The curious case of two Nobel Prize nominations

On Feb 28^th, after Pakistan announced the release of Wing Commander Abhinandan held captive by Pakistan, Information Minister Fawad Chaudhary submitted a resolution to the secretariat of National Assembly recommending Prime Minister Imran Khan for Nobel Peace Prize. Alluding to his contributions in averting plausible war between India and Pakistan after terror strikes on Balakot, Pakistan held ode to Khan’s good will gesture. It is not just Pakistan which called for such coveted honour for Khan, India’s left-liberal brigade, the fervid “Aman ki Asha” advocates started similar propaganda in India. Minutes after Pakistani government’s made approved release of Abhinandan, the brigade lost no time in eulogising, former Pakistan captain for the international honour. Castigating the Indian Prime Minister as the aggressor, started an online petition under the hashtag of “NobelPeacePrizeforImranKhan”. After the initial frenzy the issue seemed to have faded from public memory. But what made this development interesting, is the endorsement by Indian bigwigs which included former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju. In a telephonic interview to Pakistani news channel, Geo News, he praised Khan for displaying “real statesmanship” and added, “his speech was balanced, mature and full of wisdom. With calmness, he explained that war is not a solution. I think the speech should be circulated throughout the World, not just in our subcontinent. He deserves a Nobel Prize”. Two days ago, Eurasian Times carried an article stating that Imran Khan has been nominated for Nobel Prize by American publication, The Christian Science Monitor, terming it as “perhaps the biggest surprise in the peaceful leadership-and most critical to the World”.

The news of Khan’s nomination for Nobel Prize by an agency now demands an unbiased scrutiny. As of now while Indo-Pakistan tensions have cooled, it is important to explore if Khan’s self-aggrandised appellation of “Naya Pakistan” was any different from earlier Pakistan regimes. Hours after taking charge as Prime Minister in a televised address to India, pledged to take two steps for every one step taken by India to reduce tensions between both countries. For all the grandstanding nothing changed on ground. There was no decline in the cross-border infiltrations, unprovoked firings and terror attacks in Kashmir.  The valley continued to bear the brunt of unabated terror under Khan.

Infact, giving peace a chance, India approved talks between foreign secretaries of both countries along the margins of UNGA at New York. But New Delhi called off the talks at the eleventh hour due to brutal murder and mutilation of three Indian security forces by Pakistani forces. Besides, as an endorsement to insurgency in Kashmir, Khan’s government unveiled postal stamp of terrorist Burhan Wani extolling him as a martyr. For the first time in recent times, Punjab awoke to a bomb explosion on Nirankari Bhavan at Amritsar, signalling resurgence of Khalistan movement. To counter Modi government’s intense crackdown on terror operatives in Kashmir and free hand to security forces, under the guise of honouring religious and cultural sentiments of people Khan pushed the long pending Kartarpur corridor construction proposal. Through influential Pakistani sympathisers in India, Khan effectively pushed the Kartarpur issue to forefront. India relented and conducted foundation laying ceremony with immediate effect. With Pakistan’s army chief Qamar Bajwa overseeing ground breaking ceremony of Kartarpur corridor and special invite extended to Khalistan leader, the bluster of Khan’s administration stood exposed. Every year Kashmir valley would experience a break from the terror episodes during the winter months. But this year there was no respite from terror for the valley and Indian security forces made some major breakthrough by neutralising hardened terrorists sheltered in the valley. Having suffered a massive setback, Pakistan terror operatives with the support of deep state plotted Pulwama attacks. While JeM claimed responsibility minutes after the attack, Pakistan dilly-dallied and reluctantly condemned terror attacks referring to Kashmir as “Indian Administered Kashmir”. This has been the “Naya Pakistan” of Khan in brief.

Against this background it really makes no sense to even believe that the current regime of the so “statesman” Khan is any different. As mentioned earlier, Khan announced the release of Wing Commander under International Pressure as signatory of Geneva Convention. It would be ridiculous to even think Khan’s act as good will gesture, since Pakistan has been relentlessly escalating tensions across the border. Civilians near border areas have been witnessing heavy artillery shelling since air strikes.  As of now, alert Indian Air Force shot down six Pakistan’s spy drones entering India across the Western border. Indeed, unexploded bombs dropped by Pakistani drones are recovered from the residential areas Rajasthan’s Sri Ganganagar. For all the tall promises, Khan didn’t make any sincere attempt post-Pulwama to cull and extricate terrorists.

On the contrary, Pakistan government stopped UN team from interviewing Hafiz Saeed, mastermind of 26/11 Mumbai attacks and sought removal of his name from the UN list of banned terrorists. While Pakistan government announced that Saeed won’t lead Friday prayers, he is replaced by Abdul Rauf, a designated international terrorist, chief of banned outfit JuD (Jamaat-ud-Dawa). Similarly, Khan is all set to appoint retired Brigadier Ijaz Shah, as National Security Adviser (NSA), suspected of plotting Late Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto assassination and known to have close links with Taliban. Indeed, such is the reputation of Shah, that Australia refused to accept his nomination as High commissioner. These and several other half-hearted so-called reported counter terrorism measures, hold mirror to Khan’s real intentions. The indiscreet measures of Khan, the “yes man” of Pakistan military is a reflection of the country’s deep state anti-India agenda. At a time when influential Indian left brigade is tirelessly pitching Nobel for Khan, Pakistan’s Supreme Court is about to hear his disqualification case for hiding parentage of a daughter with a partner Sita White in his nomination papers. Coincidentally, Khan’s estranged wife Reham Khan, opened up a Pandora box by divulging stories of about the personal attributes of the former Captain that reeks of racist bigotry and religious intolerance. Abound by contradictions, the only saving grace has been Khan’s humble submission saying that he is not worthy of Nobel Prize. But any person who resolves Kashmir issue would deserves one.

Khan’s statement eventually takes us to another Nobel Prize nomination. Unlike Khan, President Trump in a press briefing days before the iconic Hanoi Summit with Chairman of DPRK, Kim Jong Un disclosed that he has been nominated for 2019 Nobel Prize. Soon, International Media is abuzz with news of Japanese Prime Minister forwarding President Trump’s nomination for the Nobel Prize. Nobel Prize nominations are supposed to be anonymous. The phenomenon of trending of nominations for Nobel marks beginning of a new era. After President’s historic Tuesday joint agreement on the denuclearisation of Korean Peninsula at Sentosa Island, Singapore, 18 Republican lawmakers wrote to Nobel Committee endorsing President’s nomination for Peace Prize. Per-Willy Amundsen right wing Progress Party of Norway had recommended Trump for the Prize after President’s first summit meet with Kim.

Kim’s rigorous pursuit of nuclear ambitions began to pose severe threat to the stability of the North East Asia, President Trump after the initial war of words, offered to negotiate peace talks at South Korea’s behest. Putting aside decades of acrimony, both leaders agreed to establish new links between the US and DPRK, renew efforts to build a regime of longstanding peace and stability, vowed to work towards denuclearisation of Korean Peninsula conforming to 2018 Panmunjom Declaration and to recover and repatriate the remains of PoW (Prisoners of War)/MIA (Missing in Action). As confidence building measure, North Korea repatriated remains of American soldiers. But when it came to real objective of denuclearisation, both countries failed to make any substantial progress. While US awaited a decisive, verifiable action on dismantling of nuclear facilities and arsenal, DPRK wanted a complete lifting of sanctions regime. Much ahead of the Singapore Summit, Strategists were sceptical about the American efforts given the DPRK’s fears of regime change. Notwithstanding these doubts, Trump argued that he would break the jinx and create history for himself by clinching a mutually agreeable denuclearisation agreement. Interestingly, Japan, who felt threatened by the nuclear proliferation, enamoured by the American initiative is believed to have commended Trump’s efforts to restore stability in the region. While some reports suggest that Trump administration has requested Japan to nominate him for Nobel Peace Prize. Unlike Khan, who openly said that he is not worthy of Nobel Prize, Trump who is intent on scripting a history never lost a chance to trumpet his attributes. He even defended Nobel nomination for his efforts to bring peace in Syria while America’s closest ally Israel was spooked by his decision to withdraw troops from Syria.

President Trump, aspirant of Nobel, months before 2018 Singapore Summit, unilaterally pulled out America from the conscientiously worked out iconic Iranian Nuclear Deal alleging Tehran’s non-compliance and unabated missile testing. Trump’s abrogation of treaty and reinstating highest level of sanctions irrevocably miffed Iranian fundamentalists approved nuclear proliferation. By arbitrarily terminating the Iranian deal, Trump not only destroyed the deal but pushed the volatile Middle East into abyss. For all the bravado of commitment to denuclearisation, recently Trump announced America’s withdrawal from the Regan era, Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty. Leaving the burden of resurrecting the treaty on Russia within 180 days, America alleged since 2013 Moscow has been grossly violating the agreement by developing new ground launch cruise missiles in the ranges between 500 and 5500 kms. Irked by Trump’s charges, Russia announced its immediate withdrawal. As a result, the treaty will now automatically annul in six months. This development has sparked fears of new arms race. Soon, Russia announced successful test firing of Yats Intercontinental Ballistic Missile System capable of carrying thermonuclear war heads. Russia alleged America continues to test its ICBMs several times a year launching from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California to the Marshall Islands. As of now America and Russia’s nuclear arsenal are kept under restraint by 2010 New Start treaty which expires on 2021. But with both parties hardly evincing any interest to negotiate five-year extension, fears of global security are abounding. Trump’s boastful claims of a breakthrough fell flat after his talks with Kim reached a deadlock at Hanoi. Days after Hanoi Summit, DPRK has resumed missile testing with the same gusto throwing a spanner into the much boastful claims of President Trump’s denuclearisation attempts.  

