Smt. Indira Gandhi not only brought violence but also corruption. Twenty-five years after her death, we are still trying to cope with both. The Naxalites are a direct end-product of the Emergency. If it is not wrong to use violence to put down your political enemies-which is what the Emergency was all about-why is it wrong to use violence against those who have stolen your lands and your livelihood and are now busy stealing your homes in the name of progress? "Had she lived on, she would have been 92 years old this year," wrote an old colleague of Indira Gandhi on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of her violent death. He was wrong. Had she not been killed by her bodyguards, she would have been killed by someone else. She was destined for violent death, like Charles I of Britain and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan. url: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=318&page=6 |
Saturday, November 21, 2009
** Unpardonable mistakes
The unpardonable mistakes of Indira Gandhi
By Dr Jay Dubashi
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
** Sikhs remember 1984
Sikhs take stock of 1984
Sudha Ramachandran
Asia Times
BANGALORE - The 25th anniversaries of two events, both defining moments in India's recent history, have been observed over the past few days. One is the assassination of prime minister Indira Gandhi by her bodyguards on October 31, 1984. The other is the violence targeting Sikhs that began within hours of that assassination and engulfed Delhi and other cities for at least three days.
The two events are closely connected. The assassination led to the massacres. What sets them apart is the way the Indian state responded to them.
It was swift in delivering justice in the case of Indira's assassination. Satwant Singh, the lone surviving assassin (Beant Singh, the other assassin, was shot dead soon after the assassination while he was allegedly trying to escape) and Kehar Singh, a conspirator, were tried and hanged within four years.
But those who orchestrated the killing of around 2,733 Sikhs in Delhi - the Citizens Justice Committee submitted 3,870 names to an enquiry commission - still roam free. A quarter of a century later, justice is yet to be done.
The year 1984 is one that few Indians will forget. It was the year when a gas leak in a factory owned by Union Carbide in Bhopal killed over 2,000 people and maimed several others for life. It was also the year India's secular foundations were shaken like never before.
In June 1984, the Indian army stormed the Sikhs' holiest shrine, the Golden Temple in Amritsar, to flush out Sikh militants holed in there. They had turned it into a fortress and were waging war against the Indian state. "Operation Bluestar" was a military success in that it eliminated hundreds of militants including the dreaded Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. But at a very heavy cost. It was a political disaster. The Akal Takht was reduced to rubble and hundreds of Sikh pilgrims were killed in the course of the operations. Bluestar wounded the Sikh psyche, deeply alienating the community from the Indian state. It fueled the Sikh militancy and kept it alive for another decade at least.
Revenge came swiftly. Barely five months later, Indira was assassinated. Her assassins were Sikhs.
The response to her killing came even more swiftly. Within hours of her death, stray incidents of violence targeting Sikhs began trickling in from various parts of Delhi.
The violence peaked on November 1. Mobs carrying iron rods, knives and kerosene went on a rampage, killing Sikhs, looting and setting alight their homes, business establishments and places of worship. Sikh cab drivers were lynched or burned alive in their cabs. Those fleeing Delhi were dragged out of trains and buses and slaughtered.
The orgy of violence unleashed on Sikhs following Indira's assassination is often referred to as a riot as though it was a spontaneous outpouring of anger. It was not. It was an organized massacre, a pogrom.
There is a mountain of evidence to prove that politicians belonging to the ruling Congress Party incited and directed the pogrom in collusion with the police. Even as mobs led by Congressmen burned, looted, raped and murdered the government did nothing to quell the violence.
Police made some arrests during the violence; ironically most of the arrests were of Sikhs defending their families against the killers.
Days after the pogrom, Rajiv Gandhi, Indira's son and successor, indirectly justified the violence. "When a mighty tree falls, it is only natural that the earth around it does shake a little," he said.
As shocking as the state's involvement in the violence was its failure to ensure justice thereafter.
Ten commissions and committees have probed the pogrom so far with little impact on bringing the guilty to book. One commission of inquiry headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge, Ranganath Mishra, found no lapses on the part of the government and assigned no culpability to the ruling establishment. For his whitewashing of the Congress' role, Mishra was rewarded. He went on to head the National Human Rights Commission and also became a member of India's upper house of parliament.
During and after the massacres, police refused to register complaints. Of those which were registered, only a few made it to the courts. “Of the ones that reached the courts, the majority resulted in acquittal of the accused as the police never made an attempt to find evidence against them. As a result, the conviction rate has been extremely poor," says Harvinder Singh Phoolka, a senior advocate in the Supreme Court who has been fighting for justice on behalf of the victims.
"Out of 2,733 officially admitted murders, only nine cases led to convictions. Just over 20 accused have been convicted in 25 years - a conviction rate of less than 1%,” he says.
The massacre of the Sikhs took place in front of thousands of witnesses. The identity of those who carried out the violence was evident from the start. A report brought out by civil rights groups in November 1984 carried an annexure listing the names of people alleged to have carried out the violence. It included 198 local Congress activists and others, 15 Congress leaders and 143 police officials.
Of the top Congress politicians who were known to have orchestrated the violence, Sikh militants assassinated two within months of the massacres.
Others like Jagdish Tytler and H K L Bhagat went on to have successful political careers, even holding cabinet posts.
In 2005, the Nanavati Commission said it found “credible evidence” against Tytler, Bhagat and another Congress leader Sajjan Kumar saying they "very probably" had a hand in organizing the attacks. While Bhagat died in 2005, the Central Bureau of Investigation gave Tytler a clean chit earlier this year and the court is yet to decide whether or not to initiate a fresh probe.
Sikh alienation from the Indian state and their anger with the Congress has subsided significantly over the years. The movement for a separate Sikh state is dead. And Punjab has voted the Congress to power twice since the 1984 riots.
Some have suggested that the Congress' efforts to reach out to the Sikhs has helped in building bridges. In 1998 Congress president Sonia Gandhi expressed her "anguish" over the 1984 riots. "I feel your pain," she said. That she is a victim of terrorist violence herself and the daughter-in-law of Indira and widow of Rajiv Gandhi, who was prime minister when the riots took place helped to heal wounds to some extent. That was taken further by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, India's first Sikh prime minister who apologized to the Sikhs in parliament.
That and the fact that the Congress made a Sikh a premier, say Congress leaders, has won the party the hearts of Sikhs.
But not all Sikhs have been appeased by the conciliatory words. They want justice.
While admitting that the Congress' conciliatory gestures have "been like a balm on the community", Phoolka says, "The Congress wants us to forget it; view it as an aberration. When they made Manmohan Singh prime minister, they stepped up this rhetoric; saying, 'forget it now, at least we have apologized and now made your man the prime minister. Our answer has been that the apology came 21 years late and under the Indian legal system an apology is not a substitute for punishment for murder. We want justice." More at > Asia Times
Related story Below:
Besieged Sikhs @ http://ultracurrents.blogspot.com/2009/04/congress-and-besieged-sikhs.html
Sudha Ramachandran
Asia Times
BANGALORE - The 25th anniversaries of two events, both defining moments in India's recent history, have been observed over the past few days. One is the assassination of prime minister Indira Gandhi by her bodyguards on October 31, 1984. The other is the violence targeting Sikhs that began within hours of that assassination and engulfed Delhi and other cities for at least three days.
The two events are closely connected. The assassination led to the massacres. What sets them apart is the way the Indian state responded to them.
It was swift in delivering justice in the case of Indira's assassination. Satwant Singh, the lone surviving assassin (Beant Singh, the other assassin, was shot dead soon after the assassination while he was allegedly trying to escape) and Kehar Singh, a conspirator, were tried and hanged within four years.
But those who orchestrated the killing of around 2,733 Sikhs in Delhi - the Citizens Justice Committee submitted 3,870 names to an enquiry commission - still roam free. A quarter of a century later, justice is yet to be done.
The year 1984 is one that few Indians will forget. It was the year when a gas leak in a factory owned by Union Carbide in Bhopal killed over 2,000 people and maimed several others for life. It was also the year India's secular foundations were shaken like never before.
In June 1984, the Indian army stormed the Sikhs' holiest shrine, the Golden Temple in Amritsar, to flush out Sikh militants holed in there. They had turned it into a fortress and were waging war against the Indian state. "Operation Bluestar" was a military success in that it eliminated hundreds of militants including the dreaded Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. But at a very heavy cost. It was a political disaster. The Akal Takht was reduced to rubble and hundreds of Sikh pilgrims were killed in the course of the operations. Bluestar wounded the Sikh psyche, deeply alienating the community from the Indian state. It fueled the Sikh militancy and kept it alive for another decade at least.
Revenge came swiftly. Barely five months later, Indira was assassinated. Her assassins were Sikhs.
The response to her killing came even more swiftly. Within hours of her death, stray incidents of violence targeting Sikhs began trickling in from various parts of Delhi.
The violence peaked on November 1. Mobs carrying iron rods, knives and kerosene went on a rampage, killing Sikhs, looting and setting alight their homes, business establishments and places of worship. Sikh cab drivers were lynched or burned alive in their cabs. Those fleeing Delhi were dragged out of trains and buses and slaughtered.
The orgy of violence unleashed on Sikhs following Indira's assassination is often referred to as a riot as though it was a spontaneous outpouring of anger. It was not. It was an organized massacre, a pogrom.
There is a mountain of evidence to prove that politicians belonging to the ruling Congress Party incited and directed the pogrom in collusion with the police. Even as mobs led by Congressmen burned, looted, raped and murdered the government did nothing to quell the violence.
Police made some arrests during the violence; ironically most of the arrests were of Sikhs defending their families against the killers.
Days after the pogrom, Rajiv Gandhi, Indira's son and successor, indirectly justified the violence. "When a mighty tree falls, it is only natural that the earth around it does shake a little," he said.
As shocking as the state's involvement in the violence was its failure to ensure justice thereafter.
Ten commissions and committees have probed the pogrom so far with little impact on bringing the guilty to book. One commission of inquiry headed by a sitting Supreme Court judge, Ranganath Mishra, found no lapses on the part of the government and assigned no culpability to the ruling establishment. For his whitewashing of the Congress' role, Mishra was rewarded. He went on to head the National Human Rights Commission and also became a member of India's upper house of parliament.
During and after the massacres, police refused to register complaints. Of those which were registered, only a few made it to the courts. “Of the ones that reached the courts, the majority resulted in acquittal of the accused as the police never made an attempt to find evidence against them. As a result, the conviction rate has been extremely poor," says Harvinder Singh Phoolka, a senior advocate in the Supreme Court who has been fighting for justice on behalf of the victims.
"Out of 2,733 officially admitted murders, only nine cases led to convictions. Just over 20 accused have been convicted in 25 years - a conviction rate of less than 1%,” he says.
The massacre of the Sikhs took place in front of thousands of witnesses. The identity of those who carried out the violence was evident from the start. A report brought out by civil rights groups in November 1984 carried an annexure listing the names of people alleged to have carried out the violence. It included 198 local Congress activists and others, 15 Congress leaders and 143 police officials.
Of the top Congress politicians who were known to have orchestrated the violence, Sikh militants assassinated two within months of the massacres.
Others like Jagdish Tytler and H K L Bhagat went on to have successful political careers, even holding cabinet posts.
In 2005, the Nanavati Commission said it found “credible evidence” against Tytler, Bhagat and another Congress leader Sajjan Kumar saying they "very probably" had a hand in organizing the attacks. While Bhagat died in 2005, the Central Bureau of Investigation gave Tytler a clean chit earlier this year and the court is yet to decide whether or not to initiate a fresh probe.
Sikh alienation from the Indian state and their anger with the Congress has subsided significantly over the years. The movement for a separate Sikh state is dead. And Punjab has voted the Congress to power twice since the 1984 riots.
Some have suggested that the Congress' efforts to reach out to the Sikhs has helped in building bridges. In 1998 Congress president Sonia Gandhi expressed her "anguish" over the 1984 riots. "I feel your pain," she said. That she is a victim of terrorist violence herself and the daughter-in-law of Indira and widow of Rajiv Gandhi, who was prime minister when the riots took place helped to heal wounds to some extent. That was taken further by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, India's first Sikh prime minister who apologized to the Sikhs in parliament.
That and the fact that the Congress made a Sikh a premier, say Congress leaders, has won the party the hearts of Sikhs.
But not all Sikhs have been appeased by the conciliatory words. They want justice.
While admitting that the Congress' conciliatory gestures have "been like a balm on the community", Phoolka says, "The Congress wants us to forget it; view it as an aberration. When they made Manmohan Singh prime minister, they stepped up this rhetoric; saying, 'forget it now, at least we have apologized and now made your man the prime minister. Our answer has been that the apology came 21 years late and under the Indian legal system an apology is not a substitute for punishment for murder. We want justice." More at > Asia Times
Related story Below:
Besieged Sikhs @ http://ultracurrents.blogspot.com/2009/04/congress-and-besieged-sikhs.html
** Love Jihad in India?
India lost in 'love jihad'
Sudha Ramachandran
Oct.28, 2009
AsiaTimes
BANGALORE - As part of an organized campaign, young Muslim men are deliberately luring women from different faiths into marriage so they will convert to Islam, say radical Indian Hindu and Christian groups in south India.
The alleged plot has been dubbed "love jihad".
It first surfaced in September, when two Muslim men from Pathanamthitta town in the southwestern state of Kerala reportedly enticed two women - a Hindu and a Christian - into marriage and forced them to convert to Islam.
The women first claimed to have became Muslims voluntarily, but after being allowed back to their parents' houses said they had been abducted and coerced to convert. The men were reportedly members of Campus Front, a student wing of radical Muslim group the Popular Front of India (PFI).
The Pathanamthitta incident was followed by an avalanche of media reports on "love jihad". Some described it as a movement, others claimed that forced conversions through marriage were actually being run by an organization called Love Jihad, or Romeo Jihad.
Hindu and Christian groups have weighed in with their own "facts" on the "love jihad".
