Foerign p;olicy lessons through animals

Let Pakistan remain the most favoured pet (MFP)

After 9/11, the US has been performing the balancing act in the region with great astuteness. The US deftly tilts the balance some time in Pakistan’s favour and some time in India ‘s favour, by rebuking both (India and Pakistan) and annoying none. The constant fluctuations in the US stance have prevented the Indian strategists from drawing a clear-cut strategy to deal with the US.
Ever since the end of the cold war and the non-aligned movement going well nigh defunct, India has been trying to grapple with the vexing question of, how to deal with the USA in a predominantly unipolar world?
In view of the recent developments this question has acquired added significance. Because, developing robust military ties with America is a watershed event in history of Indian foreign policy. Although, India has the past experience of military ties with a major power. However, the terms and conditions of a military tie-up in a unipolar world are at great variance from that of the bi-polar world. How our relationship evolves with United States only time will tell. But, how we behave in our negotiations with the sole super in the world is of crucial importance at this stage. Towards this end our experts, in addition to following the foreign policy doctrines could also enlighten themselves by studying the history of animal kingdom.
Millions of years ago, man established his hegemony over other forms of life. The two small and insignificant members of the animal kingdom were the first to comprehend these developments in the jungle politics. The forefathers of cats and dogs correctly understood the human power. The two animals developed a symbiotic relationship with the human beings to survive the fast changing environment.
The approach, which the two animals adopted for being accepted as human pets, was uniquely different. The dog which is the bigger and taller of the two animals bent itself backward to fit into the human fold. It completely dissolved its identity and started following the dictates of its master without ever complaining. Despite, the occasional flogging it received from its master, the canine continued to serve with unflinching servility and followed his master who always kept him under leash. It wagged its tail to receive two square meals, and became absolutely dependent on man.
On the other hand, the cat had a different strategy to come closer to the human beings. It preserved its sovereignty, without loosing any of the inherited from its big brother Lion. Unlike, the dog, the cat, mainly used its charm to entice the humans to feed it. Despite being hated and considered a bad omen by few humans, the cat continued to enjoy the privileges of a pet and roam the human streets in its typical gait without any fear. Thus the two animals using their distinct methods were able to make inroads into the human habitat and ensured their permanent space in the human kingdom. I have chosen to mention the story of transition of cats and dogs form animal kingdom to human kingdom, mainly because there are a lot of hidden lessons for strategists.
Take for example Pakistan, it is an ardent follower of 'Dog diplomacy' (DD). It blatantly relies on its shouting (On Kashmir) skills to woo America. It has ditched its own brother the Taliban and its own people to follow its master. It continues to wag its tail for free aid to feed its ailing economy and keeps demanding a few crumbs in the form of arms and ammunition to prevent itself from being extinct. The USA had earlier left Pakistan to fend for itself, but soon the US found that stray Pakistan had started biting people and was more of a menace. It has once again given her the status of a US watchdog in the South Asian region.
India, on the other hand is a large and powerful nation with an agenda and philosophy of her own. We need not design our diplomacy and post cold war strategy based on DD. We should neither be unduly perturbed about the developing US-Pak nexus nor should we endeavor to replace Pakistan from the most favored pet (MFP) position in the US list. We need to evolve 'Cat diplomacy' (CD). Because following CD in spirit, we can come closer to the west without threatening our sovereignty. We have already enhanced our charm through IT, naval power and economy, and should continue to wage war against the mice like terrorists without causing any undue alarm and noise. Finally, in a cat like fashion, we can allow ourselves to be cuddled by the big powers but without giving up our ferocity.