The case studies of Trump’s and Khan’s nomination for Nobel Peace Prize has opened up a new dimension about the rectitude or commitment of individuals motives for greater global harmony and peace. According to Alfred Nobel’s will- “person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses” shall be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Since World War-II people who made phenomenal contributions towards nuclear disarmament, human rights, democracy and peace negotiations were richly rewarded with Nobel Peace Prize. Considering the hysteria for the Nobel nominations in recent time, it is time to contemplate whether a feverish rallying for undeserved people by themselves or their lobbies is even desirable. This imbecilic euphoria for the coveted global honours should never be held hostage for narrow political gains or to prove a point.

@ Copyrights reserved.

With double speak and tokenism Pakistan is eroding its low international credibility

Pakistan has become listless since India’s air strikes on the terror camps on Feb 26^th. Even before India could officially make an announcement, Pakistan’s ISPR twitter handle lashed out at India for violating its borders. Since then Islamabad has been taking umbrage of falsehood and lies. Dismissing Indian claims of inflicting damage on the Balakot terror camp, Pakistan chose to belittle attacks by Indian air force. Indeed, they frivolously remarked, except for loss of vegetation and few trees Pakistan has suffered no damage. Some international publications too carried out stories corroborating Pakistani claims. The Indian opposition leaders who initially hailed IAF began demanding proof of the damage incurred giving ammo to Islamabad. Indian leaders who openly taunted the government sought to know the exact number of casualties. With political discourse getting heating up, IAF provided a high-resolution satellite imagery of the Balakot camp. Unfortunately, technologically challenged opposition parties belied to approve of the wrath incurred by Israeli Spice-200 precision bombs with no visible signs of scorching or any physical damage to structure of the buildings. While Indian opposition continue to rave, it has been more than nine days to the attacks and Pakistan continues to block access of international media to the madrassa on the hill top. It doesn’t need rocket science to decipher that Pakistan’s madrassa headed by sham Maulanas who doubled up as recruiting and training agents for terrorists suffered irreparable damage.  Cowered at the prospect of international scrutiny Pakistan defiantly maintained and mocked India at missing the targets. But Islamabad’s recalcitrance to providing media access to the affected region had invariably blown the lid off the closely guarded lie.

The saga of trepidations and blatant lies have deepened suspicions of international community towards Pakistan. Pakistan’s communication which is riddled by duplicitous claims is now denting its credibility. At the behest of the deep state, which dictates terms to the toothless civilian government, Prime Minister Imran Khan in his address to India, claimed that Pakistan Air Force shot down two Indian jets and is in possession of three pilots. But within hours, India punctured Pakistani lies with an official statement of one Indian jet being shot down in a dog fight with Pakistan’s F-16 which was subsequently felled by Indian wing commander Abhinandan, who happened to parachute onto the Pakistan side. Islamabad intended to use PoW (Prisoner of War) as a bargaining chip, but under intense international pressure Islamabad was forced to return the pilot within 48 hours of his captivity. India subsequently dismissed Pakistan’s allegations of downing India’s second jet as figment of imagination. Also till now, Pakistan has failed to produce any video footage to substantiate its claims. In the meanwhile, the over-enthusiastic Pakistan media reported that Islamabad had successfully thwarted the combined Indo-Israeli air strikes against Pakistan. Adding heft to the conspiracy theories Pakistani political analyst Zafar Hilaly alluded that his country has Israeli pilot in its custody. Islamabad’s frivolous theories and irresponsible claims have widely eroded its credibility. Hitting a new low with every new lie now Pakistan has inadvertently brought Israel into the Indo-Pakistan hostilities.

Responding to Imran’s promise of “Naya Pakistan” under his leadership would act on the “actionable intelligence” if India provides evidence, India has submitted a dossier of JeM’s role in Pulwama attacks on Feb 28^th. Simultaneously, India has shared excerpts of dossier with UNSC members. As expected, Pakistan rejected Indian charges and shot back indicating explosives and vehicle used the Pulwama attack were of Indian origin. The attack was carried out by Kashmiri. Pakistan exonerated JeM of all the terror activities. It rejected India’s proof of evidence of shooting down of Pakistan F-16 which illegally entered Indian space and dropped bombs on Indian military installations. Thanks to India’s massive diplomatic rallying Pakistan is now cornered and America is now examining the terms of F-16 sale. Amidst heightened global scrutiny, China dispatched its vice foreign secretary to Islamabad. In characteristic contrived virtue signalling, Pakistan placed 44 members of the proscribed JeM, including two family members of Masood Azhar in preventive detention. Calling the bluff of Pakistan’s insincere counter terrorism practices banned Harkut-ul Mujahideen founder Maulana Fazlur Rehman Khalil joined Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) the next day.

Contradicting Pakistani government stance and exposing the duplicity of these token measures, Major General Asif Gafoor in an interview to CNN mentioned that JeM doesn’t exist in Pakistan. It has been proscribed by UN and Pakistan and reiterated that Islamabad is not going to do anything under anybody’s pressure. Asif Gafoor’s affirmations stand in sharp contrast to the Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi’s who admitted that Masood Azhar is unwell to an extent that he can’t even move from his house a week ago. Pakistan’s repeated flip-flops, incongruent and incoherent communication is raising severe doubts about Pakistan’s probity as a nation. By now it is well established that Pakistan is mothership of terror. Imprints of terror attacks across the world can be tracked backed to Pakistan. Its sham counter terror exercise just days after every major cross-border terror attack has been an eye wash. Pakistan’s balderdash of crackdown on terror is just an empty rhetoric as terrorism is its state policy. To evade international approbation, Pakistan army is mainstreaming terrorists. Conversely, terror outfits are rebranding themselves as philanthropic organisations and carrying out its operatives under new names. In 2018, Parliamentary elections, terror outfits even floated a political party. With Pakistan’s election commission refused to recognise the newly formed political outfit, several terrorists contested the elections as independent candidates to escape international censure. Thus, Pakistan government claims of seizing control of 182 Madrassas and detaining over hundred terrorists’ stands is just absolutely meaningless.  Coming under intense pressure from India, Iran and Afghanistan that experienced similar attacks by Pakistani terrorists on their security personnel around the same time as Pulwama attacks, Khan pledged to crackdown terror. Accordingly, Pakistan government banned Hafiz Saeed from leading the Friday sermons. But by denying access of the UN team to interview Hafiz Saeed Islamabad has exposed its symbolic tokenism on counter terrorism.

To counter the wanton propaganda of Pakistan, MEA demanded “credible, verifiable and sustained” against the JeM. Taking a dig at Khan’s “Naya Pakistan with Nayi Soch” India called on Pakistan to curb support to terrorists and terror infrastructure. India questioned Pakistan’s intent of propagating “false narratives of the events” and debunked the fictitious stories of Pakistan of downing two Indian jets and demanded the whereabouts of other pilots in its custody. Sending a terse message, India remained undeterred and reiterated its “resolute determination to persuade the international community of the necessity of compelling Pakistan to move beyond mere words”. With audacious air strikes Modi regime signalled its unforgiving approach towards Pakistan whose ideological pillars have been anti-Indianism and Islamism. But the self-loathing Indian opposition which is running for shelter in the face of Modi’s decisive approach is yielding ground to Pakistan. By singing praises of Imran Khan to the extent of announcing plans of nominating him for Nobel Peace Prize for releasing Wing Commander Abhinandan which is ordained by Geneva Convention, opposition is letting India down. Even the OIC, where Pakistan commands respect as founding member has refused to include Kashmir in the Abu Dhabi declaration. While the opposition continue to rant against air strikes due to their hatred for one man-Prime Minister Narendra Modi, international community which is convinced of Pakistan’s duplicity is extending unequivocal support for diplomatically isolating Pakistan.

@ Copyrights reserved.

India’s moment of spirited diplomatic engagement with OIC

On Friday, the first day of March, India cherished two path breaking events which exemplified country’s increasing diplomatic heft-the return of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman from Pakistan and India occupying a high chair at pan-Islamic institution. Scripting a new a mile stone, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, who was invited as Guest of Honor on the eve of the Golden jubilee of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) addressed the second largest international forum after the UN. Inline with the theme of the OIC, the year of tolerance, UAE extended invitation to India, a non-Muslim country, to preside over as guest of honor at the OIC summit. As a representative of 185 million Indian Muslims, third largest conglomeration in the World, Swaraj carried the message of the Indian Muslim brethren to OIC.

