Apropos of ‘A Cloud over Indian Muslims’ (Nov.30) by Martha Nussbaum,  we find a rabid anti-India writer smartly defending  brutal and barbaric acts of Islamic Theo-fascist not only in India but all over the world, USA, UK, France, Spain, Indonesia, Egypt, Russian Federation, Pakistan etc. The free world is gearing up to resist and fight  Theo-fascists who have openly said they intend to establish an Islamic Caliphate by wiping out all other religions and their institutions from the surface of the globe so that Islam flourishes to become the sole religion  of the world as predicted in their  scriptures.

Kashinath Pandit, New Delhi.

Editorials in some leading national dailies, commentaries by regional and strategic experts and Indo-Pak watchers have been speaking in much disquiet about Mumbai terrorist attacks. The tragedy has grossly ravaged Indian civil society, which is losing faith in government’s ability to meet the challenge of Theo-fascism.

Will the UPA government do something big to reinstate nation’s trust in it? Will it risk war with Pakistan on the plea that it has irrefutable evidence to tell international community that Islamabad has no control over the Theo-fascists who are strongly entrenched in that country and have the support of a large segment of Pakistani administrative structure and part of civil society?  Is the matter come to its brim and precipitate action is warranted? Are war clouds looming large over Indo-Pak horizon?

These vital questions are under serious consideration of the UPA government. To be or not to be, that is the question.

If India decides to go for an outright war with Pakistan, first of all, she must have a very strong case to present to the international community. If she has decisive evidence, which in her estimation will convince the international community, will not Pakistan produce counter evidence to say that she too has been a victim of terrorist attacks and as such what rationale is there in targeting her. Taking the recent history of terrorism in Pakistan into consideration, there are very thin chances that international community will get convinced that India had no option but to declare war against Pakistani terrorists especially such organizations as are openly anti-India and based in Pakistan or POK.

Secondly, it has to be understood that the US and UK will never agree to the dismemberment of Pakistan because that upsets their entire scheme of things in the region. Washington has, not once but a number of times categorically said that perpetuation of Pakistan is of strategic importance to the US. Assuming that China factor can be easily neglected in a prospect of Indo-Pak war and hostilities, the European Union will never feel happy with India trying to gain an upper hand in the Sub-continent.

Furthermore, the Muslim states in the neighbourhood, especially the Sunni Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Gulf Emirates, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Iran, Syria and the rest of them will hardly feel at ease in a prospect in which India emerges the undisputed power in the sub-continent. It should be made clear that in case of an open war with Pakistan, India will never be able to achieve the precise objective — of eliminating and eradicating terrorism from Pakistan unless she is able to win over to her side the US, UK and the Israel. Bombardment and destruction of PoK on the plea that the fountain-head of anti-India terrorist planning takes place in that region will provoke the response of Islamabad, which means full-fledged war between the two countries.

Thirdly, is India’s economy in a position to withstand the burden of a war with Pakistan at a time when prices are soaring high and the world is engulfed in financial crisis? We know that Indian Finance Minister is involved in leading the country out of global financial crisis. A war would mean undoing of all his efforts that demand fine-tuning to international fiscal reforms.

Pakistan has an elected government in place. There is no question of bringing onus to the military generals in that country for what the terrorists are doing. The government in Islamabad has suffered almost identical ravages of terrorist attack on Marriott Hotel recently.  It is a different story that while Pakistan’s attacks on Taliban and pro-Al Qaida outfits are presented as essential measures of ensuring Pakistan’s political sovereignty and territorial integrity, any similar action by the Indian soldiers against Pakistan terrorist camps in PoK will be trumpeted by Islamabad as an attempt to dismember the Islamic State of Pakistan. Significance of Pakistan to the OIC is undoubtedly of high pitch. Muslim world considers Pakistan as the frontline state in giving direction to the ummah in its complex dealings with contemporary powers and their strategies. One should not forget that till today Pakistan is the only Muslim country having nuclear weapon.

In terms of tactics, a war on Pakistan or PoK will become a catalyst to forging solidarity among the otherwise warring factions and ethnic-linguistic groups in Pakistan who have been at loggerheads among themselves for quite some time. It will dramatically exacerbate the influence and importance of Pakistan Army, which has been somewhat feeling subdued by a shift of political system from military dictatorship to democracy.

These factors diminish chances of New Delhi taking a precipitate action. Nevertheless, the situation in the aftermath of Mumbai carnage is so grim that it has great bearing on the element of caution and consideration. That India is seriously thinking of hitting the nail on its head can be understood by repeated statement of the Pakistani foreign minister that India should not abandon reason and rationality in dealing with the crisis. This means that Pakistan is not unmindful of an eventuality in which India can take the risk of embarking on hostilities.

War is a necessary evil, goes the old adage.  Wars have been waged, victories have been won and people have been provided space to develop phenomenally. A scourge that has been plaguing peaceful civil society and a responsible people’s government for more than two decades, must find a grand finale. A physical victory over the institutions and organizations of Theo-fascism is a dependable and viable guarantee of providing peace to the civil society. It will establish the law of rule and democracy and it will eradicate Theo-fascism that is eating into the vitals of our nation.  A war won against the adversary provides space to the Indian Union to assert not only regionally but also globally. China has no courage to interfere when an outright war is declared. The US will wait and watch how the largest democracy in the world is inching towards entanglement in a unrelenting proxy war. Washington would be too happy to see a local power pitted against her recalcitrant ally whom she hates and loves alternately. In the heart of hearts she will feel relieved and relaxed that India would be indirectly serving her interests though outwardly she will pose as a genuine mediator. A winning war with Pakistan solves our Kashmir, SIMI, Assam, Khalistan and many other problems. It, once for all, curbs anti-national elements that are hell bent on damaging the country. In addition, it will gag the mouth of pro-fundamentalist Indian political class who has been going to all lengths to enrich their vote bank. The vote bank syndrome that has done greatest damage to Indian State will be demolished and disbanded once for all.

This comparative study shows that India will emerge a gainer from a war with Pakistan at this point of time. She missed the bus during Kargil conflict and should not repeat the mistake. She should issue an ultimatum to Islamabad to wind up terrorist camps in PoK and its adjoining areas failing which a blitzkrieg needs to be resorted to.

(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

“Officially, the central bank holds $8.14 billion (£4.65 billion) of foreign currency, but if forward liabilities are included, the real reserves may be only $3 billion - enough to buy about 30 days of imports like oil and food”, wrote the Daily Telegraph of London about Pakistan in its issue of October 6, 2008.

US’ observers on Pakistan make no secret of a grave situation developing there, which the present government in Islamabad calls the legacy left by Pervez Musharraf who quit the office of President last month. The situation has been complicated by the financial crisis worldwide and its inevitable impact on Pak economy despite tall claims that the economy of the country is not in peril.

Armed clashes with the Taliban-Al Qaeda insurgents in Waziristan, growing nexus between Afghan refugees and the Taliban operating on Paki-Afghan border, and growing crescendo of Pakistani terrorist outfits have all made a mess of administrative dispensation.

Observers predict a dismal future or near future of Pakistani State.

Islamabad has asked for a hundred billion dollar financial support from lending agencies all over the world to boost its economy and stop the country from falling apart. Whether this money will be forthcoming within shortest period of time to bridge over the crisis is anybody’s guess.  Saudis have committed to supply 100,000 barrels of crude oil a day against deferred payment so that Islamabad is able to tie over her financial crunch of unpredicted nature.

This is not the first time that Pakistan is in financial straits. She has always been in that situation more or less. American aid in one name or the other, has generally worked as propels to Pakistan’s staggering economy in the past. Since 9/11, when Pakistan decided to be on the side of the US, Washington has poured in nearly ten billion dollars into this country which one of her Presidents, namely Field Marshall Ayub Khan once called “more allied than allies.”

Why has not been Pakistan able to stabilize her economy despite all the monies pumped in over last six decades of her coming into existence? Observers are amused to find an answer to that question.

Most of these monies have gone to the kitty of defence ministry or to be precise to the Inter Service Intelligence, called “a state within a state.”  ISI has a vast agenda on its anvil like wars against India, subversion in India, financing insurgencies in Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Xingjian, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh. Apart from this, Pakistan’s coffers are also used to strengthen home-bred Theo-fascism and covert aid to various terrorist organizations and their affiliates in a vast region.

As far as Pakistan Army is concerned, well it has developed the mechanism of self-generating economy and depends little on support from the defence budget to bolster its programmes and plans, which are geared to promoting and supporting financial well-being of her generals in or out of service.

It is Army’s money power that helps it use the governments, elected or autocratic, as pawns on country’s chess board. Pakistan Army and ISI virtually man her elections if at all once a while the country relapses into the absurdity of democratic dispensation.

The question now is this: Is the US in a position to bail out Paksitan’s economy under given international financial conditions or not? This is an important question because the existence or dismemberment of Pakistan is closely linked to this question.

US are bogged with the worst financial crunch since 1930s. Its impact on world markets is also felt and there are reverberations in almost all big money markets of the world. It makes the US less capable of bailing out Pakistan under given circumstances. The lending position of IMF and other lending agencies, too, do not promise immediate relief. What then can happen with this country?

Ever since it’s coming into being in 1947, Pakistan was considered a capitalist bulwark against expanding communism of the erstwhile Soviet Union. In that context, Pakistan’s strategic importance came to her rescue and finally was catalytic to western countries including the US providing her liberal funding in one form or the other besides upgraded weaponry.

