Vivek Issues n Options December 2012

7/30/2019 Vivek Issues n Options December 2012

1/63

Issues & OptionsIssues & OptionsIssues & OptionsIssues & Options

December - 20

ue: I No: XII

Compulsions Of Good Neighbourliness

Good Governance Strong Nation Transformation In Afghanistan

Pakistans Mindset Remain Unchanged

and many more .

Published By : Vivekananda International Foundation3, San Martin Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 110021, [email protected], www.vifindia.org


2/63

VIVEK : Issues and Options December2012 Issue: I No: XII 2

JPCs Must Have The Power To

Summon Ministers

- A Surya PrakashSpecial Laws To Counter Terrorism

In India: A Reality Check

- Dr N Manoharan

EVENTS

Vimarsha on Transition in Ameri

and China: Implications for India

ARTICLES

ndia And The South Asian

Neighbourhood

- Kanwal SibalDealing With The Neighbour From Hell -

The Prime Minister Must Not Visit

Pakistan

- PP Shuklandias Nuclear Deterrence Must Be

Professionally Managed

- Brig (retd) Gurmeet KanwalReviewing India-Afghanistan

Partnership

- Nitin GokhaleGrandmas Remedies For Governance

ssues

- Dr M N BuchAG And The Indian Constitution

- Prof Makkhan Lal

Contents

3

19

26

30

35

44

5

5

5


3/63


India And The South Asian

Neighbourhood

- Kanwal Sibalndias relations with itsneighbours need to beanalysed frankly and

unsentimentally, without recourseto the usual platitudes whenpronouncing on the subject. It isfashionable to assume that there

is some larger moral imperativethat governs the relations betweenneighbours, with the biggercountry obliged to show a level ofgenerosity and tolerance towards asmaller neighbour that would notbe applicable to the attitudes andthe policies towards a moredistant country. The compulsionsof good neighbourliness betweencountries are, however, not thesame as between neighbours inthe same building or the samestreet. In the case of the latter, therights, obligations and duties ofcitizenship are the same, all liveunder the authority of the samestate and conflicts are mediatedthrough the instruments of law.We should not commit the mistakeof transposing to internationalrelations the codes of conductbetween citizens of the samecountry. The commandment Love

thy neighbour as thyself elicits noobedience from the chancelleries ofthe world.

Before talking of India and itsneighbours, we should have aclearer idea of what, in Indiaseyes, constitutes itsneighbourhood. Should we look atIndias neighbourhoodstrategically or geographically? Ifthe first, then a case can be madeout that Indias neighbourhoodencompasses the entire regionfrom the Straits of Hormuz to theStraits of Malacca. This is Indiassecurity parameter. Developments

in this region have a major impacton India. On the western side, sixmillion Indians are employed inthe Gulf, sending back almost $35billion as remittances. This regionis the largest supplier of oil andgas to India. This area is the heartof Islam and influences andideologies emanating from there

impact on our immediate externalenvironment and indeed, to anextent, the domestic scene. In anycase, if India had not been dividedin 1947, its western frontier would

I

* Kanwal SibalMember Advisory Board, VIF


4/63


have extended to the Persian Gulf.

In the east, Indias possession ofthe Andaman and Nicobar islands

stretches our frontiers to the otherchoke-point, the Malacca Straits.The Bay of Bengal hasBangladesh, Myanmar andThailand as littoral countries. Thisstretch of the sea is our link toSoutheast Asia and beyond. Forbuttressing our Look East policy,this area is of vitalimportance. Apartfrom India forgingbilateral ties withthese countries, thesecurity of the sealines ofcommunication inan area where theonly regional bluewater navy isIndian devolvessome specialresponsibilities onIndia.

If geography alone were todetermine who our neighboursare, then Pakistan, Nepal,Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka

and Maldives constitute the core ofour neighbourhood. Myanmar is acontiguous neighbour, but as wehave conditioned ourselves overthe years to view essentially theSAARC countries as our

neighbours, Myanmar is lost sightof, despite its critical geographicallocation adjacent to our north-eastern states. Myanmar, which

applied for full membership inMay 2008, has yet to consummateit. However, with the rapidchanges in the country, its openingup and the progressive removal ofsanctions it has been subject to, itsprofile as Indias neighbour will

keep rising.

Afghanistan maynot be a direct

geographicneighbour today,but given the factthat we consider

Pakistansoccupation of thenorthern areas inJammu andKashmir as illegal,we can in a sensetreat it as one. Inany case, with the

inclusion of Afghanistan as a fullmember of SAARC, the politicalcase for treating Afghanistan asan integral part of ourneighbourhood stands reinforced.

With Chinas occupation of Tibet,that country has become our directneighbour. The outstanding borderissue between India and Chinaconstitutes a major Indian foreign

Afghanistan may not be a

direct geographic neighbourtoday, but given the fact thatwe consider Pakistansoccupation of the northernareas in Jammu and Kashmiras illegal, we can in a sensetreat it as one. In any case,with the inclusion of

Afghanistan as a full memberof SAARC, the political case fortreating Afghanistan as anintegral part of ourneighbourhood standsreinforced.


5/63


policy problem, colouring ourrelationship with the worldsforemost rising power. Moreover,in Indias perception, China has

adversely influenced Indiasrelations with its South Asianneighbours. China thereforequalifies as Indias mostformidable neighbour, affectingIndias role not only in the South

Asian region, but in Asia as awhole, and even at the globallevel.

The management of relations withneighbours is always a declaredpriority of any countrys foreignpolicy. The assumption is that astable neighbourhood strengthensa countrys foreign policy posture,whereas an unstable and troubledneighbourhood saps its ability toact fully effectively on theinternational stage. The credibilityof a countrys regional and globalposture, it is believed, is alsoundermined if it is seen asembroiled in disputes and conflictswith neighbours. The acceptedview is that the time and energyspent in controlling events in theimmediate neighbourhood is at thecost of pursuing wider interests atthe regional and global level.

In actual fact, most countries havevery problematic relations withneighbours, and yet many are not

held back because of this.Historically, Britain rose to globalpower status despite almostceaseless conflicts with its

neighbours. France became aworld power despite beingembroiled in wars withneighbours. China has hugeproblems with its neighbours,without this affecting itsinexorable rise today as a globalpower. Turkey has problems withvirtually all its neighbours,

without this materially affectingits rise to regional power status. Itis, therefore, open to questionwhether a stable neighbourhood isa pre-requisite for a countrys riseto regional or global status. Thereare many other factors at playthat allow countries to rise andflourish even if their

neighbourhood is not peaceful.While, in theory, the need to havea peaceful, stable and friendlyneighbourhood may appear self-evident, what would that mean inpractical terms? Can one havegood relations with neighbourssimply because that would bedesirable in itself? Can one buildsuch relations unilaterally? Towhat extent should one be willingto make concessions? Should onelook for reciprocity or not? How faris it the responsibility primarily ofthe bigger country to make the


6/63


requisite effort in forging positiverelationships? Is a smaller countryalways right in its demands? Cana country demand or plead for

extra consideration simplybecause it is smaller? Should it onthat basis be entitled to a moresensitive treatment of its fears,vulnerabilities and even paranoia?

These are not the only issues thatarise in any examination of theconditions in whichthe neighbouringcountries relate toeach other. Whatabout the role ofthird parties, ofexternal actors?During the ColdWar period, thecompeting powershad an incentive toextend theirpolitical andideological reach toall corners of theglobe. In that process, relationsbetween neighbours, who werepulled at times in differentideological directions, weredistorted, adding to the alreadyexisting tensions ormisunderstandings. Today, in theage of globalisation, different pullsand pressures operate, and thesecould be helpful or harmfuldepending on circumstances.

The short point is that countriescannot always act in theirneighbourhood as they pleasedepending on local advantages in

power equations. Outside forceswill be there to provide acounterbalance, either because aparticular country might want tobring an external power into theneighbourhood to reduce theweight of a perceived regionalhegemon, or external powers

themselves, pushed

by balance of powerconsiderations, orpolicies ofcontainment, mayintrude into theregion on their ownand manipulatetheir local partnersfor larger strategic

purposes.Sections of Indianpublic opinion areacutely conscious of

Indias failure to stabilize its ownneighbourhood. It is argued thatIndia as the biggest country in theregion has the primaryresponsibility for managing theregional environment. Often Indiais criticized for not beingsufficiently generous to itsneighbours, of hesitating to makeunilateral concessions to them,which it is believed it can well

Sections of Indian public

opinion are acutely consciousof Indias failure to stabilize itsown neighbourhood. It isargued that India as thebiggest country in the regionhas the primary responsibilityfor managing the regionalenvironment. Often India iscriticized for not beingsufficiently generous to itsneighbours, of hesitating tomake unilateral concessions tothem, which it is believed itcan well afford to do.


