Modi never ceases to marvel

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

There were no hysterical crowds of Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) chanting slogans and there was no display of histrionics but Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visits to three countries in as many days last week were probably the most productive of the many travels he has undertaken since assuming office 19 months ago. In each country he did or said something to marvel at.

When he set out from New Delhi, only two countries were on the published itinerary: Russia, where he was to meet President Vladimir Putin for the customary bilateral summit, and Afghanistan where he was to open a parliament building, which was India’s gift to that country.

Before leaving the Afghan capital Modi tweeted that on the way back home he would stop at Lahore, Pakistan, to meet Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who was celebrating his birthday.

Media reports said when he called Sharif to convey birthday greetings, the latter suggested that he stop over at Lahore and he agreed. However, some analysts believe back channel diplomacy played a part in the development. An Indian businessman who had facilitated a meeting between them when they were both in Kathmandu for the SAARC summit was said to be in Lahore too.

Travelling frequently to promote India’s political and economic interests, Modi has earned a reputation as a globetrotter and invited barbs like “NRI prime minister” and “Salesman-in-Chief”. His domestic and foreign travels are usually plotted in great detail and official and non-official agencies are pressed into service to make sure that everything goes on as planned. Extensive media coverage guarantees political dividends.

Ridiculing Modi’s frequent travels, Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi recently said uncharitably, “We don’t know where he goes. Maybe he is travelling so much because earlier he was banned and now he has got the freedom to visit foreign countries.”

However, a study by Sanjay Pulipaka of the Indian Council for Research on International Relations shows that Modi is not as great a traveller as friends and foes imagine. In his first year as Prime Minister he visited 18 countries, which was below the average of 20.4 countries visited by heads of governments of major countries.

France’s Francois Hollande visited 27 countries during the year, Japan’s Shinzo Abe 26, Germany’s Angela Merkel and South Africa’s Jacob Zuma 22 each and Britain’s David Cameron and China’s Xi Jinping 19 each.

Modi took with him to Moscow some top industrialists. While he was there India and Russia signed 16 agreements covering vital areas like defence and energy.

One of the agreements provides for joint manufacture of military helicopters. It enlarges the area of military cooperation between the two countries which are already jointly producing ship-based supersonic Brahmos missiles.

Putin indicated they would soon work together on a multi-role jet fighter and transport aircraft too.

India and Russia developed a close relationship during the time of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Soviet Prime Minister Nikita Khrushchev. It gradually evolved into a strategic partnership and was later elevated to the level of “special and privileged strategic partnership” in recognition of their multifaceted bilateral engagement.

Talking to the Russian agency Tass ahead of the visit, Modi traced the origin of Indo-Russian relations to the 17th century when Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich sent an emissary to the court of Moghul emperor Shah Jahan and Russian merchant Afanasy Nikitin toured India.

Modi, who is pursuing India’s nuclear energy programme vigorously, may be pleased with the agreement under which Russia will build 12 atomic plants with the involvement of Indian companies. However, there is strong popular resistance to the expansion of nuclear facilities.

Modi’s visit has set the stage for expansion of Indo-Russian relations. Before leaving Moscow, he said, “India and Russia represent two faces of a multipolar world. We want to work with Russia not just for our bilateral interests but also for a peaceful, stable and sustainable world.

The opening of the parliament building in Kabul underscored India’s abiding interest in the future of war-torn Afghanistan.

It is no secret that Indian and Pakistani interests in Afghanistan are at variance. Some analysts have pointed out that by flying directly from Kabul to Nawaz Sherif’s hometown Lahore to personally greet him on his birthday he has helped to remove Pakistani misgivings about India’s Afghan policy.

India-Pakistan relations are once again warming up. There is no indication how the Pakistan army, which reputedly looks over Sherif’s shoulders, and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Singh, which looks over Modi’s, view the two Prime Ministers’ attempt to fast-forward the political process. - Gulf Today, Sharjah, December 29, 2015

Election season in South Asia

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

South Asia, home to one-fifth of the world’s population and half of the world’s poor, is experiencing the springtime of democratic elections. However, there is a long way to go to ensure that the exercise is genuine.