Pakistan’s grand opportunity came when the Soviets, out of their foolhardiness, launched a senseless attack on their southern neighbor Afghanistan in 1979. This event changed the entire strategic scenario of the Asiatic region and the world. It paved a way for the Americans to be in the region physically; it raised the strategic profile of Pakistan in the eyes of capitalist world as their indispensable savior; it radicalized Pakistani civil society; it reinforced the fallacy of Islam’s military and tactical invulnerability, and finally it paved the way for Pakistan to receive more funding and ask for much more and not remain content with Zia’s “peanuts”.

9/11 came as a windfall for General Musharraf who, for next eight years, basked in the warmth of American largesse. Washington thought it a fine diplomacy to let Pakistanis and the Taliban-Al Qaeda fight among them and contribute materially to their old ally and thereby kill two birds with one stone. US policy planners miscalculated, and are now facing the music with different tunes.

Nevertheless, Washington has little choice between bailing out Pakistan’s dying economy and allowing Pakistan to head to dismemberment. The US will not afford the second option. She has reasons.

The US must keep Theo-fascism alive and active; otherwise her arms manufacturing industry will face a decline. Pakistan boasts of building a powerful defence mechanism and assault force in the Asian region essentially because of her Indian threat perceptions, which may or may not be there. It means nothing for Washington to maintain balance of power in the sub-continent when her mega industrialists have to strike huge bargains for supplying military hardware.

The US and China combine cannot afford to let Pakistan go into pieces. They need a bulwark against rising India on the Asian map. Only Pakistan has the radicalized manpower to offer suicide bombers without relent not only in Kashmir but now all over India. The creation of SIMI and IM by ISI is a clear pointer towards that objective. Therefore America monies and Chinese arms must flow to terrorist training camps in Pakistan for further dissemination among the jihadis.

As a close ally of Saudi Arabia, and sectarian commonality between the two societies, the US has interest to see to it that Pakistan does not fall apart. A truncated Pakistan will shrink Saudi’s space in the second most Muslim populated country. This will be an advantage to Iran, a country very sensitive to Saudis expanding the sphere of their influence in the Muslim world.

One more reason why US will be averse to Pakistan’s dismemberment is the possible loss of a moderate segment of Pakistani Islamic society which has been largely instrumental in maintaining semblance of cordiality between the two countries in times of crisis. A large number of Pakistanis have settled down in the US. Most of them have expanded their business activities to considerable level and are an economic and political force to be reckoned with. The US would not like to lose their goodwill for they provide her enviable space back in their country of birth.

Lastly given the nature of relations between Russia and the US, Washington would not like to leave the space open for Russian inroads in a weakened and scattered Pakistan. Whatever the situation in this part of Asia, Moscow still nurses the ambition of a link to the warm waters of Indian Ocean.

Additionally, Central Asian hydrocarbon reserves have immensely influenced regional strategies. Importantly, the question of routes for pipe lines carrying the black gold is of vital significance. The Turkmen-Shanghai and IPI gas pipelines are two major projects, which, if finalized and floated, are bound to leave very deep impact on regional politics. China’s building of Gawadar port in Pakistan and India’s big expansion of her naval power are not to be overlooked. Indo-US naval exercises in the Indian Ocean do send messages to all parts of the world.

Thus in final analysis given the background of Pakistan-US relations, and also regional strategies that are likely to shape future political map of Asia, it appears that the US will not hesitate to do all it can to bail out Pakistan from the financial disaster knocking at her door.
(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

Written by René Wadlow, 30 September 2008.

I envision an international ideal of service awakening in an emerging class of people who are best called evolutionaries. I see them as soldiers, as youth, and as those who have soldier spirit within them. I see them come together in the name of people and planet to create a new environment of support for the positive growth of humankind and the living earth mother.

Their mission is to protect the possible and to nurture the potential. They are the evolutionary guardians who focus their loving protection and affirm their allegiance to people and planet for their own good and for the good of those they serve. They are pioneers, not palace guards. - Jim Chanon, First Earth Battalion

The United Nations General Assembly has designated October 2 as the International Day of Nonviolence. October 2 is the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi. For Gandhi, non-violence was at the center of his philosophy and actions. Thus it is appropriate to mark the day with an analysis of one aspect of non-violent action: the role of peace teams as observers in conflict situations.

The armed conflict between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia starting on August 8 as most people were watching the start of the Olympic games is a test case in real time of how fast governments can negotiate a ceasefire, a freeze on military activity and the deployment of external observers on the frontiers of Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The full team of European Union (EU) observers, some 300 persons, is to be in place by October 1.

As France has the presidency of the EU until the end of 2008, the French government had its team of 30 observers on the ground by 25 September, waiting for the full contingent of EU observers. The observers, while unarmed, are from military and internal security units.

During the first weeks of the conflict, there were only Russian peacekeepers. The Russian peacekeepers have been there since 1994 when an agreement was signed in Geneva among Georgia, Abkhazia, Russia, and the UN. The UN was to mediate in the Georgia-Abkhazia conflict and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) the Georgia-South Ossetia conflict. The Commonwealth of Independent States was to provide peacekeepers – basically observers. The CIS states were quickly reduced to only Russia. There are no reports that the Russian peacekeepers tried to prevent the fighting between Georgian and Russian troops or between the Georgian and South Ossetia militias.

The degree of government control over these militias cannot be known.

The violence has led to a refugee flow from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, mostly of ethnic Georgians. The current refugees join some 200,000 Georgian refugees, mostly from Abkhazia, due to the 18 months of fighting during 1992-1994.

Most of the ethnic Georgian refugees have not been permanently resettled in Georgia and continue to live in unstable conditions. It is unlikely that, after the current flair up of violence, there will be any massive return of refugees.

The EU observers are from the military. I do not have access to the resumes of the observers to know how many have served in other countries, in UN missions or received special training in unarmed observation. As we mark the International Day of Nonviolence, it is appropriate to ask could non-violent peace teams have reached the Georgia-Abkhazia and Georgia – South Ossetia frontiers faster had they been called upon by the EU or the UN to do so? We can also try to look at why governments still turn to their armed forces to provide observers in conflict areas.

There have been a good number of efforts to create non-violent teams which could work internationally somewhat on the model that Mahatma Gandhi and his followers developed in India, the Shanti Sena, to work primarily in local communal tensions.(1)

One of the first and most ambitious was the proposed “Peace Army” to be a ‘living wall’ between the advancing Japanese Army and the Chinese defenders of Shanghai in 1932. The effort, based in the UK, was offered to the League of Nations, but since the League was not planning to get involved, nothing came of the effort. Japan continued its conquest.

A second opportunity to show the effectiveness of non-violent inter-positioning came in August 1981 with the newly created US-Canada-based Peace Brigades International (PBI). In August 1981, there was a fear that US troop maneuvers in Honduras on the frontier with Nicaragua would be a prelude for a US or a US-aided attack on the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. PBI was able to draw upon an already existing team of people in southern California, some of whom were trained in radio transmission. The team had already trained together and built up a ‘team spirit’.

The team was able top move out quickly. Negotiations with diplomats from Nicaragua and Honduras were carried out at the UN in New York as part of the PBI secretariat was in Philadelphia, in easy reach of New York. After the US-Hondourous maneuvers finished, the fear of a real invasion ended, and the PBI team was withdrawn. (2)

One never knows if there were serious US plans for an attack or if support for the Contras was all that was envisaged. This experience showed the need for having an existing trained team and for good contacts with ambassadors at the UN. Given the crucial importance of close contacts with the UN, I was asked to represent PBI at the UN in Geneva, which I did from 1982 until about 1996 when there were changes in the functioning of the PBI secretariat.

For reasons I do not know, after the one experience on the Nicaragua-Honduras frontier, there was no further use made of the team from southern California. PBI recruitment was done on an individual basis. Teams were constituted when individuals arrived in the country of action. The PBI activity became centered on individual protective accompaniment of local human rights activists living under threat of abduction or assassination in Guatemala. (3)

During the 1980s, the Ambassador of Nicaragua to the UN in Geneva was one of my former students who kept me well informed about Central American politics. We had discussions on the possibility of non-violent defense against the Contras. While there was interest on the part of the Nicaraguan government, nothing was really put into place.

There were two situations with which I was deeply involved in discussions with UN officials: the large-scale refugee flow of Muslim Burmese to Bangladesh with the danger of a Burmese Army attack on the refugees, and the transport of relief supplies during the wars in ex-Yugoslavia. In both cases, several hundred people would have been necessary with only two weeks notice. PBI was not equipped to raise that number of people in that length of time.

Since the 1981 creation of PBI, a number of other organizations have joined the ranks of non-violent peace teams, some with hopes of building a large reserve of well-trained team members able to go into conflict areas as peacemakers and actively use and share their conflict resolution and peacemaking skills. There has also been a growth in mediation and conflict resolution efforts, both in academic programs and in non-governmental organizations (NGOs). However, as we see in the Georgia conflict, ‘when the chips are down’, governments turn to other governments, not to NGOs.

The confidence of governments only in other governments should come as no surprise. The world is still organized around the role of states, and both the diplomatic services and the military are trained to be state-centric. There is no non-governmental peacemaking organization that springs to the mind of a government official in a crisis situation, with the possible exception of the International Committee of the Red Cross which is bound to governments by treaties which set out its rights and responsibilities.

As Brian Urquhart, for many years the chief political officer in the United Nations, has written “Peacekeeping depends on the non-use of force and on political symbolism”. The Red Cross is one of the most universally recognized political symbols. Even those who do not respect the Geneva Conventions know they are not supposed to shoot people with a Red Cross flag. Only the UN flag has such wide recognition as a non-state symbol.

The second weakness of non-governmental peacekeeping is the lack of availability of people on short notice. While there are an increasing number of people who have studied in conflict resolution courses or have participated in efforts in the field, most have jobs, families etc. and cannot drop everything to live on the Georgia-South Ossetia frontier for three months. The military are sitting around waiting for something to do.

