Britain is not helping India's fight against terror

The 9/11 attacks were a turning point in the fight against terror. Many countries joined hands with the George W Bush administration to fight this scourge. The general consensus, which holds true even now, was that terror recognises no national boundaries and nations should come together to fight this evil, whatever else their differences may be. Britain is an active member in the United States’ ‘War against Terror’ coalition — it didn’t think twice before invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Given this the October 13 Hindustan Times news report that London has denied New Delhi evidence on operatives of the terror outfit Babbar Khalsa International until India repealed the death penalty is baffling.

Kuldeep Singh Brar

The Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) is a terrorist organisation that is fighting for Sikh separatism. While it was active during the eighties and well into the nineties, it has since been on the decline. Of the many murders carried out by the group over the decades, the most notorious was the 1995 suicide attack on the Chandigarh secretariat in which then chief minister Beant Singh was assassinated. The BKI was back in the news in 2012, when four men associated with the group in London attempted to kill Lt Gen Kuldeep Singh Brar, who commanded Operation Blue Star in 1984.
India had, under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), requested Britain to provide information on the BKI’s fund-raising activities. Britain refused to share the details about the operatives. This move by London is illogical and defeats the efforts to fight terror. The war against terror is a concerted effort in which data and expertise must be shared for effective results. The irony here is that the BKI is a group proscribed by Britain since March 2001. The debate on the death penalty should not hinder this effort and help terror groups exploit these differences. Britain’s reluctance poses tough questions: Does this mean that Britain would not share information with a nation that is yet to abolish the death penalty? Would Britain refuse to share information with the US, in which 32 of the 50 states still have the death penalty? If ISIS or al Qaeda operatives were to work out of Britain against India, would London not cooperate with New Delhi? Britain, which has been a victim of terror itself, surely knows better than to be so obdurate on this issue.

Iraq: As the ISIS marches ahead, the US waits and India...

What is happening in Iraq now is essentially the Shia-Sunni war that has gone out of hand. From Saddam Hussein’s death in 2006 and since America’s establishment of a weak government in Baghdad, the sectarian differences between Shias and Sunnis have come to the front.
A Shia Iran’s influence over Iraq has got many of the countries in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, with a Sunni majority, uncomfortable.
Many, especially Riyadh, see Iraq PM Nouri al-Maliki as a Tehran man. The rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a breakaway al Qaeda faction that has set its goal at establishing a Sunni Islamist state in West Asia and that is anti-Shia should be seen in this context.
The ISIS came to prominence during the takeover of Fallujah in January and the following month Washington recognised ISIS as a terrorist group. Nevertheless, it has been overtly and covertly been supported by pro-Sunni groups in Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries. The funding of radical groups like Jabhat al-Nusra have given the ISIS more firepower.
On June 10, the ISIS captured Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq. It has descended — and at an alarming pace — from the northwest of the country and is taking town after town, reaching about 60 miles from the capital Baghdad. Such has been the pace of its advancement that by the time the international community took notice and condemned it the ISIS had made great progress.
The ISIS has also taken control of Tikrit. Earlier they had taken control of Ramadi and Samarra—two important towns. PM Maliki has failed to bring even a semblance of democracy and governance in Iraq and there are groups that see the advance of ISIS as a reply to his misgovernance. The Mosul takeover has further weakened Baghdad’s influence in the northern regions. This has given the Kurds an advantage in its standoff with the Maliki government.
US President Barack Obama has, in a White House statement, said that the US will not be sending troops to Iraq. He calls it a “wake up call” for Iraqi leaders to iron out their mistrust and sectarian differences and demonstrate a willingness to join hands for the Iraqi people. Obama has said that the US will help only if the local leaders are showing progress. However, in a move that can change the dynamics of the events unfolding in Iraq US aircraft carrier (USS George HW Bush) has arrived in the Persian Gulf.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has come in for some severe criticism for his ‘responsible withdrawal’. In 2011, then secretary of state Hillary Clinton claimed that the “responsible withdrawal” of the US from Iraq would be replaced by Washington’s biggest diplomatic programme since the Marshall Plan. Nothing actually happened.
Kori Schake, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, recently wrote: ‘The president is so spooked by the prospect of "a third American war in the region" that he has compromised our security to prevent it. He ought to have understood that he wasn't starting a third American war in the region — he needed to finish the first one.’
Unrest in West Asia is bad news for the region and India in multiple ways. First, if the violence breaks out into a full-fledged war it will affect the millions of Indians working in the region (Some estimates say that there are about 18,000 Indians in Iraq).
Second, if the ISIS manages to topple the Maliki government and capture Baghdad it will inspire many splinter groups of al-qaeda in the region and world over.
Third, unrest in the region will affect oil prices and given the economic climate a war is in no one’s interest. Fourth, there are ominous signs of similarities between the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The war on terror brought the US to Iraq and Afghanistan. After giving it a semblance of democracy the US withdrew from Iraq. The local government has not been able to check terrorist organisations. If the same script is seen in Afghanistan, India will have reasons to be concerned.
(This article appeared in the Hindustan Times on June 17)

