feigned indignation beamed on Lok Sabha TV has turned me quite cynicalabout our "democratic process". This cynicism had been furtherreinforced after watching our lawmakers in disorderly conduct on the floor ofthe House with increasing frequency. In fact, I advise parents not to let theirkids to watch our Lok Sabha proceedings lest the young minds consider themas standard parliamentary procedure and perpetuate it.

Soit came as a great relief for me during the last three days to see Parliamentmembers seriously discussing issues with the level of urgency they deserved. Ofcourse, in the past they had shown great urgency in dealing with and disposingof issues in one-day flat inside Parliament without all the song and danceabout select committee grandstand. But these were issues they considered to beof great importance, like increasing their own emoluments and allowances thatleft taxpayers like me jealous and fuming.

Soit was amazing to see them discuss issues related to corruption, which they hadwished away for four decades. I doubt whether the Parliament members wouldhave shown such alacrity if Anna's deteriorating health had not put a gun totheir heads. Making Parliament members of all hues face issues that matter isthe first achievement of Anna Hazare's fast.

Theability to analyse the core issue from different perspectives demonstrated by somemembers was impressive. The way some young members like Varun Gandhi [ Images], Scindia and Jindal demonstrated their ability to separate the grain fromchaff and zero in on the core issue was amazing. I am at a loss to understandwhy their political parties are not using them to identify and handle issuestroubling GenNext.

Second achievement

Thisis that it has shown that one can achieve results, at least partially, applyingGandhian methods of non-violent struggle on a national scale. It has given alease of life to the whole philosophy of non-violence for social activism. Formost of the post-independence generation, the Mahatma had become a distantmemory with relevance only linked to a national holiday. Anna, a frail, aging,non-political social activist, whose articulation was at best simple and basic,has demonstrated that all classes (in our country, I should add castes)of people regardless of their differences could be mobilised to focus on asingle agenda without political patronage.

Icome from a state where all major political parties woo (bribe if you want totell the truth) the people with biryani packets, free movie tickets, liquor and'pocket money' to attend their political rallies in large numbers.

So Anna'smobilisation of the masses through informal channels, made up of a motleycollection of assorted professionals, retired bureaucrats, aam janataetc (who would never have come together otherwise) was shock therapy to me. Todub this as a middle class movement is sophistry and ignoring the core issue ofcorruption that galvanised people of all walks to the cause. Surely, thedabbawalas of Mumbai [ Images ] and pettyshopkeepers of Delhi [ Images ], who struck workin solidarity with Anna's call, are not paeans of middle class values.

Third achievement

The'Anna phenomenon' may or may not survive but it has set a precedent, if not anoperational procedure, for other potential Annas with a cause to do it allover. This is a scary scenario for political parties which have taken thepeople for granted during the last four decades. That was why most of thepolitical parties remained silent initially and some of them closed ranks totalk of how Anna's movement was threatening parliamentary process and theConstitution; some of the media also highlighted these issues. The regionalparties resting on the bedrock of casteism and parochialism were reluctant todiscuss and talk of corruption as an issue at all.

Butthe doubting Thomases among the political parties became jittery after thegovernment's traditional methods of browbeating, character assassinationthrough innuendoes, intimidation and arrest (applied successfully in a hundredother situations) failed to stave off the surge of support across the countryfor Anna. And Rahul Gandhi [ Images] echoed their sentiments in Parliament rather late in the day when events werealready overtaking the validity of this argument (and probably excluded himselffrom the Congress firefighting group to get out of an increasingly embarrassingsituation).

Thisstark realisation struck the Congress party and Dr Manmohan Singh when theystarted losing control of the situation rapidly. They had limited options butto act before something happened to Anna, which had the potential to wresttheir control of the country. As a result, Anna's movement has put politicalparties on notice; political parties have to keep their ear to the ground nowon.

Cananother social activist do a copycat performance of Anna, as the politicalparties fear? I doubt; for such an act requires a leader who can relate to the aamjanata with a cause that can appeal to the whole nation. But who knewearlier that Anna could do such an act and succeed? This uncertainty is sure todog the political parties from now on and they have to keep in touch with thepeople. And it is a good thing that the political parties with their cozysetups get shaken up once in a while so that they act in terms of whatthe common man wants rather than only talk about it.

Anna'sinsistence on Parliament discussing and recognising the three core issuesgermane to corruption and governance: citizen's charter for accountability ofgovernment; bringing lower bureaucracy under the anti-corruption mechanism; andestablishing Lokayuktas in states, has a special place in the whole tale. Butfor his insistence on this basic minimum condition for breaking his fast, thegovernment would have ignored these issues. They provide a broad framework forevolving a national anti-corruption policy to clean up governance.

Failures

1. The holy cows -- Parliament members and their politicalparties -- will not be directly affected by Anna's achievement. So politicalcorruption can go on as before; but will they be bold enough to do so,particularly when each one of them is waiting to score a brownie point?

2. What will be the organisation to ensure the government andParliament live up to their promises? The action committee looks jerry builtand too frail to carry on and keep the issues in public focus. It will requirea well-knit organisation led in each state by effective leadership to live upto the high expectations kindled by Anna's success.

3. Experienced political leaders showed they can change theiract quickly and change their negotiating positions with an agility I have seenonly in military manoeuvres; can Anna's team match it when the pressures ofAnna's fast is not there as a foil? I have my reservations, although there is alot of potential in leaders like Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan.

So did Anna succeed or fail?

Itis difficult to say who has won or lost in this clash between the politicalleadership and social activism. It is like judging Mohammed Ali's bout with theJapanese Sumo champion. Anna's movement was not political; it was socialassertion of ordinary people. People rallied to him not because he was tryingto score political brownie points like politicians; on some issues many thoughthe was naive.

Ofcourse, one can argue that he lost because he watered down his demands andzeroed in on the three core issues which he wanted Parliament to accept.However, it is difficult to believe that Team Anna, with all its talent, reallybelieved that they could get Parliament to pass the Jan Lokpal bill beforeAugust 30. I think it was a tactical ploy to pitch their demand high and scaleit down in negotiations subsequently; probably Team Anna had some internaldifferences on these tactics. As one who has handled negotiations with extremists,these are standard tactics adopted in any negotiation where both sides want toachieve results rather than carry on the fight.

Inthis case, the government also tried to buy time by first browbeating and thensticking to its hobby horse of parliamentary supremacy, which was never theissue. They also climbed down when they realised they could not intimidate orcrush the groundswell of support Anna had generated. So sensibly, with the helpof mediators, they negotiated a more reasonable demand from Anna and his Teamthat could be pushed through Parliament. So I suppose both sides can claim'victory' of sorts.

Itis silly to compare Anna with the Mahatma; they are from different eras andoperated in different settings. But in one respect I am amazed that Anna hadbeen able to achieve what no political party or movement has ever before beenable to do -- create a national focus. Even the Mahatma in his time was betterequipped; he had a unique charisma and a record of achievements in the strugglefor freedom and a large section of Congress workers and cadres who implicitlycarried out his orders. But Anna had none of these frills. His background isweighted against him achieving national stature; a retired driver of the armyfrom an unknown corner in Maharashtra [ Images] who had been ploughing a lone furrow; outside his state people had littleinterest in his activities. Despite this, think of what he has been able toachieve in his lifetime!

Iam a year older than him and when I look back, I am ashamed at what little Ihad been able to do for society. This is what he has achieved.

Whatmore can you ask for from a man?

Courtesy: www.rediff.com 30 August 2011

http://www.rediff.com/news/column/why-anna-hazares-movement-is-first-of-its-kind-column/20110830.htm

Daughter Desh Ki

2011-08-26T06:55:00.000-07:00

ByShahana

It was arainy midnight in July in an exhausted little city called Poona. I was fastasleep when all of a sudden I heard someone breathe very heavily, almostchoking with utter shock and bewilderment. I woke up with a start only to seeMaa staring at the television wide-eyed and terrified.

There itwas —NDTV on full volume with Barkha Dutt reporting some flood, scandal, orsome such thing which at that point did not matter. Maa pointed at the ticker,which was rolling the same news over and over, as if to make sure it wasdrilled deep into my cerebrum that the commanding officer of 22 RashtriyaRifles has been shot in a terrorist encounter in the valley of Sopore. I staredin utter disbelief. One only knew people or knew of people who met withcircumstances such as these, but knowing that this time it was my father at thereceiving end of the bullet was just the one thing I could not fathom.

Therewere no tears. There was no pain. There was no shock. Only a pragmatic motherand her even more pragmatic ways. She told me to go back to sleep and decidedthat I should focus on my upcoming exams. Just like that. She made countlesscalls that night only to realize that all lines to my father’s office andresidence in Kashmir were unattended and were probably going to be for manyhours. We did not sleep that night and we assumed that we had lost him.

We foundout later that despite Pak TV’s report that said ‘woh halal ho gaye’, he hadbeen found and was rushed to the I.C.U. His radio operator, however was not solucky. Those few hours in my otherwise calm adolescence were, undoubtedly themost traumatic and mind numbing. And I speak for most Army officer’s kids whenI say that its times like these that make us who we are- uncontrollablypatriotic.

Whilenews coverage in 1999 brought Kargil to the Indian living room, we witnessedthe war at a very personal level. With every tricolour wrapped coffin, we hopedit was not someone we knew. Not the officer who used to play hide and seek withus during Mess parties, or the one who used to take us for bike rides on hisnew Kawasaki, or the one who first taught you how to hold a tennis racket oreven the one who we used to make fun of because some pretty girl refused todance with him in last month’s social evening. But all we could do was hope. Asthe number of dead soldiers soared, our hopes waned. Every death was the lossof a father, a husband, a son, a brother a fiancé or a childhood sweetheart,all of whom to us were family.

Whilemost of the country was surprisingly supportive, given the lack of informationabout the defence forces out there, there were instances that made most of usArmy kids cringe, partly in disbelief and partly in disgust. I remember flyingIndian Airlines from Bombay to Bhuj and as I was about to board the plane Isuddenly noticed those dreaded coffins about 10 meters from where I was.

There were about fifteen of them, along the sidewalk, wrapped snugly in thetricolour before they were about to be transported to their various residencesor battalions. I noticed this rather corpulent gentleman giving sterndirections for what exactly to do with these ‘boxes’ as he called them. Thesewere his exact words, while he loudly thumped one of them “Arey kya yaar, indabbo ko hatta yaha se, poora jam karke rakha hai idhar.” My heart sank and myeyes welled up instantly with tears of anger, rage and most of all, insult.

But Icould do nothing. I let him deride the lost lives of the people I have knownand loved for years. To my horror, I found out later, that Indian Airlines hadrefused to transport these very coffins in their carriers. So much for being apublic sector airline.