The region comprises eight countries. Among them are three of the five most populous countries of the world. Their progress along the democratic path, after many flip-flops, offers hope for the future of the region, which has witnessed much instability in the post-World War II period.

Pakistan, the second largest country of the region after India, and Bhutan, the tiny Himalayan kingdom, held parliamentary elections during the past few weeks. There was smooth and peaceful transfer of power from one party to another in both the countries.

The Pakistan People’s Party, which had won the first elections held after the downfall of Pervez Musharraf, was roundly defeated by the Pakistan Muslim League (N), and its leader, Nawaz Sharif, became the prime minister. The election of the new president is scheduled for next month.

According to Michael Gahler, who headed the European Union’s team of observers, the elections were not free and fair. The Election Commission did not fulfil its responsibilities honestly, he said. Asad Ismi, correspondent of CCPA Monitor, journal of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, described the elections as a political disaster.

Ismi pointed out that the PPP, the Awami National Party of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, and the Muttahida Quami Movement of Karachi could not campaign because of the massive violence directed against them by the Pakistani Taliban, resulting in the death of more than 100 people, including several candidates. He added, “The Pakistani Taliban is part of the terrorist network created by the army, which helps it inflict horrendous violence on the country to destablise it, politically and economically, so that no strong counterforce to the army can emerge.” It did not attack Nawaz’s party.

Since his assumption of office, Nawaz Sharif has talked of the need to improve relations with India. However, few expect the army to share his enthusiasm on this score.

A British protectorate during the colonial period, Bhutan began its career as an independent nation when it became a member of the United Nations in 1971. In the first democratic elections held five years ago, Druk Phuensum Tshoogpa (meaning Peace and Prosperity Party) was voted to power. In the recent elections, the opposition People’s Democratic Party seized power, winning 32 of the 47 seats in the national assembly.

The new prime minister, Tshering Togbay, holds a master’s degree from Harvard University. Some observers believe the Indian government, which was not happy with DPT prime minister Jigme Thinley’s attempt to cosy up to China, helped the PDP by withdrawing the subsidies on kerosene and cooking gas supplies to Bhutan as the poll campaign was picking up.

In the Maldives, Mohammed Nasheed filed nomination papers last week for the presidential elections to be held in September. He had been elected president in the multiparty elections of 2008. Early last year his vice-president, Mohammed Waheed, ousted him in a coup with help from supporters of former leader Maumoon Abdul Qayoom and elements of the security forces.

Ahead on the poll calendar are Nepal, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and India. Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was last re-elected in 2010, does not have to face immediate elections but provincial elections are due in that country.

The Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) came to power through democratic elections five years ago but was unable to put in position a new Constitution for the country. With the political spectrum too fragmented, the chances of a stable regime emerging appear to be slim.

With the five-year term of the Bangladesh parliament due to end in October, fresh elections have to be held before January next year. The atmosphere in the country is surcharged with a war crimes tribunal, constituted by the Awami League government of Sheikh Hasina, handing down severe punishment to several leaders of the Jamaat-e-Islami for their role in wiping out many leading intellectuals of the country on the eve of its liberation from Pakistan. Early this year 18 opposition parties led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party had brought the country to a halt with a 30-day general strike.

Even more problematic is the transition in Afghanistan, from where US troops are due to pull out next year. A few days ago President Hamid Karzai signed a new law for the conduct of presidential and provincial elections.

The South Asian election scene certainly is not picture perfect but then the fact that the countries are able to move towards multiparty elections is a hopeful sign. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, July 23, 2013.

Afghanistan forcing a rethink

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

Hectic multilateral consultations on Afghanistan are under way in advance of the scheduled withdrawal of American forces, and there are indications that at least some of the players are ready to revise their past approach.