India: The foreign policy for the next government

Among the many challenges that the new government will face, one will definitely be foreign policy. The world is going through testing times: The United States is due to pull its troops out of Afghanistan, Russia’s economic clout is receding, West Asia is in turmoil, and the world economy is still in the doldrums. India’s new foreign policy will have to factor in all these and much more before the government comes up with a viable blueprint.
But, more than the West, the next government’s policy trajectory towards the neighbourhood is what will be crucial. Under the UPA, India has made the right steps towards increasing trade and interactions with China. However, New Delhi should be more flexible towards Chinese investments and use its capabilities on our terms. Visits of mid-level officials between the two countries should be given a fillip. This will help in understanding the neighbour and is an investment for the future. It is the small steps, like meeting the demand for India’s soft power, which are important in the long run. Pakistan will remain a problem with no light at the end of that tunnel. With Raheel Sharif, Pakistan’s army chief, reiterating his PM on Kashmir being a ‘jugular vein’, and various terror groups openly threatening to attack India, New Delhi will have to alert and keep its expectations of peace at a realistic level. The arrest of an alleged ISI agent, by the Tamil Nadu Police on April 29, who has named an official of the Pakistan high commission in Colombo, is yet another clear indication that Islamabad is not letting go of its old ways. On the contrary, it is trying to exploit India’s vast coastline, especially the coastal parts of the South. Coastal security should be boosted and the next government must improve ties with Colombo. India and Sri Lanka need to discuss issues like the arrests of fishermen from Tamil Nadu and the democratic rights of the Lankan Tamils. New Delhi should also remove all fears and misunderstanding about the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project and the Kudankulam Nuclear Power project. The next government should not take for granted its goodwill of the administration in Thimpu and should do more to bring stability in Kathmandu. India should also give a more economic thrust to its ties with Myanmar, Maldives and Vietnam.

For long there has been a perception that India’s foreign policy is risk-averse. If India needs to be taken seriously in the comity of nations, this has to change. The next government must come up with a foreign policy that demonstrates a degree of flexibility where required while safeguarding India’s interests.

Global AgeWatch Index: Ageing gracefully is not an option in India

In a country that has more than 50% of its population under the age of 35 years, it is expected that the older people are taken good care of, if not revered. That, sadly, is not the case in India where the older people are often seen as cheap labour or as a liability. Instances of children abandoning their parents by the roadside or at old age homes reflect this. The economic pressure and the breakdown of the joint-family system have adversely affected the dignity of life of older people. This plight is worsened as, unlike many developed Western nations, the safety net of social security is absent. As is always the case, when faced with a crisis, it is the older women who doubly suffer.

Given this, it is not surprising that India is ranked at an unimpressive 73 among the 91 countries surveyed as ideal for older people to live. HelpAge International launched on Tuesday the first-ever Golbal AgeWatch Index ranking ‘countries according to the social and economic well-being of older people’. The parameters for developing the index were: the income status (including the pension coverage, poverty rate in old age), health (including life expectancy at 60, and psychological wellbeing), education and employment (including educational status of old people) and the living environment (including physical safety, civic freedom and access to public transport). Sweden tops the list, followed by Norway and Germany. India can take cold comfort in the fact that Pakistan (ranked 89) and Afghanistan (91) are at the bottom of the table. On the other hand, China (35) and Sri Lanka (36) have fared much better. Colombo’s long-term investments in education and healthcare have paid off providing a better standard of living for its older people, and New Delhi should take note of this achievement. The study dispels the myth that the wellbeing of older people is better in wealthier economics. None of the BRICS nations — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — that accounted for 40% of the global population and 25% of the world’s GDP based on the purchasing power parity in 2012, figured in the top 20 nations on the index. The high ranking of countries like Bolivia and Mauritius showed that smaller economies could also be good places for the old. The West, especially Scandinavian countries, has done well and this is mainly because the system is geared towards the demographic shifts taking place.

