India’s Surgical Strikes Against Pakistan- A game changer

As the news of surgical strikes by India against Pakistan was abuzz, the hues of response varied from elation, surprise and suspicion. For all those, who undermined the Indian leadership and military capabilities this is a formidable lump in the throat. Details apart, the surgical strikes carried out by the Northern Command were much needed to infuse confidence, sense of pride and respect for valor. The massive causalities inflicted by terrorists during the Uri attacks had not only exposed chinks in India’s armor but greatly dented morale of the armed personnel. Indian public too felt infuriated as Indian government had in no clear terms called for an instantaneous response. Having borne the brunt of brutal terrorist attacks Indian public felt cheated when the party which vociferously denounced every act of Pakistan in opposition failed to deliver instantaneous justice. Though the DGMO Lt. Gen. Ranabir Singh asserted that “We will avenge the killings of our soldiers, but we will do so on cold-blooded professionally military assessment, and on a timeline of our choosing, not one dictated by political imperatives or the prime-time news cycle” people hardly found any respite.

In the meanwhile, Indian leadership critically evaluated plausible options to inflict damage to Pakistan on a long term. India finally harped on a multi-pronged approach to rein upon the brazen terror attacks. A range of diplomatic, political and economic assaults were considered. On diplomatic front, exercising right to reply India lacerated Sharif’s claims at UN word by word by saying that “the Land of Taxila, one of the greatest centers of ancient learning is now host to Ivy League of terrorism. It attracts aspirants and apprentices from all over the World”. India added that Pakistan had a “long standing policy of sponsoring terrorism, the consequences of which have spread well beyond our region.” The first secretary Eenam Gambhir added that Pakistan “channelizes billions of dollars, much of it is diverted from international aid, to training, financing and supporting terrorist groups as militant proxies against its neighbors”. This coincided with US Senators Ted Poe and Dana Rohrabacher tabling a bill in Congress designating Pakistan as terror state. Simultaneously Indian Americans launched an online White House petition seeking the declaration of Pakistan as terrorist state gained tremendous response. The petition which promises action on local, state or international problems if the campaign receives 100,000 signatures. Before its official deadline of Oct 21^st the target was reached. Now the White House is forced to respond to it within 60 days. Besides, India openly snubbed Pakistan and decided not to attend the SAARC Summit at Islamabad. Fresh from the humiliating reception extended to Rajnath Singh when he attended the Interior Affairs Ministers Meeting of SAARC, Finance Minister refrained from participating in SAARC Finance Ministers meet. Continuing the precedent, Prime Minister will abstain from SAARC. With India’s position actively backed by Bangladesh, Bhutan and Afghanistan the process of the regional isolation of Pakistan has officially begun. While experts questioned the relevance owing to SAARC’s miniscule clout internationally, India religiously followed the agenda of diplomatic isolation irrespective of the outcomes. Interestingly, after the surgical strikes even Sri Lanka, Maldives and Nepal expressed their reservations about SAARC. Consequently, Islamabad was forced to take a call. Pakistan announced that SAARC meeting stands cancelled indefinitely. With this, Indian efforts of diplomatic isolation in the region has reached a new hilt.

To turn on the heat, India began reviewing the historical Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) brokered by World Bank in 1960. While India initially contemplated on scrapping IWT, it was perceived to be counterproductive. Instead India is considering three ways to use provisions of treaty to its advantage-firstly, suspension of meeting of Permanent Indus Commission so that grievance redressal mechanism is halted and Pakistan would meet a dead end, secondly restarting the Tulbul Project ( Pakistan calls it Wullar Bridge), India suspended the construction across Jhelum river in 1987 following objections from Pakistan, thirdly an inter-ministerial task force would be set up to monitor the water usage from Western Rivers-Ravi, Beas, Sutlej. India is considering on maximizing the use of waters from rivers governed by Pakistan-Jhelum, Chenab and Indus. While the repercussions may not be spontaneous desired effect will be felt within a span of 5-10 years. Finally, India is now seriously reconsidering the Most Favored Nation (MFN) status accorded by it in 1996 under the GATT where country grants a special favor like lower custom duty. But Pakistan hasn’t reciprocated citing non-tariff barriers and huge trade imbalance. Modi government is now critically reviewing all these aspects on a war-footing basis. Since perceptible outcomes are not immediate, Indian public failed to comprehend and appreciate the endeavors of NDA government.

The astounding success of the surgical strikes can be attributed to the element of the surprise. India took a measured approach and carefully executed it actions with diligence. India waited for Sushma Swaraj to deliver her address at the UN before carrying out surgical strikes and carefully used the international platform to expose Pakistan’s role as sponsor of terror state and the atrocities perpetrated by it in Baluchistan. Even Prime Minister Modi in his back to back address after Uri attacks refrained from mentioning about surgical strikes. Intellectuals hurried to construe that Modi’s speech at National Council meeting of BJP, Kozikhode reflected strategic restraint. His attempts to draw parallels between India and Pakistan in terms of economic progress and other aspects indicated that India was in no mood of retaliation. Even the tone and tenor of speech at the Prime Minister’s Mann Ki Baat on Sept 25^th hadn’t provided any clue about the upcoming military strikes against Pakistan. Indian masses, too resigned to the thoughts that Uri attacks too would go down the Indian history as yet another humiliation. But little did people realize that Indian leadership was strategizing a befitting reply. The days preceding surgical strikes too were dominated by several cease fire violations and massive infiltration bids. 

Over the decades, emboldened by India’s meek response to relentless terror attacks, Pakistan heavily relied on its low cost warfare to inflict heavy damage on India. Unchecked, unhindered the terror outfits flourished. The surgical strikes by Indian Army were thus timely, sending strong message to war-mongers and sections of Indian public that decried leadership for its inaction. India refrained from a full-blown conventional war, as India is at the cusp to progressive economic resurgence. In the Global Competitiveness Report for 2016-17 released few days back India climbed 16 places to settle at 39 position among 138 countries, while China is ranked 28.  Clearly, a conventional war might undo the recent economic gains, India rightly overcame the catch-22 kind of situation by conducting timely surgical strikes. Meanwhile, National Sensex crashed after the reports of strikes and suffered its worst fall post-Brexit. Despite the negative impact on trade and economy Indian Chamber of Commerce strongly supported surgical strike. Aside, retribution at this point has become inevitable to drive home the point that India is capable of defending itself and if need arises can retaliate reciprocally.

India’s surgical strikes against Pakistan invariably reminded of Indian Army’s “Operation Hot Pursuit” conducted along the Indo-Myanmar border to avenge the killing of 20 military personnel by the militants of National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Khaplang), NSCN (K) in Chandel District of Manipur. India then warned that “Western disturbances will be equally dealt with. Friendship and tolerance will go hand in hand. This is a beginning. India is Strong. This message should go to everyone” implying that India is not averse to launch such operations on its neighbors that harbor anti-Indian terror groups. However, Pakistan chose to downplay and deliberately hinted that Pakistan is not Myanmar and India shouldn’t think of any such action. These surgical strikes, a first by Indian army across LoC, undoubtedly punctured the bloated ego of Pakistan.

As the details emerge, DGMO announced that these strikes were launched to neutralize the terror pads gearing to push infiltrators across the border and were extremely successful. In the operation that lasted for four hours, Indian paratroopers ventured into 6.5km of PoK, and destroyed 8 launch pads. 38 terrorists and 2 Pakistan soldiers were killed. Now with Pakistan accusing India of fabrication of truth, Indian attacks evaded international attention. Also, since Indian operations are carried out in PoK, a legitimate Indian territory, this operation was considered as a massive combing operation aimed at extricating militants. Moreover, presence of Pakistan soldiers at the terror dungeons confirms Pakistan’s Army is hand is glove with its illegitimate bed partners-the UN designated terrorists.

Days after surgical strikes- World nations are slowly backing Indian stance. US, Russia, and other Muslim countries echoed Indian sentiments. But by all means, this retributory action would indeed propel Pakistan to retaliate with more force and India must be prepared for any eventuality. Further, these kind of action can’t force Pakistan to mend its ways. But inflicting significant damage might make enemy wary and threat of punitive retaliation will force enemy to reconsider the veracity of its clandestine activities. For the past seven decades, in various encounters with Pakistan it was proved beyond doubt that Pakistan understand the language of guns. India, by strategically executing the surgical strikes delivered the message in a language Rawalpindi clearly understands. Finally, Modi government deserves a big pat on back for walking the talk and demolishing the rhetoric. But for the exceptional valor and supreme sacrifice of Indian military and political commitment country would be wallowing the swarm of pusillanimity.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Uri terror attacks: Who is calling the shots?

As expected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s address at the 71st session of UN General Assembly (UNGA) bereft of any reference to Uri terror attacks and bequeathing freedom fighter tag on Burhan Wani left India fuming. Exercising right to reply, Indian gave strong rebuttal. The UN has once again turned into platform for acrimonious exchange of words between the warring South Asian neighbors. Modi government which stormed into power on the promise of acche din, uniquely blended trade and economic ties with foreign policy. A promising beginning of massive global outreach began to resurrect the Indian economy. Fortuitous Uri terror attacks of Sept 18th besides generating unprecedented public anger, rechanneled India’s attention from the NSG membership campaign. The emotional despair and growing public pitch for an aggressive retaliation muffled a promising financial milestone of shrinking current account deficit in the first quarter.

