by Jiwan Kshetry
Delhi poll results that handed down a heavy symbolic defeat to PM Modi's party have proved that 'Modi wave' in Indian politics was really a wave that can rise to dizzying heights so long as appropriate momentum is there but has an inevitable tendency to come down the moment the momentum is lost. The future of electoral politics in India is no longer as predictable as we thought till now.
"Modi will have to be a boatman: one oar must focus on the economy and the other must concentrate on the Hindu agenda."
These were the prophetic words of one Sakshi Maharaj a powerful priest-turned-politician as told to the Reuters reporters in India recently.
Indeed. That statement was a veiled threat by the man to Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, that if he backtracks in his promise to further the rather divisive Hindutva agenda in India, a backlash from the conservative constituency formed by powerful Sadhus like himself was inevitable. On articulating the dilemma of Modi--who came to power by striking a delicate balance between the development and Hindutva agenda--as a helmsman of India, though, he was succinct.
To illustrate what would happen if Modi abandoned the Hindutva agenda by solely focusing on development, Sakshi reportedly told that Modi's imaginary boat will spin on circles, like a boat propelled by one oar on one side.
On Tuesday, suddenly the weakness of the Modi government in India was exposed: despite the glittering and stupendously costly campaign showcasing the achievements and potential achievements under Modi, his party was decimated in the provincial elections in Delhi by a newcomer party which has existed for only few years.
As it appears, it is perfectly possible that the Modi government may be susceptible to spinning in circles if not already doing so.
As the results in Delhi show, however, Sakshi may have been only partially true. As the marriage of convenience between neo-liberalism and hardline Hindutva shows signs of strains the oar rowing the Hindutva agenda seems to be overplaying its role giving rise to the spin.
From forced conversions infuriating the minority communities in the country to the thugs of RSS (Rastriya Swayamsewak Sangh, the parent organization of Modi's party BJP) posing as moral police out to 'teach discipline to the young' alienating the young middle class, the heavy-handed approach of the extremist elements in Modi's power base seems to be badly backfiring. People in Delhi have repudiated BJP for precisely same excesses which Sakshi saw as the lukewarm responses from Modi fixated too much on the development agenda.
With this the prolonged honeymoon period of the Modi-led government in India is now effectively over and there will be no other yardstick other than performance in the form of good governance and speedy development to measure his success or failure and his political survival will depend on the measure of that success.
It would be, however, entirely wrong to conclude from these results that the immediate political future of Modi and his right-wing party is in jeopardy, for the rout of the party in the national capital is more symbolic than real when it comes to national politics. Also, Narendra Modi is a seasoned political player in political arena and it is too early to rule out a comeback in near future.
But the most significant fallout of the poll results in Delhi is this: Modi, along with his handpicked president of the BJP, Amit Shah, is no longer forms the infallible or invincible pair when it comes to electoral politics.
That is, in fact, a situation dreaded the most by Modi because his entire political career has been defined by his ability to keep his winning momentum despite all the odds.
Not every of his three successive victories as the Chief Minister of Gujarat state was a cakewalk and there were credible threats to his leadership there also. But every time, he handled the challenges so deftly playing at his own strength and the rival's weaknesses that a resounding victory was achieved.
Citing the diversity and unpredictability of the voters' behavior in a country as diverse as India, many analysts including this columnist were skeptical of his ability to repeat the history in general elections last year. He proved all of us wrong and confidently rode to power in Delhi amid a historic verdict in favor of his rightist party.
Now the record of Modi-Shah duo winning any elections they fought or oversaw lies in tatters much to the chagrin of religious right in India which has dreamed to rule India for decades to come.
For the uninitiated, Amit Shah was minister in Modi-led state government in Gujarat after 2002 and served there for a nearly a decade holding upto twelve portfolios at a time including the important home ministry and was alleged of orchestrating some of the worst human right violations in Gujarat including the infamous fake encounters. His acquittal from murder charges by a special court recently has raised many eyebrows in India and many fear the era of pervasive impunity if his acquittal sets a precedent for similar cases.
Coming to the Delhi poll verdict again, this has proved that the 'Modi wave' in Indian politics was really a wave that can rise to dizzying heights so long as appropriate momentum is there but has an inevitable tendency to come down the moment his brand of politics loses its vigor. Modi has a long way to go before he finds a political plank more sustainable than the marriage of convenience between neo-liberalism and hard-line Hindutva ideology.
Immediate risks for him are two fold: 1) his new-found rival Aam Admi Party is now set to develop a national footprint after a resounding victory making his party no longer the only option for voters across the country averse to leaning back to Congress, the BJP's fallen foe in national politics, and 2) battle for the general elections in 2019 will prove much tougher than those in 2014 to win.
A barely noticed political formation in world's most populous democracy has just illustrated how powerful the thrust of democracy is.
Jiwan Kshetry is Kathmandu-based blogger and freelance writer who writes regularly for his blog South Asia and Beyond and keeps an exclusive South Asia blog at South Asia Scholar.
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Friday, February 13, 2015
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Russia-India-China: The Bush curse
Moscow is trying to draw India and China closer to put out the flames now flaring across the continent, from the Caucasus and Central Asia, to Iran and Pakistan, notes Eric Walberg
United States President Barack Obama has shown a flicker of independence in shaping US Eurasian politics. To secure transit routes through Russia to Afghanistan, he loudly proclaimed the end to US missile base plans for Poland and the Czech Republic, and downplayed any further NATO expansion in Russia’s backyard. He resisted jumping on the Gates-Clinton-McChrystal escalation bandwagon, insisting that it would be counterproductive to blindly back the thoroughly discredited Karzai, and hinting that negotiations with the Taliban and Iran could mean an about-face on the Bush strategy of total war in the region.
Obama’s strategy is now described as focussed on securing the main cities in Afghanistan, while abandoning most of the country to the Taliban. This can only be a holding measure while attempts are made to lure moderate elements in the Taliban away from their comrades to join the Karzai clique. In talks with former Taliban foreign minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil brokered by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, US negotiators supposedly offered governorship of six provinces in the south and northeast, a senior Afghan Foreign Ministry official told IslamOnline.net – if they accept the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan and eight US bases.
But the latest is he will bow to McChrystal’s demand for up to 40,000 more troops, US drone attacks continue apace in AfPak with his blessing, and the US is urging Pakistan on in its civil war against its frontier provinces of Baluchistan and Waziristan, pouring in massive military aid.
And missile and other plans in Eastern Europe are proceeding apace, with or without Obama’s blessing. US officials have gone out of their way to assuage the Poles and Czechs with assurances that the bases were not really cancelled. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Ellen Tauscher recently said the command centre for the new version of anti-missile defence could be stationed in the Czech Republic.
Now Poland is asking not only for missiles, but US troops, apparently “alarmed” by military exercises conducted by the Russian army in Belarus. “We would like to see US troops stationed in Poland to serve as a shield against Russian aggression,” Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski was quoted by Interfax. “If you can still afford it, we need some strategic reassurance,” he added sarcastically. When asked to comment, a Russian Foreign Ministry official told Kommersant, “It is better to ask the World Health Organisation for an assessment of Mr Sikorski’s words.” Estonia, which has sent a hefty 10 per cent of its armed forces to Afghanistan, is also asking for US troops.
NATO assurances to Georgia and Ukraine about joining up are still a dime a dozen. Georgia’s army is being armed by the US, Israeli and Ukraine, according to Alexander Shlyakhturov, head of Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate, encouraging Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in his plans to reincorporate South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
All this can only mean that talk of real cooperation with Russia is an illusion, as is vague talk of accommodation with Iran. Obama may mean well, but the inertia of US empire is hard to stop.
Russian politicians are not blind. Nor are the Chinese. Both Russia and China refuse to accede to US fiat on Iran, and are cooperating on many fronts these days looking for ways to ease the world towards a “multipolar world”.
This is the backdrop to the 9th meeting of the Russia-India-China (RIC) trilateral meeting which took place in Bangalore in late October, attended by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Indian External Affairs Minister SM Krishna and Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. Said Lavrov after the meeting, “RIC is a group of countries that are integrally needed to mobilise regional efforts. But they are not enough. All of Afghanistan ’s neighbours are needed. The US, the main supplier of troops is needed. Iran is needed. The Central Asian countries are needed.” He politely refrained from saying that it is only because of the US invasion that the US has any role at all in the region.
As Lavrov rightly points out, it is the regional countries China, Russia, India and Iran that are the ones left to pick up the pieces in AfPak after the US finally packs its many bags. Russia has the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Russia and China have the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Even Iran has initiated its own trilateral format with Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, as MK Bhadrakumar writes in Asia Times, so far Lavrov’s efforts to fashion the three mini-superpowers into a united front on regional issues have been fruitless. Bad karma between the two most populous countries in the world lingers on; namely, the India-China frictions over borders and the Dalai Lama.
It is not only its Chinese neighbour that India can’t get along with. Deriving from its perennial distrust of anything to do with Pakistan, Delhi refuses to acknowledge the fact that the Taliban are an Afghan political reality and are part (let alone “all”) of any solution. Having drifted into the US orbit (curiously, along with its rival Pakistan), India risks being left behind, as the US-inspired war in Afghanistan continues to go nowhere, Pakistan descends into anarchy, China surges ahead, and the Russians and Chinese intensify their cooperation.
Of course, this and RIC’s inability to address Afghanistan suits the US just fine. Regional powers working together independently of the US to solve their problems would leave the US and its many SEATOs and NATOs out of the picture. Japan would like to fashion an East Asian community no longer subservient to Washington, but, according to President of the Japan Foundation Kazuo Ogoura, “It is intolerable [for Washington] to see Asians considering their relations among each other in a form that excludes the US.”
Obama is visiting Beijing and Tokyo this week. Oblivious to Asian disinterest in marching to US orders, Mark Brzezinski (son of Zbigniew) advised him in the New York Times to include in his “China List” establishing a formal mechanism among the leaders of the US, China and Pakistan – China is after all Pakistan’s oldest friend as counterweight to India. This pointedly leaves out Russia and India and ties China to US plans for the region. Good luck, Mr Obama.
Surprisingly, Moscow hasn’t given up entirely on Obama. Lavrov told Russian journalists in Bangalore, “Obama has announced a different philosophy – that of collective action, which calls for joint analysis, decision-making and implementation rather than for all others to follow Washington ’s decisions. So far inertia lingers at the implementers’ level in the US, who still follow the well-trodden track. This is a process which will take time before the president’s will is translated into the language of practical actions by his subordinates.”
However distasteful US actions are, the Russian leadership cannot risk closing the door completely on US efforts to end the war in Afghanistan, considering it was on the losing end against the Afghan resistance 20 years ago and is less than enamoured by an avowedly Islamic state there. But it is unlikely that China will join India and Pakistan as a US client state, and if India buries the hatchet with China and reconsiders its position on the Taliban, the situation for the US – and Afghanistan – could yet change dramatically. There is small reason for any of the RICs to be haunted by Bush’s curse – the US-inspired wars and subversion in their backyard.
***
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com
United States President Barack Obama has shown a flicker of independence in shaping US Eurasian politics. To secure transit routes through Russia to Afghanistan, he loudly proclaimed the end to US missile base plans for Poland and the Czech Republic, and downplayed any further NATO expansion in Russia’s backyard. He resisted jumping on the Gates-Clinton-McChrystal escalation bandwagon, insisting that it would be counterproductive to blindly back the thoroughly discredited Karzai, and hinting that negotiations with the Taliban and Iran could mean an about-face on the Bush strategy of total war in the region.
Obama’s strategy is now described as focussed on securing the main cities in Afghanistan, while abandoning most of the country to the Taliban. This can only be a holding measure while attempts are made to lure moderate elements in the Taliban away from their comrades to join the Karzai clique. In talks with former Taliban foreign minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil brokered by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, US negotiators supposedly offered governorship of six provinces in the south and northeast, a senior Afghan Foreign Ministry official told IslamOnline.net – if they accept the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan and eight US bases.
But the latest is he will bow to McChrystal’s demand for up to 40,000 more troops, US drone attacks continue apace in AfPak with his blessing, and the US is urging Pakistan on in its civil war against its frontier provinces of Baluchistan and Waziristan, pouring in massive military aid.