Beingfrom a culturally inclined, rather diverse family, I was always given theemotional freedom to make my own choices, as a result of which I had anextremely eclectic group of friends from every age group and politicalpredilection, the latter of which sometimes, would bother me to no end. Duringmy college years and for a while after, the anti-army stand became the ‘it’thing. One was young, rebellious and had read every online copy of Al-Jazeeraand was now convinced that the army was out to get every civilian in sight. Myfriends would debate into the wee hours of the morning about atrocitiescommitted and the ever so reported ‘mysterious deaths’. About whether the armyhad been given too free a rope and whether they deserve the perks they get.After numerous attempts to defend, protect and preserve the sanctity of mybeloved establishment, I gave up. This constant bickering and debating waspointless and it took the life out of me, because for me it was not aboutdefending an institution, it was about defending the only place I could callhome.

Askingan army kid to ‘look at the other side’ or better still ‘get some perspective onthe issue’ is like asking a Holocaust survivor to do the same. I don’t wantperspective. I don’t see another side. All I see is that the lives of our menin uniform are not held in the high regard that they should be. All I see isthat they pay too heavy a price for the eternal political hogwash. All I see isthese selfless men, who have missed life’s smallest yet most important momentsjust so you can live out yours. All I see is one side and its mine and I am notashamed or even inhibited to say it.

We arethe only category of children in the country who get very confused when askedwhere we are from. What do I say? I am part Maharashtrian- part South Indian, Iwas brought up by Sardars and Parsis and I went to 13 schools? That’s justmessed up. But it’s true. That’s where you can shove in your perspectiveargument. This kind of cultural diversity is exactly what perspective is. Butthis is the extent to which we can go. No more please.

I havealways beamed with pride to be called an army ‘brat’ but as I walk into a lifeoutside, a life of the unknown, one thing is for certain. This is amore-than-real, heartbreaking, gut wrenching goodbye to a love that has lasteda lifetime.

Courtesy:http://raagshahana.blogspot.com/2011/08/daughter-desh-ki.html

Sri Lanka: Getting out of the “Grease Yakka” syndrome

2011-08-23T04:07:00.000-07:00

By Col R Hariharan

Sri Lanka is currently rocked by reports of ‘Grease Yakka” (Grease devils)suddenly appearing in rural areas and terrorising villagers. Traditionally agrease yakka is a prowler in the dark who attacks women; he is said to wearonly a loin cloth and cover his body with oil to escape capture. Already five lives have been lost in morethan 30 incidents of vigilantism against grease yakkas by paranoid villagers. In two recent incidents a policeman was killed by iratevillagers and a traffic-cop beaten up and four others were injured. In oneincident naval sailors and the public got into a fracas over grease yakkaattack. What is interesting is most of these incidents have been reported from eightTamil and Muslim minority inhabited districts.

Some years back there was a similar series of mysterious animal attacks in outskirtsof New Delhi in areas where illegal low cost colonies had mushroomed. It was identifiedas mass hysteria triggered by feeling of insecurity due to fearof child snatchers and other criminal element prowling in the area. The administration tightened law enforcement in affected areas and the hysteria died a natrual death.

The suspicion and violence triggered in these villagers probably have similarorigins. It is probably symptomatic of the feeling of insecurity and lack oftrust in the administration and law enforcement agencies among minoritypopulation. They are not yet fully recovered from the traumatic effects of war; many have lost their kith and kin, property and livelihood. While they struggleto cope with these problems, they have also to deal with criminal elementsmoving around with political patronage. Unfortunately, the governmenthas failed to create climate of trust and security in its actions during two years of post war peacce; there is a big gap between what it says and how it acts. This clouds their perceptions of security and trust in the rulers.

Why is the government having the Emergency in force even after two years of peace? Can a couple of defeated LTTE prisoners held in prison overthrowthe militarily powreful government? Find no answers to these questions, the continuing state of emergency andits draconian enactment is a constant reminder to the minorities that the normalcy the government talks of is yet to arrive. The larger than life presence of battlehardened troops in their immediate neighbourhoods only reinforces these fears.

And how can the government conduct free and fair elections when many of theEmergency provisions confer special powers to the executive to directlyinterfere with the campaign process? But the government had conducted electionsin such a setting. The media continues to be wary of hostile reaction (usuallyfrom goons in white vans) to what they write or utter. And mediamen who do not relent continue to pay the price. Can these acts createconfidence in the government among the population burnt by three decades ofinsurgency and terrorism?

Even on the larger issue of Tamil grievances President Rajapaksa’sgovernment appears to be moving from prevarication to doublespeak. Otherwise it is difficult to explain thetortuous political journey of this issue in recent history. Even before the warstarted in 2006, President Rajapaksa had repeatedly affirmed that he wantedTamils to join the national mainstream as equal partners. That was the avowedgoal of his ‘humanitarian war’ against the Liberation Tigers. He frequentlyrepeats these affirmations to India, talking about his contemplated actions (Ihave already written about this, so I do not want to repeat it) so that theIndian government, beleaguered by vociferous demand from Tamil Nadu, could buytime.

However, of late the President’s two brothers – Basil andGotabaya who hold responsible positions in government – have repeatedly stressedthat the present constitution was adequate and nothing more was needed to be donefor Tamils. They say so even as the President announces his plans to form aParliamentary Select Committee to deal with the issue. Andhis brother and Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapakse goes on the Indian TV andsays “The existing constitution is more than enough for us to live together. Idon’t think there is any issue on this more than that. I mean this was given asa solution for the whole thing with the discussion of these people. I mean nowthe LTTE is gone, I don’t think there is any requirement. I mean what can youdo more than this? This gives power at a lower lever. Even now we had the localgovernment elections…” If this is not doublespeak, what is it then?

Government representatives held ten rounds of talks with the Tamil NationalAlliance, the largest Tamil party. Accordingto TNA, it got cheesed off with this exercise as the government came up with no proposal. In disgust TNA withdrewitself from the talks as it considered an exercise in futility. Immediately, treasury benches accuse TNA ofLTTE mindset. Few weeks later 13 ministers and five other parliamentarians givenotice to parliament to enlarge the scope of the Parliamentary Select Committeeand dilute its exclusive focus on Tamil grievances.

Do these actions indicate that the government is serious about attending toTamil grievances? Far from it; on the contrary, one has to come to thesad conclusion that the government’s focus had all along been to milk maximumpolitical mileage by using the Tamil issue and harp oninternational conspiracy to destabilise the country. Is the government seeing a political grease yakka or creating one? We don't know.

But in the bargain, ethnicdivide has been given a fresh lease of life. And the Tamil minority, whittleddown in numbers now, will have to continue to cope with this anomalous situation.

The Channel 4 allegations of war crimes issue has now reached across thePalk Strait; and the U.S. has told Sri Lanka that it wants the final report ofthe Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) discussed at the 19thsessions of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in March 2012. A morevociferous chief minister in Tamil Nadu is vigorously espousing the Sri Lankan Tamilgrievances. All these issues provide ample scope for furthering politicalopportunism in Sri Lanka. These issues, coupled with the constant focus on thelikely resurgence of Tamil terrorism (which the government had claimed waswiped out forever) there is a real danger of political paranoia becomingendemic, infecting the government. And it might be too late for Sri Lanka toget out of the grease yakka syndrome.

Courtesy: South Asia Analysis Group

URL: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cnotes7%5Cnote635.html

"A battle we must not lose "

2011-08-22T22:40:00.000-07:00

Columnists of all hues had been working overtime to write about Anna Hazare's Jan Lokpal Bill and anti-corruption movement. Many of these columnists have tried to interpret, what is surely a mass movement that has inspired IIT students the same way as it had done with Bombay Dabbawalas, from their own entrenched views and agendas. Among all these articles I think it is Pritish Nandy's piece given below appears to pragmatically explain what Team Anna is trying to do. The Jan Lokpal Bill is not a movement against politicians or leaders or parliament but against corruption, lack of accountability and ignoring peoples problems.

Read on and make up your mind.

"A battle we must not lose "

By Pritish Nandy

Forget Anna Hazare.The Jan Lokpal movement can go to hell for all I care. Let us just look at theissues over which the battle between the Government and us citizens is beingfought. And then let’s decide where we want to stand, each one of us, on theissue of corruption.

The first question is: Do corruption and bribery hurt you? If they do, do youwant a solution? If your answer is yes to both, do you think such a solutionlies with an independent authority? Or do you think a corrupt Government canfight corruption on its own, and within its own ranks? If your answer is no tothat, then we need to create an independent institution to fight corruption.Right? Well, that’s precisely what Anna is asking for. He is asking for aLokpal that the Government cannot influence nor manipulate. This is the firstbattle.

The second battle is over four things.

One: Should the Prime Minister comeunder the purview of the Lokpal? Almost everyone I know thinks he should. Ahonest Prime Minister wouldn’t care. A dishonest one must be supervised. Orelse, we will have cases like Bofors that will never ever be resolved.

Two:Should Members of Parliament come under the Lokpal? I have not met a singleperson till date who thinks that our MPs are so honest that they need not besupervised. My guess is if a referendum is ever taken, Anna will get a 100% yesto this question, given what people think of our politicians and the standardsof probity in public life.

The third question is even more obvious: Do allpublic servants need to come under the Lokpal? My guess is India’s answer willbe yes, yes, yes. Every day, in every area of our life and work, we areconstantly harassed, intimidated and extorted by corrupt Government officers.The poorer you are, the worse is the torture. So yes, every public servant,every Government officer must come under the Lokpal.

Question four: Who shouldgive permission to file an FIR against a corrupt judge? If the Lokpal can lookinto corruption charges against the PM, the MPs and Government servants, isn’tit only logical to expect it to do the same against judges?

The third and final battle is over an even simpler thing: The Citizen’sCharter. Should every Government office have such a Charter which will clearlystate which officer will do what work and in how much time? And should anofficer who refuses to do his work in time or asks for a bribe to move a filebe punished? The Government says a charter a fine but Government servants mustnot be penalised if they don’t do their work! Anna believes that officers notdoing their work in time amounts to corruption and must face the sametreatment. Isn’t it rather obvious what India thinks about this?

Do we really need a referendum on these simple, basic issues? I seriously doubtit. Every Indian will endorse the idea of a Lokpal as Anna and his team haveenvisioned it, with the help of thousands of Indians who have contributedonline to the process of drafting the bill.

Yes, there are genuine fears that we should not create yet another monster outthere, who will make life more difficult for us than it already is. But even thathas been addressed rather adroitly by Anna’s team. It is a complex process,true but it also ensures that the choice is wisely made. And what if there arecharges against the Lokpal? Well, there’s a provision there too. You can gostraight to the Supreme Court and seek justice out there.

So why are we arguing so much over this Bill? Why is the Government digging itsheels in and refusing to listen to us citizens? Why must Anna go on a hungerstrike all over again to press home the point that corruption must be foughtback? I guess it’s a question of both ego and fear. No one likes to give up thepower they have, and certainly not the Government. In fact, it’s always tryingto interfere more and more in our lives, grab more and more authority, more andmore space. And fear? Well, I guess we all know the answer to that. This ispossibly the most corrupt Government we have ever had. It has good reason to bescared.