The only civilian equivalents are monks. I had once thought that it might be possible to re-create the ‘fighting monks’ of Japanese history. I saw teams of Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu monks all trained and ready to be deployed. For a while in the 1980s when there were a good number of communes, I thought about ‘New Age monks’ that could play the same role. But I must not have been convincing enough.

The third weakness is related to the other two. The people on the ground who are to be protected or at leased ‘observed’ know what the military are. They may not like soldiers, but they have seen them before. Non-violent peacekeepers without a recognizable symbol or uniform are unknowns and there is little time to explain.

Non-violence is still more potential than reality. On the International Day of Nonviolence, we have to consider the road not yet travelled.

***

(Rene Wadlow, Representative to the United Nations, Geneva, Association of World Citizens and editor of the on-line journal of world politics and culture Transnational Perspectives TP).

Notes:

1. Thomas Weber.Gandhi’s Peace Army: The Shanti Sena and Unarmed Peacekeeping, (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1996, 293pp.)

2. For an account see: Daniel Clark Transnational Action for Peace Transnational Perspectives Vol 9, N°4, 1983

3. For a full analysis see: Liam Mahony and Luis Enrique Eguren Unarmed Bodyguards: International Accompaniment for the Protection of Human Right, (West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1997, 288pp.)

New Delhi is doing a delicate but crucial balancing act in the region.

On July 3, National Security Adviser, Mr. M.K. Narayanan visited Teheran, as Prime Minister’s special envoy. Media reported the hurried visit but curiously avoided speculating its purpose. The visit took place at a time, when behind-the-curtain parleys between the ruling Congress and Mulayam Singh’s Samajwadi Party were in progress. On arrival in Teheran, Mr. Narayanan is reported to have told the press that India would be willing to mediate between Iran and the international community. He met with top Iranian leadership.

The launching of “strategic partnership” between the two countries in January 2003 under the rubric of New Delhi Declaration has yielded only limited results.  However, under the cover of “civilizational ties”, Iran has made deep inroads into the Shiite segment of Indian Muslim society whereas under the same cover India is trying to project its soft pro-Muslim profile to the Islamic world in which Iran occupies an important place.

The linking of Iran to the Indo-US civil nuclear deal emanates from a clash of regional strategies and the political fallout likely to appear from it. Teheran is eager to add countries to the list of her friends in order to render ineffective Washington’s policy of isolating her in the region.

India’s strategic interest in befriending Iran was reflected in one of the MEA’s annual reports, which, among other things, noted, “2004 – 05 saw further deepening and consolidation of India-Iran ties with increased momentum of high level exchanges and institutional linkages between their National Security Councils”. Very significantly, it notes, “ New Delhi and Teheran have joined hands in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and to support the development of “alternative access routes” via Iran’s Chah Bahar port”.

Oil and gas hungry India imports 85 % of her annual requirement from Iran. With a view to deepen energy related relations with Iran, the Gas Authority of India (GAIL) has signed a 25-year deal of 22 billion US dollars to buy 5 million tons per year of Iranian liquefied natural gas (LNG). The GAIL will develop Iran’s South Pars gas field. Currently Indian oil imports from Iran are between 1 to 1.5 lac barrels per day making it 7.5 % of total Iranian oil exports. At the same time Indian refineries supply a large part of the refined gasoline to Iran.

The proposed extension of $ 7 billion Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline to India (IPI) has not found favour with a section of policy planners in Washington because besides bringing substantial revenues to Iran’s state exchequer, the project is bound to enhance political importance of Iran in the region. It would become alarming if, as intended, the pipeline is extended to China.

Washington’s move of unilaterally lifting nuclear technology–related sanctions imposed on India in post-Pokhran II blast, and initiating a civil nuclear deal with her, can be understood from an article written by Nicholas Burns, the chief US negotiator of Indo-US nuclear deal, and published in Washington Times in May 2007.  He wrote, “India’s growing economy will bring pressure on non-renewable energy resource. It is prudent to help her. India will be the US’ two or three most important strategic partners in the years to come — the other two being Japan and Britain.”

About the same time, there was a loud talk in the US political circles on what is called “Axis of Democracy”. From this, and from the July 2005 launch of a US-India “global partnership”, political analysts inferred that 123 Agreement could be followed by 126 Agreement, which would lead to military cooperation between the two countries.

Even as of now, the two democracies are eyeing a military cooperation of sorts. Lockheed and Martin are vying with Boeing to grab $ 8 billion order for 126 combat aircrafts for the Indian Air Force. US Navy is keen to rope in Indian Navy in its Global Maritime Partnership, the 1000-ships Navy, an offer that a visiting US Naval officer had made in April 2007.  Navies of three countries — India, Japan and the US — made a drill in the Pacific in April 2007. Observers thought it was to send a strong message to China for her growing naval presence from Gawadar in Pakistan to Coco Islands in Myanmar just 50 kilometres from the Indian Andaman Islands.

However, India-Iran cordial relations are causing concern to policy makers in Washington. Their main concerns are (a) India’s policy towards Iran’s nuclear programme is not compatible with that of Washington, and (b) US is against Iran benefiting from India’s fuel imports.
These concerns lying at the bottom, in January 2006, the US Ambassador to New Delhi linked progress on proposed nuclear deal with India’s vote against Iran in the IAEA. Six months later, the House of Representative in the US passed legislation to enable proposed civil nuclear cooperation with India. The bill, indeed, contains language on securing India’s cooperation with US policy towards Iran. But an amendment seeking to make such cooperation binding was defeated by a vote of 235 to 192. It meant that Bush administration was seemingly flexible and did not approve compartmentalizing triangular relationship.

Not only that, replying to questions in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged the veracity of reports in sections of American press that Iranian naval ships had visited India’s Kochi port for “training”. However, she said Washington had made clear to India that it had a concern about their relationship with Iran.

In regard to India’s relations with Iran vis-à-vis Washington’s strategic interests in the region, it is clear that (a) New Delhi does not share Washington’s view of Iran as an aggressive regional power, (b) New Delhi will not accept dictation of her Iran policy from any quarter,  (c) cordial Iran-India relationship should not be construed as an obstacle either to growing India-US relations or to some thaw in Iran-US acrimony in days to come, and (d) in regard to Iran’s uranium enrichment programme, India would not like another nuclear power in the region. India has aligned with international efforts to bring Iran’s controversial nuclear programme into conformity with NPT and IAEA provisions. It is in the light of this last policy parameter of India-Iran-US trilateral relationship that the National Security Adviser said in Teheran that India would be willing to mediate between Iran and international community.

There is an understanding in the US think tanks of India’s domestic compulsions, security concerns and energy pressures. Conspicuously, even Israel has shown equanimity by not publicly objecting to New Delhi’s dealing with Teheran. In a recent Congressional hearing, Stephen Cohen, an expert on South Asia made a profound remark. He said, “ We should not demand Indian support for all our Iranian policies any more than we should allow India dictate our policy towards Pakistan”. Another important State department functionary remarked in the same hearing “ US believes partnership list will grow with time and nuke deal would be the most powerful tool in the process.” It should also be remembered that despite criticism of India in some political circles in the US, a House of Representative Resolution introduced in July 2005 expresses support for the gas pipeline project as “a facilitator of India-Pakistan peace process.”

At the same time, such understanding is not lacking with Iranian policy planners dealing with India. The proof is that despite India’s vote against Iran in IAEA, Teheran had announced that talks on IPI would not be severed.

The relevance of Indian Muslims and Islamic countries to the broad spectrum of India’s regional strategy as enunciated above is a fact to be recognized. External Affairs Minister will be travelling to Iran by the end of this month and the Prime Minister has a standing invitation. India hosted a five-day visit of the Syrian President Mr. Bashar al Assad, a key figure in Israel – Palestine talks. Again, chances of reaching an understanding with Pakistan on Kashmir issue and a Camp David type peace process with US blessings could reduce the ire of Indian Shiite Muslims against the US for intimidating Iran.

And last but not the least is the need to understand the significance of Samajwadi Party leadership seeking and publicising the opinion of ex-President on the feasibility of the civilian nuclear deal. Evidently it was reacting to Chief Minister Mayawati’s utterances that the deal was against the interests of the Muslims. Previously, during his tenure as chief minister of U.P., Mulayam Singh had successfully invited the then visiting Iranian President Mr. Khatami to Lucknow. Neither that visit has lost its impact nor has Mulayam Singh’s U.P. minority electoral constituency eroded.

India is playing a significant role in easing the tense situation in the region and strengthening the peace process. Indian policy planners are confident that the US engagement of Iran is a matter of time. Undoubtedly New Delhi is doing a delicate balancing act.

(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

Indian visit was the shortest leg - just eight hours long - in Iranian President‒s recent South Asian visit.

Yet this shortest leg is perhaps the most important in term of Iran’s vision of Look East (nigah-i be sharq) policy. 1. Iran’s disregard of Security Council’s three instalments of economic sanctions and her rejection of Washington’s allegations of interference in Iraq forced Teheran to recast her geopolitical strategy. 2. She concentrated on diversifying her foreign policy by exploring new economic, political and commercial space in such regions of South Asia, which no doubt geographically close to her strategic reach are at the same time crucial to the global strategy of the United States. Iranian foreign minister Manuchehr Mottaqi, who has received his education in Bangalore, may well have taken the cue from India’s Look East policy of the decades between 1970 and 1990.