7/63


afford to do. Such concessions areadvocated especially on theeconomic side, the argument beingthat India as a huge economy can

easily absorb the limited sacrificethat is expected of it, and in theprocess can attach theneighbouring economies to itself ina mutually beneficial manner. Thestakes which develop because ofthis interdependence wouldtheoretically make it difficult forother governments to pursue

adversarial policies beyond acertain point. Poor bordermanagement, failure to createproper border posts and customsinfrastructure is viewed asanother example of insensitivity tothe need to facilitate relationswith neighbours.

Such criticism overlooks manycomplexities. For one, Indiascapacity to order itsneighbourhood in a mannercongenial to its requirements isexaggerated. India did intervenein Sri Lanka in agreement with itsgovernment, but the experienceleft it chastened to the point thatit rejected an intrusive role in SriLanka later as the ethnic conflictgrew, even when other countriesprompted it to take greaterresponsibility for steering thecourse of events there in the rightdirection. It abdicated playing the

central role in the developmentsleading to the defeat of the LTTE,and it is to be seen how muchconstructive influence it can bring

to bear in ensuring that thepresent opportunity to settle theTamil question equitably is notlost. Indias intervention in theMaldives at the request of itsgovernment was more successful,but this cannot be construed as anattempt by India to shape itsimmediate environment to suit its

needs, or a model for futureinterventions.

India has been sensitive inhandling the issue of democracy inits neighbourhood. Even as theWestern democracies seek toimpose democratic values onothers and use instruments ofmoral reprobation and boycotts tocoerce select non-democraticcountries to reform their politicalsystems, India has abjured suchthinking. Its basic approach is todo business with whichevergovernment is in power. Even asthere is awareness that a trulydemocratic system in Pakistan,that limits the power of both thearmed forces and extremistgroups, would be beneficial toIndia-Pakistan ties, India has notsought to interfere in Pakistansinternal politics. On the contrary,it has willingly done serious


8/63


business with Pakistans militaryregimes, especially with that ofGeneral Musharraf. Likewise inBangladesh, India has never

rejected serious engagement withthe military regimes there. In thecase of Myanmar, even at the costof earning some diplomatic flak,India has sought to build close tieswith it irrespective of the countrysregime for reasonsof overridingnational interest.

India will of courseabide by legalitiesand UN sanctionsagainst anycountry fortransgression ofthe norms, butparticipating in acrusade for

democracy becauseof a sense ofsuperior politicalvalues is not partof Indias thinkingabout itsneighbourhood and beyond. ForIndia this is practical politics,shorn of the hypocrisy of thosewho promote democracyselectively and at lowest politicaland business cost to themselves.

India, despite its size and power,is, ironically, the country mosttargeted by terrorism from its own

neighbourhood. Althoughterrorism is now considered aglobal threat and the consensusthat it should be fought

collectively by the internationalcommunity has been largelyforged, India is still threatened bythis menace as Pakistan, wherethe epicenter of terrorism lies, hasnot yet been summoned by the

internationalcommunity, actingthrough the UN, to

eradicate it. TheUS and its allieswant Pakistan tocontrol terroristactivity directed atthem in

Afghanistan, anddeal as well withdomestic terrorism

that threatens toimpair Pakistanscapacity to supportthem. Terrorismdirected at Indiaremains a

secondary western concern. EvenUS pressure, however, has notcompelled Pakistan to break itslinks with the Haqqani group. Therise of religious extremism withinPakistan and the surroundingIslamic world, extending now toNorth Africa, is creatingconditions for more jihadi violence.Pakistans failure to take any

India, despite its size andpower, is, ironically, the

country most targeted byterrorism from its ownneighbourhood. Althoughterrorism is now considered aglobal threat and theconsensus that it should befought collectively by theinternational community hasbeen largely forged, India isstill threatened by this menaceas Pakistan, where the

epicenter of terrorism lies, hasnot yet been summoned by theinternational community,acting through the UN, toeradicate it.


9/63


substantive step in the last fouryears to try those responsible forthe Mumbai terrorist attack andthe unwillingness of its leadership

to accept that terrorism remains acrucial outstanding issue in India-Pakistan relations indicates thatthe nexus between the jihadigroups and the political andmilitary power centres in Pakistanwill not be easily broken. India byitself lacks the capacity to coercePakistan to abjure terrorism as an

instrument of state policy,especially as Pakistan now has thenuclear cover for its lawlessactivities. Pakistan sees theextremist religious forces thatresort to terrorism as alliesagainst India and potentially inthe takeover of Afghanistan afterthe western forces depart.

Within the SAARC region, apartfrom the recognition by the Karzaigovernment of Pakistanssponsorship of terror, the othercountries keep their politicaldistance from the problem. Each ofthem, barring Bhutan, hasinterest in maintaining good tieswith Pakistan for a mixture ofmotives that include leveragingPakistans hostility towards Indiato their own advantage, combiningforces against the threat of Indiandomination, putting constraints onIndias freedom of action within

the region, not to mention theneed to politically manage theirown Muslim communities.Pakistan of course has always had

an interest in undermining Indiasleadership role in South Asia.SAARC conventions on combatingterrorism have little meaninggiven Pakistans complicity withterrorist groups. Pakistan in factuses Nepal and Bangladesh asbases for infiltrating terroristsinto India, or in the case of

Bangladesh, using local extremistsfor targeting India, though withSheikh Hasinas government inBangladesh this activity has beengreatly curtailed.

The debate about unilateralconcessions versus reciprocity issomewhat besides the point ininternational relations. A bigcountry has no less responsibilitythan a small one to legitimatelymaximize its own interests. Nocountry can sustain a policy ofmaking unilateral concessions. Ifthe logic is accepted that it is forthe bigger country to makeconcessions, then it could beargued that the US should base itsinternational policies on makingunilateral concessions to all. Andso should China. India has tried apolicy of unilateral concessions inthe late 1980s and the early 1990s,but the results have been meager.


10/63


It is ultimately a question ofpragmatism. If making aconcession in one area can yield areturn in another area, it should

be made. In any case, reciprocityneed not be confined to balancedexchanges in specified areas. IfNepal, for instance, had been moresensitive to Indias securityinterests because of the openborder, India could have beengenerous in areasof Nepals interest.

If Bangladesh, as isthe case now, ismore cooperative indealing with anti-Indian insurgentsseeking shelter onits territory, itwould certainlymake India more

receptive to some ofits demands on thecommercial side. Infact this hasalready happened.What does India do in a situationin which Nepal has for yearsblocked any progress inimplementing joint waterresources projects, or Bangladeshhas until now even refused to talkabout according transit rightsthrough its territory to north-eastern India or make a jointeffort to promote energy securityalong with Myanmar?

Rather than look at such issueswithin the framework of bilateralrelations between India and itsneighbours, they should be looked

at within the framework ofSAARC. The problem ofunilateralism or reciprocitydisappears once the SAARCcountries as a whole agree onterms of trade and economicexchanges. Unfortunately,

Pakistan rightfrom the start

worked to limitprogress withinSAARC so that itsown policy oflinking tradeexchanges withIndia to aresolution of theKashmir problem

did not getundermined. Forthis reason, it didnot adhere to itsobligations to India

under SAFTA. Indeed, because ofPakistans obstructive policies,economic integration in theSAARC area is poor. Thissituation is beginning to changewith fruitful talks between Indiaand Pakistan to enhance tradewith each other. Pakistan hasagreed in principle to grant by theyear-end MFN treatment that ithas long denied to India. With the

The problem of unilateralism

or reciprocity disappears oncethe SAARC countries as awhole agree on terms of tradeand economic exchanges.Unfortunately, Pakistan rightfrom the start worked to limitprogress within SAARC so thatits own policy of linking tradeexchanges with India to aresolution of the Kashmirproblem did not get

undermined. For this reason, itdid not adhere to itsobligations to India underSAFTA.


11/63


recently concluded CommerceSecretary level talks, substantivesteps on the trade and investmentfront have been listed in the joint

statement. This change inPakistans attitude has occurrednot because of Indias prodding butbecause of an internal assessmentPakistan has itself made on theadvantages to it from expandedeconomic ties with India, given thedire economic straits Pakistan isin. Pakistan has

not yet felt thesame compulsionson terrorism andother differenceswith India andhence it clings stillto its negativepolitical postures.Now that

Afghanistan hasjoined SAARC,common sensewould dictate thatPakistan accord transit rightsthrough its territory to facilitate

Afghanistans trade with India aspart of the process of stabilizing

Afghanistan and giving its peopleeconomic opportunities so thatthey can, amongst other benefits,expand their legitimate economyand conditions are created for thereduction in size of the illegitimatedrug based economy.

