Geo-strategy of the region lying to the west and north of the Himalayan watershed, beyond the Pamir, Hindukush and Alborz tablelands, is witnessing marked changes in recent times.

Two major powers, the US and China, are competing for a firm foothold in the vast region that has assumed unprecedented strategic as well as economic importance, the latter on account of its hydrocarbon reserves. China is vigorously driven by energy needs to keep her gigantic industrial complexes functional without interruption so as to preserve her global commercial supremacy.  Presence of hydrocarbon energy resources in the region is her strong temptation.

Oil strategy has become prime factor in China’s policy towards the Muslim world, especially when the region has emerged as the epicenter of pro-active Islamic resurgence. Beijing-Islamabad nexus is tactically India-centric, though China has diversified the complexion of relationship to give it economic content also.

On the other hand the US is motivated less by hydrocarbon booty and more by strategic interests that bolster her position as world’s leading super power.

In all probability, protracted presence of the US in the region viz. Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia has the potential of gradually eroding sharper national sensitivities under over-arching globalization concept and the regions economic disadvantages.

In order to maximize rationale for their respective strategic plans, connectivity factor has emerged as an essential pre-requisite for the two aspiring powers.

China is reviving the 3,000 year old Silk Road with far more extended reach to make it the jugular vein of vast Sino-Eurasian trading region. Apart from renovating and upgrading the historical route and bringing it to the level of modern super highway, China has the ambitious plan of connecting Beijing with London through trans Sino-Eurasian railway line on which 350 kms per hour high speed trains would run to cover the distance in just three days. From this main link, several arteries will shoot out in order to provide connectivity to the vast Steppes to the north, and the tablelands to the south of Badakhshan and Alborz ultimately touching on the shores of warm waters of the Indian Ocean.

In addition to this project, Beijing is also considering laying railway line alongside Karakorum Highway now connecting China with Pakistan. This ambitious plan is scheduled for completion in 5-10 years.

Political commentators in India know that the plan will have significant bearing on India’s security arrangement especially in Kashmir. India’s entire northern frontier from Siachin Glacier westwards to Keran-Tithwal range becomes vulnerable. And any future plan in Sino-Pak geo-political strategy of extending this railway line’s artery to Muzaffarabad, the capital town of PoK or to Kabul in Afghanistan will largely shrink India’s sphere of influence northward and westward besides imperiling the security of entire northern border.

Americans, too, have oil interests but for the time being not as much in Central Asian mainland. For some time in recent past, American oil cartels have been active in the Caspian Shelf and Azerbaijan.  The Americans have two priorities: one is to obstruct energy exit routs via Russian as well as Iranian territories, and the second is to provide alternative routes to Caspian oil and gas to European countries via Turkey eschewing traditional Russian route.

But apart from this, the US has other strategic discernment too in the region. Washington wants to see Russia’s wings trimmed, Iran stonewalled and China restrained. More importantly, in the background of war in Af-Pak region, US secret eye monitors events from the outpost of Central Asian republics of Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. US have palpable presence in Kyrgyzstan following recent Kyrgyz-Uzbek ethnic show down; she has revived cordiality with Uzbek president Islam Karimove and found warm response from Tajikistan, which has endemic concern about pan-Islamic revivalism either through her own radicals or the Taliban outfits that might become active in Northern Afghanistan.

But more recently a third player has jumped into the fray with as effective “connectivity formula” on the anvil as that of China.

Iran is geared to expanding her sphere of influence in the region especially to her north and north-east as counterfoil to American policy of isolating her in Asia. Teheran, in her more recent geo-strategy, has focused on the ancient Silk Road with the tacit aim of exhausting western ban on her trade and commerce worldwide. After all, the 3,000 years old and 6,000 kilometers long trade route between Asia and Europe cannot become irrelevant for Iran, a leading player in the geo-strategy of a sensitive region of the Asian hearatland.

Iran is not signed to western-backed initiatives like the European Union-supported Transport Corridor of Europe, Caucasus, and Asia (TRACECA).

In a major bid to expand regional influence Teheran is planning networks of roads, railways, tunnels and bridges in the vast region lying to her north. It is looking for fostering improved transport links with the neighbouring countries through bilateral agreements. Overland connectivity to Moscow is her priority. This will stretch from Persian Gulf to Iran’s northern province of Gilan on the Caspian Sea neighbouring the Caucasus, and then northwards through the heartland of Central Asia to Moscow.. Iran’s new connectivity plans are to reduce transit time between Europe and China from 2 months to 11 days. The plan also envisages upgrading of Caspian Sea ports of Bandar Anzali and Neka to facilitate commercial connectivity and transportation.

Iran has the ambitious plan of direct connectivity to sub-Himalayan region in which her eastern province of Khurasan gets linked by rail to Herat, the ancient Afghan outpost on western border. This would be a crucial overland rail link to the revived Silk Road running across the underbelly of the Central Asian the Great Steppes.

Apart from this, Iran has various crucial projects on Tajik-Afghan border.  There is the flagship tunnel project of linking Tajik capital Dushanbe with the Central Asian city of Khujand, only 2 hours run from Tashkent.

These major developments in trans-Himalayan regions, naturally, will have great impact on India’s domestic as well as foreign policy. Iran is trying hard to establish close links among Farsi-Tajik-Dari speaking peoples on the one hand and a purposeful network of road-rail link that will boost its political and commercial importance. In all probability, the chances of Russia finding access to the warm waters of the Indian Ocean may become a reality.

The recent news that Pakistan is prepared to let its “Northern Areas” go in the control of China, is sufficiently alarming. This had been the fear ever since the Karakorum Highway assumed strategic importance. This writer has been raising these fears in earlier write-ups on the subject.

All this suggests that New Delhi has to radically revise its northern frontier policy and security arrangement.  Changing geo-strategic scenario in the region makes our Kashmir security very vulnerable and, therefore, necessitates New Delhi opening new chapter of relationship with Russia, Tajikistan, Iran and Afghanistan. Even the US and UK, too, need to be involved in these strategic talks.
(The writer is he former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

Link: European Union-supported Transport Corridor of Europe, Caucasus, and Asia TRACECA, in english and russian.

On April 19 last, a 14-year old suicide bomber blew himself up at a protest rally in Peshawar. Twenty-five persons were killed and over fifty injured. The targets were local Jamaat-i-Islami leaders. Pakistani officials tried to play it down and Pakistani media just understated the background of the event. Circumventing the truth about the targets, it was concocted that the attack was motivated by sectarianism because one among the dead on the spot was a DSP named Gulfat Hussain, a Shi’ite officer in Pakistan police force.

The fallacious story had no takers as events unfolded themselves. The vice Amir of local Jamaat-i-Islami namely Hajji Dost Muhammad was among the dead. Later JI accused Americans for disrupting peace and a Jamaati leader Hafiz Heshmat by name, accused the security firm Blackwater (Xe Sources LLC) of the US of destabilizing Pakistan. 

Evidently Tehreek-i-Taliban-i-Pakistan aims at widening its sphere of activities and, at the end of the day, take on the State of Pakistan. Peshawar attack was the biggest one made on the Pakistani JI but not the isolated one.

On June 16 last, Pakistani Taliban assassinated JI leader Fida Sa’adi, a Provincial Executive Council member. This was followed by the killing of another JI leader, Hajji Mohammad Khan, and kidnapping of his son in Darra Andarkhel on June 23.

Why have Pakistani Taliban directed their guns against the Pakistani JI? Where do Pakistani JI’s ideology and interests go against those of the TTP?

Founded by Maulana Maududi of Deoband, the leadership of Jamaat-i-Islami passed on from one hardliner to another with the passage of time. After the partition of India in 1947, Pakistani chapter of Jamaat-i-Islami (PJI) found a wider and more powerful role awaiting it in shaping the future course of history of the nascent Muslim state on the sub-continent.

During the autocratic rule of General Ziau’l-Haq, JI Pakistan came to wield enormous influence with the State of Pakistan and established personal rapport with the President who was a rabid Jamaati. Zia’s era is the golden period of Pakistani JI when it found the opportunity of expanding vertically as well as horizontally in that country so much so that it tried to spread its tentacles in neighbouring states like India, Afghanistan, Littoral states and Tajikistan.

In Kashmir, JI had an obscure beginning in village Aerwen’’ in Kulgam Tehsil where a local landlord Ghulam Mustafa Malik by name, in unison with three more dedicated co-workers, Hakim Ghulam Nabi, Sa’ad-ud-Din and Ghulam Ahmad Ahrar of Shupiyan began disseminating Maududi’s ideology and also  opened the first ever Jamaat-i-Islami madrasah in Aerwen.

With the passage of time, while Pakistani JI found a larger political role awaiting it, Kashmir JI somewhat remained independent of external influences confining to indigenous interpretation of Maududi’s ideology.  Nevertheless JI literature began to pour into the valley though physical interaction with various chapters of the organization outside the State remained few and far between.

This was only a temporary phase of JI in Kashmir. With Kashmir issue becoming very complicated owing to a variety of reasons like sub-regional aspirations, intensifying the concept of Muslim ummah, the rise of Islamic State of Pakistan in the neighbourhood, JI of Kashmir could not avoid to be sucked into the vortex of Pakistani JI. In major policy matters and political strategies related to the Muslim ummah in general like the Palestinian issue, Sudanese issue, and Yemen issue, JI Kashmir began towing the line of Pakistani JI. Kashmir issue was the seductive bait.

Two well-known activists who received their initiation and brain washing from hardliner Jammati, namely Ali Shah Geelani in early 1980s, and who relentlessly worked for the separatist and secessionist cause of Kashmir insurgents in foreign countries and world platforms are Ghulam Nabi Fai (settled in the US) and  AyyubThukar (now late) in London.

Reverting to the main issue, it has to be known that the aim of Tahreek-i-Taliban-i-Pakistan (TTP) is to establish an Islamic Caliphate to the exclusion of all other Islamic groups of whatever nomenclature and substance these are.

In 1990, Kabul fell to the Pakistan sponsored and US financed mujahideen. They killed President Dr. Najibullah but soon fell on the throats of one another. This state of civil war gave birth to the Taliban movement, first in Kandahar and then upwards to north and east of Afghanistan.

America’s war on Taliban of Afghanistan sensitized rabid religious elements among the Muslims of Pakistan, and the TTP intensified war on Barelvi movement and Sufi Islam by bringing the conflict to the province of Punjab.

TTP identified the Barelvis, Ahmadiya, Christians and Hindus other minorities as its target in fostering the concept of Islamic Caliphate. The 28 May suicide attack in Lahore took a large toll of Ahmadiya lives.

Enmity between JI and TTP is rooted in ideology and in contemporary politics of Pakistan. It is curious to note that the JI and Deobandi groups among TTP are adherents of Sunni Hanafi School yet they have no love lost for the JI Pakistan whose destabilization they are seeking without relent. The Hanafites among the JI place less stress on ritualistic and more on political Islam. For example Deobandis abhor Jamaatis wearing western dress; they accuse them for lust for power.

Interestingly, the real threat to JI of Pakistan comes from another Sunni-Hanafi organization called Tehreek-i-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e Muhamamdi (TNSM) led by Maulana Sufi Mohammad and his son-in-law Maulana Fazlullah. It was they who led Pakistani Taliban in Malakand Division and Swat.

Interestingly, Maulana Sufi Mohammad was a local JI leader till 1980, and then he separated from the party on account of some differences. He accused JI for trying to attain political power by going through election process. He argued that Islamic states cannot be established through elections as people don’t vote in favour of Islamic parties.  He strongly advocated that the only way of establishing an Islamic state was through jihad philosophy of Maulana Maududi.  He accused JI leaders of deviating from Maududi’s example.

Personalized animosity between the JI and TTP surfaced after the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan in 2001. In reaction to the foreign military presence in Taliban-led Afghanistan meant affront to the religious extremists in Pakistan and most jihadi and Islamist organization in that country held public rallies in favour of Afghan Taliban. JI of Pakistan was in the forefront of these anti-American demonstrations and threatened to cross the Pak-Afghan border to fight the Americans. Sufi Muhammad led his militia expedition into Afghanistan where thousands of them got killed in American air attacks on Taliban. Back in Pakistan with his decimated militias, Sufi Muhammad accused JI of luring him and his legions to fighting in Afghanistan and the resultant disaster. He now embarked on a policy of taking revenge fro m JI.

Hindsight shows that today Pakistan has landed almost in the same situation into which Afghanistan had landed after the removal of Dr. Najibullah and take over by the Taliban. Various factions of Taliban had drawn swords to fight their rivals in power sharing of a tottering state. It was out of this chaos and confusion that the Taliban had sprung and in the initial stages they concentrated on providing good governance. But good governance without strong and viable political ideology makes little sense.

Unfortunately Pakistan is also heading towards the same situation. There are innumerable terrorist and Islamists groups and factions and sub groups and sub-factions each vying with the other in power sharing game. If these Islamists and radical groups and their terrorist wings are not brought under control, there is a possibility of disintegration of Pakistani civil society. Apart from polarization at ruling levels, there are deep divides in civil organizations which spell doom for the beleaguered society.

It will be noted that the separatists and secessionists in Kashmir have been towing the line of Pakistani JI all these decades of turmoil. They have borrowed their idiom from JI Pakistan. Therefore this is the time when the separatist leadership in Kashmir should revisit the fundamentals of the political philosophy it is pursuing.

Nehru was the Prime Minister. His Information Minister brought to him a recommendation to impose a ban of a certain errant national newspaper. Nehru said,” I prefer my government to be criticized rather than gag the mouth of freedom of expression.”

The reason why BBC and some leading British media organs have worldwide credibility as ace media outlets is the largest amount of freedom of expression they enjoy.

Only a government deficient of self-confidence is apprehensive of media criticism, and thereby, takes media an enemy of the state. albeit very erroneously. 

In reality, the fourth estate is the lodestar showing the path to the nation in general, and to beleaguered governments in particular. It is difficult to make felonious governments believe that the fourth estate is not only a friend of the government but also the sentinel to alert it against dangers looming on society.

Only myopic regimes want either to manipulate the media or muzzle it, both absolutely detrimental to the growth of a democratic system.

Stone-pelting has been going on in Kashmir ever since the National Conference-lead anti-monarchy movement in Kashmir in 1930s. It is a sign of a mix of anger and cowardice. To attribute it to a particular group or to say this unsavoury activity is conducted on the behest of a particular group or political leadership is not the full truth. We do not deny erratic thinking among some quixotic politicians for personal rather than political aggrandizement. But apart from that, politicians are aware that a less educated and knowledgeable constituency of hooligans seldom fails to respond to their calculated mission.

Governments know that coming down with repressive measures on the media may gag its mouth for a while but it rebounds with a loud bang which more people are willing to respond. Sealing a newspaper does not speak of the strength of the government but it does help the quarantined paper achieve greater credibility with the readership and civil society. In that sense, the government has done a favour to the Early Times and other two sealed papers in Jammu through negative publicity hype.

