B.RAMAN
President Barack Obama, Gen.David Petraeus, the US Commander in Afghanistan, and other American leaders have rightly condemned the proposed burning of the Holy Koran by Pastor Terry Jones, who leads a congregation of about 50 followers in the city of Gainesville, Florida, on 9/11 coinciding with the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist strikes in the US homeland.
2. There is still considerable anger in sizable sections of the US population over the 9/11 terrorist strikes by Al Qaeda and over the subsequent terrorist attacks on US citizens and troops in the Af-Pak region. There have also been attempts and thwarted attempts to indulge in acts of terrorism in the US itself, the latest being the unsuccessful attempt to blow up an American plane over Detroit on Christmas Day last year and in Time Square in New York on May 1 last.
3. The anti-US activities of the Yemen-based Anwar al-Awlaki , a US citizen of Yemeni origin, who has been described as a made-in-the-US bin Laden, have added to the concerns of Americans and their sense of unease and discomfort in their relations with Muslims. Al-Awlaki's sermons, while he was still in the US, were allegedly attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers. He reportedly met secretly with at least two of the hijackers in San Diego, and one hijacker moved from there to Falls Church, Virginia, as al-Awlaki moved. His sermons were also allegedly attended by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a psychiatrist in the US Army, who killed 13 persons in a shooting incident on November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood— an important military base located just outside Killeen, Texas. The "Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had allegedly met al-Awlaki during his training by Al Qaeda in Yemen. In March 2010, al Awlaki said in a videotape reportedly delivered to CNN that jihad against the US was obligatory for all Muslims.
4. The US Homeland has been targeted not only by Al Qaeda, but also by the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, which is believed to have had a hand in the conspiracy to carry out the unsuccessful terrorist strike in New York in May last. It has threatened more terrorist strikes in the US Homeland.
5. One cannot, therefore, blame large sections of the US population if their distrust of the Muslims remains high. This distrust---and the resulting resentment---has been further aggravated by the ill-advised attempts to construct near Ground Zero in New York what has been called the Cordoba House project --- a 15-story community center that would include a performance-art center, gym, swimming pool, and a mosque. Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, a Muslim cleric, who inspired the project, has projected it as intended to foster better relations between the West and Muslims.
6. How insensitive and uncaring Muslims can be to the feelings of others not belonging to their religion is evident from the way they are trying to go ahead with the project unmindful of the protests against it and the concerns over its implications for peace and harmony in the US.
7. For large sections of Muslims---not only in the US, but also in the rest of the world---their feelings and sensitivities have to have primacy over those of others. They have a right to feel hurt and concerned, but not others.
8. The self-centred attitude of the Muslims and their unwillingness to take note of the sensitivities of others have created a feeling of revulsion against their community all over the world. Some express it openly. Many don’t.
9. Pastor Terry Jones’ threat to burn a copy of the Holy Koran is a reflection of this revulsion and the anger against the Muslims. No right-thinking person and no Government can support his plans. It could not only act as a red rag to the Al Qaeda/Taliban bulls and result in more terrorist attacks on US nationals and troops in the Af-Pak region, but could also drive more US Muslims into the arms of these organizations and result in an aggravation of the threat of home-grown terrorism in the US.
10. The US Government should find ways of stopping his threatened act by persuasion or, if necessary, by invoking the law. At the same time, it is important to stop the Cordoba House project too, which would definitely add salt to the wounds of hundreds of thousands of non-Muslim Americans. The attempt of the Muslim sponsors of this project to project it as an initiative to heal the wounds and foster Muslim-non-Muslim harmony will not carry conviction. It will be seen as one more attempt by the Muslims to flaunt their right to do what they want unmindful of the feelings and sensitivities of others. (8-9-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
ONE INDIA & ONE CHINA
B.RAMAN
The strong economic relations between India and China and their co-operation in multilateral fora such as the recent Copenhagen summit on climate change should not blind one to the fact that the trust and comfort level between the two Governments and their people remains unsatisfactory. Unless this improves, any talk of a strategic co-operation or partnership between the two countries would remain wishful-thinking.
2. There are many security-related issues which call for co-operation between India and China bilaterally and for a joint leadership role by them multilaterally. Maritime counter-terrorism and anti-piracy measures are two examples of such issues crying out for India and China to join hands in countering these evils. But we will not be able to do so unless the trust and comfort level improves.
3. Five issues or perceptions are standing in the way of a better trust and comfort level. The first is the pending border dispute. Chinese leaders and analysts often quote Deng Xiao-Ping's advice to keep this issue aside till a favourable moment arrives for finding a mutually acceptable solution. Delay suits China because the trans-border status quo presently favours it and it has developed its military capability in such a manner as to be able to use it should China decide that the time has come to impose its will in the eastern sector. Indians suspect----with valid reason---- that the Chinese preference for keeping the issue prolonged is motivated by the desire to give itself time for the further strengthening of its military capability in Tibet. India's interest will be served by a quick resolution of the dispute, which has not been forthcoming.
4. The second is the failure of the Chinese to reach an agreement with the Dalai Lama on the demands of the Tibetan people. India has recognised Tibet as an integral part of China in the expectation that the international acceptance of the One China principle will pave the way for the return of the Dalai Lama and his Tibetan followers to Tibet with honour and dignity so that they can take their due to place in the local society. India is the cradle of Buddhism, which spread to Tibet and the rest of China from India. It is natural that as admirers of this great religion and its Tibetan leader, Indians feel disappointed by the failure of the Chinese Government and Communist Party to follow up the integration of Tibet with the rest of China by restoring the honour and dignity of the Dalai Lama and his followers.
5. The third is what many Indians see as the double standards followed by China with regard to Jammu & Kashmir. China expected India to recognise Tibet as an integral part of China and accept the One China principle. India did so without reservation. Indians are greatly disappointed that China has not reciprocated by recognising Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India and by accepting the One India principle, which is as precious to India as the One China principle is to China.
6. The fourth is what many Indians see as China's attempts to build up Pakistan not only as a time-tested friend, but also as a welcome strategic surrogate against India. China's nuclear and military supply relationship with Pakistan and its support to Pakistan in its disputes with India are seen by many in India as a malign exploitation of Pakistan's differences with India to serve China's own interests.
7. The fifth is China's reluctance to support India's permanent membership of the UN Security Council. India under Jawaharlal Nehru played an active role in canvassing for the People's Republic of China to be given its due place as a permanent member of the Security Council. In an historic act of ingratitude, China has failed to reciprocate India's gesture and has done everything possible to keep India out.
8. Unless there is a change in the policies of the Chinese Government on these issues, the trust and comfort level will continue to be low and there is a limit beyond which the relations between the two countries cannot improve.
9.The time has come for India to re-examine its policies with regard to China. The improvement in economic relations has benefited China more than India. If one analyses purely on the basis of trade exchanges, both countries have benefited, but the adverse balance of trade in China’s favour and India’s dependence on raw material exports for keeping up the steady surge in bilateral trade dilute the significance of the surge in trade.
10. Other parameters of the bilateral economic relations tilt strongly in favour of China. The liberal opening-up of the Indian construction sector to Chinese construction companies has led to a situation where next to African countries, India has become a major dumping ground for Chinese engineers and semi-skilled workers to the detriment of the interests of Indian engineers and semi-skilled workers. Our opening up the doors to sensitive sectors such as telecommunications to Chinese private companies ---- private in name, but State-sponsored in reality --- has added to the major security concerns of our security agencies.