The US pullout, due to begin this year, is expected to be completed by the end of next year.

Indian and Chinese officials are due to meet in Beijing this week to discuss the post-2014 Afghan scenario. This is the first official-level meeting between the two countries on Afghanistan.

The two countries have been holding regular consultations on Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa for some time. However, when China proposed a South Asia dialogue, India baulked, since it did not want to be drawn into discussions on issues such as Kashmir and Tibet.

China explained that it was keen to discuss Afghanistan, where it has investments of more than $3 billion as against India’s $2 billion.  Accordingly, the dialogue theme was narrowed down and talks were scheduled.

China’s concern over Afghanistan’s future is deep. It is in conversation with all those who have a stake in the region. It has been in talks with the United States on the subject. In February, it held trilateral discussions with Russia and India in Moscow. This was followed by another trilateral, this time with Russia and Pakistan, in Beijing.

The only two countries which are not having direct discussions on Afghanistan are India and Pakistan, its immediate neighbours who hold different perspectives. Former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran said recently that India had offered to work with Pakistan on projects in Afghanistan but there was no response.  

Given the history of discord and distrust between the two countries, Islamabad’s approach is understandable. Pakistan’s involvement with the Taliban and India’s assistance to the Northern Alliance against Islamic militants in that country are factors with the potential to draw them into the whirlpool of faction fights in Afghanistan.

There is a tendency in both India and Pakistan to view Afghan developments in the limited context of their own prickly bilateral relations. Pakistani fears were stoked when former Defence Secretary Leon Panetta talked of a new US defence policy which hinges upon a strategy which recognises that India has to play a vital role in Afghanistan to ensure peace and stability in the region. His successor Chuck Hagel’s 2011 speech, a recording of which gained much attention recently, has given the Pakistani establishment some comfort. In that speech he said India has always used Afghanistan as a second front against Pakistan.

Afghanistan is important to China from the standpoint of energy security. The China National Petroleum Company is due to begin oil extraction from its wells in the northern part of the country next month. It was the first foreign company to sign an oil contract with Iraq after the war in the country. US analysts believe China will likewise step into Afghanistan to pick up contracts as soon as the Western forces are out. It has already indicated interest in laying gas pipelines from Turkmenistan and Tajikistan through Afghanistan.

China’s interest in Afghanistan is not limited to economic factors. It is very concerned over the possibility of spillover of Islamist terrorism into its Muslim-majority Xinjiang region, which is already experiencing ethnic unrest.

Writing in the government paper Global Times, Zhang Jiadong, associate professor at the Center for American Studies, Fudan University, recently envisaged a situation where China, like the former Soviet Union and the US, may get trapped in Afghanistan. “If China does not intervene, Afghanistan will fall into chaos again and endanger China’s security,” he said, “but if China intervenes China’s interests will be damaged as it gets bogged down in the mountains.”

To avoid the trap, he wanted China to seize the initiative in Afghan affairs. Specifically, he suggested that China should enlist the cooperation of the former occupation forces as well as Afghanistan’s neighbours and bring that country into platforms of regional cooperation.

China’s severest test in Afghanistan may come from Pakistan which is not ready to distance itself from the Afghan Taliban, whose leaders are on its territory. Pakistan did not heed US pleas to allow them to hold talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to reach an internal settlement. The US dealt with the problem posed by ally Pakistan by exercising military options like drone strikes on Taliban sanctuaries. China may have to deal with this ally without being able to exercise such options. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, April 16, 2013.

Looking beyond wars

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

The European countries which fought one another off and on for close to 1,000 years have been at peace with themselves for two generations and the political and economic union they forged two decades ago is rewriting the continent’s history. The threat of a catastrophic third World War, which was widely talked about after the second one, has receded, hopefully never to return. But the possibility of war is still a topic of discussion in India and its neighbourhood.

Half a century after India and China fought a short war — the only one in their history of 5,000 years — so-called think tanks and defence analysts in the two countries periodically speculate on a possible new military confrontation as the border dispute which precipitated the 1961 conflict remains unresolved even after many rounds of discussions.

