Only generals stand to gain from an Indo-Pak war

There is much tension in the air since the Pakistani cross-border raid at the Line of Control (LoC) killed two Indian soldiers. Media is full of emotionally-charged statements.

A bunch of news anchors have literally declared war on Pakistan and calls from the likes of Sushma Swaraj to bring “10 Pakistani heads” only add to the existing tensions.

Calls by a section of media for surgical strikes and war make it sound like a cakewalk. Pakistan military is no pushover and is competent enough to give us a bloody nose if any hastily-planned cross-border adventure is initiated.

Their forces are well-entrenched and are trained to stave off attacks from its eastern neighbour. American military aid in return for support role in the ‘war on terror’ has added some lethal firepower to Pakistan’s forces — not to mention the massive supply of military hardware it keeps receiving from China.

There is no doubt that Indian armed forces enjoy numerical superiority and possess better equipment. However, there is no guarantee of keeping the battles theatre-specific and short of the threshold that would provoke use of nuclear weapons.

More than anyone else (even more that news anchors who deliver what ‘THE NATION WANTS TO KNOW’ at top decibel) it is the generals of India and Pakistan who desperately need a war.

The image of Pakistan’s military has taken a serious beating in the last few years. An American SEAL team sneaked into their territory and bumped of Osama bin Laden and waltzed out before GHQ bosses in Rawalpindi could bat an eyelid. CIA drones operate in Pakistani airspace with impunity. Death of civilians when drone strikes go wrong has created a strong public resentment against the government and the ‘incompetent’ military.

Several incidents of military bases being targeted with ease by militants have caused the security establishment to lose their face. The military is also losing hundreds of soldiers in battles with Islamic militants — a situation into which it was arm-twisted by Uncle Sam. They are desperate for a diversion; something that would repose the faith of public in them as defenders of Pakistan; and nothing like a war to get this done.

Their Indian counterparts are much better off in terms of internal security. However, the uniform has lost much sheen after the Kargil conflict — thanks to scams involving high-ranking officials. From corruption in supply of rations to illegal sale of military land, a series of scams have seen generals being indicted and cashiered.

The birth certificate controversy involving the previous army chief saw some serious lows in civilian-military relations. General VK Singh’s outbursts about the shabby state of India’s military preparedness, quality of ammunition (and lack of it) and offer of bribes have caused the military’s image to hit a nadir. Therefore, the tough talk and pressure for cross-border strikes are only natural.

The LoC ceasefire that has been in place from 2003 has survived relatively unscathed despite several attempts by hawks among state and non-state actors on both sides of the border.

This has helped us divert resources for development and allowed us to stand tall when the rest of the world faced recession. It also allowed security forces to deploy more effectively and combat militancy in disturbed areas. A war would change all of this.

The sanctity of our borders must be safeguarded through appropriate mechanisms at each level. A local incident should not be allowed to hijack our national agenda and push the countries into a war that they can’t afford to fight.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on January 16, 2013.)

Superpower status a distant dream

As the 16th summit of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) kicks off in Tehran today, the world watches with keen eyes the position India will take in the global stage.

The NAM took birth due to the Cold War when a host of countries, then newly-independent or in dire poverty, decided they could not afford to offend either blocs. Though the NAM claimed moral high ground, it was primarily the desperation for aid from both the blocs that necessitated the movement.

The NAM had strength in numbers, but its role was inconsequential in international politics as all international bodies, including the United Nations, were structured to allow control by superpowers. The group of developing countries were reduced to fence-sitters and in course of time many drifted to either of the blocs and reduced their non-alignment to lip service.

India too could not escape this as the 1962 war with China made it realise that applause from its NAM friends do not translate into political and military power. Realpolitik considerations drove India into an all-weather friendship with Soviet Union and those bonds strengthened our position.

With the end of the Cold War and the emergence of a new world order, the relevance of NAM has come under question. Erstwhile Soviet satellite states are now Nato members and China has emerged as the uncrowned superpower.

However, Indian foreign policy continues to have one foot in the bygone era and is hindering our transition from a reg­i­onal player to a global power. From gas exploration deals in disputed waters off Vietnam to safeguarding our territory abutting the Line of Actual Control (LAC) — which Chinese patrols violate with impunity — we are being cowed down by our giant neighbour.