Seven-decade long acrimony between India and Pakistan for Kashmir province resulted in four long conventional wars that gobbled accrued meagre economic gains and resulted in competitive nuclear weapons accumulation. The regional adversaries being non-signatories of NPT, growing nuclear stockpiles have become cause of international concern. In 2001, India moved forces towards border following a clandestine attack on Parliament by the terror outfits of Pakistan, threatened by a possibility of a nuclear war the West immediately intervened. While India characteristically imposed reins on nuclear weapons usage by embracing No-First Use (NFU) Policy, Pakistan’s no holds barred and invincibility of the non-state actors always evoked concerns among the World nations. Precisely, for the same reason any provocation, insurgency/escalation or war of words between India and Pakistan inevitably catches international attention. Strategic cooperation among South Asian countries was under siege due to Kashmir issue, burgeoning hegemonic influence of China is all set to decimate the flailing rubric. China’s perception of India as potential challenger in Asia and proximity with erstwhile Soviet Union found convergence in Pakistan’s hostility towards India. The foundations of Sino-Pakistan friendship seeded on mutual enmity towards India, strengthened by land border agreement of 1963 are now thriving on elements on military, nuclear and economic cooperation. Bold diplomatic moves of Modi and his ambitions agenda for India as balancing power in the region flustered China. India’s economic growth story began to gain momentum emerging as the fastest growing large economy outpacing China. In sharp contrast, China was bracing the torrents of stock market collapse and slipping growth rates. Much to the chagrin of China, India posted highest FDI investments and is steadily brimming hopes of surging growth rates ahead. Economic development of India is making new headlines. This trend was in contravention to Chinese objective of restraining India to the status of sub-regional power.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) verdict of July 12th quashing China’s territorial claims over all the structures in the South China Sea (SCS) and Beijing’s blatant refusal to abide by the same earned it international rebuke. Tensions escalated in the region. Nuclear tests by North Korea and subsequent deployment of THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Anti-Missile Destroyer) in South Korea coupled with Chinese overtures in waters of East China Sea turned the region into potential zone of conflict. Around the same time, China rearing to project its grand standing at the upcoming G-20 summit in Hangzhou, through smart diplomatic moves, managed to avoid discussions pertaining to SCS. However, China’s proclamation of “peace rise” was irreparably damaged. While China reveled in success of self-proclaimed success of G-20, India clearly made a mark at the meet by actively garnering international support for counter terrorism cooperation. In the run up to G-20 summit Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi, visited India seeking support and cooperation. China in turn had to concede New Delhi’s request for commissioning high-level talks on India’s NSG membership and other outstanding issues. 

With the killing of Burhan Wani on July 8th, tensions erupted in Kashmir Valley and Pakistan deployed a committed network of terror operatives to escalate the situation. Islamabad then tried to tarnish India’s image by referring the issue to UN. Indian administration went into tizzy as the domestic insurgency refused to die down. Capitalizing on the situation, Pakistan’s deep state intensified infiltration bids. Irked by Pakistan’s announcement of dedicating Independence Day to Kashmir’s azadi, India unveiled the Modi-Doval doctrine. With India pressing the levers of internationalizing the human rights violations in Balochistan, Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK), Gilgit and Baltistan. Pakistan handed over reign to Rawalpindi leading to a terror attack on the Uri military base. China was discomfited by Indian stance for its aspirations of gaining access to Arabian Sea and vital economic interests in Balochistan would be thwarted. While China overtly declared that “Kashmir is left over from history. We hope concerned parties will pursue a peaceful settlement through dialogue”, an acrimonious diplomatic tirade between India and Pakistan is in Beijing’s best interest. Since India’s hopes of reforming global institutions of governance will be lost. Sustained diplomatic momentum harvested for India’s NSG membership would suffer a huge setback with nuclear-weapon sparring at UN. Tremendous efforts of rallying for investments by Modi government would do down the drain. Foreign Investors might be hard pressed to reconsider if talks of full blown war rekindle. In short, perceptible progress made by the Modi government to usher India into realm of economic prosperity will suffer a major blow. While India would be grappling with economic and strategic uncertainties, China would escape international censure despite escalating rivalries in the North East Asia region.

Simultaneously, in absence of a befitting reply to Pakistan in response outrageous Uri attacks, Modi government Indian public would be incensed. BJP which enjoyed remarkably high regard for nationalistic morals and uprightness might be castigation. It may suffer political debacle at the upcoming assembly elections. Already Pakistan paid heavy price with stock markets crashing yesterday. Constant references to nuclear war will have negative effect on India’s economic environment. Above all, the entire game plan meticulously articulated by China and deftly executed by Pakistan has pushed India into a catch-22 kind of situation. The wave massive public outcry for giving back to Pakistan has hijacked the social media networks demonstrating that there is an urgent need for public education on foreign policy.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Dastardly terror strikes on the Uri Military Base

The dastardly attack by terror agencies bred and propped by Pakistan on wee hours of September 18^th on the Uri army base claimed lives of 17 army jawans and left 30 injured. This attack is one the deadliest attacks suffered by the Indian army in the last 26 years. The terrorist camps operating from the legitimate Indian territory of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) targeted the military base since it is the most important garrison located near the LoC (Line of Control) and guards the border. The base established in the plains is believed to be vulnerable for it can be constantly watched by men in Pakistan bases located in higher mountainous areas. It can be reached from three sides, one of it is as close as 6km from LoC. Four armed infiltrators carrying AK-47 rifles, grenade launchers attacked the administrative unit of the Uri base at around 5:15 am when soldiers were filling diesel in barracks from the fuel tanks. Springing a surprise, militants hurled grenades with launchers which caused massive fire in the tents containing unarmed soldiers, killing 13 of them instantaneously in their sleep. The fires left several injured and four of them later succumbed to injuries. In the fierce gun battle that ensued for three hours, all the four terrorists were neutralised. The sudden, unanticipated attack stuck major blow to the Indian forces. Together, the magnitude of the casualties and the Pakistan orchestrated insurgency that crippled normal life in the Valley for the past two months generated an unprecedented furore and anger among the security forces and the political dispensation.

The weapons recovered from the terrorists bore Pakistani marks while the maps and the marked location were in Pashtun language confirming Pakistan’s hand in the attack. Lieutenant General Ranbir Singh confirmed that the attack bore hallmarks of the terror group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) allegorically terming it as the second version of Pathankot attack. Pathankot attack was engineered by JeM, a fact Pakistan refused to accept and act. Since Pathankot attack, India’s Pakistan policy took a massive U-turn. Initially, Modi favoured normalisation of relations with Pakistan for peaceful resolution of Kashmir dispute and explored every possibility to set tone for a bilateral dialogue. But Pakistan reciprocated with impunity. They inflicted severe damage by attacking Pathankot airbase in January, a week after Modi’s impromptu visit to Lahore. Even after Pathankot attack, India made concessions by allowing Pakistan Joint Investigation Team (JIT) to access site of attack at Pathankot base as Pakistan promised to allow Indian NIA to enter Pakistan for investigations. But Pakistan duplicitously exploited Indian largesse. Consequently, Modi who has been apprising nations of the distress suffered by India due to cross-border terrorism on his bilateral visits escalated the campaign against counter terrorism. In the meanwhile, Pakistan with rejuvenated force has intensified infiltration bids and ceaseless unprovoked cross firing continued from across the border. Simultaneously Rawalpindi unleashed the venomous terror networks to act on India. The unbridled terror forces eventually penetrated into the Valley and fomented violence in Kashmir after the killing of Burhan Wani. As a result, normal life was paralysed in the valley for the past two months. To tarnish India’s image and to internationalise the unrest in Kashmir Valley, Pakistan referred the issue to UN. Besides issuing a strong rebuttal diplomatically, India slowly pressed Modi-Doval doctrine into action. India began to voice concerns about the human rights violations in Baluchistan, PoK, Gilgit and Baltistan. Modi steadily raised the issue of Baluchistan and condemned the actions of Pakistan. At the G-20 summit and the ASEAN meet, he urged the international community to impose sanctions on the terror sponsor nations. In the past one month, India’s bold diplomatic moves began to garner support from other nations. Afghanistan and Bangladesh which endured the scourge of terrorism began to support India. Aside the concerns of the countries in the region, terrorist attacks from across the world were found to have Pakistani connect. Further, as the situation in Afghanistan rapidly deteriorated, the US expressed its concerns and recently blocked the $300 million aid for the sale of F-16. Thus, unlike the previous regimes, Modi government has been valiantly building diplomatic clout to isolate Pakistan. Now, this clandestine attack on Uri calls for recalibration of Indian strategy towards Pakistan.

Uri attack came at a time when Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is travelling to New York to raise Kashmiri issue at the 71^st UN General Assembly sessions. Records indicate that Pakistan had the history of escalating attacks when UNGA is in session. Apparently, Pakistan had rightly used this opportunity to aggravate tensions across the border so that it can take mileage from any aggressive reaction from India. Congruently, reports indicate that in the past one month there have been 12 infiltration bids, 10 were foiled and 2 were successful.  Uri terror attack is perhaps, one of the biggest army causalities caused by single militant attack and drew strongest of condemnations from political parties. Perhaps for the first time in the recent past, the top echelons of India political leadership condemned Pakistan in strongest words with BJP hinting at “complete jaw for one tooth” policy. All political parties hit out at Pakistan for perpetrating terror but AAP and RJD took a swipe at Modi and blamed him for the attacks. Truly, patience of India has reached a threshold as Pakistan breached tolerance levels.