Pundits presume China’s growing assertiveness in the wake of its emergence as a global power and its perceived rivalry with India, which is on the same developmental track, are factors that may lead to fresh conflicts, if only on a limited basis. The Chinese leadership’s assertion that there is room for both the countries to develop has not made an impression on their minds attuned to conventional wisdom.

India and Pakistan fought three wars in 25 years as independent nations but there has been no resort to arms in the 40 years since then, barring a brief confrontation on the icy heights of Siachen in 1999. Last week, writing in a Pakistani daily, a former army brigadier spoke of a likely Indian attack on Pakistan, coinciding with an Israeli attack on Iran. He also envisaged India seeking US support to “de-nuke, balkanise and de-Islamise Pakistan” before its planned pullout from Afghanistan.

Reports from the US indicate that forebodings about India-Pakistan relations prevail in official and academic circles in that country. James Miller, who is seeking confirmation as Undersecretary for Defence, told a Congressional committee last week that Pakistani military and intelligence services’ support to militants targeting India “has the potential to result in military confrontation that could rapidly escalate into a nuclear exchange.”

Daniel Markey, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, writing at the CFR website said another Mumbai-type terrorist attack could lead India and Pakistan to the brink of war and require the US president to play an important mediating role.

Frank Panter, a high-ranking Pentagon official, was quoted as saying the US might have to develop an alternative route with India’s help if Pakistan refused to reopen the Nato supply routes to Afghanistan which it had closed four months ago in protest against bombing raids on targets in its territory.

Since Afghanistan emerged as a trouble spot following the Soviet invasion of 1979 India and Pakistan have been invariably on opposite sides. India now works closely with the US to ensure that country’s post-war stability but it will be a folly to ignore the vital differences in their strategic interests in the region.

With the Kashmir dispute in the limbo and Pakistan-based terrorist groups remaining a source of worry to India, there is indeed plenty of room for wild speculation. However, those looking beyond short-term possibilities can see signs of a change for the better in India-Pakistan relations with economic factors moderating political sentiments.

Of particular significance in this regard are India’s offer to provide Pakistan 5,000 megawatts of power and to supply petrol across the border and the Pakistan government’s determination to go forward with its proposal to grant India most favoured nation status. Pakistan’s business community, which views grant of MFN status with disfavour, has welcomed the offer to provide power as a harbinger of better relations between the two countries.

In the early years of Independence, India was Pakistan’s largest trading partner, accounting for half of its exports and nearly one-third of its imports. Adverse political and economic conditions kept pushing bilateral trade down over the years.

Official and academic studies in Pakistan have shown that gains from increased trade with India will far outweigh the losses. Indian official and commercial interests have recognised that, as South Asia’s second largest market, Pakistan has to be accorded its due place in the economy of the region. However, given the ground realities, the development of healthy economic relations must necessarily be a slow process.-- Gulf Today, Sharjah, April 3, 2012.

Bid to enter Shanghai Group

BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today

With India, Pakistan and Afghanistan lining up for membership, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a common platform of China, Russia and four Central Asian republics, is set to emerge as a regional body with increased clout.

Established in 2001, SCO member-states now cover a contiguous area of more than 30 million square kilometres spread over Asia and Europe with a population of nearly 1.5 billion. The South Asian countries’ entry will raise the area and double the population.

However, it is not area and population that will make the enlarged SCO a powerful institution but the region’s strategic significance. It will be a regional forum without the participation of any western nation, including the United States.

The tenth annual SCO summit, held at Astana, capital of Kazakhstan, last week laid down the norms for membership and negotiations for admission of India, Pakistan, Iran and Mongolia, all of whom are now observers. Iran’s entry has to wait as the SCO charter does not permit admission of a state facing United Nations sanctions.