India, of course, physicallydominates its neighbourhood.Most of its neighbours are verysmall in comparison,

geographically, demographicallyand economically. Even Pakistan,the second largest country inSouth Asia, is less than 15% ofIndias size demographically andeconomically and is not too muchmore geographically. Beyond thedisparity in size, Indias

neighbours share

with it strongcivilizational,cultural, linguisticand ethnic ties thatare deeply rootedin history.Normally thesebonds should havebrought the

countries of theIndian sub-continent closertogether, being

theoretically the building blocks ofan enduring people-to-peoplerelationship. But this has nothappened for various reasons. Forone, Indias overwhelmingcivilizational influence makes theneighbouring countries feelinsecure in their separateidentities. As identity is a coreconstituent of a sense ofnationhood, these countries want

Beyond the disparity in size,Indias neighbours share withit strong civilizational,cultural, linguistic and ethnicties that are deeply rooted inhistory. Normally these bondsshould have brought thecountries of the Indian sub-continent closer together, beingtheoretically the buildingblocks of an enduring people-

to-people relationship. But thishas not happened for variousreasons.


12/63


to foster it by consciously assertingtheir separate identity.

The ethnic links, such as those of

the Madhesis in the Terai insouthern Nepal with thepopulation of UP and Bihar, andthe Sri Lankan Tamils with theTamils in Tamil Nadu, instead ofbeing a human link between Indiaand these countries, as is the casewith the Indian diaspora abroadand their country of origin, is asource of tensions. These sectionsof the population are not as yetfully integrated into the societiesin which they live and suffer fromdisabilities. They are eithersuspected for their extra-territorial loyalties or are seen asinstruments of Indian influence, orthe sympathy and support theyreceive from groups in India createan atmosphere of distrust inbilateral relations.

From the viewpoint of IndiasSouth Asian neighboursrealpolitik would demand thatthey try to balance Indias weightby bringing into play externalpowers. This with the objective of

giving themselves greater marginof manoeuvre vis-a-vis India,extorting more concessions from itthan would be the case otherwise,not to mention making themselvesmore eligible for economic and

military assistance from powerswanting to check-mate Indias riseor imposing costs on India for notfollowing policies congenial to

their interests.

Pakistan has, of course, in itsobsessive pursuit of parity withIndia and a pathological refusal toaccept any status of inferiority vis-a-vis it, has been mostinstrumental in facilitating theentry of outside powers in the sub-continent. Today China isPakistans biggest defencesupplier. The US too has notstopped supplying advanced armsto Pakistan as part of its policy toobtain the cooperation of thecountrys military to help combatthe insurgency in Afghanistan.With the US more and morecognizant of Pakistans duplicityon the terrorism front, tensions inUS-Pakistan relations arepalpable and Pakistans supportfor the US in Afghanistan now aquestion mark.

The US policy of hyphenatingIndia and Pakistan was decisivelyabandoned by the Bush

Administration in its approach tothe nuclear equation in South

Asia, though the US thought itnecessary to balance its leaningtowards India by elevatingPakistan to the status of a Major


13/63


non-NATO ally. With the changeof Administration in the US andthe Afghanistan morass in whichit is caught, Pakistan had found

more room to leverage USdependence on it for its operationsin Afghanistan to question thelegitimacy of Indias presence andpolicies in Afghanistan, not tomention press it to extract someconcessions from India on makingprogress on outstanding India-Pakistan issues

without Pakistanbeing required tomove credibly onthe issue ofterrorismsponsored by it anddirected againstIndia. This has nowchanged, with the

US openlysupporting astronger Indianpolitical andeconomic role in Afghanistan, aswell as in military training. Indiawas the first country with which

Afghanistan signed a StrategicPartnership Agreement. In Nepal,Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, Indianand US policies have converged farmore than was the case in thepast, with the result that thegovernments of these countries areno longer able to leverage India-

US differences as before to counterthe Indian weight.

China, with its increased political,

economic and military weight,continues its policies to counterwhat one of its commentatorsdescribed as Indias hegemonicpolicies vis-a-vis its neighbours. Itcontinues to deepen its strategicrelations with Pakistan, withcurrent activity in the nuclear

field, major roadand power projectsin POK and thedevelopment ofGwadar port. In

Afghanistan, Chinais investing heavilyin the mineralsector. Geopoliticsseem to dictateclose China-

Pakistancooperation in

Afghanistan,despite current

uncertainties about Pakistansability to contain its own internalfailures.

In Nepal, China is becoming more

assertive in demanding that it begiven equal treatment with India,one example of which is to ask forits Friendship Treaty with Nepalto match the one with India. Withthe Maoists now a powerful

China, with its increasedpolitical, economic and militaryweight, continues its policies tocounter what one of itscommentators described asIndias hegemonic policies vis-a-vis its neighbours. Itcontinues to deepen itsstrategic relations withPakistan, with current activityin the nuclear field, major road

and power projects in POK andthe development of Gwadarport.


14/63


political force in Nepal, and giventheir ideological compulsion to beseen as drawing Nepal closer toChina, coupled with their periodic

rantings calculated to inflamepublic opinion against India, thepolitical terrain has become morefavourable for China to expandand deepen its presence andinfluence in Nepal. This can onlymake Indias task in handlingNepal more difficult.

Chinas position in Bangladesh isentrenched. Even the friendlygovernment of Sheikh Hasinawould see it in its interest tomaintain close ties with China forthe many benefits it can derivefrom that, including giving Indiaan incentive to woo Bangladeshmore. China has earned thegratitude of the Sri Lankangovernment by supplying it armsthat helped in defeating the LTTEmilitarily. Sri Lanka, along withMyanmar, Bangladesh andMaldives, are, in Indias eyes,targets for the naval ambitions ofChina in the Indian Ocean area toprotect its vital lines ofcommunication through thesewaters. The so-called string ofpearls strategy involvingconstruction of new port facilitiesin these countries may havecommercial goals in view in theshort term but is likely to have

military goals in the longer termperspective, To promote theseobjectives China is bound to stepup further its engagement with

these countries, especially withincreasing material means at itsdisposal, posing further challengesto Indias equities in itsneighbourhood. India followsclosely Chinas initiatives in SriLanka on the political, economicand military front, including thevisit in September of the Chinese

Defence Minister to Sri Lanka, thefirst such visit ever. He seems tohave emphasized that the Chinese

Armys efforts in conductingfriendly exchanges andcooperation with its counterpartsin the region are intended formaintaining regional security andstability and do not target any

third party.China has, of course, every right totake dispositions in the IndianOcean area to protect its trade andenergy flows. The countries withwhich China is cooperating areindependent, sovereign countriesand have economic andinvestment plans of their own towhich China with its vastfinancial resources can contribute.Ultimately, for Indias neighbours,it is a question of political

judgment how far they should becognizant of Indias concerns and


15/63


how to balance sometimesdifferent pulls so that they do notbecome platforms for tensionsbecause of the divergent interests

of external partners.

One can broadly conclude thatIndia will not be able to shape itsimmediate environment optimallyfor itself in the foreseeable future.Unless Pakistan is ready togenuinely end its politics ofconfrontation with India, anintegral part ofwhich is the over-assertion of itsIslamic identity, itspropagation of the

jihadi mentality,its nurturing ofextremist religiousgroups involved interrorism, and thepoliticaldomination of themilitary in thegovernance of the country, theSAARC region will remain understress.

Afghanistan presents potentialproblems of a grave nature. If the

extremist religious forcesultimately win there, the strategicspace for these obscurantistelements will expand enormously,with the risk of a seriously adversefall-out in the region that has

either other Islamic countries orlarge populations of Muslim faithliving in non-Muslim countries. Atriumphant radical Islamic

ideology can be destabilizing forthe religiously composite societiesof South and South-East Asia.Pressure on India particularly,from these forces would grow. Theincreasing Talibanisation ofPakistan would be mostdeleterious for the South Asian

environment.

The prospects for aborder settlementwith China remaindistant. China has,on the contrary,added to tensionsby makingaggressive claimson ArunachalPradesh. India hasbeen compelled tobegin upgrading its

military infrastructure in thenorth in the face of mountingChinese intransigence on theborder issue. With Chinese actionsin the East China Sea and SouthChina Sea, India has to be evenmore on the alert. The tacticalalliance between India and Chinaon climate change and WTO issuesshould not obscure the deepersources of India-China problems.It must be said though that both

Afghanistan presents potentialproblems of a grave nature. Ifthe extremist religious forcesultimately win there, thestrategic space for theseobscurantist elements willexpand enormously, with therisk of a seriously adverse fall-out in the region that haseither other Islamic countriesor large populations of Muslimfaith living in non-Muslimcountries.


16/63


sides have managed to preventtheir differences from eruptinginto military confrontation. Nobullet has actually been fired in

anger on the India-China bordersince 1967. China has becomeIndias biggest trade partner ingoods, which is a remarkabledevelopment.