The Communist state has beaten India in most commercial undertakings across the world, especially in Africa, where the states were once India’s strongest allies. Sheer economic might and a ‘no-strings attached’ policy in regional politics have given the dragon a big edge.

Though nuclear-armed Ind­ia is considered a force to reckon with and its growing economy is emerging as a big draw for investors, there are policy flaws that undermine our credibility.

Pakistan continues to bleed India through a thousand wounds, terrorism being the primary weapon. From circulating counterfeit currency to the recent SMS/MMS campaign that triggered the exodus of people of North East from South India, our estranged sibling’s unabated attacks reduce our economic and military might to mere paper tigers.

Our deafening silence on decades of dictatorship across in West Asia and feeble support for Palestine shows that we are still incapable of pushing our agenda in the global arena. We were forced to scale down our support to Aung San Suu Kyi after the Burmese junta began harbouring and arming anti-India militants.

In the last few years, India has allowed the US to arm-twist it in several matters, including doing business with Iran. The nuclear liability Bill has been watered down to appease possible partners. Though they voice protest about its ‘stringent clauses’, Indian follow-up of Bhopal Gas Tragedy has demonstrated amply that the rules would be more of an irritant than measures that would enforce liability or accountability.

With government after government at the Centre crippled by alliance compulsions and giving in to populist (and incredibly stupid) measures, we have little offer to the rest of the world as a power that has the will to get its way — and unwilling to go all the way.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on August 29, 2012)

Exchequer needn’t foot bill for salvation

The ruling by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court that the Central government phase out the Haj subsidy (currently about Rs600 crore per annum) in 10 years has drawn bouquets and brickbats alike.
The Haj subsidy is being handed out since 1954 and around 1 lakh people avail it every year to travel to Mecca to fulfil the requirement laid out by Islam.
India is the only country to offer this subsidy.
The flights carrying the pilgrims to Jeddah are usually chartered ones because they return empty, and naturally the fare is two to three times higher than the usual flight charges in the same route.
The subsidy was introduced to allow the pilgrims some cushion in this regard. Some Islamic scholars are of the opinion that Sharia prohibits a pilgrim from availing aid in any form to travel to the Holy Land.
“A Haj is undertaken only if you have the money, are in good health, and have performed all your duties towards your family. Going on a Haj with money you borrowed from someone is absolutely prohibited,” says Shahi Imam of Delh’s Fatehpuri Masjid Mukarram Ahmed.
While some agree, others beg to differ. According to them, the withdrawal of the subsidy will take away from the poor faithful the only opportunity to undertake the pilgrimage.
The subsidies are not just confined to Haj alone, the Centre plays an active role in facilitating Amarnath and Kailas Manasarovar yatras. Hundreds of crores of rupees are spent indirectly in maintaining infrastructure and providing security to the pilgrims.
There are a few states that subsidise Christian pilgrimages to Israel and Palestine.
Subsidies for various communities and their religious activities are nothing more than a time-tested tactic of vote bank politics. The political leadership wants to be seen as the ‘providers’ who will cater to the spiritual and material interests of the masses.
When humanity was taking baby steps towards political organisations, the tribal chieftains and kings came up with their ‘divine origin’ theory where the ruler was the representative of god on earth and his authority was unquestionable.
Over the millennia, the spheres spiritual and temporal became separated (at least in the democracies) but the ability to swing public support through favouring religious affairs never lost its popularity among ruling classes.
The preamble of our Constitution clearly states the India is a secular state. The addition of ‘secularism was made 26 years after the Constitution came into effect, through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. The government must not favour or discriminate against any religion. So the government policy of subsidising religious activities is in contravention of the constitutional provisions.
Instead of following the pattern of separating religion and state, we have been following a policy of appeasement of communities. Governments of all hues have shied away from taking bold decisions on social reform for fear of backlash from one vote bank or the other.
The absence of a Uniform Civil Code allows each community to force their primitive justice system on their members.
Most of the times, it is the judiciary that has thrown the light of rational wisdom into the labyrinths where the stranglehold of religious leadership keep the faithful in medieval darkness.
Pressure from religious hawks kept the LGBT community under state-sponsored persecution under the draconian Section 377 of the IPC. Even under sharp criticism from courts, the government took several years to acknowledge that consensual sex between adults belonging to the same sex is not illegal.
The more the state dabbles in religious affairs, the more problems it will create. There will always be discontent and charges of bias.
We have plenty of material problems such as poverty, unemployment, social evils, illiteracy, inadequate housing and infrastructure, social justice and corruption that need all the attention and resources of the government.
Religion is each citizen’s personal matter and its pursuit should be left to them. It’s not fair to ask the people to foot bills of those in search of salvation.
(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on May 9, 2012)

