News on India

Outwitting the Other In the wake of the Delhi serial blasts last Saturday that caught the intelligence agencies unawares, it has become imperative — given the loss of innocent lives and a sense of insecurity all around — to ask as to why terrorists are succeeding in their avowed objectives so often despite the security in place and the knowledge that they could strike anywhere, any time. Former Intelligence Bureau (IB) chief Ajit Doval attributes it to the innovation that the terrorists have worked upon. Calling the battle between terrorists and intelligence agencies a cat-and-mouse game where the side with better innovative skills will always be ahead of the other, Doval negates the stereotype of time-tested formulae to undo terror plots. He argues that ‘‘time-tested wisdom is anti-doctrine in successful intelligence operations’’ and that one ‘‘requires constant refinement of tactics on the ground’’. And ‘‘a successful tactic can be used only once’’. In other words, ‘‘it is a use-and-throw technology’’ — which new-age terrorists have realized well and applied to refine and redefine their strategies. It is high time the spy-masters in the field generated new ideas to counter terrorist intelligence and its innovation every other day, as Doval has rightly harped on. Let intelligence gathering, application and coordination be a function of new ideas on the ground. What this means is that the country needs intelligent officers to produce and channel solid intelligence, which is what the US is doing with utter precision. source: sentinel assam editorial 17.09.08

Between the lines A Victory of Sorts Kuldip Nayar If one was not opposed to the nuclear device on the point of principle, as I am, one would applaud India for having forced its way through the 34-year-old nuclear isolation. It has become a nuclear power, an official member of the exclusive club, from being a nuclear pariah. In other words, New Delhi can get nuclear technology, reactors and fuel from anywhere in the world. The 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) has not only lifted the ban but has also allowed India to retain nuclear weapons without signing the non-proliferation treaty — a right granted only to a five-member club, the US, the UK, Russia, France and China. Yet it has been a victory of sorts. But for Washington’s full support all the way, New Delhi could not have obtained the waiver to test. Unfortunately, India’s enunciations were not trusted but Uncle Sam’s word was. This makes still clearer that America holds the key. In fact, Washington is the founder of the NSG. However, the manner in which India went about getting the waiver made one feel small. Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee went on issuing one clarification after another and Indian top officials talking to the NSG members till early hours for three days at Vienna, assuring them India’s old declaration of “no first use” amounted to the guarantee required. New Delhi did not have to do all this. It amounted to cringing before even a chit of a country like New Zealand, China’s pawn. India should have stood its ground and told the NSG that the unblemished record of non-proliferation was there for all to see. India’s izzat (respect) was hawked when the draft was revised and re-revised half a dozen times to “accommodate” a petty member’s petty objection. On the other hand, the big ones did not want a hick to sit at the same table. The waiver was reworded to say: “In the event that one or more Participating Governments (PGs) consider that circumstances have arisen which require consultations, (PGs) will meet, and then act…” to see whether the NSG guidelines had been followed. This change was made at the urging of the club members, which did not want to acknowledge India as a ‘partner’ of the NSG. It is not yet known what quid pro quo for the US support is. India’s statement after getting the waiver was that it would wait till the US Congress ratified the Indo-US nuclear deal so that Washington was there in the field when the orders for reactors were placed. It is strange that New Delhi should emphasize the immediate production of nuclear energy and, at the same time, Mukherjee should be assuring US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that India would wait till the US Congress cleared the deal. Suppose there is a delay, what happens to the reported offer by Russia to supply four reactors with 1000 KW capacity each even tomorrow? In fact, America has made its position clear in a letter leaked by Howard L. Berman, chairman of House Foreign Affairs Committee. The deal would not mean transfer of any sensitive technology to India or uninterrupted fuel supply — a contradiction of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s assurances to Parliament which could encourage the NSG countries. The letter also says that the “US government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies.” By insisting that the letter contains “nothing new,” New Delhi has implied that it concurs with the damaging US interpretations. Australia’s post-waiver statement that it will not supply fuel to India indicates that America has many arrows in its quiver. If it is annoyed in any way with India, not necessarily over the nuclear deal, all facilities would come to an end. In fact, Washington’s eyes are fixed on the strategic alliance with New Delhi. America’s ambassador to India David Mulford has said even before the approval of the waiver that India and the US had already come close to each other in many strategic fields. Defence Minister AK Anthony’s visit to America, timed after the waiver, is more than a visit. This is ominous because it tells upon India’s non-alignment and the faith of many nations in New Delhi’s independent policy. China’s second thoughts were a surprise because it had assured Manmohan Singh during his visit to Beijing that it had no objection to India getting the waiver. It was President Bush who rang up the Chinese President to withdraw the objection. America is not doing all this for selling reactors because after the NSG clearance India can purchase from any country which is cheaper. The reactors offered by Russia or France may prove to be better than the 10-year-old reactors which American businessmen have in their basement. True, America wants to use India to counter China. But if Beijing continues to play a double game as it did at Vienna, New Delhi, by dint of circumstances, would be pushed to America’s side. What does the refrain of Hindi-Chini-Bhai-Bhai mean when Beijing strikes against New Delhi whenever an opportunity arises? It was natural for Beijing to encourage Islamabad to have a parallel treaty like the Indo-US deal. Therefore, President Asif Ali Zardari’s statement that he is visiting China to have a nuclear deal does not come as a surprise. What one wishes is that New Delhi and Islamabad should be talking to each other on such and other problems because the two are natural allies. The negotiations at Vienna should make India clear that China can never be a friend, much less an ally. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru warned the country through a letter he wrote to chief ministers after China’s attack on India in 1962. “We do not desire to dominate any country, and we are content to live peacefully with other countries provided they do not interfere with us or commit aggression. China, on the other hand, clearly did not like the idea of such peaceful existence and wants to have a dominating position in Asia. We do not want communism to come here and yet the essential conflict is more political and geographical than that of communism, although communism is an important factor in the background.” The BJP’s criticism that the Manmohan Singh government has given a secret understanding not to hold the test at any time is not convincing. As former President Abdul Kalam has said, India will not honour any commitment when it comes to national interest. Presuming there is some understanding, I cannot imagine any government honouring any commitment if testing is required for the country’s security. Not to be the first user, a welcome unilateral statement, was made by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee after exploding the device. New Delhi should stick to it in letter and spirit.