The political drift in Nepalportends continuing instabilitythere with all itsdeleteriousconsequences forthe economy. Indiahas to play its rolewithout gettingembroiled indomesticcontroversies to theextent possible,thoughtraditionally anti-Indian forces therewould continue topropagate thecanard of overbearing Indianinterference in Nepals internalaffairs. With the Sheikh Hasinagovernment in power inBangladesh, Indias relations withthat country seem set to improve.Bangladesh is showing anunprecedented willingness to denysafe havens to anti-Indiainsurgents and discuss transitissues. If it opens up doors for

Indian investments in the country,the economic issues in thebilateral relationship can beaddressed to mutual advantage.

Bangladesh can play a positivepart in linking the eastern regionof South Asia to Myanmar,Thailand and beyond. A solutionhas to be found, however, to theproblem of illegal Bangladeshimigration into India.

Thecommencement of adialogue betweenthe US and theMyanmar juntavalidates Indiaspolicy towards thatcountry. If the UShas woken up tothe danger ofleaving China toconsolidate its holdover Myanmar, it isall to the good.Here again, India

cannot prevent Myanmar fromdeveloping close links with itsneighbour China. How far itshould move in that direction andlose its capacity to manoeuvre isfor the Myanmar government todecide. So long as India-Chinarelations are not normalized, Indiawill always have concerns aboutstrategic encirclement.

The political drift in Nepalportends continuing instabilitythere with all its deleteriousconsequences for the economy.India has to play its rolewithout getting embroiled indomestic controversies to theextent possible, thoughtraditionally anti-Indian forcesthere would continue topropagate the canard of

overbearing Indianinterference in Nepals internalaffairs.


17/63


Indias traditionally cordialrelations with the Maldives needto be nurtured, especially in viewof the attention it is receiving from

China at the highest level. Thespreading piracy in the SouthEastern Indian Ocean also makesMaldives more central incombating this menace. Maldivesis gripped with domestic politicalturmoil, placing India in a delicateposition of being invited tointervene in favour of a duly

elected government and hesitatingto get embroiled in internalpolitical rivalries.

Bhutan has been the only realsuccess story in terms of Indiasrelations with its neighbours.Bhutan has border differenceswith China. It has kept itsdistance from Pakistan and thegreat powers as well, giving themlittle scope for interfering in itsrelations with India. Thisunderscores the point that goodrelations between India and itsneighbours depend not only onwise policies on our side, but,equally, the pursuit of wisepolicies by our partners.

Our relationship with Sri Lankahas been burdened in recent yearsby the Tamil issue. We havehandled it as well as we couldfrom our end. Despite the

sensitivities in some quarters inTamil Nadu, we have supportedSri Lanka on the issue of itsterritorial integrity and on

terrorism. We have been bothprincipled and practical.

As a neighbouring country wecannot ignore what is happeningin Sri Lanka if developments therehave a political impact in India.On the one hand, India must notintervene in Sri Lankas internalaffairs; on the other, if they impactIndias internal affairs, a case for adialogue opens up with a view tohelping find constructivesolutions.

The nearly three-decade longarmed conflict between SriLankan forces and the LTTE cameto an end in May 2009. The armed

conflict created a majorhumanitarian challenge, withnearly 300,000 Tamil civilianshoused in camps for InternallyDisplaced Persons (IDPs). Indiahas put in place a robustprogramme of assistance to helpthese IDPs return to normal life asquickly as possible.

India does reiterate at the highestlevels the need for nationalreconciliation through a politicalsettlement of the ethnic issue. Theelement of time is important. With


18/63


three and a half years havingelapsed since the military conflictissues got resolved, a solution tothe political issues remains

pending. Whether the level ofstatesmanship which is requiredto deal with the complex issues ina longer term perspective will beforthcoming or whether shorterterm calculations of politicaladvantage will dictate the policy

remains to be seen. Democraticgovernments are always generouswith their own people, and nopolity can be stable without

mutual trust between its varioussections. This is the challenge SriLanka faces.

Back to Contents


19/63


Dealing With The Neighbour From Hell -

The Prime Minister Must Not Visit Pakistan

- PP Shuklao the insistent clamour thatPrime Minister ManmohanSingh must visit Pakistan

in the near future, this is arejoinder, and a plea not to beemotional in our approach torelations with Pakistan. Ananalysis of the argument in favour

of a visit shows that there arereally three arguments beingadvanced in favour of the visit.

The first is that the time is nowfor an outreach to the people ofPakistan, for it is up to India tostrengthen the forces ofmoderation at a time when thatcountry is wracked by extremistsentiment. The second argument,closely related to the first, is thatthe decision makers in Pakistanare becoming aware of the dangerstheir country faces, and are readyto move forward and improverelations with India. Some eruditecommentators add a thirdargument is the form of a historylesson: Europe overcame itsproblems through economiccooperation, and that is how thetwo countries should overcometheir problems. It worked there, it

will work again here.

The idea of an outreach to themoderates inside Pakistan is notnew. This is exactly what guidedIndira Gandhi at Simla, and it wasnot long before she realised thatshe had misjudged badly. Within a

few months, Bhutto was back tothe earlier rhetoric, and denyingthat any understanding had beenreached over Kashmir. Even then,he was also thrust aside, and theproxy war in Punjab startedshortly after Gen Zia took over. Allour efforts at strengthening themoderates were unavailing.

Prime Minister Gujral may hissoul rest in peace took thisfurther when he became firstForeign, then Prime, Minister.The Gujral Doctrine wasspecifically aimed atstrengthening these moderates,and it did not do much for therelations, as Pakistani

sponsorship of terrorism continuedunabated. It did nothing themoderates either, who wereagain thrust aside as anothermilitary dictator took over in 1999.

T

* PP ShuklaJoint Director, VIF


20/63


This time round, the groundreality of Pakistan is even moreadverse for such woolly-headedovertures. The military may be

somewhat weaker, but thatproposition has not been tested.After the removal of Gen Karamat,there was a sense in India again,that the army had been broughtunder control, an assessment thatwas buttressed by the weakeningof the army after the Kargil fiasco.But more

important, even ifthe army isreluctant to takeover formal power,it remains strong,and continues itsrole in upholdingthe terrorinfrastructure. The

infiltration ofterrorists intoIndia alsocontinues at higherlevels than before. Further, thegrowing radicalisation ofPakistani society, and the growingpower of the jihadi network, callsinto serious question the notionthat the moderates are now in aposition to make a difference. Thefact that the judges who sentencedsome of the high-profile killers inrecent months had to go intohiding, and sometimes leave thecountry, tells a very different story

from the narrative of those whowant the visit to take place. Theplight of the Hindus, Sikhs,Christians, and even the Shias is

further compelling evidence of thereal changes that are taking placeinside Pakistan.

Finally, even the so-calledmoderates are not the kind thatare willing to let the Kashmirissue drop. No, the difference is

that they want totalk and settle the

Kashmir issue ontheir terms; theironly difference isthat they arewilling to criticisethe use of terrorismfor this politicalend. But their endis the same as that

of the hard-lineelements. Nobodyis even willing tocountenance any

kind of territorial settlement thatwould stand a chance ofacceptance in India.

The second argument is that there

is a change in Pakistani thinkingand policies towards India. Thisboils down to two developments inrecent months. The first is astatement made by the Pakistani

Army Chief on Siachen. It is worthemphasising that he made these

The fact that the judges whosentenced some of the high-profile killers in recent monthshad to go into hiding, andsometimes leave the country,tells a very different story fromthe narrative of those whowant the visit to take place.The plight of the Hindus,Sikhs, Christians, and eventhe Shias is further compelling

evidence of the real changesthat are taking place insidePakistan.


21/63


remarks while visiting notSiachen, for the Pakistan Army isnowhere in Siachen, but west ofSaltorowhere an avalanche had

led to the death of some 130soldiers. Pakistanis were askingwhy the soldiers were there andwhy they could not be pulled backto safer distances. Here are theactual words he spoke: wedlike to resolve this [Siachen], butthere is a method of resolution andof course, weve talked about it,

there have been a number ofrounds of negotiations andhopefully we should be able toresolve it, and I think we shouldresolve it.

Our response at the media levelwas inexplicable: not only did theGeneral say nothing new, his ownwords indicated as much. He said

clearly that there was a method,and it should be used to resolvethe issue. This is precisely whatwe were doing, in the resumeddialogue. There has been asolution in the works for morethan two decades, and it hasfoundered each time on thePakistani insistence that it will

not reflect the actual position heldby the troops at present. Thisitself reflects and suggests badfaith on their part, especiallybearing in mind that as early as1989, then-Foreign Minister

Yakub Ali Khan had agreed that,as a military man, he recognisedthat any troop withdrawal mustindicate where from the

withdrawal was to take place.The other issue that has hadexcessive play has been that ofMost Favoured Nation [MFN]treatment for Indian exports toPakistan. Since the beginning ofthe year, there has been a clamourin India that this has been done byPakistan. Of course, nothing of the

sort has happened yet, and thepromise is that it will happen atthe end of the year. Meanwhile, aPakistan parliamentary panel,headed by a ruling Party MP, hasrecently recommended againstsuch a move by Pakistan. True,the two countries have movedfrom a positive list to a negative

list, but there is nothing in thisthat allows Indian goods entryinto the country on terms equal tothose for other trading partners.In any case, Pakistan is obliged,under WTO rules, to treat Indianexports on MFN terms, but hasrefused to do so for close to twodecades, even though we have

given Pakistani exports MFNtreatment since the mid-1990s.This actually shows the scantregard it has for its obligationsunder even international treaties.It is entirely characteristic of us


22/63


that we find this a major stepforward. Firstly, it has nothappened; moreover, it is not amajor step anyway.