The Sri Ram Sene, a fundamentalist Hindu group, now claims thousands of girls were forcibly converted to Islam in the past few years after marrying Muslim men. It says that after conversion the women were "trained in anti-national activities". India's main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, has said "love jihadis" have receiving foreign aid - from the Middle East - for the campaign.
Senior Christian leaders are now campaigning against the alleged threat.
"Around 4,000 girls have been subjected to religious conversion since 2005 after they fell in love," Father Johny Kochuparambil, secretary of Kerala Catholic Bishops Council's Commission for Social Harmony and Vigilance, wrote in an article in the church council's newsletter.
The article lists 2,868 girls who fell into the "love jihad" net between 2006 to 2009. Kochuparambil has not clarified where the statistics came from, citing only "highly reliable sources".
The phenomenon has spread to Kerala's neighboring state, Karnataka. This month, the father of a woman who converted to Islam to marry a Muslim filed a habeas corpus petition in a Karnataka court, alleging his daughter was a victim of "love jihad". The woman told the court that her conversion was voluntary.
The court, however, said it has "serious suspicions" regarding the statement of the petitioner's daughter and that the case "has ramifications for national security". "It has raised questions of unlawful trafficking of girls and women in the state. So it has to be investigated by the police," the court said.
On the orders of the court, police in Kerala and Karnataka launched an investigation into whether an organization called Love Jihad or Romeo Jihad actually exists. They concluded that it doesn't.
Kerala's director general of police said no such organization had been identified in the state, but there were reasons to suspect there had been "concentrated attempts" by Muslim boys to persuade non-Muslim girls to convert to Islam after they fell in love.
The PFI, meanwhile, has denied it is waging a "love jihad".
"Religious conversion is not a crime; conversion takes place to Hinduism and Christianity also ... One cannot paint all love affairs as cases of forced conversions meant for extremist activity," said PFI spokesman Naseerudheen Elamaram.
In India, religious conversion is not a crime - article 25 of the constitution recognizes the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. However, the issue of conversion is extremely sensitive. In recent years, Hindu groups have opposed, sometimes violently, the conversion of Hindus to Islam and Christianity.
For centuries, Hindus converted to Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam and Christianity, some out of conviction, others to escape the tyranny of the Hindu caste system or to benefit from professing the religion of the ruling class. However, Hindu groups maintain that it was through the use of the sword that Islam spread in India. They also accuse Christians of using economic incentives to attract Hindus to the faith.
Ironically, "love jihad" is now the bringing the sworn enemies together. Christian and Hindu groups that had been at each other's throat over religious conversions have now vowed to join forces to combat the alleged campaign.
"Both Hindu and Christian girls are falling prey to this. So we are cooperating with the VHP [Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a fundamentalist Hindu group] on this," K S Samson, from the Kochi-based Christian Association for Social Action (CASA), told the Times of India.
When CASA got to know of a Hindu schoolgirl who had become a victim of "love jihad", it "immediately referred the case to the VHP", he said.
The "love jihad" phenomenon - which may just be linked to a few religious-minded Romeos - could have been comical had it not deepened domestic hostility towards India's Muslim minority. There are fears that the use of the word "jihad", often interpreted as meaning holy war, may give extremist Hindu and Christian groups an excuse to justify attacks on Muslims.
"Certain fundamentalist groups that have been carrying out vigilante attacks against inter-community couples for several years have now started using the 'love jihad' theory to justify their attacks," a police official told The Hindu newspaper. He did not name the groups, but was probably referring to the Sri Ram Sene and the Bajrang Dal, which target women and religious minorities.
Sri Ram Sene is now preparing for a nationwide campaign on the issue. Its leader, Pramod Mutalik, has said 150 party activists have been deployed in public places to keep an eye on "suspicious activities". When a "love jihad" activity is identified, "it will be stopped then and there", he said.
Meanwhile, the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council has issued "love jihad" guidelines, calling on parents and schools to monitor children's activities and discourage them from using mobile phones or spend long hours on the Internet. "Bringing up children the spiritual way is the best means to fight the love jihad," said the Christian group. http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KJ28Df05.html
Sudha Ramachandran
Oct.28, 2009
AsiaTimes
BANGALORE - As part of an organized campaign, young Muslim men are deliberately luring women from different faiths into marriage so they will convert to Islam, say radical Indian Hindu and Christian groups in south India.
The alleged plot has been dubbed "love jihad".
It first surfaced in September, when two Muslim men from Pathanamthitta town in the southwestern state of Kerala reportedly enticed two women - a Hindu and a Christian - into marriage and forced them to convert to Islam.
The women first claimed to have became Muslims voluntarily, but after being allowed back to their parents' houses said they had been abducted and coerced to convert. The men were reportedly members of Campus Front, a student wing of radical Muslim group the Popular Front of India (PFI).
The Pathanamthitta incident was followed by an avalanche of media reports on "love jihad". Some described it as a movement, others claimed that forced conversions through marriage were actually being run by an organization called Love Jihad, or Romeo Jihad.
Hindu and Christian groups have weighed in with their own "facts" on the "love jihad".
The Sri Ram Sene, a fundamentalist Hindu group, now claims thousands of girls were forcibly converted to Islam in the past few years after marrying Muslim men. It says that after conversion the women were "trained in anti-national activities". India's main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, has said "love jihadis" have receiving foreign aid - from the Middle East - for the campaign.
Senior Christian leaders are now campaigning against the alleged threat.
"Around 4,000 girls have been subjected to religious conversion since 2005 after they fell in love," Father Johny Kochuparambil, secretary of Kerala Catholic Bishops Council's Commission for Social Harmony and Vigilance, wrote in an article in the church council's newsletter.
The article lists 2,868 girls who fell into the "love jihad" net between 2006 to 2009. Kochuparambil has not clarified where the statistics came from, citing only "highly reliable sources".
The phenomenon has spread to Kerala's neighboring state, Karnataka. This month, the father of a woman who converted to Islam to marry a Muslim filed a habeas corpus petition in a Karnataka court, alleging his daughter was a victim of "love jihad". The woman told the court that her conversion was voluntary.
The court, however, said it has "serious suspicions" regarding the statement of the petitioner's daughter and that the case "has ramifications for national security". "It has raised questions of unlawful trafficking of girls and women in the state. So it has to be investigated by the police," the court said.
On the orders of the court, police in Kerala and Karnataka launched an investigation into whether an organization called Love Jihad or Romeo Jihad actually exists. They concluded that it doesn't.
Kerala's director general of police said no such organization had been identified in the state, but there were reasons to suspect there had been "concentrated attempts" by Muslim boys to persuade non-Muslim girls to convert to Islam after they fell in love.
The PFI, meanwhile, has denied it is waging a "love jihad".
"Religious conversion is not a crime; conversion takes place to Hinduism and Christianity also ... One cannot paint all love affairs as cases of forced conversions meant for extremist activity," said PFI spokesman Naseerudheen Elamaram.
In India, religious conversion is not a crime - article 25 of the constitution recognizes the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. However, the issue of conversion is extremely sensitive. In recent years, Hindu groups have opposed, sometimes violently, the conversion of Hindus to Islam and Christianity.
For centuries, Hindus converted to Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam and Christianity, some out of conviction, others to escape the tyranny of the Hindu caste system or to benefit from professing the religion of the ruling class. However, Hindu groups maintain that it was through the use of the sword that Islam spread in India. They also accuse Christians of using economic incentives to attract Hindus to the faith.
Ironically, "love jihad" is now the bringing the sworn enemies together. Christian and Hindu groups that had been at each other's throat over religious conversions have now vowed to join forces to combat the alleged campaign.
"Both Hindu and Christian girls are falling prey to this. So we are cooperating with the VHP [Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a fundamentalist Hindu group] on this," K S Samson, from the Kochi-based Christian Association for Social Action (CASA), told the Times of India.
When CASA got to know of a Hindu schoolgirl who had become a victim of "love jihad", it "immediately referred the case to the VHP", he said.
The "love jihad" phenomenon - which may just be linked to a few religious-minded Romeos - could have been comical had it not deepened domestic hostility towards India's Muslim minority. There are fears that the use of the word "jihad", often interpreted as meaning holy war, may give extremist Hindu and Christian groups an excuse to justify attacks on Muslims.
"Certain fundamentalist groups that have been carrying out vigilante attacks against inter-community couples for several years have now started using the 'love jihad' theory to justify their attacks," a police official told The Hindu newspaper. He did not name the groups, but was probably referring to the Sri Ram Sene and the Bajrang Dal, which target women and religious minorities.
Sri Ram Sene is now preparing for a nationwide campaign on the issue. Its leader, Pramod Mutalik, has said 150 party activists have been deployed in public places to keep an eye on "suspicious activities". When a "love jihad" activity is identified, "it will be stopped then and there", he said.
Meanwhile, the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council has issued "love jihad" guidelines, calling on parents and schools to monitor children's activities and discourage them from using mobile phones or spend long hours on the Internet. "Bringing up children the spiritual way is the best means to fight the love jihad," said the Christian group. http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KJ28Df05.html
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
** Love Jihad in India
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KJ28Df05.html
India lost in 'love jihad'
Sudha Ramachandran
Oct.28, 2009
BANGALORE - As part of an organized campaign, young Muslim men are deliberately luring women from different faiths into marriage so they will convert to Islam, say radical Indian Hindu and Christian groups in south India.
The alleged plot has been dubbed "love jihad".
It first surfaced in September, when two Muslim men from Pathanamthitta town in the southwestern state of Kerala reportedly enticed two women - a Hindu and a Christian - into marriage and forced them to convert to Islam.
The women first claimed to have became Muslims voluntarily, but after being allowed back to their parents' houses said they had been abducted and coerced to convert. The men were reportedly members of Campus Front, a student wing of radical Muslim group the Popular Front of India (PFI).
The Pathanamthitta incident was followed by an avalanche of media reports on "love jihad". Some described it as a movement, others claimed that forced conversions through marriage were actually being run by an organization called Love Jihad, or Romeo Jihad.
Hindu and Christian groups have weighed in with their own "facts" on the "love jihad".
The Sri Ram Sene, a fundamentalist Hindu group, now claims thousands of girls were forcibly converted to Islam in the past few years after marrying Muslim men. It says that after conversion the women were "trained in anti-national activities". India's main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, has said "love jihadis" have receiving foreign aid - from the Middle East - for the campaign.
Senior Christian leaders are now campaigning against the alleged threat.
"Around 4,000 girls have been subjected to religious conversion since 2005 after they fell in love," Father Johny Kochuparambil, secretary of Kerala Catholic Bishops Council's Commission for Social Harmony and Vigilance, wrote in an article in the church council's newsletter.
The article lists 2,868 girls who fell into the "love jihad" net between 2006 to 2009. Kochuparambil has not clarified where the statistics came from, citing only "highly reliable sources".
The phenomenon has spread to Kerala's neighboring state, Karnataka. This month, the father of a woman who converted to Islam to marry a Muslim filed a habeas corpus petition in a Karnataka court, alleging his daughter was a victim of "love jihad". The woman told the court that her conversion was voluntary.
The court, however, said it has "serious suspicions" regarding the statement of the petitioner's daughter and that the case "has ramifications for national security". "It has raised questions of unlawful trafficking of girls and women in the state. So it has to be investigated by the police," the court said.
On the orders of the court, police in Kerala and Karnataka launched an investigation into whether an organization called Love Jihad or Romeo Jihad actually exists. They concluded that it doesn't.
Kerala's director general of police said no such organization had been identified in the state, but there were reasons to suspect there had been "concentrated attempts" by Muslim boys to persuade non-Muslim girls to convert to Islam after they fell in love.
The PFI, meanwhile, has denied it is waging a "love jihad".
"Religious conversion is not a crime; conversion takes place to Hinduism and Christianity also ... One cannot paint all love affairs as cases of forced conversions meant for extremist activity," said PFI spokesman Naseerudheen Elamaram.
In India, religious conversion is not a crime - article 25 of the constitution recognizes the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. However, the issue of conversion is extremely sensitive. In recent years, Hindu groups have opposed, sometimes violently, the conversion of Hindus to Islam and Christianity.
For centuries, Hindus converted to Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam and Christianity, some out of conviction, others to escape the tyranny of the Hindu caste system or to benefit from professing the religion of the ruling class. However, Hindu groups maintain that it was through the use of the sword that Islam spread in India. They also accuse Christians of using economic incentives to attract Hindus to the faith.
Ironically, "love jihad" is now the bringing the sworn enemies together. Christian and Hindu groups that had been at each other's throat over religious conversions have now vowed to join forces to combat the alleged campaign.
"Both Hindu and Christian girls are falling prey to this. So we are cooperating with the VHP [Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a fundamentalist Hindu group] on this," K S Samson, from the Kochi-based Christian Association for Social Action (CASA), told the Times of India.
When CASA got to know of a Hindu schoolgirl who had become a victim of "love jihad", it "immediately referred the case to the VHP", he said.
The "love jihad" phenomenon - which may just be linked to a few religious-minded Romeos - could have been comical had it not deepened domestic hostility towards India's Muslim minority. There are fears that the use of the word "jihad", often interpreted as meaning holy war, may give extremist Hindu and Christian groups an excuse to justify attacks on Muslims.
"Certain fundamentalist groups that have been carrying out vigilante attacks against inter-community couples for several years have now started using the 'love jihad' theory to justify their attacks," a police official told The Hindu newspaper. He did not name the groups, but was probably referring to the Sri Ram Sene and the Bajrang Dal, which target women and religious minorities.
Sri Ram Sene is now preparing for a nationwide campaign on the issue. Its leader, Pramod Mutalik, has said 150 party activists have been deployed in public places to keep an eye on "suspicious activities". When a "love jihad" activity is identified, "it will be stopped then and there", he said.