11. Unfortunately, we do not have a debate in India either in the Parliament or outside on the background of the Chinese companies, which have been entering India in large numbers and on the threats that this could pose to our national interests. Unchecked and inadequately monitored Chinese economic intrusions should be of as great a concern as unchecked and inadequately monitored Chinese troop intrusions into Indian territory across the border.
12. Our recognition of Tibet as an integral part of China and our acceptance of the one China policy of Beijing without a quid pro quo from Beijing in the form of acceptance of J&K as an integral part of India and of the One India policy have proved counter-productive. In our anxiety to avoid adding to the tensions and distrust between the two countries, we have let Beijing dictate what should be the nature of our interactions with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan refugees. We avoid open interactions with His Holiness and are not even prepared to associate him with the project to revive the Nalanda University.
13. Our hopes that closing our eyes to the worrisome aspects of the economic relations and imposing restrictions on our relationship with His Holiness could contribute to a change of Chinese policies have been repeatedly belied. China has taken advantage of the lack of assertiveness on our part to advance what it regards as its core interests in the region with total disregard for our core interests.
14. Better relations with China on mutually and equally advantageous terms and not on terms which favour China alone, but not India should be our policy. A clear message in non-provocative language has to go to Beijing that India has been disillusioned by the self-centred policies of Beijing and its lack of reciprocity in respecting our core interests. Strategic relations have to be a two-way traffic and based on quid pro quo. For China, they are a one-way traffic benefiting only its core interests. We should no longer accept this.
15. China has taken a major lead over us in building up its strategic strengths, strategic presence and strategic alliances. Its economic and military strengths and its building-up its military-related infrastructure in Tibet have given it a confidence that it can impose its will on India ----through subterfuge so long as it is possible, through open action if and when it becomes necessary.
16. We are lagging behind China in all these fields. Neutralising the advantages which China has acquired for itself should be the main objective of our future policies. Expediting the completion of our infrastructure projects in the border areas and adding to our China-specific military strengths in a time-bound manner should be an immediate objective of our policy-makers.
17.Re-fashioning our economic relations with China in order to rid them of elements which are to the exclusive advantage of China should receive equal priority. There is a need for a re-think on our Tibet-related policies without reversing our recognition of Tibet as an integral part of China. We have to be more assertive in pursuing an One India policy as a quid pro quo for our accepting the One China policy.
18. India should do everything possible to avoid a confrontational situation with China, but should be prepared for it if China seeks to create a confrontational situation at a time of its choosing. We should pay more attention to the China-specific dimensions of our strategic relations with the US, Japan, Vietnam and South Korea.
19. In our interactions with US policy-makers and non-governmental strategic experts, we have been over-focusing on Pakistan and terrorism. China should receive greater attention from now onwards. A greater focus on the thinking and respective concerns of India and the US with regard to China should be an objective of the forthcoming talks when President Barack Obama visits New Delhi in November.
20. Signals from the Obama Administration are confusing. It has not hesitated to express openly its determination to counter the Chinese designs in the South China Sea and to maintain the primacy of the US Navy in the Pacific as well as the Indian Ocean. It is taking interest in the talks of His Holiness the Dalai Lama with the Chinese Government and party. At the same time, it does not seem to view with the same concern as India China’s developing relations with Pakistan and the possibility of Pakistan becoming China’s strategic surrogate in Afghanistan too. After having taken a strong stand on the right of the US Naval ships to visit and hold exercises in the Yellow Sea, it is showing signs of being responsive to Chinese sensitivities over the question of US aircraft-carriers visiting the Yellow Sea.
21.It still looks upon China as an useful intermediary in relation to North Korea and Myanmar. It has greater confidence in Beijing’s ability to influence the military junta in Myanmar than in the Indian ability. It has a low opinion of the Indian ability to influence Governments, policies and events in the Asian region. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely to be enthusiastic to any idea of an India-US understanding on China. Despite this, we should not fight shy of turning the primary focus of the talks with Mr.Obama on China. We do not need strategic alliances in relation to Pakistan. We are capable of taking care of Pakistan with our own means. We would need strategic alliances in relation to China. Hence the importance of free and frank talks with Mr.Obama on this.(9-9-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E—mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The strong economic relations between India and China and their co-operation in multilateral fora such as the recent Copenhagen summit on climate change should not blind one to the fact that the trust and comfort level between the two Governments and their people remains unsatisfactory. Unless this improves, any talk of a strategic co-operation or partnership between the two countries would remain wishful-thinking.
2. There are many security-related issues which call for co-operation between India and China bilaterally and for a joint leadership role by them multilaterally. Maritime counter-terrorism and anti-piracy measures are two examples of such issues crying out for India and China to join hands in countering these evils. But we will not be able to do so unless the trust and comfort level improves.
3. Five issues or perceptions are standing in the way of a better trust and comfort level. The first is the pending border dispute. Chinese leaders and analysts often quote Deng Xiao-Ping's advice to keep this issue aside till a favourable moment arrives for finding a mutually acceptable solution. Delay suits China because the trans-border status quo presently favours it and it has developed its military capability in such a manner as to be able to use it should China decide that the time has come to impose its will in the eastern sector. Indians suspect----with valid reason---- that the Chinese preference for keeping the issue prolonged is motivated by the desire to give itself time for the further strengthening of its military capability in Tibet. India's interest will be served by a quick resolution of the dispute, which has not been forthcoming.
4. The second is the failure of the Chinese to reach an agreement with the Dalai Lama on the demands of the Tibetan people. India has recognised Tibet as an integral part of China in the expectation that the international acceptance of the One China principle will pave the way for the return of the Dalai Lama and his Tibetan followers to Tibet with honour and dignity so that they can take their due to place in the local society. India is the cradle of Buddhism, which spread to Tibet and the rest of China from India. It is natural that as admirers of this great religion and its Tibetan leader, Indians feel disappointed by the failure of the Chinese Government and Communist Party to follow up the integration of Tibet with the rest of China by restoring the honour and dignity of the Dalai Lama and his followers.
5. The third is what many Indians see as the double standards followed by China with regard to Jammu & Kashmir. China expected India to recognise Tibet as an integral part of China and accept the One China principle. India did so without reservation. Indians are greatly disappointed that China has not reciprocated by recognising Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India and by accepting the One India principle, which is as precious to India as the One China principle is to China.
6. The fourth is what many Indians see as China's attempts to build up Pakistan not only as a time-tested friend, but also as a welcome strategic surrogate against India. China's nuclear and military supply relationship with Pakistan and its support to Pakistan in its disputes with India are seen by many in India as a malign exploitation of Pakistan's differences with India to serve China's own interests.
7. The fifth is China's reluctance to support India's permanent membership of the UN Security Council. India under Jawaharlal Nehru played an active role in canvassing for the People's Republic of China to be given its due place as a permanent member of the Security Council. In an historic act of ingratitude, China has failed to reciprocate India's gesture and has done everything possible to keep India out.
8. Unless there is a change in the policies of the Chinese Government on these issues, the trust and comfort level will continue to be low and there is a limit beyond which the relations between the two countries cannot improve.
9.The time has come for India to re-examine its policies with regard to China. The improvement in economic relations has benefited China more than India. If one analyses purely on the basis of trade exchanges, both countries have benefited, but the adverse balance of trade in China’s favour and India’s dependence on raw material exports for keeping up the steady surge in bilateral trade dilute the significance of the surge in trade.
10. Other parameters of the bilateral economic relations tilt strongly in favour of China. The liberal opening-up of the Indian construction sector to Chinese construction companies has led to a situation where next to African countries, India has become a major dumping ground for Chinese engineers and semi-skilled workers to the detriment of the interests of Indian engineers and semi-skilled workers. Our opening up the doors to sensitive sectors such as telecommunications to Chinese private companies ---- private in name, but State-sponsored in reality --- has added to the major security concerns of our security agencies.