Thus Iran has extended her political arm to the strategic Indian Ocean island State of Sri Lanka, and two most important countries of the sub-continent, namely Pakistan and India. This is a subset of Iran’s ambitious global strategy to stand up to the American pressers and antics. Iran’s billion-dollar investment in Sri Lankan sole oil refinery and funding of 450 million US dollars in that country’s Uma Opaya power project gives her a dependable foothold in the Indian Ocean region.

Apart from close cooperation with Iran in the fields of tourism and education, Iran will have the unique opportunity of undertaking a vast project of vessel building for Sri Lanka at her well-equipped ports in the Gulf coastal region. Iranian President’s visit is loaded with extraordinary economic significance to the three countries that have been negotiating hard over what is called Iran Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project.

The US has been opposing this project arguing that enormous returns from this 7.6 billion dollar gas pipeline would make Iran more roughish a state that has so often publicly wished the extinction of Israel. The stalemate over the IPI gas pipeline project since last 15 years seems to be coming to an end with Iran and Pakistan having come closer to signing a deal. India has been reluctant arguing that security of the pipeline through Pakistan could cause a problem for her. But the very recent expression of interest by China to participate in the bid for laying the pipeline has indirectly instilled confidence in the Indians that with such international commitments, she could reconcile to move forward.

Pakistan will need enormous loans for investing in the project. Actually the World Bank had been showing interests in the IPI from the very beginning. No doubt Washington has a strong clout with the World Bank, but the lending agency will have to overcome reluctance in sanctioning loans to Pakistan. It appears that the last obstruction of not so cordial relationship between India and Pakistan, too, can be overcome with a new government in the seat of power in Islamabad. Commentators believe that the two countries, hitherto on loggerheads for many decades, are gradually wriggling out of their mindset and are realizing the necessity of extended regional commercial relationship as the key to fast economic development of their societies.

Iran is engaged in a serious dialogue with Moscow to find a way out of nuclear impasse. Russian interlocutor has expressed hope of breaking the jinx sooner than later and that is why Russia stresses on continued dialogue with Iran. As things are moving along this line, China has of late showed greater interests in engaging Teheran in a meaningful dialogue.

Teheran has unexpectedly released eight pictures of her nuclear installations in Natanz and experts are examining these Conscious of Tehran’s move on the chessboard of regional strategies, Washington persists with her intimidation and ranting. Defence Secretary Gates announced movement of second America warship in the Gulf though he said it would replace the earlier one. President Bush has issued another stern warning to Iran accusing her of supplying arms and war material to the dissidents in Iraq and undermining the interests of the US in that war torn country.

Faced with critical need for energy resource, New Delhi has moved away from her earlier lukewarm stand on IPI. She could muster courage to tell US that she knew what to talk to the Iranians. It will be reminded that recently Nicholas Burns, US outgoing Assistant Secretary of State, while delivering a lecture at the University of Harvard, said that his one important achievement was that he had convinced India to stay away from IPI deal.

The US Secretary of State, in a comment on the subject said that signing the IPI deal would be illegal under the US law. The US sanctions against Iran penalises foreign companies or governments that invest more than 20 million dollars in Iran’s energy sector.

The final signing of he IPI deal will have tremendous impact on regional strategies, on bilateral and multilateral relations among three involved countries vis-a -vis the United States. Will Washington absorb the defiance of Iran, a known adversary - on one hand, and Pakistan, an ally in war against terrorism, and India, a huge democracy and economic power of the world - on the other?

Will sane and sober understanding of the ground situation bring a realization to all parties to sit down, close the chapter of old hostilities, and work in a new frame that brings them and their people respite from threats, intimidation, economic deprivation and poverty? It is a moment of introspection. (The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

Tibet is in news. India has the compulsion to closely watch the developments in the controversial region. This is because India has given asylum to thousands of Tibetan refugees and the Dalai Lama has established his headquarter in exile in Dharamsala in Himachal Pradesh.

Beijing official spokesperson says that about ten Tibetan demonstrators were killed in the riots. Private sources place the casualties at a much higher number. Dalai Lama himself said that the number of the killed is above one hundred.

Beijing has imposed a ban on the flow of news from Tibet. Foreign press is unable to send in reports. This is China’s traditional policy to keep the outside world uninformed and thereby force its views on one and all.

Chinese Premier Wen has accused Dalai Lama of trying to disrupt the Beijing Olympic Games slated for August. Olympic Games, for which Beijing has made great preparations, is of far – reaching importance to China. She wants to raise her profile in the international community by arranging state of art demonstration of giving the great even its real grandeur.
However, no sensible observer will accept Beijing accusing Dalai Lama for fomenting trouble in Tibet.

Tibetan nationalism is not dead despite the fact that the religious pontiff is not on the Tibetan soil at the moment. Nevertheless, Dalai Lama has more than once cleared his position on the ticklish Tibetan issue. He has never pleaded for secession of Tibet from China but he has strongly support the demand for the autonomy of Tibet.

Autonomy, larger or smaller, does not necessarily men separation from the mainland. It is one of the aspects of democratic process of governing. We have the similar case in Jammu and Kashmir. The difference is that there is an externally sponsored separatist and secessionist movement in J&K State whereas this is not the situation in Tibet.

Tibetan dissidents are not provided the patent “moral, diplomatic and spiritual support” of Pakistan to Kashmir militants. Secondly, in Kashmir the separatists are fighting for separation from Indian Union and accession to the neighbouring state of Pakistan. This is not the case with Tibet. That is one of the reasons why the Tibetan issue has received international attention.

That Beijing has resorted to repressive measure to quell the nationalist uprising in Tibet is the ground situation. Instead of bringing accusations against Dalai Lama, the Chinese premier should have listed the demands of the restive Tibetan population in Lhasa so that the world would know whether their demands are justifiable or not. The world would also know Beijing has done to meet the genuine demands. This has not been done.

International press, not necessarily hostile or too friendly to Chinese regime in Beijing, has, very often said that a large scale change in demographic complexion of Tibet has been effected and non-ethnic Chinese and Uighurs have been brought from adjoining regions and settled in Tibet to reduce the number of ethnic Tibetans. Beijing has never countered this allegation with convincing proofs and data. This is one of the root causes of discontent in Tibet. It sounds ridicules to bring onus to the doorsteps of Dalai Lama.

It will be observed that Dalai Lama has asked for an enquiry into the tragedy by an impartial international agency. This is fair enough. No person presumed to be the instigator of violence would make this suggestion.

Furthermore, even when the tragedy is at its peak and sentiments are surcharged, Dalai Lama has given sufficient proof of statesmanship and forbearance by declaring that Tibet does not want separation but only full autonomy. He has boldly and wisely conceded that ethnic groups in China have to live in harmony with one another. No such word has come from Beijing’s official circles. One can mark the difference.

Dalai Lama is very realistic. Tibet’s geographical location is such that it has to remain part of China. But there should be no difficulty in allowing her autonomy. Any attempt at forging change in demographic complexion will remain an irritant in the mutual relations.

China must frankly concede that ethnic trouble is not over in the country. The Uighurs of Xinjiang are up in arms. Because of excessive control of Beijing on media, true stories of unrest among the Uighurs are not trickling down the press. But in today’s world there is no foolproof blockade of media.

Beijing has to reconsider its policy towards ethnic minorities. It has to concede their rights of self determination and it has to put an end to discrimination. In heterogeneous societies, the rights and interests of all ethnic and other groups have to be kept in mind.

Beijing would do good to give up the path of confrontation and seek a meaningful dialogue with the Tibetan dissidents including Dalai Lama. Nobody will accept the gross accusations brought against Dalai Lama.

The problem of dissent in a given society cannot be solved by muscle power. It is resolved by honest and well-intended dialogue.

To her west are the lands of the Semitic people – Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan - and to her north and east lie the lands of Indo-Iranian branch of Aryans – Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thus Iran is a buffer of sorts between two major races on the earth.

Not only that, Iran itself is a mosaic of ethnicities, a factor that adds colour and brightness to her rich heritage. She has ethnic Baluch and Arabs in the south, Azeris and Kurds in the north, Aryan-Semitic mixed race to the west bordering on Iraq, and Farsi-Turkmen speaking groups to her northwest. Nevertheless, these ethnic, racial or linguistic diversities are no hindrance to the national identity of her people as Iranians.

To her west, Iran has a long common border with Iraq, an Arab state with a majority of Shia Muslims. The populace on the border area is culturally, and to some extent linguistically, mixed so as to give the land the name of Iraq-e-Ajam meaning Iraq-Iran.

Despite commonality of religion, Iran’s relations with Iraq have seldom been cordial. However, Iranian Shia pilgrims (zavvar) to Kerbala in Iraq, have generally played a moderating role in their mutual relations.

The decade-long Iran-Iraq war of 1979 was essentially an expression of Iranian nation’s aspiration for self-assertion in the aftermath of the fall of US-patronized monarchy. It also reflected the likelihood of a protracted struggle between the radicals and the moderates among the Muslims. While the Bathists towed the communist line, the radical Khumeinites raised the slogan of back to the basics.

With regard to more recent developments, Iran neither explicitly protested against the US-led military intervention in the neighbouring country of Iraq nor did she express serious concern to her sovereignty and territorial integrity. She considered the dismissal of Baathist regime and Saddam Husain as reinforcing factors to her anti-Iraq policy.

Nevertheless, fast changing ground situation in Iraq has prompted Iran to play a role, albeit clandestinely, by using Iraqi Shia conduit to push her political interests in the region. While the US considers it an unfriendly act, Iran takes shelter behind deniability.

The role of Iran under clerical regime has been somewhat dubious. In her foreign policy, the theocratic regime made no secret of “exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution” to such Islamic countries as showed laxity in adhering to radical Islamic identity.