Meanwhile, the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council has issued "love jihad" guidelines, calling on parents and schools to monitor children's activities and discourage them from using mobile phones or spend long hours on the Internet. "Bringing up children the spiritual way is the best means to fight the love jihad," said the Christian group.
India lost in 'love jihad'
Sudha Ramachandran
Oct.28, 2009
BANGALORE - As part of an organized campaign, young Muslim men are deliberately luring women from different faiths into marriage so they will convert to Islam, say radical Indian Hindu and Christian groups in south India.
The alleged plot has been dubbed "love jihad".
It first surfaced in September, when two Muslim men from Pathanamthitta town in the southwestern state of Kerala reportedly enticed two women - a Hindu and a Christian - into marriage and forced them to convert to Islam.
The women first claimed to have became Muslims voluntarily, but after being allowed back to their parents' houses said they had been abducted and coerced to convert. The men were reportedly members of Campus Front, a student wing of radical Muslim group the Popular Front of India (PFI).
The Pathanamthitta incident was followed by an avalanche of media reports on "love jihad". Some described it as a movement, others claimed that forced conversions through marriage were actually being run by an organization called Love Jihad, or Romeo Jihad.
Hindu and Christian groups have weighed in with their own "facts" on the "love jihad".
The Sri Ram Sene, a fundamentalist Hindu group, now claims thousands of girls were forcibly converted to Islam in the past few years after marrying Muslim men. It says that after conversion the women were "trained in anti-national activities". India's main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, has said "love jihadis" have receiving foreign aid - from the Middle East - for the campaign.
Senior Christian leaders are now campaigning against the alleged threat.
"Around 4,000 girls have been subjected to religious conversion since 2005 after they fell in love," Father Johny Kochuparambil, secretary of Kerala Catholic Bishops Council's Commission for Social Harmony and Vigilance, wrote in an article in the church council's newsletter.
The article lists 2,868 girls who fell into the "love jihad" net between 2006 to 2009. Kochuparambil has not clarified where the statistics came from, citing only "highly reliable sources".
The phenomenon has spread to Kerala's neighboring state, Karnataka. This month, the father of a woman who converted to Islam to marry a Muslim filed a habeas corpus petition in a Karnataka court, alleging his daughter was a victim of "love jihad". The woman told the court that her conversion was voluntary.
The court, however, said it has "serious suspicions" regarding the statement of the petitioner's daughter and that the case "has ramifications for national security". "It has raised questions of unlawful trafficking of girls and women in the state. So it has to be investigated by the police," the court said.
On the orders of the court, police in Kerala and Karnataka launched an investigation into whether an organization called Love Jihad or Romeo Jihad actually exists. They concluded that it doesn't.
Kerala's director general of police said no such organization had been identified in the state, but there were reasons to suspect there had been "concentrated attempts" by Muslim boys to persuade non-Muslim girls to convert to Islam after they fell in love.
The PFI, meanwhile, has denied it is waging a "love jihad".
"Religious conversion is not a crime; conversion takes place to Hinduism and Christianity also ... One cannot paint all love affairs as cases of forced conversions meant for extremist activity," said PFI spokesman Naseerudheen Elamaram.
In India, religious conversion is not a crime - article 25 of the constitution recognizes the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion. However, the issue of conversion is extremely sensitive. In recent years, Hindu groups have opposed, sometimes violently, the conversion of Hindus to Islam and Christianity.
For centuries, Hindus converted to Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam and Christianity, some out of conviction, others to escape the tyranny of the Hindu caste system or to benefit from professing the religion of the ruling class. However, Hindu groups maintain that it was through the use of the sword that Islam spread in India. They also accuse Christians of using economic incentives to attract Hindus to the faith.
Ironically, "love jihad" is now the bringing the sworn enemies together. Christian and Hindu groups that had been at each other's throat over religious conversions have now vowed to join forces to combat the alleged campaign.
"Both Hindu and Christian girls are falling prey to this. So we are cooperating with the VHP [Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a fundamentalist Hindu group] on this," K S Samson, from the Kochi-based Christian Association for Social Action (CASA), told the Times of India.
When CASA got to know of a Hindu schoolgirl who had become a victim of "love jihad", it "immediately referred the case to the VHP", he said.
The "love jihad" phenomenon - which may just be linked to a few religious-minded Romeos - could have been comical had it not deepened domestic hostility towards India's Muslim minority. There are fears that the use of the word "jihad", often interpreted as meaning holy war, may give extremist Hindu and Christian groups an excuse to justify attacks on Muslims.
"Certain fundamentalist groups that have been carrying out vigilante attacks against inter-community couples for several years have now started using the 'love jihad' theory to justify their attacks," a police official told The Hindu newspaper. He did not name the groups, but was probably referring to the Sri Ram Sene and the Bajrang Dal, which target women and religious minorities.
Sri Ram Sene is now preparing for a nationwide campaign on the issue. Its leader, Pramod Mutalik, has said 150 party activists have been deployed in public places to keep an eye on "suspicious activities". When a "love jihad" activity is identified, "it will be stopped then and there", he said.
Meanwhile, the Kerala Catholic Bishops Council has issued "love jihad" guidelines, calling on parents and schools to monitor children's activities and discourage them from using mobile phones or spend long hours on the Internet. "Bringing up children the spiritual way is the best means to fight the love jihad," said the Christian group.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
** Racial Profiling: Good & Bad
http://www.blogs.ivarta.com/The-Good-Bad-Racial-Profiling/blog-315.htm
The Good and Bad of Racial Profiling
Dr. Gopal Alankar
Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a black Harvard University professor, went to Southern China to film a documentary. When he returned home in Cambridge, Mass, on July 16, 2009, he found his front door lock inoperable. Unable to open the front door, he took the help of his driver to force open the back door to enter the house. A good intentioned lady, Ms. Lucia Whalen, while passing by saw the forced entry. She dialed 911 to report the incident. When asked by the 911 operator about the ethnicity of the intruders, she indicated that one of the two men looked Hispanic and she was not sure of the other.
Cambridge Police officer, Sgt. James Crowley was sent to investigate the burglary. There were exchanges between the professor and the cop, and the professor was arrested for disorderly conduct. The incident aroused a national debate on racial profiling.
Against the above backdrop, in a Presidential press conference on Health Care Reform held on July 22, 2009, a journalist from the audience asked President Obama as to what he thought of the arrest of Henry. Henry is a good friend of President Obama, and the question unquestionably was very appropriate.
Obama"s uncanny answer that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting Henry was seized by media to liken it to an instance of presidential naiveté and a case of erred statesmanship. Intellectuals alike would have viewed it no differently. Men of diplomatic prowess would have preferred that the President took a noncommittal stance or waited until the law took its full course.
Rules of good diplomacy call for a President to refrain from taking sides especially in matters that instigate religious or racial divide. A good president needs to be a good diplomat. A good diplomat will have all the skills necessary to turn an unfriendly encounter into a pleasant outcome. In Crowley"s case it is highly unlikely that racial profiling played any part at all because he was unaware of the ethnicity of Prof. Gates before he arrived at the site of the incident. Therefore, it seems that the President was way off the mark in what he said.
Nevertheless, President Obama is a sharp intellect and a sincere crusader for the welfare of the downtrodden. However, he suffers from one glaring weakness in that he tends to stick his foot in his mouth and say the most undiplomatic thing. Leaving aside the diplomacy, what he said perhaps would be emotionally correct. But emotions must rest outside the periphery of good diplomacy and as a President he should have been a thought more careful in what he said.
Tellingly, the Beer Summit turned out to be a brilliant stroke of President"s corrective diplomacy and it undid the damage done to him in the aftermath of the Press Conference. The plentiful chilled beer did have the cooling effect on the cop and the professor. The two seemed to have cooled a lot faster than the hot tempers radiated in the professor"s Cambridge house. Of course, the presence of the President and the Vice-President at the table certainly contributed to the desired result. But did the Summit really succeed in easing the debate on racial profiling? I think not.
Racial profiling has two sides to it - bright and dark. Peoples" outcry that Prof. Gates" arrest smacked of the dark side of racial profiling is difficult to substantiate in the context of what happened. Would we call it dark, if the professor were white?
What is exactly racial profiling? Wikipedia defines it as a method that uses racial or ethnic characteristics of a person to determine whether he or she is likely to commit a crime or an illegal act. It is in a way an extension of statistical inference, which, by the way, is as good as the data collected. Granting that the data are good and the statistical analysis of the data indicates that within a confidence level a terrorist is likely to be an Islamic fundamentalist, then it pays to use an adequate sample size to thoroughly security check the travelers from Islamic nations to identify probable terrorists. Bear in mind that a 100% check on all passengers is costly and time consuming and if enforced the planes would never leave or arrive on time.
Much of what we hear, read and see in the media on racial profiling is of the dark side. In some parts of the world bias and prejudices are willfully built into racial profiling to influence the outcome. This, I say, is manipulative profiling. Notorious are the European and Islamic countries against other races. Racial profiling, if misapplied, can bring humiliation and suffering to the countless hapless minority communities residing in unscrupulous countries. This is the crux of our current problem.
This is not to say that racial profiling is nonexistent in America. It is deeply entrenched as is in other countries in the world. Virginity tests on Indian brides at the airports in England were despicable acts and they sure had racial undertones. US Government in WW-II rounded up the US citizens of Japanese descent and put them in internment camps. The lengthy security checks on Khans of Bollywood at Newark airport did smell of racial profiling. Profiling of Chinese and Indians by Air France is a well known practice of mala fide intention. A news item published on June 29, 2009 in New York Times reveals that French police stop Blacks and Arabs for identity checks more than they stop others. Racial profiling in Germany goes back to the days of Adolf Hitler. Arab countries profile foreign workers on a regular basis in order to perpetrate false accusations in the name of undocumented labor.
Therefore, racial profiling does not specifically target Blacks. It includes all ethnicity. White profiling is also common. Profiling of Indians is widespread across the globe. In these days plagued with terrorism and suicide bombers, the brighter side of racial profiling can play a pivotal role in apprehending likely criminals. My experience with a foreign travel in the winter that followed 9/11 tragedy made me a believer in racial profiling out of a recalcitrant nonbeliever. Here is my story.
My family patiently waited in the security line at the Newark Airport, NJ to begin our meticulously planned vacation to Aruba. We were five and were all excited to see the journey begin, more so my children. When our turn came we were surprised to find that none of our pilot suite cases passed the security screening. For each one of us the walk-through scanner was a bad news. The officer checked us from toe to head. The suitcases were opened and screened thoroughly. Although nothing incriminating was found, it was a nightmarish episode. It took a long time for us to repack and put the things back in order in the suitcases. Make no mistake few others also went through the same trauma.
Finally we made a dash to the gate and waited for the boarding call. When the announcement was made, we made a beeline for the line. We paced slowly to the airline rep who politely signaled us to step aside for a fresh security check. At a minimum our pride was hurt; our children"s feelings were mortified; we could not stomach the fact that we became the objects of curiosity to all the passengers walking by. When it was all done, we were in no mood for any good words for the airline. We were the last to board.
As we entered the plane all eyes were turned to us. The atmosphere was somber. My children were puffing with fury. I pleaded with them to remain calm until we reached our destination for the fear of unwanted evidence that might get planted into our suitcases. Every two hours I would nervously ask the air-hostess if I could walk up and down the isle to stretch my sagging old legs.
Calm prevailed as the plane prepared for landing. As soon as it touched the runway there was a thunder of clapping and applause. Shouts of "Bravo pilot!" rent the air. Some thanked God for terror-free flight. We also joined the applause and cheers with a gusto of enthusiasm. It was a rare moment of ecstasy and joy for all passengers who were in a state of anxiety and fear all along the flight. When all said and done, the journey turned out to be one of our most memorable incidents of all time.
I realized then and there the importance of racial profiling. I would rather go through the tedious screening than let the plane take off without it. Mental peace of passengers outweighs the bitter inconvenience that a few of us suffer as a result of profiling.
The experience taught me a valuable lesson "The good of all must prevail over the comfort of a few."
The Good and Bad of Racial Profiling
Dr. Gopal Alankar
Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a black Harvard University professor, went to Southern China to film a documentary. When he returned home in Cambridge, Mass, on July 16, 2009, he found his front door lock inoperable. Unable to open the front door, he took the help of his driver to force open the back door to enter the house. A good intentioned lady, Ms. Lucia Whalen, while passing by saw the forced entry. She dialed 911 to report the incident. When asked by the 911 operator about the ethnicity of the intruders, she indicated that one of the two men looked Hispanic and she was not sure of the other.
Cambridge Police officer, Sgt. James Crowley was sent to investigate the burglary. There were exchanges between the professor and the cop, and the professor was arrested for disorderly conduct. The incident aroused a national debate on racial profiling.
Against the above backdrop, in a Presidential press conference on Health Care Reform held on July 22, 2009, a journalist from the audience asked President Obama as to what he thought of the arrest of Henry. Henry is a good friend of President Obama, and the question unquestionably was very appropriate.
Obama"s uncanny answer that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting Henry was seized by media to liken it to an instance of presidential naiveté and a case of erred statesmanship. Intellectuals alike would have viewed it no differently. Men of diplomatic prowess would have preferred that the President took a noncommittal stance or waited until the law took its full course.
Rules of good diplomacy call for a President to refrain from taking sides especially in matters that instigate religious or racial divide. A good president needs to be a good diplomat. A good diplomat will have all the skills necessary to turn an unfriendly encounter into a pleasant outcome. In Crowley"s case it is highly unlikely that racial profiling played any part at all because he was unaware of the ethnicity of Prof. Gates before he arrived at the site of the incident. Therefore, it seems that the President was way off the mark in what he said.
Nevertheless, President Obama is a sharp intellect and a sincere crusader for the welfare of the downtrodden. However, he suffers from one glaring weakness in that he tends to stick his foot in his mouth and say the most undiplomatic thing. Leaving aside the diplomacy, what he said perhaps would be emotionally correct. But emotions must rest outside the periphery of good diplomacy and as a President he should have been a thought more careful in what he said.