India has at present about 8% of its total population above the age of 60 and in the coming decades this is set to increase. The index shows that India’s rank in health is low. This is mainly attributed to the lack of availability of good healthcare facilities in rural India where most of the country’s ageing population resides. Some states, like Kerala, already have a significant number of older people and in the coming decades, unless farsighted policies are implemented, the quality of life for older people will not improve.

Four years of UPA2: Where's the party tonight?

Photo by AP

The Congress-led UPA, which completed four years into its second term, may not be popping open champagne bottles but it deserves a pat on the back. In an era of coalition politics, where national parties have lost ground and have been confined to regional pockets of power, and where regional parties have had a field day at the national level, it is no mean task to complete nine years in power. Riding on the success of schemes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, the Right to Information Act and the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan implemented in its first term, in its second term the UPA continues to keep the momentum. The government has been able to maintain a respectable financial atmosphere at a time when economies around the world are struggling in the red, though a lot more needs to be done to ensure that the economy does not slip any further and improves, like giving a push for industry and opening the economy further. Under the UPA 2 poverty figures have fallen from 37.2% in 2004-05 to 29.8% in 2009-10. By the execution of Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru the government has sent a strong message that it is not a soft power and that there is no compromise on national security. On the foreign policy front it is a mixed bag. New Delhi’s handling of Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the Maldives could have been better. However, in its dealing with China and Afghanistan the government has shown great finesse. India has shown great resolve in maintaining political and economic interests with Myanmar, Vietnam and even Japan, while at the same time not straining its ties with China.

There are many things that the UPA could have done differently to avert the negative criticism it is receiving. A bolder and more aggressive prime minister — much like the Manmohan Singh during the Indo-US nuclear deal — would have helped evade much of this criticism. The government seems to have been plagued by allegations of corruption and just when it tides over one scam it is greeted by another. Also a part of the perceived failure of the UPA 2, and an issue the BJP is highlighting as the government’s failure, comes from the government’s inability to pass important Bills such as the food security Bill and the land acquisition Bill. However, if the UPA government has not been able to table the Bills in Parliament it was mainly because opposition parties, headed by the BJP, resorted to frequent disruption of proceedings. The mulish stubbornness of the opposition saw the last two sessions of parliament going virtually without any business done. The principal opposition is the government-in-waiting — a fact the BJP seems to have forgot. While the BJP has been vitriolic on its attack on the PM and has taken great pains to tar the government black, it has failed to suggest measures it would take in the event of the party comes to power in the next general elections.
While the opposition aided by an alert media have been quick to highlight the pitfalls of the government — and they have rightly done so, the government has failed to go to the people with its positive steps it has initiated over the years.

Obama’s New Team Set to Give India the Jitters

Statements by Charles Timothy ‘Chuck’ Hagel, the new United States Defence Secretary, that “India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan on that side of the border” and “used Afghanistan as a second front” are bizarre to say the least. Hagel’s speech, made at Oklahoma’s Cameron University in 2011, which was uploaded by Washington Free Beacon recently, also gave Pakistan a clean chit. It goes without saying that Hagel’s statements are the much-required fuel to run the anti-India mills in our neighbourhood.

Hagel’s comments are contrary to the US stand on India’s commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan. India’s role was appreciated in a statement released by the US embassy in New Delhi, which distanced itself from Hagel’s views. Whether Hagel is fit for the demanding job or not is a different question but what should be concerning the mandarins in New Delhi is that such a comment is coming from a top authority in the Obama administration at a time when the Manmohan Singh-led United Progressive Alliance government is turning to the United States to protect Indian interests in Afghanistan. These comments by Hagel, when seen with Secretary of State John Kerry’s January statement that “I don’t think the Pakistanis have frankly gotten credit, sufficiently, for the fact that they were helpful” in catching Osama bin Laden, poses serious questions on what course Indo-US ties will take at this crucial juncture.
New Delhi will have to work overtime to ensure that the new ring of leaders in the Obama administration are on the same page as its immediate predecessors and that they talk in one voice about India’s support to US goals in Afghanistan. It should impress upon Washington to see through Islamabad’s double game of hunting with the hounds and running with the hares. It will, however, be prudent to not rely heavily on a United States that is waiting to board the last plane out of Afghanistan.
(This appeared as an edit in The New Indian Express on February 28)