There is no knowing how long the negotiation process will last but India is hoping the enlarged SCO will be in place before 2014, the deadline set for withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan. The SCO is already playing a constructive role in that war-ravaged country and the inclusion of India and Pakistan will enhance its ability to ensure the country’s stability.

The Astana declaration, issued at the end of the summit, envisages a neutral Afghanistan. It was the erstwhile Soviet Union’s violation of its neutrality, which had been respected by the Tsar of Russia and the British rulers of the Indian subcontinent, that landed the landlocked country into the mess in which it is today.

Significantly, it points out that the Afghan problem cannot be solved through military measures alone and demands that attention be paid to social and economic issues, particularly reconstruction of transportation and social infrastructure.

Formal assertion of the principle of Afghanistan’s neutrality by the group, which includes both Russia and China, is significant in the context of reported US attempts to establish military bases there under cover of a defence shield before the planned pullout. It needs to be endorsed by Pakistan and India.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who attended the summit, asked the US to respect the country’s sovereignty. With civilian casualties in western air strikes on rebel forces on the rise, he has lately been talking of the risk of allies turning into an occupation force.

Condemning the US missile defence programme for the region, the Astana declaration says one-sided and unlimited development of such systems by one state or a small band of states can damage strategic stability and international security.

Western alarm over these formulations was reflected in media reports which projected the enlarged SCO as a rival to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which serves as an arm of the US. There have also been suggestions that the group is seeking dismantlement of the western bases in Central Asia and establishment of a security system without US participation.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who was at the summit, did call for a security alliance of former Soviet republics and China against the west. However, there were no takers.

China dismissed western media reports as reflective of the mindset of the United States, which does not want anyone to challenge its position as the world’s policeman. Writing in the Communist Party newspaper, a commentator stated that the SCO charter casts no obligation on member-states to provide military assistance to one another.

However, the charter does not preclude military co-operation. The group’s proclaimed objectives include fighting the triple evils of terrorism, regional separatism and religious extremism. Since its inception 10 years ago the SCO has conducted as many joint exercises to fight terrorism, drug traffic and organised crime. Lately it has also turned attention to areas such as checking money laundering and ensuring security of major international activities.

India’s desire for full membership of the SCO stems from the hope that it can benefit from the group’s anti-terrorist programme. Such sentiments may be there in sections of the Pakistani establishment too. However, given the character of the terror groups operating in the two countries, there are limits to the benefit that can flow from it.

But there are economic and political dividends to look forward to. The SCO plans to become a free-trade area by 2020. By that time the movement towards a multipolar world may have also gained momentum. --Gulf Today, Sharjah, June 20, 2011.

Lessons from the subcontinent’s history

B.R.P.BHASKAR

Ask Indian newspaper readers or television viewers what was the biggest event of 2008, and most of them will mention 26/11. So strong is the impact that the Mumbai terror attack of November 26 made on the Indian mind. It was no doubt a decisive event. In South Asia, there were other equally decisive events, too, last year. The throwing out of the military regime in Pakistan through a popular movement was one such. The elections held in that country yielded a government, which, though weak, has a democratic character. In Bangladesh, too, there was change of regime through elections. Also last year, the President of the Maldives, who had survived some coup attempts, stepped down following electoral defeat. In Nepal, the Maoists who were leading an armed insurrection participated in elections, emerged as the largest single party in the country and came forward to head a coalition government. Sri Lanka, like India, has kept alive the electoral process even in adverse circumstances. In the armed struggle that the Tamils of the island nation, who suffer from a sense of injustice, have been waging since long, the government gained the upper hand for the first time. In short, democracy never had it so good in South Asia.

How fast the scene changed! Within three months of the new year, the regimes in Pakistan and Bangladesh faced severe challenges. Taliban fighters from Afghanistan established themselves in Pakistan’s northwestern border. The Pakistan government was forced to sign an agreement which allowed them to enforce the Sharia law in the Swat valley. This development and the daring extremist attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore raised concern over the country’s future. The possibility of the army or the extremists seizing power in the country cannot be ruled out. The revolt by paramilitary forces in Bangladesh, which resulted in the massacre of many officers and their families, points to the possibility of that country slipping into anarchy. Here, we may also take note of the fact that left extremist movements are posing a strong challenge to established authority in some Indian states.