Managing Stress

Art and Adversity

Experts say that in the modern or rather post modern world every person has to cope with lots of stress both at work place and at home. Somebody’s wife is not kissing; secretary not licking; boss is constantly kicking. There could be numerous other reasons causing increased levels of stress. But despite all these stresses man/woman continues to live and survive. Each one of us devise our own methodology to deal with stressful situations. I will tell you a story from my National Defence Academy (NDA) days- on how I dealt with one particular situation through the use of art form.
During my childhood the movie which had influenced me the most was Anand. The way Rajesh Khanna (Babu mushei) deals with the adversity left a lasting impression on my mind. This belief was reinforced by Munshi Premchand’s story ID Gaha, which we had read in our Hindi text book in 9th or 10th standard. The core of the story was “dukuoon mein bhi takhake (Laugh) lagana sikho”. Both the movie and the piece of literature helped me to develop my indigenous variety of stress management tools.
Coming back to my NDA story. It is a story about the last and final camp which we were required to undergo before the passing out parade. After finishing the camp fire, and enjoying loads of tipsy pudding (trifle fruit), the last exercise was a 20 Km padyatra (walk) beginning at 2’0 clock in the night.
My squadron consisting of 20 guys gathered together with all our packs and tummies full with tipsy pudding. The report was made to a surdy army officer. He looked at us from tip to toe and said “look guys this is tough exercise, the sis’s can fall out”. Somehow during my entire stay at the NDA, I had never been able to impress this guy. He had always considered me to be big shammer, a passenger who just did the required bit. He looked at me again and said “when the going gets tough the tough report sick”.
During the last exercise I had developed a big blister at the back of my ankle and the heavy ammunition boot, which I was wearing, was troubling me. I was seriously contemplating falling out and taking the easier route of traveling in an ambulance. But the contempt in that surdy officer’s eyes and sarcasm in his voice emboldened me to take the plunge. Moreover, since I was a naval cadet that army officer considered us little inferior in physical work. I did not want to pass out without completing this last exercise.
The padyatra started at two in the night. We started moving through bushes and mountains. As we progressed my blister started getting worse and the pain began to increase. I started falling behind. It was becoming increasingly difficult to carry my rifle and other load. My course mates who were not aware of my blister kept encouraging me, and I kept walking. As the sun began to rise my hopes of completing the walk started to diminish. The pain was almost unbearable and the fever was also beginning to shoot up. But there was no question of giving up. So, I kept walking bringing up the rear. I finally completed the walk reached NDA around 11:30 in the morning and just fell flat hurting my forehead with the tip of the rifle.
I don’t know what gave me the strength to achieve my aim but throughout the walk I kept humming Gulam Ali’s gazal to myself: Jinke Honton (Lips) pe hasie (smile) paoon (Feet) mein Chale (Blisters) hoonge, haan wahi mere chaahne wale hoonge.” These few lines gave me tremendous strength to cope with the adverse situation.
Did you discover, that I am writing this to cope with some stress in my life? Yes, writing is giving me tremendous satisfaction and energy to cope with the stress caused due to a young girl in my office insisting on calling me ‘sir’ and not Atul.

India Defence Privatization

C all to Arms!

Will the Indian establishment show consistency in nurturing an indigenous arms industry and make Indian defence self-reliant?

Imagine, the hostilities have broken out between India and its primary adversary. The Indian naval warships & airforce combatants deployed in the war zone are all set to launch their missiles onto the enemy vessels & territory. And suddenly, they find their navigation equipment – dependent on feed from the US-based global positioning system (GPS) – giving erroneous output. The war machines go blind because they don’t know where they are and in which direction to turn. The missiles with faulty navigation technology are flying helter-skelter. All plans go haywire. This is a possible scenario, which the defence strategists often discuss to bring out the dangers of over-dependence on foreign defence technology & the importance of indigenisation. One needs to understand that any country, which aspires to be a global power, cannot remain indefinitely dependent on the outside world for too long (during the period 2004-2007, India’s defence import expenditure stood at whopping $10.5 billion. India is the third largest arms importer in the world; among the developing countries, it tops the list of defence hardware). India’s current dependence on foreign arms is quintessentially a stop-gap arrangement before it can attain the expertise to stand on its own feet in terms of arms production. It is this realisation, which has led the government to reform the Indian arms manufacturing industry. Much in consonance with the DRDO objectives of achieving 70% indigenisation in defence production by 2005 (unfortunately, only 30% has been achieved till date); guided by the recommendations of Dr. Vijay L. Kelkar committee (constituted in 2004) and Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) 2007 paper titled ‘Avenues for Private Sector Participation in Defense’, the government finally decided to undertake revolutionary measures to chaperon the Indian private firms into hallowed precincts of the Indian defence. That the government has finally agreed to grant the status of “Raksha Udyog Ratan” (RUR) status to a selected few Indian companies, to provide products and services support to the Indian armed forces, is indeed an unprecedented step in the history of independent India. According to Brigadier Khutab Hai, CEO, Mahindra Defence Systems, “We should be allowed to develop high-tech weapons platforms by benefitting from R&D funding, sharing knowledge with the DRDO and working with the services headquarters to have a clear idea of their requirements well ahead of time.”