Tellingly, the Beer Summit turned out to be a brilliant stroke of President"s corrective diplomacy and it undid the damage done to him in the aftermath of the Press Conference. The plentiful chilled beer did have the cooling effect on the cop and the professor. The two seemed to have cooled a lot faster than the hot tempers radiated in the professor"s Cambridge house. Of course, the presence of the President and the Vice-President at the table certainly contributed to the desired result. But did the Summit really succeed in easing the debate on racial profiling? I think not.
Racial profiling has two sides to it - bright and dark. Peoples" outcry that Prof. Gates" arrest smacked of the dark side of racial profiling is difficult to substantiate in the context of what happened. Would we call it dark, if the professor were white?
What is exactly racial profiling? Wikipedia defines it as a method that uses racial or ethnic characteristics of a person to determine whether he or she is likely to commit a crime or an illegal act. It is in a way an extension of statistical inference, which, by the way, is as good as the data collected. Granting that the data are good and the statistical analysis of the data indicates that within a confidence level a terrorist is likely to be an Islamic fundamentalist, then it pays to use an adequate sample size to thoroughly security check the travelers from Islamic nations to identify probable terrorists. Bear in mind that a 100% check on all passengers is costly and time consuming and if enforced the planes would never leave or arrive on time.
Much of what we hear, read and see in the media on racial profiling is of the dark side. In some parts of the world bias and prejudices are willfully built into racial profiling to influence the outcome. This, I say, is manipulative profiling. Notorious are the European and Islamic countries against other races. Racial profiling, if misapplied, can bring humiliation and suffering to the countless hapless minority communities residing in unscrupulous countries. This is the crux of our current problem.
This is not to say that racial profiling is nonexistent in America. It is deeply entrenched as is in other countries in the world. Virginity tests on Indian brides at the airports in England were despicable acts and they sure had racial undertones. US Government in WW-II rounded up the US citizens of Japanese descent and put them in internment camps. The lengthy security checks on Khans of Bollywood at Newark airport did smell of racial profiling. Profiling of Chinese and Indians by Air France is a well known practice of mala fide intention. A news item published on June 29, 2009 in New York Times reveals that French police stop Blacks and Arabs for identity checks more than they stop others. Racial profiling in Germany goes back to the days of Adolf Hitler. Arab countries profile foreign workers on a regular basis in order to perpetrate false accusations in the name of undocumented labor.
Therefore, racial profiling does not specifically target Blacks. It includes all ethnicity. White profiling is also common. Profiling of Indians is widespread across the globe. In these days plagued with terrorism and suicide bombers, the brighter side of racial profiling can play a pivotal role in apprehending likely criminals. My experience with a foreign travel in the winter that followed 9/11 tragedy made me a believer in racial profiling out of a recalcitrant nonbeliever. Here is my story.
My family patiently waited in the security line at the Newark Airport, NJ to begin our meticulously planned vacation to Aruba. We were five and were all excited to see the journey begin, more so my children. When our turn came we were surprised to find that none of our pilot suite cases passed the security screening. For each one of us the walk-through scanner was a bad news. The officer checked us from toe to head. The suitcases were opened and screened thoroughly. Although nothing incriminating was found, it was a nightmarish episode. It took a long time for us to repack and put the things back in order in the suitcases. Make no mistake few others also went through the same trauma.
Finally we made a dash to the gate and waited for the boarding call. When the announcement was made, we made a beeline for the line. We paced slowly to the airline rep who politely signaled us to step aside for a fresh security check. At a minimum our pride was hurt; our children"s feelings were mortified; we could not stomach the fact that we became the objects of curiosity to all the passengers walking by. When it was all done, we were in no mood for any good words for the airline. We were the last to board.
As we entered the plane all eyes were turned to us. The atmosphere was somber. My children were puffing with fury. I pleaded with them to remain calm until we reached our destination for the fear of unwanted evidence that might get planted into our suitcases. Every two hours I would nervously ask the air-hostess if I could walk up and down the isle to stretch my sagging old legs.
Calm prevailed as the plane prepared for landing. As soon as it touched the runway there was a thunder of clapping and applause. Shouts of "Bravo pilot!" rent the air. Some thanked God for terror-free flight. We also joined the applause and cheers with a gusto of enthusiasm. It was a rare moment of ecstasy and joy for all passengers who were in a state of anxiety and fear all along the flight. When all said and done, the journey turned out to be one of our most memorable incidents of all time.
I realized then and there the importance of racial profiling. I would rather go through the tedious screening than let the plane take off without it. Mental peace of passengers outweighs the bitter inconvenience that a few of us suffer as a result of profiling.
The experience taught me a valuable lesson "The good of all must prevail over the comfort of a few."
Sunday, September 27, 2009
** Temple water 'miracle cure'
http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20090923/812/tnl-hindus-muslims-line-up-for-miracle-c.html
Hindus, Muslims line up for 'miracle cure' temple water
Asit Srivastava
Hindus, Muslims line up for 'miracle cure' temple water
Asit Srivastava
Lucknow, Sep 23 (IANS) A hand pump located inside the premises of an ancient Hanuman temple in Uttar Pradesh is visited by hundreds of people irrespective of their religion every day. Reason: its water is said to have miraculous healing powers.
Hindus, Muslims and people from other religions have been lining up before the hand pump, installed within the gate of the Hanuman temple in Jagnewa village of Jalaun district, for the past seven days. Jalaun is located 200 km from here.
People first take a 'parikrama' (round) of the hand pump and offer prayers before partaking of the water.
'Around 1,000 people from different parts of Jalaun and nearby villagers are visiting the temple every day to drink the water, which can cure chronic ailments,' Chhoti Dulaiya, head of Jagnewa village, told IANS over telephone.
'You can sight Muslim women clad in burqas lining up before the hand pump, waiting for their turn to offer prayers and conduct parikrama,' said Dulaiya. He added that one of his relatives who was suffering from eczema all over his body got cured after drinking the water.
According to locals, the hand pump's water recently turned miraculous after a saint from Madhya Pradesh 'infused it with therapeutic properties'.
'An elderly saint named Geeta Nandji Maharaj, who visited the temple around 10 days ago and took shelter in the temple, has made all this happen,' said Sanjeev Gurjar, a resident of the area.
'Initially, after the saint's arrival, some villagers whose relatives or family members were suffering from chronic diseases went to seek his blessings. To their surprise, they found that soon after the blessings, their relatives and family members became healthy,' he added.
According to locals, when people started arriving in large numbers to meet the saint, he told them that he would provide a permanent solution to their problems.
'After this, the saint performed some puja in front of the hand pump, and told the villagers that its water would henceforth treat all their health problems,' said another local Devesh Kashyap.
Raees Ahmed, a native of the adjacent Kathaunda village, told IANS that his 10-year-old daughter, who was anaemic and was not able to walk and eat properly, was cured with the hand pump water.
'After partaking of the hand pump water in just two days she was able to stand on her feet and do all her normal work,' Ahmed said with relief.
Subdivisional Magistrate of Jalaun, Indra Pal Uttam told IANS: 'Yes, it's true that people irrespective of their religion are lining up before the hand pump to drink its water that, according to them, will treat their health disorders.'
'The therapeutic properties of the hand pump's water are still to be confirmed. However, if people continue to pour in such huge numbers it will become a challenge for the district administration to control them,'' he added.
(Asit Srivastava can be contacted at asit.s@ians.in)
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
** India: Insecure & Unsafe
Emerging India: Insecure & Unsafe
Colonel Anil Athale
Rediff.Com
A student of military history would be justified in feeling a sense of deja vu at recent happenings. Former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf [ Images ] disclosed that he used American aid not against terrorists but to bolster Pakistani capabilities against India. Our leaders then go ballistic and beseech the Americans!
Colonel Anil Athale
Rediff.Com
A student of military history would be justified in feeling a sense of deja vu at recent happenings. Former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf [ Images ] disclosed that he used American aid not against terrorists but to bolster Pakistani capabilities against India. Our leaders then go ballistic and beseech the Americans!
Cut to April/May 1965 -- Pakistan used the Patton tanks against India in the Rann of Kutch -- we spend time and energy in taking photographs and again go to the Americans.
As in 1962, we seem to downplay Chinese intrusions -- not unlike the famous Nehruvian jibe about Aksai Chin that not a blade of grass grows there!
To cap it all is the recent disclosure by nuclear scientist Dr K Santhanam, that the May 1998 thermonuclear test was less than 100 percent successful has fuelled a much needed debate on our security and defence preparedness. Dr Santhanam is a scientist connected with India's nuclear programme and his views have to be taken seriously. Since 1998, India has openly shifted from 'defence' to 'deterrence' as cornerstone of its security policies.
India did not have much choice in the matter. In the decade of 1980s a reckless US supplied weapon systems to Pakistan (the F-16s) which in turn for the first time gave that country reach and bomb weight to pose a direct threat to Indian cities. Our nuclear reactors came under threat. Thus should Pakistan have so chosen it could target these and virtually 'nuke' India?
The critics of 1998 Pokhran II and an overt Indian nuclear posture to 'deter' this attack, ignore this reality. All that the 'Shakti' tests did was to go for overt in place of 'covert deterrence', itself a contradiction in terms. Ten years have passed and during this time these theories were severely tested and a comprehensive debate ought to be welcome.
While the attention of Indians and the world is focussed on the economic progress of our country, the age-old weakness of our civilisation -- the neglect of the security dimension, casts a long dark shadow on our future.
India is unique in several ways -- unlike other countries, in India ardent and idealist 'peace lobbies' are part of mainstream politics and not on the fringes as in all other countries of the world. In its 5,000-year-old history, India has produced treatises on virtually every subject on the earth, from astronomy, medicine to even sex, but we do not have a single major work on warfare or the art of war.
Time and again our use of war elephants was shown to be ineffective, yet we persisted in it.
We were the first to use war rockets in the 18th century, but never developed them to make them bigger, longer or more effective. Intellectuals stayed away from the war strategy and weapons.
We refused to change with the times.
In the nuclear age as well we seem to be repeating our dismal history. The new 'mantra' is minimum deterrence and second strike capability as panacea solution to face all threats. India went wrong in Kargil [ Images ] in 1999 when we realised that the proxy aggression 'used 'the nuclear umbrella while we lulled ourselves.
The 2002 Operation Parakaram in the wake of the attack on Parliament as well as our inability to react to the Mumbai [ Images ] attacks on 26/11 showed the limits of our retaliatory capability.
Through successful use of rhetoric and threats, Pakistan neutralised our conventional response.
Now over the last 10 years it has become an established pattern of behaviour on our part. Our strategy of retaliation with surgical strikes or the new strategy of 'cold start' remains moribund and ineffective for the enemy believes and rightly so, that we lack the will and wherewithal to implement it.
Our conventional retaliation strategy lacks 'credibility' and therefore is no deterrent. The issue is not of mere 'will' either. India lacks the overwhelming technological/numerical superiority to implement this. For instance, Israel has been successfully employing 'threat of retaliation' as a deterrent to proxy or terrorist threats. Israeli technical prowess makes it a credible threat and its past behaviour has established its will to act.
In 1773, the small kingdom of Thanjavur was threatened by the combined forces of the Karnataka nawab and the British. As enemy troops massed outside the city, the high priests of the famed Thanjavur temple assured the king that their 'mantra' was powerful enough to defeat the invaders, and went on to sprinkle the water sanctified by the 'mantra' to stop the invasion! Of course the 'mantra' failed and the kingdom was annexed by the British.
Today we have the high priests of nuclear strategy in Delhi [ Images ] similarly chanting the 'mantra' of no first use and minimum deterrence! Will the result be any different than at Thanjavur in the 18th century?
An analysis of why 'we are like that only' is necessary so that we can rectify this fatal flaw in our national psyche.
The Diagnosis: What ails Indian thinking on defence?
We are a peculiar nation that is obsessed with the 'eternal truth' while we ignore the 'practical' or the realistic world. Carl Jung, the Swedish psychologist visiting India about a century ago, had remarked about this and felt (as a Westerner) as if the whole country lived in a trance or maya or illusion.
Let me illustrate. It is a fundamental belief of Indians that there are no evil beings only evil deeds and fundamentally the atman or the soul is universal and part of the divine in all of us.
While this is so, yet there are evil individuals, for instance the terrorists who mercilessly killed hundreds in Mumbai or have been planting bombs in busy trains and markets. We have to deal with this evil ruthlessly. But what do the Indians do? We question every action of the police/armed forces, we have karuna or pity for the Mumbai terrorists.
The list of our foundational weaknesses is a long one. Here I would just mention it and leave the rest to the reader's imagination.
- We tend to think that security is the sole prerogative of the armed forces and police.
- Divorce between theorists and practitioners -- it is politically incorrect to think of national security in academia -- the British implanted a colonial mindset whereby Indians were kept out of this vital area. Even 62 years after independence this persists.
- The lack of strategic culture -- in case of nuclear strategy we have scientists as strategists -- like asking chemist to prescribe medicines (as many Indians do).
- Segmented approach to security -- armed forces kept away from decision making on the nuclear issue.
- Treating low intensity, conventional and nuclear conflicts in isolation and denying the linkages between them.
- Isolating defence industry/research from mainstream and colossal inefficiency of the bureaucratic structure of the Defence Research and Development Organisation empire.
- Source : Rediff
Friday, August 14, 2009
** FOREIGN POLICY DISTORTIONS: India
INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY DISTORTIONS
Dr. Subhash Kapila
Aug. 13, -S.A.A.G.
Introductory Observations
The Indian Republic in the first fifty years of its existence maintained a strategic autonomy in the conduct of its foreign policy despite a much more limited national power profile and economic profile than that exists today.
Today, when India is economically vibrant and strong and India has been able to amass sizeable conventional and strategic assets, India to its citizens seems strategically tied down in adding muscle to the conduct of its foreign policy.