After stupendous victory of BJP, in the 2014 general elections, it was widely assumed that India’s relations with the Gulf countries might take a hit. Much to the consternation of critics, Prime Minister Modi, who had no diplomatic baggage, engaged with the Muslim nations proactively. Invoking India’s civilizational, cultural, religious and financial linkages Modi energized the bilateral ties with all the strategically important Muslim nations. To his credit, he effortlessly, reinvigorated India’s ties with all the countries in the gulf region. On his visit to UAE, Modi made an impressive progress in especially cultivating special ties with crown Prince of UAE, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, fondly referred as MBZ. Against the precedent of inviting either a head of state or head of government as guest of honor for the Republic Day celebrations, as mark of recognition of India’s growing strategic congruence with UAE, New Delhi extended a warm invitation to MBZ for the Republic Day Parade in the year 2017. Indeed, for the first time in 2017, 179-member strong UAE military contingent marched along with Indian soldiers on Republic Day heralding the unfoldment of new era of friendship and solidarity. Similarly, Modi pioneered India’s strategic engagement with Saudi Arabia. As a mark of India’s growing recognition in global realm, Saudi conferred highest civilian award, King Abdul Aziz Sash on Prime Minister Modi.  Exuding a rare diplomatic acumen, Modi strengthened India’s ties with three rival countries of the region-Saudi Arabia, Iran and Israel. Unencumbered by diplomatic diffidence, Modi openly endorsed India’s strategic partnership with Israel during his historic visit. Underpinning the India’s growing engagement with Middle Eastern countries, UAE invited India to be guest of honour at the plenary session of OIC 2019. The recognition, which come in the aftermath of the Pulwama attack that killed 40 Indian security personnel took Pakistan by surprise. Pakistan has always used the platform of OIC to buttress its position on Kashmir and censure India.

This new development in the background of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan inadvertently reminded India of its unpleasant disinvite to OIC fifty years ago. Desecration of the Al-Asqa Mosque at Jerusalem in 1969 catalyzed the formation of pan-Islamic institution, OIC to foster the cultural, social, economic and political interests of the global Muslim community. The delegation led by India’s ambassador to Morocco, Gurubachan Singh Congress attended the first OIC summit meet at Morocco, Rabat. King Faisal of Saudi Arabia and Jordan King Hussein of Jordan suggested that India, which has largest Muslim minority should be a part of OIC but President of Pakistan Yahya Khan was averse to this idea. Pakistan, the largest Muslim country believed that Muslim majority country or a country headed by Muslim representative is alone eligible to be part of OIC.  He was averse to induction of Indian delegation led by non-Muslim and threatened to boycott. On the second day of the session, Khan remained in the hotel and refused to attend conference.  At Pakistan’s insistence, India’s invitation was rescinded by King Hassan-II of Morocco, who feared that non-attendance of Yahya Khan would lead to historic failure of first OIC summit. Indeed, Prime Minister of Malaysia Tunku Abdul Rahman was summoned to plead Indians to withdraw involuntarily from the summit. Consequently, Indian delegation returned home without attending concluding session. Congress leader, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed reached Morocco was asked to either accept the observer status or withdraw. After the Rabat fiasco, India withdrew its ambassador from Morocco and stayed away from OIC. Ever since, Pakistan continued to block India’s observer status to OIC. In 2006, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia on his India visit suggested that India should be an Observer at OIC and last year, Bangladesh has proposed that India’s observer status. But Pakistan blocked it. While it is argued that according to OIC charter, Muslim countries willing to promote the objectives of the OIC are eligible to gain membership, non-Muslim countries have become observers and full members. In 2005, Russia became observer, two years after President Putin announced that Russia was a “Muslim power”. To appease the Chechnya Muslims, Putin expressed his interest to work with Muslim countries. Similarly, Buddhist country Thailand became observer in 1998.

Fifty years since Rabat incident, foreign minister of Pakistan, Shah Mehmood Qureshi threatened to boycott the summit, if India would preside over the Plenary as the guest of honor. Muslim countries didn’t yield to Pakistan’s protests. Expressing its displeasure abundantly, Pakistan announced that it will not attend the 46^th session of OIC’s Council for Foreign Ministers (CFM) and announced that a joint resolution passed members of Parliament decided that Pakistan shouldn’t attend the meeting. On March 1^st, Sushma Swaraj became the first Hindu Woman to address the plenary on the Golden jubilee eve of OIC, an empty chair for founder member Pakistan eloquently signified its absence.

Carrying the message of Prime Minister Modi, as a representative of Indian Muslims, Swaraj expressed deep appreciation for the invitation extended by MBZ. Invoking India’s deep emotional bonds with various Muslim nations spanning from shores of South east Asia to Latin America, including the Central Asian and African nations, Swaraj appreciated role played by OIC in bringing people of common faith together. Harping about changing global power shifts and the challenges faced by countries Swaraj effortlessly segued into the specter of terrorism and the inhuman violence caused by the extremism. “Terrorism and extremism bear different names and labels. But in each case, it is driven by distortion of religion and a misguided belief in its power to succeed. The fight against terrorism is not a confrontation against any religion”. She added, none of the 99 words that describe Allah mean violence. Similarly, each and every religion in the world essentially stand for peace, compassion and brotherhood and quoted verses from Koran and teachings of Guru Nanak. Underscoring the pluralistic nature of Indian civilization, Swaraj quoted Rig Veda and Swami Vivekananda. She stated terrorism is a “contest of ideas and ideals.” If countries want to save the humanity from the menace of terrorism, without naming Pakistan, she said, “we must tell the states who provide shelter and funding to the terrorists, to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorist camps and stop funding and shelter to terror organizations based in their countries. I would like to say that this menace could not be fought only through military, intelligence and diplomatic means. It is also a battle that must be won through the strength of our values and real message of religions”. Making a fervent appeal that OIC has a greater responsibility and opportunity to make this planet a better place to live, pledged India’s support in “advocating moderation over extremism and pluralism over exclusion”.

After India’s big day at OIC, some strategists hailed the event as India’s major “diplomatic coup”. But India’s vivacity evaporated and critics began to lash out after Pakistan managed to bring out special resolution on Kashmir criticizing “India’s intensified barbarities since July 2016”, “illegal detentions and disappearances” and endorsed “plebiscite” for resolving the Kashmir issue. Responding to the resolution, MEA reiterated, “as regards resolution on Jammu and Kashmir, our stand is consistent and well known. We reaffirm that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and is a matter strictly internal to India”. While critics took a swipe at the current political dispensation for it vainglorious adventure at OIC it now emerges that Pakistan exerted pressure to pass this resolution on Kashmir.

Pakistan’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia Raja Ali Ejaz protested OIC plenary for inviting India and prevailed upon Saudi Arabia and UAE to rescind invitation to India. Notwithstanding Pakistan’s strident protests, UAE extended a warm welcome to Swaraj. To this end, Pakistan’s resolution on Kashmir at OIC was a major victory for Islamabad. Fresh reports threw light on the inside story at OIC which suggest that Kashmir issue is not part of the final communique of the Abu Dhabi declaration. The joint declaration is one adopted by all the 57-member countries of the OIC. Despite Pakistan’s numerous protestations, UAE didn’t give, as a result, Kashmir didn’t finally figure in the final draft passed by the 46^th CFM, OIC session. An OIC official clarified member countries can move their own resolution reflecting national interests which go unopposed. Omission of Kashmir from the final declaration is a major diplomatic victory for India. The only time when Kashmir wasn’t referenced was the 43^rd session of OIC, Tashkent Declaration.

By and large, OIC is a toothless organization which failed to rein in on aggressors that continue to wreak havoc in the Middle East. Though OIC is the largest Islamic institution it floundered in bringing a semblance of unity among its member countries indulged in internecine wars. Despite the loud talk of Muslim brotherhood, Middle East continues to be a cauldron of Sunni-Shia conflicts. In its five decades of existence, OIC failed to evolve as a cohesive force. Till now, OIC had always sided with Pakistan and alienated India despite New Delhi’s solidarity towards Muslim causes. Given the inherent fissures and infightings, OIC is no longer a cohesive institution. By consequence, its condemnation may not be reflective of the aspiration of all Muslim countries in the group. But OIC holds key to India’s energy requirements and employs over 8 million Indians who send valuable remittances to the motherland. India can’t afford to shy away from engaging with OIC which is a front for Muslim countries across the globe. OIC in part affects India’s national interests as well. Cognizant of OIC’s growing clout and economic stature, China applied for Observer status in 2012. Beijing is coopting with OIC countries to give wings to a Sino-Centric emerging World order.