Pakistan of late has been hit by a spate of calamitous reactions. Repealing of aid by the US, India pitching for rights of Baluchistan, attacks in Quetta, terror attacks in Christian majority areas in Peshawar, deteriorating bilateral ties with Afghanistan have come as setbacks to Pakistan. With progress of the CPEC too coming under international scanner, Pakistan in a bid to assert its control has rejuvenated its attacks on India. While Modi government has been diligently building diplomatic pressure recently through aggressive overreach, to handle a rogue nation like Pakistan India must adopt a multi-pronged approach. India must hit Pakistan hard at a place where it hurts the most. To accomplish this, apart from campaigning for declaration of Pakistan as terror state and calling for international isolation, India should attempt to build economic pressure. New Delhi should directly ask nations and trading groups to cut off their business ties with Pakistan to have trade transactions with India. Pakistan in the past buttressed Khalistan movement to blow a wedge into India. To blunt the fangs of Pakistan, with dissent brewing up, India should consider paying back to Pakistan in same coin. Pakistan always sought parity with India and eventually coerced the US to sanction finances for strengthening its defences. Now that Pakistan has emerged as the regional threat with the US too suffering damages in terms of loss of personnel and the associated costs of long war in Afghanistan, India should urge nations to impose arms embargo. Pakistan has been thriving on the illegal drug transactions. India should use its clout, urge international banks and other financial agencies to unearth the hawala transactions and choke the financial conduits. China for long has used Pakistan as a low cost apparatus for containment of India. India should in unequivocal terms indicate that India might close its markets if it continues to aid Pakistan. For the past seven decades, despite accruing humongous losses in terms of men and material because of Indo-Pakistan armed and proxy wars, India refused to learn its lessons. India remained smug, benevolent and Pakistan’s aggression in part was emboldened by India’s cowardice. Indian leadership drawn into the cult of the pseudo-liberals and vested groups failed to give back to Pakistan in its terms. Further, lack of consistent national policy towards Pakistan had undermined Indian efforts at various stages. As valuable time and efforts were frittered away with every new leadership “reinventing the wheel” over and again. It is high time and India must now force the West to take stern action against Pakistan and coerce it to act. Besides, India must carry a relentless campaign by sending diplomats to various countries exposing the incendiary activities of Pakistan. While all these approaches should be adopted to contain the aggression of Pakistan, India must be ever battle ready. With reports of Pakistan building another nuclear site emerging, stakes are really high. For long Pakistan has relied on its nukes to deter India. India should now stop buying that argument. Instead India must strengthen and refurbish its arms and ready special forces to counter Pakistan. 

 @ Copyrights reserved.

Indo-Afghan bonhomie attempts to sideline Pakistan

The recently concluded state visit by Afghanistan President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani fortified the long-standing Indo-Afghan relations. Buttressing Modi’s piquant call to impose sanctions on states sponsoring terror at the recent G-20 summit and the ASEAN Meet, Afghan President in the joint statement vociferously denounced the regional adversary for fomenting terror. Two years ago, newly sworn in President Ghani placed high emphasis on restoring and strengthening relations with Pakistan over the traditional ally India in anticipation of quelling the cross-border terror that threatened to descend Afghanistan into chaos. Afghan Taliban thriving on the narcotic trade, rooted in obnoxious ideology and shored up by Pakistani Military had its safe havens in Pakistan. Unlike his predecessor, Hamid Karzai, who stabilized the Indo-Afghan ties, Ghani went out of way to reach out to Pakistani counterparts to seek cooperation in expediting peace talks with Afghan Taliban. India’s strategic community was sidelined during this process. In the meanwhile, Pakistan logically networked Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG) for Afghanistan with US and China and deliberately eliminated India. Consequently, strategic experts declared that India has lost Afghanistan to Pakistan. But things took a dramatic turn with Afghan Taliban escalating their attacks on Afghanistan and capturing more strategically important territories like Kunduz. Aggression of Taliban reached a hilt in September 2015, following which President Ghani lambasted Pakistan for patronizing Taliban. President Ghani openly rebuked Pakistan at the joint session of Parliament after Taliban attack in April that claimed several lives and announced that Islamabad had launched an “undeclared war” on Afghanistan. Perceptibly even the fanfare about the peace talks farce too ended after killing of Mullah Mansour Akhtar in drone attack by the US in May 2015, closing all avenues for peace. Relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan further deteriorated with escalation of hostilities along the Torkham Gate.

Despite Afghanistan’s levitation towards Pakistan, Modi adopted a soft power approached. His visit to Kabul in December last year for the inauguration of Parliament Complex build by India and transfer of four Mi-25 attack helicopters displayed India’s commitment in upholding the Strategic Partnership agreement of 2011. India by sealing historic trilateral transit and transport agreement of Chahbahar port with Iran and Afghanistan gave needed impetus to the Indo-Afghan bilateral relations. This agreement besides addressing the constraints of a land-locked country would reduce dependability on Pakistan for transit access, infusing new hope for and economic development in Afghanistan. Later in June 2016 by inaugurating the long awaited Indo-Afghanistan Friendship Bridge (Salma Dam) at Herat, Modi consolidated bilateral ties.

President Ghani’s visit to India comes at a time when the resurgent Afghan Taliban has upped its offensive. Following intensive combing of US post 9/11, Afghan Taliban escaped into Pakistan territories and were patiently waiting to strike back. After the pull back of NATO troops in 2014, Taliban escalated attacks on Afghanistan. As per latest accounts, Taliban is now controlling three (Tarin Kot, Lashkar Gah and Kunduz) out of 34 provincial capitals. Independent sources project an even grim picture indicating that of the 398 districts of Afghanistan, 39 are controlled by Taliban and tough fight is on in 43 districts. Reports also indicate that all the government officials of the fallen districts are now fleeing the region. The unprecedented aggression of Taliban is threatening to destabilize the administration of the country.

Stymied by brutal terror attacks Afghanistan urged Pakistan to prevail and trample the conduits of financial resources but affirmative action was clearly absent. Meanwhile, even tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan escalated with Pakistan installing new mechanisms of surveillance at the Tokhram and Chaman border crossings and imposing sanctions on movement of men and material. Last week Ghani threatened to cut off Pakistan’s access to transit facilities to Central Asia through Afghanistan if Islamabad fails to allow the use of Wagah border for trade with India. While Pakistan obliged to allow Afghan goods to pass through the border it contested import of goods from India. While Pakistan has little to lose considering its miniscule amounts of trade to Central Asia, stern warning from Ghani is a reflection of looming irreconcilable differences between India’s Western neighbors. Though Afghanistan and Pakistan share 2500 km open border and have close people to people contacts with large population of Pashtuns in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, both countries emerged as sparring neighbors. While India is Afghanistan’s traditional partner and both countries had cordial relations. Except for the brief Taliban regime that stormed into power in 1996, Afghan regimes always levitated towards India to seek balance as Pakistan tried to destabilize their country mercilessly. Besides Afghanistan, India also bore the brunt of state sponsored terrorism of Pakistan. However reluctant Indian leadership always preferred peace over confrontation.

Modi’s bold stance of referring to human right violations in the Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK), Gilgit Baltistan, Baluchistan, appeals to International community to isolate states sponsoring terrorism and massive diplomatic outreach for cooperation on counter terrorism found congruence with Afghanistan’s tribulations. Moreover, deteriorating relations with Pakistan and John Kerry’s announcement of India-US-Afghanistan trilateral Dialogue for restoration of peace in Afghanistan prompted President Ghani to reach out to India. The trilateral dialogue will restart at the UN General Assembly.

 Appreciating Indian efforts in restoring the Storay Palace which was jointly inaugurated on Aug 22^nd by both leaders, Ghani anticipated that both countries would work towards strengthening strategic partnership and all-round cooperation. India so far extended civilian assistance through transfer of technology, scholarships, medical training, rural empowerment and was the single largest bilateral-donor in the region. Ghani during his visit sought military assistance from India to strike back at the Taliban. India responded positively and expressed willingness to train Afghan military personnel, provide second hand transport helicopters, tanks and artillery. But experts believe that military assistance to Afghanistan may not the real game changer since the sturdy military and security systems of Afghanistan under constant attacks have become inefficient over years and economic bankruptcy turned them redundant. Also, any form of military support might buttress Afghanistan’s existing defensive mechanisms but may not help in reclaiming the areas seized by the Taliban (1). On the contrary, India and Afghanistan can collectively build up international pressure on Pakistan by referring the terror perpetrated by Rawalpindi at various multilateral forums. Reinforcing their commitment to fight terrorism, both leaders called “upon the concerned to put an end to all sponsorship, support and safe havens and sanctuaries to terrorists, including those who target Afghanistan and India”.  They expressed “grave concern at continued use of terrorism” that threatens to destroy the regional stability, peace and harmony. Countries have signed agreements on extradition, mutual legal assistance and outer space cooperation. Reiterating India’s commitment of working towards a “unified, sovereign, democratic, peaceful, stable and prosperous Afghanistan”, Modi announced $1 billion aid towards capacity building, strengthening democratic institutions, women’s empowerment, education, health and technology. India also offered to supply medicines and extend cooperation in solar energy generation. With this India has so far disbursed $3 billion developmental aid to Afghanistan becoming the largest bilateral-donor in Asia (overtaking China). Ghani before leaving New Delhi, addressed the Indian think-tank IDSA where he characteristically chided and snubbed Pakistan’s good and bad terrorist doctrine.