Uncle Sam roars at terror, India purrs

The US announcement of $10 million bounty on Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafeez Sayeed has sent the entire Indian government, security and diplomatic circles into an applause overdrive. Little time was lost in appreciating the US gesture while reiterating New Delhi’s demand to Pakistan to bring the mastermind of 26/11 attacks to justice.
However, India’s reaction and subsequent rhetoric from various quarters resembles a kitten baring its claws in the shadow of a roaring lion and expecting to generate equal amount of awe.
Global diplomatic circles and definitely Pakistan are not fooled by the Indian sabre rattling. India has an abysmal record of following up its threats of punitive action and retaliation.
This was last evident when Pakistani terrorists attacked the Parliament in 2001. India mounted its biggest ever mobilisation, termed Operation Parakram, threatening to react with force if Pakistan did not rein in the terror operatives.
However, India chickened out in the face of Pakistani threat of first use of nuclear weapons. The massive operation which saw almost half-a-million troops and war equipment moved to forward offensive positions fizzled out — the balance sheet was thousands of crores wasted, several lives lost in accidents and loss of face in front of the international community.
More than a decade has passed and there has been no dearth of Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attacks on Indian soil. India has been liberally handing out warnings and threats at each occasion — hot pursuit a favourite phrase.
Even on this doctrine, the Indian establishment has not been able to speak in one voice. When a General talks about targeting militant camps across the border, the bureaucratic and political leadership openly declare their commitment to self-restraint.
The ultimate result of lack of political will to pursue the country’s national interests is that neither Pakistan nor the terrorists groups it nurtures take India seriously. And we have an inglorious legacy of letting every terrorist group to slaughter and walk away with impunity.
The chiefs of all Pakistan-based terrorist outfits have been travelling all over Middle East raising funds and the super-secretive RAW’s operatives have not even plucked a hair of any one of them.
Indian public could watch only with helplessness when Dawood Ibrahim and his confidants, who engineered the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, were seen LIVE on TV cheering during a Sharjah Cup match. This was at a time when Indian sleuths and international agencies such as the Interpol were following every procedure in the book to get him extradited (if they could locate him in the first place) for crimes committed in India.
No country allows terrorists to mess with it and walk away unscathed. After 9/11, the Americans launched a global war on terror and did not rest till Osama bin Laden was killed. The Russians, the French, the British and the Israelis go to any extent to seek and destroy the elements who threaten national security.
However, India is content with cumbersome procedures and strict adherence to international covenants, and that too in a complacent manner which would make the techniques of the 19th century Congress moderates look like militant nationalists.
After begging all over the world for information and extraditions, our result is always blank. India’s ‘most wanted’ criminals and terrorist operatives continue to ply their trade without any interruption. At times one can’t help but wonder if our government is waiting for god to punish them.
For all the touting of our military might and the elite special forces, we remain toothless by choice while the enemies of the country continue to bleed us through a thousand wounds.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on April 4, 2012)