For long Pakistan has vetoed India’s engagement with OIC. Given the invaluable growth opportunities India can offer as a fastest developing economy and its commitment to pluralism, Gulf nations wary of extremism and terrorism are keen on cementing ties with New Delhi. Needless to say, Modi’s renewed push to India’s productive engagement with UAE and Saudi Arabia has been at the root of New Delhi’s newfound importance at OIC. At a time, when India is striving to emerge as responsible regional power a new recognition at OIC opened up a new opportunity for India to engage with Muslim conclave. With power centers increasingly shifting from West to East, India has larger role to play. New Delhi shouldn’t be averse to prospect of forging “non-ideological and interest-based relationships” with OIC.

@ Copyrights reserved.

India’s surgical air strikes leaves Pakistan flabbergasted

The outrage in the aftermath of the Pulwama terror attacks on Feb 14^th was unprecedented. Public anger was palpable. The gruesome attack targeting the security personnel from across different states of India brought the nation together like never before. Despite the anger a nation of 1.3 billion was silently praying and fervently hoping retribution. Within 100 hours of Pulwama attacks, the masterminds of the suicidal attack Kamran alias Ghazi Rasheed, chief commanding officer, recruiter and close aide of Masood Azhar and two other Jaish operatives were killed in a joint encounter launched by Jammu and Kashmir Police, Special Operations Group (SOG), CRPF and Rashtriya Rifles (RR). In the combing operation that lasted several hours four security personnel including a Major lost their lives. While the count of security forces losing their lives in successive gun battles began to increase, India remained resilient. Modi government which named Jaish-e-Mohammed for the suicidal attack on the CRPF convoy promised extract revenge.

For decades India has been at the receiving end, silently absorbing the nefarious aftershocks of Pakistan’s proxy war. Under duress, Pakistani administration as a face-saver would promise to investigate and nab perpetrators if provided an actionable intelligence.  Despite Pakistan’s duplicity, India would submit dossiers and letters of rogatory.  While the piles of the dossiers catch dust, Pakistan’s strategic assets would hatch yet another attack on India wreaking havoc in India. This unending passive cycle of absence of punitive action from India side has emboldened Pakistan. The surgical strikes carried out Indian Army in the aftermath of the Uri attack, a departure from the past, set a new precedent. But when Nagrota attacks remained unanswered, Pakistan resorted to its old nefarious tricks.

The dastardly suicidal attack on security personnel at Pulwama the worst terror attack till date miffed India terribly. Aside plausible military action, India contemplated a slew of economic, diplomatic, tactical and military measures. Days after Pulwama attack, India withdrew MFN (Most Favoured Nation) status accorded to Pakistan, raised the import duty to 200% to strangulate the economy reeling under financial distress. While people debated merit of economic sanctions, Pakistan’s exports which included fertilisers and cement are produced in Pakistani army-controlled factories. By choking trade, India directly hit the funding sources of the terror operatives. By nipping bilateral trade, a breather for sinking Pakistan’ economy thriving on meagre $13 billion just enough for six weeks of exports was snapped thereby hitting Pakistan where it hurts. India has decided to stop the flow of its share of water to Pakistan from the Eastern rivers. Ranked as the third most water stressed nation in the World according to latest IMF (International Monetary Fund) report, stalling water will have grievous consequences. Diplomatically, India has apprised the comity of nations of Pakistan’s proxy war. In a worst diplomatic embarrassment, UNSC issued a statement, condemning the reprehensible act of terrorism of the Pakistan based terror group JeM. Building a strong case for diplomatic isolation in the aftermath of UNSC condemnation, France has agreed to move a resolution at UNSC to impose ban on JeM and its commanders Masood Azhar’s brother-Abdul Rauf Asghar, Ibrahim Athar and Shahid Latif accused in Pathankot attacks.

As a message to Pakistan, India intensified crackdown on Pakistan sympathisers, Indian government revoked security cover of 155 Kashmiri separatists. In anticipation of emergent circumstances, government detained Chairman of Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), Yasin Malik and pro-Pakistan Jamaat-i-Islami leaders and airlifted 100 companies of paramilitary forces. Simultaneously, NIA raided the houses of JLKF leaders to unearth the hawala money trails between these leaders and Pakistani agents.

Continuing with the multipronged action, on the thirteenth day of Pulwama attacks Indians woke to be pleasantly surprised by the news of pre-dawn attacks by India Air Force on the terror camps in Pakistan terror hubs. For the first time since 1971 Indian forces entered Pakistan territory and conducted aerial strikes. Even during the Kargil war, IAF didn’t cross the LoC. According to official reports, 12 Mirage-2000 aircrafts took off from Agra and Gwalior with a pay load of 1000kg launched strikes at terror camps of JeM, LeT and Hizbul Mujahedeen in an operation that lasted 21 minutes. Jets struck Balakot around 3:45am, Muzaffarabad-3:48am and Chakoti-3:58am.  Mirage-2000 the predecessor of Rafale and proven work horse of IAF played a crucial role in tilting the fortunes of battles in favour of India during the Kargil war has played a crucial in the current airstrikes. Upgraded Mirages with Laser-guided bombing mechanism are chosen for avenging the Pulwama attacks.

The choice of Balakot, a town in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in Pakistan, 50 km from LoC and 185km from Islamabad, a veritable terror has historical significance as well. Balakot was home to Syed Ahmad Barelvi, a strong proponent of Deoband ideology who aspired to establish a caliphate challenging the authority of the flourishing Sikh Kingdom. The armies of Maharaja Ranjit Singh defeated the Deoband forces in the battle of Balakot. Situated atop of the hill top, Balakot harbour JeM training camp that offers aquatic training to fidayeen squad.

Unlike in 2016, MEA issued a statement on strikes on JeM training camps. Calling Pakistan’s bluff India claimed JeM, led by Masood Azad which is operating from Bahwalpur in Pakistan has been carrying out terror strikes against India for the past two decades including the Pulwama attacks, Pathankot airbase strike and 2001 Parliament attacks. Despite providing requisite details about the terror organisation and its functioning Pakistan refused to take concrete steps to dismantle terror infrastructure on its soil. Having received credible intelligence reports of JeM plotting suicide terror attacks in India, in face of imminent threat, India launched “pre-emptive” “non-military” strikes on the terror training camps in Pakistan. Defending India’s right to self-defence under UN charter, New Delhi indicated that Balakot training camp led by the brother-in-law of Masood Azhar, Maulana Yousuf Azhar was flattened. In the process, all the trainers, recruits and commanders of JeM were also killed. Asserting its firm resolution to take stringent actions to curb the menace of terror, India defended the strikes. India also reminded that Pakistan promised not to allow its territory for terrorism against India in 2004. But unfortunately, even now the unabated terror emanating from Pakistan continues to consume India’s peace and harmony.

India’s audacious retaliation is a stern warning to Pakistan that New Delhi will not only make noise at international forum but would extract revenge at the time and place of its choosing. By irresolutely destroying camps inside Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (Muzaffarabad and Chikote) India shunned its reluctance to cross borders for destroying the terror hubs. By officially announcing India’s strikes on Pakistan terror camps, New Delhi refused to take any cover and unequivocally displayed its zero-tolerance approach towards terror.  By taking the bull by its horns, India showed that it can no longer be subdued into inaction by Islamabad’s threat of use of nuclear weapons.

In a blow to Pakistan’s hubris which is reported to be on high alert since Pulwama attacks in anticipation of Uri kind of surgical strikes, IAF entered deep inside Pakistan territory and returned home unharmed. IAFs precision strikes have not only reflected its professional prowess but its supreme caution in avoiding civilian casualties sent out a clear message to the World at large that India is a mature country. While Pakistan is scrambling for options and is intent on extracting a revenging for entering its territory, India don’t have any terror camps to hit. Any strikes on military camps will invite international censure. Pakistan is in a catch-22 kind of situation where a retaliatory attack on India will invite an international rebuke and a widespread public ire if it fails to escalate. Besides, the confusing signals from Pakistan of one fraction repudiating the strikes and another condemning them exposed its ineptness in handling the situation.

Post-strikes, India is not complacent. Given Pakistan’s history it will hit back at India to salvage it pride. To this end, all airbases and military camps are kept under high alert. India’s multi-pronged approach towards Pakistan suffice to say India doesn’t believe that a single strike can change Pakistan. A panoply of coercive measures must be employed. The veracity of strikes reflects the emergence of resurgent India. Though political parties are shy of acknowledging the current dispensation for these audacious strikes, it must be remembered that IAF offered similar strategy after 26/11 but the UPA regime refused to bite the bullet. Similar strikes were contemplated between 1981 and 1983 against Pakistan but these were never put in practice. After the Cabinet Committee on Security Meeting on February 15^th Modi announced forces will be given free hand to strike the forces who orchestrated ghastly Pulwama attacks. After twelve days Pulwama attack is avenged. With the strategic air strikes, India deftly avoided a full-blown war, a scenario anticipated by China.  In a remarkable development, hours after India’s official announcement of strikes on terror camps, Australia outrightly condemned Pakistan for perpetrating terror and asked it to rein in on terror outfits. Interestingly, neighbouring China the last country to condemn Pulwama attacks has criticised India for taking unilateral action. Apart from shielding Masood Azhar through repeated technical hold, Beijing said, “As for India’s claims on taking action against terrorism, fighting terror is a global practice. It needs to be dealt with international cooperation. And India needs to create a favourable condition internationally for that”. This statement inadvertently reflects China’s complicity in terror, aversion to call Pakistan’s bluff and its culpability in Pakistan’s state sponsor terrorism.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Venezuela becomes new play field for geopolitical rivalries

Festering political uncertainty in Venezuela has turned the country into a play field for geopolitical rivalries. The oil-based economy which began treading a downhill is now staring at an abyss. Absence of formidable political will to revive and resuscitate the failing economy and an aversion to democratic transition has in part exacerbated the crisis which has worsened irrevocably.