So much for the signs of change inPakistan; the other two mattersare easily disposed of too. The ideaof reaching out to the so-calledmoderates inside Pakistan is notnew. Foreign Minister [later PrimeMinister] Gujral, whose sadpassing away wehave just marked,

had just this ideabehind the GujralDoctrine. He didoccasionally saythat the Doctrinedid not apply toPakistan, but thiswas only withregard to the

principle of non-reciprocity; but inhis words andactions, he wasalways mindful of the possibleconstituency in favour of betterties with India within Pakistan.Since then, we have maintained asteady posture of nurturing this

constituency, through theVajpayee and the SinghGovernments. Under the latter,we even signed someincomprehensible joint statementson setting up a joint terror

mechanism, and allowing agratuitous reference toBaluchistan all to no avail. Ifthere is a moderate group in

Pakistan, it is unable to affectpolicy. From the days of the GujralDoctrine, right through to thepresent, we have had terroristattacks to contend with withoutcease: from the Kandaharhijacking through the attack onParliament, attacks in various

cities [Bangalore,

Delhi andMumbai], andfinally, the carnagein 2008. And on allof these, thePakistanis havestonewalled anymove to bring theterrorists to book.

All told, one wouldbe well advised toquestion whetherthere is any

relevance to this thesis today,given that the extremist elementsare much stronger than before, aswe saw in the killing of GovernorTaseer and Minister Bhattitheirkillers were regarded as heroeseven among educated middle-classsections of Pakistani society. Weare also witnessing the growingterror attacks on the minorities inPakistan.

From the days of the GujralDoctrine, right through to thepresent, we have had terroristattacks to contend withwithout cease: from theKandahar hijacking throughthe attack on Parliament,attacks in various cities[Bangalore, Delhi andMumbai], and finally, thecarnage in 2008. And on all of

these, the Pakistanis havestonewalled any move to bringthe terrorists to book.


23/63


The proponents of the outreach tothe moderates, therefore, owe itto Indian society to explain whythey still persist in this failed

enterprise, and when the rest of uswill see any results of theSisyphean undertaking. They oweit to the skeptics, who havehistorical evidence on their side, totell us when their efforts will bearfruit, and what the milestones arethat will tell us we are on the righttrack.

Finally, we have to address theEuropean parallel. It is true, ofcourse, that economic cooperationhas transformed relations on theContinent, making warunthinkable. But there was a pre-history to this. The Nazi regimewas first defeated, Germanydismembered, and the leaders

brought to rough justice. A newGovernment arose in place of theNazi regime, which disavowed,and negated on the ground,Nazism and all its works. Equallyimportant, it renounced its claimto Alsace-Lorraine, the territorialdispute with France. It was onlyafter all this that the economic

cooperation was launchedsuccessfully.

There were earlier efforts atsweet-talking and makingterritorial concessions to the Naziregime, in the 1930s, but they

came to naught. This policy ofappeasement has been properlyconsigned to the litter of failedstrategies, and has served as a

warning to all future Governmentsthat this is a very unwise policycourse. This is the true lesson ofEuropean history. Those whoforget it, would do well toremember how the West reacted tothe election of Kurt Waldheim asPresident of Austria in the mid-1980s: there was a whiff of

suspicion never conclusivelyproved that he had a Nazi past,and that was enough for him to beboycotted by many westerncountries, and he was declared anundesirable alien in the US.

This author had made some ofthese points in a letter to theeditor of the Indian Express, in

response to a particularly fatuousarticle urging the Prime Ministerto visit Pakistan, but the paperchose not to publish it though itdid carry much more abusiveletters against the suggestion.Obviously, the idea is to paint theobjectors as extremist andunthinking opponents of better

ties with Pakistan.

The reality is that Pakistan isgrowing increasingly isolated asUS disenchantment with theirduplicitous ways grows. The fearin that country is that India and


24/63


America might find it in theirinterest to coordinate policies onPakistan, especially as the ISAFmoves to pull out from

Afghanistan. It would be richirony if, after decades of askingthe Americans to take a hard lookat the reality of Pakistan, we wereto hold out a lifeline to thatcountry now. It would also be abetrayal of the assurances given tothe people of India that theterrorist masterminds of the

Mumbai attackwould be broughtto justice, andthere would be nonormal contactsuntil then.

Instead, we areadvised by thePakistan Foreign

Minister not to beemotional and tomove on beyondone issue. It occurred to no one,then or later, to point out that itwas Pakistan that was beingemotional about Kashmir, and wasfixated on an issue that has beenleft behind by history, despite

every terrorist trick in the tradeadopted by Pakistan.

The ultimate irony is that, despiteall the efforts by successiveGovernments NDA not excepted

to reassure Pakistan that India

does not mean any harm, few inthe former believe ourprotestations. Here is a samplefrom an article in Nation, the

Pakistani newspaper:The Indian leaders have onmany occasions predicted andwished for Pakistans collapse.We keep hearing across theborder voices demanding the re-inclusion of Pakistan into India.It is no secret that India has not

only engineered

trouble inPakistan, but alsoinstigated USA tohurt us wheneverpossible. Rightafter the Osamaincident, theIndian leadersalso aired their

desire to takeunilateral actionsinto Pakistan.

Indias intentions are not asecret. [Nation 23 Oct 2011].

Indian leaders have consistentlymaintained that we have avested interest in a strong,

stable, united Pakistan, andhave repeated this sentiment inseason and out. But it obviouslydoes not make any impressionon some of important mediaoutlets in Pakistan.

Instead, we are advised by thePakistan Foreign Minister notto be emotional and to move onbeyond one issue. It occurred tono one, then or later, to pointout that it was Pakistan thatwas being emotional aboutKashmir, and was fixated onan issue that has been leftbehind by history, despite

every terrorist trick in thetrade adopted by Pakistan.


25/63


It must be clear to all unbiasedand uncommitted observers thatthere is nothing for the Prime

Minister to do in Pakistan, andnothing to go for.

Back to Contents


26/63


Indias Nuclear Deterrence Must Be

Professionally Managed-

Brig (retd) Gurmeet Kanwal

ndia declared itself a statearmed with nuclear weaponsin May 1998 after the Pokhran

tests. Despite the fact that almost15 years have passed since then,the number of good books on thesubject of managing Indias

nuclear deterrence can be countedon the fingers of one hand. This ispartly because academics andstrategic analysts find deterrencetheory and the complexities ofnuclear command and control tooesoteric and partly because theGovernment of India has made noattempt to encourage such

research. None of the governmentfunded think tanks have thoughtit fit to conduct research on thisissue. It is to the credit of Vice

Admiral Verghese Koithara (Retd)that he has dared to enter whatmay be loosely termed asforbidden territory. In his book

AdmiralKoithara takes stock of the systemin place for managing nucleardeterrence, carefully evaluates itsefficacy and makes substantive

recommendations to enhance itsfunctionality.

Indias nuclear doctrine is builtaround a no first use policy withcredible minimum deterrence. Inthe interest of strategic stability,

India is willing to absorb a firststrike and will launch punitivenuclear strikes in retaliation tocause unacceptable damage to theadversary if it is attacked withnuclear weapons. Indias nuclearweapons are political weaponsmeant only to deter the use andthreat of use of nuclear weapons

against India. It is clearlyaccepted in India that nuclearweapons are not weapons ofwarfighting. Hence, India hasfirmly rejected the use of tacticalor theatre nuclear weapons despite provocation from across itswestern border. However, Indiahas not publicly demonstrated

that it has done what it takes tooperationalise its nucleardeterrence. This is the essence of

Admiral Koitharas excellent book.In fact, he goes one step further tostate that by keeping the armed

I

* Brig (retd) Gurmeet KanwalVisiting Fellow, VIF


27/63


forces out of the nuclear decisionmaking loop, the authorities haveactually undermined thecredibility of Indias nuclear

deterrence.

Both the NDA and UPAgovernments have tended to playdown discussion of nuclear issuesin the public domain. According tothe strategiccommunitygrapevine, the lateBrajesh Mishra,Indias firstNational Security

Advisor (NSA), hadissued an informalwhip to the effectthat no one ingovernment shouldspeak to the mediaabout nucleardeterrence. Nodiscussions orseminars havebeen held by thethree Services tostudy issues liketargeting and deterrencebreakdown that are in the militarydomain. Through various acts ofcommission and omission,successive governments havecreated the perception thatacquiring nuclear weapons was anend in itself for power and prestigeand that since nuclear weapons

are political weapons and notweapons of warfighting, the barestminimum needs to be done tocreate nuclear forces that are

robust and usable.