Sam Bahadur is Bharat's Ratna

2011-08-20T07:28:00.000-07:00

[Those of us who served under the Sam Bahadur will remember him for ever. But will the nation remember? Here is an article by Major General Ashok Mehta suggesting that the Bharat Ratna be conferred posthumously on Sam Manekshaw, India's only Field Marshal.]

By Ashok K Mehta

Around Independence Day each year, military heroes are remembered mainly due tothe prodding by the media (one news channel did a special show, remembering thearmed forces). Grudgingly the Government commemorates Vijay Diwas and only theArmy celebrates the victory in Kargil, one of the most difficult andself-disadvantaged Infantry battles won by our soldiers. Yet warriors are forgotten quickly.

Cricketers on the other hand, are adulated 24x7, making cricket the de factonational sport and its players the idols of the country. GovernmentMinisters, officials and others yearn to be associated with the game and itsheroes as it brings fame, money and power. Cricket has been besmirched withcorruption and market forces have overwhelmed the game. A young first timepolitician and potential Foreign Minister became its first hit-wicket casualty.

The disproportionate time and space provided to cricket has disoriented thepriorities of the nation to the detriment of other sports and activities. Onename that has gained folklore status is Sachin Tendulkar who is chasing hishundredth hundred. A campaign to make him a Bharat Ratna has been launchedprematurely before other more deserving cases are recognised. The stunning series defeat of the Indian Testteam in England should bring them down to earth. It’s time to rethink cricket.

The nation and Government have beenparticularly ungrateful to soldier and gentleman Sam Manekshaw who conferred onthe country, in 1971, its first military victory in more than a thousand years.While Sam was made Field Marshal in1973, he was sent home unceremoniously.

Defence Minister Jagjivan Ram, with whom he had differences, ordered that noone would go to see off the special train taking Sam and his wife Silloo toCoonoor in the Nilgiris.

The civil service had done the firstField Marshal of India a signal dishonour by placing him number 12 in theWarrant of Precedence, clubbed with the Chiefs of Staff holding the rank offull General or equivalent rank. At the very least, he ought to have been abovethe Cabinet Secretary, if not in Block 11 with Ministers of State.

But this slight was deliberate. Hispension was fixed at Rs 1,200 and a measly Rs 400 allowance was given for beingField Marshal. When terminally ill at Wellington Military Hospital,Defence Secretary Shekhar Dutt went to cheer him with his arrears of enhanced pensionamounting to about Rs 1 crore. TypicallySam, he looked at the cheque and told Mr Dutt: “I hope the cheque won’t bounce.”

The biggest ignominy was reserved when the Field Marshal died. At the funeralceremony the Government was not adequately represented. Nor were the Services,the slip-up being attributed to “confusion in Warrant of Precedence”. The Ministry of Defence failed to put out anobituary matching the contribution of Sam Manekshaw: Winning decisively a warand creating a new country, Bangladesh.

Mrs Indira Gandhi was fond of Sam and went out of her way at least twice to gethim elevated to Chief of Defence Staff. But the nexus between civil bureaucracyand the IAF killed the proposal on both occasions. She then tried to get him asMember (Defence) in the Planning Commission, but this appointment did not takeoff. In 1978, the then Prime Minister, Morarji Desai, called on Sam to head theSports Authority of India but nothing came of it.

The Government’s loss was the corporate world’s gain. He was invited tobecome a member of the boards of a dozen companies across India and a directorof several others. Being a member of the Oberoi Group, he had his chosen roomin all Oberoi hotels as well as, courtesy the Army, a vintage car in Kolkatacomplete with five stars, the Field Marshal’s flag and driver Yum Bahadur. His intense association with the Gurkhasearned him the legendary title of Sam Bahadur and a lifetime’s passion forthem.

Sam’s lectures on leadership andman-management were unrivalled. In one, he talked about chronicshortages, power cuts, corruption, bribery, smuggling and said: “People ask me,why is this happening? The answer is: Lack of leadership, not just politicalbut administrative, in industry… everywhere.” He enumerated his famous nineattributes of leadership to which he added: “He must have manly qualities” (atanother place he had said, “He must bea bit of a lad”).

At another lecture he said: “A lot haschanged in the 60 years since I joined the Army, including the Englishlanguage. When in my days someone said that Captain Manekshaw was gay, he meantthat he laughed and joked. If an officer was queer, it meant he would ratherread Milton than join his friends for a hunt. And General Officers were theonly ones who had Aides.”

The military, which still commands thetop slots in probity, integrity, dedication and continues to put its life onthe block, feels it has been unfairly marginalised. Civil servants haveensured the post-retirement exclusion of valuable military expertise, even inappointments dealing with defence and national security. Why is it that National Security Advisers andtheir deputies are only from the police, foreign and administrative services ?In the US 80 per cent of these appointments are held by serving or retiredArmed Forces officers. The need for CDS was felt in 1972. We are stilldodging the inevitable.

Sam Manekshaw told cadets at a passingout parade at the Military Academy in Dehradun shortly before he died at theripe young age of 95: “In war,there are no runners-up and the nation has no room for losers. If you aredefeated, and should you come back, you would be a disgrace to the nation. Evenyour gharwali (wife) willdespise you,” he growled.

You can be thrashed in a cricket series and sulk. The scars of defeat in war donot heal easily. The country carries acollective guilt for the self-inflicted national shame of 1962. Victor Chinahas maintained its psychological domination and fear till this day.

Soon after taking over the ill-fated 4Corps in Tezpur after the Chinese drubbing, Lt-Gen Sam Manekshaw told hisstaff: "I have arrived. There will be no withdrawals.” He went onto lead the Army to a resounding victory in 1971.

It’s time for the Government to make upwith Sam Bahadur by posthumously awarding him the Bharat Ratna ‘in recognitionof public service of the highest order.’ Sachin Tendulkar should propose hisname.

Coutresy: The Daily Pioneer, Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Pakistan's army: Divided it stands

2011-08-17T00:18:00.000-07:00

[Recently I read a provocative analysis by Pervez Hoodbhoy on what is happening in Pakistan and how Pakistan army has contributed to the present state of disorder there. I am sharing it here with the readers. It presents a scary picture because an unstable Pakistan is a potential danger not only for India but South Asia as a whole.]

By Pervez Hoodbhoy, 12 August 2011

[Why is the Army gettingweaker? The problem is not the lack of materiel – guns, bombs, men, and money.These have relatively easy fixes. Instead it is the military’s diminished moralpower and authority, absence of charismatic leadership, and visibly evidentaccumulation of property and wealth. More than anything else, the Army has soughtto please both the Americans as well as their enemies]

Pakistan bleeds from a thousand cuts. If things hadgone according to plan it is India that should have been hurting now, notPakistan. The army’s 25 years-old low-cost, high-impact strategy of covertwarfare would have liberated Kashmir and secured Afghanistan from Indianinfluence.

Instead, a fierce blowback has led to a dailypileup of shaheeds, the casualties of a plan that went awry. The moraleof a fine fighting force plummets still further when its soldiers are orderedto fight those coreligionists who claim to be fighting for Islam. The reportedrefusal of some military units to confront the Taliban during last year’s SouthWaziristan operation is said to have shocked senior officers and severelylimited their battle options in North Waziristan.

Post bin Laden, things have worsened. Pakistan’scurrent crop of generals must simultaneously deal with the haughty Americandiktat to “do more”, Islamic militant groups fixated upon attacking bothAmerica and India, and a heavily Islamicized rank and file brimming withseditious thoughts. Some want to killtheir superior officers; they achieved near success when GeneralMusharraf was targeted twice by air force and army officers in 2003. A militarycourt sentenced the mutineers to death, and a purge of officers and menassociated with militants was ordered.

Although the army hasbeen extremely reluctant to admit that radicalization exists within its ranks,sometimes this fact simply cannot be swept under the rug. Lastweek, the Army was forced to investigate Brigadier Ali Khan for his ties tomilitants of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a radical organization that seeks to establisha global caliphate and thinks its mission should begin from nuclear Pakistan.The highest ranking officer so far arrested, Ali Khan comes from a family withthree generations of military service and is said to have a strong professionalrecord. It is said that General Kayani was reluctant to take this step in spiteof incontrovertible proof that Brigadier Khan had militant connections becausehe feared the backlash. Four army majors are also currently being investigated,but this could be just the tip of an iceberg.

Plummeting esteem

The military’s internaldifficulties come at a time when its public esteem has hit near a new low,approaching that which existed in 1971. Today it is the object of scorn andopen profanities. No longer do people agree that those criticizing the Armyactually play into the hands of the enemy. Watchingprotesters in Islamabad’s Aabpara market, which is just a short walk down fromthe main ISI headquarters, I saw protesters tear down a huge military sponsoredbanner praising the Army and ISI. The onlookers, conservative shopkeepersincluded, cheered lustily.

Criticism comes from diverse quarters. Pakistaninationalists are upset that their military has consumed the bulk of thenation’s resources. Nevertheless its radars and equipment proved woefullyincapable of defending the country from American intruders. On the midnight ofMay 2, as the Army snored and US-supplied PAF fighter and early warningaircraft stood idle on the tarmac, an elite squad of helicopter-borneAmerican Navy SEALs had quietly slipped into Pakistan from Afghanistan a littlepast midnight. They snatched Osama bin Laden from the Army’s armpit near thePakistan Military Academy at Kakul, pumped him full of bullets, and dispatchedhim to his watery grave hours later. It was only when the Americans had exitedPakistan’s airspace that air defences were scrambled.

Dissatisfaction withtheir leadership is said to run throughout the Army. Junior officers are confronting theirsuperiors with impertinent questions. Stung by criticism all around, GenKayani has been stumping the garrisons to raise morale. He was asked why theinvaders were not challenged and destroyed. Also, who sheltered bin Laden if weare actually fighting al-Qaeda, our declared enemy? The Express Tribune quotesan unnamed young military officer who made a stinging comment before the armychief: “Sir, I am ashamed ofwhat happened in Abbottabad.” Replied Gen. Kayani, “So am I.” Hepromptly went on to hold Zardari’s government responsible for allowing Pakistanto get such bad press.

The military’s woeful inability to defend its ownpersonnel and assets has tarnished its image still further. The dramatic attackon the Army’s GHQ in 2009, going on to the destruction of three ISI regionalheadquarters by insider informed suicide bombers, revealed its helplessness. The military again drew the nation’swithering scorn weeks after the OBL killing when, on May 22, flamesdevoured the Navy’s two $36 million aircraft, the anti-submarine P3C Orion.Only 6-20 attackers were involved, but they had successfully battled hundredsof security forces at Karachi’s Mehran naval base for 18 hours and exposed theineptness of the defenders.