11. Unfortunately, we do not have a debate in India either in the Parliament or outside on the background of the Chinese companies, which have been entering India in large numbers and on the threats that this could pose to our national interests. Unchecked and inadequately monitored Chinese economic intrusions should be of as great a concern as unchecked and inadequately monitored Chinese troop intrusions into Indian territory across the border.
12. Our recognition of Tibet as an integral part of China and our acceptance of the one China policy of Beijing without a quid pro quo from Beijing in the form of acceptance of J&K as an integral part of India and of the One India policy have proved counter-productive. In our anxiety to avoid adding to the tensions and distrust between the two countries, we have let Beijing dictate what should be the nature of our interactions with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan refugees. We avoid open interactions with His Holiness and are not even prepared to associate him with the project to revive the Nalanda University.
13. Our hopes that closing our eyes to the worrisome aspects of the economic relations and imposing restrictions on our relationship with His Holiness could contribute to a change of Chinese policies have been repeatedly belied. China has taken advantage of the lack of assertiveness on our part to advance what it regards as its core interests in the region with total disregard for our core interests.
14. Better relations with China on mutually and equally advantageous terms and not on terms which favour China alone, but not India should be our policy. A clear message in non-provocative language has to go to Beijing that India has been disillusioned by the self-centred policies of Beijing and its lack of reciprocity in respecting our core interests. Strategic relations have to be a two-way traffic and based on quid pro quo. For China, they are a one-way traffic benefiting only its core interests. We should no longer accept this.
15. China has taken a major lead over us in building up its strategic strengths, strategic presence and strategic alliances. Its economic and military strengths and its building-up its military-related infrastructure in Tibet have given it a confidence that it can impose its will on India ----through subterfuge so long as it is possible, through open action if and when it becomes necessary.
16. We are lagging behind China in all these fields. Neutralising the advantages which China has acquired for itself should be the main objective of our future policies. Expediting the completion of our infrastructure projects in the border areas and adding to our China-specific military strengths in a time-bound manner should be an immediate objective of our policy-makers.
17.Re-fashioning our economic relations with China in order to rid them of elements which are to the exclusive advantage of China should receive equal priority. There is a need for a re-think on our Tibet-related policies without reversing our recognition of Tibet as an integral part of China. We have to be more assertive in pursuing an One India policy as a quid pro quo for our accepting the One China policy.
18. India should do everything possible to avoid a confrontational situation with China, but should be prepared for it if China seeks to create a confrontational situation at a time of its choosing. We should pay more attention to the China-specific dimensions of our strategic relations with the US, Japan, Vietnam and South Korea.
19. In our interactions with US policy-makers and non-governmental strategic experts, we have been over-focusing on Pakistan and terrorism. China should receive greater attention from now onwards. A greater focus on the thinking and respective concerns of India and the US with regard to China should be an objective of the forthcoming talks when President Barack Obama visits New Delhi in November.
20. Signals from the Obama Administration are confusing. It has not hesitated to express openly its determination to counter the Chinese designs in the South China Sea and to maintain the primacy of the US Navy in the Pacific as well as the Indian Ocean. It is taking interest in the talks of His Holiness the Dalai Lama with the Chinese Government and party. At the same time, it does not seem to view with the same concern as India China’s developing relations with Pakistan and the possibility of Pakistan becoming China’s strategic surrogate in Afghanistan too. After having taken a strong stand on the right of the US Naval ships to visit and hold exercises in the Yellow Sea, it is showing signs of being responsive to Chinese sensitivities over the question of US aircraft-carriers visiting the Yellow Sea.
21.It still looks upon China as an useful intermediary in relation to North Korea and Myanmar. It has greater confidence in Beijing’s ability to influence the military junta in Myanmar than in the Indian ability. It has a low opinion of the Indian ability to influence Governments, policies and events in the Asian region. Under these circumstances, it is unlikely to be enthusiastic to any idea of an India-US understanding on China. Despite this, we should not fight shy of turning the primary focus of the talks with Mr.Obama on China. We do not need strategic alliances in relation to Pakistan. We are capable of taking care of Pakistan with our own means. We would need strategic alliances in relation to China. Hence the importance of free and frank talks with Mr.Obama on this.(9-9-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E—mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Sunday, September 5, 2010
ANOTHER DEBATE ON "SAFFRON TERROR" BY BARKHA DUTT
B.RAMAN
There was another debate on the issue of "Saffron Terror" organised by Ms.Barkha Dutt on NDTV under the "We The People" programme on the evening of September 5. I liked the format of the programme, which was different from the usual format of the "We the People" programmes on Sunday. The number of patrticipants was less and the debate was well-focussed. It was more like a brain-storming on the subject than a no-holds barred debating contest.
2. I wanted to record the following observations with reference to some of the points made during the discussions. I have made these observations many times before in my books and articles and during my participation in seminars. Despite that, I thought it was worth repeating them since there seems to be a lot of inadequate knowledge and appreciation of them:
* Firstly, During the 1980s, many Muslims from all over the world were motivated by the intelligence agencies of the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to go to Afghanistan and wage a jihad against the Soviet troops there. They could not succeed in motivating members of the Indian Muslim community outside Jammu & Kashmir to go to Afghanistan and join the anti-Soviet jihad.
* Secondly, a few Indian Muslims from outside J&K motivated by the Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) of Pakistan did go to Pakistan for being trained in camps run by the JEI with funding by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The JEI and the ISI instructed them to wage a jihad against the Government of India and to operate jointly with the Khalistanis. On their return to India, they failed to motivate the members of the Indian Muslim community to start a jihad. Their appeals for action were spurned by the Indian Muslim community in hinterland India.
* Thirdly, according to the then President Najibullah of Afghanistan, many angry Kashmiris did go to Pakistan for training in the camps set up by the JEI. From there, they were taken to Afghanistan for gaining experience in waging a jihad. Some of these motivated Kashmiris became the initial hard core of the Hizbul Mujahideen and the J&K Liberation Front.
* Fourthly, while the phenomenon of the radicalisation of some sections of the Indian Muslims had started in J&K even before the demolition of the Babri Masjid, this phenomenon started in the Muslim community outside J&K in hinterland India only after the demolition. The demolition of the masjid was the initial trigger for acts of terrorism by some indigenous Muslims belonging to organisations such as the Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and Al Ummah of Tamil Nadu. Many young Indian Muslims were also driven into the arms of Dawood Ibrahim. Thus, anger among some sections of young Indian Muslims in hinterland India over the Babri Masjid demolition played an important role in the emergence of jihadi terrorism in hinterland India. This was the main motivating anger during the 1990s.Many of the major acts of terrorism during this period such as the Mumbai blasts of March 1993, the Coimbatore blasts of February 1998 and other incidents such as explosions in trains were attributable to the anger caused by the Babri Masjid demolition.
* Fifthly, after 9/11, not a single Indian Muslim living in India went to Afghanistan to join Al Qaeda's jihad against the Americans. However, some Indian Muslims based abroad did join Al Qaeda, but this was not due to their anger against the Government of India, but due to their anger against the US for its invasion and occupation of Iraq. The jihad in Iraq against the Americans waged by Al Qaeda attracted a large number of foreign Muslims, but Indian Muslims kept away from Iraq's Al Qaeda.