A week or ten days ago, as strikes and turmoil intensified in Kashmir, a statement came from the chief minister saying threadbare that PDP activists were instigating youth and urchins to pelt stones and that the government has credible evidence of the same. This is formal recognition of the truth that the stone pelting mobs and their mentors were determined to violate human rights not only of innocent citizens but of their own as well because the state would react befittingly and even effectively. However, beyond that cryptic comment, the government did not make any mention of any follow up action. It was unwilling to take on hard targets while soft ones like the three proscribed papers in Jammu could easily become the targets of the choleric administration.

The government did not act because it is torn between the mutually antagonistic philosophies of the two countries over Kashmir dispute.

We know that the State chief minister received a shot in the arms after the Prime Minister’s urgent meeting on Kashmir decided to take a strong action to reverse on-going situation and absolve Omar Abdullah of all the slew of accusations which opposition wistfully tried to bring against him.

On recurrent inflammable situations in Kashmir, Home Ministry has been traditionally adopting lackadaisical stance. But escalation of Maoist-Naxalite combined terror in other parts of the country forced the Home Minister to change stance and adopt harsher option of dealing with miscreants. This came as reprieve to the state chief minister who was almost on the verge of quitting and committing the same mistake which his father did in 1990. But ill advised by sycophantic counselors, the chief minister took a bizarre step of muzzling some papers without re-assessing its dire consequences.

The Chief Minister should be clear in making a distinction between a political opponent and pragmatic political commentators. There is a vast difference between them. Media is neither a friend nor a foe; it is oriented to serve public interests.

State authorities have given a unilateral interpretation to the rumour of desecration of a temple in Anantnag. Instead of saying that the temple was intact, it would have been far better to have deputed a mixed delegation of genuine stakeholders and responsible media persons to make an on-spot verification and report. The government should have come out with a convincing and fully evidenced proof in support of its stand and thus repudiated the false rumours if these were false. Erroneous or baseless reporting could have been made into a case of violation of press norms and the press council is the proper forum where such matters are dealt with. The issue should not have been blown out of proportion.
One has to remember that Jammu press has the rich tradition of being moderate, discreet and non-provocative; it seldom violates professional code of conduct.

It is time that government clarifies the matter without loss of time. Jammu civil society has not taken supportively the alleged insistent handling by law enforcing authorities of the family members of the owners/editors of the muzzled papers. It is totally unacceptable and the press fraternity decries it. Let nobody tamper with the Fourth Estate.
(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

The hide and seek game between Ali Shah Geelani and the Indian state is a bizarre story of post-independence period. Never in history have we heard an ordinary citizen holding the entire state in a sort of siege and the law of the land becoming impotent to the hilt.

Ali Shah Geelani once fought elections to the state assembly and won. He had no difficulty in demonstrating allegiance to the Indian Constitution or the State Constitution. But then there was change of heart and he shifted to hard communal Pan-Islamic ideology. 

Rise of militancy in Kashmir in 1990 became catalyst to his radical ideology and he found a new constituency for himself. Though he may not have been totally in favour of armed insurgency to the extent of terrorizing civil society in Kashmir, yet he found it expedient to stir the religious sentiments of the Muslim majority of Kashmir.

Ali Shah wants nothing short of Kashmir’s secession from the Indian Union and accession to Pakistan.  His obsession is not based on any rationale but just Pakistan as if that is the land of honey and milk. He has never been able to justify his wishes for joining Pakistan as a matter of logic. If Islam is the only cementing force for the Muslim ummah, then there should have been only one and not 53 Muslim States in the world. Moreover, if that is the concept then seven million Kashmiri Muslims are part of 150 million Muslims of India.

Emboldened by blind following of a large section of people in Kashmir on religious count, he has been trying to portray himself larger than his profile.

There was a time when he fell foul with General Pervez Musharraf and said that Musharraf was not the beginning and end of Pakistan. But he never raised finger at Pakistani Army and ISI; he never criticized the military coup in that country; he never said a word against the abuse of Pakistani judiciary; he did not denounce the murder of BB and he never opposed Pakistan’s Kargil adventure. He never raised the question of armed Pakistani terrorist’s forcibly taking Kashmiri youth for recruitment to various terrorist organizations and he never condemned militants hurling grenades on innocent civilians in public places in Kashmir. He had all praise for Akbar Bhai, the Pakistani terrorist leader who had been operating in Sopor, Gilani’s hometown; and had many atrocities to his account.

All this speaks that Ali Shah is bound neither by the principles of mercy and kindness as enunciated in Islamic faith nor by his own conscience of discriminating virtue from vice.

For last two decades, his main contribution has been to give a call for strike, shut down business and cause immense damage to Kashmir economy. To him everything rotates round religion and that too a religion of his own interpretation. Because no learned and sensible Muslim intellectual in the valley stands up and challenges his methodology he is emboldened to carry out his diktat knowing full well that he is leading a pack of rabid zealots.

He is an enemy to everything Indian but he doest not disband his Indian security cover. He was ok with treatment by Indian physicians in Indian hospitals. His sons are well settled abroad and at home and on that count he has nothing to worry.

Nobody ever heard Ali Shah Geelani having a constructive plan for Kashmir if hypothetically Kashmir is cleared of Indian presence. What are his post-independence reconstruction plans? Is it nizam-e=Mustafa only/ If yes, which one, of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan? He abandons this mental exercise to Pakistan, the country to which he is ready to sell his soul.

Independent Kashmir is not his option nor does he believe in Kashmiriyat. All that he believes in is the Muslim ummah. But where is the ummah? Sunnis massacring Shias in Pakistan, Pakistani Army butchering Sunni and Shia alike in its war on terrorism, Baluchis dead set against Punjabis in Pakistan, Mohajirs at daggers drawn against the rest of the Pakistanis, and so forth and so on. Which ummah does Ali Shah want Kashmir to join? He is not clear and he cannot be because he refuses to understand either the human nature or the intricacies of socio-economic structures of societies.

One cannot but lament the apologetic and cowardly ineptitude of Indian rulers who are unable to wriggle out of the fetters which Ali Shah has thrown on their hands and feet. He is left to go on with his treasonable tirades against the nation and country. No anti-national activity law is enforced against him.  He is not questioned for stirring religious sentiments of people, for inciting them against the state, for violating the law of the land.

This all is because the Indian state is bogged with vote bank syndrome. New Delhi is succumbing to blackmail because it is promoting it deliberately… It will not deal with these anti-national elements because the Indian leadership is devoid of the true concept of nationalism. What guides their lives and destiny is individualism and survivalism.

Ali Shah Geelani has no fear of being brought to book for his anti-national utterances and activates. The logic of not touching him till he runs out of steam is the logic of diseased mind. It is the logic of cowardice and inaction of which the Indian state has plenty to its credit.

Ali Shah met with Pervez Musharraf for full nine long hours discussing options on Kashmir. He would not budge from his stand that there was only one solution that of Kashmir joining Pakistan and getting absorbed into Punjab province. Exasperated Musharraf sent him home and never called him again for talks. Then Ali Shah went mad and publicly abused Pervez Musharraf. He was sized up.

On 24 June the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan are meeting to prepare the ground for ministerial meet in July. Pakistani High commissioner in New Delhi invited APHC (M) chief Maulavi Omar but ignored Ali Shah. This explains that Pakistan attaches no importance to Ali Shah in the affairs of Kashmir.

But New Delhi does somersaults on slightest hint from Ali Shah. Imagine the difference in the real-politick of two countries.  Ali Shah has held Indian state at ransom and New Delhi is happy with it. It has not the strength or confidence even to deal with paper tigers, leave actual tigers alone. This is just because there is a pack of incompetent and cowardly leaders who know only the art of counting faithfully each slap delivered on their cheeks by the adversary.

What hinders Indian government from making a bold statement that J&K is integral part of Indian Union and no power on earth can take it away? Great nations fight and win, they do not succumb, they do not believe in ahimsa parmo dharma. 

I am reminded of Churchill’s prophetic words spoken in the British Parliament on the occasion of a crucial debate on Indian Independence Act. Referring to Indian leadership, he had said,” They are men of straw and after independence a man will be killed for a bottle of water.” How prophetic? We are led by men of straw. Will a Shiva ji, an Abraham Lincoln or a Count Cavour rise from the ashes of our nation, God alone knows.

The historic Silk Road, once the most fabulous trade, commerce and cultural conduit between China and the world westward, is, in all probability, taking a new skin in next one decade and half. It is going to be replaced by China’s Pan-Asian Railway Plan, which, when made fully functional, is likely to transform traditional history, geography, politics, culture, life and trade of the vast Eurasian region.

Contemplating an ambitious plan of high speed Pan-Asian railway reflects in practical terms China’s innovation of addressing chronic global economic and political issues in paradigm different from those found in the desk-book rules of capitalist powers. China has discovered equitable and just bilateral and multi-lateral trade relations among nations as potential instrument of defusing acrimony among them. This is to usher in a new world order different from the one forged in the economic workshop of the US and her western allies. 

The plan is to link 17 countries through 3 major routes, namely (a) Kunming in China with Singapore via South Asia (b) Urumchi in North-West China with Germany via Central Asia, and (c) Heilongjiang in North-East China with South-Eastern Europe via Russia. In a statement issued on March 11, 2009, Chinese Railway Ministry spokesman confirmed the “network to consist of northern, southern and western routes.”

When brought to completion in the year 2025, Beijing-London distance will be covered in two days. The western railway route will connect Xinjiang, the western province of China, with Germany. It will touch on the territories of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Iran and Turkey.

In all, China plans to link 28 states with 81,000 kilometers of railroads. It has to be noted that China’s high speed railways are already the world’s fastest and longest with a speed of 350 kms per hour. A secretary at China’s Railways Ministry said that “China aims to run trains as fast as airplanes”.

China has the capability of bringing this highly ambitious project to completion within the stipulated time. What makes it possible? China’s cheap construction cost, advanced technological expertise and indefatigable will are positive factors that generate hope for success in the venture. In this sector China has been performing better than Japan, Germany and France. Other countries, particularly India, reach China for constructing railways, with Russia, US, Saudi Arabia and Poland already considering China for their railways plan.

Three routes mentioned above leave out India from this gigantic connectivity loop of great commercial, political and strategic importance to the entire region. Importance of this new commercial, strategic and political venture for China and for the countries linked to it is obvious. The real motivating factor is China’s access to the hitherto untapped energy resources of Central Asia, the oil of Tengiz in Kazakhstan and the Caspian Shelf and huge gas reserves of Daulatabad in Turkmenistan. The Central Asian countries, hitherto usually considered landlocked, will be opened to international trade and commerce and are expected to become the terminus of east-west commercial enterprise.

Some commentators are of opinion that this is yet another step by the Asian giant to encircle and enfeeble India, not only strategically but also commercially.  Any physical deficiency arising out of various obstacles in free flow of trade between Pakistan and China along the Karakorum Highway will be made up very adequately by the proposed high speed Pan-Asian Railway. Pakistan and Afghanistan can get easily linked to it by an arterial railway line with connectivity somewhere near Termiz on the right bank of Amu Darya. Herat (Afghanistan) and Sarakhs (Iran-Turkmenistan border) link is another possibility. Rawalpindi – Kabul-Ashkabad link can be another possibility. In either case India stands isolated. If India-Pak détente over Kashmir comes in sight in near future, China could offer a fully autonomous Kashmir extension of the existing rail terminus at Baramulla to Rawalpindi-Kabul and then to Ashkabad making the grand link to the Pan-Asian high speed railway line.

Central Asian trade conduit potential hasn’t been fully utilized so far. The region borders on Xinxiang, China’s western province, has trade relations with 150 countries and its link up to Pan-Asian Railway would mean great boost to its trade and commerce.  Kashmir’s rail link with the Uighur region of Xinjiang, the staunch Sunni belt with patent separatist tendencies, will have significant meaning for the strategy of entire region.

The proposed rail link will be highly conducive to Asian-European markets; it will ensure efficient delivery of energy resources and develop the backward regions economically. With that regional security can be advanced and interference from world powers can be restricted substantially. 

Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have already reached agreements with China and Tajikistan is seeking 13 million dollar loan from the OPEC Fund for International Development to build Kulab-Kalai Khum road connecting it with Uzbekistan, Afghanitan, Kyrgyzstan and China. China plans to build 12 highways linking the entire region with Xinxiang. Regional trade through Xinjiang jumped from 18.4 billion dollars in 2007 to 25 billion dollars in 2008. China has 21 % stakes in Kazakh oil which means it has surpassed Russia by 2.5 times.

In final analysis, the proposed Pan-Asian Railway line will be of great importance to East-West connection. It will facilitate integration of the neglected region with global economy. China is investing heavily in the regional trade, energy and transportation projects which will expand with the railway construction.

The project is envisaged to be completed in next 10-15 years and 2025 is the deadline. With this big step in widening transportation planning in the region, it is but natural that regional politics will be impacted to a large extent. For more than one decade India has been grappling with little less than 200 and odd kilometers long railway link between Udhampur and Verinag. On the other hand, China plans an 81,000 thousand rail line in next 10 – 15 years. One can imagine the big gap in advanced technology of the two countries in laying rail lines over hazardous terrains.

As has been said, burgeoning economic presence of China in the Central Asian region will entail political and military engagement to protect her expanded regional interests. At the same time, China has been fast expanding her naval presence in the Indian Ocean with much focus on the Bay of Bengal. Her direct involvement in the construction of Gawadar seaport on the Makran Coast of Pakistan and the new seaport of Hambantota on the southern tip of Sri Lanka (after the decimation of Tamil Tigers in which it had a role) are both significant links in the silver necklace often referred to by Beijing. It is time that New Delhi sheds inhibitions and fantasies and looks realistically at these developments shaping to her north and south. India is left with a limping strategy and bankruptcy of strategic planning and futuristic vision.

The End

By K.N.  Pandita

On 18 May, foreign ministers of fifty-seven Islamic countries — members of the Organization of Islamic Conference — met in Dushanbe (Tajikistan) to do business for two days in the course of 37th annual session. This is OIC’s second summit in a former Soviet Union’s federating unit; the first one was in the Trans-Caspian state of Azerbaijan in 2006.

During the early days after the dismemberment of the Soviet Union, the OIC exercised caution in making inroads into the now independent states of Central Asia. The Islamic world, usually fed with enormous anti-Soviet propaganda by the capitalists, had, in their wisdom, expected a sudden but violent Islamic upsurge after these seven predominantly Muslim states declared their independence from the Soviet Union.  But that did not happen. To their surprise, they found that not only for basic infrastructure, even in administrative sphere, the independent Central Asian States were ahead of most of the member countries of the OIC. 

However, with groundswell in Islamic radicalism articulating in Ferghana in Uzbekistan as one of its epicenters, and the rise of Taliban in the southern underbelly region of Central Asia with outreach to the Central Asian heartland, world powers as well as Islamic countries began evincing interest in the region.

Choosing Dushanbe as the venue for 37th session, OIC wants to convey somewhat interesting message to the region and the world at large. The agenda reads like a who’s-who of Islamic conflicts; the Middle East conflict, the Afghan situation, Iraq, the Kashmir dispute, Somalia, Cyprus, and Kosovo. The OIC’s future role in regulating conflicts in its member-states, providing security and keeping the peace in the Islamic world was under discussion.