‘Harvesting’ is the Root Cause Dina Nath Mishra There are many angles to the recent communal clashes in Orissa. Let us first take the dictates of Pope John Paul II. When he visited India, he asked all the evangelical missionaries to ‘harvest’ the souls of Asia. He said that in the first millennium they converted Europe, while in the second millennium they converted Africa and America, and then it was Asia’s turn. In Asia there is no space for conversion from Islam to Christianity. As far as China is concerned, its government did not allow the Pope to visit China, which he had planned to visit along with his visit to India. Conversion activities by missionaries were vigorously stepped up after Pope left India. In many parts of the country, tonnes of money are being spent to lure and convert poor tribals to Christianity. Of late there has been a great spurt in the activities of evangelists. Conversion-related violence has been on a rise in many States including Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Chattisgarh etc. One can recall the unfortunate burning of Australian missionary, Graham Stains, along with his two sons. It was an act by some mischief-mongers to create trouble. However, the fact remains that Stains too was like many other missionaries engaged in following the dictum of the Pope for harvesting the souls of India. The media, without any confirmation, blamed the burning of the Stains family on the Sangh Parivar. Screaming headlines followed for months together in the whole of the Christian world. However, in its report, the Justice Wadhawa Commission castigated the newspapers and channels for baseless media trials. The chorus of the ‘secular’ media blaming the Sangh Parivar has become a habit of sorts. Take the Jhabua nun rape case. Most of the media blamed the RSS. But later it was found to be a false allegation. The same was the case of Dangs in Gujarat. It all started with the destruction of a Hanuman Temple. True, there was some retaliation, but not even one person was injured. However, such was the propaganda that it led people to believe that dozens might have been killed. The recent trouble in Orissa started with the killing of 84-year-old, highly venerated Swami Laxmananand. Swami Laxmananand was a Vedanta scholar. He stood by Kandha tribals who refused to be converted under the pressure of evangelists as against Panas who succumbed to the allurement. Swamiji was naturally against conversion and sided with Kandhas. His lectures were attended by large number of Kandhas. He appeared to be a roadblock to the evangelists and was, therefore, eliminated. All the eleven persons arrested are Christians. The ‘secular’ media is failing to see this. Even during the Gujarat riots, Godhra’s planned burning of the railway compartment of kar sewaks was eclipsed and the riots overshadowed everything, whereas the fact remains that had Godhra not happened, Gujarat riots would not have happened. In Orissa too, had Swami Laxmananand not being killed, the Kandhas and Panas would not have fought. Conversion is the root cause of social tension in many parts of India. In Kandhmal itself, the Christian population was just 2% in 1961. In 1971 the Christian population rose to 6%, and in 2001 it reached 27%. This is the result of ‘harvesting’ of Hindu souls for Christianity! The ‘secularists’ have tried to put the blame of killing of Swamiji on Naxalites, but the Naxals have denied it flatly. It was the ninth attempt on the life of Swami Laxmananand, which succeeded. Swamiji himself had filed an FIR on an earlier attack. The ‘secular’ brigade does not even want a debate on conversion. Evangelists seem to be causing more and more social tension. It is evident from records, but who would listen?