In fact, this understated revolution in armed forces is of far greater significance than the much touted “Revolution in Military Affairs” (resulting from advanced computing and communication technology). By identifying a few companies as RURs and bringing them at par with the Defence Public Sector Units (DPSU), the government has unequivocally asserted that the Indian defence has “nothing to lose, but chains.” The chains which had tied the defence sector to whims and fancies of the DPSU. It is not that the private sector was never involved with the defence production (in the period 2001-07, the private sector had got outsourced jobs worth $700 million from DPSUs and Ordnance Factories). Despite these impressive figures, the private role in defence has been confined to production of ‘nuts & bolts’ only, “the DPSUs with roughly 200,000 employees will continue to dominate this sector for some time to come,” K. Santhanam, an eminent scientist, former Project Director Pokharan II nuclear tests, told B&E. “The current policy envisages to catapult the private firms to play a bigger role now; promoting private participation in key areas like production of sensitive equipment including aircrafts, submarines, missiles, radars, underwater sensors, communication equipment and, last but not the least, a role in developing the strategic nuclear assets too.” Deba Mohanty, senior fellow with the Observer Research Foundation told B&E. A range of companies: TATA Power, Mahindra & Mahindra, Kriloskar, Ashok Leyland, Wipro, & others, are likely to be identified to supply products and services. India’s defence expenditure, which is slated to gallop at 7% annually for the next decade, is certainly an attractive proposition for Indian business community. However, it is equally appealing to the economists, as well the government, who intend to save huge foreign exchange & enhance the manufacturing base by enabling the Indians to produce, what for years we have been importing from Russia, USA, France, UK and Israel. Furthermore, reading the fine print in the MoD “Guidelines for the Selection of Industry ‘Raksha Udyog Ratnas’/ ‘Champions’ In Defence Production”, (No.9(8)/2005/D(S-III), 09 May 2006), it is revealed that the outsourcing being talked about is not confined to equipment and platform production only. The government is not just talking about creating Indian versions of Raytheon & Lockheed Martin. The concept also includes building the Indian Halliburtons’ & L3 (companies engaged in providing security, logistic management, training and other services to the US army, engaged in Iraq and elsewhere). If this was to happen, we would soon find the Indian firms more closely associated with defence logistics and training in India. The training on state-of the art aircraft & ship-handling simulators could be easily provided by Indian computer giants. We could have big retail players, like Reliance Retail, take over major functions, now performed by Army Supply Corps (ASC). This is not an artists dream, it is a global trend widely prevalent in the USA and the UK. The enormity of reforms under way in the defence sector is nothing short of a tectonic shift in the way defence has been perceived for years. The private players will soon begin to shed their corporate attire and begin to adorn the camouflage fatigues, because the dilapidated & decrepit DPSU’s infrastructure is in urgent need of competition. And India surely needs a military industrial complex, which can help it gain dignity in a predominantly Darwinian world.

BANGLADESH: ELECTIONS

Dhaka democracy!

A military backed democracy is a sham to fool people

A military ruler announcing the election dates in a country & urging the people, “Don’t sell your vote and don’t allow others to do that”, is a perfect example to understand the meaning of the word ‘oxymoron’. Because, the moment, the Generals’ begin to decide the fate of democracy, one should start counting the days left for the death of freedom. And that is exactly what is transpiring behind the scenes in Dhaka, where constant trampling of democratic norms has pushed the nation towards a political mess.With the general elections slated to be held in December 2008, one is hardly sanguine about the prospects of a well-intentioned liberal set-up to emerge in the near-future. The sight & sound of polls may make the US Charge d’ Affaires Geeta Pasi sing a happy note, “Bangladeshis have entrusted the caretaker government with a great responsibility, including to put into place a foundation for a free & fair election by the end of 2008 & a healthy, functioning democratic system that Bangladeshis deeply desire.” But, the facts on ground indicate that the military backed caretaker government will produce only an ‘embedded democracy’, devoid of powers to sustain people’s choice.Recently, when Bangladesh Army Chief General, Moeen U. Ahmed pronounced the forthcoming election dates, one wondered why does a General (enjoying all the powers and privileges of running a proxy administration in a nation), go in for elections. One is pretty sure that the General and his cohorts do not have any genuine love for democracy. It is mainly the intense pressure exerted by the international community & the Bangladeshi expatriates living in the West that has forced the General to relent. But one and a half year is a long period in the history of an instable & poor nation like the Bangladesh. And when the army will do an about turn and decide to renege on its promise to restore democracy, will remain a million dollar question.

