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)