Arab Spring Exploits Haunt US in Autumn

An attacker at the US consulate at Benghazi, Libya. (Inset: J Chris Stevens)

On Wednesday in an attack on the United States consulate at Benghazi, in Libya, four Americans, including Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, were killed. US diplomatic missions in Egypt and Yemen were also targetted. People were protesting after a film made in the US portraying the Prophet in bad light was picked up by the sections of the media in Egypt. It was later used by radicals to fan anti-US sentiments, leading to the attacks.
While the attack has been condemned by one and all, this should make Washington introspect and see why its actions have led to harnessing hatred among people in the region. That Stevens was killed in Benghazi, a stronghold of the NATO forces in the war to liberate Libya from Muammar Gaddafi, shows that the basic tenets on which this campaign is led needs to be looked into. After the 9/11 attacks the US has been on a ‘War on Terror’ overdrive, often taking questionable decisions and supporting wrong groups. From the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan to the 2003 invasion of Iraq — on the concocted claim of Weapons of Mass Destruction — the US has been more than enthusiastic about extending its vision of democracy to West Asia, ignoring regional complexities. Washington’s role in the ‘Arab Spring’ is also questionable. While in all these cases it overtly or covertly lent a hand to overthrowing the regime, it did not have a plan in place to ensure that the vacuum was not exploited by extremist groups.
The White House must think before toppling governments in West Asia and make sure that fundamentalists do not use the situation to extend their influence and spread hatred. It is election year in Washington and as expected Mitt Romney’s Republican camp has accused the Obama administration’s response to the attack in Benghazi. Rather than getting lost in political one-upmanship, the US must rework its approach towards West Asia. It should ensure that the opposition to American adventurism does not lead to a terror nightmare for the rest of the world.
(This appeared as an edit in The New Indian Express on September 14)

India Should Not Succumb to Pressure Over Iran

The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government has showed unusual tenacity is holding its cards close to its chest and not succumbing to growing pressure from the United States and Israel to blame Iran for the February 13 bomb attack on an Israeli diplomat’s car in New Delhi. Not only has the government refrained from airing its doubts but has also approached the scenario with maturity. This is evident in the statement made by Union commerce minister Anand Sharma on Wednesday that India will be going ahead with its planned trade delegation to Tehran, and that terrorism and trade are “separate issues”.

While India has strong defence ties with Israel, India annually imports crude oil close to $12 billion. Iran is important not only because of oil but also access it provides to the region. The Port of Chabahar, in Iran, is vital for India’s access to Afghanistan, especially in a scenario where a US pullout from the country will leave India with little support in the region. New Delhi will have to factor this aspect as well while taking a call.
Without doubt India finds itself in a spot as both Israel and Iran are important allies. But New Delhi should see this as an opportunity to present itself to the world as a responsible nation capable of taking mature decisions even if it means not toeing the US line. Such an independent stand will also prove that India’s claim for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council is one that is earned over the years and not one doled because of the benevolence for ‘right conduct’. India’s stand that it will abide by a United Nations resolution, be it against Iran or Syria, and not favour unilateral moves is the right approach.
India should go ahead with its investigation and not be influenced by outside pressure. If the trail leads to Iran, New Delhi should condemn Tehran in no uncertain words — but should not allow itself to be used as the stick by Israel or the West to beat Iran.
(This article appeared as an editorial in The New Indian Express on February 17, 2012)

The Afghanistan Question

In a June 2011 prime-time broadcast United States President Barack Obama announced the much anticipated troop withdrawal plan from Afghanistan. But Obama was not being completely honest when he said, “We are starting this drawdown from a position of strength…” because by then it was largely acknowledged the US Afghan policy was myopic and off target.