Flung apart from India by several thousands of miles geographically, Venezuelan crisis is grabbing headlines in India. Venezuela’s oil Minister and President of state run-oil company PDVSA (Petroleos de Venezuela), Manuel Quevedo who was in India to attend the Petrotech Conference in Greater Noida offered to double oil exports to India.  This offer came in the backdrop of toughest US sanctions on PDVSA which kicked off on January 28^th. As per the US restrictions, oil companies in Venezuela and American subsidiaries are prevented from making deposits towards oil purchases directly into the accounts of PDVSA. Sanctions came into existence in response to gruelling political upheaval in Venezuela. Putting rest to all speculations of India’s interest in Venezuelan oil, Ministry of External Affairs clarified that India will stick to earlier agreements and ruled out scope for any more extra oil imports in the wake of fresh American sanctions.

Venezuela has been tumbling down the road of economic growth ever since President Maduro’s first stint in 2013 and reached a point of no revival by 2016. Unperturbed by massive protests, amidst opposition boycott and public anger Maduro emerged victorious in a heavily rigged Presidential elections of 2018. Despite calls from international observers’, US, Venezuelan opposition, Latin American Lima Group, elections weren’t declared null and void.  To contain brewing public discontent, Maduro jailed opposition leaders. As of December 2018, economy hit a new low, hyperinflation touched 10 million times and nearly 2.3 million people fled the country.  On January 10^th Maduro sworn in for the second six years term by the Supreme Court infiltrated by Maduro loyalists in a ceremony largely shunned by international community. US openly denounced Maduro’s highly illegitimate elections. US, Brazil and Colombia refused to recognise his leadership. Paraguay severed diplomatic ties with Venezuela and closed its embassy. But President Maduro remained defiant and failed to take any measures to stem the free fall of Venezuelan currency.

To consolidate his authority, Maduro stripped National Assembly of its legislative powers and rendered it powerless. Instead he elevated National Constituent Assembly containing his loyalists. With the support of security forces and approval of National Constituent Assembly, Supreme court judges administered oath of office to Maduro. Riled by the authoritarianism of Maduro who rode to power through illegitimate elections, people thronged to streets and took massive protests. Opposition demanded fresh elections. But Maduro blatantly rejected the proposal. Lending directionality and legitimacy to protests, invoking constitutional provision, the majority leader of the opposition in National Assembly, industrial engineer, Juan Guaido self-appointed himself as the interim President of Venezuela to oversee conduct of free and fair elections. Leopoldo Lopez, the tallest opposition leader of Venezuela who is under detention since 2014 is the political mentor of Guaido.

As the leader of the National Assembly, Guaido began to reach out to other countries. A dozen EU countries, several Latin American countries, US and Canada supported Guaido while Russia, China, Iran, Turkey, Bolivia, Cuba, Syria, Cambodia, North Korea, Suriname, South Africa, Dominica backed Maduro. Soon momentum for fresh presidential elections began to gain ground. Irked by growing support to Guaido, Maduro alleged that recognition of Guaido is akin to a coup hatched by the US. But US contended that it is an embrace of democracy. The countries that threw weight behind either of these leaders, took the issue to UNSC. The political fight in Venezuela eventually headed to UNSC where US demanded annulling the results of Venezuelan 2018 Presidential elections and conduct of fresh elections. Russia on the other hand, called for peaceful resolution of the crises. As the crisis intensified, UN General Secretary called for dialogue to resolve the crisis. Venezuelan warring political leadership that refused to oblige. Even the comity of nations that supported the two Venezuelan leaders remained deeply divided.  

Cold war rivals America and Russia which are supporting the rival factions Guaido and Maduro found themselves on the opposite sides. In a bid to support their respective groups, both have offered humanitarian aid. America dispatched aid which was stopped by the Armed forces loyal to Maduro who pledged to stop American aid. While the common man in Venezuela continued to suffer there is no let down from both sides. At this juncture, Guaido has set a deadline of Feb 23^rd to allow the aid to pass into the country reeling under severe humanitarian crisis due to shortages of food and medicine. In the meanwhile, Trump at Miami rally urged Venezuelan military to accept Guaido’s offer of amnesty or “stand to lose everything”. Maduro on the other hand, announced that Russia aid of 300 tonnes due to arrive on Wednesday can take of country’s needs. Venezuela continues to reel under the political impasse. But it is an interesting story how the richest country in Latin America is reduced to rags.

Back in 2017, the author wrote a piece on the role of non-viable grandiose Chinese investments that exacerbated tumultuous economic collapse of Venezuelan economy- https://myind.net/Home/viewArticle/venezuelas-dictatorial-socialist-regime-chinese-cash-have-pushed-the-country-towards-a-catastrophic-collapse. This piece will elaborate another facet of how poor economic management of resource-dependent economy accelerated its collapse from riches to rags. Venezuela, the fifth largest oil exporting country has the largest reserves of non-conventional oil (extra crude) oil reserves in the World.

Venezuela became independent in 1830 and established ties with America by 1835. With the discovery of petroleum reserves in 1914 on the shores of Lake Maracaibo the country hit a jackpot. It eventually transformed into a petrostate and economy began to rely entirely on petroleum exports. Venezuela led by authoritarian leaders, power rested in privileged few and over years political institutions gradually crumbled. Soon the economy was afflicted by what is termed as “Dutch Disease” where the discovery or availability of huge amounts of natural resources lead to an increase in the wealth of the country due to sudden boom in the prices the resource in global markets. Typically, majority of the Petrostates whose economies are reliant on the oil exports go through boom and bust cycles. When international oil prices soar, these economies attract huge foreign capital, currency will appreciate, income levels and standard of living will also increase. Subsequently, tradable sectors like agriculture and manufacturing which were less remunerative failed to attract people, labour-intensive sectors suffered neglect. Oil became life-line of the economy. By consequence, with a fall in oil prices, economy collapsed. Consequently, the fortunes of economy were subject to fluctuations of the global oil prices. Economic uncertainties are exacerbated by gross financial mismanagement of dictators at the helm of the affairs who controlled the oil sector.

From early 1920s till 1950s Venezuela was ruled by authoritarian leaders-Juan Vincete Gomez and Marcos Perez Jimenez who regimes were marred with frequent coups. Exasperated by frequent coups, in 1958 Venezuela adopted two-party democracy and elected first stable government. According to the new system, all the elite which enjoyed the shares from the oil exports formed what is termed as “Pacted democracy”, a term coined by Terry Lynn Karl where all the privileged class, the power elite lobbyists had guaranteed access to power in proportion of the votes garnered. Translating into simple terms, the revenues from the oil exports were shared among the parties in proportion to voting results. Venezuela joined as founding member of OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) in 1960. In the aftermath of Yom-Kippur war when prices of oil quadrupled, Venezuelan economy boomed, making it the highest per capita income Latin American country. In 1976 President Andres Perez nationalised the oil industry, PDVSA which actively partnered with foreign companies. This arrangement called as Punto-Fijo pact was in vogue till 1980s began to fall apart with the decline of oil prices.

In the span of roughly three decades of rising oil prices, Venezuela witnessed rampant corruption and reports peg this amount to whopping $100 billion. As a matter of fact, intellectuals, argue that Venezuela had been victim of corruption ever since its inception as an independent country. Even now, judicial authorities’ express helplessness in curtailing this menace. Ruled by dictatorial regimes, embezzlement of wealth and scandals have become an associated phenomenon of governance. Baring a brief period in 1960s by and large the country’s finances were swindled by forces close to top echelons of power.

In 1970s when prices of oil tripled, Venezuela unveiled “The Great Venezuela” designed along the lines of Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” left the economy high and dry.  Despite huge inflows of petrodollars, Venezuela has fallen into debts with international banks because of its overambitious project of turning South Venezuela into a huge urban inhabitation through 300-state owned companies. Lack of fiscal discipline, rolling out of numerous welfare projects inflicted huge blow to economy. Caracas even sought the refuge of International Monetary Fund for a financial bailout package. Dismayed by alarming corruption, rising inflation and sinking economy, people protested for a change.