While India’s new avatar of bold diplomatic posturing might be a welcome development, the path of ushering Indo-Afghan relations into new realm must be tread very carefully. With the US commending India’s financial assistance and support to restore democracy in Afghanistan, Pakistan already miffed by US decision of blocking sale of F-16 and $300 million will deepen its relations with China. In the process it might lure Russia to join. Eventually this development would be viewed as a kind of proxy war between India-US and China-Pakistan in the region. With the West having retracted security forces, Pakistan refusing to act on Taliban and Afghanistan lacking the means and resources to match Taliban aggression, the long war would continue for years. The only way India and Afghanistan can exert pressure on Pakistan is by internationalizing and exposing the clandestine state sponsored terrorism patronized by Rawalpindi.  Pragmatically India has embraced this new strategy. Moreover, by pledging developmental assistance India successfully ensconced itself in a propitious position.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Analysis of Cauvery Water Dispute

The pride and glory of India, the iconic Silicon Valley which won laurels for the country is now straddling through chaos, anarchy, mindless destruction of public property. The 124 year long, unsettled dispute of the Cauvery waters is taking a toll on the peace and harmony of two South Indian States- Karnataka and Tamilnadu. The simmering differences between the neighboring states over the past century have notoriously turned them into sparring partners. The inept handling of the crisis by the State Government, rumor mongering by the political fringe elements have inadvertently exacerbated the worst ever clashes between the states. Following the Supreme Court’s directive to Karnataka of releasing 15,000 cusecs water a day till September 15^th, the current clashes have erupted in Bengaluru. As the clashes escalated curfew was imposed in few areas of the city to bring situation under control. Meanwhile, retaliatory clashes were reported across parts of Tamilnadu too.

History

Cauvery water dispute which is largely a case of water sharing between the lower riparian state, Tamilnadu and the upstream state, Karnataka, dates back to the events in the 19^th century. Cauvery river system includes the tributaries of Hemavati, Kabini, Tunga, Bhadra, Bhavani, Amarvati and others. The states which benefit through its flow include Karnataka, Tamilnadu, Kerala and Union Territory of Puducherry. Under the British administration, Princely State of Mysore and the Presidency of Madras signed an agreement in 1892 over the sharing of Cauvery river waters when the later raised objections over proposed plans of construction of new irrigation project across Cauvery by Mysore. The issue began to gain heat when Dewan of Mysore the eminent engineer Dr. M. Visvesvarayya intensified efforts to build Krishna Sagar Dam in Mysore district. Cognizant of the massive storing capacity of the proposed dam, worried over the prospect of facing water crisis, Madras government appealed to Secretary of State for intervention. In 1914, the arbitrator delivered award in favor of Mysore causing great discomfiture to Madras Presidency. To bring matters to conciliation, British administration prevailed on both parties to forge an agreement in 1924. As per the agreement, Mysore is obligated not to construct any new irrigation dams on Cauvery or its tributaries without prior consent of Madras. Madras on the other hand shouldn’t object except to protect its prescriptive rights. It was also decided to review the clauses of agreement only after 50 years i.e in 1974. But unfortunately the agreement was not reviewed.

The dispute took a new logical turn when Princely State of Mysore ceased to exist and was subsumed under the state of Karnataka. Coorg, region the birth place of Cauvery not party to 1924 became an integral part of Karnataka and Kerala which was not a party to the agreement became a party to agreement. Other crucial dimensions of the dispute are that Cauvery originates in Kodagu, Karnataka and by default the principal claimant over its water flows. But the crux of the issue lies in the fact that the rivers flows in biggest areas in Tamilnadu with several thousands of acres of land under paddy cultivation.

Cauvery Conflicts

By 1960’s violent clashes erupted in both states when Tamilnadu built reservoirs on the Amaravathi and the Bhavani rivers following which Karnataka decided to raise the reservoir potential of the Hemavathi reservoir to 34 TMC (thousand million cubic feet) and also pitched for construction of four more dams across Kambadakadi, Yagachi, Lakshmana Thirtha and the Sagab Doddakere to generate an additional potential of 10 TMC. Karnataka supported its argument citing the clauses of XIV of 1924 whereby if Madras builds dams over tributaries of Cauvery the Amaravathi, the Bhavani or the Noyal flowing through Tamilnadu, Karnataka will be entitled to build reservoirs of capacity not exceeding 60 % of the reservoirs constructed by Tamilnadu. Karnataka also believed that its control over the Cauvery waters would be lost if it fails to generate and impound the 44 TMC water. With parties failing to reach an agreement over the interpretation of clauses and Tamilnadu turning down the requests of Karnataka to make changes in the agreement, warring parties took the matter to Supreme Court.

In 1970, Cauvery Fact Finding Committee found that Tamilnadu’s irrigated lands have increased from 14,40,000 acres to 25,80,000 acres and that of Karnataka were 6,80,000 acres causing increased demand of water by Tamilnadu. Central Government’s study found out that utilization of Cauvery waters by Tamilnadu was 489 TMC as against Karnataka’s 177 TMC.

Setting Up of Tribunal

In 1986 Tamilnadu made a formal request to Central Government to set up a tribunal to resolve the dispute under the Interstate Water Disputes Act (ISWD Act), 1956. After much trials and tribulations, following Supreme Courts intervention, Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) was appointed in 1990 with both states failing to reaching an agreement. In 1991, an interim order was issued by Supreme Court directing release of 205 TMC of waters to Tamilnadu annually. This resulted in eruption of clashes in Karnataka which basically targeted the hapless Tamilians settled in Karnataka. This eventually triggered violence in Tamilnadu as well. Thus Cauvery waters issue remained as a bone of contention between both states.

Tribunal Award of 2007

Nearly after a gap of 16 year following intense discussions and deliberations by experts, Cauvery Tribunal delivered final order in 2007 based on the “50% dependability on Monsoons”. Experts calculated that 740 TMC of water would be available annually and accordingly waters were divided among four parties. It allocated 419 TMC to Tamilnadu, 270 TMC to Karnataka, 30 TMC to Kerala, 7 TMC to Puducherry and remaining 14 TMC for environmental purposes (including 4 TMC factored for the “inevitable escapages into the sea”. Supreme Court directed Karnataka to supply 192 TMC to Tamilnadu.

As per the tribunal, Tamilnadu is entitled for 419 TMC, if Karnataka supplies 192 TMC, how is it managing to get rest of the water? Precisely this is where Tamilnadu has a major advantage over Karnataka. Way back in 10^th century, Chola Kings have developed a robust water infrastructure in the region by building reservoirs and check dams paving way for meticulous utilization of Cauvery waters. These catchment areas contribute to as much as 227 TMC. As opposed to historical pre-eminence of Tamilnadu, Karnataka had first irrigation dam built across Cauvery waters in the form of K R Sagar dam only in 1934. Kerala, on the other hand because of its unique geographical position contributes more waters (51 TMC) while utilizing only 30 TMC. Tamilnadu by way of historical advantage and prescriptive rights clearly enjoys greater benefits than Karnataka. Due to its over reliance on Cauvery waters, and being a lower riparian state often at mercy of the upstream state, Tamilnadu takes a belligerent position. Karnataka opines that 1924 agreement was unjust wherein Tamilnadu was using almost 80% of waters, against Karnataka’s 16%. Hence as an upstream, Karnataka wanted to assert its primacy over Cauvery waters prompting it to defy Supreme Courts at times leading to violent clashes. Though of time Karnataka managed to bring more areas under irrigation increasing it to 15 lakh acres even now it clearly lacks the infrastructure needed to derive benefits of surplus water.

By and large parties to Cauvery water issue remained dissatisfied with 2007 water award and aggrieved parties Karnataka, Tamilnadu and Kerala filed special petitions in Supreme Court. Even otherwise experts also believed that the award failed to provide convincing answers to issues like water distribution during a failed monsoon year. These and certain incipient discrepancies have potentially flared up the rivalries leading to frequent conflicts between the states. For example, the award failed to take into account ample amounts of ground water resources of Tamilnadu as against none in Karnataka. Similarly, the issue of water sharing during the four months of peak agriculture season needs to be reviewed.  While award may work reasonably well during a good monsoon year, a failed monsoon might create a havoc. Till now every distressed year witnessed intense conflicts between the states- 2002, 2003, 2012 and now in 2016 the amount of violence was unprecedented.