Afghanistan became the cynosure of popular hatred after it was said that the 9/11 terror attacks on the US were masterminded by a person sitting deep inside the Tora Bora caves. Overnight Osama bin Laden’s name became synonymous with Satan and it was the ‘duty’ of the US to hunt him down. Under President George W Bush America entered Afghanistan a little over a decade after leaving the nation in shambles after defeating the Russians. The aim was to get “justice” and to get Osama “dead or alive”, to recall Bush’s September 17, 2001 statement. This was padded up with the altruistic motive of ‘liberating’ the Afghans from the evil Taliban. On May 2 the US achieved its first objective when Osama was gunned down in his Abbottabad hideout in Pakistan. The ‘liberation’ of Afghans is still a distant dream.

Groping in the Dark

Afghanistan today is a quagmire, thanks to the ‘interests’ and ‘invasions’ by the Russians in the Eighties and by Americans after 9/11. However, the coming months and years are very crucial for Afghanistan, the region and the whole world. While Obama promised to bring back US troops from Afghanistan, what he did not promise was that in withdrawing from Afghanistan America would leave it a better place than when it went into the country a decade ago. The US has not got its act together and is literally groping in the dark desperately trying to find the way out. Sherard Cowper-Coles, Britain’s Afghan envoy from 2007 to 2010, in his recent book Cables from Kabul: The Inside Story of the West’s Afghanistan Campaign says that while the coalition’s intentions were good and there was progress in the initial years, success was prematurely declared, while in reality the bad guys had just moved back into the safe havens in the Af-Pak border and into Pakistan. 

Inglorious Exit

By the time it was realised that the war was anything but over, in order to give an honourable façade to what seems to be an inglorious exit the CIA advisors in Langley came up with the ‘good’ Taliban-‘bad’ Taliban theory. The lack of sincerity with which Washington was selling this story was enough for the world to call America’s bluff. What the US forgot was that all cats are grey in the dark.

No sooner had Obama announced the pullout than the attacks on US and NATO troops began to rise. The United Nations, in its quarterly report on Afghanistan, has stated that as of August  2011 the monthly average of attacks is around 2,100, close to 40 per cent more than what it was last year during this period. September has been one of the bloodiest months for the coalition forces. The ground situation is beginning to resemble the 2001 mayhem when coalition forces entered the country. The quality of the lives of Afghans has not dramatically improved in accordance to the money the US has poured into the country. But believe it or not, the worst part is that this is just the tip of the iceberg. 

Islamabad Games

Washington, while going into Afghanistan, joined hands with an old ‘friend’ from the region which had helped the US oust the Russians from Afghanistan. This friend of the US, which it has often in the past pitted against India for geo-strategic reasons, is India’s neighbour to the west — Pakistan. On the outside it looked like the usual American plan — the US has mastered the art of befriending nations in the vicinity of its enemy nation, to provide aid and set up military bases. What they chose to overlook was the ties the Taliban has maintained with Pakistan’s notorious spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Lakhdar Brahimi, former special representative of the United Nations to Afghanistan and Iraq, while characterising the influence of its neighbours on Afghanistan said, “A fly cannot go in unless it stops somewhere; therefore weapons, fuel, food, money will not go to Afghanistan unless the neighbours of Afghanistan are working, are cooperating, either being themselves the origin or the transit.”

Through supporting the Taliban the ISI is creating a conducive environment for it in Afghanistan once the coalition leaves the country. Islamabad has always used Kabul as its backyard for perpetrating terror. And now it will not want to lose this advantage to a ‘liberated’, ‘developing’ Afghanistan, especially one in which India is playing a crucial role.

Last Chance

“As for the United States’ future in Afghanistan, it will be fire and hell and total defeat, God willing, as it was for their predecessors — the Soviets and, before them, the British.”

— Mohammed Omar, Taliban leader in Afghanistan

The regional powers are meeting in Istanbul in November and there is a meeting in Germany in December coinciding with the 10th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan. If international forces make some serious decisions, rather than nodding to the ‘reports of progress’ and ‘plan of action’ set forth by the United States; if the nations wake up to the reality that the time for rapping Pakistan on its knuckles for the double game it is playing is over and concrete action (in the form of sanctions, listing of its terror networks, etc) needs to be taken, then there is hope for a nation which has been at the receiving end of world powers who from the time of The Great Game have been trying to ‘help’ it.

History has an uncanny way of repeating itself and it is up to the international community, especially the United States of America, to see to it that the axiom often associated with Afghanistan — the graveyard of empires — is removed.

(This was published in The New Indian Express on October 13, 2011)