Adding muscle to India’s foreign policy does not imply war mongering or military adventurism. Adding muscle to India’s foreign policy implies that India’s national security interests are accorded a paramountcy in the conduct of foreign policies to the exclusion of the personal predictions of the Indian Prime Minister and his proximate foreign policy advisors. It also implies the existence of political will to secure India’s national security interests.
The period 2004-2009 has witnessed a bartering away of India’s national security interests. This trend stands examined in the Author’s SAAG Paper No.3210 dated 22 May 2009 entitled “India’s Foreign Policy 2004-2009: The Wasted Years:
The major part of India’s foreign policy failures in this time span and the distortions that willingly or unwillingly have seeped into India’s foreign policy (2004 – 2009) have resulted from policies or lack of policies generated by the predominance given by India’s current Prime Minister to the “United States Factor” in our policy formulations.
Co-attendant with the primacy given to the “United States Factor” in India’s foreign policy formulations during 2004-2009 has been the “parallel track” of “Pakistan-appeasement policies” out of deference to United States Pak-centric strategic sensitivities.
In the process, India can be said to have abdicated its much prized “strategic autonomy” (not to be confused with non-alignment) in its foreign policy formulations. In another sense, it can also be said that India has diluted its aspirations to become a global power.
The center of gravity of the global balance of power has shifted to Asia. India along with China are the two prominent stakeholders and determinants of this shift in the balance of power.
While China has leveraged this shift to her advantage, India’s foreign policies has not leveraged this shift in India’s favor. On the contrary, India’s current foreign policy has led it to seemingly emerge as more of a United States satellite or camp follower.
Rhetorical flourishes by United States political leaders and officials will not impart global power status on India. India has to earn its global power status by standing firmly on its own legs, build its strengths and demonstrate its strategic autonomy globally and regionally, and firmly demonstrate fortified by Indian nationalism, that it has the will to use power to secure India’s national interests.
This point is contextually relevant to the examination of the impact on India’s foreign policy formulations of the “United States Factor”.
This Paper intends to examine the main theme under the following heads:
The “United States Factor” in India’s Foreign Policy (2004-2009): No End Gains
Indian Prime Minister’s “Foreign Policy Romanticism” with United States Reminiscent of Nehru’s Romanticism with China.
Peace with Pakistan: An Elusive Mythical Obsession of India’s Prime Minister
China’s Containment was Implicit in Evolution of US-India Strategic Relationship: United States Now Shirks from it
1) The “United States Factor” in India’s Foreign Policy (2004-2009): No End Gains
The US-India Strategic Partnership much hyped in 2000-2001, including by this Author, now stands reduced to a “strategic relationship” only. That too is alive only in South Block corridors.
India’s expectant hopes attending the advent of evolving a US-India Strategic Partnership focused on multiple aims. At the core of these aims were (1) India’s rise to global power status with a US impetus (2) Strategic downsizing of Pakistan and limiting its “spoiler-state” role in South Asia (3) Joint US-India convergence in coping and managing of the growing military rise of China.
Post 9/11 and now Post Af-Pak Policy unveiling it should be clear to all right thinking Indians that the United States global and regional agenda in South Asia is not in consonance with India’s strategic expectations from the United States. The United States agenda is in contradiction to India’s national security interests and India’s national aspirations.
India’s supine foreign policies during 2004-2009 in accommodating United States strategic sensitivities “at all costs” has landed India in a position where there are “no end-gains” for India by according a primacy to the “US Factor” in India foreign policy formulation.
The above assertions stand fortified by the following manifestations:
Proximity to United States has not contributed to lessening of India’s threat perceptions emanating from Pakistan and China. United States has not contributed at all in this direction.
United States strangulating hold over Pakistan has not been exercised to prevent Pakistan’s proxy war and terrorism against India nor has the United States diluted the Pakistan-China strategic nexus
United States till today has not supported India’s candidature for the United Nations Security Council as a Permanent Member. It indicates US reservations on the emergence of India as a global power.
United States has revived or shortly will revive pressures that indirectly aim at capping/rolling back India’s nuclear weapons arsenal.
Strategically, the United States has only conceded the vast empty expanse of the Indian Ocean to India to extend its influence. The United States has not conceded that India is the predominant regional power in South Asia and that Pakistan must adjust its delusionary strategic mindsets accordingly.
Increased Indo-US military-to-military contacts are no index of a thriving US-India Strategic Partnership. One is now constrained to term it as a US-India Strategic Relationship. The United States has held itself back from adding enhanced strategic and political contours to the US-India relationship.
The most striking deduction from the above analysis is that India’s foreign policy (2004-2009) has been strategically misconceived and ill-advised in making the “United States as the “Central Pillar” of India’s foreign policy.”
2) Indian Prime Minister’s “Foreign Policy Romanticism” with United States Reminiscent of Nehru’s Romanticism with China
One would not be far wrong to term the Indian Prime Minister’s “Foreign Policy Romanticism” with the United States as reminiscent of Nehru’s similar romanticism with China. The results of the later were a great military setback for India.
It is not to suggest that the United States will attack India like China did. But an Indian monochromatic foreign policy focused on United States has brought distortions in India’s present foreign policies, foreclosing many of its wider options afield, particularly India foreign policy towards Pakistan.
Military setbacks can accrue to India by United States continued military build-up of Pakistan and thereby affecting the India-Pakistan Military Balance. It is strategically strange that while the United States increasingly harps on the strengths of its Strategic Partnership with India, it concurrently keeps building Pakistan’s conventional military capabilities. Even a non-commissioned officer of the Indian Army would point out that it is a puerile US argument that it’s provision of combat fighter aircraft and long range maritime surveillance aircraft fitted with anti-submarine weapons to Pakistan are intended for augmenting Pakistan’s anti-terrorism warfare capability.
The Indian Prime Minister has failed in his foreign policy approaches to the United States to demand strategic ‘quid-pro-quos’ from the United States in relation to the adjustments and compromises he has made in Indian foreign policies to accommodate US strategic interests on Pakistan.
3) Peace with Pakistan: An Elusive Mythical Obsession of India’s Prime Minister
Peace with Pakistan is a desirable objective for India’s foreign policy. But the timing of peace and resumption of composite dialogue with Pakistan has to be decided by India’s assessments and readings of the contextual security environment and India’s national security interests.
The timings of such a process cannot be dictated by the United States to synchronize with the timings of its strategic overtures to Pakistan to serve US strategic interests. It does not require much imagination for anyone to assert that the United States and India have serious strategic divergences over Pakistan.
Additionally, has the Indian Prime Minister and his advisory team ever asked themselves the question as to why the United States constantly preaches to India on peace with Pakistan?
India despite repetitive Pakistani acts of terrorism against India has exercised restraint. Even today India stands aloof and strategically not taken advantage of the growing civil war within Pakistan. Then why does the United States resort to peace sermons to India on India-Pak peace knowing fully well that these need to be given to Pakistan only.
Further, in the past, and even now, Kashmir- mention is used as a strategic pressure point against India by US political leaders.
Sharm-al- Sheikh was a direct manifestation of the “distortions” that the “United States Factor” has induced in India’s current foreign policy formulation. The Havana Agreement 2006 was the earlier manifestation.
In both cases the “Indian foreign policy troika” of the Prime Minister, the National Security Adviser and the Foreign Secretary were the moving spirits behind these infamous appeasement concessions on terrorism to Pakistan, acting in duress under US pressures.
Does it behave a country of India’s size and potential to succumb to external pressures?
Fortunately, the force of Indian public opinion pressured the Congress President to make the Indian Prime Minister to retract from Sharm-al-Sheikh concessions to Pakistan. That does not lessen the gravity of the Indian policy establishment succumbing to external pressures especially over Pakistan.
Peace with Pakistan will continue to be an elusive myth till such time some Indian political leader emerges who can recognize that the only way to restrain Pakistan is to follow the US model against Russia in the Cold War.
Further peace with Pakistan will accrue when Indian Prime Ministers ensure that India’s war preparedness at all times is so high that coupled with Indian Prime Ministers demonstrating the will to use power, these two realities existentially deter Pakistan from provoking India and indulging in military adventurism against it..
Indian Prime Ministers down the line have not grasped the fundamentals of why peace with Pakistan will remain an elusive myth. The onus of bringing about India- Pakistan peace lies squarely on United States shoulders and not on India's shoulders.
The United States has consistently invented and re-invented Pakistan’s strategic utility for US national security interests. Pursuant to this fixation it has armed and re-armed Pakistan substantially and encouraged it to box much above its strategic weight.
Peace with Pakistan will therefore continue to be elusive till such time United States re-calibrates its South Asia policies with Pakistan removed from the centrality it occupies in US strategy.
4) China’s Containment was Implicit in Evolution of US-India Strategic Relationship: United States Now Shirks from It
Democracy and shared values were not the bed-rock of the advent of US-India’s Strategic Partnership. The bedrock of this evolving strategic relationship was an implicit understanding and strategic convergence that China’s rising military power needed to be contained for mutual strategic benefits.
American strategic literature of the preceding decade and even in this decade is alive with discussions to this end.
The American stress on joint exercises and enter-operability with the Indian Armed Forces was surely not for disaster management purposes. The underlying intent has surely been a possible China contingency.
Recent and latest United States foreign policy trends indicate that the United States is no longer imbued with a China containment strategy. Nothing could be more blasphemous for Indian ears than the latest US proposal of a G-2 (US and China) combine to control global affairs. The underlying content is not only economic but also a strategic compromise that the United States seems to be making with China.
Further, India’s Prime Minister and his team are seemingly unaware that it is a cardinal tenet of United States strategic policies that no single Asian nation emerges as the predominant power. To that end United States would continue to play more of a role of a “balancer” rather than side with India to offset China’s military rise.
India’s Foreign Policy Options (2004-2009) Foreclosed by “United States Factor” Primacy
India will now begin to strategically pay for its foreign policies or lack of foreign policies during the period 2001-2009 arising from giving a misplaced primacy to the “United States Factor” in its foreign policy formulations.
In respect of India’s main threat adversaries, namely Pakistan and China, India’s foreign policy options stand foreclosed because of the “US Factor”.
The Indian Prime Minister with all his proximity to the United State has failed to prevail and convince the United States to restrain Pakistan’s proxy war and terrorism against India.
Contrarily, the Indian Prime Minister is being pressurized to suffer Pakistan’s intransigence for the cause of greater American strategic good.
The United States constantly changing priorities in its foreign policy stances towards China makes it an unreliable partner of India to deal with its China threat.
In relation to Pakistan, the close relations of India with Iran were a counter weight. In relation to China, the longstanding Russia-India Strategic Partnership was an effective counter-balance and restraint.
According primacy to the “United States Factor” in India’s foreign policies during the period 2004-2009 led to a strategic downgrading of India’s foreign policy priorities towards Iran and Russia. Earnest hard work would be required now to resurrect these relationships.
With aspirations to emerge as a global power, India’s foreign policy cannot be converted into a US-centric mode. If the United States resorts to “balancing” India by use of Pakistan and/or China then Indian political leaders must learn to ‘balance’ the United States with an equally strong strategic partnership with Russia.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for years did not attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit meetings. It sent wrong signals to Russia.
In the same vein it needs to be pointed out that this Government should desist from making India’s military inventories totally reliant on the United States. There is a danger that this Government for political reasons may place the multi-billion dollar order for 126 combat fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force on the United States. By such a decision, in one single stroke, India would be mortgaging the cutting edge of India’s offensive capabilities to the mercy of a Pak-centric United States.
5) Concluding Observations
In earlier Papers of this Author a point that repeatedly stands made is that India cannot afford to emerge as a global player despite the United States or in opposition to it.
The opposite is also true that no global power has ever helped another aspiring power to emerge as a global power. This stands true for the United States and India too.
The United States may, and one repeats may, assist India to emerge as a “global player” but it will never assist India to emerge as a “global power” on equal terms with USA.
The years 2004-2009 have been “wasted years” in terms of India’s foreign policy formulations and its conduct. The overwhelming reason was that India’s foreign policy troika” comprising the PM, NSA and the Foreign Secretary made the United States as the “Central Pillar” of India’s foreign policy.
The resultant effect was that India stood disconnected from its proven traditional friendly partners.
It is high time, that with no end- gains having accrued from such foreign policy fixations, India’s foreign policy is re-calibrated and strong connectivities re-established with India’s proven friends.
An aspiring global power like India needs to have multiple foreign policy connectivities to provide flexibility of options.
India’s Prime Ministers need to emulate China. If the United States today talks of a global G-2 combine of USA and China to manage global affairs, it is because China has followed the dictum of a “mailed fist in a velvet glove.” and leveraged its national strengths to propel its rise on the global stage.
(The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email: drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com)
US Perfidy & Singh @ http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=301&page=14
Source: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers34/paper3355.html
Dr. Subhash Kapila
Aug. 13, -S.A.A.G.
Introductory Observations
The Indian Republic in the first fifty years of its existence maintained a strategic autonomy in the conduct of its foreign policy despite a much more limited national power profile and economic profile than that exists today.
Today, when India is economically vibrant and strong and India has been able to amass sizeable conventional and strategic assets, India to its citizens seems strategically tied down in adding muscle to the conduct of its foreign policy.
Adding muscle to India’s foreign policy does not imply war mongering or military adventurism. Adding muscle to India’s foreign policy implies that India’s national security interests are accorded a paramountcy in the conduct of foreign policies to the exclusion of the personal predictions of the Indian Prime Minister and his proximate foreign policy advisors. It also implies the existence of political will to secure India’s national security interests.
The period 2004-2009 has witnessed a bartering away of India’s national security interests. This trend stands examined in the Author’s SAAG Paper No.3210 dated 22 May 2009 entitled “India’s Foreign Policy 2004-2009: The Wasted Years:
The major part of India’s foreign policy failures in this time span and the distortions that willingly or unwillingly have seeped into India’s foreign policy (2004 – 2009) have resulted from policies or lack of policies generated by the predominance given by India’s current Prime Minister to the “United States Factor” in our policy formulations.