India’s demand that having the second largest Muslim population, she be admitted as member of the OIC was turned down by the OIC. But instead, on the initiative of Pakistan, a key-member of the OIC, the organization granted ‘Observer Status’ to All Party Hurriyat Conference of Kashmir.  This showed that more than the real interests of the Muslims world over, the OIC is bogged with political constraints and considerations.

Mirwaiz Omar Farooq, at that time chief of APHC, was formally invited by the secretary general of OIC to attend its summit in Casablanca. Thereafter APHC continued to send its representative to the OIC meets whenever scheduled with the patent agenda of raising the issue of Kashmir dispute before the Muslim fraternity. APHC worked in close liaison with Pakistani delegates while making Observer comments.

2003 split made, Sayyid Ali Shah Geelani, a staunch protagonist of Jammu and Kashmir’s secession from India and accession to Pakistan, the chief of his faction of Tahreek-i-Hurriyat-i-Kashmir. Hoping that the hard-line leadership would help her Kashmir cause on international forums, Pakistan entreated OIC secretary general to drop Mirwaiz and instead invite Ali Shah Geelani as Hurriyat Observer. But a strong counter effort by Mirwaiz to get Geelani faction de-recognized, an effort which had token him on a visit to Jeddah on 26 September 2004 to meet Mian Nawaz Sharief and ISI sleuths, and where Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan of PoK also joined them, resulted in his reinstatement as Hurriyat Observer.

It was after OIC summit in Doha, Qatar, when Mirwaiz met with Pakistan President General Musharraf on the sidelines of the conference and talked to him about Kashmir dispute. From what Musharraf said about the issue, Mirwaiz carried the impression that Pakistan was willing to give up emphasis on UN Resolutions on Kashmir. In an interview to the Gulf News that Mirwaiz gave on his return from Doha, he said,” There is a shift in Pakistan’s position on Kashmir. UN Resolution is fifty years old and cannot be implemented.”

A Pakistani journalist claimed that General Musharraf hadn’t discussed the plan in question either with the Prime Minister or the cabinet, and that Mirwaiz was the only person to whom he had disclosed it and that too in Amsterdam and not in Doha.

Soon after that General Musharraf floated his seven-zone plan for the settlement of Kashmir dispute. Besides APHC chief Mirwaiz Omar Farooq, PDP leader Mufti Saeed lost no time in endorsing General’s proposal. Pakistan’s pro-government media and pro-military establishment gave all possible hype to the proposal but India reacting coolly confined to Prime Minister’s reflection that border could not be redrawn in Kashmir.

Recently some beneficiaries of the days of late Benazir’s tenure as prime minister have claimed that the seven-zone plan was originally contemplated by her but for various reasons it could not be activated.

Writing in the Asian Tribune of 17 March 2008, Wajid Shamsu’l Hassan, and Pakistan’s former High Commissioner in UK wrote, “When she (Benazir) appointed me High Commissioner to London, her brief of priorities was to develop trade with Britain, mobilize foreign investment and internationalize Kashmir as a human rights issue where UN resolutions were flouted.”

It has become a ritual with the OIC to pass a resolution in each of its sessions calling upon India to implement UN resolutions on Kashmir and put an end to “human rights violations.” To this Indian official circles react laconically that outside the conference hall most of the member countries of OIC contact their chanceries to assure them that Kashmir resolution notwithstanding there is no change in their policy towards India. That is how New Delhi has been trivializing OIC resolutions on Kashmir.

Showing its solidarity with Pakistan for the cause of “human rights in Kashmir”, the Saudi and Pakistani representatives working in tandem proposed that OIC appoint a special OIC envoy on Jammu and Kashmir. Following the meeting of its Contact Group on Kashmir at the United Nations headquarters in 2009, the OIC appointed Abdullah bin Abdul Rahman Al Bakr, a Saudi national, as a special OIC envoy on Jammu and Kashmir. Reacting sharply to this decision, Indian External Affairs Ministry spokesman Vishnu Prakash thundered on Oct 3, 2009,” It is regrettable that the OIC has commented on India’s internal affairs. We condemn and reject this. Inherent in OIC’s statements and actions on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir is a complete inability to understand India’s position. Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and it is our firm position that the OIC has no locus standi in matters concerning India’s internal affairs,”

Mirwaiz, who visited New York and Washington at the invitation of OIC, welcomed the appointment of the envoy. He addressed OIC’s contact group on Kashmir, met ministers of several Muslim countries and also US officials. On his return to Srinagar, Mirwaiz said: “Key headway is being made on the Kashmir issue for the first time, and along with Muslim nations, the US and China both are serious about solving it, which is the outcome of sacrifices of the Kashmiri people.” Notably, thereafter, the Chinese embassy in New Delhi began issuing visa on separate sheet to the Kashmiris intending to visit that country.

Speeches aside, Tajik analysts commenting on OIC foreign ministers meet expressed doubts that the OIC would be unable to meet the goals it set for itself. Many have dismissed the OIC as an Islamic debating society that has accomplished little, citing a lack of unified positions on key issues and no agencies transform policies into action.

“If the OIC could unify and present a single political position for all 57 members, it could be one of the strongest and most influential political blocs on the world stage”, said Tajik political scientist Abdullah Rahnama. “But the member-states of the OIC don’t have a unified position on any of their main issues. The OIC members’ positions on problems like the Near East conflict or recognition of Kosovar independence are formed under the influence of the leading world powers’ international positions. Russia’s position exerts influence on the position taken by the Central Asian countries. There is also no unified position on the anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan”, he said.

Another Tajik political commentator Rustam Samiyev made a cogent point by saying that internal conflicts between member-states also influence the OIC’s positions. Ideologies to which individual states are wedded play a role too, he added.

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

Around the last week of March, Pakistani media channel 4 received a video recording asking it to pay US dollars 10 million by way of ransom for the release of its freelance documentary maker Asad Qureshi kidnapped on March 25 by Punjab militants calling themselves Asian Tigers. They also demanded simultaneous freedom for two Taliban commanders, Mulla Baradar and Masud Dadullah in exchange of two other persons they had kidnapped together with Qureshi namely, Khalil Khwaja and Colonel Amir Sultan Tarrar generally known as Col. Imam.

Before we proceed with the main body of this piece, we shall try to know something about Sultan Tarrar.  Col. Tarrar a former ISI officer was once Pakistan’s Consul-General in Herat, a strategic town to the northeast of Afghanistan. He played crucial role in raising the Taliban militia under instructions and guidance of General Babar then Pakistan’s interior minister. 

He trained important top mujahideen commanders like Mulla Omar of Kandahar, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the slain Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Masud. The mujahideen generally called him Col. Imam and he came to be recognized as the “Father of Taliban”. 

In a video footage which Khalid Khwaja recently sent to a familiar South East Asian news agency, he said Pakistan Army had sent him to North Waziristan. He claimed that caught in the middle, Pak army was unable to come out and he was to hammer out reconciliation between the army and the militants and provide safe passage for the withdrawing Pakistani troops.

Is Khwaja’s statement convincing? Let us have an excursion into his past to ascertain the veracity of this and other statements. Then a squadron leader in Pak Air Force and an active official of ISI, Khwaja wrote a letter to President Zia in 1980’s criticizing him for the hypocrisy of not enforcing Islam in Pakistan. Quick retribution came in the shape of his ouster from air force.

During the Afghan mujahideen war against the Soviets, Khwaja was seen as a recruiter and trainer of Pakistani fighters joining hands with the mujahideen in their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Obviously, he must have been in close contact with the ISI and the CIA to undertake this mission. Here is what he discloses about himself in five video clips surreptitiously distributed to a South Asian media outlet, which claims to have some credibility with the Taliban and other militant groups in NWFP.

Reflecting on Pakistan army’s action in Lal Masjid, Khwaja confesses to have worked to bring down the radical movement connected with Lal Masjid siege and attack because by mid-2007, the radical movement in Pakistan had become very aggressive. He hatched a plan with Maulana Fazlu’r Rahman, the chief of Jamiatu’l-Ulema-e Pakistan, Mufti Rafi’ Usmani and others to put an end to Lal Masjid movement. He managed to trap Abdul Aziz, the prayer leader (pesh Imam) of Lal Masjid, and the brother of Ghazi Abdu’r Rasheed. The two brothers together ran the Lal Masjid.  Through an innovative scheme, the Khwaja contrived the arrest of Abdul Aziz. He rang up the Maulana and suggested to him to wear the veil and gown of a woman and come out. The Maulana fell into the trap and was arrested. Ghazi Abdu’r Rasheed was killed in the Pak military action in Lal Masjid. Lal Masjid incident ushered in the decline and fall of General Pervez Musharraf and it also provoked fierce reaction of Islamists against Pakistan state on the whole.

Khwaja says that top jihadi commanders were ISI proxies with free hand to collect funds. Included among them were Maulana Fazlu’r Rahman Khaleel (who had laid the foundation of International Islamic Front with Osama bin Laden in 1998), Maulana Masu’d Azhar, the chief of Jaish-e Muhammad and Abdullah Shah Mazhar former supreme commander of JeM.  Not only militant leaders like Abdullah Shah Azhar, Fazlu’r Rahman Khaleel, and Masud Azhar but jihadi organizations like Let, Al Badr, JeM, Harakatu’l Mujahdeen, Jamiatu’l Mujahideen and others also operated with the financial cooperation of Pakistani secret services and they are allowed to collect their funds inside Pakistan.

Khwaja says he was involved in talks with the government to avoid military entering Lal Masjid and had assured the government that a solution would be found. But then Pakistan government suddenly arrested him and put him in jail for some months. The government claimed it had intercepted a message he had sent to the insiders in the mosque not to surrender.

Khwaja openly criticized Pakistan government for its role of aligning with the Americans on war on terror after 9/11.

In the video clip Khwaja says, “I am known among media and masses as a thoroughbred gentleman. I have been the ISI and CIA mole and I cannot forget charred bodies of boys and girls in Lal Masjid carnage.”

At the time of his disappearance on 25 March, Khwaja is said to have been working for missing people mostly militants. In an interview with the Asia Times, Khwaja made the revelation that in late 1980s, he had fixed a meeting in Saudi Arabia between Osama bin Laden and the then opposition leader Mian Nawaz Sharif. They discussed the plan of dislodging the government of Benazir Bhutto, which did come about in 1990. He also revealed that in late 1980s, he passed on funds from Osama bin Laden to former Pakistan Minister Shiekh Rasheed for operation of training camps for Kashmir separatists in PoK and other parts of Pakistan. This is the same Shiekh Rasheed at whose residence Kashmiri militants and their leaders like Salahu’d-din and others used to meet often and receive briefing from ISI sleuths about insurgency acts in Kashmir.

The video clips and the statement of Khwaja reveal that Pakistani Army and the ISI have moles within moles in their rank and file. Who works where and how is not perhaps known to the respective commanders even.  In a number of cases the rogues in these institutions have revealed startling stories of perfidy, mayhem and crime perpetrated with or without the knowledge of their immediate superiors. In fact a nexus has been established between the Army, ISI and the CIA, each one playing tricks with the other.  An army, air force or navy officer and other rank can play any part anywhere and in any capacity. Militant groups are their creation and the Army is a state within a state. One wonders when Pakistani government asks India for resumption of talks, who in Pakistan wants to talk on what issues and with what agenda?

Never before has Pakistan’s perfidious governance been as unabashedly exposed as by the report of the UN Committee on Inquiry into the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

When the President of a sovereign country does not trust his law and justice enforcing establishment, and seeks international to conduct impartial inquiry into the assassination of his wife on December 27, 2007, it loudly speaks of sordid state of affairs in that country. The assassination of Benazir took place just two weeks before parliamentary elections scheduled for January 8, 2008 would commence. International community is aghast at the unraveling of inside story of this heinous crime in which Pakistani Army, Intelligence establishment and administrative machinery are implicated. 

The US and UK – brokered  deal leading to National Reconciliation Ordinance taking effect from October 2007 was purported to usher in liberal, secular and democratic government in Pakistan to support the American “war on terror”. The couple living in exile had been cleared of charges against them to facilitate Benazir’s return and resumption of her political activities. How immature and over-ambitious Benazir proved; she fell in the trap of a high level anticipated conspiracy.

The 70-page report of UN Inquiry Commission into the assassination of Benazir in Rawalpindi garrison city on 27 December 2007 submitted in July last, has been deliberately underplayed by Pakistani media under pressure from the Army and Intelligence establishments. Some excerpts randomly taken from the official report give an insight into the perfidy in which various elements were involved in one way or the other. It says,” The failure of the police to investigate effectively Ms Bhutto’s assassination was deliberate.  No official response that Pak authorities should investigate Al-Qaeda connections in assassination plot was received.” Furthermore the report says, “Current officials, less than helpful, investigation was severely hampered by intelligence agencies, and government officials impeded search for the truth.” Mr. Horaldo Munoz, Chairperson of Bhutto Commission of Inquiry and Chile’s permanent representative at the UN said,” These officials, in part fearing intelligence agencies’ involvement, were unsure of how vigorously they ought to pursue actions which they knew as professionals they should have taken.”

One among eight police officials removed by Pak authorities is one Saud Aziz who had ordered the scene of murder to be hosed down and who says the report, “destroyed   invaluable evidence of assassination.” The report adds that Aziz was acting under the directions of the then head of Military Intelligence Agency Maj. Gen. Nadim Ijaz Ahmad, a close contact of the military ruler General Parvez Musharraf. The report establishes Nadim Ijaz as the most controversial character in the entire episode. He is now Log Area Commander of Gujranwala.

Another person who the UN Commission report portrays as dubious is Lt. Gen. Nadeem Taj, the then Director General of ISI, and now Corps Commander of Gujranwala. The report levels accusations against military and intelligence establishments that “they facilitated security loopholes or covered up evidence.”

After she got immunity from various charges, Benazir had been lambasting Islamic extremism and asked people to stand against it. She spoke against Al Qaeda and supported Musharraf’s crackdown in July 2007 on Lal Masjid. This was a turning point in the sequence of events. Osama bin Laden assigned Abu Obeidah Misri the position of amir-e-khuruj (meaning Commander for Revolt). As Benazir strongly came into the gaze of media, Osama asked Misri to take her out. A special cell in Rawalpindi was tasked to undertake the plot. Among the members of the cell were Aitzaz Shah, Hasnain Gul, Rifaqat, Sher Zaman and Abdur Rasheed. All of them were subsequently arrested and interrogated. Their close association with Jalalu’d-Din Haqqani terrorist network was established. Al Qaeda shura (Council) decided that there was religious justification for eliminating Benazir and Baitullah Mahsud (now dead) provided the bombers.

The UN Commission report concludes: “Security forces did not prevent the attack, and to cover it up they washed off all evidence from the site of murder. Soon after the murder, Pakistani official spokesman came out with an intercept of a tape between Baitullah Mahsud and the militants inferring attack was carried out on instructions of Baitullah. Everybody pointed a finger at him.

These insights reveal the deep mindset of Pakistani Army, Intelligence establishment and pro-Army administrative segment. The simplest inference is that democracy, liberalism and secularism in Pakistan, that the Anglo-American bloc hopes will take roots under their behest in that country is a myth and negation of Pakistan’s six decades of history.