Indias nuclear signalling has beenmarked primarily by the routineflaunting of various models of Agniand Prithvi missiles at the

Republic Dayparade. No nucleardrills are known tohave been held toensure that themissile groups candeploy in a realistictime frame andthat the warheadscan be mated withthe launchers inreal time for earlyretaliation in theeventuality of anuclear strike,even though someof these measuresmay have beenpractised in secret.

Nuclear signaling is an extremelysophisticated art and Indiaappears to have ignored thisaspect completely. In view of thesemajor shortcomings, Indiasnuclear deterrence tends to lackcredibility and is not takenseriously by either militaryadversaries or by the international

Nuclear signaling is anextremely sophisticated artand India appears to have

ignored this aspect completely.In view of these majorshortcomings, Indias nucleardeterrence tends to lackcredibility and is not takenseriously by either militaryadversaries or by theinternational community.India must demonstrate itsresolve to use nuclear weaponsif it ever becomes necessarythrough a carefully formulatedprocess of signaling and mustenhance the quality of itswarhead and missiletechnology.


28/63


community. India mustdemonstrate its resolve to usenuclear weapons if it ever becomesnecessary through a carefully

formulated process of signalingand must enhance the quality ofits warhead and missiletechnology. The steps necessary tofully operationalise Indias nucleardeterrence must not only be takenearly, but must also be publiclyseen to have been taken withinthe bounds of security of

information and materials.The author identifies andchallenges the four tacitassumptions behind the lack ofseriousness in operationalisingIndias nuclear forces: thatdeterrence credibility can beestablished through technologicaldemonstration; that nuclear forceoperations are largely a technicalmatter; that transition fromgeneral to immediate deterrencethrough alerting is not a verydemanding exercise; and that forcesurvivability is not a critical issue.He also mentions a fifth one: in acrunch situation the US will bethere to call upon. He goes on tosuccessfully demolish all of themthrough the force of logic.

Admiral Koithara focuses a sharplens on the systemic weaknessesplaguing the management of

Indias nuclear deterrence. He hasstated that inadequacies in themanagement of nuclear forceshave degraded Indias deterrence,

Not just by the inability toconduct operations in a safe andreliable manner, but also byrevealing a lack of seriousness ofpurpose. He bemoans the factthat the armed forces have beenkept away from functionalinvolvement in managingdeterrence and asserts that,

Nuclear forces of every NWSare... closely controlled by thenational leadership. But in everyone of those countries, exceptIndia, these forces are managed bythe armed forces under thesupervision of the politicalleadership. He points out that thecommand and control structure is

patently flawed where even theDefence Minister is a peripheralfigure in nuclear decision making.He recommends a return to theerstwhile Defence Committee ofthe Cabinet with the three Chiefsas permanent invitees.

India still does not have a Chief ofDefence Staff to provide singlepoint military advice to the PrimeMinister. The three ServicesChiefs are members of theExecutive Council of the NuclearCommand Authority (NCA)headed by the NSA and not of the


29/63


Political Council of the NCAheaded by the Prime Minister. Assuch, their inputs would reach thePM only indirectly in a moment of

crisis. This system of isolation ofthe three Chiefs is unsuitable forlong term nuclear planning.Though India has a StrategicForces Command (SFC) formanaging its nuclear forces, the C-in-C SFC reports directly to theNSA in practice and keeps theChairman CoSC informed. Also,

India does not have full fledgednuclear planning staff likePakistans Strategic PlansDivision and nuclear planning isnot seamlessly integrated acrossthe ministries and thedepartments. The author writes,Using inadequately preparednuclear forces to generate

deterrence will be similar to theinadequately-supported forwardpolicy that India had adoptedalong the Tibet border in 1959.

This remarkable book would havebeen much richer if the author hadtaken stock of Pakistansunbridled race for additionalfissile material beyond itslegitimate needs and its quest to

acquire tactical nuclear weaponslike the 60-kilometres range Hatf9 (Nasr) missile, which isinherently destabilising, and its

efforts to tip its cruise missileBabur with nuclear warheads. Thelack of serious confidence buildingand risk reduction measuresbetween the two countries has alsonot been covered, nor has Indiaslong standing support for totaldisarmament been addressed.However, no book can cover the

entire nuclear landscape.This book deserves to be read byall personnel of the armed forces,particularly the senior officers. Itmust be prescribed reading for theHigher Command courses of thethree Services. It must also beread by the political leaders,scientists and bureaucrats ortechnocrats who are involved innational security decision makingand managing Indias nuclearforces.

Back to Contents


30/63


Reviewing India-Afghanistan Partnership

- Nitin Gokhalehe implementation of theIndia-Afghanistan StrategicPartnership, signed more

than a year ago, is all set to gathermomentum in coming months inthe wake of a successful India visitby Afghanistan's President,Hamid Karzai, earlier this year.

While Karzai, who first flew toMumbai, before coming to NewDelhi for more formal discussionswith Government leaders, wasmore focused on wooing Indianinvestors, the most concreteoutcome of his four-day visit wasthe finalisation of a detailedtraining programme for the

Afghan security forces in Indiantraining institutions.

Under the pact, which was underdiscussion for almost a year, Indiahas agreed to train upto 600

Afghan Army officers every year inIndia. India, which has the world'sthird-largest army, will train,equip and build the capacity of the

Afghan forces.

Sources in the Indian securityestablishment familiar with thecontours of the detailed schedule

say Kabul and New Delhi haveidentified three areas to focus on -increasing the intake of officers inIndia's premier training institutes;providing specialized training tothe middle and higher levelofficers already operating in the

Afghan National Army (ANA); andtraining soldiers in counter-

insurgency and counter-terroristoperations.

Over 200 Afghan cadets will betraining at the National Defence

Academy, the Officers' TrainingAcademies and the IndianMilitary Academy every year. Thisis over and above the 600 serving

Afghan National Army (ANA)officers who will undergo a varietyof courses.

In addition, company level (100-strong) contingents of the ANAwill be trained for four weeks atthe Counter Insurgency andJungle Warfare School (CIJWS)located at Vairangte in Mizoram.

India, however, has no plans tosend or deploy its troops in

Afghanistan as of now.

T

* Nitin GokhaleVisiting Fellow, VIF


31/63


"India is a great destination for us,for the training of our military, forthe training of our police and forthe provision of equipment that

India can provide, that is, withinthe means of India. We are certainthat proximity that we have, thecenturies of civilizational linksthat we have, makes it easy for

Afghan young officers men orwomen - to come to India and getthe best from here.That will be a great

contribution inbringing theAfghan Army andpolice to aninstitutionalizedorder which is ofthe highestimportance for us,"Karzai told

Amitabh Revi, mycolleague at NDTVin an interview justbefore departingfor Kabul onTuesday.

New Delhi has also decided tosupply vehicles, informationtechnology and sports equipment,a move seen as a paradigm shift inIndia's approach to Afghanistan.

So far, India has concentrated onusing "soft power" in thedevelopment sector, such as

helping with the building of roads,hospitals and even the parliamentbuilding in Afghanistan. But byoffering extensive training

facilities to the ANA, India hasdecided to ramp up itsinvolvement, although it'scurrently stopping short ofsupplying any military hardware.New Delhi has also decided not tosend training teams to

Afghanistan inview of the two

attacks on itsembassy in Kabul.

The Indian securityand strategicestablishment hasbeen wary ofdiscussing the

Indo-Afghanmilitary-to-militaryrelationship, notleast because of

Islamabad'ssensitivities.

Pakistan sees thegrowing relationship between NewDelhi and Kabul as denying"strategic depth" to its army, andas an Indian attempt to encirclePakistan. India has been centralto Afghanistans quest to rebuildits economy. Since 2002, India hascontributed over $ 2 billion in aid.

The Indian security andstrategic establishment has

been wary of discussing theIndo-Afghan military-to-military relationship, not leastbecause of Islamabad'ssensitivities. Pakistan sees thegrowing relationship betweenNew Delhi and Kabul asdenying "strategic depth" to itsarmy, and as an Indianattempt to encircle Pakistan.India has been central to

Afghanistans quest to rebuildits economy. Since 2002, Indiahas contributed over $ 2 billionin aid.


32/63


In the last week of June this year,New Delhi had hosted aninvestors conference that focusedon inviting companies and

businessmen to invest inAfghanistan. It was a first for NewDelhi.