And missile and other plans in Eastern Europe are proceeding apace, with or without Obama’s blessing. US officials have gone out of their way to assuage the Poles and Czechs with assurances that the bases were not really cancelled. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Ellen Tauscher recently said the command centre for the new version of anti-missile defence could be stationed in the Czech Republic.
Now Poland is asking not only for missiles, but US troops, apparently “alarmed” by military exercises conducted by the Russian army in Belarus. “We would like to see US troops stationed in Poland to serve as a shield against Russian aggression,” Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski was quoted by Interfax. “If you can still afford it, we need some strategic reassurance,” he added sarcastically. When asked to comment, a Russian Foreign Ministry official told Kommersant, “It is better to ask the World Health Organisation for an assessment of Mr Sikorski’s words.” Estonia, which has sent a hefty 10 per cent of its armed forces to Afghanistan, is also asking for US troops.
NATO assurances to Georgia and Ukraine about joining up are still a dime a dozen. Georgia’s army is being armed by the US, Israeli and Ukraine, according to Alexander Shlyakhturov, head of Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate, encouraging Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in his plans to reincorporate South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
All this can only mean that talk of real cooperation with Russia is an illusion, as is vague talk of accommodation with Iran. Obama may mean well, but the inertia of US empire is hard to stop.
Russian politicians are not blind. Nor are the Chinese. Both Russia and China refuse to accede to US fiat on Iran, and are cooperating on many fronts these days looking for ways to ease the world towards a “multipolar world”.
This is the backdrop to the 9th meeting of the Russia-India-China (RIC) trilateral meeting which took place in Bangalore in late October, attended by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Indian External Affairs Minister SM Krishna and Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. Said Lavrov after the meeting, “RIC is a group of countries that are integrally needed to mobilise regional efforts. But they are not enough. All of Afghanistan ’s neighbours are needed. The US, the main supplier of troops is needed. Iran is needed. The Central Asian countries are needed.” He politely refrained from saying that it is only because of the US invasion that the US has any role at all in the region.
As Lavrov rightly points out, it is the regional countries China, Russia, India and Iran that are the ones left to pick up the pieces in AfPak after the US finally packs its many bags. Russia has the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Russia and China have the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Even Iran has initiated its own trilateral format with Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, as MK Bhadrakumar writes in Asia Times, so far Lavrov’s efforts to fashion the three mini-superpowers into a united front on regional issues have been fruitless. Bad karma between the two most populous countries in the world lingers on; namely, the India-China frictions over borders and the Dalai Lama.
It is not only its Chinese neighbour that India can’t get along with. Deriving from its perennial distrust of anything to do with Pakistan, Delhi refuses to acknowledge the fact that the Taliban are an Afghan political reality and are part (let alone “all”) of any solution. Having drifted into the US orbit (curiously, along with its rival Pakistan), India risks being left behind, as the US-inspired war in Afghanistan continues to go nowhere, Pakistan descends into anarchy, China surges ahead, and the Russians and Chinese intensify their cooperation.
Of course, this and RIC’s inability to address Afghanistan suits the US just fine. Regional powers working together independently of the US to solve their problems would leave the US and its many SEATOs and NATOs out of the picture. Japan would like to fashion an East Asian community no longer subservient to Washington, but, according to President of the Japan Foundation Kazuo Ogoura, “It is intolerable [for Washington] to see Asians considering their relations among each other in a form that excludes the US.”
Obama is visiting Beijing and Tokyo this week. Oblivious to Asian disinterest in marching to US orders, Mark Brzezinski (son of Zbigniew) advised him in the New York Times to include in his “China List” establishing a formal mechanism among the leaders of the US, China and Pakistan – China is after all Pakistan’s oldest friend as counterweight to India. This pointedly leaves out Russia and India and ties China to US plans for the region. Good luck, Mr Obama.
Surprisingly, Moscow hasn’t given up entirely on Obama. Lavrov told Russian journalists in Bangalore, “Obama has announced a different philosophy – that of collective action, which calls for joint analysis, decision-making and implementation rather than for all others to follow Washington ’s decisions. So far inertia lingers at the implementers’ level in the US, who still follow the well-trodden track. This is a process which will take time before the president’s will is translated into the language of practical actions by his subordinates.”
However distasteful US actions are, the Russian leadership cannot risk closing the door completely on US efforts to end the war in Afghanistan, considering it was on the losing end against the Afghan resistance 20 years ago and is less than enamoured by an avowedly Islamic state there. But it is unlikely that China will join India and Pakistan as a US client state, and if India buries the hatchet with China and reconsiders its position on the Taliban, the situation for the US – and Afghanistan – could yet change dramatically. There is small reason for any of the RICs to be haunted by Bush’s curse – the US-inspired wars and subversion in their backyard.
***
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Lahore attack: a textbook example of destabilization
The BBC reports:
Gunmen have attacked a bus carrying the Sri Lankan cricket team on its way to play in the Pakistani city of Lahore. At least six policemen escorting the team bus were killed, along with a driver. Seven cricketers and an assistant coach were injured. Pakistani officials said about 12 gunmen were involved and grenades and rocket launchers have been recovered. Officials said the incident bore similarities to deadly attacks in Mumbai in India last November.
(...)
Pakistan invited Sri Lanka to tour only after India's cricket team pulled out of a scheduled cricket tour on security grounds, following the Mumbai attacks.
(...)
But a Pakistani minister, Sardar Nabil Ahmed Gabol, reportedly told private Geo TV that evidence suggested the attackers came across the border from India. He said the assault came in reaction to the Mumbai attacks, and was a "declaration of open war on Pakistan by India".
-------
Commentary: The Lahore attack is a textbook example of the real danger Sunni Islamic extremists pose to the world. Following the Mumbai attacks, India and Pakistan were on the brink of war but India refrained from retaliating. This time, a top Pakistani official blames India for, quote, "an open declaration of war on Pakistan" even though all the evidence points to the fact that the Sri Lankan team was chosen by the terrorists as a substitute for the Indian team which, wisely, chose not to travel to Pakistan.
True, the Wahabis/Salafis/Deobandi/etc do not present a classical military threat to most of the world - in that sense they are only a local threat - but is their now clearly established potential to trigger a major war between two nuclear powers not a major "threat to international peace and security" (to use the official expression?)
Gunmen have attacked a bus carrying the Sri Lankan cricket team on its way to play in the Pakistani city of Lahore. At least six policemen escorting the team bus were killed, along with a driver. Seven cricketers and an assistant coach were injured. Pakistani officials said about 12 gunmen were involved and grenades and rocket launchers have been recovered. Officials said the incident bore similarities to deadly attacks in Mumbai in India last November.
(...)
Pakistan invited Sri Lanka to tour only after India's cricket team pulled out of a scheduled cricket tour on security grounds, following the Mumbai attacks.
(...)
But a Pakistani minister, Sardar Nabil Ahmed Gabol, reportedly told private Geo TV that evidence suggested the attackers came across the border from India. He said the assault came in reaction to the Mumbai attacks, and was a "declaration of open war on Pakistan by India".
-------
Commentary: The Lahore attack is a textbook example of the real danger Sunni Islamic extremists pose to the world. Following the Mumbai attacks, India and Pakistan were on the brink of war but India refrained from retaliating. This time, a top Pakistani official blames India for, quote, "an open declaration of war on Pakistan" even though all the evidence points to the fact that the Sri Lankan team was chosen by the terrorists as a substitute for the Indian team which, wisely, chose not to travel to Pakistan.
True, the Wahabis/Salafis/Deobandi/etc do not present a classical military threat to most of the world - in that sense they are only a local threat - but is their now clearly established potential to trigger a major war between two nuclear powers not a major "threat to international peace and security" (to use the official expression?)
Monday, December 22, 2008
Pakistan rejects nuke use against India
Press TV reports:
Islamabad says should war break out with New Delhi, the option of using nuclear weapons would not even be on the table in Pakistan.
Pakistani Defense Minister Chaudhary Ahmed Mukhtar said on Monday that Islamabad wants peace with India but would defend itself if New Delhi thrusts war.
"The Indians would never want war because if war breaks out, then God forbid the situation might develop into a nuclear war," Mukhtar claimed.
The minister was reacting in response to Indian threats to wage war if the soil of neighboring Pakistan is used for promoting terrorism in India.
On Sunday, Indian Congress Chief Sonia Gandhi said New Delhi is capable of giving a "befitting reply" to those using Pakistani soil to promote terrorism in her country.
The November terror attacks in the Indian commercial capital of Mumbai raised speculations that the two nuclear nations are headed toward a military conflict.
India holds Pakistan-based militants responsible for the attacks -- as a result of which at least 170 people were killed and 200 others were injured.
Islamabad vehemently denies any involvement in the attacks.
The White House has sided with India and accuses Pakistan of providing a safe haven for Taliban, al-Qaeda and other terror groups.
Washington on Monday summoned Pakistan's National Security Adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani to demand that the country to do more to "tackle the menace of terror".
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had earlier criticized Islamabad for not doing enough.
"It's not enough to say the terrorists involved in Mumbai terror attacks are non-state actors. If they're operating from Pakistan, then they have to be dealt with", Rice warned.
-------
Commentary: to my knowledge, neither Pakistan nor India have an official doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons (although I did not check that for a long while already). Whatever may be the case, if this report is correct and if Pakistan indeed officially declares that in case of war with India the use of nukes will not even be considered an option then this is an extremely positive development.
Pakistan being the smaller and clearly weaker of the two, it would be the one potentially most likely to resort to nukes to even the disbalance with India and that, in turn, might push India towards a form of preemption. Pakistan having much less depth than India would be at much greater risk of an disarming counterforce strike and thus would face a potential "use them or loose them" risk and that, in turn, could make India concerned of a Pakistani first strike, etc. etc. etc. You see the point: nuclear forces have, by their very nature, a great capability to force both sides into a cycle of preemption which can result in truly disastrous consquences.
The case of the USA vs the Soviet Union in the past, or Russia today, should absolutely *not* serve as a model in a case like Pakistan and India. The reality is that Russia and the USA are the only two countries on the planet with complex and sophisticated nuclear triads (land, air, sea -based nuclear forces) which assures such a degree of redundancy that neither country could ever be successfully disarmed by a counterforce nuclear strike. Thus, the US-Russian nuclear balance is highly and uniquely stable. No other country on the planet comes even close to the USA and Russia in terms of nuclear capabilites and these are the only two countries which can rest with the knowledge that their nuclear forces are practically undestructible. The fact that both countries have formidable conventional forces also serves to contribute to the nuclear stability betwen the two..
The case of Pakistan and India is the exact opposite. Their nuclear forces are really basic, mininal, with very modest capabilities and with no redundancy built into them. While neither Pakistan nor India can count on being capable of disaming the other one, neither of the two really can count on surviving a disarming counterforce first strike. In terms of nuclear stabilty this is about as bad as it gets.
If indeed Pakistan has adopted an official policy of non first use of nuclear weapons the Pakistani government should be commended for greatly improving the stability of the entire region. Hopefully, India will also adopt a similar "no first use" stance.
The Saker
Islamabad says should war break out with New Delhi, the option of using nuclear weapons would not even be on the table in Pakistan.
Pakistani Defense Minister Chaudhary Ahmed Mukhtar said on Monday that Islamabad wants peace with India but would defend itself if New Delhi thrusts war.
"The Indians would never want war because if war breaks out, then God forbid the situation might develop into a nuclear war," Mukhtar claimed.
The minister was reacting in response to Indian threats to wage war if the soil of neighboring Pakistan is used for promoting terrorism in India.
On Sunday, Indian Congress Chief Sonia Gandhi said New Delhi is capable of giving a "befitting reply" to those using Pakistani soil to promote terrorism in her country.
The November terror attacks in the Indian commercial capital of Mumbai raised speculations that the two nuclear nations are headed toward a military conflict.
India holds Pakistan-based militants responsible for the attacks -- as a result of which at least 170 people were killed and 200 others were injured.
Islamabad vehemently denies any involvement in the attacks.
The White House has sided with India and accuses Pakistan of providing a safe haven for Taliban, al-Qaeda and other terror groups.