Co-attendant with the primacy given to the “United States Factor” in India’s foreign policy formulations during 2004-2009 has been the “parallel track” of “Pakistan-appeasement policies” out of deference to United States Pak-centric strategic sensitivities.
In the process, India can be said to have abdicated its much prized “strategic autonomy” (not to be confused with non-alignment) in its foreign policy formulations. In another sense, it can also be said that India has diluted its aspirations to become a global power.
The center of gravity of the global balance of power has shifted to Asia. India along with China are the two prominent stakeholders and determinants of this shift in the balance of power.
While China has leveraged this shift to her advantage, India’s foreign policies has not leveraged this shift in India’s favor. On the contrary, India’s current foreign policy has led it to seemingly emerge as more of a United States satellite or camp follower.
Rhetorical flourishes by United States political leaders and officials will not impart global power status on India. India has to earn its global power status by standing firmly on its own legs, build its strengths and demonstrate its strategic autonomy globally and regionally, and firmly demonstrate fortified by Indian nationalism, that it has the will to use power to secure India’s national interests.
This point is contextually relevant to the examination of the impact on India’s foreign policy formulations of the “United States Factor”.
This Paper intends to examine the main theme under the following heads:
The “United States Factor” in India’s Foreign Policy (2004-2009): No End Gains
Indian Prime Minister’s “Foreign Policy Romanticism” with United States Reminiscent of Nehru’s Romanticism with China.
Peace with Pakistan: An Elusive Mythical Obsession of India’s Prime Minister
China’s Containment was Implicit in Evolution of US-India Strategic Relationship: United States Now Shirks from it
1) The “United States Factor” in India’s Foreign Policy (2004-2009): No End Gains
The US-India Strategic Partnership much hyped in 2000-2001, including by this Author, now stands reduced to a “strategic relationship” only. That too is alive only in South Block corridors.
India’s expectant hopes attending the advent of evolving a US-India Strategic Partnership focused on multiple aims. At the core of these aims were (1) India’s rise to global power status with a US impetus (2) Strategic downsizing of Pakistan and limiting its “spoiler-state” role in South Asia (3) Joint US-India convergence in coping and managing of the growing military rise of China.
Post 9/11 and now Post Af-Pak Policy unveiling it should be clear to all right thinking Indians that the United States global and regional agenda in South Asia is not in consonance with India’s strategic expectations from the United States. The United States agenda is in contradiction to India’s national security interests and India’s national aspirations.
India’s supine foreign policies during 2004-2009 in accommodating United States strategic sensitivities “at all costs” has landed India in a position where there are “no end-gains” for India by according a primacy to the “US Factor” in India foreign policy formulation.
The above assertions stand fortified by the following manifestations:
Proximity to United States has not contributed to lessening of India’s threat perceptions emanating from Pakistan and China. United States has not contributed at all in this direction.
United States strangulating hold over Pakistan has not been exercised to prevent Pakistan’s proxy war and terrorism against India nor has the United States diluted the Pakistan-China strategic nexus
United States till today has not supported India’s candidature for the United Nations Security Council as a Permanent Member. It indicates US reservations on the emergence of India as a global power.
United States has revived or shortly will revive pressures that indirectly aim at capping/rolling back India’s nuclear weapons arsenal.
Strategically, the United States has only conceded the vast empty expanse of the Indian Ocean to India to extend its influence. The United States has not conceded that India is the predominant regional power in South Asia and that Pakistan must adjust its delusionary strategic mindsets accordingly.
Increased Indo-US military-to-military contacts are no index of a thriving US-India Strategic Partnership. One is now constrained to term it as a US-India Strategic Relationship. The United States has held itself back from adding enhanced strategic and political contours to the US-India relationship.
The most striking deduction from the above analysis is that India’s foreign policy (2004-2009) has been strategically misconceived and ill-advised in making the “United States as the “Central Pillar” of India’s foreign policy.”
2) Indian Prime Minister’s “Foreign Policy Romanticism” with United States Reminiscent of Nehru’s Romanticism with China
One would not be far wrong to term the Indian Prime Minister’s “Foreign Policy Romanticism” with the United States as reminiscent of Nehru’s similar romanticism with China. The results of the later were a great military setback for India.
It is not to suggest that the United States will attack India like China did. But an Indian monochromatic foreign policy focused on United States has brought distortions in India’s present foreign policies, foreclosing many of its wider options afield, particularly India foreign policy towards Pakistan.
Military setbacks can accrue to India by United States continued military build-up of Pakistan and thereby affecting the India-Pakistan Military Balance. It is strategically strange that while the United States increasingly harps on the strengths of its Strategic Partnership with India, it concurrently keeps building Pakistan’s conventional military capabilities. Even a non-commissioned officer of the Indian Army would point out that it is a puerile US argument that it’s provision of combat fighter aircraft and long range maritime surveillance aircraft fitted with anti-submarine weapons to Pakistan are intended for augmenting Pakistan’s anti-terrorism warfare capability.
The Indian Prime Minister has failed in his foreign policy approaches to the United States to demand strategic ‘quid-pro-quos’ from the United States in relation to the adjustments and compromises he has made in Indian foreign policies to accommodate US strategic interests on Pakistan.
3) Peace with Pakistan: An Elusive Mythical Obsession of India’s Prime Minister
Peace with Pakistan is a desirable objective for India’s foreign policy. But the timing of peace and resumption of composite dialogue with Pakistan has to be decided by India’s assessments and readings of the contextual security environment and India’s national security interests.
The timings of such a process cannot be dictated by the United States to synchronize with the timings of its strategic overtures to Pakistan to serve US strategic interests. It does not require much imagination for anyone to assert that the United States and India have serious strategic divergences over Pakistan.
Additionally, has the Indian Prime Minister and his advisory team ever asked themselves the question as to why the United States constantly preaches to India on peace with Pakistan?
India despite repetitive Pakistani acts of terrorism against India has exercised restraint. Even today India stands aloof and strategically not taken advantage of the growing civil war within Pakistan. Then why does the United States resort to peace sermons to India on India-Pak peace knowing fully well that these need to be given to Pakistan only.
Further, in the past, and even now, Kashmir- mention is used as a strategic pressure point against India by US political leaders.
Sharm-al- Sheikh was a direct manifestation of the “distortions” that the “United States Factor” has induced in India’s current foreign policy formulation. The Havana Agreement 2006 was the earlier manifestation.
In both cases the “Indian foreign policy troika” of the Prime Minister, the National Security Adviser and the Foreign Secretary were the moving spirits behind these infamous appeasement concessions on terrorism to Pakistan, acting in duress under US pressures.
Does it behave a country of India’s size and potential to succumb to external pressures?
Fortunately, the force of Indian public opinion pressured the Congress President to make the Indian Prime Minister to retract from Sharm-al-Sheikh concessions to Pakistan. That does not lessen the gravity of the Indian policy establishment succumbing to external pressures especially over Pakistan.
Peace with Pakistan will continue to be an elusive myth till such time some Indian political leader emerges who can recognize that the only way to restrain Pakistan is to follow the US model against Russia in the Cold War.
Further peace with Pakistan will accrue when Indian Prime Ministers ensure that India’s war preparedness at all times is so high that coupled with Indian Prime Ministers demonstrating the will to use power, these two realities existentially deter Pakistan from provoking India and indulging in military adventurism against it..
Indian Prime Ministers down the line have not grasped the fundamentals of why peace with Pakistan will remain an elusive myth. The onus of bringing about India- Pakistan peace lies squarely on United States shoulders and not on India's shoulders.
The United States has consistently invented and re-invented Pakistan’s strategic utility for US national security interests. Pursuant to this fixation it has armed and re-armed Pakistan substantially and encouraged it to box much above its strategic weight.
Peace with Pakistan will therefore continue to be elusive till such time United States re-calibrates its South Asia policies with Pakistan removed from the centrality it occupies in US strategy.
4) China’s Containment was Implicit in Evolution of US-India Strategic Relationship: United States Now Shirks from It
Democracy and shared values were not the bed-rock of the advent of US-India’s Strategic Partnership. The bedrock of this evolving strategic relationship was an implicit understanding and strategic convergence that China’s rising military power needed to be contained for mutual strategic benefits.
American strategic literature of the preceding decade and even in this decade is alive with discussions to this end.
The American stress on joint exercises and enter-operability with the Indian Armed Forces was surely not for disaster management purposes. The underlying intent has surely been a possible China contingency.
Recent and latest United States foreign policy trends indicate that the United States is no longer imbued with a China containment strategy. Nothing could be more blasphemous for Indian ears than the latest US proposal of a G-2 (US and China) combine to control global affairs. The underlying content is not only economic but also a strategic compromise that the United States seems to be making with China.
Further, India’s Prime Minister and his team are seemingly unaware that it is a cardinal tenet of United States strategic policies that no single Asian nation emerges as the predominant power. To that end United States would continue to play more of a role of a “balancer” rather than side with India to offset China’s military rise.
India’s Foreign Policy Options (2004-2009) Foreclosed by “United States Factor” Primacy
India will now begin to strategically pay for its foreign policies or lack of foreign policies during the period 2001-2009 arising from giving a misplaced primacy to the “United States Factor” in its foreign policy formulations.
In respect of India’s main threat adversaries, namely Pakistan and China, India’s foreign policy options stand foreclosed because of the “US Factor”.
The Indian Prime Minister with all his proximity to the United State has failed to prevail and convince the United States to restrain Pakistan’s proxy war and terrorism against India.
Contrarily, the Indian Prime Minister is being pressurized to suffer Pakistan’s intransigence for the cause of greater American strategic good.
The United States constantly changing priorities in its foreign policy stances towards China makes it an unreliable partner of India to deal with its China threat.
In relation to Pakistan, the close relations of India with Iran were a counter weight. In relation to China, the longstanding Russia-India Strategic Partnership was an effective counter-balance and restraint.
According primacy to the “United States Factor” in India’s foreign policies during the period 2004-2009 led to a strategic downgrading of India’s foreign policy priorities towards Iran and Russia. Earnest hard work would be required now to resurrect these relationships.
With aspirations to emerge as a global power, India’s foreign policy cannot be converted into a US-centric mode. If the United States resorts to “balancing” India by use of Pakistan and/or China then Indian political leaders must learn to ‘balance’ the United States with an equally strong strategic partnership with Russia.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for years did not attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit meetings. It sent wrong signals to Russia.
In the same vein it needs to be pointed out that this Government should desist from making India’s military inventories totally reliant on the United States. There is a danger that this Government for political reasons may place the multi-billion dollar order for 126 combat fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force on the United States. By such a decision, in one single stroke, India would be mortgaging the cutting edge of India’s offensive capabilities to the mercy of a Pak-centric United States.
5) Concluding Observations
In earlier Papers of this Author a point that repeatedly stands made is that India cannot afford to emerge as a global player despite the United States or in opposition to it.
The opposite is also true that no global power has ever helped another aspiring power to emerge as a global power. This stands true for the United States and India too.
The United States may, and one repeats may, assist India to emerge as a “global player” but it will never assist India to emerge as a “global power” on equal terms with USA.
The years 2004-2009 have been “wasted years” in terms of India’s foreign policy formulations and its conduct. The overwhelming reason was that India’s foreign policy troika” comprising the PM, NSA and the Foreign Secretary made the United States as the “Central Pillar” of India’s foreign policy.
The resultant effect was that India stood disconnected from its proven traditional friendly partners.
It is high time, that with no end- gains having accrued from such foreign policy fixations, India’s foreign policy is re-calibrated and strong connectivities re-established with India’s proven friends.
An aspiring global power like India needs to have multiple foreign policy connectivities to provide flexibility of options.
India’s Prime Ministers need to emulate China. If the United States today talks of a global G-2 combine of USA and China to manage global affairs, it is because China has followed the dictum of a “mailed fist in a velvet glove.” and leveraged its national strengths to propel its rise on the global stage.
(The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email: drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com)
US Perfidy & Singh @ http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=301&page=14
Source: http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers34/paper3355.html
Thursday, July 23, 2009
** Indias Nuke Drama
Indias New Nuclear Drama
Dr. Dipak Basu
Ivarta
The recent drama in the G-8 declaration that, unless India signs the NPT( Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) it will not get any nuclear enrichment and reprocessing plants meeting regarding the Indo-US nuclear treaty, has demonstrated the unrealistic approach adopted by India. The unrealistic expectation of India was that by signing the treaty India can somehow avoid the restriction imposed by the IAEA and NSG against proliferations of nuclear weapons. However, both IAEA( International Atomic Energy Agency) and NSG( Nuclear Suppliers Group) do not recognize India as a legitimate nuclear weapons state, as they made it clear to India in the treaty India has signed already as a non-nuclear weapons state.
Another unrealistic expectation was that USA wants to set up India as a bulwark against China and in future it would protect India against possible invasion from China. USA now being financially bankrupt depends on China to revive its economy and the new President Obama, guided by arch-enemies of India like Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter, and Madeline Albright, foreign secretary to President Clinton, has already declared the strategic partnership between USA and China.
The Reality Regarding Nuclear Drama:
Indian media or the government cannot blame USA now because India knew all along what was on the cards. The Vienna Treaty with NSG has clearly pointed out the following that would cripple India"s nuclear weapons programme. The Treaty says:
(1) "Participating Governments may transfer trigger list items and/or related technology to India for peaceful purposes and for use in IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguarded civil nuclear facilities."
(2) "Participating Governments may transfer nuclear-related dual-use equipment, materials, software, and related technology to India for peaceful purposes and for use in civil nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards."
(3) "At each Plenary, Participating Governments shall notify each other of approved transfers to India. Participating Governments are also invited to exchange information, including about their own bilateral agreements with India."