At the investors conference thosethoughts appeared far fromeveryones mind. Organized jointlyby the Ministry of External Affairsand the Confederation of IndianIndustry (CII), the conferenceattracted private investors fromover 40 countries. The Afghanswere also present in strength. Fivesenior ministers handling mining,commerce and finance were inattendance. And they went out oftheir way to assure potentialinvestors. As Anwar-ul-Haq

Ahady, Afghanistans commerceminister said: When you take intoaccount the high level of risk, thereturn on investing in Afghanistanis much greater than most otherparts of the world Yourinvestment will not only benefityou and your employees but alsocreate conditions that will promotepeace and stability in Afghanistanand the wider region.

Although its early days yet tojudge if the Delhi conferenceresulted in any substantialcommitments from private

companies, CII and Afghanistanofficials are hoping that thecompanies would have gotten afair idea about the business

opportunities that exist in thewar-ravaged country.

That time Afghan officials listedseveral measures to woo investors.They also said that thegovernment had adopted aninvestor-friendly foreign-exchangesystem and allowed banks to openforeign-exchange accounts. Wehave also permitted 100 per centforeign ownership of enterprisesand easy repatriation of profits,one official said.

Indias then foreign minister, S.M.Krishna, pointed out what liesahead. We visualize

Afghanistan's mineral resources,

agricultural products and humanresources as possible drivers ofgrowth and regional economicdevelopment that together withthe energy resources of Central

Asia, Iran and the Gulf, thegrowing economic prowess andmarkets of China, Russia, Turkeyand India, could knit the entire

region between Turkey in thewest, Russia in the north, Chinain the east, and the Arabian Seaand the Indian Ocean in the south,in a web of trade, transit andenergy routes and economic


33/63


cooperation. This vision requiresinternational support in the formof institutional finance and foreigninvestment, he told the

conference participants.

This time too, Karzai's delegationwas more forthcoming on allowingIndia and Indian companies tomine Afghanistan's vast naturalresources. Indian companies areplanning to invest over $ 11 billionin the mining sector over the longterm in

Afghanistan.

The AfghanPresident,however, admittedthat the securitysituation is stillfragile and attacksby the Taliban

would continuepost 2014. But hesaid that there wasno chance of the Taliban grabbingpower in Afghanistan again.

"I don't visualise that happeningbecause Afghanistan hasadvanced... revolutionised

massively. There are, as I said,thousands and thousands of

Afghans youth who have returnedfrom education abroad and thereare tens of thousands who areeducating themselves in south

Afghanistan. These big cities ofAfghanistan have beentransformed like never before. Wehave built more roads and more

reconstruction and developmenthas taken place in Afghanistan, inthe past 10 years, than in thewhole of our history. So, anobscurantist mindset's return to

Afghanistan to take power isabsolutely a thing of the past andwill not happen. A sense of

insecurity will still

continue. Therewill be bomb blasts,there will beincidents like that,that we have in ourwhole region. Butthat will not be ahindrance to theprogress of

Afghanistan or tothe continuation ofthe democratic rulein Afghanistan,"

Karzai said.

Karzai also met Prime MinisterManmohan Singh. The two leadersreviewed progress in theimplementation of the StrategicPartnership Agreement during thepast year. The Indian governmentalso cleared another tranche ofdevelopment aid to the tune of Rs.540 crore to be given to the war-torn country where such help has

These big cities of Afghanistanhave been transformed likenever before. We have builtmore roads and morereconstruction anddevelopment has taken placein Afghanistan, in the past 10years, than in the whole of ourhistory. So, an obscurantistmindset's return to

Afghanistan to take power isabsolutely a thing of the pastand will not happen.


34/63


earlier directly benefited the localcommunities.

Back to Contents


35/63


Grandmas Remedies For Governance

Issues

- Dr M N Buchwas a stripling short of

twenty-three years when Ijoined as Assistant Collector at

Morena, after completing mytraining at the IAS TrainingSchool at Metcalfe House. Morenacan be frightfully hot in the

summer and my training requiredalmost constant exposure to thesun. I developed a bad attack ofprickly heat, which turned into aninfection which spread throughthe hair roots and caused me toburst out in painful rashes. I wasreferred to the Medical College,Gwalior, where I was diagnosed as

having a fungal infection for whichthe doctors prescribed medicinesand subjected me to a course ofsuperficial X-ray therapy. Thisonly aggravated my problem,caused my hair to drop out and myskin to become brittle. So much formodern medicine.

One weekend, I came to Delhi tovisit my mother, who saw mycondition and advised me to meetan old family friend, a somewhatirascible colonel who had retired

from the Indian Medical Service.Col. Kataria was an old fashioneddoctor, a wonderful clinician whofirst diagnosed a disease and onlythen gave medicine. He had onelook at me and wanted to knowwhat I had done to myself. When I

told him about the course oftreatment I had undergone heshouted that the doctors whotreated me were butchers, I didnot have any fungal infection buthad a relatively simple infectioncalled seborrhoeic dermatitis,which is simply an aggravatedform of prickly heat which affects

the sebaceous glands. He gave mea cetrimide based shampoo, alotion consisting of castor oil andlavender oil and an ointmentwhich had both menthol andsalicylic acid, which is the mainingredient of aspirin and told meto use these for one week. By thethird day the infection began to

recede and within one week I wasfully cured. The sequence to thiswas in my next Sub division,Kannod. In the wild and woollyBagli Tehsil of the Subdivision we

I

*Dr M N Buch - Visiting Fellow, VIF


36/63


had a doctor in charge of theprimary health centre, called Dr.Joseph, who hailed from Kerala.When I told him my story he said

that if I wanted to avoid any skininfection in the future I shouldprepare a decoction by boiling ahandful of neem leaves, add a mugfull to a bucket of water and bathewith it. I followed his advice and,touch wood, have never had a skinproblem. I bless Dr. Kataria andDr. Joseph for

curing me withremedies whichwere virtuallyherbal.Unfortunately,they could notrestore the hair Ihad lost, thanks tothe doctors at

Gwalior.One can wonderwhy I am tellingstories about myself and referringto grandmas recipes in an articleaimed at addressing the extremelyimportant issue of governance.Well, sometimes parables andfables convey a far more seriousmessage than scholarly studiesand long orations based ontheories of politics and thephilosophy of government. Inother words, in the field ofgovernment there is room for

grandmas remedies, or tried andtested methods of administration.This paper attempts to explorethese old, reliable systems to see

whether we can find solutions forthe myriad problems ofgovernance we are facing.

It is the objective of everygovernment to govern, that is, tocontrol and direct the affairs of thecountry and for this purpose todeliver to the people that which

would promotetheir welfare. Eventhe worst ofdictators has notdisagreed with thisdefinition of

governmentbecause I have yetto come across adictator who statesthat he does notdesire the welfareof the people. The

difference between goodgovernment and bad governmentis a differential view of whatconstitutes welfare, but on paperat least the objective is to makethe country strong, to give peoplepride, to make people prosperous.When Hitler destroyed theWeimar Republic, this is preciselythe agenda he placed before theGerman people and won theirconfidence adequately to win an

It is the objective of everygovernment to govern, that is,to control and direct the affairsof the country and for thispurpose to deliver to the peoplethat which would promotetheir welfare. Even the worstof dictators has not disagreedwith this definition ofgovernment because I have yetto come across a dictator whostates that he does not desirethe welfare of the people.


37/63


election and come to power. Whatfollowed is perhaps the mostunimaginable of horror stories inthe history of the world, but the

stated objective still remained thegood of the people.

Let us return to India and see thesituation here. I refer to the periodfrom when the British took controlof this country right up to thepresent day, when we became anindependent, democratic republic.British rule (I refer here to thepost 1857 direct rule of the BritishGovernment) was based on anunderstanding that India was asociety of laws. British rule wasdesigned to perpetuate, imperialpower in India, but the manner ofgovernance was law based and notarbitrary. Therefore, even duringthe independence movement, theBritish were responsible formaintaining the empire, butalways through laws, theenforcement of which also wasaccording to law. Unlike theGestapo and the Kampetai, thepolice did not have the power ofarbitrary arrest and arbitrarysentencing. The police could nothold anyone in custody for morethan twenty-four hours withoutproducing him before a Magistrateand the power for dispensing

justice lay with Magistrates,Judges and the High Courts and

Federal Court, which were notsubordinate to the Executive fromthe sessions court level upwards.The Magistracy and the Police had

the same powers then as theyhave today under the Police Actand the Code of CriminalProcedure in the maintenance ofpublic order and the prevention ofoffences. The Thanedar andTehsildar of British days virtuallyoperated under the same laws aswe do today, but they were much

more effective in ensuring thatsociety remained orderly andcrime was controlled andprosecuted. In the matter of lawand order, every public servantknew where his duty lay andpublic disorder was dealt withsternly. No officer looked over hisshoulder to find out what was

expected of him by his official andpolitical masters. If there was asituation to be dealt with theofficer on the spot attended to thisin the full confidence that hewould be supported for his actions.This spilled over into the firsttwenty years of independence also.