The fallout of the UN report as described above is the widening of the gap between the ruling political group and the Pakistani Army and Intelligence establishment. PPP has already stated that in the light of the report it will bring Musharraf to book. But Musharraf has still many takers in Pakistan Army. He is even contemplating his political party to gain a toehold in Pakistan’s power structure.  Where this triangular contest will lead the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will be of much interest to political observers and commentators.
(The write is the former Director of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

After nearly two weeks of bizarre drama of accusations and counter accusations, hiding and revealing of hideous facets of IPL, the grand finale has come down with a bang. First there appeared only the tip of the iceberg and gradually, thanks to the unrelenting and to some extent scandal-loving electronic media, a big chunk of the colossus money scam got revealed to the naked eye.

Yes, big money is involved and we have the big fish in the cesspool. One should appreciate the originality of those who conceived the novel idea of laundering black money and evading the income tax. And some of them who are in the fray claim to be nationalists par excellence. 

The day one when IPL was formally structured, I heard many sensible observers calling it a death warrant to the high ethos of a fine game called cricket. Recent events have vindicated their fears. The Pakistani cricket players, who were unethically kept out of the IPL, must be highly gleeful on shame and disgrace now dogging the prime actors and stakeholders of IPL. 

The first and foremost miss-doers in this scandalous affair are the top cricket players who succumbed to money temptation at the cost of the high culture and grace of a very decent game that has brought laurels to many an outstanding among them. Imagine great Kapil Dev invariably referring to national pride and honour whenever he is interviewed by television crew for comments on some crucial aspects of the game. Imagine the British royalty honoring outstanding players with knighthood. And above all, imagine hundreds of millions of watchers commenting joyously on each stroke, each ball, each catch, each loss and each win. No other game has won popularity of the dimension of sorts which cricket has won. Moreover, for a long period in history, this game became a cementing force between the Commonwealth countries. But now imagine the cesspool of filth and dirt to which the royal game has now been dragged.

There was a remark by an MP during the heated debate on the IPL episode in the parliament saying that cricket was a foreign game and should be discarded and replaced by some national tamasha. I am surprised that the honorable MP forgot that India has one of the strongest and most colourful cricket teams in the world; she won the world cup and established her position as a leading cricket playing country. If we are supposed to shun it because of its foreign origin, then we should shun the entire gamut of modern life style as most of it is foreign in origin. It is a myopic and jingoistic vision to demand its banishment just because it is a game of foreign origin. Our parliamentary democracy is of foreign origin, and our elected representatives have been basking in the warmth of freedom of speech brought by this foreign-related political system.

Our ace cricket players should have declined to join IPL and thus maintained the grace and dignity of this highly skilful game. Alas, they were driven blind by monetary allurement as if they are starving of big monies.  They must now be realizing to what depths the bidders made them sink. Auctioned like cabbage and carrots, they remained blind to their personal achievements, fame and popularity. Indeed, today they are far below in the popularity graph in the eyes of habitual cricket watchers and commentators. Of all the people, it is they who knew the illegitimate sources from which money came.

Finger will also be raised toward the IT department. Why did they keep sleeping over the entire affair for such a long time? When the bids for buying the players went in crores, where were they at that time? Why did not the long arm of law of the land reach them in time? Why did its officials swing into action only when the cat was out of bag? Where they privy to the sources of big money and deliberately closed their eyes? Now that the media hype had unraveled the darkest aspects of the dirty game of big money laundering, they woke up and are running frantically after the stakeholders to create an impression that they care for national interests. This question needs to be probed into and we hope that the government will handle the probing exercise inclusively.

Though belated, yet the government’s action should be welcomed even if it had to be taken under pressure from opposition. The opposition is the watchdog and it has performed its duty effectively. Its stand is vindicated. It has rightly been said that Shashi Tharoor the shunted out junior minister in MEA is not the focus. He has paid and rightly for trying to be over smart. The focus is on IPL, the great money laundering and washing mafia. Fat capitalists have come together to jointly find the way how the government can be swindled, how tax can be evaded and how black money amassed in foreign banks can be converted into white money. In doing so they have brazenly cheated upon the unsuspecting a billion strong Indian nation that believed it was being entertained for the money it gladly paid. How their money is used clandestinely to validate black money is betrayal of trust. This is a serious accusation and should be dealt with according to the law of the land.

The government has set up a parliamentary committee to enquire into the entire affair. That is the right thing to do. The opposition should not claim credit for removing a junior minister and forcing the government open Pandora’s Box. All that the opposition has done is that it precipitated quick and decisive action in a scandalous affair that had started tarnishing many profiles. So the opposition did its duty by way of harkening the government to an important issue. The government should be given full credit for handling the matter with alacrity and fairness. But all said and done, there is a strong point in opposition demanding banning the IPL. All methods and means that violate the law of the land and cause damage to the national exchequer have to be plugged once for all. It is the duty of the government to restore the noble game of cricket to its pristine purity and dignity. Let India not be accused of de-standardizing it.  In fact the government should take some action under rules and impose a penalty fine equal to the amount of the bid for each Indian player in IPL contest. It is also important that BCCI is purged of officials with self-aggrandizement and their place is filled by younger cricketers both retired and not retired, so that this prestigious sports organization is not politicized and does not become a den of maladies.  Persons with political background should not be allowed to become office bearers or members of BCCI. Besides that one third of its office bearers and members should be females with known interest in sports and cultural activities.

The End.

Defending his Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operation) draft Bill 2010, Union HRD Minister Kapil Sibal claimed that “the bill would usher in a revolution larger than one in telecom sector in this country.”

Why then was a highly beneficial measure not initiated all these years that would have brought substantial change to India’s education sector?  Actually the Congress government in 1955 failed to see it through, and the coalition government led by UPA in 2006 again failed in pushing the bill in the parliament. 

In both of the two previous abortive attempts it was the Left, which, in its characteristic negative culture, subverted a proposal that would have opened vistas of raising our educational standards to the level of developed countries. The Left contended that opening up of education sector would lead to unregulated fees and admission procedure that favoured only the affluent classes.  But perhaps advertently it did not focus on huge monies that out-flowed with Indian students seeking admission in foreign universities.

Unshackled of the Left in last elections, the Congress-led UPA government feels more reassured to table the bill which will come up for crucial debate in the present session of the parliament.

What has been the motivation for the HRD minister to introduce the bill? Over 50,000 Indian students choose to join overseas universities for higher education every year, which causes an outflow of about 10 billion US dollars annually. This is because the Indian middle class has achieved the capacity to send their youth abroad for higher education and training.

According to data provided by Associated Chamber of Commerce and Industry, India has 220 million students enrolled in her 20,000 colleges, 370 universities and 156 foreign educational institutions that conduct their courses in India. Out of the 220 million enrolments, 14 million are for higher education.

The Indian middle class comprises 350 million at present and it is expected to expand to 600 million by 2025. Again by 2025, about three-quarters of India’s urbanites will be part of the middle class compared with one-tenth at present. Imagine the enormous outflow which will take place with the burgeoning Indian middle class in years to come and its student community aspiring foreign degrees.

India has the largest student population in the world with estimated market of US dollars 40 billion per year. We have passed the second decade of liberalization but the education sector remained stagnated in grooves from which it should have wriggled out.  We have the pressing need of deregulating our education especially the higher education sector to meet the demands of a burgeoning economy.

What does the bill signify or in other words what gains will it bring to the country when it is passed by the parliament? There are pessimists and negativists who are quick to paint a dark and dismal picture whenever India thinks of opening to various facets of modern life. But the ground situation is one that will no more give way to negativism.

Heavy regulations and over-protection of education sector from global forces may have allowed Indians to get cheaper education but at the same time growth and quality of higher education has suffered the consequences of protectionism.

The bill envisages foreign universities investment of 51 % of capital expenditures needed for establishing the campuses in India. It will entitle foreign entrants to offer degrees in the country which was not allowed so far. Only accredited universities will be allowed and permission to franchises will not be encouraged.

Entry of foreign universities is expected to enhance educational opportunities. Foreign university degrees for the students will be made more affordable to a much larger number of Indians. It will increase availability and quality of various faculties and the bill may usher global best practices in India’s higher education sector.

“Foreign universities will prevent three-fourth of Indian students aspiring to go abroad”, said a lobby spokesman. Indirect benefit would be the prevention of brain drain.

According to the Ministry of HRD, about a 50 universities including Duke University, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Imperial College, London have applied to the Indian government for clearance. However, some prestigious foreign universities like Yale, Harvard. Cornell and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston University have said they are in no haste to open their campuses in India.

There are other universities like Columbia that are following a different strategy. Their concept is of setting up centre in India that would focus on research and exchange programme rather than offering degrees.

But all said and done, there will be difficulties in the way of foreign universities establishing their campuses in India while ensuring the level of standard expected from them. The draft bill imposes tough conditions on fees, curriculum, degrees etc. and demands strict adherence to the norms that have been laid down. If these harsh conditionalties prevail, it is feared that India could become unattractive to students.  Grant Thornton, a recognized consultancy said that general infrastructure in India is not capable of supporting world-class university campus. In particular, Indian rural sector may not qualify for these campuses.  These challenges may force many aspiring foreign universities to tie up with existing universities and institutions in urbanized areas. Furthermore many local educational centers with strong political lobbies behind them could scuttle induction of a foreign higher education institute in India.

But supporters of the bill say that higher education is no only a matter of awarding degrees. It is to improve the quality of education. And if the bill in question is passed by the parliament, that will be a step in right direction.

By K.N. Pandita, New Delhi,
 
Curously neither any of the authors nor the reviewer focuses on the most important reason for Pakistani Army to hazard Kargl misadventure. It has to be reminded that Kargil happened close at the heels of Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee’s visit to Lahore and an understanding of sorts between Vajpayee and Mian Nawaz Sharied had developed to give a new shape to Indo-Pak bilateral relations. Even Kashmir was discussed by the two leaders and there were positive signs for a broad-based understanding on the ticklish issue. 

But this was not acceptable to the ISI and the hawks in Paksitan Army who managed a camouglaged assault on Kargil posts. The fundamentals of Paksitan Amy’s  Kashmir policy is not to allow a peacaeful solution of the imbroglio as that would immensely curtail the power and influence of the Army and its clout in radicalised segment of Paksitani society. And Kargil is not the first instance. Execution of Z.A. Bhutto after Simla talks were concluded, sudden dismissal of Benazir Bhutto as prime minister after her one to  one talks with the Indian counterpart Rajiv Gandhi, and then Kargil are the links in the chain. Even General Pervez Musharraf came under cloud after he brazenly announced his formula for solution of Kashmir issue. It has also to be remembered that  Paksitani GHQ may have taken the Pentagon into confidence over Kargil as the two organizations have  deep and historical relations between them.  The White House did not conceal its chagrin against Mian Nawaz Sharief for letting down Paksitan  Army by publicly saying that he had never been consulted on the adventure by his Army commander. Clinton adminsitration made Nawaz Sharief pay a heavy price in order to shield Pakistan Army in the eyes of Pakistani public. Not to let any civilian government settle Kashmir issue with the Indians is the desk book formula of Paksitani Army and all new imcumbents to the highest post in Pak armed forces  are supposed to adhere to it. As regards Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, it is a toothlessa tiger; the day Pakistni hawaks touch it, they will be blasted to pieces. Pakistani nuclear arsenal is not meant to be used agaisnt India but to extract the pound of flesh from the US. As long as the two go buddying together, the US has to pay the price in trickles or in downpours. Washington’s dilemma is not that in a war with India, Pakistan will unleash the weapon of mass destruction. Her dilemma is how to stop Pakistan from clandestinley letting her nuclear weapon go into the hands of Islamists. Some say that Washington is already in control of the weapon in part.

(Michael Krepon is the co-founder of the Stimson Center and the author of Better Safe than Sorry, The Ironies of Living with the Bomb (2009). This article first appeared in the April issue of Arms Control Today, – see Michael Krepon’s book review). 

By Michael Krepon,

There have been four nuclear-tinged crises in South Asia since 1990, and new crises could well be generated by religious extremists carrying out mass-casualty attacks.  Several new books on regional stability and crisis management on the subcontinent are therefore timely and well worth reading.  Of particular interest are three collections o essays edited by Peter Lavoy, Scott Sagan, Sumit Ganguly and Paul Kapur.

One point of departure for this literature is a theorem developed in the West during the Cold War known as the “stability-instability” paradox.  Robert Jervis defined the stability-instability paradox this way in The Illogic of American Nuclear Strategy: “to the extent that the military balance is stable at the level of all-out nuclear war, it will become less stable at lower levels of violence.”  This working definition assumed that stability could be achieved with large, offsetting nuclear arsenals, a goal that eluded Soviet and U.S. nuclear weapons strategists who kept jockeying for advantage-and the avoidance of disadvantage-even after acquiring society-killing stockpiles.  But Jervis’ larger point was well taken and is quite applicable to South Asia: the advent of the Bomb can be perceived as an insurance policy against the most dangerous types of escalation, thereby abetting-mischief making below the nuclear threshold.

One of the many reasons to welcome Peter Lavoy’s long-awaited edited volume, Asymmetric Warfare in South Asia: The Causes and Consequences of the Kargil Conflict, is that Jervis revisits the stability-instability paradox through the lens of Kargil, the high-altitude, limited war between Pakistan and India that occurred at the instigation of a small group of Pakistani military officers the year after both countries carried out nuclear tests.  Jervis’ new formulation is that, “Strategic stability permits if not creates instability by making lower levels of violence relatively safe because escalation up the nuclear ladder is too dangerous.”      

Achieving strategic stability may, however, be even harder for India and Pakistan than for the Soviet Union and the United States.  After experiencing harrowing crises over Berlin and Cuba, Moscow and Washington tacitly agreed not to play with fire in each other’s back yard.  Their strategic competition then played out in more out-of-the-way locales, where missteps were severely punished by proxy forces.  The locus of Indian and Pakistani competition, on the other hand, is the contested back yard of Kashmir, where Western deterrence theory has now been introduced to the agendas of jihadi groups such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Jaish-e-Muhammad.

India’s and Pakistan’s quest for strategic stability should, in theory, be facilitated by their endorsement of “minimal” nuclear deterrence.  But, as former Indian Minister of External Affairs Jaswant Singh likes to say, “minimal” is not a “fixity.”  Deterrence requirements for India must be calculated with China as well as Pakistan in mind, and no two legs of this triangular stool are equal.  Moreover, both the Indian and Pakistani governments have publicly embraced doctrines of massive retaliation.  India has adopted a “no-first-use” doctrine; Pakistan has not, due to its conventional military imbalance with India, which has led Pakistan’s security apparatus to rely on unconventional means to keep New Delhi off-balance and to tie down large numbers of Indian troops in Jammu and Kashmir.  The Pakistan Army is now carrying out a punishing and partial offensive against those who once were its allies, which is why more mass casualty attacks in urban centers are a sure bet.  The mix of massive-retaliation doctrines, religious extremism, a growing nuclear dependency by Pakistan, and a growing conventional imbalance in India’s favor do not bode well in the event that another crisis prompts military operations.

