Spot the difference

“Pakistan, perhaps the world’s greatest victim of terrorism.... Let us be frank. Pakistan has paid an enormous price for its stand against terrorism.”  May3, 2011-05-09

“it is also true that incidents take place in Pakistan also. That Pakistan is also a victim of terrorism. These groups, whether it’s Lakhsar-e-Toiba or Jaish-e-Mohammad, they can act autonomously” Sep 11, 2006

Same thought, two speakers - guess who? The first was written by Pak President Zardari in a recent op-ed in the Washington Post. The second is a quote from a gentleman who originated the idea - our own venerable PM Dr Singh.

The USA has released documents that show the complicity of ISI in the Mumbai attacks. It makes Dr. Singh's willingness to "talk" to Pakistan - with no emphasis on them attempting to show remorse - much less take action against the perpetrators, even more inexplicable.

Dr. Singh's governments continues its focus on "hindu terrorists" rather than on those from across the borders. One can only conclude that perhaps Dr. Singh, when he was a little toddler, was nursed by a particularly ferocious member of the hindu community. After all they say that childhood trauma can leave deep scars!

More shame in Indo Pak talks

M J Akbar's view
Chandan Mitra's column
Varadarajan in the Hindu (the "official" spin?)
The outcome of the talks in Afghanistan

And an article in Pakistan Daily  that seems to surprisingly, articulate a view that Dr Singh would find interesting:
"Manmohan Singh, despite his conciliatory nature, seems to be awakening to the realisation that the objective of those involved in terror plots against India is not simply Kashmir but the reversal of India’s growth story. They seek to make India unsafe for investments, by scaring away even international sports teams, they way they have succeeded in Pakistan. They have been funding agitations against industrial and other projects, so that vast regions of the country remain backward. Thus far, the Manmohan Singh government has adopted an ostrich policy towards this growing threat, hoping that it will disappear. Instead, it is becoming worse. India has always seen a cycle of inaction that creates a crisis, which is then met with overwhelming resources and – where needed – force. The Pune blast has been a wake-up call for Manmohan Singh. Unless he takes much more active steps to stop terror networks in India from killing innocents, he risks seeing the end of the Indian economic miracle. Much more is at stake for India than relations with Pakistan."

Aman Ki Asha

The Times of India the Jung Group in Pakistan used the start of 2010 to "come together to develop a stronger Track 2 in the diplomatic and cultural relations between India and Pakistan". My daughter asked me a few days back on why I was not optimistic about this initiative.

First - let me state that a new year wish list for most Indians has to include peace with our neighbour, and I am no exception. That said, one of the problems with growing older (more cynical? or sadly, more realistic)is the development of the "sense of the possible". If peace between India and Pakistan were to be possible by cultural exchanges between the peoples of the two countries, we would perhaps have had peace a few decades ago.

The reality is that the Pak army is the largest economic power in that country, and, finally, all politics is an outcome of economics. For the Pak army to maintain its pre-eminent position in Pakistan, it must have an enemy that rallies its "subjects" - the people of Pakistan. India in currently the only country that can fill this need. Attacks against India are a given - only the timing is in question.

If I seem like a war monger, see this.

A very happy, and peaceful  new year to all.

Forgettable few weeks

The past few weeks have been rather sad for the country. Increasingly, it is being realised that we cannot safely let our Prime Minister speak on foreign policy. Apologists will continue to cover up for India's inability to influence our neighbours and protect ourselves. Any serious defense analyst would realise how we are perilously weakening our position in the world and viewing ourselves from the US worldview. As Chellaney mentions in his column for Singh:

to say India cannot emerge as a great power without making peace with Pakistan. “It is in our vital interest, therefore, to try again to make peace with Pakistan.” By linking India’s global rise to the placation of Pakistan, Singh has hyphenated India with that country even more strikingly than any international actor

Chellaney's columm on China is another case in point.

The BJP too has lost its ability to appeal to the "liberal" right-of-centre. The removal of Jaswant Singh from the membership of the party and the banning of his book in Gujarat has to rank among the most intolerant and graceless acts that the party has committed in recent years. As an admirer of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his vision of India, I had assumed that his ideals were also those of the party. Clearly that is far from the truth. I look, with just a tinge of anxiety, for a new alternative to the Congress that more closely seeks to build a strong, self-reliant and liberal India. That such an alternative offers itself quickly, has to be my prayer for this year as we celebrate the 62nd year of independent India.

The price of courage and the cost of cowardice

A friend send me a link to a letter made more poignant because it was published posthumously. Lasantha Wickrematunge, the author, and editor of The Sunday Reader, was shot on his way to work on Jan 8, 2009 in Sri Lanka. It describes his resolve to express his opinion on the politics of Sri Lanka, while being aware of the risks to his life. His death, establishes once again the cost that "freedom" often demands from men - the supreme sacrifice. It is men like him that the rest of us have to thank for our freedom, the existence of which we often take for granted.

In contrast, our feckless prime minister and spineless bureaucracy have scored a self-goal with regard to the handling of the post-mumbai-attack situation. Pakistan has now won the game, set and match. From being on the run, they have turned the tables completely - with the latest "umpire" of India's choice (remember, we have chosen to outsource our defence to other countries) David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, hectoring our PM and foreign minister on the need to resolve the "core issues" of Kashmir - a connection which even the Pakistanis have not insisted on making with any degree of conviction. Two interesting view points emerge - one where the UK position is sought to be explained in terms of their own domestic compulsions  and another, which takes a more robust view of how India (mis) handles its strategic goals.

In any case, with the new US president having signalled his willingness to interecede in Kashmir, we can only hope that we have an early election. At least there will be a chance that the democratic process will result in giving the "old bones" some rest. 

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!