* Sixthly, post-2000, the anger among sections of Indian Muslim youth in hinterland India over the demolition of the Babri Masjid started subsiding, but a new cause of anger made its appearance. This was due to the perception that the Indian criminal justice system--- the police, the lawyer community and the judiciary--- was unfair to the Muslims. This new anger had two consequences. It led to some of these Muslims helping Pakistani/Bangladeshi organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM). At the same time it also led to the phenomenon of Indian Mujahideen.
* Seventhly, the phenomenon of some Hindus taking to anti-Muslim reprisal terrorism was the outcome of what is perceived by them as the soft policy of the Government of India towards Pakistan and towards those members of the Indian Muslim community who were indulging in terrorism. The anger over the allegedly soft policy made its appearance not only among some Hindu religious elements, but also among sections of the security bureaucracy belonging to the Hindu religion. The two felt attracted to each other and joned hands in starting reprisal terrorism against soft targets in the Muslim community.
* Eighthly, the emerging phenomenon of Hindu reprisal terrorism merits serious attention because of its negative implications for communal harmony and because of the emergence of a seeming alliance between some religious elements and some in the security bureaucracy. If we don't stop this, we may go the way of Pakistan.
* Ninthly,Counter-terrorism has two aspects----operational and psychological.The operational aspect relates to strengthening our preventive,investigative and intervention capabilities.The psychological aspect relates to prompt and effective action to identify and address causes for anger in any community. Equal attention should be paid to both these aspects. ( 6-9-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
There was another debate on the issue of "Saffron Terror" organised by Ms.Barkha Dutt on NDTV under the "We The People" programme on the evening of September 5. I liked the format of the programme, which was different from the usual format of the "We the People" programmes on Sunday. The number of patrticipants was less and the debate was well-focussed. It was more like a brain-storming on the subject than a no-holds barred debating contest.
2. I wanted to record the following observations with reference to some of the points made during the discussions. I have made these observations many times before in my books and articles and during my participation in seminars. Despite that, I thought it was worth repeating them since there seems to be a lot of inadequate knowledge and appreciation of them:
* Firstly, During the 1980s, many Muslims from all over the world were motivated by the intelligence agencies of the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to go to Afghanistan and wage a jihad against the Soviet troops there. They could not succeed in motivating members of the Indian Muslim community outside Jammu & Kashmir to go to Afghanistan and join the anti-Soviet jihad.
* Secondly, a few Indian Muslims from outside J&K motivated by the Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) of Pakistan did go to Pakistan for being trained in camps run by the JEI with funding by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The JEI and the ISI instructed them to wage a jihad against the Government of India and to operate jointly with the Khalistanis. On their return to India, they failed to motivate the members of the Indian Muslim community to start a jihad. Their appeals for action were spurned by the Indian Muslim community in hinterland India.
* Thirdly, according to the then President Najibullah of Afghanistan, many angry Kashmiris did go to Pakistan for training in the camps set up by the JEI. From there, they were taken to Afghanistan for gaining experience in waging a jihad. Some of these motivated Kashmiris became the initial hard core of the Hizbul Mujahideen and the J&K Liberation Front.
* Fourthly, while the phenomenon of the radicalisation of some sections of the Indian Muslims had started in J&K even before the demolition of the Babri Masjid, this phenomenon started in the Muslim community outside J&K in hinterland India only after the demolition. The demolition of the masjid was the initial trigger for acts of terrorism by some indigenous Muslims belonging to organisations such as the Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and Al Ummah of Tamil Nadu. Many young Indian Muslims were also driven into the arms of Dawood Ibrahim. Thus, anger among some sections of young Indian Muslims in hinterland India over the Babri Masjid demolition played an important role in the emergence of jihadi terrorism in hinterland India. This was the main motivating anger during the 1990s.Many of the major acts of terrorism during this period such as the Mumbai blasts of March 1993, the Coimbatore blasts of February 1998 and other incidents such as explosions in trains were attributable to the anger caused by the Babri Masjid demolition.
* Fifthly, after 9/11, not a single Indian Muslim living in India went to Afghanistan to join Al Qaeda's jihad against the Americans. However, some Indian Muslims based abroad did join Al Qaeda, but this was not due to their anger against the Government of India, but due to their anger against the US for its invasion and occupation of Iraq. The jihad in Iraq against the Americans waged by Al Qaeda attracted a large number of foreign Muslims, but Indian Muslims kept away from Iraq's Al Qaeda.
* Sixthly, post-2000, the anger among sections of Indian Muslim youth in hinterland India over the demolition of the Babri Masjid started subsiding, but a new cause of anger made its appearance. This was due to the perception that the Indian criminal justice system--- the police, the lawyer community and the judiciary--- was unfair to the Muslims. This new anger had two consequences. It led to some of these Muslims helping Pakistani/Bangladeshi organisations such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HUJI) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM). At the same time it also led to the phenomenon of Indian Mujahideen.
* Seventhly, the phenomenon of some Hindus taking to anti-Muslim reprisal terrorism was the outcome of what is perceived by them as the soft policy of the Government of India towards Pakistan and towards those members of the Indian Muslim community who were indulging in terrorism. The anger over the allegedly soft policy made its appearance not only among some Hindu religious elements, but also among sections of the security bureaucracy belonging to the Hindu religion. The two felt attracted to each other and joned hands in starting reprisal terrorism against soft targets in the Muslim community.
* Eighthly, the emerging phenomenon of Hindu reprisal terrorism merits serious attention because of its negative implications for communal harmony and because of the emergence of a seeming alliance between some religious elements and some in the security bureaucracy. If we don't stop this, we may go the way of Pakistan.
* Ninthly,Counter-terrorism has two aspects----operational and psychological.The operational aspect relates to strengthening our preventive,investigative and intervention capabilities.The psychological aspect relates to prompt and effective action to identify and address causes for anger in any community. Equal attention should be paid to both these aspects. ( 6-9-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-Mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Saturday, September 4, 2010
CHINA CORRECTS DIPLOMATIC FAUX PAS, BUT MAINTAINS PRESENCE IN GILGIT-BALTISTAN
B.RAMAN
On August 27,2010,the “New York Times” carried an article by Selig Harrison, former correspondent of the ”Washington Post” in New Delhi who now works in a Washington-based think tank, stating inter alia as follows: “While the world focuses on the flood-ravaged Indus River valley, a quiet geopolitical crisis is unfolding in the Himalayan borderlands of northern Pakistan, where Islamabad is handing over de facto control of the strategic Gilgit-Baltistan region in the northwest corner of disputed Kashmir to China. The entire Pakistan-occupied western portion of Kashmir stretching from Gilgit in the north to Azad (Free) Kashmir in the south is closed to the world, in contrast to the media access that India permits in the eastern part, where it is combating a Pakistan-backed insurgency. But reports from a variety of foreign intelligence sources, Pakistani journalists and Pakistani human rights workers reveal two important new developments in Gilgit-Baltistan: a simmering rebellion against Pakistani rule and the influx of an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army.” ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/op...20china&st=cse)
2. The report caused considerable concern and sensation in India. The Government of India, while expressing its concern if the report is true, ordered a verification of it by its agencies. A strong denial of the report came from the Pakistani Embassy in Beijing. On September 1, the party-controlled “Global Times” reported as follows in an article written by one by Wang Zhaokun : “A senior Pakistani official Tuesday (August 31) denied recent reports that Chinese troops are stationed in the area of Pakistan-controlled Kashmir to build a high-speed rail and road there. "The story is not true," Masood Khan, ambassador of Pakistan to China, told the Global Times. "It is totally fabricated." Khan said there are no Chinese troops in the area, but a humanitarian team from China is currently there to help local Pakistanis who suffered during the ravage of the country's most devastating floods in history.”