The books reviewed here reflect a healthy, but lopsided debate between deterrence optimists and proliferation pessimists.  The former believe that offsetting nuclear weapons will keep the peace; the latter maintain that more nuclear weapons will result in more wars and perhaps mushroom clouds.  Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan provided an essential introduction to this debate in their two editions of The Spread of Nuclear Weapons.  One deterrence optimist for South Asia, Devin Hagerty, concluded in The Consequences of Nuclear Proliferation: Lessons from South Asia that, “There is no more ironclad law in international relations theory than this: nuclear weapon states do not fight wars with one another.”  Hagerty subsequently amended this conclusion to account for the Kargil War in the collection of essays edited by Sumit Ganguly and S. Paul Kapur, Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia: Crisis Behaviour and the Bomb: “Nuclear weapons constituted one of many factors in Islamabad’s decision to undertake low-intensity operations in Kargil, but they were the main factor in containing the ensuing conflict within the Indian side of disputed Kashmir.”

Ganguly and Hagerty are leading proponents of this camp of deterrence optimists.  Their previous collaboration, Fearful Symmetry: India-Pakistan Crises in the Shadow of Nuclear Weapons, concludes that timely and forceful U.S. interventions, a sufficiently stabilizing conventional military order of battle, and, especially, a mutual fear of nuclear escalation have prevented major war and dangerous escalation on the subcontinent.  A more in-depth account of Indian-Pakistani crises written by P.R. Chari, Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, and Stephen P. Cohen, Four Crises and a Peace Process, arrives at far more cautionary conclusions.  These authors note that “neither side in our four crises had a sure grasp of the other’s fears and hopes, and at times one or both sides miscalculated the role that outsiders might have played.” Moreover:

 all new nuclear states tend to explore the limits imposed by their possession of nuclear  weapons.  They push at the edges before backing off… Clearly, the occurrence of four major crises within a twenty-year period indicates a fundamental structural problem.   Whether one attributes this primarily to the Kashmir dispute or to other factors, such as    India’s rise as a major power, South Asia has not been a stable and peaceful region, despite the common cultural and geopolitical heritage of the two states.

Kapur is among the ranks of proliferation pessimists, having written at book length shredding the arguments of deterrence optimists.  (Disclaimer: Kapur and this reviewer share the same publisher.)  His co-edited volume with Ganguly, Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia: Crisis Behaviour and the Bomb, is built around the promising idea of pairing a deterrence optimist and a proliferation pessimist to assess each crisis dating back to the 1986-1987 Indian Brasstacks exercises, which some believe were designed by Indian Army chief K. Sundarji to prompt a war with Pakistan before it could acquire nuclear weapons.  This book shines when topnotch analysts are paired against each other, as is the case with Praveen Swami and Kanti Bajpai on the “Twin Peaks” crisis of 2001-2002, which was sparked by the attack on the Indian Parliament building by Islamic extremists.  It disappoints when the chapters are very uneven. 

Neil Joeck’s essay on Kargil is essential reading.  He concludes that “the availability of nuclear weapons on both sides did not prevent war but did increase the potential for a catastrophic outcome.”  In Joeck’s account, both India and Pakistan did what Thomas Schelling told us to expect long ago: they competed in taking risks.  “Despite Pakistan’s having proven its nuclear capability, India was prepared to move up the escalatory ladder.  In view of these actions, it is difficult to conclude that in the Kargil war, escalation did not occur because the stakes were too high.”

Instead, there is compelling evidence, provided in great detail in Lavoy’s book, that significant conventional escalation did not occur for three primary reasons: Indian troops began to reclaim the heights above Kargil, Pakistani military and diplomatic position had become untenable, and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif decided to cut his country’s losses.

John H. Gill provides another cautionary note in his fine chapter on Brasstacks in the Ganguly and Kapur volume: government and institutional structures in India, as well as in Pakistan, “remain vulnerable to individualistic decision-makers and bureaucratic shortcuts.” In the case of Brasstacks, India was the source of military adventurism enabled by an appalling lack of vetting and coordination; in Kargil, it was Pakistan’s turn to make the same mistakes.  In both cases, the role of key individuals with outsized and risk-taking personalities was crucial. 

The essays by proliferation pessimists in Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia: Crisis Behaviour and the Bomb are, on balance, stronger analytically than those of deterrence optimists, who necessarily rely on more heroic assumptions.  The co-editors punt on the contrary findings of their contributors, offering a two-paragraph summary of key conclusions, one of which is that, “the disagreements between the two camps may turn largely on their views as to whether dangerous crisis process or stable crisis outcome matters more.”   

Scott Sagan has long dwelled on how strong personalities, domestic politics, accidents, and organizational compulsions and screw-ups could lead to a breakdown of deterrence.  His new edited volume, Inside Nuclear South Asia, provides many cautionary notes. (Disclaimer: Sagan and this reviewer share the same publisher.  Sagan warns once again that the rational deterrence model presumes unitary actors, whereas India and Pakistan are anything but unitary actors.  He also cautions that the role of the Pakistani military on nuclear matters is unlikely to be circumscribed by civilian oversight, insider threats will continue to work against efforts to improve nuclear security, Indian nuclear doctrine is evolving in open-ended and potentially dangerous ways, and new complications will arise if and when the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) returns to power in India. 

Kanti Bajpai’s essay, “The BJP and the Bomb,” is particularly good.  While acknowledging that Indian security concerns played a major role leading up to the Pokhran tests, he argues that “the timing of the 1998 tests, the tipping point, is better explained by domestic political considerations.” If, as Bajpai concludes, “The BJP played politics with the bomb” in order to extend its stay in power, and if the BJP forms a new government, more nuclear testing could be in store on the subcontinent.  

Paul Kapur’s chapter argues that the Cold War definition of the stability-instability paradox does not apply to South Asia since, if it did, the Pakistani military would be deterred from employing unconventional means against India’s superior conventional forces.  This academic distinction appears to have been lost on Pakistan’s security apparatus.  As Kapur himself notes:

Pakistani leaders soon came to believe that this danger of nuclear escalation, by insulating Pakistan from Indian conventional attack, would allow Pakistan not simply to ensure its own security but also to pursue a strategy of limited conflict against Indian rule in Jammu and Kashmir. 

One of the many strengths of Kapur’s essay is his interviews with key Indian and Pakistani leaders.

Peter Lavoy’s edited volume, Asymmetric Warfare in South Asia, provides great insight into a war previously shrouded in secrecy and self-serving accounts.  Lavoy and his team of analysts at the Naval Postgraduate School carried out extensive fieldwork and were granted access to key Pakistani military officers.  They situate the Kargil War in the context of military jockeying along the Kashmir divide, where the capture of posts across the Line of Control (LoC) was not unusual, and where Pakistan suffered the humiliating occupation of the Siachen Glacier by Indian troops in 1984.  Some of the contributors, including Lavoy and Feroz Hassan Khan, downplay but do not dismiss the stability-instability paradox as a factor in Kargil.  In effect, they argue that Kargil’s planners were too myopically focused on military tactics to dwell on deterrence theory: 

The planners of Kargil assumed that India would not respond to what they considered to be localized military maneuvers on superior terrain with military escalation, and even if it did, Pakistani troops, together with pressure from allies, would be able to neutralize any possible Indian riposte.  They were sorely mistaken.

The military planners of Kargil were few in number, inclined toward risk-taking, and badly out of touch with the international ramifications of nuclear testing on the subcontinent and Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee’s subsequent trip to Lahore to open a new, hopeful chapter in bilateral relations.  Their plan was tactically brilliant and strategically unwise.  They became victims of their successful plan when Pakistan’s Northern Light Infantry troops advanced far beyond their assigned objectives because there was no one on the heights to stop them.  Their positions became overextended and hard to resupply-especially since Pakistan was trapped by its cover story that “freedom fighters” and not troops carried out the incursion.      

In Lavoy’s view, one lesson of Kargil is that “the armed forces of nuclear powers can fight each other, but only where their vital interests are not at stake.” He provides ammunition to both deterrence optimists and proliferation pessimists.  On the one hand, Lavoy notes that both India and Pakistan avoided key escalatory steps and concludes that, “The Kargil conflict did not come close to causing a nuclear war,” in part because, contrary to the reports of some U.S. officials at the time, “Neither Pakistan nor India readied its nuclear arms for employment.”  On the other hand, he adds, “we now know that Indian troops were within days of opening another front across the LoC and possibly the international border, an act that could have triggered a large-scale conventional military engagement.” His conclusions that India and Pakistan did not come close to uncontrolled escalation and yet came close to a major conventional war are not easily reconcilable. 

Lavoy has assembled an all-star cast of analysts.  There is not one weak chapter in the book, and those by Lavoy, Feroz Khan, Christopher Clary, John H. Gill, Praveen Swami, Rajesh M. Basrur, Hasan-Askari Rizvi, and Jervis are particularly good.  These authors draw varying lessons from Kargil.  Hasan-Askari Rizvi, perhaps Pakistan’s leading commentator on civil-military relations, is not sanguine, politely suggesting that “it is unclear if Pakistan has learned the lesson of institutional decision-making.”  Rajesh Basrur, knowing full well how resistant Indian institutions are to adaptation, offers a decidedly mixed appraisal of India’s ability to implement the lessons of Kargil.  One of Lavoy’s lessons of crisis management is particularly chilling:

Even some nuclear-armed countries will fight where they think they can… However, India and Pakistan run two high risks in this strategic competition.  They risk losing militarily.  But they also risk winning so much that the other side is compelled to escalate the conflict.   

One significant analytical problem with crisis management is that the next crisis will have both new and familiar dimensions.  The lessons learned and unlearned about Kargil will certainly be crucial.  But the next template for crisis management for India, Pakistan, and the United States is unlikely to be Kargil.  Rather, it will be the November 2008 Mumbai attacks against iconic Indian targets by Islamic extremists with links to Pakistan.  If New Delhi responds by carrying out its “Cold Start” doctrine of quick air strikes along with the seizure of some Pakistani territory, the next crisis on the subcontinent could be a show topper.

As Indo-US civilian nuclear deal progressed through tortuous negotiations during the period 2007-9, Islamabad was keenly watching how things shaped and what could be probable implications for her security and foreign policy.

During President Bush’s visit to India, with a short leg to Pakistan, he had rebuffed Pakistan by telling them that they had no dearth of energy resources and supply prospects. He had in his mind long standing Pak-Saudi close relations and was aware that the Gulf kingdom had been giving special concessions to Pakistan for oil imports.

Apart from this, Bush had also in his mind the proposed Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline which Washington has been opposing from day one. 

But with the Af-Pak war necessitating induction of Pakistan Army units to suppress Taliban and their Al-Qaeda accomplices, and the US insisting on full-fledged action against Taliban resistance in Waziristan, Islamabad seized the opportunity of extracting whatever it could from the Americans by way of concessions. It exacerbated terrorist infiltration across the LoC, made louder noise about including Kashmir dispute in proposed Indo-Pak talks, sounded the Americans of her unwillingness to allow India any space in Afghanistan, and dismissed action against known leaders of Pakistan-based terrorist organizations like LeT. After all she had takers in Washington.

Islamabad now demands that the US conclude a civilian nuclear deal with her along the lines of a deal with India last year. A high–power official delegation of Pakistan arrived in the US last week to hold bilateral talks, which, inter alia, would discuss the prospect of a civilian nuclear deal.

Reminding Washington of her traditional policy of maintaining parity between the two countries of the sub-continent, Islamabad, with a strong pro-Pak lobby in the Pentagon seems to have received some positive signals from those sources.

Two days of talks in Washington between Pakistan delegation and US officials, including the Secretary of State, ended on 25 March. Pakistan built her case for civilian nuclear power on the basis of country’s power shortfall of 5,000 MW, which was adversely affecting her industrial and economic growth. Prior to its departure for Washington, the Pakistani delegation had prepared a 56-page report seeking US support in developing her civilian nuclear programme.

What the parties actually talked about in Washington has not fully trickled down. However, the Pakistani foreign minister casually told the pressmen that civilian nuclear cooperation talks were moving along right direction. Foreign Secretary Hillary is quoted as this,” We are certainly looking at it as how to help Pakistan with its long term energy needs.”

Informed sources believe that the US would not be apathetic to obliging Pakistan with an Indo-US like civilian nuclear deal. But Washington has some security related reservations.  As a matter of fact there was a stage when eyebrows were raised in US official circles about the safety of Pak’s nuclear arsenal.  This had necessitated a major shift in the control and command system of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and the President was denuded of that power. Washington felt convinced with this arrangement.

Notwithstanding, the fact is that Washington would not make the concession without Pakistan paying a price. She may be asked to abandon the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project, which the US has been opposing tooth and nail from the very beginning keeping in mind the bellicose stance of Iran. However, Pakistani planners feel they can cope with pressure tactics of the hawks in the US Congress.  Only last month Iran and Pakistan signed a deal, which will carry Iranian gas across 2,775 kilometers at a cost of 7.5 billion US dollars to the refineries in Pakistan.

Deft exploitation of on-going volatile situation in NWFP and Afghanistan may bring more than expected gains to Pakistan in terms of refurbishment of her energy requirements from the two viable sources, namely the Iranian gas and Pak-US civilian nuclear programme. This is where she will have an edge over India.

Initially the idea was floated for extending this gas pipeline to India. But after much hesitation and indecision, India finally dropped out apparently on pricing disagreements. But in reality India did not like her talks with the US for civilian nuclear deal run into trouble.

After India backed out, there is the talk of gas pipeline being extended from Pakistan to China via Northern Areas. Since US would not be in a position to pressurize China into abandoning the proposal, it is clear that Pakistan has played the card very well. Reports are that China has completed the survey of the proposed extended gas pipeline which will run through the Aksaichin area, which Pakistan has illegally ceded to China in 1963.

The question is this: Is the contemplated Pak-US civilian nuclear deal going to harm India’s interests? Political circles will fiercely debate the proposition in days to come. A disinterested observer will say that if the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal did not jeopardize Pakistan’s security, why should doubts be raised against a similar deal between Pakistan and the US?  It has to be understood that Washington has been using different yardsticks for different nuclear countries outside the G-5 with the explicit objective of controlling their nuclear arsenal and confining them to its civilian use only. India and Pakistan, both fall in one category and the US could tackle the issue with the Indians just because an established and institutionalized Indian democracy provides dependable safeguards against wanton use of the WMD. This same objective lies at the root of US’ re-thinking on providing energy resource to Pakistan. This makes suppression of the anti-Pakistan terrorists crucial to America’s overall nuclear policy.

However, India will be within her right to be kept informed of the ins and outs of a deal the US is likely to enter into with Pakistan. The US must keep the security of the entire South and Central Asia in mind while handling the case with Pakistan.

Universal peace is a much sought requirement of contemporary world. Urgency for peace arises out of fear of raging conflict and clash on the one hand, and the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction on the other. In a sense humanity is sitting on a powder keg.

The question is this: Will conflict and clash get uprooted from a world tormented by greed and selfishness?  This never happened in the annals of past human history. Doest that mean that we shall have to put up with the phenomenon.” 