Washington on Monday summoned Pakistan's National Security Adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani to demand that the country to do more to "tackle the menace of terror".
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had earlier criticized Islamabad for not doing enough.
"It's not enough to say the terrorists involved in Mumbai terror attacks are non-state actors. If they're operating from Pakistan, then they have to be dealt with", Rice warned.
-------
Commentary: to my knowledge, neither Pakistan nor India have an official doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons (although I did not check that for a long while already). Whatever may be the case, if this report is correct and if Pakistan indeed officially declares that in case of war with India the use of nukes will not even be considered an option then this is an extremely positive development.
Pakistan being the smaller and clearly weaker of the two, it would be the one potentially most likely to resort to nukes to even the disbalance with India and that, in turn, might push India towards a form of preemption. Pakistan having much less depth than India would be at much greater risk of an disarming counterforce strike and thus would face a potential "use them or loose them" risk and that, in turn, could make India concerned of a Pakistani first strike, etc. etc. etc. You see the point: nuclear forces have, by their very nature, a great capability to force both sides into a cycle of preemption which can result in truly disastrous consquences.
The case of the USA vs the Soviet Union in the past, or Russia today, should absolutely *not* serve as a model in a case like Pakistan and India. The reality is that Russia and the USA are the only two countries on the planet with complex and sophisticated nuclear triads (land, air, sea -based nuclear forces) which assures such a degree of redundancy that neither country could ever be successfully disarmed by a counterforce nuclear strike. Thus, the US-Russian nuclear balance is highly and uniquely stable. No other country on the planet comes even close to the USA and Russia in terms of nuclear capabilites and these are the only two countries which can rest with the knowledge that their nuclear forces are practically undestructible. The fact that both countries have formidable conventional forces also serves to contribute to the nuclear stability betwen the two..
The case of Pakistan and India is the exact opposite. Their nuclear forces are really basic, mininal, with very modest capabilities and with no redundancy built into them. While neither Pakistan nor India can count on being capable of disaming the other one, neither of the two really can count on surviving a disarming counterforce first strike. In terms of nuclear stabilty this is about as bad as it gets.
If indeed Pakistan has adopted an official policy of non first use of nuclear weapons the Pakistani government should be commended for greatly improving the stability of the entire region. Hopefully, India will also adopt a similar "no first use" stance.
The Saker
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Report: India may attack Pakistan
Press TV reports:
Indian military has prepared operations against targets in Pakistan and awaits the signal to go forward, a US intelligence report says.
"These most likely would take the form of unilateral precision strikes inside Pakistan-administered Kashmir, along with special forces action on the ground in Pakistan proper," Global Intelligence Service, Stratfor said in its latest report.
"Sources have indicated to Stratfor that New Delhi is going through the diplomatic motions in order to give Pakistan the opportunity to take care of the militant problem itself - but the Indians know that Islamabad has neither the will nor the capability to address their concerns," the agency said.
It explained that India knew strikes in Pakistan would not eliminate the terrorist threat, "but that would not be the aim of any such operation". It added, "Instead, India has to communicate firmly that it will no longer tolerate attacks from Pakistan-based militants - whether they are rogue or approved by the state. Failure to do so risks emboldening the militants and their enablers, as well as a domestic political backlash. The Indian government could not live with either of those outcomes."
Earlier on Friday, Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said that the government was keeping all options open in dealing with the situation. "If a country cannot keep the assurances that it has given, then it obliges us to consider the entire range of options that exist to protect our interests and people from this menace."
"We have made repeated appeals to our neighbors over the years to ensure that they do not provide support to terrorist activities and to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. But our pleas have been ignored in spite of assurances given by them," he added.
Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee warns that India will consider all options against Pakistan.
The remarks come three weeks after New Delhi blamed the Pakistan-based banned militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba for orchestrating the November 26 attacks on Mumbai, which left 172 people dead.
US, Indian and British officials claim to have clear evidence suggesting that the attacks originated in terrorist training camps inside Pakistan.
India has demanded the handover of 40 suspected militants allegedly involved in the attacks. Islamabad, however, says it will not extradite any suspect, insisting that they should be tried in Pakistani courts.
Pakistan President Asia Ali Zargar said on Wednesday that intelligence agencies had failed to offer concrete proof justifying claims that militants who attacked Mumbai were Pakistani nationals.
-------
Comment: when analyzing any information two things must be considered: a) the source and b) the information itself and its consistency with other sources. In this case, I would rate "Stratfor" as something like a "C" - decent, but not really trustworthy. As for the info that India *might* strike Pakistan, well, as with almost any *might* kind of information it is not really big news. *Will* strike, or a time frame, that would be really interesting. But *might*? Yeah, they *might*, that is true almost by definition, but will they? So far, I simply seem no reason to lean either towards a 'yes' or a 'no'. I just post this report "for your information"
The Saker
Indian military has prepared operations against targets in Pakistan and awaits the signal to go forward, a US intelligence report says.
"These most likely would take the form of unilateral precision strikes inside Pakistan-administered Kashmir, along with special forces action on the ground in Pakistan proper," Global Intelligence Service, Stratfor said in its latest report.
"Sources have indicated to Stratfor that New Delhi is going through the diplomatic motions in order to give Pakistan the opportunity to take care of the militant problem itself - but the Indians know that Islamabad has neither the will nor the capability to address their concerns," the agency said.
It explained that India knew strikes in Pakistan would not eliminate the terrorist threat, "but that would not be the aim of any such operation". It added, "Instead, India has to communicate firmly that it will no longer tolerate attacks from Pakistan-based militants - whether they are rogue or approved by the state. Failure to do so risks emboldening the militants and their enablers, as well as a domestic political backlash. The Indian government could not live with either of those outcomes."
Earlier on Friday, Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said that the government was keeping all options open in dealing with the situation. "If a country cannot keep the assurances that it has given, then it obliges us to consider the entire range of options that exist to protect our interests and people from this menace."
"We have made repeated appeals to our neighbors over the years to ensure that they do not provide support to terrorist activities and to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. But our pleas have been ignored in spite of assurances given by them," he added.
Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee warns that India will consider all options against Pakistan.
The remarks come three weeks after New Delhi blamed the Pakistan-based banned militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba for orchestrating the November 26 attacks on Mumbai, which left 172 people dead.
US, Indian and British officials claim to have clear evidence suggesting that the attacks originated in terrorist training camps inside Pakistan.
India has demanded the handover of 40 suspected militants allegedly involved in the attacks. Islamabad, however, says it will not extradite any suspect, insisting that they should be tried in Pakistani courts.
Pakistan President Asia Ali Zargar said on Wednesday that intelligence agencies had failed to offer concrete proof justifying claims that militants who attacked Mumbai were Pakistani nationals.
-------
Comment: when analyzing any information two things must be considered: a) the source and b) the information itself and its consistency with other sources. In this case, I would rate "Stratfor" as something like a "C" - decent, but not really trustworthy. As for the info that India *might* strike Pakistan, well, as with almost any *might* kind of information it is not really big news. *Will* strike, or a time frame, that would be really interesting. But *might*? Yeah, they *might*, that is true almost by definition, but will they? So far, I simply seem no reason to lean either towards a 'yes' or a 'no'. I just post this report "for your information"
The Saker
Friday, December 19, 2008
Lashkar-e-Taiba commander killed by Indian forces in Kashmir
Press TV reports:
The Indian military says it has killed a senior military commander of banned Pakistani group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) in Kashmir region.
The militant commander was identified as Iqbal Malik, the LeT's southern Kashmir commander, the military said in a statement released on Friday.
It added that Malik and two other insurgents were killed earlier in the day as they were trapped in a cave during an exchange of fire in mountainous Doda district, south of Srinagar in Indian-administered Kashmir.
"Three LeT militants, including senior commander Iqbal Malik, who got holed up in a mountain cave were killed after a fierce eight-hour-long encounter today," Reuters quoted an unnamed army spokesman as saying.
The spokesman added that an Indian soldier was also killed during the gunbattle at the cave.
New Delhi blames LeT for the November 26-29 terror attacks on Mumbai. The attacks on India's financial hub left over 160 people killed and hundreds of others wounded.
The terror attacks intensified tension between the two nuclear-armed neighbors, who have fought two wars over Kashmir, which both have claims on.
The disputed region had witnessed a significant lull in violence after New Delhi and Islamabad commenced peace negotiations in 2004. The Mumbai attacks, however, unleashed a new wave of violence, bringing the two sodes on the brink of another war.
According to official figures the fight against Indian rule in Kashmir has taken more than 47,000 lives since 1989. Separatists, nonetheless, put the toll at 100,000.
The Indian military says it has killed a senior military commander of banned Pakistani group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) in Kashmir region.
The militant commander was identified as Iqbal Malik, the LeT's southern Kashmir commander, the military said in a statement released on Friday.
It added that Malik and two other insurgents were killed earlier in the day as they were trapped in a cave during an exchange of fire in mountainous Doda district, south of Srinagar in Indian-administered Kashmir.
"Three LeT militants, including senior commander Iqbal Malik, who got holed up in a mountain cave were killed after a fierce eight-hour-long encounter today," Reuters quoted an unnamed army spokesman as saying.
The spokesman added that an Indian soldier was also killed during the gunbattle at the cave.
New Delhi blames LeT for the November 26-29 terror attacks on Mumbai. The attacks on India's financial hub left over 160 people killed and hundreds of others wounded.
The terror attacks intensified tension between the two nuclear-armed neighbors, who have fought two wars over Kashmir, which both have claims on.
The disputed region had witnessed a significant lull in violence after New Delhi and Islamabad commenced peace negotiations in 2004. The Mumbai attacks, however, unleashed a new wave of violence, bringing the two sodes on the brink of another war.
According to official figures the fight against Indian rule in Kashmir has taken more than 47,000 lives since 1989. Separatists, nonetheless, put the toll at 100,000.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The Saker interviews Taimur - a Muslim student living in Indian controlled Kashmir
Little did I know that when I would open my own IRC channel it would yield such amazing possibilities as interviewing somebody at length from inside a war zone! (In fact, I had no idea that my blog was read in such places...).
Taimur agreed to be interviewed in very bad conditions, the electricity supply on his side was iffy, and the 10 hours difference means that he was typing his answers very late a night. We lost our connection several times and the time lag between each question and answer was long. Still, it is a huge pleasure for me to be able to share this interview with you. I believe that to listen to the point of view of somebody actually living in a conflict area is a great privilege and I am deeply grateful to Taimur for his time and patience.
I suppose that some readers will take issue with some of his statements, and that's fine. I ask them to post their comments and criticisms below, or to directly ask a question to Taimur who kindly agree to be available to provide his answers.
One particular request to my Indian readers: please contact me if you want to share with us your perspective on the topics discussed here. I would be delighted to interview you either by email or by IRC.
One of the primary aims of my blog is to provide good information, but good information is often also biased (there is nothing worse, at least in my experience, then the so-called "objective" or "non-biased" info we are fed by our corporate masters). This is why I often post stuff I don't agree with.
In this case, as with the case of the Kurdish conflict, I am too ignorant of it to really have an opinion. All I have is a strong desire to listen to all the sides.
Here is the *very minimally* edited transcript of my chat with Taimur (I just don't have the time to do even a halfway decent editing job now).
For convenience purpose, I am also including two maps of the region. Please click on them to get a useful resolution. BTW - maps are also a highly controversial subject in this conflict and, needless to say, I am presenting the two maps here purely FYI - without in any way endorsing anything in them.
The Saker
-------
The Saker: Hi Taimur : could you please introduce yourself in a couple of words? Where are you chatting from, how old are you, what do you do in life?
Taimur agreed to be interviewed in very bad conditions, the electricity supply on his side was iffy, and the 10 hours difference means that he was typing his answers very late a night. We lost our connection several times and the time lag between each question and answer was long. Still, it is a huge pleasure for me to be able to share this interview with you. I believe that to listen to the point of view of somebody actually living in a conflict area is a great privilege and I am deeply grateful to Taimur for his time and patience.