To understand the gravity of the problems that India and its neighbours face, we have to take into account certain geographical and historical facts.

These are the opening lines of an article which looks at the South Asian experience of sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.

To read the article in full, please click on "Sowing the Wind and Reaping the Whirlwind”

Pakistan’s future at stake: must find own solution to Taliban problem

HAMID MIR
Commentary
New America Media

Editor's Note: Anti-Taliban sentiments are growing in Pakistan, but this doesn't necessarily push the country into the arms of the United States. Most Pakistanis view the United States as an even bigger threat, writes NAM contributor Hamid Mir. Mir is the only journalist to have interviewed Osama bin Laden before and after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He is a terrorism expert and security analyst based in Pakistan.

The leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan met with Presudent Barack Obama in Washington, D.C., this week. The three agreed to come up with a joint strategy against the Taliban and al Qaeda. But there is still a major problem.

The majority of Pakistanis does not see Washington as part of the solution. In fact, many Pakistani newspapers, TV channels and political pundits view Washington as part of the problem. They think that the growing militancy in Pakistan is a result of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

U.S. military advisor David Kilcullen admitted that drone attacks have killed about 700 Pakistani civilians and only 14 terrorists. The killing of innocent civilians has infuriated Pakistanis. Many believe that the United States only wants to use Pakistan as a safe supply route for NATO forces in Afghanistan and that it will abandon Pakistan after completing its mission in Afghanistan.

Pakistanis view the United States as an even bigger threat than the Taliban because they fear that the Americans are after their nuclear program. Only the United States, they reason, could conspire to take control of Pakistani nuclear weapons with the help of India and Israel.

Like Americans, Pakistanis want to defeat the Taliban. But they also want to be rid of U.S. influence. After all, U.S. forces have been present in Afghanistan for the last eight years, and there is no peace there.

Pakistan is increasingly looking to Saudi Arabia and Iran as examples of countries that have been more successful at defeating terrorism. Presidents Asif Ali Zardari and Hamid Karzai of Pakistan and Afghanistan, respectively, will meet with Iranian Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinijad in Tehran on May 19 to learn from Iran’s experience of combating terrorism.

The grand cleric of Al-Haram Mosque in Makkah, the most populous province of Saudi Arabia, also plans to visit religious leaders and scholars in Pakistan to declare that suicide bombing is not permitted in Islam. His statement, no doubt, will be more helpful in reducing terrorism than the U.S. dollars that have been pouring into the country.

Meanwhile, anti-Taliban sentiments continue to grow in Pakistan. The peace agreement in Swat province between the Pakistani government and pro-Taliban cleric Sufi Muhammad three months ago did not last. The Taliban sabotaged the agreement by kidnapping police officials in the Buner area.

About 600 schools and colleges were closed in Swat three months ago due to conflict between local Taliban and security forces. More than 200 schools were destroyed in the fighting.

In an unprecedented protest, residents of Swat and Buner called on Pakistani forces to take action – and more than a week ago, Pakistan responded with military force against the Taliban.

Thousands of residents of Swat and Buner are migrating to safer places. The fundamentalist group is now finding itself in a panic because the locals are not ready to become their “human shields” in the name of Islam. This is the first defeat for the Taliban.

This time, the majority of locals are not blaming security forces or the government for their problems. They are blaming the Taliban.

This is also the first time since 9/11 that all of the political parties in Pakistan have condemned the group. Indeed, it’s an opportunity to transform a broad-based political consensus into a national counter-terrorism policy.

It is time for Pakistani Pres. Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Gilani to call for a national conference on security. They should invite all of the political leaders and other stakeholders and come to a consensus to override their political differences and to defeat terrorism.

The future of Pakistan is at stake.