Following the Mehran attack, the militaryauthorities arrested from Lahore a former Special Services Group commando ofthe Pakistan Navy, Kamran Ahmed, and his younger brother, Zaman Ahmed.Attempting to disprove that this was a mutiny, a hurriedly convened officialinquiry claimed that DNA tests “proved” the attackers at Mehran base were notPakistanis. But if genes can reveal one’s nationality, or the quality of one’spatriotism, then this must surely be a milestone in the history of genetics.

An unwelcome weakness

In its effort to breedthe armies of God, the Pakistan Army has fallen victim to its own successes.Self-inflicted injuries generally get little sympathy. Still, it is difficultto be joyful at the prospect of the Army’s division, disintegration, anddownfall. Should this happen, Pakistan and its people will have to deal withthe much deadlier forces. Theunfathomable hell of Talibanization lies beneath.

Why is the Army gettingweaker? The problem is not the lack of materiel – guns, bombs, men, and money.These have relatively easy fixes. Insteadit is the military’s diminished moral power and authority, absence ofcharismatic leadership, and visibly evident accumulation of property andwealth. More than anything else, the Army has sought to please both theAmericans as well as their enemies. Recent revelations have brought thiscontradiction into stark relief.

Officially, the Army condemns drone attacks inPakistan’s tribal areas, which became no-go areas shortly after 911 after amassive cross border influx of Mullah Omar’s Taliban. But ordinary Pakistanishave long suspected the sincerity of these routine condemnations. Drone basesare located at many places inside Pakistan, like Shamsi air base inBaluchistan. UAV’s are slow moving targets, easily destroyed by supersonicfighter aircraft, or perhaps by ground-to-air missiles if supplied secretly tothe Taliban. Their unhindered operation smelled of collusion and complicity.WikiLeaked documents, recently obtained by Dawn newspaper, confirmed this[1].

These secret cables, accidentally revealed, includeinternal American government documents showing that the drone strikes programwithin Pakistan had more than just tacit acceptance of the country’s topmilitary brass. In fact, as far back as January 2008, Pakistan’s military wasrequesting the US for greater drone back-up for its own military operations. Ina meeting on January 22, 2008 with US CENTCOM Commander Admiral William J.Fallon, Army Chief General Ashfaq Kayani requested the Americans to provide“continuous Predator coverage of the conflict area” in South Waziristan wherethe army was conducting operations against militants. The request is detailedin a cable marked “secret”, sent bythen US Ambassador Anne Patterson on February 11, 2008.

Around March 3-4, in a meeting with Admiral MikeMullen, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Kayani was asked for his help “inapproving a third Restricted Operating Zone for US aircraft over the FATA.” Therequest – detailed in a cable sent from the US Embassy Islamabad on March 24 –clearly indicates that two “corridors” for US drones had already been approvedearlier. Instead of acclaiming that drones were an effective weapon against acommon enemy, it instead chose safety by hiding its role and criticizing theAmericans instead.

Other confidential American diplomatic cables, alsoobtained by Dawn, revealed that collaboration with the US, strenuously deniedby the Army, was in fact true and that US special operations forces had beenembedded with Pakistani troops for intelligence gathering by the summer of2009. They were subsequently deployed for joint operations in Pakistaniterritory by September of that 2009. Ambassador Anne Patterson reported to theState Department in May 2009 that “We have created Intelligence Fusion cellswith embedded US Special Forces with both SSG and Frontier Corps (Bala Hisar,Peshawar) with the Rover equipment ready to deploy.”

Deeply divided divisions

Islam created Pakistan,but it now divides Pakistan. Fuelled by ideological passions, diverse social andreligious Muslim formations have developed in different parts of the country. They often have divergent goals, and areoften pathologically violent. Some target the American empire, and arehence attractive for Al-Qaida type groups. Others have less ambitious goals.Several focus on “liberating” Kashmir. Still others, such as Lashkar-i-Jhangviand Sipah-e-Sahaba, would like to eliminate Pakistani Shias. The Khatm-e-Nabuhatdeclares that it will physically exterminate the Qadianis, a sect thatit considers heretical. Pakistan’sChristian, Hindu, and other religious minorities cower in fear. The rich amongthem have mostly fled the country.

Since the early 1980’s crusade against SovietRussia, Pakistan has morphed into a central hub attracting a multitude ofIslamists from Europe to West and Central Asia to Indonesia. But Jihadistan is now a hugely messy place,not the bastion of anti-communism and anti-atheism that it once was.Even those workers who helped to create it – like the famous Colonel Imam andMajor Khalid Khwaja – ended up losing their lives.

Religion deeply dividesthe Pakistan military. Perhaps it might be more accurate to think of it as twomilitaries. The first is headed by Gen. Kayani. It seeks tomaintain the status quo and the Army’s preeminence in making nationaldecisions. The second is Allah’s army.This awaits a leader even as it launches attacks on Pakistani militaryinstallations, bases, top-level officers, soldiers, public places, mosques, andpolice stations. Soldiers have been encouraged to turn their guns on to theircolleagues, troops have been tricked into ambushes, and high-level officershave been assassinated. Allah’s army hopes to launch its final blitzkrieg oncethe state of Pakistan has been sufficiently weakened by such attacks.

What separates Army-Oneand ISI-One from Army-Two and ISI-Two? This may not be immediately evident. Both werereared on the Two-Nation Theory, the belief of Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, thatHindus and Muslims could never live together in peace. Both are thoroughly steeped in anti-Indianism since their early days inarmy cadet colleges at Petaro and Hasan Abdal. They also share a deeprooted contempt for Pakistani civilians. This attitude has resulted in roughlyhalf of Pakistan’s history being that of direct military rule.

Still, they are not the same. The One’ers are “softIslamists” who are satisfied with a fuzzy belief that Islam provides solutionsto everything, that occasional prayers and ritual fasting in Ramzan issufficient, and that Sufis and Shias are bonafide Muslims rather than mushriksor apostates. They are not particularly interested in defending the Sunnistates of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, or the GCC. But should a lucrative overseas posting come the way of an individualsoldier or officer, well, that may be another matter. While having a dislike ofUS policies, they are not militantly anti-US.

Army-Two and ISI-Two, onthe other hand, are soldier ideologues who have traveled further down the roadof Islamism. Large numbers of them regularly travel to Raiwind, theheadquarters of the Tablighi Jamaat, a supposedly non-politicalreligious organization which has a global proselytizing mission and whosepreachers are allowed open access into the Army.

The Two’ers arestricter in matters of religious rituals, they insist that officers and their wives be segregated at armyfunctions. They keep an eye out for officers who secretly drink alcohol, andhow often they pray. Their political philosophy is that Islam and thestate should be inseparable.

Inspired by Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, who preachedthat 7^th century Arab Islam provides a complete blueprint forsociety and politics, they see capturing state power as a means towardscreating the ideal society along the lines of the medieval Medina state. Many Two’ers are beardless, hence hard todetect. They are fundamentally anti-science but computer savvy. For them, moderntechnology is a tool of battle.

Like the proverbialostrich, the One’ers fiercely defend the myth of army unity. Theydismiss mutineers as isolated individuals. Mumtaz Qadri, the renegade bodyguardwho murdered Punjab Governor Salman Taseer out of religious passion, is aninconvenient aberration to be dismissed from consideration. Today’s religiousterrorism is trivialized as a passing threat notwithstanding the fact that ithas claimed more Pakistani lives than lost in all wars with India. Instead,anger is reserved for those who state the obvious truth that Pakistan is in astate of civil war.

An outstanding investigative journalist, SaleemShahzad, who revealed the existence of Al-Qaida groupings within the Pakistaninavy after the Mehran base attack in the first part of an Asia Times articleseries, provides a tragic example. The part-two of his series was neverpublished because it had promised to reveal similar cells in the army and airforce. Shahzad was tortured and kicked to death after being abducted from oneof the most secure parts of Islamabad. His mobile phone records are said to beuntraceable, and tapes of closed circuit cameras around the abduction area wentmysteriously missing. If true, then his murder could not be the work of huntedorganizations like the Pakistani Taliban or Al-Qaida. But was it ISI-One orISI-Two? Or some still more deeply hidden military agency? The truth may neverbe known.

A confused identity

The tension withinPakistani society and military fundamentally owe to an underlying confusionabout national purpose and identity. Six decades after Partition, key questions standunresolved. Are we Arabs or SouthAsians? Is there a Pakistani culture? Should the country be run byIslamic law? Can Hindus, Christians, and Ahmadis be proper Pakistanis? In a bidto definitively resolve these existential questions, for decades Pakistanischool children have learned a linguistically flawed (but catchy) rhetoricalquestion. The question is chanted together with its answer: Pakistan ka matlab kya? La illaha illala! [What is themeaning of Pakistan? There is no god but Allah!].

Hypnotized by mullah andmilitary, prodded into adopting a pseudo Arab identity, and excited into wildpassions, Pakistan’s youth have become progressively less thoughtful and lesseducated about the world. A recent survey of 2000 young Pakistanis in the18-27 age group found that three-quarters identify themselves first as Muslimsand only secondly as Pakistanis. Just 14% chose to define themselves ascitizens of Pakistan first. If militarypersonnel could be asked whether they considered themselves as soldiers ofIslam or of Pakistan, one suspects that their answer would be roughly similar.This is why such a dangerous question cannot (and should not!) be asked today.

Why has Islamicradicalism become such a powerful force generally, as well as in the Pakistanmilitary? In part it owes to anger generated by Western military invasions ofMuslim societies: Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan. Greed for natural resources hasimposed US hegemony in much of the Arab world and stunted their natural growth.But anger at oil-hungry imperialism cannot be the whole story. Surveys showthat the U.S. is disliked more in Muslim countries than in Cuba, Iraq, andAfghanistan – all countries that have been attacked by America. A privatesurvey carried out by a European embassy based in Islamabad found that only 4%of Pakistanis polled speak well of America, 96% against. The U.S. now has the dubious distinction ofbeing Pakistan’s enemy numero-uno, having displaced India from its leadingposition. The left and centre share this antipathy with the right.

Drone attacks on Pakistan’s tribal areas are alsocited as a reason. But there is abundant evidence that UAVs have been precisekilling instruments. The recent killing of Ilyas Kashmiri (June 2011) is onlyone recent example. Although the collateral death of innocents is terrible,their numbers are insignificant compared to the carnage in Vietnam’s citieswhich were carpet-bombed by B-52’s in the 1970’s. Nevertheless, the anger inPakistan leads to anger far greater than ever existed in Vietnam.

