A homage

Today is a sad day in India’s history. A young girl lost her life having faced the bestiality of a group of animals in the form of Man. Unfortunately, she was not alone – it is an all too frequent issue in our country. Action needs to be taken against all who were responsible, including those in power. But that can wait for another day. Ghalib wrote a poem when his cousin Arif died young. I take his words to pay my homage to the one who died. 

Aaye ho kal aur aaj hi kahte ho ki jaaun mana ki hamesha nahi acchha koi din aur Jaate hue kahte ho qayamat ko milenge kya khub! qayamat kaa hai goya koi din aur Tum kaun se the aise khare dad-o-sitad ke kartaa maluk ul-maut taqaaza koi din aur Haan ay falak-e-piir, jawan tha abhi arif kya tera bigarta jo na marta koi din aur

आये हो कल और आज ही कहते हो कि जाऊं माना कि हमेशह नहीं अचछा कोई दिन और जाते हुए कहते हो क़ियामत को मिलेंगे कया ख़ूब क़ियामत का है गोया कोई दिन और तुम कौन-से थे ऐसे खरे दाद-ओ-सितद के करता मलक उल-मौत तक़ाज़ा कोई दिन और हां अय फ़लक-ए पीर जवां था अभी `आरिफ़ कया तेरा बिगड़ता जो न मरता कोई दिन और

How much time has passed since you came into the world? It's as if you came only yesterday, and today you're saying that you're going. I agree that you won't stay forever, but stay a few days more. Why are you in such a hurry to die?

At the time of taking leave of me, you promise to meet on Doomsday. From your saying this it seems that Doomsday has not come today, but will come some other time. For me, the day of your death itself is Doomsday

if the Angel of Death presented his claim on your life, so what? It was only the first reminder. You didn't have to pay him at once, that very instant! Since when were you so scrupulous about such things? Why did you show an appalling (and uncharacteristic!) degree of scrupulousness-- all too quickly you accepted his claim, and gave your life into his power.

O ancient Sky the one dying was young, he hadn't reached his natural lifespan. If he had remained alive for some days more, what harm would it have done you?

Update on Defence and related issues

An update on current status of defence, nuclear deterrent and our neighbours:

Pakistan receives latest F-16's with night fighting capabilities

NSG Update from Vardarajan - US attempts but fails to stop ENR technology transfer to non-NPT countries (INDIA)

K Subrahmanyam points out China is the main proliferator - an interesting analysis

An old post from Dr. Jeffery Lewis where he seeks to make out that Indian strategists support signing CTBT - Interesting but treat with circumspection

Deja Vu.. more words, no action

As I write in the new year, I hoped to start on positive note, reflecting hope of a more secure India. Instead, realization strikes that a mere change in the calendar changes nothing. 

The home minister also pointed out that it was up to Pakistan to ensure that such terror acts were never repeated by its citizens against India. "The price they will pay if this is repeated will be enormous," he warned.

This was Mr. Chidambaram on NDTV last evening, but could easily have been any other incumbent over the past two decades. I can imagine the snickers of derision this would have invoked across the border. What, can I ask, has the "price" been for all the attacks inflicted on us. The attack on Mumbai came not six months after the Indian embassy in Kabul was attacked. We used the same words, the same empty promises of retribution, the same attempt at "building international opinion" against such attacks. Yet, Mumbai was attacked, as it seems now, with impunity. 

In the same interview, the home minister was asked about what India was looking for, and his response was - that India seeks a "guarantee from Pakistan" that such attacks will not be repeated. Haven't we been there before? What guarantees and from whom. Importantly WHAT will we do if such a guarantee is flouted. In fact, WHY are we NOT taking those steps TODAY?

In the past, all that the perpetrators of such crimes had to do was to wait for a change of political guard. In fact, with the present spineless dispensation, the attackers do not even have to bother for a change. Mumbai alone has been targetted twice in the past 2 years, and other Indian cities have been brought into the fold of such attacks with impunity.