We are not a nation of human guinea pigs

In a country of 120 crore people, where lakhs are born and almost the same number die every day, life comes pretty cheap — as shown by the unabashed continual of human drug trials sans conformation to ethical norms.
The recent expose by Lancet on unethical human trials that took place in a Madhya Pradesh government hospital shows the extent to which pharma companies have been able to sabotage the very system that should ensure good practices.
For pharma companies who want to conduct human trials, India offers several advantages such as low operational costs, large number of high-end private hospitals, English-speaking doctors and technicians and most importantly — a massive supply of diverse, impoverished people who can be used as human guinea pigs.
Getting information on medical records itself is difficult and involves a maze of rules, procedures and not the least, miles of red tape.
Well… there is more bad news. Only a small segment of the human trials take place in government hospitals, the rest take place in private clinics — which are not obliged to provide any information under the Right to Information Act.
Figures provided by the Lancet speak for themselves — up from about 50 human trials cleared in 2003, there have been 1,852 projects registered with the Clinical Trial Registry India (CTRI) in mid-2011. Ironically, this registry was set up only in 2007.
An even more shocking aspect is that the Madhya Pradesh government had banned all human drug trials in the State as recently as 2010 and the ban is still in force. The aberration that has been exposed in Madhya Pradesh is just the tip of the iceberg.
Drug companies of repute, both national and international, use clinical research organisations (CROs) to do the dirty work for them. The CROs, in turn, use services of dubious characters as agents to recruit the subjects (read victims).
Informed consent, which is mandatory, remains a farce as the subjects are usually illiterate or barely-literate and cannot read the elaborate forms (usually in English) that they sign. They are also equally unaware of the nature of the drug that is going to be tested on them and the possible side effects.
And even when the side effects surface at a later point of time, these people rarely have the means to get treatment or a collective mechanism to seek compensation. The most preferred human guinea pigs are tribals, most of whom are neither organised nor literate.
“The CRO industry generated $485 million in revenue in 2010—11 and has been growing about 12 per each year. The number of CROs grew from a handful before 2005 to more than 150 today. However, there is no government registry for CROs in India,” points out another reference in the Lancet report.
The worst part about the whole human drug trial episode is that the doctors, who have sworn to protect life and uphold medical ethics, are the facilitators for these unethical practices.
It has been only been seven decades since the notorious human experiments of Nazi doctors on inmates of concentration camps. We might be a democracy, but with laxity on regulations, we swing dangerously close.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on February 8, 2012)

French connection to serve multiple goals

Finalisation of French fighter jet Rafale as the choice for Medium Multi-role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) will give the Indian Air Force the much needed boost and plug the gap that will be left by the fast approaching retirement of Soviet-era MiG-21s.
The four-year tender process that began in August 2007 had six contenders — two from the US, one each from France, Russia, Sweden and a UK-Europe consortium. In April 2011, Dassault Rafale of France and Eurofighter Typhoon were shortlisted as the finalists and almost a year later the Frenchman walked away with the contract.
The $10-billion deal for 126 jets, which defence analysts point out may go up to $15 billion with ancillary contracts, will also take bilateral ties between India and France a few notches up. The deal came through at a time when the French industry is battling the fallout of the Eurozone crisis.
This is the second major Indo-French defence deal in the last six months after the $1.4-billion upgrade contract for IAF’s Mirage-2000 fleet. The contract will also boost India’s defence industry and science sectors with the mandatory clause that 50 per cent of the deal amount be invested in domestic partnerships.
The biggest beneficiary will be the PSU Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), which will manufacture 108 of the jets under a transfer-of-technology agreement; the rest will be supplied by Dassault in fly-away condition before 2015. The HAL team can also use the expertise thus gained from the process to enhance the quality of the indigenously developed Light Combat Aircraft and to develop technologies for future projects.
The MMRCA deal was on the verge of being scrapped a year back when offset proposals of contenders went missing from the IAF headquarters and later resurfaced on a South Delhi roadside. The defence ministry decided to go ahead with the shortlisting process after an internal probe concluded that the documents were part of an appendix and their disclosure would not put any of the contenders at advantage or disadvantage.
More than a defence purchase agreement, the MMRCA deal marks strategic shift in the defence policy. By refusing to heed the US pitch that bilateral ties will be hyphenated with business, India has sent out a clear message to the rest of the world that it doesn’t need a superpower to prop it up and that it will take unpopular decisions to protect its national interests.
By choosing the French fighter, India has told Uncle Sam that the American policy of sanctions and supply disruptions based on its whims and fancies — like it did after the 1998 nuclear tests — will put it at a disadvantage with the French and the Russians, who honour agreements regardless of calm or storm.
India’s decision to diversify its shopping destinations will also ensure that it will no longer be dependent on a single vender or power block for crucial defence supplies. It is also a message to Russia that it can no longer take India’s evergreen friendship for granted, nor allow disruptions in supply chain or maintenance contracts with other international suppliers vying for the massive Indian market.
The transparent and focused MMRCA deal has shown that with the right approach multiple targets can be achieved. With more potent additions to its arsenal, India has asserted that it is not going to bury its head in the sand in a troubled neighbourhood.

(This article was published as the editorial column in Postnoon on February 1, 2012)