Thus, only for the facilities under the control of IAEA India can import fuel, materials and technology. It cannot import even from Russia, as Russia is a member of NSG and has to consult NSG to export any nuclear materials or technology to India particularly anything related to India"s Nuclear Weapons Programme; this was made clear in a recent Senate bill presented when the discussion on the 123 treaty with USA is in progress.. That would practically mean Fast Breeder Reactors and Reprocessing plants, being built by Russia, would be under the IAEA controls, otherwise Russia can not supply any materials or technology for these from now on. Thus, India"s nuclear weapons programme or the reactors in the military sector will be lame ducks for the foreseeable future unless and until Russia will come out of NSG.
123 Deal puts further restrictions. The Bush administration"s January 2008 letter to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, made public recently, brings out the following.
USA has given no legally binding fuel-supply assurance of any kind and there is no US consent to stockpiling of fuel reserves. India will not be allowed to build such stocks to avoid if US re-impose sanctions. US civil nuclear cooperation is explicitly prohibiting further nuclear tests by India even if warranted by Indian national security concerns. All cooperation will cease immediately if India conducts a test.
The US has retained the right to suspend or terminate supplies at its own discretion.
The 123 Agreement has granted India no right to take corrective measures in case of any fuel-supply disruption. Rather, India"s obligations are legally irrevocable and perpetual.
The Bush administration"s letter states that the 123 Agreement fully conforms to the Hyde Act provisions. "US government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies." Under the 123 Agreement, India has agreed to forego reprocessing until it has, in future, won a separate agreement.
123 Agreement Article 5(2) that, "Sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, sensitive nuclear facilities, heavy water production facilities and major critical components of such facilities may be transferred under this Agreement pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement." The Bush administration"s letter to Congress states that the US government had no plan to seek to amend the deal to allow any sensitive transfers.
Already the US senate has imposed a new clause in the Hyde Act that in future national security organizations of USA, which means CIA and FBI, would now collaborate with India regarding nuclear non-proliferation. This in effect would imply that US organizations would make sure India will not be able to gain any advantage to use its nuclear facilities to create nuclear weapons.
Section 104(d) (2) of the Hyde Act is related to the supply of nuclear fuel to the plants in India, which would be used to produce nuclear weapons, by using end-use monitoring of spent fuel by the IAEA and the US organizations. There are provisions in the legislation, which would putt a cap on fissile material production. These would end India"s nuclear weapons programme.
Alternative was available:
India was not a "Pariah" in the world of nuclear energy since 1974, as the media is suggesting, but India has become nearly self sufficient due to the help from the USSR and Russia. Russia, after India"s nuclear tests in 1974, was practically the only country for India as a source of materials for the nuclear energy industry including both nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. Russia along with the former Soviet Union so far has supplied India heavy water plants, reprocessing plants, Fast Breeder Reactors and two fresh nuclear power plants with the excuse that the contracts for these were signed between India and the Soviet Union in 1985, which Russia needs to oblige.
USSR has started for India the construction of the first FBTR (Fast Breeder Test Reactor) of capacity of 40 MWt (million watts thermal) in Kalapakkan in 1985. In 2008 Russia has started the construction of a Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor( FBR) of capacity 500 MWE (million watts electrical) in Kalapakkan. Associated Reprocessing plants in Kalapakkan were first built by USSR in 1985 and then in 1998 by Russia.
Without the nuclear deal with NSG and USA India could be able to maintain its nuclear plants by using reprocessed plutonium as a fuel in the FBRs and using its own uranium in the conventional plants. India could continue to get both onshore and offshore nuclear plants from Russia, as it would honour the Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1985. This is exactly what former President Putin and former Prime Minister Fradkov have suggested during their last visits to India, but India was not interested. In that case India would be at liberty to test and develop nuclear weapons any time it likes without any restrictions using plutonium from its FBRs and enriched Uranium from other nuclear plants. Indo-US Nuclear Deal and the Vienna Treaty with NSG on the other hand will increase both real and perceived restrictions on India that would in reality destroy any credible nuclear deterrent for India against possible attacks from either China or Pakistan.
Conclusion:
Section 103 of the Hyde Act suggests that the US would oppose development of a capability to produce nuclear weapons by any non-nuclear weapon state within or outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. The section requires the US to work with the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group to further restrict transfers of equipment and technologies related to uranium enrichment, reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and production of heavy water to all countries, including India. The legislation also requires the US government to seek to prevent transfer of these equipment and technologies from other members of NSG or from any other source. Section 104(d) (2) stipulates that transfers to India cannot begin without the NSG guidelines. Also, there are provisions in the legislation, which would putt a cap on fissile material production. The Senate Bill presented now will apply Hyde Act worldwide against India even when India will buy anything nuclear from any other countries within NSG.
International situation is rapidly changing. A new cold war has already started when USA wants to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia by including Georgia and Ukraine. USA is setting up missile launching stations in Poland and Czech Republic; in response Russia is setting up retaliatory missile stations in Kaliningrad, in the Russian exclave between Poland and Lithuania. Russia has already taken over South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia. USA already has cancelled its 123 Deal with Russia, imposed sanctions against Russian scientific establishment and will not allow Russia to do any nuclear trade with USA. It is quite possible that in retaliation Russia very soon will withdraw itself from the NSG, as the current President Medvedev has ruled out Russia"s obligation towards any further reduction of its nuclear forces under the SALT treaty. Russia is already supplying sensitive nuclear technology to Iran, Venezuela and Syria. India could just certainly wait for a few months rather than signing its surrender to USA in a great hurry.
By accepting the Vienna Treaty with NSG and the Indo-US 123 Deal, India is accepting a subordinate position in relation to USA and the Western countries, which is not needed for the future development of nuclear energy in India. Iran, Venezuela and Syria has not signed any 123 Deal with USA to receive nuclear plants from Russia. Pakistan is going to receive 6 nuclear plants from China without signing any 123 Deal with USA or any treaty with NSG or IAEA. India forgot the fact that NSG was created by the United States immediately after 1974 to punish India for its first atomic test. It was never directed towards Pakistan, who was allowed to accept whatever it wants from China.
China in 1985 has signed a very different 123 Treaty with USA as a recognized nuclear weapons state, whereas India in practice has given up its nuclear weapons by signing 123 Treaty with USA and IAEA as a non-nuclear weapons state.
The result will make Pakistan, which receives every nuclear weapons and missiles from China, much stronger than India in very near future.
Pakistan"s M-11 missiles obtained from China are mobile missiles although these have short ranges of 300km. "No-Dong" missiles obtained from North Korea with the approval of China has 1500km range. This can cover most important parts of India. Pakistan has no need, unlike that of India, to conduct any tests to maintain its nuclear weapons, as it can obtain these ready-made whenever it requires from China.
China has a formidable nuclear force located in Tibet directed against India. It has deployed some 125 long range (1700km or more) nuclear armed ballistic missiles, It has developed DF-31 ballistic missiles with a range of 8000 km, which can hit any parts of India from anywhere in China. Other missiles in the armory of China include CSS-2, CSS-3, and CSS-5 of 1700km range, which also can hit India from Tibet. China has decided to use Pakistan against India, by supplying whatever China has. Thus, Pakistan is now more powerful in nuclear weapons delivery system than India can be in near future.
That serves the geo-political interest of the United States with Pakistan as the bridge to the Islamic world. Gradual acceptance of Taliban by USA as recommended by Pakistan is already happening. The unfolding scenario will ruin India in the process when India will be forced to surrender also to the demands of Pakistan, a NATO ally of USA, and China, the most important business partner of the U.S corporations and on whom the fate of the US Dollar and the world economy depends. The possible appointment of the Richrd Holbrooke, the destroyer of Yugoslavia, a staunch anti-Indian and pro-Pakistani, as the negotiator between Afghanistan, India and Pakistan by the newly elected President Obama is the clear danger signal, which Indian political establishment is ignoring.
Due to the objections raised by USA, Russia is disinterested to continue to supply nuclear materials or power plants to India anymore. The sudden shift of Russia"s position is the result of India"s decision to ignore Russia since the days of Jaswant Singh first when he was the Foreign Minister of India and to buy weapons systems, aircrafts, submarines from Israel, Britain and France and India"s growing interest to purchase aircrafts from USA.
The nuclear offer of the US was never a friendly gesture to India as the Indian media had tried to to portray but a process of surrender for India regarding its nuclear energy and weapons programme. That process was indicated by President Clinton in 1998 when he declared openly that he loathed to even think that India-Pakistan can have nuclear weapons and the objective of the United States will be to roll back, curtail and eliminate India"s nuclear weapons programme. George Bush has followed that up using his charm and sweet talks, but the purpose was the same.
The media in India is giving the impression that USA is trying to make India as a bulwark against China. It was not true during the presidency of george Bush. It is absurd to even think about during the pro-Chinese presidency of Obama.
In fact, USA since 1972 has made China as a bulwark against the Soviet Union by supplying indirectly every type of weapons technology via Israel, France, Pakistan, and Turkey. USA also made China as the permanent member of the UN Security Council as a counterweight against the Soviet Union.
If USA wants to destroy China as a power, it can do so without firing a single bullet, but by just not importing from China and asking its allies not to import from China. USA had followed that policy in 1934 against Japan, but it has no intension to follow it against China, because that would undermine investments of large number of American companies and their profit.
China can also retaliate against USA just by selling its Dollar reserve, which would mean a massive devaluation of the US Dollar and destruction of the special status of the US Dollar as the international reserve currency - a fiat money by which USA can buy anything from the rest of the world just by printing its own currency. There is no need for the US to earn foreign exchange to pay for its imports or to pay for the American military bases all over the world in any other currency but in US Dollar.
This unique position would be diminished if China suddenly exchanges its Dollar holdings into Euro. That can destroy the American economy, as USA would not be able to use Dollar to get its imports. USA would be unable to pay for the expenses of the American military bases as well thus, reducing the US to a regional power, not a world power. Close bilateral relationship through trade and investments has made USA and China indispensable to each other.
Because of these threats to the American Dollar and the America"s special status as a super-power, USA is reluctant even to recognize Taiwan as a separate country, but still insisting upon the "one-China" policy which, basically approves Chinese colonialism over Taiwan. USA also has no policy towards Tibet or East Turkistan, which were colonized by China in 1949.
President Clinton has declared China as the strategic partner of USA. President Bush recently joined hands with China to oppose India"s possible membership of the UN Security Council. However, in 1972, President Nixon had no objection against China"s membership of the UN Security Council. USA even had forced the expulsion of Taiwan from the U.N to make room for China. President Obama just like President Clinton before him went to China and declared China, India"s enemy No 1, as the strategic partner of USA.
When India has declared after the nuclear tests in 1998 President Clinton has imposed sanctions against India and India was isolated in the world temporarily. President Bush has forced India to start the peace-process with Pakistan, who has already killed more than 50,000 people in the Jammu & Kashmir and has managed to spread terrorism throughout India, as the recent attack on Mumbai demonstrated. USA also forced India to abandon its development of long-range missiles and any further nuclear testing. As a result, India has no credible nuclear forces and is in no match for China. This situation will not change in future in favour of India, as USA does not want India to have either nuclear weapons or missiles.
USA is not offering India any advanced weapons system or aircrafts. The F-16 or F-18 aircraft, which USA has offered India is equivalent to Russian Mig-29, which India already got about ten years ago and is under production in HAL factories in India. USA is delivering same aircrafts to Pakistan for free as its aid programme against terrorism although Pakistan is the source of international terrorism.
A pure business deal from which USA not India will gain substantially is repackaged by the media as the friendly gesture of the United States to India.
The reality is that by accepting American pseudo-friendship India has become weaker than even Pakistan, who has long-range missiles fitted with nuclear weapons imported from China and can be used against India at any time.
As Pakistan has the policy of "first strike" with nuclear weapons, as obvious from the preparations of General Musharaf during the Kargil invasion of 1999, it is doubtful whether India, without the support of the Soviet Union as it had during both 1965 and 1971 wars, can withstand the first nuclear strike by Pakistan. The most likely scenario is that India will collapse, which would open the door for invasions by Pakistan, China, and Nepal.
India"s policy makers mainly diplomats from the Indian Foreign Service are excellent to surrender easily as they did in Simla Conference in 1972 and subsequently in every international gatherings. They, particularly the India"s ambassador to USA Mr.Ronen Sen and the national security adviser Narayanan, had advised the government to surrender to the American demand and to accept the control of the IAEA on the nuclear facilities in India.
They have failed to understand and still do not understand, as obvious from the statement made by Pranab Mukherjee that G-8 Declaration against India does not matter. The nuclear co-operation with USA would start the second phase of surrender to abolish nuclear weapons in India, but Pakistan, as an ally of both NATO and China, would still have nuclear weapons. It is unfortunate that the India"s so-called experts of foreign policy cannot see the reality but have decided to live in a fool"s paradise.
Warnings About China @
http://ultracurrents.blogspot.com/2009/07/warning-about-china.html
Dr. Dipak Basu
Ivarta
The recent drama in the G-8 declaration that, unless India signs the NPT( Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) it will not get any nuclear enrichment and reprocessing plants meeting regarding the Indo-US nuclear treaty, has demonstrated the unrealistic approach adopted by India. The unrealistic expectation of India was that by signing the treaty India can somehow avoid the restriction imposed by the IAEA and NSG against proliferations of nuclear weapons. However, both IAEA( International Atomic Energy Agency) and NSG( Nuclear Suppliers Group) do not recognize India as a legitimate nuclear weapons state, as they made it clear to India in the treaty India has signed already as a non-nuclear weapons state.
Another unrealistic expectation was that USA wants to set up India as a bulwark against China and in future it would protect India against possible invasion from China. USA now being financially bankrupt depends on China to revive its economy and the new President Obama, guided by arch-enemies of India like Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter, and Madeline Albright, foreign secretary to President Clinton, has already declared the strategic partnership between USA and China.