We are admonished that "war is not a solution". The question is - are we not already at war for the past two decades? What will it require to call India at war - an attack on parliament ... er.. that already happened. What about an attack on India's key economic structures, the stock exchanges, the business districts in metros et al .... er... tick that off too. Well, I guess an attack on Indian property overseas would be an act of war... that too! I guess, since we have geriatrics ruling the country, the only definition of war would be an invasion across the border - but you know what - that happened too...

I recommend that we disband the Indian Army. After all what we need is a National Relief Force - that will take care of people in the event of a natural disaster (currently the most active use of the Indian National Army). As for guarding the borders, or taking on hostile neighbours, we have already exported that task to the "international community". I wonder if there is anyone who can put out a set of condition under which the Indian armed forces will be called upon to act - I doubt it will ever happen despite the need and the provocation. What, therefore I ask, is the need to incur the cost to maintain such a huge force - much better to divert the resources into policing and other activities which we can do within our borders.

The cold war did not ignite into a nuclear war simply because of the doctrine of MAD (mutually assured destruction). The simple construct behind that was the willingness and ability to use WMD's if required. Once one party to a conflict knows that the other is not willing to escalate it no matter what the provocation, simple game theory will suggest that there is no protection against attack. India has repeatedly shown itself unwilling to escalate. Therefore, the enemy can chose its time, place and method of attack, and we have to defend (if that) from a position of weakness. The fact that this simple principle is ignored by the powers-that-be smacks of complete pussilanimity at best and treachery at worst. 

"Fear has its use, but cowardice has none. ... The trouble is that we often die many times before death overtakes us." - Mahatma Gandhi

A recent article from Brahma Chellany in the Hindustan Times, makes some interesting points. 

As our home minister jets to the US to seek to provide "proof" of the source of attacks, some questions come to mind - 

1) What if the US continues to do what it has done so far (provided the ISI funding for creating taliban, ignore the proliferation of AQ Khan, and even now - paid to Pak over $10bn under G W Bush) - which is, to look at it the "evidence" from its own perspective and tell India to go sit at a negotiating table. 

2) Assume that for a change, we have US support - what if the Pakis do not respond to US "pressure"? As soon as pressure built up post the Mumbai attack, transport vehicles headed for Afghanistan from the US were burnt up - underlining US dependence on Pakistan for logistics support. What is the next step if they just ignore US pressure?

3) What if China (who we are now approaching, much like we are the US) assures support, but tacitly continues to provide succour to the Pakis

Finally, some of the prescriptions to India are already in - this article by a UK professor tells its own story...

Finally, India should also reach out to ... work with the US to provide assurance to Pakistan which can undercut the paranoia of the Pakistan Army and ISI, not least with respect to India’s role in Afghanistan. 

So now, we are to assuage the feelings of the ISI too.

In the meanwhile, the Israeli attack on Hamas continues, and, as the US puts it, Hamas should behave itself.

Have a great 2009

Amen

Problems of being "close to the ground"

How many times as an analyst, I have seen business leaders in a state of denial. The steel sector was a beautiful case in point in the current year. While the world economy was going in a tail spin, steel magnates kept insisting that prices would not fall "because raw material prices were up". It never ceases to amaze me how many times even very senior and experienced managers will talk in this way - almost as if someone has mandated that their business should make money, and therefore cost escalation will always be absorbed by their customers. I see this as a problem of being too close to the day to day business of the company. This creates a myopic vision - where anyone with a 50,000 feet view will tell you that a business decision is silly, while the "expert" who lives and breathes the business, will continue to justify his following the most recent trend. My conclusion - speak to corporates to understand their business model and the current business situation, but DO NOT make the mistake of assuming that they have the ability to forecast beyond the next week. The analyst ought to know more! (which is also the reason of the existence of the likes of Mckinsey and other strategy consultants).