3.In keeping with the practice followed by official and media sources in China, the article referred to the region mentioned by Selig Harrison in his article as “Pakistan-controlled Kashmir”. The practice followed till now by Chinese Government officials, journalists and columnists has been to describe Jammu and Kashmir as “Indian-controlled Kashmir”, the so-called Azad Kashmir as “Pakistan-controlled Kashmir” and Gilgit-Baltistan as the “ Gilgit-Baltistan region” of “Pakistan-controlled Kashmir”.
4.In what was feared by analysts in India as a major departure from this practice, on the night of September 1,2010, the Government-controlled Xinhua news agency disseminated the following report:
China refutes reports of sending troops to Pakistan
BEIJING, Sept. 1 (Xinhua) -- China on Wednesday rejected reports of the presence of over 11,000 Chinese troops in northern Pakistan, saying that such "groundless reports" were made with "ulterior motives."
"We believe the attempts of some people to fabricate stories to provoke China-Pakistan or China-India relations are doomed to fail," said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu in a statement.
The comment came in response to recent reports of some American and Indian press that China had deployed more than 10,000 troops in the Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan.
5. The next day, during the regular briefing of Bejing-based journalists, including some from India, Jiang Yu reportedly used the expression “northern Pakistan” while referring to Gilgit Baltistan in the context of the article of Selig Harrison. However, this did not find mention in a transcript of the media briefing carried by the web sites of many Chinese diplomatic missions abroad. The text of the relevant extracts from the media briefing transcript is given below:
Q: Can you brief us on the latest developments of China’s assistance to Pakistan’s flood-stricken areas?
A: As Pakistan's close neighbor and all-weather friend, China empathizes with Pakistan for its severe natural disaster. The Chinese Government has offered several installments of humanitarian relief supplies worth more than RMB 100 million. The Chinese People's Liberation Army, the Red Cross Society of China, local governments and Chinese enterprises provided different forms of assistance as well. An international relief team sent by the Chinese Government has arrived in the hardest-hit southern part of Pakistan and set up a mobile hospital which is in operation now.
China has provided sincere and timely assistance to Pakistan without any strings attached. We will continue to offer support as much as we can to Pakistan based on its needs, with a view to helping the Pakistani Government and people to overcome difficulties and rebuild homes.
Q: According to reports, China recently refused to grant a visa to Lieutenant General Jaswal, head of Indian Army’s Northern Command, and the Indian side said the refusal was about the Kashmir issue. Do you have any comment? What’s China’s position over the Kashmir issue? And what’s China’s visa policy towards residents of the Indian-held Kashmir region?
A: Relevant media reports are inconsistent with the facts, as is checked with relevant authorities.
The Kashmir issue is an issue left over by history between India and Pakistan. As a neighboring country and friend to both India and Pakistan, China always holds that the Kashmir issue should be properly handled through dialogue and consultation between India and Pakistan.
China’s visa policy towards the residents of Indian-held Kashmir is consistent and remains unchanged.
6. Under the heading “China Withdraws Reference to Gilgit-Baltistan as “northern Pakistan”, the correspondent of “The Hindu” of Chennai in Bejing reported as follows on September 5: “ A day after India voiced concerns to China over its reference to the disputed Gilgit-Baltistan region as a “ northern part of Pakistan”, the Chinese Government withdrew its statement from its official Xinhua agency as well as from the Foreign Ministry’s web site…..On Saturday ( September 4) the statement appeared to have been removed from the Xinhua’s web site. The link to the statement, headlined “China refutes reports of sending troops to Pakistan”, did not open. The Chinese Foreign Ministry, which in a regular briefing on Thursday (September 2) had repeated the reference to Gilgit-Baltistan as “ a northern part of Pakistan” in response to a question on the presence of Chinese troops, deleted records of both the question and its response from its official transcript, which was posted on its website on Friday (September 3) “
7. “The Hindu” correspondent further reported: “ On Friday (September 3) morning, Indian Ambassador to China, S.Jaishankar, had conveyed New Delhi’s concerns over China’s recent moves in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir in talks with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun. In the talks, Mr.Jaishankar raised questions over the presence of Chinese troops in POK and protested China’s reference to the disputed region as a part of northern Pakistan. Mr.Zhang assured Indian officials that the troops were stationed there only for flood relief work and to provide humanitarian assistance.”
8. The Chinese reference to northern Pakistan could have been the result of the use of a similar expression by Selig Harrison, who had referred to Gilgit-Baltistan as “Himalayan borderlands of northern Pakistan.” It is likely that after the Indian Ambassador protested, the Chinese Foreign Office realized the diplomatic and legal implications of their referring to Gilgit-Baltistan as “ northern Pakistan” and deleted their statement from the web sites of Xinhua and the Foreign Office. But, they could have just deleted the reference to “northern Pakistan” and substituted in its place the name of the area as “Gilgit-Baltistan” and let the modified statement remain on the web sites. Why they deleted the entire statement? A satisfactory answer to this question is not available. However, it is evident that the Chinese, while sticking to the decisions to issue stapled visas to resident of J&K and to assist Pakistan in the development of its infrastructure in Gilgit-Baltistan, are at the same time keen that this issue should not seriously damage China’s relations with India. In this connection, reference is invited to my article dated August 30,2010, titled “Chinese Government, Media Play Down New Friction With India” at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers41/paper4008.html
9. As regards Beijing’s contention that their troops were present in the Gilgit-Baltistan region only for humanitarian relief work, the Chinese have made two humanitarian interventions in the area this year. The first was in January last. On January 4, a landslide created a huge artificial lake in the Hunza area, which subsequently burst submerging a large number of villages in the Gojal Tehsil. About 22 KMs of the Karakoram Highway were submerged under water totally disrupting road communications with Xinjiang in China and with the rest of Gilgit-Baltistan. The Pakistan Army was able to go to the assistance of the affected villages only in the downstream area. It was not able to reach the affected villages in the upstream area for want of helicopters. The Pakistan Government appealed to the Chinese for assistance. Workers of the Chinese Red Cross and engineers of the People’s Liberation Army entered the Hunza area for relief. The Xinhua reported as follows: “On January 19, at the request of the Pakistani government, the Chinese side made special arrangements to open the Kunjirap border and facilitate the purchase of relief goods from China and its clearance. The China Road and Bridge Corporation, which is conducting the project of upgradation of the Karakoram Highway, has also provided engineering consultations and equipment to help the Pakistani side to deal with the problem.” The second humanitarian intervention at the request of Islamabad was made after the recent floods. In this connection, reference is invited to my article dated September 2 and titled “INDIA MISSES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IN GILGIT-BALTISTAN” at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers41/paper4016.html.
10. Reliable source reports say that the Chinese civilian and military personnel, who entered Gilgit-Baltistan for humanitarian relief work are still in the area, but no figures regarding their number are available. The sources say that their number will be in hundreds and not in thousands. Selig Harrison’s information about the presence of over 7,000 Chinese troops is not independently corroborated. There is also no information to indicate that the construction of the railway line from Xinjiang through Gilgit-Baltistan has started. A pre-feasibility study of the project has been done and a fesibility study is to be undertaken.