Implementation of Water Award

Ever since the award of the tribunal it was observed that Tamilnadu received more than prescribed amounts of water from Karnataka except for the year 2012. Failure of the tribunal in arriving at proportionate distribution of waters in a distress year has complicated the situation. Moreover, water crisis and serious adversities could have been mitigated had both states displayed some sense of responsibility in reaching a negotiable agreement during distress years. Indeed, the recent episodes of contemptible violence and targeted attacks could have been averted had the political parties refrained from issuing parochial statements. Had the leaders invested their political energies in reaching a consensual agreement over water distribution instead of fomenting animosities, issue could have been resolved peacefully. Every distress year had many lessons to offer. Experts agreed that current patterns of water usage have been most uneconomical and wasteful. The way ahead should be adoption of better water management practices, modern methods of agriculture and downsizing the cultivation of water intensive crops. With both states tipped to bank on urbanization for rapid economic development, pressure on limited water resources is bound to increase. To scale down uneconomical use of water, state government must step in to introduce best water management practices to avert plausible water crisis. Various parts of India faced the brunt of severe water crisis before the onset of monsoon this year. In particular reservoirs of South India had abysmally low levels of water. Though an active South West Monsoon brought some cheer, meteorological reports indicate that Karnataka received 17% less than normal rainfall (594mm against 718mm), Tamilnadu had normal rainfall. Moreover, since rainfall was intermittent and uncertain water levels were lower than the previous year. As per Central Water Commission data, Cauvery water catchment area of Karnataka has 46% less than normal levels, was declared as agriculture drought. While Supreme Court modified order asking Karnataka to release 20% less water, 12,000 cusecs for eight days, it argued that water levels in the reservoirs are barely enough to meet the drinking water requirements of the region. Finally complying to Court’s decision started sharing water on Tuesday night. Meanwhile, Centre should expedite the process of constituting the Cauvery Management Board to find a long term amicable solution to both parties. Further it must explore ways of harnessing 2000 TMC of Cauvery waters, (four times the water requirements of both states) joining the Arabian Sea to tide the water crisis.

Implications of Water Stress

 Water, described as the oil of the 21^st Century or the Blue Gold is becoming increasingly scarce. Indiscriminate human activity, seamless population explosion aggravated the water stress.  The arrival of Anthropocene hastened global warming and climate change resulting in erratic rainfall and snowfall patterns, increased evaporation putting enormous stress on the precious fresh water resources. While the fear of water wars may appear to be far outstretched, but the recent crisis in Syria, fomenting tensions between nations in South East Asia, insecurity of the Arabian Peninsula are undeniably triggered by the looming water crisis. Indeed, the IS managed to extend its stranglehold in Iraq by commandeering the hydroelectric dams, irrigation canals reservoirs and water infrastructure. Similarly, Yemen slipped into internal chaos due to water scarcity. In light of impending water crisis, the fermenting interstate conflict over Cauvery waters is of grave importance for it is a manifestation of severe water stress faced by the South Indian States.

The political parochial war of words and instigation had already accrued losses of over Rs 25,000 Crores to Karnataka besides severely denting the image of India and Bengaluru in particular. Sporadic protests have not only disrupted the normal lives but earned a disrepute for India reckoned as the fastest growing economy currently. Ideally, the political dispensations instead of seeking remedial measures for interstate water feuds from Courts should try to seek solution through consensus. While sharing of waters prescribed by legal entities assures distribution of resources, accurate measure of rainfall received and harvested is variable. Hence an amicable political solution can alone resolve these interstate water disputes. 

@ Copyrights reserved.

Modi’s calls for sanctions against Pakistan at G-20 Summit

Successfully wrapping up bilateral visit to Vietnam, Prime Minister Modi attended the G-20 Summit at Hangzhou, China participated by leaders who represent 85% of the World economy. The official theme of the meet “Towards an innovative, invigorated, interconnected and inclusive world economy” is in line with reports of global economic slowdown. The meet was aimed at providing solutions for World economy reeling under the tremors of Brexit and immigration hassles. The two-day meet held at the picturesque West Lake view venue in Zhejiang province discussed five main themes- fight against tax evasion by seeking the help of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to black list tax havens; promote international trade and investments and curtail protectionism; fiscal stimulus and innovation to boost economic growth; fighting populist measures against globalization and strengthen support for refugees.

In his opening remarks at G-20, Modi reminded that it is time to move beyond empty talks and urged nations to collectively work towards an action-oriented agenda for evolving an effective global financial and economic agenda. At the meet, leaders commended Modi’s leadership for laying out ground for implementation of GST and for steering India towards rapid growth. Reiterating his domestic policy Modi spoke about his twin policies of Zero tolerance towards corruption and black money. With major economies bracing the prospects of stagnant growth, India and China were looked upon as beacons of economic growth and development. Modi’s vision found some convergence with President Xi’s message who appreciated India’s initiative on energy crises and called for shunning empty talks. Intensifying his campaign on international cooperation on counter-terrorism, Modi urged for greater collaboration in the BRICS outreach meeting along the sidelines of the G-20 summit.

Besides, making a fervent pitch for combatting the menace of terrorism and drumming up support for the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT), Modi held bilateral talks with President Xi ahead of the G-20 summit and discussed about the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), listing of Pakistan’s terrorist organizations and revival of talks on India’s NSG membership. While China expressed its discomfiture over the Logistics Exchange Agreement signed with the US. Modi held a series of bilateral talks with various leaders along the sidelines of the G-20 summit. In his bilateral talks with Australian counterpart Malcom Turnbull, Modi spoke about the need for “identifying and targeting suppliers, exporters and financiers of terrorism”. Modi met British Prime Minister Theresa May and asserted that UK would continue to remain as an important partner for India even after Brexit and sought support for strengthening of partnership. Modi held discussions with Saudi Arabia deputy crown prince Mohammad bin Salman regarding strengthening of cooperation in energy, maritime and infrastructure sector. Modi in his bilateral talks with France President Francois Hollande raised the issue of confidential data leakage on the Indian Scorpene class submarines being built at Mumbai in collaboration with the French defence company DCNS. With President Reccep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey Modi discussed about India’s NSG membership while Turkey raised concerns over presence of Fethullah Gullen’s supporters in India. Modi thanked Argentina President Mauricio Macri for supporting India’s bid for NSG membership.

On the concluding day of the meet, with President Obama seated on one side and President Xi Jinping on the other, Prime Minister Modi made scathing remarks that “One single nation in South Asia is spreading out agents of terror in countries of our region” and added “that there are some nations that use it as state policy”. It is amply clear that Modi is referring to the regional adversary Pakistan and the reference to Pakistan is apparent. Giving a clarion call to nations to fight the scourge of terror, Modi exhorted that nations who support and sponsor terrorism must be isolated and sanctioned, not rewarded. In a hard-hitting intervention Modi said “India has zero tolerance for terrorism because anything less than that is not enough. For us a terrorist is a terrorist”. Of late Pakistani bred militants, emboldened by state patronage have ruthlessly unleashed a reign of fomenting terror in the Kashmir Valley. Blatant threats of disrupting peaceful and political resolution for Kashmiri conflict issued by UN-designated militants stands testimony to Pakistan’s nefarious agenda. Brazen audacity of terror outfits to stall India’s peace initiatives had incontrovertibly irked New Delhi. Modi’s gutsy reference to Pakistan on the second highest platform next to UN thus assumes greater significance.

UN General Assembly sessions are scheduled to begin from Sept 13^th. Despite deteriorating domestic law and order situation, Pakistan embarked on treacherous plan of willful denigration of Indian stature and internationalization of Kashmir issue by sending 21 legislators to various countries. Modi’s master stroke days ahead of Pakistan’s run up to diplomatic onslaught at UN has rendered Islamabad’s clandestine efforts futile. Modi minced no words and urged World leaders to isolate and impose sanctions on Pakistan. Through indirect digs and veiled references during his bilateral visits, Modi appraised the World, of terror carnage perpetrated by Pakistan. With Pakistan escalating the cross-border terror campaign, Modi spared no efforts in calling the spade a spade. Besides, firmly charting out the agenda for the upcoming BRICS meet at Goa in October, he effectively rallied for international support in fighting the scourge of terrorism. Modi’s campaign at the G-20 summit has been a resounding success. Modi’s high-voltage diplomatic outreach along the margins of G-20 summit is exemplary.

The core dimension of Hangzhou G-20 summit is to explore concrete and measurable solutions for global economic slowdown. G-20 nations which are already miffed by China’s overt militarization and aggressive belligerence are disconcerted by China’s protectionist approach towards foreign investments in core sectors. Festering tensions in key areas of investment has raised eyebrows about China’s intentions. Burgeoning investment heft by Chinese state -owned companies in key areas of economy in foreign countries is now raising concerns about national security. Growing resentment towards Chinese investment can be reflected in Australia’s decision to stop Chinese-bidders from buying stakes in biggest power grid of $7.63 billion and U.K’s review of $24 billion Chinese-funded Hinkley Point nuclear plant. Recently there has been an unprecedented political backlash towards Chinese investments and inquisitions. Even US and Germany have expressed concerns with Chinese investments for “taking away the competitive edge of its globally leading national companies” (1). Frameworks like WTO help in resolving disputes regarding dumping or protection unfortunately there are no dispute redressal frameworks for protectionist walls. Countries looked forward for the G-20 summit to sort out investment related issues. But China instead of promising concrete action, capitalized the opportunity completely to promote its economic policy “One Belt One Road” (OBOR) initiative and multilateral institution, Asian Infrastructure Investment (AIIB) as forerunners of the theme of interconnectivity and inclusivity. By and large China avoided open confrontation, maintained double speak over protectionism. Thus the summit barely managed to reach a broad consensus over a range of issues.