The meteoric rise of hard-line Islam in Pakistanhas many reasons. But perhaps the mostrelevant one lies in wounded pride, together with contempt for “upstarts” whoclaim to be at the vanguard of civilization today. Faced by manifestdecline from a peak of greatness 9-12 centuries ago, and afflicted by culturaldislocation in the age of globalisation, many Muslim societies have succumbedto religious resurgence. Pakistan too has turned inwards. Diminished self-esteem comes from havinglittle presence in today’s world affairs whether in science or in culture andthe arts. Faced with manifest decline, Islamic hard-liners dream of anew global caliphate which they imagine will make Muslims recapture theirformer glories.

Most hard-liners are of Wahabi, Salafi,and Deobandi persuasion. Wahabism, which originated in the 18^thcentury in Arabia, started as a reaction to Shia’ism and Sufism. In its earlyyears, it succeeded in destroying all shrines, together with pricelesshistorical monuments and relics from the early days of Islam. This is why Meccatoday bears little resemblance to what it was a century ago; its history hasbeen expunged by bulldozing ancient graveyards and historical objects.

The Salafis – who seek the “purification” ofIslam by returning to the pure form practiced in the time of Prophet Muhammadand his companions – are just as prone to violent extremism. Among the mostextreme manifestation of Salafism is Takfir-wal-Hijra. In 1996the group is said to have plotted to assassinate Osama bin Laden for being toolax a Muslim. Pakistani Deobandishave a harder line than Indian Deobandis. They do not condemn suicide bombings, are strongly pro-Taliban, and areheavily armed. Muslims of the Deobandi-Salafi-Wahabi persuasion fiercelydecry the syncretism of popular Islam, claiming that it arises from ignoranceof Qura’nic teachings.

Pakistan has bulk-imported Arab Islam after the1980’s, particularly that which is directed against syncretism. In June 2010,the widely venerated shrine of Data Darbar in Lahore was targeted by twosuicide bombers who killed around 50 worshippers. Today, every single major shrine in Pakistan has either been attacked oris under threat. Many hundred worshippers, both at shrines and the“wrong” mosques, have been killed. There are no records of those injured andmaimed for life.

The export of hard-line Arab Islam to Pakistan hasbeen paid for by rich Arabs and their governments. A US official in a cablesent to the State Department, which came to light after Wikileaks, stated that“financial support estimated at nearly 100 million USD annually was making itsway to Deobandi and Ahl-i-Hadith clerics in south Punjab fromorganisations in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ostensibly with thedirect support of those governments.” This cable, sent in November 2008 byBryan Hunt, the then Principal Officer at the US Consulate in Lahore, was basedon information from discussions with local government and non-governmentalsources during his trips to the cities of Multan and Bahawalpur. Quoting localinterlocutors, Hunt attempts to explain how the “sophisticated jihadirecruitment network” operated in a region dominated by the BarelviDeobandiAhl-i-Hadithschools of thought.

Still digging away

When you fall into ahole, stop digging. This principle is as crucial for matters of human societyas the second law of thermodynamics is for physics. But, at least for now, Army-One and ISI-Oneremain skeptical.

A score of Islamic militant outfits are still basedin Muridke, Bahawalpur, Mansehra and elsewhere. They are tacitly allowed, orperhaps actively encouraged, to take onan idol-worshipping Hindu army at times and places of their own choosing.Hafiz Saeed continues to make fiery speeches in Lahore while Fazlur RahmanKhalil, who heads the banned Harkat-ul-Mujahidin, lives comfortably inIslamabad with four large decibel loudspeakers around his house.

The Pakistaniestablishment is generally comfortable with hunting with the American houndsand running with the Islamist hares. But this leads to frustration not just with theirIslamist allies, but also with their American ones. Leon Panetta, chief of theCentral Intelligence Agency, left Islamabad fuming after an apparently fruitlessmeeting with Generals Kayani and Pasha. According to US media reports, Panettashared with the military leadership some video and satellite imagery ofmilitants hastily leaving two IED factories in Waziristan. It wanted Pakistanto take action against the two sites. But Panetta alleged at the meeting thatthe information was leaked within 24 hours of sharing and by the time theraiding teams reached those places, the militants had melted away. Apparently ISI-Two was at work.

Opportunities to changedirection have been squandered by the One’ers. The bin Laden operationcould have been used to clean up the military. That the world’s most wanted manhad been hidden by the Two’ers is likely. If true, his discovery next to thePakistan Military Academy provided evidence of complicity with terrorists andwas a golden opportunity to fully investigate and crack down on jihadistswithin the military in Abbottabad and elsewhere.

But instead of taking this bold decision, GeneralKayani opted to do what the military has done best: raise anti-US sentiment forhaving violated Pakistan’s sovereignty, and browbeat the civilian government. The humble subservience of Pakistan’scivilians to their military masters was there for all to see. As thestory broke on Pakistani news channels, the elected government quaked. It was too weak, corrupt and inept to takeinitiatives.

Thus, there was no official Pakistani reaction forhours after President Obama had announced the success of the US mission.

A stunned silence was finally broken when theForeign Office declared that “Osama bin Laden’s death illustrates the resolveof the international community including Pakistan to fight and eliminateterrorism.” Hours later, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gillani described thekilling as a “great victory”. Thereupon, Pakistan’s high commissioner to theUK, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, rushed to claim credit: “Pakistan’s government wascooperating with American intelligence throughout and they had been monitoring[bin Laden’s] activities with the Americans, and they kept track of him fromAfghanistan,

Waziristan to Afghanistan and again to North Waziristan.”

This welcoming stance was reversed almostinstantly. A stern look from the military, which had finally decided to condemnthe raid, took barely a few hours in coming. Praising the killing of theworld’s most wanted terrorist was now out of the question. In its moment ofshame, the government furiously twisted and turned. Official spokespeople babbled on, becoming increasingly senseless andcontradictory. Without referring to the statement he had made that verymorning of 3 May, High Commissioner Hasan abruptly reversed his publicposition, now saying: “Nobody knew that Osama bin Laden was there – no securityagency, no Pakistani authorities knew about it. Had we known it, we would havedone it ourselves.”

Confused and tongue-tied for 36 hours, Pakistan’s president and prime ministerawaited pointers from the army, followingthem dutifully after they were received. But simple obedience did not satisfy their masters. Gen Kayaniannounced his unhappiness with the government: “Incomplete information and lackof technical details have resulted in speculations and misreporting. Publicdismay and despondency has also been aggravated due to an insufficient formalresponse.”

The threat was thinly veiled: the government mustproactively defend the army and intelligence agencies, else be warned.

Thus prodded, a full eight days after the incidentPrime Minister Gillani broke his silence. He absolved the Inter-ServicesIntelligence (ISI) and army of “either complicity or incompetence”. Before anincredulous world, he claimed in a statement that both suggestions were“absurd”. Attempting to spread the blame, he declared in Paris, before hismeeting with President Sarkozy, “This is an intelligence failure of the wholeworld, not Pakistan alone.” Tragically, once again an elected government hadfailed the people of Pakistan. Democracy alone is not the solution to acountry’s problems.

A new mindset needed

It was a breath of fresh air when, following themurder of Saleem Shahzad, former primeminister Nawaz Sharif demanded that the Army change its mindset. But whatexactly did he mean? That the military should submit to the politicians andelected government? Not interfere in elections? Protect its nukes and otherassets better? While welcome, this does not go far enough.

A bigger change is needed. Pakistan needs to stop seeing everything through the ever-expanding prismof war and competition with India. Super-charged, locally bred religiousmilitants have fiercely turned upon their former tutors. Today it is the Pakistan military – and thecountry that it runs with an iron hand – which is haemorrhaging fromunrelenting militant attacks. As violence grows, pessimism anddespondency have descended onto the intelligentsia, prompting a flight out of the country of Pakistan’s best doctors,engineers, scientists, and other professionals.

To prosper, Pakistan needs to overcome itsunrelenting hatred for India, leave Kashmir as a problem to be solved byKashmiris, concentrate upon improving governance and internal issues, dealpolitically with the Baluchistan situation rather than simply murderdissidents, and realize that it is in deep peril because of its past policies.

The military’s role must be limited to defendingthe people of Pakistan against internal and external aggression, and to ensuringthat their constitutional and civil rights are protected. It is time for the military establishment tostop shelling out juicy pieces of real estate for alleged heroic feats, anddispense with its huge business and commercial interests.

India, through itsconfrontational policies with Pakistan, shares some responsibility for thepresent tragic state of affair and has driven Pakistan into a corner. It istherefore incumbent upon India to help Pakistan overcome its difficulties or,at any rate, to refrain from adding to them. This is in India’s self interest –imagine the consequences if central authority in Pakistan disappears or issharply weakened. Splintered into a hundred jihadist lashkars, each withits own agenda and tactics, Pakistan’s territory would become India’s eternalnightmare. When Mumbai-II occurs – asit surely would in such circumstances – India’s options in dealing with nuclearPakistan would be severely limited. Operation Cold Start is anon-starter, a figment of the imagination of Indian generals that they couldavoid nuclear war by limiting the depth and intensity of their initial strikes.

India should derive no satisfaction from Pakistan’spredicament. Militant groups see ordinary Muslims as munafiqs(hypocrites) – and therefore free to be blown up in bazaars and mosques. Intheir calculus of hate, hurting Hindu India would buy even more tickets forheaven than hurting Muslim Pakistan. They dream of ripping apart bothsocieties, or starting a war – preferably nuclear – between Pakistan and India.

To create a future working alliance with Pakistan,and in deference to basic democratic principles, India must therefore be seenas genuinely working towards some kind of resolution of the Kashmir issue. Ahalfway effort is better than none. Over the past two decades India has beenmorally isolated from Kashmiri Muslims and continues to incur the veryconsiderable costs of an occupying power in the Valley. Indian soldierscontinue to needlessly die – and to oppress and kill Kashmiri innocents.

It is time for India to fuzz the LOC, make ithighly permeable to non-jihadis, and demilitarize it up to some mutuallynegotiated depth on both sides. Also, India must entertain Pakistan’scomplaints over the use of the water originating in Kashmir’s mountains, whichis surely a joint resource. Without peace in Kashmir the forces of cross-borderjihad, and its hate-filled holy warriors, will continue to receive unnecessarysuccor. A helpful symbolic step for Pakistan’s nervous government would be forIndia to give ground on the Siachen and Sir Creek disputes.

India also needs to allay Pakistan’s fears onBaluchistan. Although Pakistan’s current iniquitous federal structure is thecause of the problem – a fact which it is now finally addressing through thepassage of the 18^th Constitutional Amendment – nevertheless it ispossible that India is aiding some insurgent groups. Statements have been madein India that Baluchistan provides New Delhi with a handle to exert pressure onPakistan. This is unacceptable, if true.

It has long been true that a little goodwill andfriendship would go a long way in laying the basis for rapprochement betweenIndia and Pakistan. But improvingrelations between the two countries is not an optional extra – it has become amatter of survival, particularly for us in Pakistan.

(The author is a professor of physics and teaches inLahore(LUMS) and Islamabad (QAU).