We see this now in the response to the recent Mumbai terror attacks. Most "experts" are focused on providing guns and armour to the domestic police force. As if this would in anyway reduce or protect India from these attacks - the problem is external and will remain so. Body armour for all police will come at a cost of medicine, school education or such alternate use of money - a problem we do not wish to address. Luckily, no one in India asks for where budgetary provisions will come from. I find that even responsible journalists with demonstrably developed strategic sense get into this loop.

Vardarajan, of The Hindu, someone whose coverage of the noxious India US nuclear deal was exemplary, seems to have fallen in this trap - excerpts from his recent post

The Pakistani Army would very much like a military crisis on the border with India because that would relieve the pressures it was facing on the Afghan front. “Our dilemma is that we don’t want to play their game — we want them to continue being engaged in the fight against terrorism in the west because that’s also our war. But we can’t give them a pass either. The perpetrators have to be fixed.”

It was because of this complexity, the sources added, that India’s public response has been very limited.

This has to rank amongst the most hilarious justification of pussilanimity anywhere - the bully has just slapped me, but you know he is also doing that to a few others, so we should not distract him.

What can I say - I guess I am a war monger and not to be taken seriously!

Pakistan's dodge seem to be working

Yet again it seems that India is going to miss the wood for the trees. I am watching a vocal but to my mind, meaningless debate, on TV on whether we should free up some police personnel from guarding politicians and move them to guarding train stations.

What happened to the need to take action against Pakistan?

Any strategy novice will realise that the ISI has just executed a fantastically planned and timed operation.

The situation was slipping : the Kashmir election was proving a great success, with more than 60% voter turnout. The LeT was losing morale, and the Pak army was being forced by the US to fight against their kin in the Al Queda.

At one go, the tables have turned. India is seething, but a toothless PM is not in a position to respond. Elections are round the corner, and with the ruling party on the back foot, the willingness to go on the offensive is low. The typical response of the Indian leadership is to "put Pak on the mat" by offering proof to the US authorities of Pak's involvement and hope that the US will force Pak to take action. Unfortunately, it misses the point completely. The USA is NOT going to do anything for India, only what is in its own interest. They have only partially de-hyphenated India-Pak relations. Incident such as the mumbai attacks help to strengthen this hyphenation to the detriment of India. The US Secretary of States statements in her visit to India, and subsequently Pak, make this clear to any but the blind. Zardari threatened to pull troops from the Afghan border, and that was enough for the USA to stop its sabre rattling.

India is therefore left with some exhortations to act "responsibly". The Pak government is busily repeating the line that our beloved PM gave them - that Pak is also a victim of terrorism - and therefore cannot be blamed for the attack.

So what happens next - we act "responsibly", do nothing and wait for the next attack. Musharraf has gone so far as to suggest that India should be sympathetic towards Pakistan, should appreciate the problems of Pakistan!

So is there an alternate plan?

There are some key issues we need to understand:
1. A country like India with a long border and unfriendly/non-cooperative neighours cannot be converted into a fortress. The only way to defend its citizens is to ensure that the cost of attack is unacceptably high for its enemies. This means that ALL attacks MUST be met with overwhelming force as a response
2. Pakistan, in its current political form and geography, is not going to allow peace with India. As has been pointed out in one of the article I have earlier bookmarked, the economic power (70% of market cap) and the military power (the N-bomb) is in the control of the Pak army, NOT its civilian government. We cannot therefore deal with the Pak govt. as if they are driven by the same factors as a govt. in India. They are powerless to decide anything. The Army, on the other hand, derives its power from its unceasing animosity towards India.
3. The Indian government has to tune its foreign policy and its list of "friends" to suit its own needs, not that of others. If that means that some are upset, so be it.