Military officer, Hugo Chavez after his unsuccessful coup bid, pledged to alleviate poverty through Bolivarian revolution was desperate people voted him to power in 1999. Chavez’s subsidies ameliorated poverty but emptied state coffers. Days after assuming power, he convoked a National Constituent Assembly to promulgate a new constitution. Assembly comprised majorly his followers who set out to redefine the state. Chavez dismissed democratically elected Congress, dismissed Supreme judges, Attorney General and replaced them with his loyalists. In 2000 as per new constitution, fresh elections were held and Chavez was re-elected for a term of six years. His outlandish socialist policies, nationalisation of private oil firms, ruthless crackdown of press, characteristic of a dictatorial regime took a huge toll on the economy reducing it to shambles. In 2002 huge protests broke out against Chavez regime. Military withdrew support and forced Chavez to resign. Business man Pedro Carmona, with American support launched a coup. But within 2 days, with the support of blue class workers, Chavez returned to power. He removed 20,000 PDVSA workers who participated in state protests. This move directly impacted oil production. Oil Production slumped by 2013 drastically. There was no iota of transparency in management of finances. Debts mounted. Despite the grave mismanagement, economy remained afloat due to raising oil prices from 2003-12. In a referendum held in 2009, people voted for removing any term limits allowing Chavez to continue in power. Detected with Cancer, Chavez underwent treatment but died in 2013. The fourteen long years of Chavez regime exemplified the 21^st Century version of socialism shattered the economy.

In the Presidential elections held in 2013, Nicolas Maduro, chosen successor of Chavez got elected. Maduro made no attempts to revive the economy. Indeed, under his regime, Oil production tumbled, international oil prices fell, inflicting double blow to the economy. Inflation touched new peaks, unemployment increased. Despite popular unrest he made no efforts to steer the country away from the socialistic formulations.  In the midterm elections of 2015, opposition parties commanded majority in National Assembly. Since 2016, Venezuela descended into chaos. By 2017 Maduro, forced Supreme Court to annul the legislative powers of National Assembly rendering it powerless. In May 2017, Maduro ordered to redraft a fresh constitution.

Noted economists opine that Venezuela has reached a point of no return where the Petro State has become a failed economy. Afflicted by double whammy of authoritarianism and Dutch Disease and devoid of robust democratic institutional frameworks, strategists are sceptical about the reversal of fortunes of the one of the resource-rich countries of the World. Having realising the dire prospects of deepening reliance on oil exports, various Petro States are now establishing Sovereign Wealth Funds to diversify their finances, and make investments in international assets to cushion the economy against the boom and bust cycles of their resource dependent economies.

 Ever since South America’s democratic transition in 1980, Latin America aspired to reduce the interference of foreign forces into this region. But unfortunately, owing to reluctance of Guaido and Maduro to hold negotiations, US and Russia from who both leaders draw their support are expected to play major role in Venezuelan showdown. With reports of Russia sending 400 mercenaries to protect Maduro and Maduro dispatching 20 metric tonnes of Gold to Russia abroad mysterious passenger jet are abound, it is likely that Russia and China which have high stakes in Venezuela would meddle in the region’s affairs. With Venezuela shutting air and sea links to Dutch Caribbean islands, Venezuelan standoff shows no signs of respite even as country plunges into worst humanitarian crisis ever.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Mohammed bin Salman disappoints India by failing to name Pakistan for Pulwama attacks

Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, popularly known as MBS in the aftermath of the dastardly Pulwama attack drew attention of strategists and political masters for various reasons. Ever since the brutal murder of The Washington Post Columnist, Jamal Khashoggi’s murder in Saudi Arabia Consulate at Istanbul, MBS reputation took a massive hit. European countries kept their ties with Saudi on a low key. But President Trump, wary of losing $40 billion defence purchases, tipped to revitalise American economy and boost employment refrained from openly condemning MBS for his complicity in murder. Undeterred by these troubling precedents, Prime Minister Modi met MBS along the side-lines of G-20 Summit at Argentina. Modi’s engagement with MBS drew sharp criticism. Media and activists rebuked Modi, leader of the largest democracy for holding talking with MBS despite grievous charges of human rights violation against him. Modi who had been unequivocally working towards fostering Indian interests had kept away from the Khashoggi’s murder and the shifting strategic realignments in the West Asia. Amidst criticism of bad diplomatic move, bad judgement, Prime Minister Modi extended an invitation to MBS, the king in waiting for a state visit. Indeed, setting a stellar example for fine diplomatic balancing, Modi held trilateral talks with contrasting groups- Japan, America, India (JAI) and Russia, India and China (RIC) back to back at Buenos Aries. Modi’s ease of precarious diplomatic handling indeed drew applause from international observers who closely watched the G-20 summit at Argentina.

India’s ties with West Asian countries dived south after 1979. The historic visit of King Abdullah to India on the eve of Republic Day celebrations and subsequent signing of the “Delhi Declaration” marked the revival of bilateral ties. Later Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on his visit to Saudi in 2010 signed the “Riyadh Declaration” laying ground for fostering ties. Prime Minister Modi on his visit to Desert Nation in 2016 infused fresh energy into the relationship. Modi’s renewed interest to tread the path of convergence of mutual interest heralded a new beginning. Unlike India’s ties which are built on firm grounds of civilizational and historical connect with Saudi Arabia religion catalysed Pakistan’s bonhomie with Riyadh. Cooperation under the rubric of OIC (Organisation for Islamic Cooperation), a collective of Islamic countries eventually brought the countries in West Asia close to Pakistan who supported Islamabad’s stance on Kashmir at UN. Indeed, generous flow of finances from Saudi helped Pakistan to tide over various international sanctions.

With time, Saudi’s ties with Pakistan varied from being to good to worse. To balance its rocky relationship with Western neighbour, Pakistan refused to send troops for Saudi-led coalition war against the Houthi rebels backed by Iran in Yemen. Losing no time, to placate the hefty financial west Asian power, Pakistan’s former Army chief Raheel Sharif agreed to command the Islamic coalition forces. Currently debt-ridden Pakistan economy is going through worst financial crisis and struggling to keep its debt-ridden afloat. America stalled its financial assistance to Pakistan for its unrestrained support to cross border terrorism. Pakistan is grappling with double-whammy of empty coffers and new infamy of mothership of terror.

Saudi on the other hand, disowned by the West due to murder charges against MBS is facing a domestic turmoil of internal feuds among Royal clan and escalating tensions with Iran. Miffed by America’s unilateral withdrawal from nuclear treaty Iran renewed its efforts in mastering missile technology. A wary Saudi is now keen on obtain a deterrent. Uncovering Saudi’s nuclear ambitions, NPR (National Public Radio), revealed that President Trump under the influence of his former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn recommended transfer of nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. Just six months before Flynn’s appointment as NSA, he served as adviser to IP3 International Company, a private firm seeking to build nuclear reactors in Saudi. Given, Pakistan’s prowess in nuclear technology, nuclear cooperation has become a new front of cooperation between two countries. Tightening its influence over Pakistan, Saudi offered timely financial assistance to Pakistan and subsequently Islamabad allowed it troops to fight along with Islamic coalition in Yemen. The strategic calculus of Pakistan-Saudi relations includes- financial assistance, nuclear cooperation, defence cooperation and plausible investments in Gwadar region besides the traditional supply of men and resources for perpetuating radical Islamism.

Shunned by the West, the King in waiting, MBS embarked on his maiden trip to Asian countries- Pakistan, India, China, South Korea in order. Earlier the itinerary included Malaysia and Indonesia but cancelled for unknown reasons. His visit to Islamabad preceded Pakistan sponsored terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM)’s suicide attack on a convoy carrying Indian security personnel that killed 45 men in service. This attack not only raised the temperatures in the sub-continent and irrevocably damaged India-Pakistan relations but India seething with anger has vowed diplomatic isolation. Islamabad welcomed MBS with a 21-gun salute, gifted him a gold-plated gun, declared Monday a public holiday in his honour and conferred Nishan-E-Pakistan, highest civilian award amidst international rebuke and condemnation for being a state sponsor of terror.

In Islamabad, MBS offered to pitch in to de-escalate tensions between India and Pakistan and the joint statement “their commitment to continue combatting extremism and terrorism and expressed their deep appreciation for the achievements and sacrifices made by the two sides in the war against terrorism. They also applauded the martyrs who sacrificed their lives in order to confront this serious scourge and called the international community to shoulder its responsibilities to join all international efforts to combat global terrorism. They also underlined the need for avoiding politicization of UN listing regime” is in sharp contrast to India’s position and seems to override the objections of New Delhi which has been seeking the support of like-minded countries to join in fight against terrorism. Especially the last line seems to stall India’s efforts to place Masood Azhar, head of JeM in the international list of terrorists.

Pakistan is known to be a patron of Saudi. Hence a joint statement, absolving themselves from all the terror activities is no surprise. But a day before Pulwama attacks, European Commission included Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to EU’s money-laundering blacklist of governments calling the bluff of both countries. Charmed by Pakistan’s hospitality and Imran Khan chauffeuring MBS, Saudi Arabia has apparently, acknowledged Pakistan’s efforts towards regional peace and security, praised Khan’s for persisting with idea of dialogue with India, opening of Kartarpur Corridor and Islamabad’s role in promoting peace and stability in Afghanistan. Through subversive portrayal of Pakistan and awkward whitewashing of the duplicitous and deceitful role of Pakistan for the tumultuous affairs in the sub-continent MBS has offended India hours before his visit to New Delhi.