Earlier, elections that were scheduled to be held on January 22 were cancelled; emergency installed and political leaders of the two major political parties – former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League and her arch rival Khaleda Zia of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) were asked to pack their bags and leave the country. Through this rather bizarre act, the military, ostensibly intended to introduce a ‘new brand of democracy’ in the nation, bereft of leadership capable of providing stability. But little did they realise that “in their urge to get back the lost power, the two parties are likely to add to the political chaos”, says Sanjay Bahadur of the School of International Studies, JNU, while speaking to B&E.In 1971, when India had helped create Bangladesh, it had believed that its eastern neighbour would be a political model distinct from its erstwhile colonial master, Pakistan. But ‘old habits die hard’. Today, Bangladesh is a carbon copy of Pakistan. Just as military is considered to be an indispensable part of Pakistani politics, Bangladesh Foreign Adviser, Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury too feels that since Bangladesh is a “violent and crime-inflicted society with trans-border links, the army must assume a more robust role.” Now how does one reconcile this love for military dictatorship with their urge to dream democracy? All one can say is, insha’Allah!
B&E

Civil-Military Relations-India

Published in B&E

Down down babudom!

Improved civil-military ties is a must for a nuclear nation

Management & governance are the buzz words in a globalised world. It is not just the corporates who are spending sleepless nights to re-model their structures – the sloth-ridden government is also getting into action to catch up with market forces. The example of this trend is provided by the recently released Group of Ministers (GoM) report dealing with Defence Management. In April 2000, the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpaee had tasked the GoM to do a thorough review of the national security. The GoM under the stewardship of L. K. Advani (then Minister of Home Affairs) had constituted four different task forces for the purpose of studying the intelligence apparatus, internal security, border management & the management of defence. The Defence Management task force under former Minister of State for Defence Arun Singh was delegated to look into the India’s Higher Defence Control Organisation (HDCO) and suggest ‘out-of the box ideas’ to integrate the three Service HQs with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) & also deal with matters as important as Procurement Organisation & Procedures; Planning & Budgeting; Defence Production; Defence Research & Development; Personnel Matters & National Defence University. Despite some good recommendations to establish synergy between the MoD & the armed forces, “the hand of babudom is clearly visible in the report. In fact it has a touch of humour. It is proposed that the Defence Secretary & the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) should be treated at par, irrespective of the warrant of precedence, and each should attend meetings called by the other. Similarly, it recommends that civilians in the MoD should be provided certain facilities available to the Armed Forces, like membership of clubs, medical facilities et al, so that they develop a sense of ‘belonging’ to the defence establishments and vice versa. So you will soon find the Army Golf Course and the clubs full of the babus of MoD and their families. That will certainly promote belonging, because after some time, these institutions will belong to them, not us,” Maj. General (Retd.) V. K. Singh sarcastically put across his point to B&E.

There is a historical background to the existing tensions in the civil-military relations. Ever since Independence, one of the major cribs of the defence forces has been their declining status in the national security management structures. During the British period when the Commander-in-Chief (a single head of all the three services was also the Defence Member of the Governor General’s Council), his was the last word. When on August 15, 1947, the C-in-C post was abolished, the job of coordinating & integrating the three services went into MoD’s lap. The Armed Forces, which had occupied a higher position in the government’s protocol list under the British dispensation, have perceived their power and position being severely compromised. Immediately after throwing away the yoke of British rule, the Indian political leadership wanted to consolidate democracy & was surely vary of the army, which had been brought up under the tutelage of British Imperial Defence. However, as the Indian democracy matured, the political trust in the Armed Forces also increased. Although, the army was unable to prove its mettle in 1962 war with China, the event was watershed in the nation’s history, because it made the Armed Forces a part & parcel of the nation-state. Subsequent wars proved the professionalism of the defence forces & their willingness to strengthen the democratic polity. However, despite these efforts the defence forces were kept out of the higher decision making loop. The blame for this state of affairs is shared equally by the bureaucracy & the political class.One cannot dispute the need to solve the civil-military conundrum. Any attempt by the civilian authorities to usurp the perks enjoyed by the forces will only lead to aggravating the problem. The civilians directly involved in defence affairs need to be made more aware of the environment and the conditions under which the forces operate. It is only by creating a more congenial relations that the democracy will be strengthened.
B&E