11. The “Gilgit-Baltistan Tribune” reported as follows on July 10,2010, on the eve of President Asif Ali Zardari’s visit to China: “The proposal for a rail link between landlocked Xinjiang in China’s far west and the Arabian Sea through Pakistan has been under discussion for some years. Chinese companies have apparently completed a pre-feasibility study on a rail project that must cross one of the most challenging terrains in the world. If the two sides take the political decision to go ahead with the project during Zardari’s visit, a consortium of Chinese companies is likely to be constituted to explore in detail the engineering and financial aspects of the project. While the technical aspects of the trans-Karakoram rail link are daunting, there is no denying the Chinese audacity in embracing projects that are grand in conception, challenging in their execution, and consequential in their impact. During the 1970s, long before China had become rich, the People’s Liberation Army had built at great cost the Karakoram highway between Xinjiang and northern Pakistan. The self-assurance of Chinese engineers and the geopolitical ambition of Beijing’s security establishment have grown manifold since. While India’s objections have not had much impact on either China or Pakistan, other developments have cast a shadow over some of the trans-Karakoram projects. The unstable terrain of the Karakorams demands costly upkeep of the highway, repeatedly damaged by landslides and formation of temporary lakes. At the political level, China has been concerned about growing links between Islamist and separatist movements in the Xinjiang province on the one hand and the terrorist safe havens in Pakistan and Afghanistan on the other. As a result, China had to often shut down the Karakoram highway. In recent months, Beijing has been pressing Islamabad to crack down hard on anti-Chinese extremist groups taking shelter on Pakistani soil.”
12. In this connection, please refer to my article on Zardari’s visit of July 11,2010, titled “PAKISTAN AS CHINA’S FORCE-MULTIPLIER AGAINST INDIA” at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers40/paper3918.html . In that article, I had assessed the Chinese involvement in infrastructure development in Gilgit-Baltistan as follows:
“Any Indian expectation that as part of the assurance of Prime Minister Wen of caring for India’s core interests and major concerns, China would reverse its policy of helping Pakistan in the development of its railway and road infrastructure in the Gilgit-Baltistan area bordering Xinjiang, which de jure is part of India’s Jammu and Kashmir, and developing the hydro-electric potential in the Gilgit-Baltistan area was belied when the two countries announced the formal signing of more agreements relating to Gilgit-Baltistan during Mr.Zardari’s stay in Beijing. Under Memoranda of Understanding signed by officials of the two Governments during the visit, China will build the 165-km long Jaglot-Skardu road and the 135-km long Thakot-Sazin road. The projects would cost Pakistani Rs 45 billion with 15 per cent financing by Pakistan and 85 per cent by China. Under another MoU to be jointly executed by Chinese company Datang and Norwegian company EBT, 500 MW electricity would be produced through wind power. It is not known whether this will also be in the Gilgit-Baltistan area.
“ Mr.Zardari and the officials accompanying him repeatedly indicated that the Chinese have agreed in principle to co-operate with Pakistan in the construction of a railway line connecting Pakistan with Xinjiang via Gilgit-Baltistan. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters in response to a question that cooperation for the construction of a railway link between the two countries was for mutual benefit and not directed against any third party. It would appear that details of the project such as arrangements for financing and the alignment of the railway line are yet to be worked out. Mr.Zardari proposed that the Pakistan and China Railways should form a joint consortium for the timely execution of this project.
“ Mr.Zardari once again took up with the Chinese the pending Pakistani proposals for the upgradation of the Gwadar port, the construction of an oil refinery and an airport in Gwadar and the construction of oil/gas pipelines from Gwadar to Xinjiang. While the Chinese have readily responded in a positive manner to various proposals for projects in the Gilgit-Baltistan area, they are still hesitant regarding new projects in the Balochistan area. While they do not anticipate any security problems in the Gilgit-Baltistan area, they are still worried about the security situation in Balochistan.
“ Mr.Zardari’s disappointment over the Chinese hesitation in the Balochistan area became evident in his reported remarks to Prime Minister Wen that Pakistan desired that “China should take maximum benefits from the Gwadar Port.” From this it is evident that while Pakistan is keen for the quick implementation of the Gwadar-related projects, security considerations still inhibit the Chinese response.
“ The agreement in principle for the upgradation of the Karakoram Highway was reportedly reached more than 10 years ago. The Chinese agreed to meet the cost of upgradation on their side and Pakistan on its side. While the Chinese carried out the upgradation on their side ahead of time, the Pakistanis could not find the money for the upgradation on their side. As a result, the execution of the project was delayed and the Chinese ultimately agreed to give a soft loan to Pakistan for this purpose.
“. Pakistan has reached a similar deal wit Iran in respect of the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. While Iran will finance and construct the pipeline on its side, Pakistan has agreed to do so on its side, but it does not have the money. Will the Chinese give the money and help in the pipeline construction in return for a supply of part of the gas from Iran? This is a question which Pakistan has repeatedly raised with Beijing. China has been reluctant so far. According to reliable sources, Mr. Zardari raised this issue once again in Beijing, but there was no positive response from the Chinese.”
13.That position remains unchanged. ( 5-9-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director,Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
On August 27,2010,the “New York Times” carried an article by Selig Harrison, former correspondent of the ”Washington Post” in New Delhi who now works in a Washington-based think tank, stating inter alia as follows: “While the world focuses on the flood-ravaged Indus River valley, a quiet geopolitical crisis is unfolding in the Himalayan borderlands of northern Pakistan, where Islamabad is handing over de facto control of the strategic Gilgit-Baltistan region in the northwest corner of disputed Kashmir to China. The entire Pakistan-occupied western portion of Kashmir stretching from Gilgit in the north to Azad (Free) Kashmir in the south is closed to the world, in contrast to the media access that India permits in the eastern part, where it is combating a Pakistan-backed insurgency. But reports from a variety of foreign intelligence sources, Pakistani journalists and Pakistani human rights workers reveal two important new developments in Gilgit-Baltistan: a simmering rebellion against Pakistani rule and the influx of an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army.” ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/op...20china&st=cse)
2. The report caused considerable concern and sensation in India. The Government of India, while expressing its concern if the report is true, ordered a verification of it by its agencies. A strong denial of the report came from the Pakistani Embassy in Beijing. On September 1, the party-controlled “Global Times” reported as follows in an article written by one by Wang Zhaokun : “A senior Pakistani official Tuesday (August 31) denied recent reports that Chinese troops are stationed in the area of Pakistan-controlled Kashmir to build a high-speed rail and road there. "The story is not true," Masood Khan, ambassador of Pakistan to China, told the Global Times. "It is totally fabricated." Khan said there are no Chinese troops in the area, but a humanitarian team from China is currently there to help local Pakistanis who suffered during the ravage of the country's most devastating floods in history.”
3.In keeping with the practice followed by official and media sources in China, the article referred to the region mentioned by Selig Harrison in his article as “Pakistan-controlled Kashmir”. The practice followed till now by Chinese Government officials, journalists and columnists has been to describe Jammu and Kashmir as “Indian-controlled Kashmir”, the so-called Azad Kashmir as “Pakistan-controlled Kashmir” and Gilgit-Baltistan as the “ Gilgit-Baltistan region” of “Pakistan-controlled Kashmir”.
4.In what was feared by analysts in India as a major departure from this practice, on the night of September 1,2010, the Government-controlled Xinhua news agency disseminated the following report:
China refutes reports of sending troops to Pakistan
BEIJING, Sept. 1 (Xinhua) -- China on Wednesday rejected reports of the presence of over 11,000 Chinese troops in northern Pakistan, saying that such "groundless reports" were made with "ulterior motives."
"We believe the attempts of some people to fabricate stories to provoke China-Pakistan or China-India relations are doomed to fail," said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu in a statement.
The comment came in response to recent reports of some American and Indian press that China had deployed more than 10,000 troops in the Gilgit-Baltistan region of Pakistan.