Whither their Tie? Wilson John Three days before Pakistan elected its 14th president, on September 3, at 3 am, two CH-47 Chinook transport helicopters landed in the village of Zawlolai in South Waziristan with ground troops from the US Special Forces. The troops fired at three houses and killed over 17, including five women and four sleeping children. This was the second known ground attack by the US forces in Pakistan. In 2006, US heli-borne troops had landed in the border village of Saidgi in North Waziristan. But this was a far more bigger and intense attack. Besides the two helicopters carrying the Special Forces commandos, two jet fighters and two gun-ship helicopters provided the air cover for the half-hour operation, more than a kilometre inside the Pakistan border. The September 3 attack, and the subsequent missile attacks, raises several issues and questions that would have serious implications for Pakistan, the region as well as the world. First, it is an attack carried out in a sovereign state without its permission, and is an indication of US intentions in the region. Second, the attack betrays a sense of desperation in the US (Bush) administration and a misplaced reliance on military offensive to cover up a colossal strategic failure in stemming the tide of terrorism in Pakistan’s tribal areas which has been visible since early 2002. Third, the killing of civilians, especially women and children, would certainly raise the anti-American feeling within Pakistan, not long a strategic ally in the war on terror, particularly within its armed forces and intelligence agencies without whose help the US-led war on terror would remain crippled. Fourth, the attack, protested strongly by the villagers first who blocked the Wana-Angoor Adda road for five hours, would only strengthen the extremist and terrorist groups in the area and their anti-US agenda. The 2007 attack on a Bajaur seminary, which killed over 80 people, most of them young students, had helped the terrorist groups to enlist more recruits to their cause. The South Waziristan attack would not only help the terrorist groups consolidate their hold over the areas they already occupy but, by exploiting the strong anti-US feeling, also expand their support base in the settled areas. Fifth, and perhaps the most critical, is the impact it would have on the life and tenure of General Kayani and the new President, Asif Ali Zardari, both widely seen as pro-US. If such attacks were to continue, Kayani would come under pressure to take a divergent stand on his army’s alliance with the US counter-terrorism strategy or else face a forced resignation or a possible coup. Zardari certainly has far bigger trouble on his hand with the US belligerence heralding his election as president. The sixth fall-out is what follows naturally from weakening the position of the new president, who also happens to be the head of a relatively liberal Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the new army chief who had, till now, agreed to go along with the Americans in going after the ‘bad guys’. A weak president and a defensive army chief are not the signs of stability. Seventh, and perhaps the least understood, is the impact such attacks would have on the Pashtun sentiments. The Pashtun-Punjabi divide may not be as deep as the Punjabi-Baloch schism, but the military operations in the Pashtun-dominated tribal areas in the past seven years have caused visible rifts in the ethnic fabric of the area. The American attacks on Pashtuns and the military offensive in tribal areas, particularly Bajaur and Swat, have driven about 400,000 Pashtuns to migrate to safer areas in the North West Frontier Province and Punjab. This could translate into an expanding arc of anti-American (perhaps anti-army) sentiment in Pakistan. (The writer is a senior fellow at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation) (IANS)

source: sentinel assam