For all the huge noises China made in the run up to G-20 summit, it all ended on a damp note. The meet will be remembered for the diplomatic jostling and snubs.  Western media expressed great displeasure over unprecedented levels of security that deprived them access to various sessions. Some experts argued that communiques delivered after the press briefings offered few insights and in a technically complex language. Determined to dominate the agenda of G-20 summit and exult in the new stature of an emerging super power, China notoriously extended a rather unpleasant reception to President Obama. During the ongoing G-20 sessions, Philippines reported presence of huge number of Chinese vessels near the disputed Scarborough Shoal and pulled up Chinese officials for the brazen misadventure. On the concluding day of the summit, in an attempt to draw international attention North Korea fired three medium range Rodon ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan. Though the summit opened on a high note with China and US formally announcing ratification of the Paris Climate change agreement, the much anticipated US-Russia agreement over Syrian conflict wasn’t reached. But China received a shot in arm with Canada joining the AIIB.

While the summit recognized that global economic growth has been “too slow for too long and for too few” that the inequalities have increased, but no consensus was reached on longer- term G-20 vision. The group affirmed to make globalization work for all. “Hangzhou Consensus” mandated G-20 to work towards inclusive growth through coordinated macroeconomic policy, open trade and innovation. In all, European delegation which attended the meet for global action on over-capacity of steel production, fair taxation and global refugee crisis expressed satisfaction with the language in the communique. Others felt that G-20 was low on substance. But irrespective of the outcomes, China is already basking in the glory of G-20 success.

@ Copyrights reserved

Armed with pretentious diplomacy China hopeful of a successful G-20 Summit

21^st century is termed as Asiatic century. Marking the resurgence of the Asian continent, Tiger economies of the South East Asia gave a head start to the economic aspirations. Emerging as burgeoning commodity markets with unsatiated appetite, Asian countries registered phenomenal growth and attracted investments from developed nations. Asiatic giants India and China because of its sheer size, huge demographic dividend and consistent growth rates began to make a mark on the global economic arena. Dynamics of these emerging countries began to evolve from extending cooperation and support to each other’s voices at various multilateral forums to strengthen the voice of developing countries to bolstering trade and economic ties. Over a period of time, these neighbors and aspiring regional powers began to reshape the regional geopolitics too. Despite disagreements over unresolved territorial border disputes, both countries buried the hatchet and revved business links. The three decade long two digit growth rates reinvigorated the “Chinese dreams”. This long cherished dream received a new lease for life under the President Xi Jinping who unlike his predecessors steered nation to unabashedly pursue hegemonic aspirations aggressively. China always secretly harbored sinister plans of extending its influence in the region, the sizeable economic clout built by years of enviable economic progress added much heft to its ambitious goal. Embarking on the abrasive nationalism mode, China began perpetuating contorted interpretations of historical legacies to serve its interests.

It unleashed a series of territorial claims and began pursuing them intently. To validate its untenable assertions, Beijing began fabricating the interpretations of history China. Its claims over 80% of the territorial aspects of the South China Sea typically falls into this category of calumny. To consolidate its claims and reap economic and military gains, China indulged in frenetic land reclamation of various features like atoll, reefs, barren islets, cays and shoals in SCS. Besides, to buttress its claims, China established a think-tank, Institute of China-American Studies, Arlington Virgina, a supposed outpost of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, Hainan and added academic gloss to its assertions. Philippines having suffered the excesses of Beijing with regards to its claims over the Spartly Islands launched an arbitration case against China. China’s ambitions suffered a jolt when Hague International Court in its verdict on July 12^th quashed the claims of the nine-dashed line based on an old map dated back to 1940.  Defying the verdict, China lashed back terming the panel’s findings to be motivated. Consequently, it opened a Pandora box by contesting the claims of its neighbors- Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia.

Miffed by debacle suffered through Hague arbitral panel verdict, China has upped its ante in the region. Just three days after verdict, China’s premier Li Keqiang issued warning to Japan to brace for similar kind of conflict in the East China Sea. In the first week of August, around 200-300 Chinese fishing vessels entered the disputed waters of the Senkaku Islands. China challenged the Japanese sovereignty over the eight uninhabited group of islets, Senkaku Islands referred as Diaoyu Islands by China after 1970’s when survey reports suggested probable presence of oil reserves. Since then China intensified its claims over the islands and established East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (AIDZ) in 2013. As a result the standoff between China and Japan intensified and the recent aggressive disposition of Beijing has further deteriorated the situation in the region.

Obsessed with expansive geographical spread, in 2006 China officially resurrected its claims over entire Arunachal Pradesh terming it as Zangnan or the South Tibet and began issuing stapled visas to Indians resident of Arunachal Pradesh. China stepped up military pressure following India-US unveiled strategic partnership of 2005. Ever since there has been consistent rise in number of incursions by Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) of China in four sectors- along the LAC, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal. Since independence Aksai-Chin remained as a bone of contention between the both countries and India eventually lost it in 1962.  Energized by inept Indian foreign policy, Beijing began laying claims over additional Indian territories by blatantly linking them to Tibetan culture. It began asserting that Tawang Monastery, the leading center of Tibetan Buddhism in Arunachal Pradesh as the birth place of 6^th Dalai Lama in 17^th Century and by that extension a part of Tibet. By similar argument, China should lay claims over Mongolia which is birth place of 4^th Dalai Lama in 1589.

Notwithstanding the annexation of the Tibet, overwhelmed by the obsession of One China, Beijing huddled reinstatement of democratic process in Hong Kong and coerced pro-China parties of Taiwan to deepen ties with mainland China. To gain geographical mileage in North East Asia, China unabashedly, indulged in distorting the history of Korean Kingdoms under the banner of North Eastern Project. Under the ruse of restoring the historical facts and protecting stability of the North East region known as Manchuria, China conducted the project from 2002-2007.  Through this project, China began asserting that Korea was a part of Greater China State. In a calibrated attempt, China began to rewrite Korean history by denying Korean national identity to the Goguryeo (Koguryo) civilization. It approached UNESCO to register ancient tombs and cities of Koguryo Kingdom & renewed claims to Gojoseon, Goguryeo, Balhea kingdoms. This egregious distortion of history incensed Koreans who believed that China is laying claims over the North Korean region to sabotage the aspirations of a united Korea. Insidious misinterpretations of China eventually affected its strategic and diplomatic relations with South Korea. Seoul became wary of China’s expansionist tendencies and led to shifting of interests from pro-China and anti-America to Anti-China and Pro-America. Similarly, China created Southwest Project and Northwest Project to strengthen its assertions over Tibet and Xinjiang Province.

Besides territorial assertions, China has been steadily expanding its maritime domains by setting up a string of bases spreading across the globe. While China had no qualms about its deceptions, hypocrisies about its revisionist actions, Beijing is extremely condescending about its contenders. It vehemently derided Japan’s imperialistic past and popularized its orchestrated versions of historical legacies of various nations in the school text books under the ruse of imbibing nationalism. So far, China strove hard to strengthen its own historical interpretations and denounced the actions of opponents.

Over the past two decades, China has been whipping tensions in the region anachronistically while remaining intolerant to criticisms of aggressive expansionism. Recently, in response to Beijing’s attempts of bolstering defensive capabilities and incessant incursions, India deployed additional army divisions and beefed up military capabilities along the Indo-China border. China took serious note of this steady military buildup along the border and warned that there will be “no compromises in its border disputes with India”. Interestingly, Beijing believes that it is right in its own way to conveniently intrude into Indian waters and dock nuclear submarines in Indian Ocean, it is averse to Indo-Vietnamese joint oil exploration in the exclusive economic zone of the later. Beijing expects India to exercise restraint despite the Dragon transferring military and nuclear technology to India’s neighbor Pakistan and stationing armed soldiers in the disputed territories. On the contrary, Beijing castigates India for strengthening military cooperation with Vietnam. The list of China’s ironies and self-righteousness are endless. They reek of duplicity but unfortunately its diplomacy is afflicted with this very malady.

Mired in exigencies and afflicted by hypocrisies, China is now all set to host the premier G-20 summit on Sept 4-5^th has left no stone unturned to make it a spectacular success. Beijing already pumped over $10 billion to revamp the infrastructure of Hangzhou, capital city of Zhejiang ordered closure of factories for 10 days to ensure good air quality and readied 1 million volunteers for the summit. The Dragon is rolling dice and desperately making right noises to silence the voices of international community and frantically wooing the G-20nations. After blatantly admonishing the verdict of Permanent Court of Arbitration nations are distrustful of Beijing’s shibboleth of peaceful rise. With bigoted nationalism and reverential self-righteousness, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) facing the public wrath has slowly began to charge up the nation. The quick charade of diplomatic photo-ops and unheralded visits of Chinese foreign minister clearly recapitulates this logic. In run up to G-20 summit, Wang Yi, China’s foreign minister visited Africa, India, Laos (Guest invitee to the summit) and urgently convened a meeting of foreign ministers of Japan and South Korea. To appease Japan and South Korea, Yi condemned North Korea’s ballistic missile launch and publicized signing of a “conference summary” on Maritime cooperation with Vietnam coast guards. While the authenticity of such agreement with Vietnam coast guards has to be ascertained, it is an open secret that China has been transferring requited nuclear technology to North Korea and deliberately refrained from imposing sanctions despite UN’s recommendations. Thus, China tried all the tricks in the book to please the G-20 countries to avoid the escalation of discussions on China’s refusal to accept the PCA verdict.