I suppose that some readers will take issue with some of his statements, and that's fine. I ask them to post their comments and criticisms below, or to directly ask a question to Taimur who kindly agree to be available to provide his answers.
One particular request to my Indian readers: please contact me if you want to share with us your perspective on the topics discussed here. I would be delighted to interview you either by email or by IRC.
One of the primary aims of my blog is to provide good information, but good information is often also biased (there is nothing worse, at least in my experience, then the so-called "objective" or "non-biased" info we are fed by our corporate masters). This is why I often post stuff I don't agree with.
In this case, as with the case of the Kurdish conflict, I am too ignorant of it to really have an opinion. All I have is a strong desire to listen to all the sides.
Here is the *very minimally* edited transcript of my chat with Taimur (I just don't have the time to do even a halfway decent editing job now).
For convenience purpose, I am also including two maps of the region. Please click on them to get a useful resolution. BTW - maps are also a highly controversial subject in this conflict and, needless to say, I am presenting the two maps here purely FYI - without in any way endorsing anything in them.
The Saker
-------
The Saker: Hi Taimur : could you please introduce yourself in a couple of words? Where are you chatting from, how old are you, what do you do in life?
Taimur: I am 24 years old , doing my Engineering in Jammu and Kashmir. (On the Indian Side)
The Saker: What is your ethnicity and religion?
Taimur: I am Muslim and Asian
The Saker: Would you describe yourself as a Muslim by birth only, or a practicing Muslim?
Taimur: I am a Muslim by Birth and to some extend i do consider myself as Practicing Muslim
The Saker: Most of my readers know in the general lines about the long conflict in Kashmir, but in your own words, how would you describe it? What lies at the core of it?
The Saker: Is it about religion, politics, ethnicity? How do you, as a Kashmiri Muslim live it? What does this conflict mean to *you* personally?
Taimur: Yes it is combination of all of them. Kashmir is a Muslim dominated state and according to plan of partition of India, which divided the United India into a Muslim state and Hindu state, it should have acceded to Pakistan. But the ruler of Kashmir never wanted this to happen. So people in Jammu and Kashmir started to protest and demanded that they should be allowed to accede to Pakistan without delay but Maharaja Hari Singh the ruler of Kas ordered to crush the revolt against him. It was reported that around 200'000 people were massacred by Maharaja's army in Jammu. Then Pakistani tribesmen came to rescue Kashmiri Muslims but Maharaja sought help from India, India accepted on the condition that Kashmir be acceded to India which he did against the wishes of people of Kashmir. India had then promised plebiscite under UN supervision but never allowed it to happen. So the core of the conflict is this Right of Self Determination which India has denied to people of Kashmir since then.
Taimur: How do you, as a Kashmiri Muslim live it?
Taimur: It is very hard to live in an environment where you have 700'000 Indian Occupational forces always present to harass you every now and then. ID checkings, house searches, getting stranded on highways for hours due to Army convoy, curfews... every day you see unarmed civilians being killed because they demand their Right of self determination. It is really hard to resist such a torture.
The Saker: are there any Hindus or Buddhist where you live? If yes, how is your contact with them?
Taimur: No there are no Hindus in the area where i live, as all of them fled when the armed struggle against India started they now live in Jammu and in some parts of India. Buddhist live in Leh which is some 200 km away from Kashmir valley.
The Saker: are there local people who support the various security forces? are there Muslims inside the forces deployed in Kashmir?
Taimur: There are many agents who help the deployed forces, but they do it in a secret manner. But there are people who belong to pro-Indian Political parties, and they mainly provide the help that Indians need to prolong their presence in Kashmir.
The Saker: how much support do you think organizations such as Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish e-Mohammed or Hizbul Mudjahedeen have among Muslims in Kashmir? Do most Kashmiris support the armed resistance groups, whether locally based or based in Pakistan?
Taimur: Yes they support them because they came into existence for the cause of people that is to free Kashmir from Indian Occupation.
The Saker: Does that, in turn mean, that most Muslim Kashmiris also support the type of Deobandi Islam or Wahabism which the Taliban and a strong segment of the Muslim population of Pakistan seem to adhere to?
Taimur: No, these organizations are what Hizbollah is to Lebanon or Hamas and Fatah are to Palestine. In Pakistan Lashker may have different agenda but here People only support them because they are liberators for them.
The Saker: But do you not fear that, as has happened in Bosnia and Chechnya, a Muslim national liberation movement might get taken over by Wahabi elements which would, if successful, push Kashmir into the type of nightmare which "free Republic of Ichkeria" in Chechnya turned into?
The Saker: Would they not "Talibanize" Kashmir if given the chance to?
Taimur: Kashmir is different from these "Talibanised" places it is spiritually secular, and they are mostly tolerant towards other religious minorities their present struggle is first for the liberation of Kashmir and then to establish a just-socio-monetary state. The Talibanised kind of mentality is not found in Kashmir except in small minorities.
The Saker: What is your understanding of what has really happened in the Mumbai attacks? What was the reaction in Kashmir to these attacks and did these attacks impact your daily conditions?
Taimur: It is very unfortunate that so many innocent people have been killed due few maniacs. It has in effect Kashmir because it has derailed the peace process between India and Pakistan, which in no way is good for the cause of Kashmir and if God forbid there is Kashmir will be devastated badly.
The Saker: Do you believe that Lashkar-e-Toiba was behind these attacks? Some people, many in Pakistan, have claimed that these attacks are a "false flag' operation by the CIA, Israel or the Indians themselves
Taimur: Kashmir was shocked like rest of the world and these attacks have created anxiety in the people of Kashmir about their future. It can't be proven [who is responsible] before a proper judicial investigation is done. We can just speculate. But as far as the ideology of Lashker-e-toiba goes they don't believe in targeting civilians even in Kashmir they have never targeted Indian forces near civilian population.
The Saker: how about the attacks on the Indian Parliament? was that not the action of Kashmiris?
Taimur: Could have been but no evidences has so far been found.
The Saker: you are a student, right?
Taimur: Yes
The Saker: what percentage of students do you believe are involved in political actions (whether peaceful or armed)?
Taimur: In the recent uprising which was termed as second Intefada of Kashmir....there were hundreds and thousand of young students who came out in support of Azadi (freedom)... from that i would put the number in between 50-75%
The Saker: how about those who never were involved in *any* way. have they also be detained or interrogated by the security forces?
Taimur: Yes, there are many incidents were minors of age 8 were picked up by Army and they never returned. Civil societies say that there are some 10,000 people who have been picked up or arrested by Army which never returned back and neither their whereabouts could be verified.
The Saker: I am going to ask you a cruel question: how many people do you *personally* know who were a) killed/disappeared b) detained/kidnapped and released c) tortured d) lawfully arrested, interrogated by not mistreated
Taimur: How can i say there are hundreds of them.....
The Saker: no, I mean among people you know personally, among your relatives, friends and neighbors and fellow students
Taimur: My paternal Uncle was arrested, tortured and then released. My friend was arrested during a protest and lated released with broken rib and arm, One of my neighbors throat was slit during a curfew when he was moving out to get some food for his family. there are many I cant count them all
The Saker: would you say that this also applies to most families in Kashmir?
Taimur: Almost all, everybody has lost someone and everybody has been tortured in one way or other, One of my cousins was burnt alive on National Highway, far back in early 90's
The Saker: is the situation different in Jammu and, if yes, in what way?
Taimur: Yes, it is different because it is a Hindu dominated area. before 1947 it had some 60% Muslim population but on October 10, 1947 the Maharaja, under `his own supervision, got assassinated 237,000 Muslims, using military forces, in Jammu area. The editor of "Statesman" Ian Stephen, in his book "Horned Moon" wrote that till the end of autumn 1947, more than 200,000 Muslims were assassinated. Rest fled to Pakistan. Now there is only 30-40%
Taimur: population in Jammu which lives in villages and far off places.
The Saker: do people travel from Jammu and Kashmir back and forth? have you been there? is there a contact between the Hindus from Jammu and the Muslims in Kashmir? And would you say that the situation is better or worse for Muslims in Jammu
Taimur: Yes, It is actually winter capital of Kashmir and all the Government offices are shifted to Jammu. I do visit Jammu and there are contacts between Hindus and Muslims. But Muslims of Jammu ( not those who go there during winters on official duty ) are not at all better because they are in constant threat of communal violence that erupts sometimes. During the recent uprising which occurred due to blockade of Kashmir by Hindus of Jammu, it was reported that many houses of Muslims have been burnt, many fled to Kashmir Valley. So, it won't be correct to say that they are better off than Muslim from Kashmir Valley.
The Saker: what websites could you recommend to those who are interested in learning more about all the events you are describing and about what is going on on a daily basis in Kashmir and Jammu?
Taimur: There are many websites i will list some of them: www.kashmirwatch.com, www.kmsnews.org, www.hizbmedia.com, www. greaterkashmir.com, www.jkccs.org, www.jkth.org, www.kashmirobserver.com these are few of them where you can find about the history of Kashmir conflict and daily news.
The Saker: what do you think is the most important thing for us, outside Kashmir, to understand about what is going on?
Taimur: People living outside Kashmir should inform people about the Human Rights Violations in Kashmir, they should write letters to their leaders to pressure UN to implement the Resolutions passed by them about Kashmir, protest in front of Indian embassies in their countries and discourage Indian Occupation of Kashmir. They should show solidarity with the people of Kashmir whenever and wherever they can.
The Saker: What do you think is the most likely future for Pakistan, India and Kashmir? What do you think will happen in the next couple of years?
The Saker: best case? worst case? likely case?
Taimur: I would like to see Pakistan and India like America and Canada, neighbors and friends. But it doesn't seem to be happening like that sometimes it seems that a war may start start any time, but the most likely scenario may be a status quo or a political impasse, in which nobody wins and everybody loses.
The Saker: what about your personal hopes, for yourself? how do you see your future? are you considering leaving Kashmir and, if yes, where would you want to go and, if no, then what kind of life do you hope for in Kashmir?
Taimur: After finishing my studies I would like to move abroad as there are no avenues here in Kashmir, there are no jobs, there are no companies where i could get paid decently... But at the same time I feel that if I move out I would betray the blood of those who have laid there life for the sake of Kashmir
The Saker: being an Indian citizen, do you think that you could find a better life in the rest of India, away from the conflict zone?
Taimur: I don't consider my self as an Indian citizen.... but if I go out to India I would definitely find a better life .... but peace of mind ....i don't believe that can happen ..... haw can have peace of mind when people would be dying in my own country...
The Saker: I understand. But how would you, a Kashmiri Muslim expect to be treated in the rest of India? Would most Indians welcome you as they would another Indian Muslim or do you think that being a Kashmiri the security forces would still see you with suspicion?
Taimur: Yes there have been cases where many Kashmiri Muslims were arrested on mere suspicion by Indian Intelligence Agencies and it can or i may say will happen to me as well , but being a Muslim it will be same all over the world ....Muslims around the world are seen as terrorists.
The Saker: You say that Muslims around the world are seen as terrorists, and you are obviously correct, but whom do you blame for this?
Taimur: Corporate Media....
The Saker: and not Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Wahabis in Chechnya, the Talibans ,etc. etc. etc.?
Taimur: They are all creation of America.... Bin Laden was made hero of Afghan war by Americans, Taliban was brain child of the war-lords of Afghan war, and Wahabis came into existence only after Saudis were given the Kingdom ship of Arabia by England.
The Saker: You are absolutely right, I fully agree with you. But still, Wahabism/Deobandism/Salafism/Qutbism etc. were not ideological creations of the USA, were they? So there was an ideological streak in Sunni Islam which was a good basis for the USA to raise up these groups and their followers, no?
Taimur: next question
The Saker: ok
Taimur: Five hours from now Kashmir will be under curfew because people would protest against India after Friday prayers ...
The Saker: what kind of curfew will that be? what kind of conditions are imposed during a curfew?
Taimur: we are not allowed to move out of our houses.. it not an officially declared curfew but an unofficial on... if people come out they are beaten especially young. old ones can come out and get the necessary food items....actually there are elections going on... tomorrow is not election but it is Friday a day when Muslims gather in masses in the mosques... so there are greater chances of protest ... Indian forces simply impose curfew...