The regime has made no secret of its animus towards Israel. Overplaying its Islamic role, Iran tries to tell the Arab states that she would do more to oust the Israelis from Palestine and bring triumph to Islam than what they might be able or willing to do. Iran provides mercenaries and military assistance to radical groups fighting against Israelis in Lebanon. Observers think this is one of the obstructions in the Middle East peace process. The recent fighting in Lebanon lay bare the precise role Iran was playing in that region.

Saudi Arabia, with predominantly Sunni Population, is another important neighbour of Iran. Like Iraq, Iran’s relations with Saudi kingdom, too, have never been cordial. During the reign of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, there did appear a temporary thaw in their cold relationship, perhaps owing to some pressures from Washington, which has stakes in both countries.

But soon after the success of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khumeini openly denounced monarchy as incompatible with Islamic political philosophy. He went to the length of saying that all monarchs in Muslim countries were “usurpers”. Khumeini rejected the claim of the Saudi monarchs that they were the sole caretakers of the holy shrine of Ka’aba. More importantly, he maintained that in Islam, religion and politics were inseparable, and that it was a recognised tradition of the Muslims to discuss politics in all religious gatherings and at all religious places.

The rise of Khumeinism in Iran, and Iran’s not too friendly disposition towards the Saudis invited latter’s quick reaction. It projected Wahhabism throughout the Sunni-dominated Muslim world to counter Iran’s growing assertiveness. With the passage of time, Khumeini’s ideology received a set back. But in the process, the spectacular ascendancy of Wahhabism - also known as radical Islam -, with Saudi blessings, too, assumed threatening proportions.

In any case, the desire of Shia Iran to dominate or to wrest the leadership of the Muslim world from the Saudis could make little headway. It has to be understood that one of the factors of Iran’s patent hostility towards the US is rooted in latter’s patronizing gesture towards the Saudi monarchy.

Afghanistan, the eastern neighbour of Iran has closer historical, cultural, linguistic, social and spiritual affinity to Iran. Just three centuries ago, Afghanistan formed part of greater Khurasan, the eastern province of Iran. Iran’s relations with Afghanistan have remained cordial over the centuries and there has not been any major irritant between them. However, Iran became watchful and alarmed when Soviet influence began to penetrate Afghan society in the second half of the previous century. Pro-Soviet political parties - Khalq and Parcham - the handiwork of Soviet secret agents in Kabul in 19760s and 70s, forced the Iranian monarchy to come closer to the US on one hand and to seek more goodwill of the erstwhile Soviet Union on the other. Some political analysts believe that the late Shah had tried to do a fine act of balancing. Liquidation of monarchy in Kabul, though a clear signal to the Shah of Iran of coming events, did not impress him and he learnt no lesson from it.

The rise of Taliban in its early days in Kandahar did not have any immediate impact on Iran-Afghan relations. But when the Taliban and the Northern Alliance forces under Ahmad Shah Masud came to actual fighting for supremacy over Afghanistan, a change in political alignments became visible. General Dostum, the ethnic Uzbek Afghan warlord of Mazar-e Sharif in Northern Afghanistan looked towards his ethnic fraternity in Uzbekistan and Turkey. In comparison, Ahmad Shah Masud, the Tajik Afghan warlord of Panjsheer Valley in Northern Afghanistan befriended Iran, Tajikistan and to a small extent India. Of course, material support to Masu’d by the allies had Moscow’s green signal.

Iran looked at Taliban with much suspicion. The cold blooded murder of Iranian diplomatic mission personnel in Mazara-e-Sharif and the massacre of innocent Dari speaking people in occupied parts of Herat and Balkh by the Taliban evoked Teheran’s resentment. Teheran ordered securing of her eastern border with Afghanistan and even deployed a strong defence force along the sensitive border. However, sagacity prevailed and no serious skirmishes took places.

Teheran received international appreciation for extending full facilities to the Afghan refugees seeking shelter on Iranian soil to escape the wrath of the Taliban. More than a million Afghan refugees were provided shelter, food and clothing by the Iranian government in camps in different towns of Khurasan including Mashed. This humanitarian act could not escape the eyes of political commentators. However, Iran did maintain a strict vigil over the activities of the refugees lest they indulge in drug trafficking and other crimes normally committed by their rogue elements in Afghanistan.

In present Afghan crisis, Teheran has been criticising the American and the NATO forces for indiscriminate bombing and destruction of innocent lives in Afghan operations. However, she has not made an issue out of it because curbing Taliban and uprooting terrorism are in the larger interest of Iran. Obviously, Teheran is not favourably disposed to the process through which Hamid Karzai came to power. In the same way she is not evincing any keen interest in the elections in Iraq.

With Turkmenistan, the northern neighbour of Iran, Teheran has a 500 kilometres long border. A large number of ethnic Turkmen families are living close to the border on Iranian side. Tehran cannot ignore the presence of a fairly large ethnic Turkmen population on its soil. Moreover, Iran has stakes in Turkmen (Daulatabad) gas deposits. Iranian National Oil Company has made huge investments in the exploration, exploitation and transportation of Turkmen gas to Kabul and perhaps onwards to Pakistan. Sarakhs on Iran-Turkmenistan border is a vital entrepot regulating South Asia’s trade route to Central Asia via Iranian port of Bandar Abbas – Sarakhs rail link.

The Azeri question relates to Azerbaijan, once a north–western province of Iran, which was divided between Iran and the erstwhile Soviet Union after World War II. Azerbaijan and Armenia, both are now independent States of Trans-Caspian Central Asia. Azerbaijan has laid claim to the western off- shore oil reserves of the Caspian Sea. Teheran has contested the claim. Iran even moved one of her battle ships in the region to make a show of power in the western part of the Caspian Sea. A stalemate has ensued though intermittent formal talks have not been totally suspended.

Iran considers Azerbaijan’s offer of Ceyhan oil pipeline through Azerbaijan territory to the Bosphorus and onwards to Europe as an unfriendly act. It will be noted that Anglo-American oil cartels engaged in export of oil from Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan) don’t want the oil pipeline to pass through the territories of either Iran or Russia.

Iran is maintaining a big-brother stance in her relations with the littoral states of the Gulf. Knowing that the Gulf has immense strategic importance - being the lifeline for the huge oil tankers - Iran has been strengthening her navy with regularity and seriousness. The presence of American nuclear base in Diego Garcia close to the Persian Gulf and stationing of very strong American warships somewhere near the mouth of the Gulf are major irritants for Iran.

Iran ’has been very active in Bahrain, a small Sheikhdom in the Gulf. The reason is that Bahrain has a sizeable Shia population whereas in other Sheikhdoms of the Gulf, Sunni Hanafi Islam prevails widely. The Bahrain Shias, covertly supported by Iran, tried to depose the Sunni ruler more than once but without success.

From this brief and rather cursory introduction, it will be deduced that Iran has not been having smooth relations with most of its close neighbours in the region. Ethnic and linguistic diversity, national interests, political rivalry and economic mad race have combined to put a question mark on Iran’s commitment to peace in the Middle East. Iran’s impatience in acquiring nuclear capability is a source of threat to her neighbours with whom Iran is at loggerheads for one reason or the other.

Ambassador Nabizadeh says India’s testing of spy satellite TECSAR on 21 January in Andhra Pradesh has caused embarrassment to Teheran.

TECSAR is Israel’s spy satellite meant to keep an eye on nuclear activities of Iran. It is powerful enough to detect objects even when passing through clouds.

Teheran has never made a secret of her bellicosity towards Israel. At the peak of his power, Ayatollah Khumeini publicly declared that the road to Qods (Jerusalem) lay through Israel. He never rejected force as means of achieving that goal.

Khumeini’s successors in the hierarchy of hardliners, including the supreme religious leader Khamenei, have been towing his line. Holding out threats of attack and destruction or intimidating a sovereign state on political, economic or religious grounds is violation of the UN Charter. Iran is a signatory to the Charter.

Ever since the Islamic revolution, Iran has assumed confrontational posture in the region by arming Hamas and training its activists. It has brought fighting and instability closer to the doors of Israel.

A sovereign country when handed out serious open threats to its existence by an adversary would naturally take steps to beef up its security and solidarity. Unfortunately, Iran has promoted weapon race in the Middle East besides jeopardizing peace prospect, which international community wants to carry forward.

During Iran-Iraq war that erupted soon after Iran’s Islamic Revolution, Israel played a significant role in providing much - needed portable military hardware to Iran via Pakistan to fight Iraq. At that time Saddam posed much more serious threat to Israel.

With the liquidation of the Bathist regime and Saddam in Iraq, Iran has intensified her anti-Israel animus to the extent that Iranian President Ahmadinejad thinks the World War II holocaust was only a fabricated episode. Teheran wants to assume the frontline role against Israel in the wake of vacuum caused by the disintegration of Iraq and destruction of Saddam. This is to satisfy her ego of assuming leading role in the Muslim world as the frontline Muslim state challenging the existence of Israel. Iran always had a problem of identity as a Muslim state.

The history of Iran immediately following the rise of Ayatolha Khumeini shows that she has been trying to be over-assertive in international relations. Her strained relations with the US have caused her the dilemma of how to behave with countries especially Asiatic ones that have good or normal relations with the US. India is one such country but at the same time more important than many other countries.

India has always been conscious of her age-old cultural relations with Iran. New Delhi has usually tried not to do anything that might cause unhappiness to Iran. But in regard to Kashmir issue, Iran has fallen short of demonstrating neutrality leave aside pro-India stance. Teheran never hesitated to be a willing signatory to anti-India resolutions on Kashmir in the OIC usually tabled by Pakistan.

We know where her grouse against India lies. India had declined to provide her with nuclear know-how. It was Pakistan’s Qadeer Khan who was authorised by Islamabad to clandestinely carry the blue prints to Teheran.