Once these are accepted, the only clear path is to figure out a way to put pressure on Pakistan to clean up its act. This requires a two pronged approach.
1. Economic - India needs to impose an unacceptable economic cost on Pakistan of continuing its proxy war. Ideally, this can be in the form of UN sanctions. However, given the presence of China in the UN Security Council, such a resolution cannot be passed. The next alternative is to try and enforce and economic blockade by itself. An interesting suggestion made in an article I read on this subject, was that India should insist on all products carrying a notice that they werre being made by a company having associates operating in Pakistan, and then build Indian public opinion to boycott those goods. The idea was that this may force these companies to withdraw from Pakistan rather than give up the Indian market, and this would put enormous pressure on the Pak industry. I am not sure how much this would effect Pakistan, but it is definitely an interesting idea.
2. Military - here the options are few. The first would be to take out the terrorist camps through air strikes and commando operations. The next would be a bigger operation - barricade the sea route to the Pakistan ports, and involve Israel and US - the first to help with taking out the nuclear assets of the Pak army, and the latter to help with the intelligence. (Why should they help - we are solving their problem as well, and are supplying the foot soldiers. Otherwise, the nuclear deal with the US need not be activated i.e we do not buy their military hardware). The second step would be to move in physically, and divide the country into Baluchistan, NWFP and Punjab-Sindh. The exit option would be to dismantle the financing structures of the ISI and then allow elections etc.

If either of these seem to radical, then we should hunker down and prepare for the next bomb blast - because that is what we will get.

The power of alternate media

At last some voices offering a view not heard on the loud-but-unthinking english TV channels. I was forwarded this write up by a friend. Thanks Ashok.

Hotel Taj : icon of whose India ?

Bhanu Pratap Mehta's Managing the Rage in the Indian express offers a sensible approach for India to up the ante on Pak. While all the media debate focuses on how we can improve security in India, it is time we got to the "root cause" (to borrow a term from the Pakistanis) - i.e. how to resolve the threat from Pakistan

Lunch over.. need to go back to work !

Not for the BHL's

Despite almost a week elapsing, the events in Mumbai do not seem to have triggered serious, publicly available analysis from the people who should know their job - the defence and strategic affairs analysts. Read Strategic motivations for the Mumbai attack by George Friedman of Stratfor for a view which expounds in detail what I had hinted at in my earlier post The cost of Attack.

In It’s time Pakistan got slammed for harbouring terrorists R Vaidyanathan of IIM Bangalore advocates a response that I symphatise with, but its not for bleeding heart liberals (BHL's) as he says !

Post-nuclear deal - can we use USA help

The rebuff that the government of Pak and India received from the Pak Army establishment on the demand to send the ISI chief to India, has presumably gotten the US secretary of state to head towards India to cool tempers. Unfortunately, at present there seems to be no tempers to cool - atleast among the political leadership.

India is at present in a position to demand the highest possible help from the USA in terms of both, equipment and intelligence to plan its rejoinder to the ISI threat. Bruce Reidel, the incoming President's South Asia advisor is no sympathiser of Pakistan. However, the ability of the currently, leaden-feet leadership of the India to turn this to India's advantage is in doubt.

If ever there was a need for a popularly elected (not nominated) political leadership in India, it is NOW.

The cost of attack

Any response to the terrorist attack has to focus on only one issue - how to increase the cost of further such attacks for the perpetrators. Assuming that the agency responsible for this attack is a state sponsored agency, in this case the Pak ISI, the issue becomes more complex - are we to attack the country or the agency.

The ISI thinks it is in win-win situation. Assuming that India were to increase the pressure on Pak borders, it would be legitimate for the Pak army to move from its western borders (where it "fights" that so called war-on-terror at the behest of the USA) to the eastern border. The ground is already being prepared for this. This will not be acceptable to the USA - and the expectation is that this will lead to greater pressure from the USA on India to "act in a restrained manner". President-elect Obama has already indicated that he will want to get involved in Kashmir. The ISI would have killed two birds with one stone - get the USA involved in keeping India on a leash, and get USA involved in Kashmir (especially in the background of a hugely successful election in Kashmir - ignore the title of the linked article - a 50% plus turnout has to mean something in the context of violence threatened by the separatists).