The Reality Regarding Nuclear Drama:
Indian media or the government cannot blame USA now because India knew all along what was on the cards. The Vienna Treaty with NSG has clearly pointed out the following that would cripple India"s nuclear weapons programme. The Treaty says:
(1) "Participating Governments may transfer trigger list items and/or related technology to India for peaceful purposes and for use in IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguarded civil nuclear facilities."
(2) "Participating Governments may transfer nuclear-related dual-use equipment, materials, software, and related technology to India for peaceful purposes and for use in civil nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards."
(3) "At each Plenary, Participating Governments shall notify each other of approved transfers to India. Participating Governments are also invited to exchange information, including about their own bilateral agreements with India."
Thus, only for the facilities under the control of IAEA India can import fuel, materials and technology. It cannot import even from Russia, as Russia is a member of NSG and has to consult NSG to export any nuclear materials or technology to India particularly anything related to India"s Nuclear Weapons Programme; this was made clear in a recent Senate bill presented when the discussion on the 123 treaty with USA is in progress.. That would practically mean Fast Breeder Reactors and Reprocessing plants, being built by Russia, would be under the IAEA controls, otherwise Russia can not supply any materials or technology for these from now on. Thus, India"s nuclear weapons programme or the reactors in the military sector will be lame ducks for the foreseeable future unless and until Russia will come out of NSG.
123 Deal puts further restrictions. The Bush administration"s January 2008 letter to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, made public recently, brings out the following.
USA has given no legally binding fuel-supply assurance of any kind and there is no US consent to stockpiling of fuel reserves. India will not be allowed to build such stocks to avoid if US re-impose sanctions. US civil nuclear cooperation is explicitly prohibiting further nuclear tests by India even if warranted by Indian national security concerns. All cooperation will cease immediately if India conducts a test.
The US has retained the right to suspend or terminate supplies at its own discretion.
The 123 Agreement has granted India no right to take corrective measures in case of any fuel-supply disruption. Rather, India"s obligations are legally irrevocable and perpetual.
The Bush administration"s letter states that the 123 Agreement fully conforms to the Hyde Act provisions. "US government will not assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies." Under the 123 Agreement, India has agreed to forego reprocessing until it has, in future, won a separate agreement.
123 Agreement Article 5(2) that, "Sensitive nuclear technology, heavy water production technology, sensitive nuclear facilities, heavy water production facilities and major critical components of such facilities may be transferred under this Agreement pursuant to an amendment to this Agreement." The Bush administration"s letter to Congress states that the US government had no plan to seek to amend the deal to allow any sensitive transfers.
Already the US senate has imposed a new clause in the Hyde Act that in future national security organizations of USA, which means CIA and FBI, would now collaborate with India regarding nuclear non-proliferation. This in effect would imply that US organizations would make sure India will not be able to gain any advantage to use its nuclear facilities to create nuclear weapons.
Section 104(d) (2) of the Hyde Act is related to the supply of nuclear fuel to the plants in India, which would be used to produce nuclear weapons, by using end-use monitoring of spent fuel by the IAEA and the US organizations. There are provisions in the legislation, which would putt a cap on fissile material production. These would end India"s nuclear weapons programme.
Alternative was available:
India was not a "Pariah" in the world of nuclear energy since 1974, as the media is suggesting, but India has become nearly self sufficient due to the help from the USSR and Russia. Russia, after India"s nuclear tests in 1974, was practically the only country for India as a source of materials for the nuclear energy industry including both nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. Russia along with the former Soviet Union so far has supplied India heavy water plants, reprocessing plants, Fast Breeder Reactors and two fresh nuclear power plants with the excuse that the contracts for these were signed between India and the Soviet Union in 1985, which Russia needs to oblige.
USSR has started for India the construction of the first FBTR (Fast Breeder Test Reactor) of capacity of 40 MWt (million watts thermal) in Kalapakkan in 1985. In 2008 Russia has started the construction of a Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor( FBR) of capacity 500 MWE (million watts electrical) in Kalapakkan. Associated Reprocessing plants in Kalapakkan were first built by USSR in 1985 and then in 1998 by Russia.
Without the nuclear deal with NSG and USA India could be able to maintain its nuclear plants by using reprocessed plutonium as a fuel in the FBRs and using its own uranium in the conventional plants. India could continue to get both onshore and offshore nuclear plants from Russia, as it would honour the Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1985. This is exactly what former President Putin and former Prime Minister Fradkov have suggested during their last visits to India, but India was not interested. In that case India would be at liberty to test and develop nuclear weapons any time it likes without any restrictions using plutonium from its FBRs and enriched Uranium from other nuclear plants. Indo-US Nuclear Deal and the Vienna Treaty with NSG on the other hand will increase both real and perceived restrictions on India that would in reality destroy any credible nuclear deterrent for India against possible attacks from either China or Pakistan.
Conclusion:
Section 103 of the Hyde Act suggests that the US would oppose development of a capability to produce nuclear weapons by any non-nuclear weapon state within or outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. The section requires the US to work with the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group to further restrict transfers of equipment and technologies related to uranium enrichment, reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and production of heavy water to all countries, including India. The legislation also requires the US government to seek to prevent transfer of these equipment and technologies from other members of NSG or from any other source. Section 104(d) (2) stipulates that transfers to India cannot begin without the NSG guidelines. Also, there are provisions in the legislation, which would putt a cap on fissile material production. The Senate Bill presented now will apply Hyde Act worldwide against India even when India will buy anything nuclear from any other countries within NSG.
International situation is rapidly changing. A new cold war has already started when USA wants to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia by including Georgia and Ukraine. USA is setting up missile launching stations in Poland and Czech Republic; in response Russia is setting up retaliatory missile stations in Kaliningrad, in the Russian exclave between Poland and Lithuania. Russia has already taken over South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia. USA already has cancelled its 123 Deal with Russia, imposed sanctions against Russian scientific establishment and will not allow Russia to do any nuclear trade with USA. It is quite possible that in retaliation Russia very soon will withdraw itself from the NSG, as the current President Medvedev has ruled out Russia"s obligation towards any further reduction of its nuclear forces under the SALT treaty. Russia is already supplying sensitive nuclear technology to Iran, Venezuela and Syria. India could just certainly wait for a few months rather than signing its surrender to USA in a great hurry.
By accepting the Vienna Treaty with NSG and the Indo-US 123 Deal, India is accepting a subordinate position in relation to USA and the Western countries, which is not needed for the future development of nuclear energy in India. Iran, Venezuela and Syria has not signed any 123 Deal with USA to receive nuclear plants from Russia. Pakistan is going to receive 6 nuclear plants from China without signing any 123 Deal with USA or any treaty with NSG or IAEA. India forgot the fact that NSG was created by the United States immediately after 1974 to punish India for its first atomic test. It was never directed towards Pakistan, who was allowed to accept whatever it wants from China.
China in 1985 has signed a very different 123 Treaty with USA as a recognized nuclear weapons state, whereas India in practice has given up its nuclear weapons by signing 123 Treaty with USA and IAEA as a non-nuclear weapons state.
The result will make Pakistan, which receives every nuclear weapons and missiles from China, much stronger than India in very near future.
Pakistan"s M-11 missiles obtained from China are mobile missiles although these have short ranges of 300km. "No-Dong" missiles obtained from North Korea with the approval of China has 1500km range. This can cover most important parts of India. Pakistan has no need, unlike that of India, to conduct any tests to maintain its nuclear weapons, as it can obtain these ready-made whenever it requires from China.
China has a formidable nuclear force located in Tibet directed against India. It has deployed some 125 long range (1700km or more) nuclear armed ballistic missiles, It has developed DF-31 ballistic missiles with a range of 8000 km, which can hit any parts of India from anywhere in China. Other missiles in the armory of China include CSS-2, CSS-3, and CSS-5 of 1700km range, which also can hit India from Tibet. China has decided to use Pakistan against India, by supplying whatever China has. Thus, Pakistan is now more powerful in nuclear weapons delivery system than India can be in near future.
That serves the geo-political interest of the United States with Pakistan as the bridge to the Islamic world. Gradual acceptance of Taliban by USA as recommended by Pakistan is already happening. The unfolding scenario will ruin India in the process when India will be forced to surrender also to the demands of Pakistan, a NATO ally of USA, and China, the most important business partner of the U.S corporations and on whom the fate of the US Dollar and the world economy depends. The possible appointment of the Richrd Holbrooke, the destroyer of Yugoslavia, a staunch anti-Indian and pro-Pakistani, as the negotiator between Afghanistan, India and Pakistan by the newly elected President Obama is the clear danger signal, which Indian political establishment is ignoring.
Due to the objections raised by USA, Russia is disinterested to continue to supply nuclear materials or power plants to India anymore. The sudden shift of Russia"s position is the result of India"s decision to ignore Russia since the days of Jaswant Singh first when he was the Foreign Minister of India and to buy weapons systems, aircrafts, submarines from Israel, Britain and France and India"s growing interest to purchase aircrafts from USA.
The nuclear offer of the US was never a friendly gesture to India as the Indian media had tried to to portray but a process of surrender for India regarding its nuclear energy and weapons programme. That process was indicated by President Clinton in 1998 when he declared openly that he loathed to even think that India-Pakistan can have nuclear weapons and the objective of the United States will be to roll back, curtail and eliminate India"s nuclear weapons programme. George Bush has followed that up using his charm and sweet talks, but the purpose was the same.
The media in India is giving the impression that USA is trying to make India as a bulwark against China. It was not true during the presidency of george Bush. It is absurd to even think about during the pro-Chinese presidency of Obama.
In fact, USA since 1972 has made China as a bulwark against the Soviet Union by supplying indirectly every type of weapons technology via Israel, France, Pakistan, and Turkey. USA also made China as the permanent member of the UN Security Council as a counterweight against the Soviet Union.
If USA wants to destroy China as a power, it can do so without firing a single bullet, but by just not importing from China and asking its allies not to import from China. USA had followed that policy in 1934 against Japan, but it has no intension to follow it against China, because that would undermine investments of large number of American companies and their profit.
China can also retaliate against USA just by selling its Dollar reserve, which would mean a massive devaluation of the US Dollar and destruction of the special status of the US Dollar as the international reserve currency - a fiat money by which USA can buy anything from the rest of the world just by printing its own currency. There is no need for the US to earn foreign exchange to pay for its imports or to pay for the American military bases all over the world in any other currency but in US Dollar.
This unique position would be diminished if China suddenly exchanges its Dollar holdings into Euro. That can destroy the American economy, as USA would not be able to use Dollar to get its imports. USA would be unable to pay for the expenses of the American military bases as well thus, reducing the US to a regional power, not a world power. Close bilateral relationship through trade and investments has made USA and China indispensable to each other.
Because of these threats to the American Dollar and the America"s special status as a super-power, USA is reluctant even to recognize Taiwan as a separate country, but still insisting upon the "one-China" policy which, basically approves Chinese colonialism over Taiwan. USA also has no policy towards Tibet or East Turkistan, which were colonized by China in 1949.
President Clinton has declared China as the strategic partner of USA. President Bush recently joined hands with China to oppose India"s possible membership of the UN Security Council. However, in 1972, President Nixon had no objection against China"s membership of the UN Security Council. USA even had forced the expulsion of Taiwan from the U.N to make room for China. President Obama just like President Clinton before him went to China and declared China, India"s enemy No 1, as the strategic partner of USA.
When India has declared after the nuclear tests in 1998 President Clinton has imposed sanctions against India and India was isolated in the world temporarily. President Bush has forced India to start the peace-process with Pakistan, who has already killed more than 50,000 people in the Jammu & Kashmir and has managed to spread terrorism throughout India, as the recent attack on Mumbai demonstrated. USA also forced India to abandon its development of long-range missiles and any further nuclear testing. As a result, India has no credible nuclear forces and is in no match for China. This situation will not change in future in favour of India, as USA does not want India to have either nuclear weapons or missiles.
USA is not offering India any advanced weapons system or aircrafts. The F-16 or F-18 aircraft, which USA has offered India is equivalent to Russian Mig-29, which India already got about ten years ago and is under production in HAL factories in India. USA is delivering same aircrafts to Pakistan for free as its aid programme against terrorism although Pakistan is the source of international terrorism.
A pure business deal from which USA not India will gain substantially is repackaged by the media as the friendly gesture of the United States to India.
The reality is that by accepting American pseudo-friendship India has become weaker than even Pakistan, who has long-range missiles fitted with nuclear weapons imported from China and can be used against India at any time.
As Pakistan has the policy of "first strike" with nuclear weapons, as obvious from the preparations of General Musharaf during the Kargil invasion of 1999, it is doubtful whether India, without the support of the Soviet Union as it had during both 1965 and 1971 wars, can withstand the first nuclear strike by Pakistan. The most likely scenario is that India will collapse, which would open the door for invasions by Pakistan, China, and Nepal.
India"s policy makers mainly diplomats from the Indian Foreign Service are excellent to surrender easily as they did in Simla Conference in 1972 and subsequently in every international gatherings. They, particularly the India"s ambassador to USA Mr.Ronen Sen and the national security adviser Narayanan, had advised the government to surrender to the American demand and to accept the control of the IAEA on the nuclear facilities in India.
They have failed to understand and still do not understand, as obvious from the statement made by Pranab Mukherjee that G-8 Declaration against India does not matter. The nuclear co-operation with USA would start the second phase of surrender to abolish nuclear weapons in India, but Pakistan, as an ally of both NATO and China, would still have nuclear weapons. It is unfortunate that the India"s so-called experts of foreign policy cannot see the reality but have decided to live in a fool"s paradise.
Warnings About China @
http://ultracurrents.blogspot.com/2009/07/warning-about-china.html
Bartering Kashmir ??? @ http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/jul/23/is-pm-bartering-kashmir-with-balochistan.htm
http://www.blogs.ivarta.com/Indias-New-Nuclear-Drama/blog-293.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