Undoubtedly, Pakistan is Saudi Arabia’s preeminent ally on ideological basis. Of late, influenced by the rapid strides of its closest Emirati peer, UAE is attempting to reorient itself as a moderate and open country. Grappling with travails of an oil-dependent economy, MBS unveiled, Vision 2030 with a key emphasis on strategic international investments. Saudi realised the immense opportunities of partnering with the fastest developing economy. Being one of the fastest growing economies on the planet, India presented immense opportunities for growth and investment.

To avoid hyphenating his Pakistan’s visit with that of India, MBS flew back to Riyadh from Islamabad and landed in New Delhi making his trip a standalone visit. In a departure from official protocol, Prime Minister Modi received Crown Prince at the airport in reciprocation of MBS assent to India’s request to fly back to Riyadh before arriving at New Delhi. Modi welcomed MBS with his characteristic bear hug. Modi’s gesture is an endorsement to MBS attempts of transform its traditionally, closed economy to an investment friendly nation. Taking a cue from UAE which markedly metamorphosized into an international investment and business hub, Saudi is taking baby steps to wean off economy from Petrodollars. Indeed, Saudi’s Armaco along with UAE are planning to build $44 billion mega oil refinery at Ratnagiri, Maharashtra. Given the strangle hold of fundamental Islamists over the Saudi regime, people are sceptical of MBS and his intentions. Moving away from the traditional setting where the umbilical cord of religion brought nations together, West Asian nations have realised need for cultivating ties with developing economies. The east ward leaning of MBS believed to be apprenticing with UAE is an effort in this direction.

In 2015, King Salman offered assistance in evacuation of over 4000 Indians stranded in Yemen instilling trust and confidence in Indo-Saudi strategic relationship. Ever since, the suicide bomb attack before the US consulate at Jeddah by a Pakistani national, Saudi called for rigorous vetting and tougher screening for Pakistani nationals. In 2017, Saudi deported 40,000 Pakistanis on the grounds of security concerns. Riyadh’s hardened stance to curb terrorism raised new hopes about its role in counter terrorism. By facilitating deportation of key suspects in various scams and terror suspects in Emirates, Middle East countries have earned trust and faith crucial for nurturing bilateral ties.

Unmindful of political backlash over MBS’s proclamations of “consider me Pakistan’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia” in Pakistan, Prime Minister Modi personally received the King in waiting at the airport. Over 3.2 million strong Indian expatriate community work in Saudi Arabia who remit over $10 billion to India annually. As a custodian of two holiest Islam shrines, Saudi holds a sway among billions of Muslims. Besides it is an influential member in organisations like Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) that plays a huge role in overlooking the welfare of millions of Indian blue-collar workers migrating to Middle East. As a founding member of OPEC (Oil and Petroleum Exporting Countries) and OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation), Saudi has huge global clout. After Modi’s meeting with MBS along the sidelines of G-20 summit, Saudi oil minister Khalid Al Falih in the OPEC meeting at Vienna announced that considering the views of Prime Minister Modi, cartel delayed decision on oil production. Consequently, prices of crude stabilised. Currently India is importing 800,000 barrels of crude from Saudi daily and by 2040 India’s requirement is likely to touch 8.2 million barrels per day. Reliable source of oil supplies is essential to keep India’s engines of growth running. Energy cooperation with Saudi Arabia is thus crucial. As a modern democracy, a developing economy like India can’t afford to distance itself in this globally linked interconnected World. Saudi through its new state craft have strengthened ties with US and Israel, emerged as crucial player in geopolitics of strategic Middle East. Modi who pursued a pragmatic foreign policy, thus far stayed away from international conflicts and diligently maintained strong ties with all the three major countries in the Middle East- Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran.

After the ceremonial red-carpet welcome, MBS called Modi his “elder brother” and added, “the relationship between India and the Saudi Arabian Peninsula has been in our DNA”. Later both leaders held delegation level talks and agreed to strengthen existing “strategic partnership” through creation of Strategic Partnership Council led by both leaders. Countries signed five MoUs on infrastructure investment, tourism, broadcasting, new framework for cooperation and housing. Saudi Arabia joined International Solar Alliance (ISA). Besides the government to government agreements, Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority (SAGIA) signed four investments worth $28 million and 11 MoUs. MBS announced $100 billion investment in India in the areas of energy, refining, petrochemicals, infrastructure, agriculture, mining, manufacturing, education and health. MBS reiterated Saudi’s commitment of meeting any shortages in energy supplies and agreed to participate in India’s Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPRs). Both countries agreed to begin joint naval exercises and expand bilateral exercises to other domains.

The joint statement failed to name Pakistan but instead leaders called upon countries “to renounce the use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy” and strongly condemned the Pulwama attacks. It read, “Affirming that the menace of terrorism and extremism threatens all nations and societies, the two rejected any attempt to link this universal phenomenon to any particular race, religion or culture. Both sides called on all states to reject use of terrorism against other countries, dismantle terror infrastructure where they happen to exist and to cut off any kind of support and financing to terrorists perpetrating terrorism from all territories against other state and bring perpetrators to justice”. Undoubtedly, this affirmation might seem to be a generic statement from a state that had financed the seeds of terrorism. But the statement which is directed to Pakistan is a message from India which is building substantial diplomatic capital to isolate Islamabad internationally.

Further, “the two sides also noted the need for concerted action by the international community against terrorism including through early adoption of UN Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) and underlined the importance of comprehensive sanctioning of terrorists and their organisations by the UN”. The concurrence of Saudi Arabia to “comprehensive sanctioning by UN” is in sharp contrast to Saudi’s stance in Pakistan where it called UN monitored sanctioning as politicising. While it is hard to overlook the inconsistencies of MBS, it is perhaps an indication that New Delhi can’t use its ties with Saudi as a leverage to rein in on Pakistan. Alternatively, MBS batted for enhanced counter terrorism cooperation and real-time intelligence sharing. Both leaders agreed to constitute Comprehensive security dialogue at the level of National Security Advisors and set up a Joint Working Group on Counter-terrorism. As a friendly gesture, Saudi Arabia increased India’s Hajj quota to 200,000 and ordered release of 850 Indian prisoners in Saudi jails. Both countries are planning to integrate the e-Migrate and e-Tawtheeq to create a robust migration system. Saudi assured India to sort out the punitive labour laws that left many innocent Indian unskilled workers stranded in Saudi.

Critics might be tempted to castigate Modi for failing to name and shame Pakistan during MBS visit coming at the tumultuous phase of terror attack. A vast majority was indeed disappointed with MBS for failing to rebuke Pakistan for perpetrating unabated insurgency and terror attacks in Kashmir valley. While Modi’s deft diplomacy has invariably firmed up bilateral ties, MBS failed to dispel India’s concerns of Saudi Arabia as financier of radical Islamism.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Terror rears its ugly head in Kashmir Valley: Pulwama Attack

India is engulfed by surprise, pain and humiliation. The dastardly Pulwama attack that led to killing of 40 CRPF jawans and 44 injured left Indians seething with rage, anguish and vulnerability. The horrific suicidal attack in the Kashmir valley one of the deadliest attacks in the past two decades saw the return of suicidal attacks in the region. The attack carried out by a local boy in the broad day on a highway marked the resurgence of violent jihadism. As per the reports the attack was carried out by a highly radicalised 22-year old school dropout Adil Ahmed Dhar. In February 2018, he joined the Zakir Musa led terror outfit then switched allegiances and allied with Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). He rammed an explosive-laden SUV into a bus carrying the CRPF personnel. The 2500-convoy travelling in 78 vehicles became the target of the attack. Minutes after the collision, the bus burst into flames and the bodies were reduced to smithereens. CRPF jawans in the adjoining buses were prevented from coming to the rescue of the affected people as JeM terrorists rained bullets from behind. The nature of the attack, the scale of the brutality and the amount of the planning clearly indicated that it couldn’t have been carried out by an amateur.

Preliminary investigation revealed that as much as 350-kg IED explosives might have been used in the attack. The logistics of bringing such huge amounts of explosives and assembling goes on to show that an extremely skilled professional may have orchestrated the attack. Given the scale of the attack, agencies suspected role of Pakistan deep state has been making some noises on the media networks recently. Connecting the dots and available media reports, it emerges that JeM commander Abdul Rasheed Ghazi, an Afghan war veteran and IED specialist was dispatched to India around Dec 9^th to avenge the deaths of JeM commanders-Talha and Usman, nephews of Azad. Indeed, there was rather a clamour around Feb 9^th the death anniversary of Afzal Guru of a deadly attack in Kashmir Valley. Minutes after the attack, JeM claimed responsibility for the attack.