Unluckily, Teheran failed to recognise broad contours of India’s principled foreign policy: it failed to comprehend the seriousness of India’s security concerns in trans-Himalayan region. Moreover, New Delhi had no reason whatsoever to be part of political manoeuvring that endangered peace and stability in the Middle East. India could not go against the established norms of international behaviour in order to oblige a friendly country to help her achieve dangerous ambitions.

India’s good relations with Israel are not something against Iran or the Muslim world. It is her patent foreign policy to widen the circle of her friendly countries. That is true of all sovereign states. Are not many Muslim countries having cordial relations with Israel? Iran has never expressed her embarrassment over that harsh reality.

It is only a figment of imagination to say that India is not agreeing to be a party to Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline because of pressure from Washington. The fact is that much before Washington expressed its concern on tripartite gas deal, New Delhi had in no ambiguous terms expressed its doubts of Pakistan standing fast by her promise of providing necessary security to the proposed gas pipeline. Moreover, New Delhi is apprehensive that Pakistan may end up as a failed state. Ethnic divide is a potent threat to her territorial integrity. This poses serious threat to the proposed IPI gas pipeline. Unless these doubts are removed India has reservations in becoming a party to the deal.

And finally, terrorist threat to India’s security and territorial integrity emanates from the region in her immediate neighbourhood. Iran never came out with open condemnation of terrorist activities in India and the region. It has been playing seek and hide game. Terrorist organizations in the neighbourhood spitting fire of communal hatred and frenzy against India day in and day out have pushed India to seek cooperation of friends who do understand the implications of these threats to her sovereignty sovereignty. Iran could have played a vital role in minimising the terrorist menace but she chose not to play.

Some leftist groups in India have been keeping Teheran in good humour. For what reasons, we do not know but we know that there is absolutely no ideological comparability between the mullah regime in Teheran and Marxists in India. Iran has no justification to give expression to any displeasure, formally or informally over India testing the spy satellite.

(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies at Kashmir University).

On 31 December 2008, barely two days after the assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the Pentagon quietly announced approval to the defence giant Lockheed Martin transferring eighteen F-16 warplanes to Pakistan.

The deal had been on tabletop for a long time, and Pakistan had made the payment long back. However, the timing of the announcement did spring surprise in some circles in the US.

The Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden said. ” The decision to go ahead with half a billion dollar sale of advance fighter aircraft to Pakistan shows how dangerous misguided President Bush’s policy is. How can the White House even think of green-lighting such a sale at such an incredibly sensitive time? It sends exactly the wrong message to Pakistan Generals and to the Pakistani people. This is the time we should be putting pressure on the government and the military to fully investigate the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and to hold free and fair elections and not let them off the hook.”

Observers are a trifle surprised at Washington’s hope that elections in Pakistan would be fair and free, if held at all next month. Faced with escalation of Taliban-Al Qaeda combined resistance in Waziristan in NWFP of Pakistan, Washington is eager that Pakistan Generals make no misadventure that could scuttle election process.

Officials at Pakistan desk in the State Department hope that impending elections next month in Pakistan would return a large moderate and secular majority to the Pakistani parliament. This, they believe, would become catalyst to the ousting of radical coalition of Islamist parties now controlling the government in Pushtun belt, NWFP and Balochistan. If that happens then Pervez Musharraf’s position will be strengthened and Pakistan get better manoeuvrability of tackling insurgency issue in NWFP in particular.

But the timing of the announcement of transfer of 18 advanced warplanes together with mishandling of Benazir’s assassination case have give rise to many doubts and questions.

For example, Senator Biden asked why Washington’s military aid to Pakistan should not carry the condition of Pakistan undertaking far- reaching political and administrative reforms. There are other critical comments as well.

Concerned circles have reported that most of US’ 11 billion dollar aid provided to Pakistan over past five years has been used to buy conventional weapons system more appropriate for war against India than increasingly powerful Pakistan Taliban based in Pushtun dominated Federal Area of Tribal Agency (FATA) and NWFP.

F-16s cannot be operated and are not meant for use in any operation of counter insurgency n FATA, says Steve Coll, author of the history of CIA, viz. Ghost Wars.

Many among the think tank in the US insist that US aid should be tied to specific performance and stepping up counter insurgency in NWFP. It will be reminded that the US has committed 750 million dollars towards development aid in FATA. The long-term aid is meant to weaken insurgency in the region.

While these aspects of the ground situation in Waziristan are under observation, the US officials have also been discussing plans of authorising the CIA and Special Operation Force to mount cross border operation from Afghanistan against key Taliban/Al Qaeda targets.

This could perhaps explain President Bush’s recent decision of adding 2300 marines to the existing US military force in Afghanistan and bringing the total number to 30,000. More than 300 troops have so far been killed in action against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

However, experts are not closing their eye to the consequences of launching a cross border attack on Pakistani Taliban in the frontier region of NWFP. White House would not like to further destabilise the position of Pervez Musharraf who they believe has not become totally redundant to their interests in the region.

It will be reminded that according to an expert study by Rand Corporation, 70 per cent people of Pakistan feel that Pervez Musharraf is unpopular with them. This equals the unpopularity percentage of President Bush as well in Pakistan,

Washington’s adventure of cross border action is bound to have repercussions on India’s security concerns particularly in Jammu and Kashmir State. If Taliban insurgents feel the heat of American strike in Swat region, they could make strategic retreat into Kashmir territory where conditions are somewhat conducive to their re-grouping after a brief respite. This will bring Indian security structure in J&K under server pressure and could also adversely affect Indo-Pak peace process. New Delhi should take up this matter with the American counterparts and apprise them of possible fallout of a reckless adventure on Pak-Afghan border. It should not be overlooked that in Southern and South Eastern Afghanistan, Taliban-Al Qaeda combine has strengthened its position considerably. This is bound to boot the morale of the insurgent forces in Waziristan.

(The writer is the former Director, Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

Link (put by the responsibility of Heidi of the AEHRF’s Geneva-Office): Global Empire without Emperor?

Dear Shro Rohmetra Namaskar,

Hope you are fine. As you know, I have long personal association with Excelsior and I have also personal relations with you. I had the great honour of working with Excelsior in the past and I pray for its progress.

For last one year or more I have observed that my articles are not given space in the esteemed paper. This is despite the fact that I have written very good articles without bias and prejudice on international, regional and national issues. Friends have always appreciated my analysis. But why Excelsior has not given them space is not understandable to me. I feel that the editors do not go through the contents carefully and leave it there.

I shall feel happy if Excelsior shows me the same consideration as it has been showing in the past. Friends usually ask me why I dont write in the Excelsior as they would like to read my writings and analysis. It is difficult for me to convince them that I do write but these are not published.

I hope you will  kindly react to this observation and oblige. I attach a piece to this letter. Hopefully I will come to see you personally  next week.

With warm regards,
K.N. Pandita, 19.01.2008.

Internal situation in Pakistan, an Asian nuclear state, must trigger off a fresh debate on the question of UN imposing wholesale ban on nuclear weapons. Some sensitive circles in the west are already seized of the issue.

Pakistan, a long time military dictatorship, made a couple of attempts to stabilise democracy. It failed. The main reason is the creation of a State on the basis of religion, which did not prove a viable proposition.

With fundamentalist-terrorist combine holding Pakistani civil society a hostage, and the government playing seek and hide with these outfits, the danger of her nuclear arsenal falling in the hands of crusading legions holed up in the NWFP has increased manifold.

There is hardly any confirmation from any reliable source that the US wields control, full or partial, on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Washington can and may trust Musharraf’s assurance that Pakistan’s nuclear muscle is in safe hands, but Musharraf himself is far less safe in his position today than at any time in the past.

It matters little how far Washington can be confident of General Kiyani’s loyalty to Musharraf. Looking at desk book rules of coups and regimes of military dictators in Pakistan, Musharraf is vulnerable.

What can happen in such a situation? There is fast growing sympathy for the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban among the rank and file in Pakistan’s Army leave alone her strong segment of Theo-fascists. It is going to intensify with the passage of time. Surrender of more than three thousand Pakistani troops before the Al-Qaeda/Taliban outfit in Waziristan is a warning that trouble is brewing in Pakistan’s Army. Once Musharraf is deposed and ostracised, the new incumbent will have no choice but to negotiate a deal with his antagonists. He cannot conclude the deal from a position of strength.

Before terrorist culture is formally legitimised in Pakistan, which is only a mile away, it would be the right thing for the world community to comprehend and then forestall its grave consequences.

Korea and Iran both are bitten by the nuclear bug. Other small countries in Asia and Latin America will surely like to jump on to the nuclear bandwagon. They want to make political capital out of it knowing that it is gall to the US. How many countries shall the policeman of Washington run after? That is not the way of dealing with the monster.

Furthermore world has become over-interdependent. No State has logistical resources, will and freedom to play with the hydra in the hope of destroying others without getting destroyed. Of course, only the terrorists of Al-Qaeda and Taliban construct and ideology will have no qualms of conscience in unleashing the dirty weapon once they are capable of laying their hands on them. A disintegrating Pakistan will sadistically prefer these outfits getting control over the nuclear arsenal rather than use it against any country especially India, which has a high retaliatory capability.

Therefore before the world comes to witness the catastrophe, an earnest but solid move should be made by regional and international organisations like EU, SAARC, OIC, Latin American and African organizations to banish the bomb. An international committee under the aegis of the UN should be constituted to deliberate over the issue within a time bound frame. The sooner the genii are put back in the bottles; the better will be the chances for humanity’s survival from an impending holocaust.

BJP has won a landslide victory in 2007 assembly elections in Gujarat for the fourth consecutive term.