The Saker: but how do the authorities inform the population of an "unofficial" curfew?
Taimur: They don't inform us .... Army persnonel are present on every nook and corner of the city special the old city.... from sunrise to sunset
Taimur: they just don't allow us to move
The Saker: then how do you know they plan this for tomorrow? is that something which happens each Friday?
Taimur: Yes it happens on every Friday.. or some Leader visit from India ... or during election.... anything when they fear that people may come out on streets and protest.......recently when a boy was crushed on Lawaipora Road by and Indian Army vehicle..... People came out to protest Police came fired some teargases and dispersed the crowd took the body and later gave it to there parents in the evening so that they can bury them....
The Saker: how often do Fridays turn into open clashes between the population and the security forces or between the security forces and the armed groups? How often do Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish e Mohammed or Hizbul Mudjahedeen attack the security forces?
Taimur: There are regular Friday protests and the are worst that those we saw in Greece at least they get media coverage here Media has been banned from showing that.. Lashker, Hizbul Mudjahedeen, and others don't do that they attack Army sometimes in their camps or on an army convoy.... these protests are between unarmed protesters and Indian Forces And Police
The Saker: so all of Kashmir comes to a standstill each Friday?
Taimur: Not all but main towns, where there are big mosques and only at few places it is not like a Filmy war but Palestinian type of stone war .... .........Hundreds of boys get injured but they don't provide us Ambulances people take them on bikes .... you see in Palestine at least there they have the Red Cross and Red Crescent
The Saker: do the security forces then raid the hospitals or clinics to arrest the participants?
Taimur: Not always because it will definitely create a chain reaction of protests.... During recent uprising I was present at SHMS hospital where hundreds of protesters were being treated who got injured in a rally...... Police threw teargas shells into emergency ward ...Doctors couldn't do anything... it was all smoke and tears...
The Saker: how is the situation with communications in Kashmir? Where does the population get most of its information? Can you watch Pakistani TV or Pakistani radios or at they jammed?
The Saker: how many people have access to the Internet and how many actually use it to communicate or get information?
Taimur: We have cable TV and those Direct To Home services available here....... we can get information from any part of the world Pakistani Radio is Jammed but Pakistani Channels can be watched but sometimes they are banned.......... internet came only few years back ...almost 3 or 4 years back...so internet penetration is less... cities have the facility....
Taimur: But the news from other parts of Kashmir is hard to get those news items are banned or blacked out...
The Saker: how about communications *inside* Kashmir? Do the armed opposition groups have any means to contact the general population? Underground papers for example?
Taimur: There are actually Political Wings and Armed Wings.... Armed wings do not communicate with people it is the Job of Political wings.
The Saker: ok. but are the political wings legal?
Taimur: I don't know about their legality that is if they are registered with the government .. i will tell you later about that... but they do exist openly.... but mostly the Leaders of these groups are arrested or put under house arrest... they are not allowed to hold rallies when they do that ... Army comes and disperses them by force and arrest the leaders...
Taimur: There is a single amalgamation of Rebel parties Known as All Parties Hurryat (freedom) Conference that leads the struggle
Taimur: by rebel i mean rebel against Indian Regime, of course
The Saker: In Turkey there is a law which actually makes it illegal to in any way undermine the unity of Turkey. How about India, which is considered the "biggest democracy on the planet"? If it legal to peacefully advocate a) human rights in Kashmir b) autonomy for Kashmir c) a secession of Kashmir?
The Saker: Are there laws (as opposed to policies) in India against separatism?
Taimur: Kashmir is not technically part of India... It Holds a special status.. it has its own constitution and own flag..... It was temporarily acceded to India which was only responsible for Defense, External affairs and currency.... but they made it their colony...they promised a Plebiscite but they have denied it since then... that is what we are fighting for
The Saker: I understand. But would it be legal for an Indian political party *outside Kashmir* to advocate the secession of Kashmir? And what about a Kashmiri political party inside Kashmir, could is openly and legally advocate secession?
Taimur: No Indian Party outside Kashmir advocates secession of Kashmir.....and all those who advocate it inside Kashmir are presently in Jail ... or under house arrest... rather whole of Kashmir is under house arrest ( a collective imprisonment) so where comes this legality . it is a mess out here there are no laws no Legalities nothing ....... it is a jungle.......
The Saker: In Palestine there is an amazing Israeli human right organization called B'Tselem which monitors the human right situation in occupied Palestine. Are there similar Indian organizations which monitor the human right situation in Kashmir and Jammu?
Taimur: There are activists like Arundhati Roy, Gautam Navlakha, and others who write about Human rights Violations in Kashmir. Many civil societies also do keep some kind of record but there is no such organization like Bait u Saleem
Taimur: In Kashmir there is one JKCCS.org but their activists are attacked by unknown persons and all sorts of things are done to them. One of their activists was Asiya jeelani killed in a blast in her vehicle ...Parveez Imroz was attacked recently at that time activists from Delhi had come who also were detained for a long time......he heads jkccs
The Saker: one more question: after a publish this interview, would you be available to answer any follow-up questions to you in the comments section of my blog, under our chat?
Taimur: okay... i will be available
The Saker: Many many thanks for your time and patience!
Taimur: okay...bye
The Saker: bye and good night. Peace to you!
Monday, December 1, 2008
Opinion: Al-Qaeda wants Pak to divert army to Indian border
(thanks to alibi "a" for sending me this piece!)
by Dinesh Narayanan for ibn live:
by Dinesh Narayanan for ibn live:
In the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks, the question that everyone is asking is 'Why'. India already claims it has evidence of Pakistani hand. On Friday, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had made a stern call to Pakistan and had asked them to send the head of its intelligence agency, the ISI, to India. However, Pakistan has refused to do the same.
But is it a bit too soon to jump to conclusions? In an attempt to get some answers, we speak to Lahore-based journalist Ahmed Rashid, an expert on South and Central Asia who authored bestsellers such as Jihad, Taliban and Descent into Chaos. He tells Forbes Network 18's Dinesh Narayanan on phone from Rome that the attacks are a conspiracy to drive a wedge between the two neighbours. Excerpts from the interview:
QUES: Do you think the attack on Mumbai was planned to de-stabilise the conciliatory efforts of the Indian and Pakistani governments?
Ahmed Rashid: I think the attacks were strategically planned by al-Qaeda through the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) militants they train. It is trying to work out a space for itself in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). They have been hurting very badly in there because of pressure from the Pakistani army and US missile attacks.
QUES: What is the objective?
Ahmed Rashid: It is a military strategic objective to get the army out of Bajour and stop the US from stepping in. If tensions between India and Pakistan escalate, the army will be moved to the Indian border, as happened in 2002. After the attacks on the Parliament House in Delhi, India built up troops on the border. Pakistan responded by moving its army from the Afghanistan border to the Indian one. And al-Qaeda had a free run of FATA. They are looking to repeat the exercise.
QUES: Do you think they are likely to succeed?
Ahmed Rashid: The danger is the escalation of India-Pakistan accusations. They should not fall into the al-Qaeda trap. The Indian Government has already jumped the gun a bit. It is a weak government and is under pressure to do something.
QUES: What would happen if the Indian and Pakistani governments see through the trap?
Ahmed Rashid: Then there will be more attacks in Pakistan. This is a very critical period for al-Qaeda. It has only a few months. The US is preparing to send 20,000 troops into Afghanistan by April. The al-Qaeda is under tremendous pressure. They need to do something.
QUES: Will the new government in Pakistan be able to genuinely change the relationship with India?
Ahmed Rashid: It is a weak civilian government, just like the Indian Government. It is a Government that is besieged by a collapsing economy and tensions with the army. But it has its heart in the right place. The army needs to come under a democratic government for the outlook on national security to change.
Dinesh Narayanan is Associate Editor at the new business magazine to be launched by Network 18 in alliance with Forbes, USA.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Indians claim terrorists took orders from Pakistan
From the Times Online:
The Indian authorities yesterday claimed to have proof that the Mumbai terrorists were receiving instructions from Pakistan and discussing tactics with their handlers during the three days of attacks in which they killed at least 195 people.
The claims threaten further to embitter relations between the two nuclear powers. Tensions have been high since confirmation that the only captured gunman was a 21-year-old Pakistani.
It has also emerged that India had been warned that terrorists were planning an attack in Mumbai.
Up to 22 foreigners were among those killed in raids by 10-15 terrorists on sites across the city, including hotels, the main railway station, a Jewish community centre and two hospitals. The last of the gunmen was killed by Indian commandos yesterday morning, ending the siege at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel. One hotel worker was found alive and 22 bodies were removed. As many as 80 bodies may still be in the building.
One Briton has been confirmed dead and last night the Foreign Office refused to say whether more UK citizens could be among the victims in the wreckage of the hotel.
RR Patil, the deputy chief minister of Mumbai’s state government, said there was “proof” that the terrorists were on the phone to someone in Pakistan during the attack.
“All phone calls made by them were tapped. They were being instructed from outside regarding their movement inside the hotel - whether to go upstairs or come down or make a move left or right,” he said.
Patil also claimed that the terrorists had intended to kill at least 5,000 people, making for a greater atrocity than 9/11.
The Pakistan government denied any involvement in the attacks but backtracked on a decision to send the chief of its spy agency to India to help the investigation. Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan’s president, promised to take the “swiftest of action” if there was evidence the terrorists came from his country.
Yesterday the Indian authorities firmly denied reports that up to seven of the attackers were British. Intelligence sources in the UK said they were unaware of any evidence that British nationals were involved.
Police chiefs in Mumbai confirmed they had been aware as long ago as January that the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba was planning a terrorist spectacular.
The information came from Fahim Ansari, a captured operative for the group, who revealed under interrogation that he had carried out reconnaissance visits to the Taj and Oberoi hotels.
CCTV footage revealed that Ansari had visited the Oberoi. Both hotels said they had received warnings as recently as August about an attack and had stepped up security.
The Indian authorities intercepted a telephone call made from the Arabian Sea less than two weeks ago in which a terrorist suspect was heard saying “we’re coming to Mumbai”.
The Indian coastguard was alerted but Ajmal Aamer Kasav, the surviving gunman, is understood to have told his interrogators the terrorists had switched ships to evade detection. Kasav, who speaks fluent English, told investigators he and his fellow terrorists had trained at a camp at the Mangla dam between Pakistani Punjab and Pakistan-held Kashmir.
The group had travelled in pairs to Karachi where they boarded a boat. They had been told not to talk to each other on the journey.
-------
Comment: all this is bad, bad, bad. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Indians SNAFUed all the warnings about what would happen. Even worse, the Pakistani connection is becoming even more crucial. For example, if it is true that the terrorists were getting instructions by phone during the attacks, then ISI must have been fully aware of this, if not through their own capabilities, then at least via the USA. As for the decision not to send Pasha to India, here is probably what happened: President Zardari, probably horrified by the news, decided to sent Pasha as a sign of his full collaboration, only to be over-ruled by the real bosses in Pakistan: the ISI brass whose role in what happened raises all sorts of very scary questions. I wonder how much more restraint India can show towards Pakistan and I am afraid that India cannot just take one terrorist attack after the other (all with strong Pakistani connections) without some kind of retaliation.
The Indian authorities yesterday claimed to have proof that the Mumbai terrorists were receiving instructions from Pakistan and discussing tactics with their handlers during the three days of attacks in which they killed at least 195 people.
The claims threaten further to embitter relations between the two nuclear powers. Tensions have been high since confirmation that the only captured gunman was a 21-year-old Pakistani.
It has also emerged that India had been warned that terrorists were planning an attack in Mumbai.
Up to 22 foreigners were among those killed in raids by 10-15 terrorists on sites across the city, including hotels, the main railway station, a Jewish community centre and two hospitals. The last of the gunmen was killed by Indian commandos yesterday morning, ending the siege at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel. One hotel worker was found alive and 22 bodies were removed. As many as 80 bodies may still be in the building.
One Briton has been confirmed dead and last night the Foreign Office refused to say whether more UK citizens could be among the victims in the wreckage of the hotel.
RR Patil, the deputy chief minister of Mumbai’s state government, said there was “proof” that the terrorists were on the phone to someone in Pakistan during the attack.