US Iraq Policy

Mercenaries of the world unite

Even if the troops withdraw, occupation will continue in perpetuity
“You can fool some people sometime, but not all the people all the time.” While majority of the sane world understands the wisdom ingrained in this ancient thought, Bush simply refuses to learn. First, he fooled the world by spreading the canard about Iraqi nuclear weapons and now, he is busy making a mockery of the American democracy by keeping the Congress and the world engaged on the issue of reduction & withdrawal of 160,000 official US troops from Iraq. The reality is, apart from the official army, “a ‘shadow force’ – 180,000 mercenaries working for more than 630 ‘Private Military Companies’ (PMCs) are assisting US in perpetuating the illegal occupation of Iraq. And the top beneficiaries of the privatisation of war are: British firm Aegis Defence Services ($293 million contract from Pentagon); Texas-based DynCorp. International ($1 billion contract to provide personnel to train Iraqi police forces) & Blackwater USA ($750 million contract from US State Department for diplomatic security),” Jeremy Scahill, a noted expert on private security shared with B&E. And if you thought that these are innocuous looking private security companies, you are mistaken! These companies are armed to teeth with latest arms & engage in combat.Bush is certainly not the pioneer in resurrecting mercenarism; however, he cannot be absolved of the sin of giving the phenomenon a fillip. And this he has done simply to subvert & circumvent both the international & domestic laws curtailing the use of force for aggression of a sovereign land. And also to ensure that even if he loses elections and the troops withdraw; his most favoured MNCs will continue to suck the Iraqi blood & oil with impunity.

B&E

Malaysia

Published in B&E

bondage & state brutality

The in-human Malaysia laws prevent multi-racial couples from living in peace & harmony

Years back, noted Indian author & journalist Khushwant Singh, writing on the man-woman relationship, had remarked that only death & adultery can end a relationship. Khushwant, may have been right, if the bonds were only dependent on the internal dynamics operating within a relationship. However, there are scores of religious & social pressures, which add malleability to an otherwise strong relationship. This fact is being regularly proved right in Malaysia, where married men & woman belonging to different faiths are being ruthlessly separated to prove the predominance of faith over an individual’s right to lead a life of his/her choice.Recent reports have revealed that Malaysian authorities adhering to Islamic tenets have declared the marriage between a Muslim girl, (Najeera Farvinli Mohamed Jalali – an ethnic Indian) & a Hindu boy (Magendran Sababathy) as illegitimate & charged them for “illegal cohabitation”. Not only this, before pronouncing the verdict the authorities had imprisoned the girl for four months under gruelling conditions. The archaic Malaysian laws prohibit cross-religious marriages. However, with Najeera denying adhering to Muslim religion, it is arguing that she isn’t obligated to follow the Islamic law. “I don’t think there’s a legal basis for them to do it,” says Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, a human rights lawyer.The so-called ‘progressive Islamic’ state (which claims to be secular) has three major ethnic communities (Malays, Indians & Chinese). However, the polity is overtly pro-Malay. The constitution guarantees freedom of worship but forces Islam on all ethnic Malays & treats them under the ambit of Sharia law. While Indians & Chinese can seek justice in civil courts, the Malays perforce have to go through the rigours of Sharia courts. And this Malaysia proudly describes as its unique form of pluralism, distinct from the European discourse on multiculturalism. It is this very distorted form of secularism, which has prevented Najeera from conjoining with her husband.Earlier in May 2007, the country’s apex civil court had denied Lina Joy to remove ‘Islam’ from her identity card. The court had denied her the right to convert to Christianity on the grounds that “You can’t at whim and fancy convert from one religion to another.” All these laws and actions of the Malaysian state are only widening the racial fissures in the society. The government cannot go on endlessly appeasing the cohorts of political Islam and then take refuge under the fact that their definition of Human Rights is different from that of the Europeans. The defiant Malaysian couples should continue their struggle humming the English poets words – “One who falls in love without taking it to the final conclusion, is like one who goes on a sea voyage only to become sea-sick.”

B&E