This election is an important landmark in the evolution of democracy in this country. It was the first ever election in post-independence India in which unfortunately vicious communal, clan and community sentiments were whipped up by contesting parties to denigrate their opponents; they did not hesitate even to divide Gujarat into pro and against regions like north, middle and south Gujarat.

Communal card has been vigorously played in Gujarat after the tragic incident of Godhra. Congress and the Left made Narendra Modi their pointed target for vilification. Sections of national press did not lag behind. Who did not know that this was a furtive attempt and a political gimmick to garner minority vote and goodwill?

Gujarat assembly election results have raised a number of questions. Congress-Left combine loses not a single opportunity to paint BJP a Hindu communal party. Whatever the truth, Gujarat elections have returned the “Hindu communal” party to power for the fourth time. Therefore only two situations come up for consideration. Either we accept the decision of the majority and dismiss the communal angle as absurd or we declare that democratic process fails to provide “non-communal” dispensation. This is a question which Congress-Left combine will have to address sooner or later.

It is ludicrous to attribute BJP victory to arguments like” inciting religious feelings” or “telling lies” or “misleading people: etc. It is tantamount to abusing democracy as viable political arrangement. It is hardly convincing to say that Congress was not able to educate the people of Gujarat about the dangers of what BJP and Narendra Modi preached. Does a political party understand the interests of the people more than what the people themselves understand? Such fractured argument can be interpreted as disrespect of the common sense of the masses of people called to polls.

The fact is that BJP is neither what Congress-Left combine stubbornly paints it the demonic communal party nor is Congress the only party that can provide and promote the interests of minorities in India.

A stern lesson for Congress-Left combine is that adherence to the basics of democracy doest not mean trivializing traditions of this ancient people for slogans that may sound music to the visionaries but not to pragmatists.

Congress – Left election strategy in future for Assembly of Parliamentary elections should come closer to the strategy of great stalwarts of the party who had before them economic, social and cultural issues. They spoke and worked for the nation and not for a community or a region or a person. They never put communal tag to their political opponents but contested elections on fundamental issues facing the people. They knew that doing anything otherwise would not help them in their mission.

Indian political parties need to come out of a mindset that has dogged them for quite some time especially since Babri Masjid episode. They have also to come out of vote bank syndrome that has done maximum harm to the country even if it might have brought some dividends to a few irresponsible contesting candidates.

Aberrations at tope leadership have fuelled sycophancy to a large scale. This is the bane of present Congress party in particular. The sooner this evil is nipped in the bud, the better for election prospects of the party.

A word needs to be said for the BJP before we close this analysis. Indian Muslims should refuse to be incited in one way or the other to religious susceptibility. Muslims are as good and honourable citizens of India as anybody else. BJP will become far stronger by carrying the Muslims with it on equal terms. It has to understand that a very large segment of Indian Muslims is against terrorism and religious extremism. BJP should harness this important human resource for the development of the country.

(The writer is the former Director, Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

Why sensationalise fast changing political scenario in Pakistan? It isn’t something new in her history. By and large people get the government they deserve, goes the mantra.

More interesting than what is happening on the ground is the comical incoherence in the statements of US foreign secretary. Condoleezza advises Musharraf to restore constitution and pursue scheduled elections. What an irony! The US promptly rewarded the military regime with a hefty ten billion dollar bonanza for having sent democracy packing home in Pakistan in 1999.

In Pakistan power rests neither with the people nor with constitution: it rests with Army; and the army draws strength from the US, politically, strategically and financially.

If democracy succeeds in Pakistan, then Army is out; if Army is out, the US is out. That gives a jolt to regional strategic configuration. If the US is out, who except China will have to look after the Asiatic orphan?

But lessons of Pakistan’s past history tell us she will steer through the upheaval smoothly as she did at several times in the past. American orphanage has many promises to offer a stranded inmate.

Pakistan Army — the state within a state - has not put all of its chips on the US. Over the years, it has carved its broad based constituency — the jihadis. Perfect understanding exists between the two. Brave Pakistani troops deployed in Waziristan do not “fight” against Al Qaeda and Taliban; they surrender to them in large numbers: that is Islamic fraternity in practice. The hostage money is equally divided between those taken hostage and those taking hostage.

Washington’s worry is lest Pakistani troops change stance and begin real fight against Taliban and Al Qaeda. If that happens, Washington will have no justification to be in the area. Skirmishes should continue for indefinite number of years is what the Americans wish secretly.

For what reasons did Pervez Musharraf ask his Corps Commanders to be effective in Waziristan: it is difficult to guess. Many Taliban and civilians got killed. This alarmed Washington. That is why Condoleezza issued a veiled threat saying that the US did not put all chips on Musharraf. General Kiyani had been cooling heels at the US Embassy in Islamabad for quite some time before he became Army Chief. He owes an obligation to his overseas benefactors.

At the worst, Musharraf will find that he is replaced by another General who reads from the same desk book of rules from which Musharraf had read a chapter in 1999.

Pakistan’s political leaders in exile or at home are non-entities, as long as Pakistan Army remains in the stranglehold of the White House, the Pentagon and CIA triumvirate.

There is occasional hullabaloo about Pakistani Islamic bomb falling into the hands of terrorists. What a naivety? When was Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal in the hands of the President or the Army Chief or any other authority? In that sense the US is the most peaceful player with all the four aces in her hand.

The people of Pakistan, the worst sufferers in the tussle, need not fight either the US or President Musharraf or the Army. If they want to survive as decent human beings, they must begin their relentless fight against Theo-fascists at home and abroad. Only unarmed civil society of Pakistan and not her Sino-American armed troops have the real strength and capability to fight and overpower it.

And finally, for Pakistan’s military regimes no threat is graver than that of Indian democracy. Therefore the key to her Army’s domination is to perpetually project India as enemy number one. Fortunately for Pakistan’s military regime, Indian democracy is gradually mauled, bruised and mutilated by her pseudo-secularist and caste-bank politicians of all hues. Pakistan should not be impatient in taking on Indian democracy; things sometimes happen by themselves also.

(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

Pakistan is very much in the news these days. Musharraf’s vendetta against the Chief Justice boomeranged. It did not weaken him institutionally. But some may take relief in having found a weak point in him albeit not exploitable. .

1. The tantrum of “restoring” democracy in Pakistan is making rounds. There never was one; hence restore what? Each so-called democratic spell, of course ephemeral and at random, ended up in corruption, authoritarianism and sordid politicking of mundane order. Masses demonstrated either relief or benign no-concern on the liquidation of a democratic spell as they did with the liquidation of spells of military rule. That leads one to the structure and psyche of Pakistani civil society where the crisis lies.

2. The psyche is made receptive to hyper Islamism, first as a result of half a century of sustained anti-Hindu obsession in pre-independence period. Then with independence, Pak mentality got soaked in anti-India tirade via Kashmir issue et al. The disease has struck roots. Extremist Islamic organizations of various hues and colours are the sprouts of the disease. Pakistani regimes, civil or military, both left no stone unturned to nurture the disease and let it sprout. Islamabad is now face to face with the Frankenstein of its own making. The point is not that Pakistan is paying a heavy toll for its intransigence; the point is how long will the paying of the toll continue, surly at least another six decades if not more.

3. What role is there for democracy in such a social structure? None. The US, as usual, is deeply interested in not obstructing military dictatorships intermittently usurping power in Pakistan, and not having regrets for the ouster of an elected government. Therefore, statements emanating from various responsible quarters in Washington are bizarre and just amusing.

4. The remedy does not lie either in asking the General to abandon his uniform and appear in civilian guise or in prompting the banished political heavyweights to declare forcing democracy on an unwilling mass of humanity. People seem to have rejected the antics that find reverberations in Washington.

5. Because the trigger happy Pakhtuns of NWFP, the defiant tribesmen of Baluchistan, the maltreated Sindhis and the ostracised Mohajirs are all made subservient to the dominance of the Punjabi stuffed Pakistani Army and bureaucracy, democracy is red rag to the bull in Pakistan. It will always end up in fiasco.

6. The Americans are just toeing a wishful thinking of exporting democracy to military dictatorship - loving people of Pakistan. So let it be. The greatest threat coming to Pakistan’s traditional military and dictatorial institutions is not from her extremist religious groups, armed or unarmed. It is from India’s secular democracy. Pakistan, therefore, hopes for either total failure of democracy in India or dismemberment of the Indian Union. US’ overt or covert support to Indian democracy is gall to Pakistan as it is to China. The catalyst to the forging of a nexus between Islamabad and Beijing emerges less from their hatred for India but more from their fear of growing Indian democracy. If by any quirk of destiny, Pakistan becomes a stable democracy, a phenomenon most unlikely to happen, then the map of the whole world will have to be redrawn.

Washington’s rhetoric of Pakistan’s imperative of democracy is for the consumption of her unsuspecting people. Washington has, and will continue to support all military dictatorships in Pakistan in order to keep Beijing in good humour. Nothing is more repugnant to China than any country supporting democratic dispensation for Islamabad.

One fails to understand why Indian print media is wasting tons of sheets and ink on writing so copiously and in fact meaninglessly about prospective democracy in Pakistan. It should be remembered that only such a political leader of Pakistan as is bigger than the issue can bring in a democratic revolution in that that country: a leader who can stand and raise his loud voice saying that the creation of a country on the basis of discrimination of faith or culture is suicidal. Unless he challenges the very concept of creation of Pakistan in 1947, nothing will change. Till that time Pakistan and the world are somewhat safe in the hands of a military dictator. When military dictator is out, the deluge is in: all Islamic groups will share, albeit inequitably, the genii in the bottle. Therefore long live military dictatorships in Pakistan.