Let me give a few examples.Ambah Tehsil of Morena Districthad a Tehsildar, P.N. Vats, anoutstanding officer by anyreckoning. Ambah was one of theworst dacoity affected Tehsils inthe whole of India, with many of


38/63


the gangs being created by issuesrelating to land disputes. Vatsexpedited hearing of revenuecases, he was a virtual scourge for

his Patwaris if they failed in theirduty to maintain land recordsproperly and he was extremely proactive in dealing with any case inwhich land was a bone ofcontention. He not only broughtdown pendency of litigation; hisactivist role actually broughtpeace to the Tehsil and drastically

reduced the incidence of dacoity.He did not wait for orders from hisCollector and he certainly did notheed or tolerate any unduepolitical interference in his work.What he wanted was to beeffective as an officer and providegood government to Ambah.

The second case is of InspectorBitta Singh, who was CircleInspector at Sheopur, then a sub-division of Morena. An extremelyugly dispute broke out over atemple and a mosque and theHindu Mahasabha was up in armsagainst the Muslims. Thesituation was extremely volatileand could have resulted in a majorcommunal riot, which would havespread to the entire region. Thisoutstanding police officer, withoutwaiting for orders from anyone,immediately intervened, arrestedthose who were trying to foment

trouble, launched aggressivepatrolling by the police andcreated an environment in whichwrongdoers trembled, peace was

maintained and there was nocommunal riot. The DistrictMagistrate and theSuperintendent of Police alsoplayed their role by fullysupporting the man on the spot,with the administration at thesub-division level achievingsomething which today several

battalions of armed police areunable to do.

The third case is of Sub-InspectorMaluk Singh, who was the StationOfficer of the police station atNagda. Nagda has a largeindustrial establishment based onGRASIM. There was trade unionmilitancy which, unfortunately,was fragmented. Suddenly troubleflared up and before the districtadministration could be fullyaware of what was going on thesituation became really incendiaryin Nagda. Maluk Singh did nothave a large force available to himbut he suddenly grew ten feet talland by legal action, threat,persuasion and every other meanswhich lay within law he was ableto bring warring factions together,put the fear of God into them,force the management andworkers to sit together for a


39/63


negotiated settlement and heachieved within two days whattoday massive governmentintervention cannot do. Peace was

maintained at Nagda because ofthe initiative of this fine youngpolice officer. I am mentioningthese three cases because I amwitness to what happened both inMorena and in Ujjain, in theformer as Assistant Collectorunder training and in the latter asCollector and

DistrictMagistrate. If theman on the spot istrusted and isempowered to act,there is nosituation in Indiawhich cannot betackled.

There beingcontinuity betweenthe Government ofIndia Act 1935 and theConstitution of India, the only realchange which has come aboutbetween how the British governedus and how we govern ourselves isthat under Government of India

Act we were a limited democracywhereas under the IndianConstitution we are a fullydemocratic republic. In ademocracy it is not thebureaucracy which rules but

rather the elected representativesof the people who, as members ofthe Council of Ministers, take thepolicy decisions relating to

government. Nevertheless wecontinue the old system where theHead of State exercises executivepower through officers subordinateto him, the said powers beingexercised on the aid and advice ofthe Council of Ministers. This,however, does not in any way

change the old

position aboutIndia being acountry of laws, inwhich the laws areframed by thelegislators but are

implemented,within the policyapproved by the

Council ofMinisters, byofficers appointedby the President or

the Governor as the case may be.The law vests certain powers inofficers and these officers arerequired to exercise their powersfreely, fairly, without interferenceand in accordance with the law.For example, Chapter X of Cr.P.Cauthorises an ExecutiveMagistrate or a police officer tocommand an unlawful assembly todisperse and on its failure to do so,to take such necessary action to

There being continuitybetween the Government ofIndia Act 1935 and theConstitution of India, the onlyreal change which has comeabout between how the Britishgoverned us and how wegovern ourselves is that underGovernment of India Act wewere a limited democracywhereas under the Indian

Constitution we are a fullydemocratic republic.


40/63


disperse it as may be called for,including the use of force, evenlethal force. The Code of CriminalProcedure does not say that in

exercising this power theExecutive Magistrate or the policeofficer will seek the permission ofa politician, a superior officer, orany other authority. He has thepower, he is required to maintainorder; he must ensure that there ispublic peace and, therefore, he isboth free and duty

bound to take allnecessary action tomaintain order.

How does thesystem actuallywork? In Bombaythe Shiv Senadecides what islawful and what isunlawful and thepolice stationstands by as aspectator. Everyriot is an offence and every mobwhich indulges in rioting is anunlawful assembly. Whencommunal violence occurs why dopolice officers not take action asthey are authorised to do by theCode of Criminal Procedure? It isnot for want of legal authority butrather because the exercise oflegal authority is now almost outof fashion. Every police officer,

every magistrate knows that if hedoes take action he will notnecessarily be supported, the presswill probably come out with a

biased view and political pressurewill result in action against theofficer rather than support forhim. Therefore, Magistrates andpolice officer just do not actbecause in India acts of omissionare still not really punished. It isnow very rare to find a Bitta Singh

or a Maluk Singh.

Instead one findsofficers of the typewho now man theMaharashtra Policeand allow ShivSainiks to disruptpeace, but will notdo their duty toprevent this in the

interest of thecitizen at large.

Law and order isonly one aspect of

government and at the top end ofthe administrative pyramid wehave the Council of Ministers andthe Secretaries to Governmentwho are required to take decisionswithin the overall umbrella of theRules of Business of the ExecutiveGovernment. In Madhya Pradesh,for example, there are theBusiness Allocation Rules whichallocate business between

The Code of Criminal

Procedure does not say that inexercising this power theExecutive Magistrate or thepolice officer will seek thepermission of a politician, asuperior officer, or any otherauthority. He has the power,he is required to maintainorder; he must ensure thatthere is public peace and,therefore, he is both free andduty bound to take allnecessary action to maintainorder.


41/63


different departments and thenthere are the Rules of Business ofthe Executive Governmentwhereby the Governor ordains

how the business of governmentwill be conducted. For example, inMadhya Pradesh, there are threecategories of cases: those caseswhich are to be brought before theCouncil of Ministers, those casesin which before final orders areissued by a department the matterwill be submitted in coordination

to the Chief Minister, and thosecases which a department iscompetent to finally dispose of.Under Part V of the Rules ofBusiness there is a procedure laiddown whereby a Secretary or aMinister may dispose of a case. ASecretary is permitted to disposeof every case which is of a routine

nature, or on which the question ofpolicy has already been settled, asalso of matters which the ChiefMinister or the Minister in chargedirect the Secretary to finallydecide. In other words, in a matterin which there is no issue of policyinvolved, the Secretaries are fullyempowered to dispose of the case.Unfortunately no Secretary nowexercises this power and insteadeven minor, routine matters areput up before the Minister.

Administratively, therefore, thereis a form of paralysis in the higherechelons. As was amply proved in

the 2G Spectrum allocation caseand as is provided by Rule 48 ofthe Rules of Business of MadhyaPradesh, the Secretary of the

Department is personallyresponsible for careful observanceof the rules. This means that ifthere is a material departure fromrules by anyone, including theMinister, the Secretary to theGovernment is responsible toensure that the matter is broughtto the notice of the Minister

concerned and, where necessary,to submit the case in coordinationso that the Prime Minister or theChief Minister may be madeaware of the deviation and givenecessary instructions on the finaldisposal of the case. The questionis, how many Secretaries doactually dispose of cases finally

and how many Secretaries havethe guts to put up a case inCoordination because the Ministerand the Secretary do not agree onhow other matter should bedecided.

There is corruption. Corruption isa criminal offence and under theCode of Criminal Procedure,criminal offences shall beinvestigated by the police. Undersection 154, the citizen is requiredto report the alleged commission ofan offence to the police, which isrequired to treat this as the First


42/63


Information about the crime andto record it in the speciallyprescribed FIR book. Once the FIRis recorded, then under section 156

Cr.P.C. the officer in charge of apolice station is bound toinvestigate the case and to do thishe neither needs permission nor isauthorised to abjure investigation.The wording of section 154 andother provisions of Chapter XIIare very clear. The police officer isbound to record a FIR, he is bound

to investigate an offence, hisinvestigation cannot be interferedby any authority, he must submita challan to the court if there is aprima facie case and if no primafacie case is made out he is boundto report the matter to the courtand obtain permission to close thecase. For this, he does not need

anyones permission, nor cananyone either force him toinvestigate or refrain frominvestigating fully or in part. Hereis the ultimate grandmas remedy,contained in the Police Act whichdates back to 1861 and the Code ofCriminal Procedure which is onlya modification of the Code of 1898.The power of the police toinvestigate is the same in 2012 asit was in 1898. Why, then, do wekeep receiving complaints that thepolice does not act?

The most notorious police force inIndia is the CBI, which legally hasno existence and whose legalavatar is the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (DSPE). This forceis notorious for a

Documents

Vivek Issues n Options December 2012