But what is needed in this precarious situation is awareness about the magnitude of destruction a nuclear holocaust will cause. It is from this consciousness, if not from moral constraints, that a craving for global peace arises: it is this consciousness in human beings, which great prophets, philosophers and savants have insistently stressed upon generation after generation. This is what Zoroaster, the law giver of ancient Iranian nation conceptualized nearly three thousand years ago. The struggle between the forces of light and darkness, the forces of Angara Mainu and Ahriman have been in constant conflict to rule the destiny of mankind.

Ancient Iranians did not lose the hope of light dominating over darkness.  They remained glued to the idea that at the end of the day mankind shall move away from darkness and enter the realm of light, il al zulamat min an nur

From ancient times to present day, Iranian mind symbolized light with peace.  Therefore those who seek light actually seek peace. This has been the unfailing guiding principle of Iranian thinkers, philosophers, poets, writers and intellectuals in all ages and generations.

About Farsi literature, it may be said that in all its genres like prose, poetry, historiography, biography, commentaries, fiction etc. it is among the finest literatures of the world, both for the richness of ideas and freshness of idiom.

In Farsi literature, generally stress has been laid on preserving peace through the instrument of dialogue. Dialogue is what removes doubts and misunderstandings, and opens the path for securing peace. Dialogue is among the fundamentals of desk book rules of democracy.  The finest peace of dialogue in the great epic Shahnameh is the one between prince Isfandyar and the epic hero Rustam in which the latter pleads Isfanndyar with great force of logic and emotion to abjure conflict and return to the path of peace.

What we today call ‘Universal Discourse’ as the means of letting peace prevail, is what Ferdowsi meant to convey precisely in his much quoted (or miss-quoted) verse:

Pay-e mashwarat majlis arastand
Nishastand o goftand o barkhastand

Imagine, the great Ferdowsi composing the heroic adventures of many a Titan in his remarkable epic in which fighting and killing and lynching are common themes,  on coming to talk of humanism also touches our delicate sentiments and says:

Mayazaar muri kih daneh keshast
Kih jaandard o jani shirin khashast

This is the finest example of Iranian concept of peace. Even Gandhi, the apostle of peace, would have saluted Firdowsi for his intense humanism on hearing this verse.

The urge of Iranians to adopt peace as the instrument of statecraft is explicitly reflected in the desire of Kianian king  Khusrav Pervez in ordering procurement of the famous Indian work of statecraft namely Panchatantra and getting it translated first into Pahlavi and later on into Farsi under the title Kalileh wa Dimneh. By strange coincidence, the same work was abridged and reproduced during the reign of the Mughal Emperor Akbar under the name Ayar-e Danish for the courtiers and celebrities at the helm of state affairs.

The essence of this work of immense international fame lies in the vast realm of wisdom, sagacity, deftness and tolerance extolled for use in handling statecraft. These are the instruments of peace.  With craft and psychological approach a tiny jackal can blunt the fury of a roaring lion and pin him down to destruction.

Peace and sensible statecraft are the core themes of a major Farsi work on statecraft, namely Siyasat Nameh of Nidhamu’l- Mulk Tusi. He lived at a time when Iranian power was at its height under the Seljuq ruling house. The famous and powerful ruler Malikshah, though a veteran warrior, yet was essentially desirous of resolving issues through peace and amity.  In a sense we find his parallel in Akbar, the great Mughal Emperor of India in 16th century. Both were patrons of men of letters and erudition. Both were assisted by viziers and courtiers famous for their worldly wisdom and the sense of dire consequences of war and animosity.

Farsi literature is enormously rich in poetry. Its richness comes from wisdom and experience of the poets. The greatest among them, Ferdowsi, Khayyam, Sa’adi, Amir Khusrav, Hafiz, Bedil, Ghalib, Bahar, Parvin, Nima, Nadirpur, Furogh, Khaleeli, Laiq Sherali  and others, to name only a few, have, one and all, given priority to peace as the reliable instrument of  conducting affairs of life.

What more proof of Iran’s dedication to peace can be produced than that of an immortal couplet from the Golistan of Shaykh Sa’adi remaining inscribed in beautiful nastaliq on the frontispiece of a building in the UN complex in New York:

Bani adam aeza-e yak paykarand
Kih dar afrinish ze yakgovharand
Chu ozvi be dard award ruzgaar
Digar ozv ha ra na manad qaraarkr

And then the stern  warning:

Tu kaz mehnat-e digaran beghami
Na shayadkih namaat nihand admi

I fervently hope that world leaders who come together in New York regularly to debate the destiny of mankind at the UN, will take into account in all earnestness this warning note of a great wise man.

Maulana Jalalu’d-Din Rumi Balkhi, the greatest of Farsi Sufi poets and the author of celebrated Mathnavi is a fine example of humanism and a universalism of exceptional commitment. Laiq Sherali, the peoples’ poet of Tajikistan says of him:

Nadidam hech insani, darego,
Ki chun Mavlai Balkh insan parastad
 
In the same vein, Hafiz of Shiraz, known to all lovers of Farsi poetry as the “Tongue of the Invisible” (lisanu’l-ghaib) has a glorious record of giving peace its due importance in the affairs of men.  The concept of sulh-e kul meaning universal peace lies at the root of his thought, and as a great artist, he has put it in his typical and inimitable poetic idiom.

Aasayish-e do giti tafsir-e in do harf ast
Ba dostan murawwat ba dushmanan madara

Wofa kunem o jafa kashem o khush bashem
Kih dar tariqat-e ma kafrist ranjidan

Shukuh-e taj-e sultani kih bim-e jaan daro darj ast
Kulah-e dilkash ast amma ba dared sar nami arzad

Bedil, whom Iqbal Lahori considers the greatest of Indian Farsi poets, is an embodiment of Indo-Iranian spirit of universal peace within and outside one’s self. Sufism, or to be precise, Iranian Sufism, from which Bedil has drunk deep, is essentially a major and a massive peace movement launched by Iranian intellectuals, thinkers and humanists as early as the second century of hijra. How could a Sufi, who believes in the concept of Unity of Being think of wars and strife?  Greed for worldly possessions is at the root of strife, as the Buddha said. This is precisely what Bedil advocated:

Hirs qaneh nist Bedil warneh asbab-e mu’aash
Anchih ma dar kar darim aksarash dar kar nist

Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib, the celebrated Farsi and Urdu poet of Delhi was destined to live in a cataclysmic period of Indian history when the freedom war of Indian nationalists met with disaster at the hands of the colonial power in 1857 A.D.  It marked the liquidation of the three and a half centuries – old Mughal rule. In that sordid turmoil, Ghalib, being in the last phase of his life, was indicted in conspiring against the foreign rulers. The war against his compatriots had made him bitter and he abhorred conflict and clash for supremacy. This perception is adequately reflected in his verses as well as prose writings like letters, history and essays. Try to analyze this poem in historical background:

Aye zauq-i nawa sanji bazam ba kharosh awar
Ghaughay-i shabikhuni bar bungah-e hosh awar

Maliku’sh-Shu’ara Muhammad Taqi Bahar of Iran was witness to the catastrophic events of World War I.  The sufferings of war victims left a deep and depressing impression on his mind, which he did not hesitate to reflect with full conviction. His famous poem titled Jogd-e Jang (The Owl of War) beginning with the verse

Fughan ze jogd-e jang o murgvaye u

is a strong proof of how the Iranian mind expressed its resentment to and deep dislike for senseless wars that destroy valuable human lives and property. Another poem of Bahar titled Damavand is an excellent example of symbolism that denounces dictatorial, hegemonic and arbitrary rule.

The group of Farsi poets who came after Parveen and Neema, almost all of them carried deep in their mind the dreadful impressions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One of the reasons why almost all of them insisted on individual introspection and promotion of inter-societal consciousness is that they believed in intrinsic good within a man. They believed that with reinforced character and personality, war-mongering could be defeated by the strength and solidarity of vast public opinion. While Forogh took on the evil embedded within human mind and drawing succour from unfavorable social environs, Khaleeli of Afghanistan reminiscences classical values and standards of social behaviour as anti-war panacea.  And finally, Laiq Sherali, the Wordsworth of Tajikistan, shows himself to us as an innocent child of nature yearning for peace and tranquility in world so that he and his people could enjoy the bountiful nature of his motherland.

Tormented by the fratricidal war of 1991-1995 in Tajikistan, Laiq gave out the poignant lament from the depth of his soul:

Hameh tire ki dar tirdan dared,
Ba qalbi man biyandazed,
Ba jani man furu rezed,
Hamin yak qalbi man amajgahi tiraton boshad,
Valekin jani mardum dar amon boshad.
Agar man bimiram hech baki nist.
Farda Madari tajik
Hazran Laiq laiqtari az man biyarad baz.
Basa mushfiq, base ashiq,
base sadiqtari az man biyarad baz

To sum up, we can say with confidence that the corpus of Farsi literature is an immortal source of hope and encouragement for human beings all over the world. The high level of Iranian intellectualism never allowed mundane ideas gain a toehold in the thinking process of that society. But I need to add a word of caution. Although Farsi literature vehemently and persistently advocates recourse to peace and dialogue, it never permits us to succumb to blackmail and intimidation. The evil is to be resisted while the truth is to be spoken.  Advises great Ferdowsi:

Sokhan goftan o ranjish ain-e mast
‘Anan o sanan bakhtan din-emast

It will be reminded that the essential importance of the great Mathnavi of Maulana Rum lies not only in empirical interpretation of Quranic teaching, but more in the message of renaissance and revival of faith of the nations of his day annihilated and battered by the calamitous onslaught of Mongol hordes. Peace in his view is not only in supporting and promoting good but also in resisting the evil.

Friends, the world today has been dragged to the powder keg of destruction. Greed and avarice dominate the mindset of the powerful. This is a dangerous and disastrous trend. It has to be arrested. Weapons of mass destruction are not an alternative to the process of dialogue and discourse. We are answerable to our future generations. Let us prove ourselves worthy of holding their trust. The monster of war has to be banished from the minds of all if peace is to prevail.

The End.

Inveterate critics did not fail to find fault with Prime Minister’s recent interaction with his Saudi counterparts in Riyadh. Unable to catch him on the wrong foot – if at all there was anything by that  name – the opposition raised ruckus on junior minister Shahshi Tharoor’s minor departure from a diplomat’s usual practice of mincing words.

Cut and dried evaluation of Indo-Saudi relations is usually fraught with contradictions. Various conflicting factors are at play making quick assessment only fallible. Saudi is an autocratic monarchy, heavily conditioned by its theocratic pre-eminence in global strategy and the patriarchic profile of the kingdom among the Muslim states and masses. On the other hand, India is a secular democracy where the government is answerable to the people for its actions and policies. Consequently, it requires astute statesmanship on both sides to conduct bilateral dialogue on an even keel without jeopardizing respective national interests.  

Our strategic relations with Saudi Kingdom had been adversely affected by latter’s close ties with Pakistan. Pakistani army contingent comprises the elite bodyguard of the King Saud’s ruling house. Saudis never contradicted having underwritten financial support to Pakistan’s nuclear enterprise. It supported Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir conflict during 1971 war.

On the other hand, India, as an ally of the erstwhile Soviet Union during the cold war period did not condemn Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and maintained neutrality during the gulf War of 1990-91.

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was an event of far-reaching consequences for India’s relations with the Islamic world in general but with the Saudi in particular. Saudis as the custodians of the holiest centre of Islamic religion rightly thought it incumbent upon them to save Muslims – the believers in Allah – from the stranglehold of atheists (kafirs). This resulted in the most bizarre and historic trilateral cooperation among the governments and intelligence establishments of three countries, namely the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. In the history of international perfidious espionage, there is no parallel to the secrecy and efficiency with which three notorious intelligence czars carried out their mission of subterfuge in Afghanistan. The mujahideen, now turned Taliban, are the product of that conspiracy hatched by the triumvirate of Robert Gates, Prince al-Turki and General Hamid Gul.

Saudi monarchy had every reason to stick to its Wahhabi ideological lever for its own survival especially when simultaneous with Afghan crisis Iran’s Ayatollahs had mounted direct attack on their claim of being the frontline custodians of the interest of Muslim ummmah. The Saudi kingdom was to taste Islamic terror much before it spilled over to other parts of the world.

Riyadh lost no time in refurbishing its Sunni Muslim constituency world-wide, including Kashmir where the sister of the monarch, closely linked to Saudi intelligence chapter, stayed in the house of a well-known houseboat owner and businessman in Rajbagh for nearly years (1980-82) promoting her secret mission. That Saudis played a constructive role in normalizing strained relations between the National Conference and Jamat-e Islami in the aftermath of attacks on Jamatis following the execution of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto is a story now known to all. Sheikh Abdullah chartered an airplane to take his entire family on umrah to Saudi Arabia and at the same time thank the Saudi monarch for bringing about rapprochement back home.
                                           
But conditions changed rapidly after the end of cold war and the implosion of the Soviet Union.  In a newly unfolded political scenario, the most dangerous enemy of the Saudi monarchy and the strength of Islamic faith, namely communism, had been buried, Wahhabi upsurge had successfully neutralized “export of ayatollah-brand “Islamic revolution”, and twin-cities of Islam had emerged triumphant as the decisive factor in Islamic politics and strategies …

Having fortified its position politically and strategically Saudi Arabia stumbled on a new role for itself in regional and international strategies.  It was buttressed by oil diplomacy now crucial to the world economy in general but to developing economies in particular. Two Asian giants, China and India were in great need of energy sources to move forward along the path of industrial and technical development. Saudi is the world largest supplier of oil.

On the other hand, both China and India, responding to the pragmatism of current situation, moved away from Russian sphere of influence and chartered their new paths for economic, industrial and technological advancement. Riyadh and New Delhi both realized that cooperation in new environments was inevitable as well as desirable. The official visit of King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz to New Delhi in January 2006, where he was entertained as the guest of honour on India’s Republic Day, saw the signing of Delhi Declaration in which, among other things, the Saudi monarch recognized the threat of terrorism to peace and stability in the region.

9/11 indirectly brought US pressure on Riyadh when it was found that some religious extremist organizations functioning in different parts of the world received cash doles from the gulf kingdom where they had their premiers. The ar-Rabita had patronized organizations and institutions that now looked beyond the role played by the mujahideen. The dream of world Islamic caliphate began haunting these premiers. Thus as the US brought pressures on Riyadh to choke the funding sources of terrorist groups, freeze their deposits and curtail their activities and operations, the monarchy thought that time was ripe to wriggle out of Western and American  monopolizing grip and seek alternative economic and commercial space. Hence came to fore the ‘Look East’ strategy.

It was in pursuance of this strategy that King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz had conducted a tour of four South East Asian countries including China and India in 2006. Finding economic and commercial depth for his country eastward was the main purpose of the visit. And the visit of Indian prime minister to Riyadh on 27 February 2010 in response has to be understood in the light of this historical background.

As a mark of goodwill gesture, when New Delhi assured Riyadh that it seriously wanted normalization of relations with Pakistan and addressing grievances of people in Kashmir, Riyadh indicated its willingness to support India’s request for observer status in the OIC.  India had first tried with Iran but finding Teheran very belligerent towards the US, she changed stance.