Devastating attack on the CRPF convoy travelling to Srinagar has come a day after a private school in Pulwama was struck by a bomb explosion which left 12 students injured. Initial reports claim that explosion is caused a student bag but investigators are yet to ascertain the circumstances of the incident. Every year, valley experiences some break from the terror attacks during the winter months as infiltration through the slippery mountain ranges becomes difficult. But this winter, there hasn’t been any respite from the attacks and unrelenting episodes of encounters, search and cordon operations have become an ordeal for security personnel.  As of December 2018, 223 terrorists were neutralised in 429 operations a record high in eight years. The unremitting crackdown on terror led to effective cleansing of terror elements in the valley. On January 24^th Jammu and Kashmir police declared North Kashmir district of Baramulla militant-free after the last three terror operatives of LeT were gunned down. Ten days back India has hosted the Indus water Treaty Pakistan team which inspect the Chenab basin in Jammu and Kashmir. Pulwama attack indeed asserts India’s treatment of Pakistan with kids gloves. While India has accepted the most generous water sharing Indus Water Treaty, arrangement, Pakistan continues to reciprocate with deadly terror attacks on India. Similarly, India accorded Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to Pakistan in 1996 despite Pakistan’s reservations to reciprocate. In 2016, when the issue came to review, Modi regime hasn’t revoked it. For the past 23 years Pakistan enjoyed unrestrained trade access to India.

Incensed by Pulwama attack, India came down heavily on Pakistan. Mincing no words, MEA held JeM responsible for the attack and said, “The heinous despicable act has been perpetrated by the Jaish-e-Mohammed, a Pakistan-based and supported terrorist organisation proscribed by the United Nations and other countries. This terror group is led by the international terrorist Masood Azhar who has been given full freedom by the government of Pakistan to operate and expand his terror infrastructure in territories under the control of Pakistan and to carry out attacks in India and elsewhere with impunity”. Taking an indirect dig at China for thwarting India’s repeated attempts to black-list Masood Azhar as international terrorist, India appealed members to prevail on the UNSC. India added, “We demand that Pakistan stop supporting terrorists and terror groups operating from their territory and dismantle the infrastructure operated by terrorist outfits to launch attacks in other countries. We strongly reiterate our appeal to all members of international community to support the proposal to list terrorists including JeM chief Masood Azhar, as a designated under the 1267 Sanction committee of the UN Security Council and to ban terrorist organisations operating from territories controlled by Pakistan”. JeM under the tutelage of Pakistan has emerged as the most virulent terror operative. Some of the most deadly of JeM include Parliamentary attacks in December 2001 that killed 14 security personnel, 2016 Pathankot attack and the most second deadly suicidal attack in front of Srinagar secretariat car bombing which killed 38 people and  40 injured.

Heart wrenching visuals of mangled bodies, mounds of flesh scattered across the site of attack have touched raw nerve of Indians. While the first thoughts of Pakistan’s obvious involvement infuriated India, the involvement of locals and ability of the foreign agents to penetrate Indian borders enraged people in the valley. Outpouring of grief flooded the social media networks where people vented their anger and frustration. At a time, when people of every walk of life are expected to stand shoulder to shoulder to overcome brutal tyranny of external agents, disjointed, incongruent and politically motivated statements inadvertently turned the focus towards the vested interests operating within the country. Unlike other terrorist attacks, when the government and people unequivocally attributed external agents for the terror attacks, Pulwama attack changed country’s perspective towards terrorism. This attack prompted government to look inwards.

While lashing out at Pakistan for supporting, aiding, abetting and patronising terror, Jitendra Prasad, MoS, PMO termed the act an act of desperation. He added, “I call to question those who while living in India and describing themselves as mainstream Kashmir politicians tend to be apologetic about these terror activities sponsored from across the Indian soil”. He called the bluff of the intellectual brigade of India who tacitly provided cover to the nefarious terror activities in the valley. Terror sympathisers who masquerade as human rights have prevailed on the government to pardon 9730 stone pelters and repeatedly exerted pressure on culling the force strength in the valley. But ironically, these high-profile individuals, politicians and their ilk indulge in soft terrorism under the security cover.

Over the decades, India has been facing the wrath of the terror haven Pakistan which has stratified itself as hub of terrorism in the South Asia and beyond. At the India’s hour of grief while nations in the immediate neighbourhood and across the World expressed their condemnation and shared the pain, India’s western and northern neighbour have remained indifferent. Indeed, China, the brother in arms of Pakistan hasn’t issued any statement condemning the attack. Pakistan has modified its statement twice in a gap of 15 minutes after the release. The hollow statement, which reeked of caprice, malintent and callousness read- “Attack in Pulwama in the India Occupied Kashmir is a matter of grave concern. We have always condemned acts of violence anywhere in the world. We strongly reject any insinuation by elements in Indian media and government that seek to link that attack to Pakistan without investigations”. In the second statement, Pakistan replaced the India Occupied Kashmir with Jammu and Kashmir. The insincere condemnation of reducing the brutal terror inflicted by its strategic assets to mere violence reflected insensitivity of Pakistan. Aggravating the situation further, Pakistan resorted to unprovoked firing from across LoC in Poonch district. Hours after Pulwama attack, terrorists attacked a police station in Shopian district. These two events further exposed the duplicity and disingenuity of Pakistan.

Successive Indian governments have been considerate towards Pakistan which has mastered the art of asymmetric warfare. Though current regime gave a free hand to security personnel to retaliate and even carried out a surgical strike to avenge the Uri killings, Indian efforts still seem to be insufficient to extricate terror.  The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting held in the aftermath of Pulwama attack revoked Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status accorded to Pakistan inflicting a blow to a crumbling Pakistan economy. Prime Minister Modi has promised to fight Pakistan tooth and nail and assured a befitting retaliation. In the meanwhile, India received overwhelming support from like-minded nations. Hours after the attack, US strongly condemned the attack, extended condolences to the families of the bereaved security personnel and issued a travel advisory to Pakistan. Referring to the attack, White House press secretary said, “This attack will only strengthen our resolve to bolster counter terrorism cooperation and coordination between the United States and India”. A pledge from US at a time, when rifts between the US and China are widening has a huge geopolitical ramification. Besides, Pakistani Deep State’s act of unleashing terror against India might prompt America to rethink about its withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. It might prompt them to reassess the involvement of Pakistan in the Afghan peace talks with Taliban. China’s silence has undeniably exposed its credentials as patron of terror for being at the forefront in shielding Pakistan on international platforms. Till now, Pakistani generals were held responsible for terror attacks now China would have to partake the blame.

Pakistan had no qualms in waging an asymmetric warfare to foster anti-India agenda for decades. India must now use its international clout to isolate Pakistan diplomatically. Last week Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan held talks with IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde along the side-lines of World Government Summit in Dubai for a bailout package to rescue its sinking economy. India should use its 3% voting rights to stall the package. Further it must exert pressure on FATF to monitor diversion of finances to terror conduits. Besides these outstanding events, India shouldn’t be averse to Balkanisation of Pakistan, severing diplomatic ties and impose pre-conditions on Pakistan-friendly nations keen on doing business with India.

Simultaneously New Delhi must be well advised to refrain from falling into the Pakistani trap of using cultural ties or historical ties as a bait to backstab India. Imran Khan through his Kartarpur Sahib corridor bait effectively gave wings to his India’s policy of taking two steps in response of India’s one step forward.

Time has now come for India to take the bull of terrorism by its horns. To extricate terror, India must strike at its roots which are deeply entrenched in the ideology of the radical Islamism that advocates and eulogises Jihad. India must censure and punish the non-state actors who advocate soft terrorism. All the aspects which goes into spread of this ideology must be attacked. These includes financial conduits, source of the ideology, recruitment and indoctrination. A multipronged approach must be rolled out to monitor activities of underground and over ground cadres. In fact, radicalised individuals who are the potent executioners of terror attacks undergo years of training, planning and targeting to inflict grave damage. An effective counterterrorism approach must encompass strategies to knockdown various tiers of this non-conventional warfare. International Community has always shied away from acknowledging the role of odious ideologies to address the scourge of terrorism. Fidayeen video which emerged after the Pulwama attack underscored the impact of the hateful ideologies on terrorism. Indian intelligence agencies must keep an eagle’s eye on developments in valley, like draping the remains of terrorists in IS flags, hoisting Pakistan flags and the ideologically charged Friday sermons. Random events like the IS-style execution of a 25-year old woman in Shopian district of valley by unknown militants must be keenly invested. All the subversive theories advocating role of socio-economic parities like poverty, unemployment or fissures in society in terrorism is just a sham. The unpalatable reality of the 21^st century is that modern world is tasked to take on medieval age war stratagems that ruthlessly patronised barbaric violence and supremacy of a particular ideology.

In this election season, Indian politicians might be tempted to make irresponsible statements against current dispensation for political brownie points. Instead political parties must exercise restraint in nation’s interest. Putting differences at bay and leaders must join hands to chart out strategies for a war of terror. 

@ copyrights reserved.