On the other hand, the best that the US and Indian govts can do, is to pressure Zardari to change the ISI chief. This has already happened in the recent past, but with General Kiyani himself of ISI vintage, does that really mean anything?

To break this logjam, India therefore has to figure out a means of increasing the cost for ISI to go about its business. The debate in India has to move towards this ...

Bluster is not the answer

A lot of debate is taking place in the aftermath of the terror strike. Much of it is in the form of "citizen debates". The difference this time is that senior corporate honchoes feel that they need to get involved. The answers that are being thrown up are interesting in that they reflect a corporate mind-set.

Throw more resources at the problem. We are under policed is the common refrain. Aside from the impossibility of finding "adequate" resources (what is adequate after all?), the solution begs the question - should be treat the symptom or the disease. If more policing is the problem, would someone care to explain how the terrorist got through at a time when a naval exercise was on to stop exactly this intrusion?

Another, and even more inane response is that we should not "politicise the problem". Hello ! pray how ELSE will one work at solving it? After all, the politicians are our representatives, meant to find solutions to issues which are common to all. If there are differences of views among them, perhaps that is because there is a difference of view among the polity.

Meanwhile the geopolitical games move on exactly as expected.. watch the space...

Survivors !

Like many others, I had been anxiously keeping a close watch on the list of victims of the Mumbai attacks and hoping that I would draw a blank. Today's paper carries the story of Mr K R Ramamoorthy who escaped after having been in the hands of the terrorists.

I have had the great pleasure of all-to-briefly being associated with KRR. In a world where there are few icons who one can respect, here is a man who is truely inspiring. I thank providence for his escape.

Internal Security in India

In a week when the new channels are focused on the audacious strike by terrorists in Mumbai, it seems appropriate to take a close look at the security outlook for India.

A friend of many years, who is also a very senior police officer, offered this perspective:

• When the “security doctrine” (if ever there was one) for India was conceived, the focus was on combating external threats. It was assumed that domestic security requirement was limited to managing law-and-order. Consequently, the resources for security were shared between police and the army – with the latter getting the lions share
• The security climate has now turned a full 180 degrees – the security threat from external sources is significantly reduced, while that from internal sources is much higher
• India now needs an alternate security management outlook. One option is to extend the role of the army to manage security within the country. This, however, may require significant re-training. The military is used to following its own rules, and not used to managing civilian situations. Alternately, the police need significantly enhanced resources

Why is the domestic security environment so poor? Here, I think, the blame must be put at the door of the civilians of this country. We are a divided polity. Irrespective of how much we blame the politicians, we have to accept that there is a real division in civil society and the politics of this country just reflects this. Consequently, there is no single security goal that can be set.

The USA post 9/11 is often held up as an example of how to manage homeland security. However a comparison between India and the USA reflects complete lack of understanding of the circumstances of the two countries.

Physically, the USA does not share its boundaries with neighbors inimical to its interests. Internal issues are equally important – the US society is not divided on religious lines – it has no significant minority groups with international affiliations that sympathize with attempts to redraw its boundaries. (Oops, now I can be criticized for being “non-secular”)

Also, the legal system has evolved to a stage where the society is beyond debating common laws to be applied to all citizens. The USA does not have a Human Rights Commission! And when it needs to interrogate people and not provide them with right to counsel, it just takes them to Guantanamo Bay!

In India, the distrust between the federal government and those of the states is high. This offers a significant barrier to the creation of a central agency for coordinated planning and action. The CBI – which is supposed to investigate crimes at a federal level, is most often used by the government of the day to investigate its political rival. How can a new agency help? Even if we assume that such an agency can work towards one common goal, defining such a goal is almost impossible in the current context. Most states in India are now ruled by local rather than national parties, reflecting the growth of local aspirations, and the inability of the national parties to keep themselves relevant. There are no easy answers.