“All phone calls made by them were tapped. They were being instructed from outside regarding their movement inside the hotel - whether to go upstairs or come down or make a move left or right,” he said.
Patil also claimed that the terrorists had intended to kill at least 5,000 people, making for a greater atrocity than 9/11.
The Pakistan government denied any involvement in the attacks but backtracked on a decision to send the chief of its spy agency to India to help the investigation. Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan’s president, promised to take the “swiftest of action” if there was evidence the terrorists came from his country.
Yesterday the Indian authorities firmly denied reports that up to seven of the attackers were British. Intelligence sources in the UK said they were unaware of any evidence that British nationals were involved.
Police chiefs in Mumbai confirmed they had been aware as long ago as January that the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba was planning a terrorist spectacular.
The information came from Fahim Ansari, a captured operative for the group, who revealed under interrogation that he had carried out reconnaissance visits to the Taj and Oberoi hotels.
CCTV footage revealed that Ansari had visited the Oberoi. Both hotels said they had received warnings as recently as August about an attack and had stepped up security.
The Indian authorities intercepted a telephone call made from the Arabian Sea less than two weeks ago in which a terrorist suspect was heard saying “we’re coming to Mumbai”.
The Indian coastguard was alerted but Ajmal Aamer Kasav, the surviving gunman, is understood to have told his interrogators the terrorists had switched ships to evade detection. Kasav, who speaks fluent English, told investigators he and his fellow terrorists had trained at a camp at the Mangla dam between Pakistani Punjab and Pakistan-held Kashmir.
The group had travelled in pairs to Karachi where they boarded a boat. They had been told not to talk to each other on the journey.
-------
Comment: all this is bad, bad, bad. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Indians SNAFUed all the warnings about what would happen. Even worse, the Pakistani connection is becoming even more crucial. For example, if it is true that the terrorists were getting instructions by phone during the attacks, then ISI must have been fully aware of this, if not through their own capabilities, then at least via the USA. As for the decision not to send Pasha to India, here is probably what happened: President Zardari, probably horrified by the news, decided to sent Pasha as a sign of his full collaboration, only to be over-ruled by the real bosses in Pakistan: the ISI brass whose role in what happened raises all sorts of very scary questions. I wonder how much more restraint India can show towards Pakistan and I am afraid that India cannot just take one terrorist attack after the other (all with strong Pakistani connections) without some kind of retaliation.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Bad news from Islamabad (UPDATED!)
According to Press TV Pakistan has reversed a decision to send its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief to India to help in Mumbai terror attacks investigation.
No explanation was given in a short statement issued by the premier's office in Islamabad for the change of plan, Press TV correspondent said Saturday.
Earlier Prime Minister Yourself Raze surprised many by announcing that the ISI Chief General Ahmed Shura Pasha would be sent to New Delhi to help the investigation into the Mumbai terror attacks that claimed at least 195 lives.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in a telephone conversation on Friday, urged his Pakistani counterpart to send the spy chief to New Delhi.
Sources said the change came after reservations in Pakistan's top military circles over the unprecedented move. "The military leadership was not consulted before an announcement was made to the media regarding the decision to send the ISI chief to India," a senior official said.
It is said that Pakistan will send a senior official to India instead of Pasha; however, there was no mention of when the official is likely to arrive in New Delhi.
India's Foreign Minister Prefab said Friday that initial evidence in the Mumbai attacks show the militants had links with Pakistan. Pakistan's president, premier and other top officials have condemned the attacks and promised full cooperation in fighting terrorism, however.
Gunmen targeted several places across the port city of Mumbai late Wednesday, killing 195 people and injuring 327 others.
UPDATE: according to the BBC, Indian security forces have captured at least one of the terrorists. His nationality? Pakistani.
-------
Commentary: this kind of zig-zagging by Pakistani officials is most unhelpful. Regardless of whether Pakistani national are involved in these attacks or not, Pakistan is playing with fire here and the initial decision to agree to send General Pasha to India was the correct one. This reversal, if confirmed, would send a terrible message to an already outraged Indian public opinion. Sure, the Indian press (and politicians) were probably too eager to point fingers at Pakistan, but considering the past history of terror attacks in India by individuals linked to Pakistan, the Pakistanis should not have been offended by that. The fact is that Pakistan is the single most dangerous and unstable country in the world right now and that it will need the full cooperation of all its neighbors to tackle its many causes of instability and outright danger. If there is one thing the Pakistanis cannot afford is a worsening relationship with India. Since the real power in the country is, and always has been, ISI - sending the ISI chief was a very good move. Keeping him in Islamabad is, I am afraid, a bad sign of ruffled nationalistic feathers, a luxury Islamabad simply cannot afford right now.
No explanation was given in a short statement issued by the premier's office in Islamabad for the change of plan, Press TV correspondent said Saturday.
Earlier Prime Minister Yourself Raze surprised many by announcing that the ISI Chief General Ahmed Shura Pasha would be sent to New Delhi to help the investigation into the Mumbai terror attacks that claimed at least 195 lives.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in a telephone conversation on Friday, urged his Pakistani counterpart to send the spy chief to New Delhi.
Sources said the change came after reservations in Pakistan's top military circles over the unprecedented move. "The military leadership was not consulted before an announcement was made to the media regarding the decision to send the ISI chief to India," a senior official said.
It is said that Pakistan will send a senior official to India instead of Pasha; however, there was no mention of when the official is likely to arrive in New Delhi.
India's Foreign Minister Prefab said Friday that initial evidence in the Mumbai attacks show the militants had links with Pakistan. Pakistan's president, premier and other top officials have condemned the attacks and promised full cooperation in fighting terrorism, however.
Gunmen targeted several places across the port city of Mumbai late Wednesday, killing 195 people and injuring 327 others.
UPDATE: according to the BBC, Indian security forces have captured at least one of the terrorists. His nationality? Pakistani.
-------
Commentary: this kind of zig-zagging by Pakistani officials is most unhelpful. Regardless of whether Pakistani national are involved in these attacks or not, Pakistan is playing with fire here and the initial decision to agree to send General Pasha to India was the correct one. This reversal, if confirmed, would send a terrible message to an already outraged Indian public opinion. Sure, the Indian press (and politicians) were probably too eager to point fingers at Pakistan, but considering the past history of terror attacks in India by individuals linked to Pakistan, the Pakistanis should not have been offended by that. The fact is that Pakistan is the single most dangerous and unstable country in the world right now and that it will need the full cooperation of all its neighbors to tackle its many causes of instability and outright danger. If there is one thing the Pakistanis cannot afford is a worsening relationship with India. Since the real power in the country is, and always has been, ISI - sending the ISI chief was a very good move. Keeping him in Islamabad is, I am afraid, a bad sign of ruffled nationalistic feathers, a luxury Islamabad simply cannot afford right now.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Questions about the Mumbai attacks
After 48 hours sporadic combat is still taking place in Mumbai so it is way too early to try to analyze what happened. Still, there are some questions which come to my mind which I would like to share with you and, if you have any clues as to what the answers to these questions might be, I ask you to share them with me. My questions are:
a) how it is possible that the Indian intelligence community was, apparently, caught totally off-guard by these attack?! After all, in terms of size this is a far bigger operation that 9/11 and, unlike 9/11, this was a very predictable development (I am referring to the official version of 9/11 here, for the sake of comparison, not as an endorsement of the official version). And it's not like the Indians did not know from which circles such an attack might come. The fact that such a major operation was totally missed seems to point to a total, unforgivable, intelligence failure on the part of the Indian intelligence community.
b) why did negotiations not take place? after all, news reports seem to indicate that the attackers took hostages, which implies some desire to negotiate. The Indian security forces were involved in what appear to be pitch battles almost immediately after the attack was discovered. Who gave the order to immediately attack the hostage takers?
c) what kind of forces does India have specifically trained for anti-terrorist hostage/rescue operations? From what I have seen in the various news reports, a mix of so-called "commando" forces were used, which is probably the single worst option in such a situation and, moreover, none of these forces seem to be of a dedicated anti-terrorist hostage-rescue profile like, say, the Russian "Gruppa A". Does India have real, specialized, anti-terrorist hostage-rescue forces and, if yes, how many would be available for a major city like Mumbai?
As I said, these are questions to which I have found no answers so far. All I can say is that so far my impression of the Indian response is very bad and I fear that this entire situation was grossly mismanaged.
a) how it is possible that the Indian intelligence community was, apparently, caught totally off-guard by these attack?! After all, in terms of size this is a far bigger operation that 9/11 and, unlike 9/11, this was a very predictable development (I am referring to the official version of 9/11 here, for the sake of comparison, not as an endorsement of the official version). And it's not like the Indians did not know from which circles such an attack might come. The fact that such a major operation was totally missed seems to point to a total, unforgivable, intelligence failure on the part of the Indian intelligence community.
b) why did negotiations not take place? after all, news reports seem to indicate that the attackers took hostages, which implies some desire to negotiate. The Indian security forces were involved in what appear to be pitch battles almost immediately after the attack was discovered. Who gave the order to immediately attack the hostage takers?
c) what kind of forces does India have specifically trained for anti-terrorist hostage/rescue operations? From what I have seen in the various news reports, a mix of so-called "commando" forces were used, which is probably the single worst option in such a situation and, moreover, none of these forces seem to be of a dedicated anti-terrorist hostage-rescue profile like, say, the Russian "Gruppa A". Does India have real, specialized, anti-terrorist hostage-rescue forces and, if yes, how many would be available for a major city like Mumbai?
As I said, these are questions to which I have found no answers so far. All I can say is that so far my impression of the Indian response is very bad and I fear that this entire situation was grossly mismanaged.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Why negotiating with the Taliban is both stupid and immoral (UPDATED!)
There are increasing signs that the USraelian Empire is trying to negotiate some kind of deal with the Taliban including their chief, Mullah Omar. Some are rejoicing at this development seeing it as a way to finally get the US out of Afghanistan. I would agree with such optimistic hopes if the issue was only getting the US out of Afghanistan, but there is far more at stake here than that.
First, the term "Taliban" is somewhat vague and it is often used interchangeably with the term "Pashtun". Furthermore, "Taliban" is almost always assumed to be an movement specific to Afghanistan. The problem with that is that this use of these terms is that it obfuscates two very important realities: not all Pashtuns are Taliban and the Taliban themselves are not a purely Afghan force. Simply put: the Taliban movement is a creation and an outgrowth of Pakistani Wahabism which spread to Afghanistan by means of the Pashtun ethnic group which live on both sides of the Pakistani-Afghan border.
The Pashtuns are a *minority* in Afghanistan, about 40%, but they are still the single largest ethnic group (the second largest group, the Tadjiks, are only about 30% and the next largest groups are the Uzbeks and the Hazaras, both number something close to 10%). As I said, not all Pashtuns are Talibans, but even assuming that 100% of Pashtuns would support the Taliban, this still means that the Taliban do not represent the majority of the people of Afghanistan.
So why is the Empire trying to negotiate with the Taliban?
Simple: because their real power base is in Pakistan.
This is worth repeating again: the real power base of the Taliban is in Pakistan.
There are still a lot of myths about Reagan's "heroic freedom fighters" out there. Like the myth which says that the Mudjahideens booted the Soviets out of Afghanistan. That's nonsense. Consider this: after the Soviet withdrawal the in February 1989 it took the heroic freedom fighters three years (until April 1992!) to take Kabul following an extremely bloody civil war. It took the defection of the Uzbek general Dostum to make it possible for the anti-Najibullah forces to take Kabul. All these are undisputed facts. So then ask yourself a simple question: how could the Mudjahideens "boot out" the Soviets if they could not even take Kabul as long as Dostum was defending it? The answer is simple: the Soviets left because of the deep political crisis in the Soviet Union and not because of Reagan's "freedom fighters". Besides, as any Soviet who fought in Afghanistan will tell you, the Pashtuns are rather pitiful fighters which the Russians looked down upon. In contrast, the Russians had the deepest respect for the formidable Tadjik fighters of the late Ahmad Shah Masood (I remember how a former commander of the KGB Spetsnaz unit "Kaskad" told me that Masood's best men were "at least as good as our best guys" not only in terms of courage - which the Pashtuns also had - but in terms of actual combat skills).