Courtesy: http://www.viewpointonline.net/pakistans-army-divided-it-stands/Print.htm

India - Independence: Partition

2011-08-16T23:02:00.000-07:00

By Lt Gen SK Sinha(Retd.)

The Army’scontribution to India’s Independence and its role during the Partition of theSub-Continent, have not received much attention. As one who served in the Armybefore and after Independence, as also witnessed the Partition holocaust, Iwould like to place on record my recollections of that period. My views onthese two aspects of our Nation’s history are based on my personal experienceand not on any erudite research.

I joined theBritish Indian Army during the Second World War and continued serving in theArmy of Independent India. Having served in Burma (now Myanmar) and NetherlandsEast Indies (now Indonesia), I returned home to India and landed in Calcutta(now Kolkata). I was in an army transit camp on 16 August 1946 when Jinnahlaunched his Direct Action Day. The Muslim League Premier of Bengal, Suhrawardyfaithfully carried out the genocide in which thousands got killed in Kolkata,followed by killings and abductions in Noakhali. The calling out of the Army inKolkata was deliberately delayed by Suhrawardy to allow the hoodlums to carryout their mayhem. I witnessed the streets of Kolkata strewn with mutilated deadbodies. Violence in the city abated after the Army was deployed to restoreorder.

A couple of weekslater, I was posted to the Military Operations Directorate of GeneralHeadquarters (now Army Headquarters) at Delhi. This Directorate had hithertobeen an exclusive British preserve. All the officers and clerks were British.

I joined theDirectorate in September 1946 along with two other Indian officers, Lt Col(later Field Marshal) Manekshaw and Major Yahya Khan, later President ofPakistan. We were allocated to three different sections of the Directorate,Manekshaw to Planning, Yahya to Frontier Defence and I to Internal Security. Atthat time as part of internal security duties, the Army was fully preoccupiedin combating unprecedented communal violence. Never had the Army been used soextensively in this role. From my perch at Delhi I got a grandstand view of thecycle of communal violence taking place in the country. Kolkata- Noakhalikillings were followed by mass killings of Muslims in Bihar and Garhmukteshwar.

The UnionistMinistry then in power in Punjab and the Congress Ministry in NWFP had managedto keep their provinces free of large scale communal violence. In March 1947 aMuslim League Ministry came to power in Punjab and a little later also in NWFP.

The floodgates ofcommunal violence of the worst type now raged all over North India from Delhiand beyond. Muslims and non-Muslims (Sikhs and Hindus) were matched evenly inPunjab.

Both sidesperpetrated the worst type of savagery. The entire population of the regionappeared to have gone beserk. Towards the end of July, it was decided to have aPunjab Boundary Force of 50,000 soldiers comprising equal number of unitsearmarked for India and Pakistan. Major General Pat Rees took over as thecommander of this Force. Two Indian Brigadiers, one Hindu remaining in Indiaand the other Muslim going to Pakistan, were appointed his deputies. Thisexperiment did not succeed. Within a month, the Punjab Boundary Force had to bedisbanded. The two Dominions took over responsibility for maintaining order intheir respective territories.

On our side, a newskeleton Command Headquarters, called Delhi and East Punjab Command, was set upwith Lt Gen Sir Dudley Russell as the Army Commander. There were some twelveofficers on his staff, all of them British except me.

I was then a Majordealing with operations. There were three subordinate formations under theCommand – Delhi Area under Major General Rajendra Sinhji who later became ArmyChief, East Punjab Area under Major General K S Thimayya who also later becameArmy Chief and Military Evacuation Organisation at Lahore under Major GeneralChimni. No passenger or goods train was running anywhere in Punjab. All therailway rolling stock had been mobilized for carrying refugees. Lakhs ofMuslims from all over the country had concentrated in Delhi at three majorlocations, Purana Qila, Nizamuddin and the open space around the Red Fort. Theywere being evacuated in refugee trains, escorted by the Army, to Pakistan.Hindu and Sikh refugees coming from Pakistan were initially accommodated in atented refugee camp at Kurukshetra, before being dispersed to other locations.At one time this camp held 5 lakh refugees. There were also long refugee footcolumns, several miles long, moving from either side. It was impossible toprovide adequate protection to these columns, extending several miles. Airdrops of food packages were organized for these columns.

The civiladministration had collapsed in Punjab and our Command was assigned the duty ofrestoring order and evacuation of refugees. Mountbatten had made the luxuriousViceroy’s train available to our Command. Russell established his mobileheadquarters in that train. We were completely self-contained in the corridortrain with accommodation for officers, clerical staff, security personnel, andour offices. Our messes and kitchen functioned in the train. We had line andwireless communications on the train as also our motor transport. I operatedfrom this train for nearly two months travelling between Delhi and Lahore. Ihave in all humility recorded all these details so that some credence may begiven to my views on the events of that time based on my personal experience.

As for the Army’scontribution towards the Independence of India, one has to go back to the GreatUprising of 1857. The British call it the Sepoy Mutiny or the Great Mutiny andIndian nationalists refer to it as the First War of Indian Independence. Callit what one may, it was primarily an uprising of the Indian soldier againstforeign rule. It lit the spark of nationalism in the country and was a sourceof great inspiration for succeeding generations during our freedom struggle.

The gallantry ofthe Indian soldier in battles, during the First World War won world wideacclaim. This was a source of national pride for the Indian people giving themincreased self confidence. The emergence of the Indian National Army underNetaji Subhas Chandra Bose during the Second World War, added a new dimensionto our freedom struggle. The INA comprised soldiers of the Indian Army takenprisoners by the Japanese in Malaya. The INA trials generated a patriotic surgeall over the country and was a big shot in the arm for our freedom struggle.This was followed by the Naval Mutiny in Mumbai and Karachi, Army mutiny inJabalpur and Air Force mutiny in Karachi. This violently shook the foundationsof the British Empire in India.

It was at thisstage and soon after the Great Kolkata killings that I had joined the MilitaryOperations Directorate in Delhi. There were three things that I found bothinteresting and revealing. First, a plan for the evacuation of all Britishcivilians in India to the UK called Plan Gondola. Second, the operational mapthat I was required to maintain in the Operations Room. Third, a paper on thereliability of the Indian Army prepared by the Director of MilitaryIntelligence.

The British fearedan uprising on the lines of what had happened in 1857. Many British civilianswere scattered in different parts of the country. Plan Gondola catered fortheir initial evacuation to temporary camps in the provinces, at provincialcapitals and some selected convenient locations. These were called Keeps. Armedprotection with necessary logistic support was to be provided at the Keeps.

In the subsequentphase, they were to be evacuated to Safes near the port towns of Kolkata,Vaishakapatnam, Chennai, Cochin, Mumbai and Karachi, awaiting repatriation tothe UK. The troops guarding the Safes and Keeps were to be a mix of British andIndian soldiers. In the event, as communal violence escalated there was no needto implement Plan Gondola. There was now much bitterness and violence betweenHindus and Muslims and none against the British. It was a great irony that atthe height of the communal carnage in Punjab, British officers could move aroundunarmed in Delhi and Punjab while Indian officers, whether Muslims ornon-Muslims, had to carry arms and in remote areas move with an escort.

I had to maintaina large map of India with pins of different colours showing locations of allcombat units in the country. Red was for British units, Green for Gorkha unitsand Brown for Indian units. A distinction was made between Indian and Gorkhaunits. At that time the Gorkhas were officered exclusively by the British withno Indian officers in those units. The Indian units had a mix of British andIndian officers with Commanding Officers and senior officers mostly British.The “mutiny syndrome” prevailed among the British. It was ensured that nolocation had only brown pins without some red and green pins in situ. FieldMarshal Auchinleck, the then Commander-in- Chief frequently visited theOperations Room and would study the map maintained by me.

The paper writtenby the Director Military Intelligence had a novel security classification – TopSecret, Not For Indian Eyes. My predecessor a British officer in a hurry to goback home to the UK on demobilization, had handed over the key of the almirahcontaining classified documents to me without checking the documents. Thispaper was written in the wake of the INA trials.

It stated that theIndian officers of the Army could be divided into three categories – thosecommissioned before 1933 from Sandhurst, the pre-war officers commissionedbetween 1933 and 1939, and the wartime emergency commissioned officers. TheSandhurst officers were considered more reliable. They were now middle agedwith family commitments and did not nurture much grievance as they had beentreated well. They were very few, their total number being about thirty. Thepre-war, 1933 to 1939 officers had a grievance because their emoluments werenot at par with their British counterparts. This disparity was removed duringthe war but its memory and of some other discriminations still rankled withthem. The wartime officers numbering about 12,000 against a total of 500 of thetwo previous categories, were considered most unreliable. While in theirschools and colleges, they had been exposed to subversive political influenceculminating in the Quit India movement.

They faced anuncertain future because they were all emergency commissioned officers and onlyvery few were likely to be accommodated in the permanent post-war cadre of theArmy. They were working at the company and platoon level interacting directlywith the soldiers.

As for thesoldiers, the position regarding them had also changed radically. Prior to thewar, the strength of the Army was 1.37 lakhs and recruitment was confined tothe martial classes. A large number of soldiers came from traditional militaryfamilies. During the war, floodgates had been opened for recruitment. The Armyhad been expanded from 1.37 lakhs to 2.2 millions. The INA had had apsychological impact on the officers and men of the Army.

Further, the bulkof the Army overseas had served in South East Asia, where they had seen how theprestige of the colonial powers had suffered at the hands of the Japanese inthe early years of the war. Towards the end of the war, national movements forfreedom had erupted in Asian countries ruled by colonial powers like theBritish, the French, the Dutch and the Portugese. The paper also took intoaccount that an economically exhausted Britain after a long drawn out war, wasnot in a position to maintain a strong British military presence in India. Inthe circumstance, the paper recommended early British withdrawal from India. Iwas much impressed by this very analytical study.

The fact that theIndian Army had an impact on our movement for Independence and hastened thedawn of freedom is indisputable. Earl Atlee the British Prime Minister, who hadpresided over the liquidation of the British Empire in 1947, confirmed thisduring his visit to India in 1956. He told Mr Chakravarty, the then Governor ofBengal, that the decision to quit quickly in 1947 had been taken because theBritish could no longer rely on the loyalty of the Indian Army.

The role of theArmy during Partition has not so far been factored into discussions aboutPartition. The fact that the Army also effected the decision on Partition needsto be taken into account. After their experience with Cromwell’s militarydictatorship, the British ardently nurtured the concept of an apolitical army.

It suited them totransplant that concept in the Indian Army that they raised. While this conceptcontinues to hold good in India, it got thrown overboard in Pakistan forreasons which we may not discuss here. After 1857, the British decided not tohave one class regiment except for Gorkhas and Garhwalis. All other combatunits of the Indian Army had the composition of 50% Muslims and 50% non-Muslims(Hindus and Sikhs). This was in line with their policy of Divide and Rule.Different communities living together in war and peace and encouraged to remainapolitical, developed a regimental ethos which held them together.