Undoubtedly energy is the driving force behind Indo-Saudi friendly relations. India is the fourth largest recipient of Saudi crud oil. It is expected that in next twenty years crude imports from Saudi will double. Export of Saudi crude oil to India, for which the Saudis made a commitment of uninterrupted supply, is the jugular vein of Indo-Saudi trade relationship. When India voted against Iran’s nuclear programme in IAEA, Tehran reneged on its oil commitments to India. But the Saudis proved dependable friends.

Interestingly, Saudi oil flow to India was a mere trickle in 2006 when King Abdullah, had embarked on his landmark visit to New Delhi to launch his path-breaking “Look East” policy of engaging the powerful emerging economies of Asia in Saudi Arabia’s quest to reduce its dependence on oil through economic diversification. The visit of the Saudi monarch in 2006 had resulted in his country replacing the UAE as India’s number one crude oil resource, with exports jumping from $500 million to $23 billion in 2008. Today, Saudi Arabia is India’s fourth largest trade partner with bilateral trade being valued at over $25 billion. Indian investments in Saudi Arabia have also increased significantly. There are over 550 small and medium Indian enterprises in the Kingdom with a total value of more than $2.5 billion.

Today there are nearly 2 million Indians engaged in developmental enterprises in Saudi Arabia and they constitute the largest expatriate community. Foreign remittances amount to nearly 4 billion dollars annually. In turn, the Kingdom is the largest source of crude oil for India, meeting 20 percent of India’s oil imports.

Indian opposition raised question about the Prime Minister asking the Saudis to impress upon Pakistan that she must wind up terrorist camps on her soil working against India. Unfortunately, the deeper nuances of Prime Minister raising the issue with the Saudis have been missed. Saudi – Pak relationship is far deeper than what we know of. It is well known that proliferation of Saudi money to Indian religious schools (madrassahs) numbering anything between 8000 and 40000 has become catalyst to the growth of salafi radical movement in India. It has taken advantage of India’s liberal political environment. Deviating from its old secular and nationalist attitude, the Ahle- Hadith have pandered to salafi thought and inducted radical curricula for the inmates of the madrassahs. Liberal Saudi funding has gone to mosques, madrassahs and publishing houses promoting salafi ideology. Saudi scholarships are made available to Indian students for studying religion in Saudi institutions with outright salafi orientation.  On their return these students-mullas preach the same ideology into which their indoctrination has been made. The returnees take on themselves to exploit the susceptibilities of younger generations on Indian Muslims. Transfer of Saudi money through hawala system has been found as the means of providing financial support to the radical organizations and activities without being detected by sleuths.

 In this entire unhealthy and anti-national maneuvering, Pakistani ISI has been grabbing all available opportunities to destabilize relations with India and disrupt peace effort in the region. It was therefore, in fitness of things that the Prime Minister asked the Saudi monarch to draw Pakistan’s attention to the fact that continuation of anti-India terrorism in one form or the other on Pakistani soil does not help stabilize peace in the region.
(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, University of Kashmir).

.

Shortly after the deadly bombing of the German Bakery in Pune on February 8, an influential South East Asian news agency received a message in Urdu from the top gorilla commander Ilyas Kashmiri, whose 313 Brigade is an operational arm of Al-Qaeda. The message warned the Indian government “to compensate for all its injustices to the Muslims, otherwise they will see our next action”. It added, “We warn the international community not to send their people to the 2010 Hockey World Cup, IPL and Commonwealth Games.  If they do they will be responsible for the consequences. Nor should their people visit India. We, the mujahideen of 313 Brigade vow to continue attacks all across India…”

The mysterious 313 Brigade is linked to busted Chicago conspiracy case, which had planned to massacre Indian military officers, attack Indian nuclear arsenal and punish the cartoonist of a Danish newspaper for his anti-Muslim cartoon.

Who is this Ilyas Kashmiri, the sender of the message and what is his agenda?

Following the decision of top Pakistani civil and military leaders on October 9, 2009 to launch military operation against Pakistani Taliban, Al-Qaeda think-tanks and operatives decided to broaden their plan against the Americans globally and not remain confined to AF-Pak region. Apart from Israel, the plan envisages extended Al Qaeda operations in South Asia where India stands out a significant ally of the Americans in war on terrorism.

Several terrorist attacks in the last quarter of 2009 like those on Indian Embassy in Kabul and  military headquarter in Rawalpindi are reported to be the handiwork of Ilyas Kashmiri-led 313 Brigade. Pakistani intelligence suspected him of masterminding the conspiracy of killing General Pervez Musharraf in 2003.

US intelligence believes that Ilyas Kashmiri is the head of Al-Qaeda military operations who had been keeping a low profile in the organization. Some months back, his death in a US predator drone attack in North Waziristan operations was wrongly reported. However, it is true that many top commanders of Taliban-Al Qaeda combination were killed in the drone attacks. Prominent among them were Osama al-Kini, a Kenyan national and external operations chief of Al-Qaeda, Khalid Habib, the commander of Lashkar-e-Zil (Islamic Shadow Army), Tahir Yuldashev (the Uzbek warrior of Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and Baitullah Mahsud, the chief of Tehreek-i-Taliban-i- Pakistan.

Ilyas was born in Bhimbher (old Mirpur) in PoK in 1964 in Samhani valley and studied at Allama Iqbal University in Islamabad. He first joined Kashmir Freedom Movement, and then Harakatu’l-Jihad-I Islami (its 313 Brigade). In due course of time, it grew the most powerful group in South Asia with network strongly knitted in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India especially Kashmir, Nepal, and Bangladesh. Footprints of 313 Brigade are traceable in Europe and it is capable of engineering 26/11 type of strikes.

In 1994, Ilyas Kashmiri launched al-Hadid operations in New Delhi to get some of his jihadi comrades released from prison… His group of 25, which included Sheikh Omar Saeed — the abductor of Daniel Pearl of Wall Street Journal— had kidnapped several foreigners with American, British and Israeli tourists among them. They were taken to a hideout in Ghaziabad. The abductors demanded release of their arrested colleagues. In the rescue attack by Indian forces on the hideout some of the kidnappers were killed, Sheikh Omar was wounded and Ilyas escaped the net.  Sheikh Omar was later released at Kandahar in exchange of hijacked Indian aircraft passengers.

Thirty years ago when Ilyas Kashmiri had joined the Afghan jihad as a fighter of HUJI against the Soviets, he gained expertise in guerrilla warfare and explosives. There was the time when he became prized ISI and Pakistan Army backed mujahideen commander. Pakistani Generals found pride in listening to his heroic deeds at the warfront.  But after becoming the head of Al-Qaeda military operations, he remains with Pakistan Army and civilian establishment the most wanted Al Qaeda commander on whose head a prize of 600000 US dollars has been announced. 

On February 26, 2009, Indian commandos crossed the LoC in J&K, and launched counter attack on village Lonjot in PoK in which 14 civilians got killed. Next day Ilyas Kashmiri took 25 fighters of his 313 Brigade with him, crossed the LoC at Nakyal sector, kidnapped an Indian army officer, and beheaded him. The severed head of the officer was paraded in the bazaar of Kotli in PoK.

In a bid to avenge the Gujarat killings in 2002, Ilyas Kashmiri planned an attack on Akhnoor cantonment in Jammu region. He employed the war strategy he had picked up and mastered during mujahideen operations against the Soviets in Afghanistan. He divided the 313 Brigade force into two groups and lured Indian Generals, Brigadiers and other senior offices to the fatal scene of first attack. When his second group came into action, the result was that two Indian Generals were wounded and several Brigadiers and Colonels were killed. This was a telling set back to the Indian Army.

Considered top most gorilla warfare strategist, Ilyas Kashmiri re-defined Taliban led-insurgency based on Vietnam’s legendary gorilla General Vo Nguyen Giap’s three-pronged strategy. For Pakistani Taliban he emphasized the strategy of cutting NATO supply lines.

Though 313 Brigade is the main catalyst of high profile operations such as 26/11 or Al-Qaeda operations in Somalia, it’s important and veteran commander at an unknown place in Waziristan, Ilyas Kashmiri, has always kept his personal profile low. In a rare interview given to a South East Asian news agency last summer, he summarized his gorilla warfare strategy succinctly. He considers India and Israel as extensions of US’ resources and hence the necessity of debilitating both of them. “Al-Qaeda’s regional war strategy in which they have hit Indian target, is actually to chop off American strength”, he said. Echoing Islamabad’s allegations, Ilyas reportedly said that RAW has detachment command centers in Afghan provinces of Kunar, Jalalabad, Khost, Argun, Helmand and Kandahar. The cover operations, he believes, are road construction companies. For example, the road construction from Khost city to Tanai tribe is contracted to a retired Indian army colonel.  When asked about his future plans in India, Ilyas said,”Mumbai attack is nothing to what is being planned for the future. Every target has specific time and reason and response will be according”.

Ilyas Kashmri, the 6-feet tall, one eye-lost and one finger cut off gorilla warlord says Al Qaeda or Taliban are not fighting against Pakistan, which is the friendliest country. They are fighting only against certain elements in Pak Army. 313 Brigade, he asserts is part of war tactics reading enemy’s mind and reacting accordingly.  He is unhappy that most Muslims have no dimensions of their mind and that the Prophet of Islam left behind men who know not what defeat is. The world has yet to see true Muslims and wolves respect a lion’s iron slap.

The threat posed to India by Al-Qaeda is real and not imaginary.  There is proper planning at the level of Al-Qaeda top cadres of dragging India to the vortex of disaster and mayhem. We have noted that Al-Qaeda operations depend on local support structure to a large extent. Wherever it is denied or difficult to accede, Al-Qaeda had no option but to retrace its steps. The question is how seriously Indian government looks at the threats and the vast mechanism behind it and to what extent is it prepared to face the challenge.

The End.

Of late India has been demonstrating more inconsistency in her regional policy with special reference to Kashmir.

Her volte-face on stalled Indo-Pak talks reflects pressure from Washington. India has baulked many a time in the past and this is not new.  It is not called resilience; it is indecision as well as inconsistency.

Washington moves towards exit strategy in Afghan imbroglio notwithstanding her decimating drone attacks and bribing of Taliban conduits.

Ever since US-Pak camaraderie began for war on terror, Kashmir has been persistently dragged into its vortex as a component in the deal.  Pakistan made it a bargaining chip. George Bush did not submit to Pakistani blackmail but Obama is a different story. Aware of New Delhi’s endemic indecisiveness, Obama administration mounted pressure, and New Delhi showed signs of acquiescence.

After Pakistan army chief Kiani succeeded in registering Pentagon’s outright support to the exclusion of President Zardari, he and ISI revisited their Kashmir policy. Now it was a two-pronged strategy; to undo cease-fire status on Indo-Pak border and activate jihadi infiltration and subversion in Kashmir.

The message from across the border has been well received by Kashmiri separatist and secessionist leadership which have so far successfully launched a spate of protest rallies and boycotts. Srinagar and some other towns have been witnessing hartals and mobocracy.

By not protesting anymore on US accelerated drone attacks on TTP inside Pakistan territory, and collaborating with the US-NATO forces in destroying TTP hideouts and resistance in Waziristan,  Pakistan Army finds leverage in pushing Kashmir issue with Obama administration.

New Delhi has not reacted to Pakistani leadership’s contention that international pressure has forced India to agree to resumption of stalled talks with Islamabad.   Its mildest reaction was a very casual statement from home ministry sources that India knew Pakistan had provided proof of al-dawa chief Hafiz Saeed’s involvement in 26/11 to the Pakistani court haring the case filed by Islamabad government.

But an overall assessment of the situation indicates that like all Indo-Pak meetings at high or lower levels, nothing substantial has to be expected from proposed foreign secretary-level meeting.

Soon after New Delhi announced willingness to resume talks, Pakistani leaders wasted no time in telling home audience that India was forced by world community to resume talks, and that Pakistan’s stand on the subject was vindicated.

Then there came very clear and emphatic reference to Kashmir dispute and Pakistani leaders including the foreign minister said that Kashmir was the core issue to be discussed.

These antics did not augur well for a dialogue that had been stalled for last eighteen months. Nevertheless, from Indian side there was no reaction. India is happy to eat the humble pie.

But something that has not gone unnoticed in New Delhi’s eyes is the large conclave of Pakistan-based anti-India militant outfits which met in Muzaffarabad, the capital of PoK, last week where open threats were doled out against India. The jihadis of LeT, JM and HM exuded as much of anti-India venom as they could, and vowed to wage armed and unrelenting jihad in Kashmir till it was wrested from India.

Apart from this, the jihadi organizations staged a large scale Kashmir-day demonstration in the capital of Pakistan hoping to send a message across the country that Kashmir jihad was not in the control of Pakistani authorities. This is ISI’s standard pattern.

Islamabad has not officially reacted to this large scale anti-India meet on her soil. Its silence on the event shows that its war on terror is limited to Southern Waziristan only and is not extended to the jihadis preparing for war in Kashmir. Thus, in its own words “non-state actors” receiving all logistical support on Pakistani soil and overt facilities from Pakistani official agencies are planning an armed attack on India.

While Washington is pushing India for resumption of talks with Pakistan, it has closed its eyes on what is happening on Pakistani soil by way of initiating a full-fledged jihad in Kashmir.

Never before has India been dealt such a big blackmailing as of now. Why does New Delhi take it? This is the real question.  Are we having such a strong pro-US and pro-Pakistan lobby in this country that our government is ready to pocket all insults heaped on her? Are we going to surrender Kashmir in full or in part, in one way or the other, to buy reprieve from jihadi onslaught? Is there no single person among our horde of political leaders who can stand up and say that jihad or no jihad, India will see to it that Kashmir remains an integral part of the Union?

And what is the so-called elected government of Jammu and Kashmir doing? The chief minister has learnt a mantra which he is not tired of chanting wherever he goes. He says talk to Pakistan and Pakistan is a party to Kashmir dispute. Whose language is he speaking? His grandfather’s or of those who want the blood of his state? Why does not a single leader of integrity from among the people of the state rise and give a clarion call that once for all Kashmir should be dropped from the agenda of Indo-Pak talks? Why has no Indian leader the guts to tell the US to manage her affairs with Pakistan without clubbing India or Kashmir with its parleys? How long will this nation of a thousand million people, the one fourth of world population, accept to be bullied and blackmailed?

Americans speak one language in Islamabad and another in New Delhi. The US says it wants strategic alliance with India in the Indian Ocean region, but excludes India from Afghanistan peace conference in London. It appreciates India’s economic support to beleaguered Afghanistan but succumbs to Pakistan’s pressure of excluding India from any role in Afghan reconciliation and rehabilitation. It pontificates that India, despite attacks by jihadis, is showing tremendous restraint but at the same time is providing billions-worth arms and ammunition to Pakistan besides the promised 5.7 billion dollars by way of aid, most of which Pakistan will divert to boost her defense capabilities and preparedness against India.