 To smartly avoid discussions on issues contentious to China, Beijing has reiterated that G-20 Summit agenda would adhere to the global economic growth with a focus on the theme of “Towards an Innovative, Invigorated, Interconnected and Inclusive world economy”.  Ironically Chinese officials indicated that Beijing is keen on raising the issues of deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Anti-ballistic missile system (THAAD) by South Korea. Meanwhile China employed the ballistic of intellectual power pushing diplomats, researchers, media, and Chinese think-tanks to work overtime to eulogize China and stress the need for peaceful cooperation to work towards global developments. For all this loud talk, participating countries can rest be assured that China would renege on all the promises. The benevolent proclamations on regional stability, peaceful rise and mutual cooperation will eventually disappear in the clamor of the aggressive expansionism of President Xi. Indeed, nations must be cautious of ridiculous territorial claims exerted by China for there is every danger of the Dragon pursuing it resolutely.

 

@ Copyrights reserved.

Modi's Visit Strengthens Indo-Vietnam Ties

Whenever I pass the busy Ho-Chi-Minh Road in South Delhi, I am invariably reminded of an extremely cordial and thriving friendly relationships between India and Vietnam. The foundations for bilateral relationship was laid by Prime Minister Jawaharlal and Vietnam’s founding father Ho-Chi-Minh. Like India Vietnam had to fight to colonial forces to gain independence and struggle for freedom indeed bought the nations together. Jawaharlal Nehru was one of the first visitors to Vietnam after it obtained independence from France in 1954. In reciprocation, President Ho Chi Minh made his first bilateral visit to India in 1958 ushering both countries into a realm of friendship. India established official diplomatic relations with North Vietnam in 1972 and subsequently granted Most Favoured Nation status to Vietnam in 1975. India supported Vietnam’s freedom struggle- the first Indochina war, condemned US military intervention during Vietnamese war or the second Indochina war (a war against forces of South Vietnam and the US), bolstered the reunification process and was one of the few non-communist countries to extend help in Cambodian-Vietnamese war. Contemporary relations are strengthened by high level state visits and burgeoning trade and economic links. By 1992, under Look East Policy India reoriented its focus of engaging with South East Asian Countries and subsequently, rejuvenated ties with Vietnam by inking various agreements in oil exploration, agriculture and manufacturing. Besides, centuries old historical connect between both countries are revitalizing people to people connect. Records indicate that India’s trade and cultural links dates back to as old as 2^nd century.

Vietnam’s Indic Connect- A Brief History

A careful study of the accumulated cultural treasure throws a significant light on the traditional and religious links between India and Vietnam.  Central Vietnam, South Vietnam, Cambodia were an integral part of the ancient Indochinese, Champa Kingdom that included a collection of Cham polities that extended till Laos. Champa Kingdom existed from 2^nd century through 19^th century reached its zenith by 9^th century and was eventually absorbed into the Vietnamese state. Champ had five major principalities- Indrapura, Amaravati, Vijaya, Kauthara and Panduranga.  Records indicate that each of these regions followed Indic traditions that are essentially rooted in Hinduism. Most of the archeologically preserved places reflect how the art and culture of Champa Kingdom was shaped by Hinduism. The culture of the region was influenced by forces from China, Cambodia, Java and India till AD 192. But by 4^th century the region was pervaded by the Indic cultural influences and prevailed till 19^th century. Sanskrit was adopted as the state language and Shaivism was the official religion of the kingdom. They also worshipped Earth Goddess Lady Po Nagar. Inscriptions in Sanskrit found on the dilapidated Shiva temples in the My Son temple complex clearly corroborates these facts. Champa indeed had strong maritime linkages with the Sri Vijaya empire of Malay Archipelago. Predominance of the Hinduism was interrupted two principalities adopted Mahayana Buddhism in 10^th century. Almost during the same period, Arab traders trotting the maritime waters from Persian Gulf to South China Sea for spice trade began to bring Islamic cultural and religious influences to Champa. By 17^th Century Royal families converted into Islam. Chams which follow Islamic faith are called Beni Chams and Balamon Chams preserved Hindu traditions. Balamon Chams and Balinese people are now the surviving non-indic Hindu communities in the World. Also, most Cambodian Chams are Muslims, Vietnamese Chams are Hindus. Similar to that of Angkor Wat of Cambodia, Vietnam had an immense temple complex, My Son which was destroyed during Vietnam war. My Son temple was designated as UNESCO site in 1999. The advent of French Jesuit Missionary changed the societal composition of Champa and French perused the pretext to intervene in Vietnam’s affairs. French who landed in Vietnam for fostering trade links began accumulating territories and eventually usurped the entire Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and the leased out Chinese Province of Guangzhouwan (Currently Zhangjiang). These regions together were referred as French IndoChina. With occupation of French, Chams were reduced to a minority. Beni and Balamon Chams are now present in Central and South Vietnam.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s two-day sojourn to Vietnam on September 2^nd enroute Huangzhou was aimed at giving fresh impetus to India’s Act East Policy. This visit to Vietnam by an Indian Prime Minister comes after a gap of 15 years, Atal Bihari Vajpayee last visited Hanoi in 2001. (Man Mohan Singh visited Vietnam in 2010 to attend India-ASEAN meet). Modi’s first visit to this region was to attend the ASEAN-India Summit and East Asian Summit (EAS) at Myanmar. In 2015, he visited Malaysia to attend ASEAN-India and EAS when he travelled to Singapore also. This is Modi’s third bilateral visit to the region and Vietnam’s visit is highly watched for the geopolitical significance and the longstanding relationships shared by both the countries.

Ever since China’s adamant refusal to accept the verdict of Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) that rejected China’s territorial claims over 80% of South China Sea (SCS) the region has become potential zone of conflict. Having suffered harassment of China, Philippines pulled China to International Court and Vietnam had put its strong foot forward opposing Chinese claims. Vietnam indeed has been India’s trusted friend and for various geopolitical reasons the roiling ferment in the region has pushed Hanoi into Delhi’s embrace. Overwhelming Chinese presence in India’s neighborhood and its relentless dissonance with India over various issues prompted India to buttress the military capabilities of pressure points in its immediate vicinity. Nearly 50% of India’s trade passes through SCS and has oil exploration interests in the territorial waters claimed by Vietnam. Escalating militarization of SCS stands against vital interests of both countries. During Modi’s current visit as India and Vietnam celebrate 10^th year of Strategic Partnership and 45^th anniversary of establishment of diplomatic ties both countries fervently aspires to upgrade its strategic defence ties and bilateral relationship.

Earlier in May, President Obama in a bid to erase the legacies of the past and to obtain access to Vietnamese port Cam Ranh Bay announced complete lifting of arms embargo. Days after the announcement, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar with high-level defence industry delegation travelled to Hanoi to review its pending request of 2011 for sale of supersonic missile Brahmos and to strengthen military ties. India then provided $100 million Line of Credit for procurement of offshore patrol boats. By mid-June India entered nuclear regime Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) whereby it could export of missile technology.  Modi government directed the BrahMos Aerospace (that produces missiles) to expedite sale of missiles to Vietnam and four other Countries (Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa and Chile). India always honored the aspirations of Vietnam and Hanoi reciprocated consistently by supporting India’s quest for permanent membership at the UNSC. Pertaining to defence cooperation, Vietnam sought help from India to modernize its military capabilities because of the commonalities of the platform (both countries have frigates and submarines of Russian Origin) and India agreed. As both countries agree to intensify defence cooperation India might eventually gain some valuable strategic inputs from Vietnamese military which effectively aborted Chinese efforts that failed to check its aggression against Cambodia during the third Indochina war.

On his arrival in Hanoi, Modi was accorded ceremonial welcome at the Presidential Palace and was received by the President Tran Dai Quang. Modi laid wreath at the Monument of National Heroes and Martyrs, visited the Mausoleum where Ho Chi Minh was laid to rest. Accompanied by the Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc and President, Modi visited the two-storied wooden stilt house of Ho Chi Minh near the palace. He also met General Secretary of Communist Party Nguyen Phu Trong who appreciated India’s stand on the South China Sea.

In lieu of shared interests, Modi announced that India and Vietnam will upgrade the strategic partnership to a comprehensive strategic partnership at the Joint Press Statement. At Hanoi, both countries signed 12 agreements and memorandum of understanding (MoU) ranging from defence, information technology, space, sharing of white shipping information, avoidance of double taxation, health, medicine, cooperation in cyber security, scholarships for Sanskrit and Buddhist studies. In a bid to upgrade defence ties, India has offered $500 million fresh Line of Credit for defence cooperation and pledged $5 million towards building an Army Software Park at the Telecommunications University in Nha Trang. An agreement was reached between Larsen and Turbo (L&T) and Vietnam Coast Guards for construction of high-speed patrol boats. But Modi didn’t make announcement of the much anticipated agreement on the sale of BrahMos missile. Perhaps Modi wanted to avoid any major blow up of the fragile regional equilibrium just before his scheduled talks with President Xi Jinping.