I was commissioned in the Jat Regiment whichhad two companies of Jat Hindus and two companies of Muslims. I served with aPunjabi Muslim company. I found that the regimental spirit among the men wasstrong and there was no communal divide. This continued in the Army as a wholetill the end of 1946 but started cracking in 1947, reaching a breaking point byAugust 1947. Yet I saw that when the Muslim companies of the Jat Regiment weregoing to Pakistan, tears were shed on both sides. This happened in otherregiments as well.

In keeping withthe Army’s apolitical traditions, Indian officers during the British days,hardly ever discussed political matters among themselves. I recall that inRangoon soon after the end of the war, one junior British officer referred tothe INA as traitors and also used vulgar epithets for it.

There was nosenior officer present in the Mess. This led to a heated discussion between theBritish and Indian officers, both Hindus and Muslims. Although politics inIndia had got much communalized in the Forties, Netaji seems to have promotedcomplete communal harmony in the Azad Hind Government and the Indian NationalArmy. Vande Matram as an anthem had been a source of discord between the twocommunities in India. Netaji had coined the slogan Jai Hind which could notraise any communal hackles.

The Indian Armygot involved in a strange war in Indonesia. It had been sent to that countryprimarily to take the surrender of the Japanese. The Dutch had been driven outfrom those islands. They accompanied the Indian Army to re-establish theircolonial rule. The Indonesians had declared their Independence and had raisedan army of their own. The Indian Army got involved in fighting the Indonesians.It was a strange situation for us. The Indonesians would tell us that we wereourselves not free and yet we were fighting against their becoming independent.

During my servicein Indonesia, I used to feel very embarrassed on this account. However, whatsurprised me was that when the Indonesians raised the banner of Islam in theirappeal to Indian soldiers, a number of Muslim soldiers of the Indian Armydeserted and joined them. I was told that about a thousand or more of ourMuslim soldiers had deserted. They got left behind when we came out fromIndonesia. I am mentioning this because this was for the first time that I sawthe communal virus affecting the Army.

Notwithstandingthe early signs in Indonesia, it is remarkable that during the outbreak ofunprecedented communal violence in August 1946 and till well after 1947 had setin, the Indian soldier, both Hindu and Muslim, showed remarkable impartialitywhen called upon to deal with communal violence. This was so in Kolkata inAugust 1946, in Bihar in October 1946 and in Garhmukteshwar (U.P.) in November1946. Two or three battalions of the Bihar Regiment which had Hindus andMuslims in equal number, had operated in Bihar during the communal riots andhad remained completely impartial. The Bihar riots were horrendous.

For the first timecommunal riots had spread so extensively to rural areas. Hitherto communalriots had remained an urban phenomenon. Several thousand Muslims got massacredin Bihar as a revenge for thousands of Hindus killed in Kolkata and Noakhali.At the time of Bihar riots, I was in Delhi getting daily reports of what washappening in my home province.

Colonel Naser AliKhan, who later went to Pakistan Army, and I were serving at GeneralHeadquarters and were living in the officers mess on Wellesley Road (now ZakirHussain Road). He was many years senior to me and was always very kind to me.One morning at breakfast after having read of a news report about Bihar riotsin the newspaper, he told me excitedly that his blood boiled when he rememberedthat I was a Bihari. I told him that I condemned what was happening in Biharmore than him. He was not the only Muslim officer I interacted with in Delhiwho felt so worked up over the most unfortunate happenings in Bihar.

I am mentioningthese incidents to bring out how circumstances were forcing communal virus tospread in the Army. Till March 1947 things appeared to be well under control.Local communal riots were taking place in different places and the Armydeployed to maintain order remained very disciplined and impartial. Wavellduring his farewell address on 21 March 1947 said, “I believe that thestability of the Indian Army may perhaps be the deciding factor in the futureof India.” Pakistan had not emerged as a sovereign State till then and hardlyanyone could imagine that it will become a reality in the next four months.

With Muslim LeagueMinistries coming to power both in Punjab and NWFP, communal passions weresought to be aroused in a planned manner. Pictures of atrocities on Muslims inBihar and Garhmukteshwar started being shown in mosques along with fieryspeeches by Muslim clerics on Fridays. Widespread communal riots erupted inPeshawar and Rawalpindi. Soon the whole of North India was on fire. The strainon the soldiers started showing. Most of the soldiers, both Muslims andnon-Muslims, were from the North. Their homeland was getting ravaged and inseveral cases their families had been victims of communal frenzy.

It was becomingincreasingly difficult for the soldiers to retain their impartiality. Thedownslide in this regard became more perceptible after Partition was announced.The day after that announcement I met two officers in their uniforms in Delhiwearing strange shoulder tittles – RPE and RPASC. In those days officers fromEngineers and Army Service Corps wore shoulder titles, RIE for Royal IndianEngineers and RIASC for Royal Indian Army Service Corps. Some officers hadbegun to wear Pakistan shoulder titles within hours of the Partitionannouncement and much before Pakistan came into being.

There were reportsof senior Muslim officers going to meet Jinnah who then lived in his house, 10Aurangzeb Road. This showed how officers going to Pakistan were getting politicized.It also showed the fervour for Pakistan among some Muslim officers. On themorrow of Independence in August 1947, the Gilgit Scouts staged a couparresting Brigadier Ghansara Singh of the Kashmir Army who had been sent thereas Governor by the Maharaja. This was the first military coup in Pakistan Army.More were to follow later.

As mentionedearlier, the Punjab Boundary Force comprising in equal measure, units earmarkedfor Indian and Pakistan Army, was set up under a British commander in late July1947. It was hoped that it will help in maintaining order on both sides of theborder, at a time when communal violence and migration was reaching acrescendo. The experiment failed because the impartiality of the soldier hadgot eroded and there were several instances of soldiers taking sides.

Large scaleviolence again erupted in Kolkata and Mahatma Gandhi had gone there to restoresanity among the people. He undertook a fast which had a dramatic effect. Itwas then that Mountbatten made his famous remark that a one man boundary forcehad succeeded in Kolkata while the 50,000 strong Punjab Boundary Force hadfailed in the North. The Punjab Boundary Force was disbanded within a month ofits raising and the two Dominions assumed responsibility for maintaining orderon their side of the border. As a tailpiece, I may add that after a couple ofmonths, Indian and Pakistan Armies were locked in fighting a war against eachother in Kashmir.

No doubt thePartition holocaust was the greatest tragedy in the history of the Subcontinentin which millions got killed and millions got uprooted. Soon after Hindus andMuslims had fought unison in the First War of Independence in 1857, the seedsof separatism were sown by Sir Syed Ahmed. He conceived a separate nationhoodfor the Muslims of India. Lord Morley by accepting separate electorate in 1906provided the oxygen for it. It fully matured by 1947 and was exploited to thehilt by Jinnah.

Looking back in hindsight, one can say that Partition could have been avertedhad the Congress been more accommodative and the Muslim League less obdurate.However, after the planned genocide started by Jinnah on i6 August 1946 as partof his Direct Action programme, there could be no going back from the path ofdisaster. The Qaid-e- Azam had become Qatl-e- Azam.

The puerileattempt by some people to underscore Jinnah’s secular image on the basis of alone speech by him while inaugurating the Pakistan Constituent Assembly doesnot carry conviction. One swallow does not make a summer. It now transpiresthat Jinnah made that conciliatory address not out of any goodwill but undercompulsion. The inside story has been revealed in a book Select Documents onPartition of India by a distinguished historian, Dr Kripal Singh. Lord Ismaythe Chief of Staff of Lord Mountbatten told him in an interview on August 17,1964, the background to that much hailed address.

Mountbatten hadasked Ismay to convey to Jinnah the need for his taking that line, now that hehad achieved his Pakistan. The sole aim was to check the spiraling violence inPakistan and the counter violence in East Punjab.

That Jinnah ‘sanimosity towards India had not changed is made amply clear by Pakistan’sinvasion of Kashmir launched on 22 October 1947. His earlier slogan was India Dividedor India Destroyed. That had now changed to India Divided and India Destroyed.It is a different matter that on 7 November 1947 the Indian Army turned backthat invasion from the outskirts of Srinagar. This was perhaps in line withwhat Charles Martel had achieved at Tours in 732 against the Saracens therebysaving France or Jan Sobleski had done in 1683, throwing back the Turks fromthe gates of Vienna and saved Europe.

Lately attemptshave been made by some people to exonerate Jinnah for his role in Partition. Theyhave even gone further, by trying to blame Patel and Nehru for acceptingPartition. It is even insinuated that they were tired and old, and were in ahurry to grab power. Having opposed the two nation theory and partition alltheir lives, they caved in and opted for Partition. Ralph Emerson rightlywrote, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” In the Armythe saying is that consistency is the hallmark of a mule.

Sardar Patel hadthe uncanny gift of foresight and the ability to take hard decisions. Herightly assessed the situation prevailing in mid 1947. Based on his experiencein the Interim Government when the Muslim League had brought governmentfunctioning to a grinding halt, the crescendo of communal violence and the Armygetting contaminated, combating communal violence for nearly a year, herealized that there was now no alternative to Partition. His decision tosalvage the wreck in 1947 was an act of great statesmanship. If that had notbeen done, things would have become much worse.

We would have hada civil war on our hands with the Army broken up and participating from bothsides. One does not know what the outcome of such a conflict may have been.India may have broken up into several independent States like erstwhileYugoslavia or could have become a much larger version of present Lebanon. Inhis own words, the Sardar chose to save 80% of the country. Had a patchworksolution of unity with a weak centre been accepted in 1947, the results couldhave been disastrous. With a weak Centre the integration of the 500 oddPrincely States may not have been possible.

The minoritypopulation of India was about 12% in 1947. Today, the combined minoritypopulation in an undivided India would have been over 40%. Petrol fundedIslamist forces that have now emerged in the world would have swamped India.India as we know it today would not have existed. Patel’s acceptance of a motheaten Pakistan and getting the Congress to accept it, was a great achievement.This was almost at par with his universally hailed achievement of integratingthe Princely States with the Indian Union.

The firstvivisection of India had taken place in the beginning of the second millennium.Although the Arabs had conquered Sindh in 712 A D, they had remained confinedto the deserts of Sindh for three centuries and subsequently Sindh had notbroken away from India. The Hindu Shahi dynasty ruled over Afghanistan withtheir capital at Kabul. They guarded the country’s North West Frontier.Starting from 999 A D, they succumbed to the invasions of the great conquerorand plunderer, Mahmud Gazni. India was exposed for the first time to theferocity of religious fundamentalism. Soon, Afghanistan ceased to be a part ofIndia. That was our country’s first vivisection.