5. The next day, during the regular briefing of Bejing-based journalists, including some from India, Jiang Yu reportedly used the expression “northern Pakistan” while referring to Gilgit Baltistan in the context of the article of Selig Harrison. However, this did not find mention in a transcript of the media briefing carried by the web sites of many Chinese diplomatic missions abroad. The text of the relevant extracts from the media briefing transcript is given below:
Q: Can you brief us on the latest developments of China’s assistance to Pakistan’s flood-stricken areas?
A: As Pakistan's close neighbor and all-weather friend, China empathizes with Pakistan for its severe natural disaster. The Chinese Government has offered several installments of humanitarian relief supplies worth more than RMB 100 million. The Chinese People's Liberation Army, the Red Cross Society of China, local governments and Chinese enterprises provided different forms of assistance as well. An international relief team sent by the Chinese Government has arrived in the hardest-hit southern part of Pakistan and set up a mobile hospital which is in operation now.
China has provided sincere and timely assistance to Pakistan without any strings attached. We will continue to offer support as much as we can to Pakistan based on its needs, with a view to helping the Pakistani Government and people to overcome difficulties and rebuild homes.
Q: According to reports, China recently refused to grant a visa to Lieutenant General Jaswal, head of Indian Army’s Northern Command, and the Indian side said the refusal was about the Kashmir issue. Do you have any comment? What’s China’s position over the Kashmir issue? And what’s China’s visa policy towards residents of the Indian-held Kashmir region?
A: Relevant media reports are inconsistent with the facts, as is checked with relevant authorities.
The Kashmir issue is an issue left over by history between India and Pakistan. As a neighboring country and friend to both India and Pakistan, China always holds that the Kashmir issue should be properly handled through dialogue and consultation between India and Pakistan.
China’s visa policy towards the residents of Indian-held Kashmir is consistent and remains unchanged.
6. Under the heading “China Withdraws Reference to Gilgit-Baltistan as “northern Pakistan”, the correspondent of “The Hindu” of Chennai in Bejing reported as follows on September 5: “ A day after India voiced concerns to China over its reference to the disputed Gilgit-Baltistan region as a “ northern part of Pakistan”, the Chinese Government withdrew its statement from its official Xinhua agency as well as from the Foreign Ministry’s web site…..On Saturday ( September 4) the statement appeared to have been removed from the Xinhua’s web site. The link to the statement, headlined “China refutes reports of sending troops to Pakistan”, did not open. The Chinese Foreign Ministry, which in a regular briefing on Thursday (September 2) had repeated the reference to Gilgit-Baltistan as “ a northern part of Pakistan” in response to a question on the presence of Chinese troops, deleted records of both the question and its response from its official transcript, which was posted on its website on Friday (September 3) “
7. “The Hindu” correspondent further reported: “ On Friday (September 3) morning, Indian Ambassador to China, S.Jaishankar, had conveyed New Delhi’s concerns over China’s recent moves in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir in talks with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun. In the talks, Mr.Jaishankar raised questions over the presence of Chinese troops in POK and protested China’s reference to the disputed region as a part of northern Pakistan. Mr.Zhang assured Indian officials that the troops were stationed there only for flood relief work and to provide humanitarian assistance.”
8. The Chinese reference to northern Pakistan could have been the result of the use of a similar expression by Selig Harrison, who had referred to Gilgit-Baltistan as “Himalayan borderlands of northern Pakistan.” It is likely that after the Indian Ambassador protested, the Chinese Foreign Office realized the diplomatic and legal implications of their referring to Gilgit-Baltistan as “ northern Pakistan” and deleted their statement from the web sites of Xinhua and the Foreign Office. But, they could have just deleted the reference to “northern Pakistan” and substituted in its place the name of the area as “Gilgit-Baltistan” and let the modified statement remain on the web sites. Why they deleted the entire statement? A satisfactory answer to this question is not available. However, it is evident that the Chinese, while sticking to the decisions to issue stapled visas to resident of J&K and to assist Pakistan in the development of its infrastructure in Gilgit-Baltistan, are at the same time keen that this issue should not seriously damage China’s relations with India. In this connection, reference is invited to my article dated August 30,2010, titled “Chinese Government, Media Play Down New Friction With India” at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers41/paper4008.html
9. As regards Beijing’s contention that their troops were present in the Gilgit-Baltistan region only for humanitarian relief work, the Chinese have made two humanitarian interventions in the area this year. The first was in January last. On January 4, a landslide created a huge artificial lake in the Hunza area, which subsequently burst submerging a large number of villages in the Gojal Tehsil. About 22 KMs of the Karakoram Highway were submerged under water totally disrupting road communications with Xinjiang in China and with the rest of Gilgit-Baltistan. The Pakistan Army was able to go to the assistance of the affected villages only in the downstream area. It was not able to reach the affected villages in the upstream area for want of helicopters. The Pakistan Government appealed to the Chinese for assistance. Workers of the Chinese Red Cross and engineers of the People’s Liberation Army entered the Hunza area for relief. The Xinhua reported as follows: “On January 19, at the request of the Pakistani government, the Chinese side made special arrangements to open the Kunjirap border and facilitate the purchase of relief goods from China and its clearance. The China Road and Bridge Corporation, which is conducting the project of upgradation of the Karakoram Highway, has also provided engineering consultations and equipment to help the Pakistani side to deal with the problem.” The second humanitarian intervention at the request of Islamabad was made after the recent floods. In this connection, reference is invited to my article dated September 2 and titled “INDIA MISSES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IN GILGIT-BALTISTAN” at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers41/paper4016.html.
10. Reliable source reports say that the Chinese civilian and military personnel, who entered Gilgit-Baltistan for humanitarian relief work are still in the area, but no figures regarding their number are available. The sources say that their number will be in hundreds and not in thousands. Selig Harrison’s information about the presence of over 7,000 Chinese troops is not independently corroborated. There is also no information to indicate that the construction of the railway line from Xinjiang through Gilgit-Baltistan has started. A pre-feasibility study of the project has been done and a fesibility study is to be undertaken.
11. The “Gilgit-Baltistan Tribune” reported as follows on July 10,2010, on the eve of President Asif Ali Zardari’s visit to China: “The proposal for a rail link between landlocked Xinjiang in China’s far west and the Arabian Sea through Pakistan has been under discussion for some years. Chinese companies have apparently completed a pre-feasibility study on a rail project that must cross one of the most challenging terrains in the world. If the two sides take the political decision to go ahead with the project during Zardari’s visit, a consortium of Chinese companies is likely to be constituted to explore in detail the engineering and financial aspects of the project. While the technical aspects of the trans-Karakoram rail link are daunting, there is no denying the Chinese audacity in embracing projects that are grand in conception, challenging in their execution, and consequential in their impact. During the 1970s, long before China had become rich, the People’s Liberation Army had built at great cost the Karakoram highway between Xinjiang and northern Pakistan. The self-assurance of Chinese engineers and the geopolitical ambition of Beijing’s security establishment have grown manifold since. While India’s objections have not had much impact on either China or Pakistan, other developments have cast a shadow over some of the trans-Karakoram projects. The unstable terrain of the Karakorams demands costly upkeep of the highway, repeatedly damaged by landslides and formation of temporary lakes. At the political level, China has been concerned about growing links between Islamist and separatist movements in the Xinjiang province on the one hand and the terrorist safe havens in Pakistan and Afghanistan on the other. As a result, China had to often shut down the Karakoram highway. In recent months, Beijing has been pressing Islamabad to crack down hard on anti-Chinese extremist groups taking shelter on Pakistani soil.”