Not only that, the US has developed an understanding with Islamabad in allowing China establish a military base in Pakistan, upgrade the Karakorum Highway and develop further the Gawadar port in Makran coast. These are not the signs of true friendship and strategic alliance.

Our present foreign policy is dismally incapable of serving national interests especially vis-à-vis Pakistan and the US. Never before was Kashmir under such close siege of the two so-called anti-terror allies.  Its very adverse fallout is visible in what is going on in Kashmir valley.  And not inadvertently, the ruling coalition in Kashmir takes no umbrage.
(The writer is the former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

British political circles almost underrated 60-member strong London conference on Afghan crisis. However, Prime Minister Browne thinks that a large assemblage confirms global abhorrence of terrorism. The US considers it is an affirmative step supporting the exit strategy.

Interests of stakeholders are crystallizing as the great debate on regional strategies is proceeding. Washington wants a national government installed in Kabul with two major components, namely nationalists of Karzai School and moderate Taliban leadership wiling to cooperate. At the same time, it wants Afghan National Army to be expanded and upgraded to replace the Security Assistance Force.

President Karzai strongly believes that he can take moderate Taliban leadership on board provided many of them hitherto brought on terrorist list by the UN are de-listed. UN representative in Kabul, Mr. Eide has supported President Karzai’s formula.

Believing that she has a crucial role in the region, Pakistan is supportive of a full-fledged Taliban participation in the coalition government in Kabul.  In that scenario, Pakistan aspires for revival of her concept of territorial depth westward and a custodian’s role for Pakistan Army once the US-NATO combined troops withdraw from Afghanistan.

 But a very significant move on the part of Pakistan is to maneuver ouster of India from Afghan and Central Asian scene. Its argument is that India’s presence in Afghanistan poses threat to Pakistan’s security and feeds insurgency in Baluchistan, an allegation which India has stoutly repudiated.

Islamabad could not hide its exasperation on American Defense Minister and US AF-Pak representative Holbrooke hobnobbing in New Delhi in last two weeks. Its hunch is that Washington and New Delhi are working in tandem to help ANA conduct operations against the resisting Taliban after the exit of the US in 2011. This misgiving was fuelled by a surreptitious visit of Indian intelligence chief Lt. Gen. R.K. Loomba made recently to the headquarters of Afghan National Army in Kabul. 

Pakistan has been doing a great deal of home work for building a strong pro-Pak lobby in Central Asia, which downgrades India’s role in regional strategies. Saudi Arabia and Turkey have emerged her dependable contacts.

Turkey, having overcome pressures from Islamic extremists, has assumed political importance with the Americans because of her improved ties with the Israel. By co-opting with the Saudi intelligence chief Muqrin bin Abdulaziz al Saud, President Gul of Turkey has been paving the way for the Taliban to start negotiations with the US. Turkey’s initiatives in her Asian neighbours are an indirect message to the European powers who are stonewalling her admission to the European Union that Ankara cannot be dismissed as un-influential member.

However, the US does not see eye with Pakistan in downgrading the role of India in Afghan crisis.   In her revised vision, India has a large role in South Asia not only in terms of the force of Indian democracy but in present conditions, more explicitly in terms of regional security especially of the Indian Ocean. It is in the background of this perception that the US wants Turkey to broker an understanding between the Islamic stakeholders for Afghanistan and India.

Pakistan’s dilemma is that in face of widening debate on exit strategy of the US from Afghanistan, many commitments of sorts are on the anvil. It reduces the thrust of Kashmir issue as the world powers will be watching new developments in Afghanistan with keen interest.  Turkish President’s visit to New Delhi, and later on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Saudi Arabia provide opportunities to intensify Indo-Pak interface in the background of unfolding evens in Afghanistan.

In the aftermath of London Conference, which was preceded by trilateral meet of Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan, it is possible to presume that Afghan crisis is nearing a final solution. In all probability, the US has come to agree to the Taliban reviving the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in combination with the nationalists faction led by Hamid Karzai. What Washington cares for is the aftermath of her exit strategy.

Iran has made no secret of a rival’s displeasure about Turkey trying to take leading role in Afghan negotiations.  Teheran thinks that Turkey having no border with Afghanistan is not qualified to be a party for negotiations. On the other hand, Iran has long border with Afghanistan, provided support to the mujahideen during war with Soviet Union and has given shelter to nearly a million Afghan refugees in her territory. As such she thinks she has a strong claim for voice in Afghan crisis.

In all probability, Washington has begun to re-think its South and Central Asian policy in the light of expanding Chinese influence. As such the shift may be from the mountainous terrain of Hindu Kush and the Pamir to the India Ocean. The US has not been happy with Pakistan allowing China conspicuous role in building Gawadar sea port. Both India and Iran have strong navies and could be tied up to the commitment of the defense of the Indian Ocean.

With Pakistan trying to elbow out India, and Turkey trying to shadow Iran in their regional roles, a sort of strategic understanding is developing between these two countries with Russia aspiring to regain her supremacy in regional politics. In view of India, Iran and Russia forming a new chunk of alliance in the region, it should be possible for India to play a role in normalizing relations between Iran and the US. A change in tempers is already visible and Washington’s shrill anti-Iran notes have fallen silent.

Thus with a substantial change in regional situation in the offing, the intensity of Kashmir issue is getting diluted.  American pressure on India to do away with the status quo in Kashmir has considerably reduced. This is one of the reasons why militancy has seen a spurt in Kashmir in recent days. This is also the reason why civilian dissent in the shape of protests, hartals and rallies for one flimsy pretext or the other has become recurrent. It is certainly an expression of anger on getting sidelined in sub-continental geo-strategy. This strategy has sucked in Kashmir militancy. No wonder if before a deal with Taliban is inked,  jihadis concentrated along the LoC will try to make a bold and strong bid to infiltrate in large numbers to the Indian side of Kashmir. It could be a do or die attempt for them.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates said it bluntly — something outside normal Washington-Islamabad diplomatic parlance. Does it mark US’ frustration with her ally in war on terrorism or a lollypop to New Delhi interlocutors?

Obama’s Af-Pak diplomacy seems to have ebbed after India refused to accept envoy Holbrook’s extended role. With that the nagging pressure on New Delhi for a breakthrough in Kashmir logjam got partially defused.

Close on the heels of all this comes India’s reiteration of no meaningful bilateral talks with Pakistan unless she dismantled terrorist structure on her soil. 

Gates’ blunt statement indicates assertive posture of policy planners at the White House. Behind it lies the full pack of intelligence dossiers unveiling clandestine tactics of Pakistani Army and the ISI in their trilateral dealings, — TTP, Taliban and Kashmiri Jihad Council.

With terrorist structures of Kashmir Jihad remaining in place, India has little space to help douse the Af-Pak raging flames.

US defence secretary’s priority list does not include Kashmir. Hillary Clinton will surely find it amusing and something like trespassing of her front yard.

In recent past, Kashmiri jihad managers have stepped up attacks in Kashmir. Reports obtained from arrested jihadis reveal that a sizable number of suicide bombers and jihadis with better weapons and logistical reinforcement are concentrating at various points along the LoC to infiltrate into Indian side. Some of their attempts have been foiled.

However, with given level of motivation, terrorist attacks are likely to increase in the valley. More lives will be lost. Major attacks like 26/11 could also happen.

Serious divergence of opinion between Pakistani presidential palace on one hand and the prime minister’s office and the GHQ on the other impose constraints on Washington to strategize more effectively in the region.

The news of Washington intervening to forestall Pakistani Taliban access to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal has to be analyzed and assessed in this background.  Furthermore, drone missile attacks on Taliban and affiliates inside Pakistan–Afghanistan border reveal aggressive and also unilateral stance of Alliance forces.

With internal crisis deepening, public resentment to Pakistan Army’s action in Waziristan rising, and the trust of the US and NATO Allies in Pakistan’s Army and civilian commitment to the eradication of terrorism collapsing, circumstances promise no redemption for the beleaguered nation. Unfortunately, at the top of all this is the absence of statesmanship of vision and of global reach in Pakistan.

In these circumstances, a repeat of Bangladesh situation cannot be ruled out. Whether New Delhi policy makers have taken such an exigency into consideration or not, is not known to us.

An option, which Islamabad may exercise, is to force eyeball to eyeball stance on India.  Her frustration may induce her to seize upon Kashmir issue to push that option in the vain expectation of diverting mass opinion about a failed state. A massive and multi-pronged attack on Kashmir or a repeat of 26/11 could, according to Pakistan’s calculation, evoke India’s retaliation.  This is the contrivance how various Pakistan-based terrorist and rabid Islamist groups and non-state actors can be galvanized into combined move against the traditional enemy.

The nitty-gritty of Pakistan’s precipitate action is whether to use or not to use the nuclear option against India in a situation of impending defeat and disaster?

In this scenario two crucial questions of far-reaching consequences can arise. One is how far does New Delhi trust Islamabad to stick to no-first-strike agreement existing between the two countries.  The second question is how far can the US actually succeed in controlling Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal from being unleashed in a state of desperation?  If we have a convincing answer to the second question, the first question loses its relevance.

The inkling is that Washington is seized of a dangerous situation developing on the sub-continent.  If Robert Gates’ statement that India is likely to lose her patience in face of another 26/11–like attack carries subtle allusion to the danger of unleashing of a nuclear clash, then we can presume Washington is seriously considering neutralizing Pakistan’s WMD option.

Gates has cautioned Pakistan: he has done a right thing at a right time. His statement means he does not entertain Islamabad’s pretension that terrorists in Pakistan are non-state actors. At the same time, he has indirectly made New Delhi conscious of need for extraordinary patience with her roguish neighbor. If the US is genuinely concerned about peace in the region and eradication of terrorism, it is her moral and historical responsibility to ordain effective check on misuse and mishandling of Pakistan’s nuclear industry. In the event of a nuclear flare up in this part of the world, interests of the US and the western world will be faced with dire consequences. World community led by the US must evolve effective mechanism to blunt the sharp edge of Pakistan’s nuclear option. How best that can be done is what needs very serious attention. New Delhi cannot lose sight of the reality that Baluchistan and Sind are simmering with deep-seated political unrest to the extent that Baluch dissidents now openly work for independent Baluchistan.
(The writer is he former Director of the Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University).

At first, implications of Pakistan Supreme Court verdict of 18 December quashing the corruption amnesty did not seem alarming. But as the debate on the issue intensified in political and legal circles, it started unraveling the gravity of situation.

Even leading commentators have begun to express unease that political and administrative situation in Pakistan is becoming rather chaotic.

US official reaction to the quashing of NRO that it is Pakistan’s internal matter and that Washington has nothing to do with it sounds bizarre. Who does not know that the NRO of July 2007 was the brainchild of US and UK handlers who wanted a reconciliation formula brokered between Pervez Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto. Washington and London both wanted Pakistan to have some semblance of democratic dispensation because of growing unpopularity of Pervez Musharraf.

.Pro-Zardari groups assert that the enemies of the President like the Army, ISI and PML (N) want to use the Supreme Court to remove President Zardari. They feel convinced that Zardari’s detractors influence the judiciary, which inducted the element of politics into the realm of law?

However, this argument does not seem tenable. One important condition put forth by Mian Nawaz Sharif at the time of forming the PPP-led coalition government was that of reinstating the illegally ousted Chief Justice and other judges of the High courts in Pervez Musharraf regime.

But Zardari as president went on dilly-dallying on the commitment that ultimately led Mian Nawaz Sharif to break association with the coalition. Only after great public pressure mounted and the lawyers threatened to bring out a massive demonstration, did he agree to the reinstatement of the ousted CJ and other judges.

To adduce political motivation to the verdict of nullification of NRO seems a farfetched idea.

Moreover, reinstatement order of ousted chief justice and some judges of high courts actually meant undoing illegal ordinances of Pervez Musharraf. By the same analogy, rejection of NRO can be safely interpreted a pure legal decision with no apparent political motivation.

In normal course of things, quashing of NRO has its fallout of some serious nature. For example, 248 persons implicated in various charges are brought on exit control list. Arrest warrants will be revived in some cases, and court proceedings in others can also be taken up. Accounts of the accused in foreign banks can be frozen, and the Swiss authorities can be asked to resume the process of accounting for the bank deposits.

Under existing law, the President of Pakistan is immune to the verdict of the court. But observers think that his position has become tenuous on moral grounds. There is the allegation of him having amassed 1.5 billion dollars wealth in foreign banks.

The US and UK, both are closely watching the developments in Pakistan and are assessing its impact on regional strategy especially in the context of war against terror in NWFP and Afghanistan.

Though the rumours of President Zardari’s exit have been discounted by the spokesman of Presidential office, yet strong opinions are expressed by important circles that his tenure cannot hold too long.

On-going internal situation of Pakistan is definitely a matter of great concern for Washington and London. If Zardari quits under the pressure of circumstances, Washington has to look for a president who understands and sympathizes with American interests in current regional strategy.

The nagging question is: will Pakistan relapse into another long spell of military rule? Will all the efforts of the policy planners in Washington and London of helping democratic dispensation take roots in Pakistan come to naught? What would be the new regional strategy if that is going to happen?

Zardari is being accused by the Army and its affiliates that he is too close to the Americans. His ouster could add to the strength of the Army for not allowing his successor to be outright pro-American. In that case, the US might have to re-think her anti-Taliban and anti-Al Qaeda strategy because the new regime in Pakistan might not be too willing to go a further mile with the American Army in the region.

At the same time the verdict of the Supreme C0ourt has many bizarre aspects to it. Interior Minister Rahman Malik, figuring in the list of accused persons. has been directed to issue himself with a warrant of arrest.

Quashing of corruption amnesty by the Supreme Court has given a rude shock to the Federal administrative structure in Pakistan. Senior bureaucrats with political clout and moles in the Army are defying the authority of the ministers. One senior secretary, when asked how dare he defy the orders of the Minister said the minister had no authority to direct him on state affairs because the one under whom he was supposed to work was legally out of office and he would not carry out his orders or instructions. The worst effect is observable in the important Interior Ministry because the country is involved in fighting the insurgents in North Waziristan and terrorists activists blasting bombs and unleashing mayhem in the cities and towns of Pakistan.

It appears that the ruling authorities in Pakistan had premonitions of a bizarre court verdict that would seal the fate of many a political leader. Apprehensive of a sharp turn in the situation, Pakistan foreign office had as early as the closing days of November last asked Wajid Shamsul Hasan, its High Commissioner in London to rush to Switzerland and get hold of the Swiss Case Documents from John J Brunt, the lawyer. 12 cartons of documentary proofs against Zardari were then handed over to the special team of Pakistani officials. Obviously, the sole motive of such a pre-emptive measure is to secure the otherwise vulnerable position of President Zardari.

Pakistan has to survive the serious situation prevailing in the country on domestic as well as foreign relations level. If Pakistan remains geographically and politically intact, it will help stabilization of peace in the region. Unfortunately, by and large, the crisis in Pakistan is home grown. Had not Ziau’l- Huq rejected the “peanuts aid” and asked for mountains of arms and ammunition from Washington, and had he settled for nationalization instead of radicalization of Pakistan, and refused to let religious organizations and seminaries become the arbiters of the destiny of people, Pakistan would have been in a much better condition today.