The second tookplace in 1947 again on account of religious fundamentalism. Sardar Patelensured that the 80% residual India was fully integrated and became a strongnation. Despite that part of the country which broke away becoming a theocracyand carrying out instant ethnic cleansing in the West and gradual in the East,Nehru and Patel ensured that India retained her secular values.

In August 1947 theresidual Muslim League in India adopted a resolution reviving itself.Surprisingly, undeterred with all that had happened leading to Partition, itsrepresentatives in the Constituent Assembly, demanded reservation for Muslimsand also separate electorate. Muslim members of the Assembly other than the fewof the Muslim League, did not support this demand. It got rejected by anoverwhelming majority. Speaking on this issue the Sardar stated, “I know theyhave a mandate from the Muslim League to move this amendment. I feel sorry forthem. This is not a place for acting on madness. This is a place today to acton your conscience and to act for the good of the country. For a community tothink that its interests are different from that of the country in which itlives, is a great mistake”.

Unfortunately thesuccessors of Sardar Patel in his party have shown lack of vision. For the sakeof garnering Muslim votes, they have been following the policy of appeasementand are prepared in that process to sacrifice national interest.

B K Nehru, aneminent member of the dynasty, in his autobiography, Nice Guys Finish Second,wrote that the old guard in the Congress considered national interests supremebut the new generation feels otherwise, giving priority to party interests.

The Congresspracticing secularism selectively has been giving an impetus to communalism. Ittreats Muslim League as a secular party and welcomes it as an alliance partnerin the Government, both at the Centre and in Kerala. It treats the BJP asuntouchable and wants to have nothing to do with it, even when BJP has Muslimmembers but Muslim League does not have a single non-Muslim member.

It has beenfacilitating the illegal migration of Bangladeshi Muslims to build its votebank. A Congress Prime Minister declares that Muslims must have the first callon the Nation’s resources. It has been decided to set up four new MuslimUniversities like the Aligarh Muslim University, which had been the nursery forPakistan. Several other such instances can be quoted. If we continue like this,the day is not far when we will have to put up with a third vivisection of thecountry.

The secondpartition was the product of separate electorate, the third may be the productof the policy of appeasement. Justice in full measurfe must be provided to theminority but appeasement can be disastrous both for them and the country.

The Indian Armymade a significant contribution towards ushering the independence of India. Itsrole during the Partition holocaust was also of great significance.

I conclude quotingfrom Stephen Cohen’s book on the Indian Army. “India has virtually ignored themilitary as a factor in nation building. This is surprising, for the militaryhad a profound impact on the course of nationalist politics and also uponpolicies after 1947.”

Courtesy:

http://prabhjotsworld.blogspot.com/2009/10/india-independence-partition-article-by.html

Military losing its shine - Time to recast short service commission

2011-08-15T22:18:00.000-07:00

Lt GenHarwant Singh

In adeveloping economy, rapid industrialization and a country well on the road toprosperity, preference for government jobs tends to decline. This has nothappened in India so far due to a number of reasons. One, government jobs offerunmatched security of employment, two, seniority overrides merit, three,mediocrity prospers, promotions are plentiful and finally, there is much rentto be collected with minimum risk. Government employees have still not shed thecolonial era hang-ups of being masters and not public servants: ego and falsenotions of status persists.

Withinthe ambit of government jobs, military has lost most of its shine, becausehardly any of the pluses of government jobs apply to this service. Economicallywell placed democracies offer many incentives and perks to make militaryservice attractive and somewhat competitive with other job avenues, so as todraw on the right material. As opposed to this, in India, sustained attemptshave been made to make this service more and more unattractive, bydisadvantaging it in every possible way. Even after spending much money on T Vadvertisements and lowering of intake standards ( in recently held promotiontests 80 percent of officers failed in Part B and D examinations ) military has not been able to fill its huge deficiencies in the officer cadre(approximately 24 percent ).

Ascountry’s economy further improves, less suitable candidates will come forwardto join the military but instead will be attracted to lucrative jobs from awide range of other options, where the intelligent and the more ambitious canrealize their full potential. This relegation of military as aprofession, which bears on the quality of intake into officer cadre, willeventually impact our ability to face future security challenges: internal andexternal. Merely modernising and upgrading equipment and weapons systems,building defence infrastructure etc, will be of little avail, if those who haveto strategise and exploit to the optimum their potential, lead troops intobattle, do not measure upto future demands of national security.

Muchbefore the Second World War, American government wanted to prune down thedefence expenditure by cutting down the strength of officer cadre by 12000.Speaking before the Senate, General Douglas MacArthur, the greatest general inAmerican history said, “ If you want to cut every thing out of the NationalDefence Act, the least element should be the officer Corps. If you have todischarge every soldier, if you have to do away with everything else, I wouldstill professionally advise you to keep those 12000 officers. They are themainspring of the whole mechanism; each one of them would be worth a thousandmen at the beginning of a war. They are the only ones who take thisheterogeneous mass and make it homogeneous group. ” Incidentally Indianarmy is short of 12000 or so officers.

Persistentlydown grading of the military by the government and taking pot shots at it byall and sundry, is considered fair game. If the Army Chief talks of goodgovernance, some MPs, which included later day defence minister, want himsacked. ( this was when quarter of a million of his troops were deployed toensure minimum governance in many parts of the country.) If the service chiefsstands up for their officers and troops against the vagaries of the 6^thPay Commission and the Committee of Secretaries, as a compulsively moralobligation and command commitment, an editor-in-chief of a national newspaperwants them sacked. Yes sacked and no less! For these so called liberals andtheir warped and constricted understanding of democracy, the civilian controlof the military only means, ‘not to reason why, --!’

Whenasked whether Indian Army can do a ‘Geronimo’( elimination ofOsama-bin-laden) the Army Chief, says yes, ( without naming target/country )the press and a whole lot of others are at his throat. Raising the issue of hisdate of birth in public, leaking to the media that government has over-ruledhis visit to attend the biennial conference of Pacific Armies Chiefs doesdeliver grievous blows to the institution of the Chief. This periodictargeting the chief greatly irks the serving and veterans. When thehome secretary makes a statement, almost sabotaging Foreign Minister’s visit toPakistan, there is not a whisper in the media or the government! We dohave some strange notions of an Army Chief’s functioning in the Indiandemocracy. On the other hand consider this.

WhenBritish government decided to send troops for the invasion of Iraq, SirMichael Boyce, Chief of Defence Staff of U.K demanded an unequivocalstatement from the government that the invasion was lawful, without it, Boycefelt, his troops could lay themselves open to charges of war crimes. Figure an Indianarmy chief demanding anything even remotely close to such a requirement and dovisualize the storm it would generate and send many an editor into a tail spin,in the name of civilian control over the military in our special democracy! Itis not only the military’s chief who can be easily targeted, but the militaryas an institution is fair game to hunt. Sample only a few.

Dueto periodic transfers, children’s education suffers immensely. To overcome this drawback, military started own schools and a number ofprofessional colleges. Now the Honb’le Supreme Court has ruled that admissioninto military's professional colleges be opened to civilian children too. Whythen should the military run such colleges! It is surely not military’s job torun colleges for other than its own wards, whose education suffers due toextreme turbulence in their schooling.

CAG hasobjected to military having golf courses in the cantonments on its own land (class A land ) and that golf is not a recognized game! Surely the military canuse its vacant land in the manner it feels best and also the games its officerscan and need play. It is military authorities concern and responsibility toensure that their officers remain physically fit and mentally alert. The CAGmay not know, but his better half would, who is an avid golfer and playsregularly at the Air force Golf Course, that there is a golf course in thePresident’s Estate in New Delhi.

Thegovernment (MoD ) wants to gain control over units and formations privatefunds. Government created a department in the MoD for the Welfare ofex-servicemen with no one from the defence services on its staff. The attitudeof the staff in this department towards the veteran is completely negative,bordering on hostility. At another level their Supreme Commander is in totaldenial of the painful experience of veterans returning their medals. Anomaliespertaining to defence personnel, dating back to 4^th CentralPay Commission are still to be resolved: some two decades later!

Theseare few cases out of the numerous where the military faces pinpricking andneglect. This constant and needless needling and driving the military againstthe wall will greatly de-motivate the serving and further dissuade those whomay want to joint military’s officer cadre. The most negative image of themilitary as a career is reflected in the condition and the manner of treatmentof veterans by the government. Unless this picture is drastically recast, allefforts at TV advertisements at great expense are a sheer waste of money.Authorities continue to remain divorced from reality and therefore, needsto come alive to the ground situation.

Suchtreatment, the inherent drawbacks and travails of military life bears heavilyin selecting military as a career in India. Add to this the risk to life andlimb. With very few promotions which come rather late in service and noprovision for ‘non functional pay’ which is available to all class 1 centralservices, few suitable candidates want to opt for the military. Just about 0.02 get up to HAG and HAG Plus Pay Band while on the other hand almosthundred percent of their equivalents in the civil, make it to these pay bands.A government, with a bent of mind perpetually bent to downgrade the military inevery possible way and the manner of treating the institution of the armychief and the veterans, does contribute immensely in making this service sovery unattractive.

Howeverhere we are concerned with making the best of a bad situation and work outmeans and methods to redraw the contours of officer cadre so as to attract,whatever could be termed as suitable material with the lowest possibleacceptable standard. There is the need to recast the officer cadre with muchlarger Short Service Commission officers. ( SSC ). This will not only, somewhat improve the career prospects of the regular cadre officers, but in thelong run will be economical to the state and the army’s cutting edge willremain young and vibrant. The right material can only be drawn if this cadre ismade really attractive.

Theintake into the SSC should be between 17 to 19 years age and after a shortspell of 6 months intensive training, serve for a period of 5 years. Since theyare to serve for a short period, their standard at intake has to be rather highfor them to fulfill tasks that are likely to be assigned to them and theirsubsequent assured rehabilitation. This should be done by taking 10 to 15percent ( after some entrance test ) into the civil services, another 10 to 15percent into the CPOs and around 10 percent offered regular commission. Another10 to 15 percent should be given free education at IITs/IIMs/medical colleges (depending on suitability ) with a stipend of minimum of Rs 30000/ per month andthe balance admitted into military’s own professional colleges and given freeeducation and stipend, much of which would get adjusted against gratuity.

Itis through such incentives, particularly in the field of higher education, thatthe U.S. army is able to draw on the right material and keep the deficiency inits officer cadre in the military down to around 3 percent. These youngofficers, with their military background and training, when absorbed intovarious fields such as civil services/CPOs/business/ industry etc, will be ableto bring about, in these fields, change for the better. Military life offersunique opportunities to a young officer to develop leadership skills, learn toinnovate and operate and deliver under extreme stress. They also learn to livewith risks to their lives and are well adapted in converting adversities intoopportunities. Once such a scheme is implemented, nation will be able to drawbenefit from this disciplined and dedicated pool of talent, while army’sshortages in the officer cadre will be made up to quite an extent.

Courtesy:The Tribune, August 14, 2010