Regarding trade and investment, India is one of top ten trading partners of Vietnam and the bilateral trade has increased from $500 million in 2005 to $7.1 billion in 2015. Vietnam is an emerging nation with strong potential for growth and investment. Modi has invited Vietnam’s participation in all the flagship programs of his government and sought facilitation of ongoing Indian projects in Vietnam. Modi has set a bilateral trade target of $15 billion by 2020. As an esteemed member of the ASEAN Vietnam and signatory of TTP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), it is a favorable destination for Indian investors.

Furtherance of soft diplomacy has been an integral of Modi’s foreign policy. In continuance with his trademark diplomacy, Modi visited the Quan Su Pagoda and interacted with the Buddhist Monks and invited them to visit India. The last Indian leader to visit the Pagoda was Dr. Rajendra Prasad in 1959. Invigorating the traditional linkages between India and Vietnam, Modi was in praise for the Buddhist ideals. While India and Vietnam share robust bilateral ties which include defence cooperation, trade and economic linkages, people to people interactions can aid in deepening the strategic relationship. Promoting tourism and cultural exchanges can indeed strengthen these friendship bridges. To promote such interactions, exploring and appreciating the strong historical connect would be of immense help. As a matter of fact, both countries share a rich legacy of tradition, culture, religion and language which is almost 2000 years old.

India’s proactive engagement in all likelihood with Vietnam would antagonize China. Hawkish Chinese strategists may not shy away from exaggerating the upgradation of ties as an attempt to develop Indo-Vietnam axis. But unlike Sino-Pakistan axis that foments cross border terrorism and threaten the security of country, India doesn’t support anti-China agenda. Moreover, the dynamics of relationships both countries hold towards China is very different. Both countries are on same page with regards to disputes of South China Sea. Indeed, like India, Vietnam is averse to the idea of forming military alliances and steadily developed seamless solidarity and trust. India having shed hesitation under Modi should now emerge as the regional balancing power and contribute towards “stability, security and prosperity of the region”. While Modi was in Hanoi on a bilateral visit, a stealth fighter J-20 of Peoples Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) was spotted in the Tibetan region close to Arunachal Pradesh.

 

@ Copyrights reserved.

China’s contemptible appeasement of India

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi was on a three-day long visit to India last weekend to carry out strategic deliberations with India to ensure India’s support for its stance on the South China Sea. Wang’s agenda also included firming up President Xi Jinping’s trip to India to attend 8^th BRICS Summit Meet at Goa and preparing draft of the joint statement for bilateral talks at G-20 Summit. He also prepared ground for talks on several crucial issues as leaders from both countries are all set to meet each other in their respective countries. Modi is scheduled to fly to China for the 11^th G-20 summit meeting at Hangzhou, capital city of Zhejiang province from Sept 4-5^th. Modi will be holding talks with President Xi along the sidelines of G-20 summit. Later Modi will embark on a bilateral visit to Vietnam and Laos to attend the 11^th East Asia Summit (EAS) Meet. Wang after landing in Delhi had a brief sojourn to Goa to oversee preparations for the upcoming BRICS summit and met Goa Governor. Back in Delhi he had a dialogue with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and three hour-long talk with Sushma Swaraj.

China for the first time was handed the baton of Presidency of G-20 Summit at Brisbane in 2014 to conduct the summit meeting. To showcase its status as the emerging superpower, China invested over $100 billion to build state-of-art infrastructure facilities at Hangzhou, capital city of Zhejiang province for the summit. As Beijing aspires to revel in the new role of a “responsible power”, it sent Foreign Minister to India to reach at a consensus, seek each other support for the upcoming G-20 Summit Meet and the BRICS Meet to be held at Goa from October 4-5.

Of late, China crusading through the path of resurrection and aggrandizing economic embellishments began proactively engaging with various countries at international fora. To strengthen its regional grandstanding China worked towards establishment of alternative multilateral institutions like the New Development Bank through BRICS, Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB) and unveiled ambitious One Belt, One Road (OBOR). Communist Party of China (CPC) which is steadily losing ground for its dictatorial onslaughts, economic slowdown and widening income parities aspires to reassert its legitimacy by hosting G-20 summit.

China’s infamous notoriety for openly condemning the July 12th verdict of Permanent court of Arbitration, Hague which rejected the legal validity of its claims to the territorial regions in the South China Sea (SCS) drew international attention. Its defiance drew the ire of the West, Japan and others. Amidst the worst international face-off, China managed to coerce its financial benefactors into silence, created a rift among the ASEAN countries and scuttled their attempts to discuss SCS verdict at the recently concluded ASEAN summit at Laos. To its credit, China claims to have garnered support of 60 odd countries (including India). Indeed Beijing perspicaciously hinted to have obtained India’s support by drawing attention to the joint statement signed by foreign ministers of Russia, China and India at RIC, April 2016 that “All maritime disputes should be addressed through negotiations and agreements between the parties concerned”. Countering Beijing’s duplicitous interpretations, in its boilerplate response to the SCS verdict MEA said, “As a State Party to UNCLOS, India urges all parties to show utmost respect for the UNCLOS, which established international legal order of the seas and oceans”.

Indeed, India always favored freedom of navigation. The India-US Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region of 2015 issued with President Obama indicated that “We (India and US) affirm the importance of safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation and over flight throughout the region, especially in the South China Sea”. India has even backed Philippines position in SCS, and at Indo-Philippines third joint commission meeting on bilateral affairs, the joint statement referred SCS as West Philippine Sea asserting its indirect support for peaceful resolution of SCS dispute.

China’s open defiance of SCS verdict has become bone of contention and in every likelihood western countries might raise the issue at G-20 Summit. India’s commitment towards freedom of navigation and commerce which is in line with US can spell trouble for China. Hence Wang Yi rushed to New Delhi to extract a promise of not siding with the West on the SCS issue. In fact Wang’s visit was preceded by subtle warning to India from the mouth piece of Chinese government, Global Times of potential danger in disruption of bilateral ties, business investments and trade if New Delhi fails to endorse Chinese position on SCS or talks about SCS at G-20 summit. In a veiled attempt it cautioned India of muddling the BRICS Meet if India fails to concede. Moreover, China, greatly disconcerted by ASEAN countries perception of India as the new regional challenger to Beijing’s territorial claims and deepening Indo-Vietnam cooperation has made Beijing wary of India.

But currently relations between two Asian giants are mired by several outstanding issues. India was ruffled by reports of PLA’s (Peoples Liberation Army) incursions and air space violations into Uttarakhand’s Chamoli district, joint Sino-Pakistan military patrols in the POK and clandestine build-up of military logistics in the disputed POK region. New Delhi is also miffed by China’s comments on Kashmir issue and its ineptness in prevailing over the cross-border terrorism perpetrated by Pakistan. India is visibly irked by Chinese indulgence in CPEC. Unrestrained flow of sophisticated defence technology from China has emboldened Pakistan’s anti-India terror agenda. China in turn condemned Indian media for “stirring up” negative sentiments and was upset over denial of extension of visa’s to  three Chinese media personnel. Indo-Chinese relations hit a major stand-off with China unwilling to relent India’s candidature for NSG. China played an obstructionist by obstinately insisting that India should be a signatory of NPT to become member of NSG. It is worth noting that Beijing supported for a waiver to India proposed by US in 2008 without a whimper. China at the recent Seoul Plenary of NSG argued that any waivers extended to India should as well be passed on the other aspirants like Pakistan. In the meanwhile, India’s NSG membership received a shot in arm with Mexico publicly stating that NSG membership and NPT shouldn’t be clubbed together since ratification of NPT is only one of the five clauses for getting into nuclear club. With China keen on appeasing India in return for its silence on SCS verdict at G-20, offered to resume talks about India’s candidature for NSG. While Wang was eager to cover major ground on getting India’s endorsement for SCS, setting aside India’s concerns, Swaraj firmly deliberated on China’s blocking of India’s candidature to NSG and its vetoing India’s move to impose ban on JeM Chief Masood Azhar at UN.

Over the decades, terms of engagement between India and China witnessed sudden shift. Both countries resolved to keep contentious border disputes on a back burner and agreed to strengthen cooperation on issues of common concern at several international platforms. Subsequently, they have rejuvenated business ties wherein economic returns majorly tilted in favor of China. But lately relations are taking a new turn with India emerging a favorite destination for investment. Sustained growth patterns has changed fortunes of India and with countries like US and Japan  forging strategic ties with New Delhi, India is increasingly viewed as a “potential regional rival” by China. Wang’s visit to India is perceived to an attempt to ensure India’s support and cooperation at G-20 Summit. To avert possible embarrassment, China has shifting its position from premonitory admonition to potential appeasement or rather adopted a carrot and stick approach to put a lid on simmering bilateral ties. Indeed, a great power differential exists between India and China and conventional wisdom dictates India to be sensitive to vital interests of bigger power. But given, China’s persistent reluctance to support India’s permanent membership to UNSC, unrelenting stance on NSG membership and thwarting attempts on terror outfits India is forced to rethink its strategies. While Beijing agreed to setup formal high level talks to discuss outstanding issues including India’s NSG membership, it warned of plausible disruption in bilateral business ties if India refrains from remaining silent on SCS at G-20 summit. Hence, despite China’s “carrot and stick” kind of approach Indian leadership must remain affirmative, for 55% of India’s seaborne trade passes through SCS. 

 

@ Copyrights reserved