(The writer is the former Director of Centre of Central Asian Studies at Kashmir University)

By K.N. Pandita

The hornlock on Indo-Us nuclear deal does not portend well for the coalition government. As things unfold, the real problem is not in what the US wants India to do or not to do in regard to her nuclear capability: the real trouble lies in both sides trying to understate their motivation; one pushing the deal and the other obstructing it. What are kept under wraps are political undercurrents of the entire issue.

The comrades, no less than their opponents, are aware of immense potential lying in the deal’s womb capable of transforming India’s economy and quality of life drastically once things start moving. Raising the quality of life also means gradual erosion of their constituency. This weighs heavy on their mind.

One imperceptible undercurrent is that in a parliament where the Marxists have always held king-maker’s position without directly shouldering any responsibility or accountability, the coalition government is inching towards closer collaboration with the “enemy of Islam” viz. the US. The interests of the Muslims have always remained first priority with them. Known for its traditional anti-American stance, mostly as a habit and also as patent rhetoric, the Indian Left knows when to hunt with the hare or run with the hound. When in the aftermath of Indian army’s reverses in Indo-China war of 1962, Prime Minister Nehru made frantic appeals to President Kennedy to send him arms and war material to resist incursions of the army of the PRC, the Indian Maoists-Marxists turned their face away least they were caught on the wrong foot.

Indian comrades have seldom conceded majority right though in the present case it wants to derive the desired mileage out of the numerical majority formula applicable to the parliament. It has always fixed its gaze on a specific vote bank segment. In essence its approach hardly touches the fringes of universal suffrage in spirit. As Muslims all over the world have become patently antagonistic to the United States after 9/11, and also for the Bush administration’s subsequent policy towards Islamic radicals and terrorists, the Indian Left is eager to cash on that sentiment. The nuclear deal, if allowed to go through, would, in their chemistry, mean dealing a hard blow to detestable vote bank syndrome.

From this one more inference can be drawn. Are the comrades really interested in supporting Indian civil society in its resistance to the threat posed by the radicals and the terrorists? The hindsight reveals that the Indian Left has maintained Sphinx-like silence on the issue of expanding theo-fascism. The nuclear deal, if it is through, shall leave them with little rather no elbow room.

The understatement on the part of the ruling Congress party is that it would not want to displease the Muslim community by revealing the necessity of the government to collaborate with the US to meet the menace of the theo-fascists. The fact is that both countries have now a fair understanding and experience of the threat facing emerging or established democracies and their institutions in the Asian continent. India is the biggest and the strongest Asian bulwark against the menace that has surfaced in 21^st century. The fundamental point in the philosophy of countering the threat according to Indian policy planners is not the use of force but total economic transformation of the society. And India cannot wait any longer. That will be suicidal.

Evidently, Pakistan and Iran, both enjoying the patronage of India’s potent rival - another Asian giant - would be at pains to see the largest democracy and emerging economic power finding reason to tune in to the US wavelength. China has already conveyed her apprehension of the contemplated deal arguing it could unhinge the balance of power in the region. The reason why Washington never offered an identical deal to China in the past was that it would not want to hold back the potent rival of the erstwhile Soviet Union from developing an adequate nuclear deterrent.

Thirty-four years have elapsed when India detonated her first atom bomb. The second came in 1998. In between, India was faced with Kargil war. But far from using the weapon of mass destruction to eliminate the enemy, she did not even speak of a threat of using it. This shows that India has matured in international relations and diplomacy. The use of nuclear bomb by any its possessor is generally unthinkable, given present international political scenario.

What then are the apprehensions that India goes in for another nuclear test if needed? We know that foolproof safeguard of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is a moot point. There are murmurs about unsatisfactory control and command management of nuclear bombs and weapons in Pakistan. The US has, more than once, given expression to the apprehension of these weapons falling in the hands of radicals and terrorists in Pakistan who are commanding logistical advantage at present. Evidently, when the Indo-US experts were discussing related issues over long and protracted negotiations; they must not have missed the point.

India has severe constraints of developing adequate security structure vis-a vis regional and global strategies, and to work tirelessly for economic transformation. The nuclear deal with the US has to be viewed from these parameters.

(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

Observers anticipate United States’ move to wriggle out of Afghan imbroglio. Face saving is the pre-requisite. The latest is that of goading two concerned states, Afghanistan and Pakistan, into organizing a joint peace assembly (jirga) of the Pushtun leaders on both sides of the Durand Line. It is they who are crucial to what ultimately unfolds in the volatile region where Taliban and Al-Qaeda warriors remain entrenched.

The deliberations of the jirga in Kabul last week, largely understated by the media, have much significance for us in Kashmir.

Relations between Pakistan and Karzai government are not cordial. They trade accusations and counter-accusations: US is skeptical of Pakistan’s intentions ever since Islamabad lost the crucial lever in Afghan crisis following American attack on Afghanistan and dismemberment of Taliban regime.

Washington wants resolution of irritants in their relations through the instrumentality of a traditional type jirga. However, what ultimately came out of this exercise may not provide much comfort to the US policy planners.

That Pakistan paid the joint jirga plan only lip service was reflected in the composition of its delegation. No Punjabi or Sindhi or Baluch was included. This means that Pakistan is not bound by whatever is agreed or not agreed in the jirga. At the best, it could be a matter between some groups of Pushtons on either side of the Line. The formal speeches of two presidents carried more of rhetoric but little of substance.

The Americans expect traditional Pushtun tribal leadership to forge an understanding among them that would find endorsement of the two governments later on - a face-saving strategy for the US.

But the question is: does the traditional tribal leadership of the Pushtuns still exist with its age-old ethos and vitality? No, it does not. In the wake of Soviet incursion of Afghanistan, it was the US that maximally contributed to the dismemberment of that ethos, and unwittingly contrived its replacement by extremist religious fervour among the warlike Afghans. Pakistan (under Zia) played very active role in radicalizing the resistance movement. It not only volunteered to become the main conduit for supply of American arms but also facilitated opening of thousands of religious seminaries in Pakistan and Afghanistan where the mujahideen received profuse indoctrination in radicalism. The rise of religious extremist organizations in Pakistan was a logical corollary to this hyper patronage of Afghan mujahideen. Today Pakistan faces inevitable consequences of that feverish patronizing.

This forced a change in ideological perception of entire Pushtun tribal leadership. Afghan nationalism, once believed to be the crucial catalyst to Pushtun/Afghan unity, met with gradual erosion. As a result, two hundred year - old tradition of Pushtun rule over Afghanistan surrendered its place to religion - based camaraderie. This was an achievement of Pakistan’s Afghan policy during the period of resistance. The rise of the Taliban with outright support from Pakistan was the culmination of her pro-Islamization thrust in Afghanistan.

Three decades of intensive radicalization have changed the traditional tribal structuring in Afghanistan. During this period of strife many outstanding traditional Pushtun leaders were eliminated. That made the work of Pakistani religious crusaders easier, and the Taliban provided them the requisite logistics. This is the reason why the influence of Pushtun/Pukhtun tribal leaders in the Waziristan region has become considerably ineffective. The indication is that the place of traditional tribal leaders has been usurped by radical religious leaders. Thus the call for a boycott of the joint jirga given by the religious leader Maulana Fazlu’r-Rahman kept most of the Pushtun leaders away from the Kabul jirga. In this way the purpose of the US sponsored Pushtun jirga in Kabul got diluted.

Kashmir is in the throes of almost identical circumstances. Thousands of religious seminaries in Kashmir Valley sprang before and during armed insurgency. Not only the known anti-Indian elements but even feigned nationalists and pseudo-Indian elements holding political power in the State, overtly and covertly engaged themselves in radicalizing Kashmiri youth. Additionally, the gun culture promoted the expansion of the influence of radical leadership. In the process, traditional anti-Indian political leadership in Kashmir, previously with a low sprinkling of religious extremism, now remains sidelined and made ineffective.

New Delhi is trying to replicate in Kashmir what Washington does in Afghanistan. It tries to rope in the traditional dissident political leadership like the “moderate” Hurriyat for a procrastinated dialogue. But given the fact that the acceptability (not popularity) of this category of Kashmir leadership is far less than that of radical leadership, New Delhi sequentially fails to elicit any reassuring commitment from those who make up her “Kashmiri jirga” namely the PM’s Round Tables. Compare the boycott call given by Maulana Fazlu’r-Rahman to Kabul jirga with the one given by Sayyid Ali Shah Geelani against the “Delhi jirgas”.

True, New Delhi is doing some cautious acrobatics. It tries to keeps the “moderate” (read traditional) political dissidents in good humour: it hobnobs with medium weight ambivalent political segment like PDP, and it also keeps close liaison with the traditional political heavyweights like the National Conference. How far will this maneuvering succeed in delivering goods will be known only with the passage of time.

Of course, there is one clear difference between the philosophy behind the Kabul jirga and the Kashmiri jirga. New Delhi’s perception in Kashmir is that the vast ground seized by radical ideologues of an Islamist – militant combine over past three decades can possibly be retrieved by handing out a tempting economic package larger than anything offered to any other Indian State. This, among other ostentatious projects, includes the laying of the forbidding rail link between New Delhi and Srinagar at an enormous cost of over 8,000 crore rupees. Obviously, the impact of this extraordinary economic package will take at least another decade to crystallize. Till then the State shall have to put up with what it is faced since 1990. And even after the impact is known, one cannot be sure that radicals will forfeit their place to traditional political opposition in order to make things easier for New Delhi. May be that in the process of this long drawn struggle, a new thinking emerges in Kashmir in the wake of fast changing political scenario in Pakistan-Afghanistan region.

(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies at Kashmir University).