Another myth about the Pashtuns is that the US military defeated the Taliban in 2001. This is not so. It was the Northern Alliance (Tadjiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and others) which defeated the Talibans on the ground while the US only provided them with (very valuable) support from the air and with FACs on the ground. Furthermore, the Taliban rapidly decided not to oppose the invasion and to withdraw to the countryside and mountains to wait for a better time. A lot of them, in fact, left for Pakistan.
Now this is crucial here: it was Pakistan which provided a safe heaven for the anti-Soviet resistance during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and it is arguably only this safe heaven which prevented the Soviets from truly crushing the Pashtun resistance (the Tadjiks in the Panshir Valley in the northeast of the country were the only ones who actually did successfully resist several Soviet attacks and did not seek cover across the border). Likewise, today's main problem for NATO is the Waziristan province of Pakistan were the Taliban and their Pakistani allies are hiding.
To sum up: the Afghan Pashtuns are nowhere near the formidable force which the media portrays them to be and their real power resides in the fact that they have found a safe heaven in Pakistan. I could add here that the almighty Pakistani secret service, the ISI, has, from day one, been the real Godfather of the anti-Soviet resistance and then of the Taliban movement, with US assistance, of course.
There is one inescapable conclusion from all this: negotiating with the "Taliban" really means negotiating with the Wahabis in Pakistan. This is not, repeat *not*, negotiating with the "Afghan people". I would even argue that negotiating with the Taliban is, in fact, negotiating with the worst enemies of the Afghan people.
I am sure that everybody remembers the kind of regime the Taliban had put into place after they took Kabul: from the banning of music and kites, to the constant executions of people for the smallest of crimes, to the ever present terror squads in the streets to the infamous destruction of the Buddhas in Bamyan - the Taliban were every bit as ugly, crazy and evil as the US propaganda painted them to be (yes, sometimes even the US propaganda can say the truth). And just as the US propaganda accused them to be, the Taliban were the closest and most dedicated allies of Osama Bin-Laden, al-Qaeda and the rest of the Wahabi crackpots worldwide.
But maybe it would be possible to negotiate some kind of deal by which those crazed Wahabis would keep to themselves and only turn Afghanistan into some hellish medieval nightmare but leave the rest of the world alone?
Forget it.
The Russians tried just that in Chechnya with the so-called Khasavyurt Agreement signed in 1996 only to have the Chechens actually invade Daghestan in 1999 forcing the Russians to go right back into Chechnya and to "finish the job" (although the bulk of the Chechen forces were rapidly defeated a low-scale insurrection is still active in Chechnya even today). You can safely count on the Taliban sooner or later doing something similar with Tajikistan, Iran, Indian controlled Kashmir or even China. But even if by some kind of newly found self-restraint the Taliban agreed to stay within the confines of "their" territory (Afghanistan and Pakistan) the nightmare would not stop. First, because all the non-Taliban in the region would fight for their survival and, second, because the risk of a nuclear armed Pakistan becoming "Talibanized" are all too real.
Still, one can recognize these risk and still favor an American withdrawal from Afghanistan since, after all, it is not any business of the USA to be the world's policeman and protect the continent from the Taliban. However, there is a logical fallacy here: withdrawing the US forces from Afghanistan does not entail negotiating with the Taliban. I, for one, would even argue that the best way to get the US out of Afghanistan would be to negotiate with all the regional forces opposed to the Taliban: Iran, Russia, India, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and, in a second phase, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and China. That is the beauty of it: *all* the region's countries are firmly opposed to what the Taliban represent and *nobody* wants these crazies back in power.
Finally, there is another consideration which should prompt everybody to agree to a regional solution to this issue: the problem of "Afghanistan" is really the problem of *Pakistan*. And Pakistan is one hell of a problem indeed! After all, this is the only nuclear power in the world which is essentially in a constant state of civil war and nobody knows when or how this civil war will end. Even worse, there are at least two major powers which blindly support Pakistan for their own narrow interests: China tries to use Pakistan against India and the USA which tries to use Pakistan against Russia and Iran. These two countries are in many ways the prime culprits for the 'nuclear powder keg" which Pakistan has turned into. Is there a way to fix the mess these two have created?
I don't see any other solution than defeating the Wahabis in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I don't believe that there is any possibility to negotiate anything with these guys, and I don't believe that they could somehow be isolated or otherwise contained. If history does teach us anything it is that there is no point in negotiating with crazed fanatics hell-bend on taking on the rest of the planet. Furthermore, I cannot conceive of anything more immoral than pretending to negotiate with "the Afghan people" while in reality handing over Afghanistan to a *minority* of crazed thugs.
Alas, the Empire in its disarray seems to be determined to do exactly that. True to its trademark policy of short-term "solutions" an attempt to negotiate some kind of deal with the Taliban is what we should expect next. In the minds of the Imperial High Command this would allow the Empire to partially relive (or extricate) its bogged down forces from Afghanistan while taking on step further along its new found anti-Shia grand strategy (the so-called "Redirection"). The only result from this kind of policy will be to force Russia and Iran to dramatically increase their support for the Tadjiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras while tensions between India and Pakistan will flare up. In short: these planned "negotiations" will achieve only one thing: to make a bad situation infinitely worse.
UPDATE: I just came across this very interesting story: it appears that the Pentagon is opposed to the idea of dealing with Mullah Omar. Petraeus had declared that "The key there is making sure that all of that is done in complete coordination, with complete support of the Afghan government and with President Karzai". Well, since Karzai is a long time US puppet and CIA agent we can take him out of this sentence and rephrase it like this: "The key there is making sure that all of that is done in complete coordination, with complete support of the Afghan government"; in other words - the folks from the Northern Alliance which hold all the important ministries in the "Afghan government" went apeshit at the idea of dealing with Omar and made the US back down from this crazy idea.
Good for them.
First, the term "Taliban" is somewhat vague and it is often used interchangeably with the term "Pashtun". Furthermore, "Taliban" is almost always assumed to be an movement specific to Afghanistan. The problem with that is that this use of these terms is that it obfuscates two very important realities: not all Pashtuns are Taliban and the Taliban themselves are not a purely Afghan force. Simply put: the Taliban movement is a creation and an outgrowth of Pakistani Wahabism which spread to Afghanistan by means of the Pashtun ethnic group which live on both sides of the Pakistani-Afghan border.
The Pashtuns are a *minority* in Afghanistan, about 40%, but they are still the single largest ethnic group (the second largest group, the Tadjiks, are only about 30% and the next largest groups are the Uzbeks and the Hazaras, both number something close to 10%). As I said, not all Pashtuns are Talibans, but even assuming that 100% of Pashtuns would support the Taliban, this still means that the Taliban do not represent the majority of the people of Afghanistan.
So why is the Empire trying to negotiate with the Taliban?
Simple: because their real power base is in Pakistan.
This is worth repeating again: the real power base of the Taliban is in Pakistan.
There are still a lot of myths about Reagan's "heroic freedom fighters" out there. Like the myth which says that the Mudjahideens booted the Soviets out of Afghanistan. That's nonsense. Consider this: after the Soviet withdrawal the in February 1989 it took the heroic freedom fighters three years (until April 1992!) to take Kabul following an extremely bloody civil war. It took the defection of the Uzbek general Dostum to make it possible for the anti-Najibullah forces to take Kabul. All these are undisputed facts. So then ask yourself a simple question: how could the Mudjahideens "boot out" the Soviets if they could not even take Kabul as long as Dostum was defending it? The answer is simple: the Soviets left because of the deep political crisis in the Soviet Union and not because of Reagan's "freedom fighters". Besides, as any Soviet who fought in Afghanistan will tell you, the Pashtuns are rather pitiful fighters which the Russians looked down upon. In contrast, the Russians had the deepest respect for the formidable Tadjik fighters of the late Ahmad Shah Masood (I remember how a former commander of the KGB Spetsnaz unit "Kaskad" told me that Masood's best men were "at least as good as our best guys" not only in terms of courage - which the Pashtuns also had - but in terms of actual combat skills).
Another myth about the Pashtuns is that the US military defeated the Taliban in 2001. This is not so. It was the Northern Alliance (Tadjiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and others) which defeated the Talibans on the ground while the US only provided them with (very valuable) support from the air and with FACs on the ground. Furthermore, the Taliban rapidly decided not to oppose the invasion and to withdraw to the countryside and mountains to wait for a better time. A lot of them, in fact, left for Pakistan.
Now this is crucial here: it was Pakistan which provided a safe heaven for the anti-Soviet resistance during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and it is arguably only this safe heaven which prevented the Soviets from truly crushing the Pashtun resistance (the Tadjiks in the Panshir Valley in the northeast of the country were the only ones who actually did successfully resist several Soviet attacks and did not seek cover across the border). Likewise, today's main problem for NATO is the Waziristan province of Pakistan were the Taliban and their Pakistani allies are hiding.
To sum up: the Afghan Pashtuns are nowhere near the formidable force which the media portrays them to be and their real power resides in the fact that they have found a safe heaven in Pakistan. I could add here that the almighty Pakistani secret service, the ISI, has, from day one, been the real Godfather of the anti-Soviet resistance and then of the Taliban movement, with US assistance, of course.
There is one inescapable conclusion from all this: negotiating with the "Taliban" really means negotiating with the Wahabis in Pakistan. This is not, repeat *not*, negotiating with the "Afghan people". I would even argue that negotiating with the Taliban is, in fact, negotiating with the worst enemies of the Afghan people.
I am sure that everybody remembers the kind of regime the Taliban had put into place after they took Kabul: from the banning of music and kites, to the constant executions of people for the smallest of crimes, to the ever present terror squads in the streets to the infamous destruction of the Buddhas in Bamyan - the Taliban were every bit as ugly, crazy and evil as the US propaganda painted them to be (yes, sometimes even the US propaganda can say the truth). And just as the US propaganda accused them to be, the Taliban were the closest and most dedicated allies of Osama Bin-Laden, al-Qaeda and the rest of the Wahabi crackpots worldwide.
But maybe it would be possible to negotiate some kind of deal by which those crazed Wahabis would keep to themselves and only turn Afghanistan into some hellish medieval nightmare but leave the rest of the world alone?
Forget it.
The Russians tried just that in Chechnya with the so-called Khasavyurt Agreement signed in 1996 only to have the Chechens actually invade Daghestan in 1999 forcing the Russians to go right back into Chechnya and to "finish the job" (although the bulk of the Chechen forces were rapidly defeated a low-scale insurrection is still active in Chechnya even today). You can safely count on the Taliban sooner or later doing something similar with Tajikistan, Iran, Indian controlled Kashmir or even China. But even if by some kind of newly found self-restraint the Taliban agreed to stay within the confines of "their" territory (Afghanistan and Pakistan) the nightmare would not stop. First, because all the non-Taliban in the region would fight for their survival and, second, because the risk of a nuclear armed Pakistan becoming "Talibanized" are all too real.
Still, one can recognize these risk and still favor an American withdrawal from Afghanistan since, after all, it is not any business of the USA to be the world's policeman and protect the continent from the Taliban. However, there is a logical fallacy here: withdrawing the US forces from Afghanistan does not entail negotiating with the Taliban. I, for one, would even argue that the best way to get the US out of Afghanistan would be to negotiate with all the regional forces opposed to the Taliban: Iran, Russia, India, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and, in a second phase, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and China. That is the beauty of it: *all* the region's countries are firmly opposed to what the Taliban represent and *nobody* wants these crazies back in power.
Finally, there is another consideration which should prompt everybody to agree to a regional solution to this issue: the problem of "Afghanistan" is really the problem of *Pakistan*. And Pakistan is one hell of a problem indeed! After all, this is the only nuclear power in the world which is essentially in a constant state of civil war and nobody knows when or how this civil war will end. Even worse, there are at least two major powers which blindly support Pakistan for their own narrow interests: China tries to use Pakistan against India and the USA which tries to use Pakistan against Russia and Iran. These two countries are in many ways the prime culprits for the 'nuclear powder keg" which Pakistan has turned into. Is there a way to fix the mess these two have created?
I don't see any other solution than defeating the Wahabis in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. I don't believe that there is any possibility to negotiate anything with these guys, and I don't believe that they could somehow be isolated or otherwise contained. If history does teach us anything it is that there is no point in negotiating with crazed fanatics hell-bend on taking on the rest of the planet. Furthermore, I cannot conceive of anything more immoral than pretending to negotiate with "the Afghan people" while in reality handing over Afghanistan to a *minority* of crazed thugs.
Alas, the Empire in its disarray seems to be determined to do exactly that. True to its trademark policy of short-term "solutions" an attempt to negotiate some kind of deal with the Taliban is what we should expect next. In the minds of the Imperial High Command this would allow the Empire to partially relive (or extricate) its bogged down forces from Afghanistan while taking on step further along its new found anti-Shia grand strategy (the so-called "Redirection"). The only result from this kind of policy will be to force Russia and Iran to dramatically increase their support for the Tadjiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras while tensions between India and Pakistan will flare up. In short: these planned "negotiations" will achieve only one thing: to make a bad situation infinitely worse.
UPDATE: I just came across this very interesting story: it appears that the Pentagon is opposed to the idea of dealing with Mullah Omar. Petraeus had declared that "The key there is making sure that all of that is done in complete coordination, with complete support of the Afghan government and with President Karzai". Well, since Karzai is a long time US puppet and CIA agent we can take him out of this sentence and rephrase it like this: "The key there is making sure that all of that is done in complete coordination, with complete support of the Afghan government"; in other words - the folks from the Northern Alliance which hold all the important ministries in the "Afghan government" went apeshit at the idea of dealing with Omar and made the US back down from this crazy idea.
Good for them.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Russian Su-30MKI Sukhoi Jets For India
(RIA via DefenceTalk) India has signed a contract with Russia for the licensed assembly of 40 multi-role Su-30MKI (Flanker-H) fighter jets, news agencies reported last week. According to experts, the agreement will cost India more than $1.5 billion. It will be a follow-up to the contract concluded in 2000 to deliver 140 fighters of the same type to New Delhi. The contractor will be the Irkut Scientific Production Corporation in Irkutsk, a part of the Sukhoi Aviation Holding Company (AHK). It assembles practically all the Su planes Moscow supplies to the subcontinent.
Under the first contract, Russia was not only to start supplying India with jets from 2000, but also to sell it a license to manufacture them at Indian plants. This was duly done, but local production of the aircraft turned out to be too costly. A far better option was buying them almost ready-made from the manufacturer in Irkutsk.
The present agreement, according to Irkut President Oleg Demchenko, provides for the delivery of practically fully assembled jets from Russia. Fifteen of them will be assembled and flight-tested, 15 assembled but not tested, while the rest will travel to India in kit form.
Assembly of the first four fighters of the specified 40 will begin in the early months of 2008.
The SU-30 Fighter aircraft:
The Su-30MKI multi-role fighter is designed to gain command of the air, engage ground and sea targets with guided and unguided weapons, and fight in formation against electronic countermeasures and fire from hostile AD systems by day and night, in all weather conditions. The two-seater jet allows full scope for state-of-the-art onboard radio electronic facilities and its full range of armaments can be used against all types of targets.
This is a whole new kind of multi-purpose combat plane. It has retained and further developed the unique properties of the Su-27 (Flanker) family, including the low speed high AOA (angle of attack) feature not found in any other fighter.
The Su-30MKI has been configured around the serially produced Su-30 (Flanker-C). It can be refueled in mid-air, has two vector-thrust engines, a canard which allows it to fly at supersonic speeds while hugging the terrain, and can carry air-to-ground guided missiles, including those used against several targets at the same time, and up to eight tons of combat payload suspended from 12 points.
For air superiority the jet is considered unmatched among other aircraft.
It mounts an onboard radio electronic system that incorporates state-of-the-art French, Israeli and Indian avionics capable of navigating the craft by GLONASS or GPS.
The new contract is evidence not only that India continues to set its sights on Russian aviation equipment (the Indian Air Force includes 600 planes made in the USSR/Russia and only fifty made in France), but, most important of all, that the complications created by Moscow's delays in refitting the Vikramaditya (Admiral Gorshkov) aircraft carrier, which postponed the delivery date by several years, have not overly affected military-technical cooperation between the two countries.
Moreover, there is information that Moscow and New Delhi will soon sign a new contract for the development of a promising fifth-generation airborne system.
India's Defense Minister Kurian Anthony is flying to Moscow this week to attend a meeting of the inter-governmental commission on military-technical cooperation. He is expected to sign the agreement. Interestingly enough, Sukhoi will feature again in this undertaking.
Specialists tell us that Sukhoi AHK has won a government tender to develop and manufacture Russia's fifth-generation fighter aircraft, or the Future Tactical Aviation Concept (PAK FA).
Company chiefs and the Russian top brass repeatedly proposed that New Delhi join the project to share costs and acquire such a jet for its Air Force. But the Indian military, not to mention the politicians, tactfully avoided giving a final answer to the proposal. They wanted to buy the fifth-generation American F-22, which is already air-borne, or the American-European F-35 (JSF), which is expected to undergo its final tests soon.
But something came unstuck. Apparently either the price proved too high, or the contract terms too burdensome. Whatever the details of the matter, the Indian generals have opted for the Russian offer. Now they are going to order a hundred such aircraft. The likely price of such a deal is almost $6 billion.
True, no real price for a PAK FA deal has yet been set for India, nor is there agreement about who will own the intellectual property rights to the jointly developed aircraft. These key questions will have to be addressed later.
The only news known so far is that these fighters will be built in Russia and in India, that New Delhi will have the right to supply them to third countries, and that the Russian and the Russian-Indian models will differ from each other in a way that as yet remains secret.
It is not ruled out that it might be in the same way as the F-22 and the F-35 differ. One is heavier, with two engines; the other lighter, with one engine.
For itself Russia is building a two-engined fighter. The explanation is that distances in the country are long and the jet must be able to fly from border to border quickly, without intermediate landings. Even with mid-air refueling capability, the aircraft would need more horsepower.
In India, distances are generally (though not always) shorter. As such, one engine may be enough, especially since the Indian Air Force already operates multi-role twin-engined Su-30MKIs, while the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier now being modernized will carry MiG-29K/MiG-29KUB deck-based fighters, which are also equipped with two engines.
So New Delhi's choice of the "lighter" G5 jet is predictable.
However, this remains little more than speculation. The important thing is that despite all the technical odds that have emerged recently between the two countries India is strengthening its military-technical ties with Russia and its defense sector. It is betting on Russia, in the knowledge that Moscow has never let it down.
This suggests that in a tender to supply the Indian Air Force with 126 light fighters, the Russian entry has a chance to win, though the competition includes two American firms - Boeing Company with the F\A-18E/F Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin with the F-16A/B Fighting Falcon; France's Dassault Aviation (with the Rafale); Sweden's SAAB (with the JAS-39 Grippen fighter); the Eurofighter (Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain; the EF-2000 Typhoon); and Russia's RSK MiG (with the MiG-35 Fulcrum fighter).
The chance of supplying the entire order is slim, but it would be fine if it secured at least a half.
-------
Note: for more information about the SU-30MKI check out this excellent article
Under the first contract, Russia was not only to start supplying India with jets from 2000, but also to sell it a license to manufacture them at Indian plants. This was duly done, but local production of the aircraft turned out to be too costly. A far better option was buying them almost ready-made from the manufacturer in Irkutsk.
The present agreement, according to Irkut President Oleg Demchenko, provides for the delivery of practically fully assembled jets from Russia. Fifteen of them will be assembled and flight-tested, 15 assembled but not tested, while the rest will travel to India in kit form.
Assembly of the first four fighters of the specified 40 will begin in the early months of 2008.
The SU-30 Fighter aircraft:The Su-30MKI multi-role fighter is designed to gain command of the air, engage ground and sea targets with guided and unguided weapons, and fight in formation against electronic countermeasures and fire from hostile AD systems by day and night, in all weather conditions. The two-seater jet allows full scope for state-of-the-art onboard radio electronic facilities and its full range of armaments can be used against all types of targets.
This is a whole new kind of multi-purpose combat plane. It has retained and further developed the unique properties of the Su-27 (Flanker) family, including the low speed high AOA (angle of attack) feature not found in any other fighter.
The Su-30MKI has been configured around the serially produced Su-30 (Flanker-C). It can be refueled in mid-air, has two vector-thrust engines, a canard which allows it to fly at supersonic speeds while hugging the terrain, and can carry air-to-ground guided missiles, including those used against several targets at the same time, and up to eight tons of combat payload suspended from 12 points.
For air superiority the jet is considered unmatched among other aircraft.
It mounts an onboard radio electronic system that incorporates state-of-the-art French, Israeli and Indian avionics capable of navigating the craft by GLONASS or GPS.
The new contract is evidence not only that India continues to set its sights on Russian aviation equipment (the Indian Air Force includes 600 planes made in the USSR/Russia and only fifty made in France), but, most important of all, that the complications created by Moscow's delays in refitting the Vikramaditya (Admiral Gorshkov) aircraft carrier, which postponed the delivery date by several years, have not overly affected military-technical cooperation between the two countries.
Moreover, there is information that Moscow and New Delhi will soon sign a new contract for the development of a promising fifth-generation airborne system.
India's Defense Minister Kurian Anthony is flying to Moscow this week to attend a meeting of the inter-governmental commission on military-technical cooperation. He is expected to sign the agreement. Interestingly enough, Sukhoi will feature again in this undertaking.
Specialists tell us that Sukhoi AHK has won a government tender to develop and manufacture Russia's fifth-generation fighter aircraft, or the Future Tactical Aviation Concept (PAK FA).
Company chiefs and the Russian top brass repeatedly proposed that New Delhi join the project to share costs and acquire such a jet for its Air Force. But the Indian military, not to mention the politicians, tactfully avoided giving a final answer to the proposal. They wanted to buy the fifth-generation American F-22, which is already air-borne, or the American-European F-35 (JSF), which is expected to undergo its final tests soon.
But something came unstuck. Apparently either the price proved too high, or the contract terms too burdensome. Whatever the details of the matter, the Indian generals have opted for the Russian offer. Now they are going to order a hundred such aircraft. The likely price of such a deal is almost $6 billion.
True, no real price for a PAK FA deal has yet been set for India, nor is there agreement about who will own the intellectual property rights to the jointly developed aircraft. These key questions will have to be addressed later.
The only news known so far is that these fighters will be built in Russia and in India, that New Delhi will have the right to supply them to third countries, and that the Russian and the Russian-Indian models will differ from each other in a way that as yet remains secret.
It is not ruled out that it might be in the same way as the F-22 and the F-35 differ. One is heavier, with two engines; the other lighter, with one engine.
For itself Russia is building a two-engined fighter. The explanation is that distances in the country are long and the jet must be able to fly from border to border quickly, without intermediate landings. Even with mid-air refueling capability, the aircraft would need more horsepower.
In India, distances are generally (though not always) shorter. As such, one engine may be enough, especially since the Indian Air Force already operates multi-role twin-engined Su-30MKIs, while the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier now being modernized will carry MiG-29K/MiG-29KUB deck-based fighters, which are also equipped with two engines.
So New Delhi's choice of the "lighter" G5 jet is predictable.
However, this remains little more than speculation. The important thing is that despite all the technical odds that have emerged recently between the two countries India is strengthening its military-technical ties with Russia and its defense sector. It is betting on Russia, in the knowledge that Moscow has never let it down.
This suggests that in a tender to supply the Indian Air Force with 126 light fighters, the Russian entry has a chance to win, though the competition includes two American firms - Boeing Company with the F\A-18E/F Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin with the F-16A/B Fighting Falcon; France's Dassault Aviation (with the Rafale); Sweden's SAAB (with the JAS-39 Grippen fighter); the Eurofighter (Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain; the EF-2000 Typhoon); and Russia's RSK MiG (with the MiG-35 Fulcrum fighter).
The chance of supplying the entire order is slim, but it would be fine if it secured at least a half.
-------
Note: for more information about the SU-30MKI check out this excellent article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