12. In this connection, please refer to my article on Zardari’s visit of July 11,2010, titled “PAKISTAN AS CHINA’S FORCE-MULTIPLIER AGAINST INDIA” at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers40/paper3918.html . In that article, I had assessed the Chinese involvement in infrastructure development in Gilgit-Baltistan as follows:
“Any Indian expectation that as part of the assurance of Prime Minister Wen of caring for India’s core interests and major concerns, China would reverse its policy of helping Pakistan in the development of its railway and road infrastructure in the Gilgit-Baltistan area bordering Xinjiang, which de jure is part of India’s Jammu and Kashmir, and developing the hydro-electric potential in the Gilgit-Baltistan area was belied when the two countries announced the formal signing of more agreements relating to Gilgit-Baltistan during Mr.Zardari’s stay in Beijing. Under Memoranda of Understanding signed by officials of the two Governments during the visit, China will build the 165-km long Jaglot-Skardu road and the 135-km long Thakot-Sazin road. The projects would cost Pakistani Rs 45 billion with 15 per cent financing by Pakistan and 85 per cent by China. Under another MoU to be jointly executed by Chinese company Datang and Norwegian company EBT, 500 MW electricity would be produced through wind power. It is not known whether this will also be in the Gilgit-Baltistan area.
“ Mr.Zardari and the officials accompanying him repeatedly indicated that the Chinese have agreed in principle to co-operate with Pakistan in the construction of a railway line connecting Pakistan with Xinjiang via Gilgit-Baltistan. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters in response to a question that cooperation for the construction of a railway link between the two countries was for mutual benefit and not directed against any third party. It would appear that details of the project such as arrangements for financing and the alignment of the railway line are yet to be worked out. Mr.Zardari proposed that the Pakistan and China Railways should form a joint consortium for the timely execution of this project.
“ Mr.Zardari once again took up with the Chinese the pending Pakistani proposals for the upgradation of the Gwadar port, the construction of an oil refinery and an airport in Gwadar and the construction of oil/gas pipelines from Gwadar to Xinjiang. While the Chinese have readily responded in a positive manner to various proposals for projects in the Gilgit-Baltistan area, they are still hesitant regarding new projects in the Balochistan area. While they do not anticipate any security problems in the Gilgit-Baltistan area, they are still worried about the security situation in Balochistan.
“ Mr.Zardari’s disappointment over the Chinese hesitation in the Balochistan area became evident in his reported remarks to Prime Minister Wen that Pakistan desired that “China should take maximum benefits from the Gwadar Port.” From this it is evident that while Pakistan is keen for the quick implementation of the Gwadar-related projects, security considerations still inhibit the Chinese response.
“ The agreement in principle for the upgradation of the Karakoram Highway was reportedly reached more than 10 years ago. The Chinese agreed to meet the cost of upgradation on their side and Pakistan on its side. While the Chinese carried out the upgradation on their side ahead of time, the Pakistanis could not find the money for the upgradation on their side. As a result, the execution of the project was delayed and the Chinese ultimately agreed to give a soft loan to Pakistan for this purpose.
“. Pakistan has reached a similar deal wit Iran in respect of the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. While Iran will finance and construct the pipeline on its side, Pakistan has agreed to do so on its side, but it does not have the money. Will the Chinese give the money and help in the pipeline construction in return for a supply of part of the gas from Iran? This is a question which Pakistan has repeatedly raised with Beijing. China has been reluctant so far. According to reliable sources, Mr. Zardari raised this issue once again in Beijing, but there was no positive response from the Chinese.”
13.That position remains unchanged. ( 5-9-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director,Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Friday, September 3, 2010
ATTACKS ON SHIAS IN PAKISTAN, A MESSAGE TO IRAN TOO
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR--PAPER NO.674
B.RAMAN
The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the anti-Shia Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ), which is an affiliate of Al Qaeda, have both claimed responsibility for the murderous attacks through suicide bombers on Shia processions during the holy fasting period at Lahore on September 1, 2010, and Quetta on September 3,2010. The Shia procession in Lahore was a normal one with no political significance. The procession in Quetta was in observance of Al Quds Day on the last Friday of the fasting period. Al Quds is the name of the historic mosque in East Jerusalem, which is under Israeli control since 1967. Ever since Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967, Muslims all over the world observe the last Friday of the fasting period as Al Quds Day to remind each other that Al Quds is still under the control of Israel.
2. The call for the observance of the last Friday of the fasting period as Al Quds Day was given by Ayatollah Khomeini in a message issued by him to all the Muslims of the world----Shias as well as Sunnis---in August 1979. He said in his message: " I invite Muslims all over the globe to consecrate the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan as Al-Quds Day and to proclaim the international solidarity of Muslims in support of the legitimate rights of the Muslim people of Palestine. For many years, I have been notifying the Muslims of the danger posed by the usurper Israel which today has intensified its savage attacks against the Palestinian brothers and sisters, and which, in the south of Lebanon in particular, is continually bombing Palestinian homes in the hope of crushing the Palestinian struggle. I ask all the Muslims of the world and the Muslim governments to join together to sever the hand of this usurper and its supporters. I call on all the Muslims of the world to select as Al-Quds Day the last Friday in the holy month of Ramadan - which is itself a determining period and can also be the determiner of the Palestinian people’s fate - and through a ceremony demonstrating the solidarity of Muslims world-wide, announce their support for the legitimate rights of the Muslim people. I ask God Almighty for the victory of the Muslims over the infidels."
3. Thirty-three people, mostly Shias, died in the explosions in Lahore and 55 in Quetta. Attacks on Shias are not unusual in Pakistan, but the attacks this year have been very virulent. In the past the Sunni extremists used to attack the Shias when they were highlighting their sectarian identity. On September 3, they attacked them even when they were highlighting their solidarity with all Muslims---Sunnis and Shias--- in renewing the pledge of the Islamic world not to rest till Al Quds was liberated from Israeli control.
4. Even though the TTP and the LEJ have projected the attacks on the processions as in reprisal for the murder of a Sunni cleric last year allegedly by the Shias, there is another angle to the anti-Shia attacks this year. The fasting period this year has coincided with the proclaimed end of the US military mission in Iraq. Sunni extremists have always held Iran and the Shias responsible for facilitating the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and accused them of collaborating with the US against Saddam Hussein.Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No 2 of Al Qaeda, had in the past accused Iran of stabbing the Ummah in the back by facilitating the US occupation of Iraq.
5. Al Qaeda, the TTP and the LEJ have a common objective in making Iran pay a price for its collaboration with the US in Iraq. In the Islamic world, anti-Shia feelings are the strongest in Pakistan. The loyalty of the Shias of Pakistan to Iran remains strong. In the past, the LEJ had attacked not only Shia targets, but also Iranian targets. It had killed Iranian diplomats and has allegedly been assisting the Jundullah, the Sunni organisation of Iranian Balochistan, which has been fighting against the Iranian regime.
6. The attacks on Shias observing Al Quds Day in Quetta were meant to punish not only the Shias of Pakistan, but also Iran. Generally, Iranian diplomats join Al Quds Day processions in different cities of Pakistan. One should not be surprised if there were some Iranian diplomats in the Quetta procession.
7. The international community has not taken note of the continuing siege of the Shias of the Kurram Agency in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) by the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban. The Shias call Kurram the Pakistani Gaza and have been repeatedly appealing to the international community to end the siege by the Taliban. They accuse the Pakistan Army and its Chief of the Army Staff, Gen.Ashfaq Pervez Kayani of inaction while pretending to act against the two Talibans.
8. The mutual hostility of the Shias and Sunnis of Pakistan towards each other shows no signs of abating. On the contrary, it has been increasing as seen by recent anti-Shia attacks in Karachi, Lahore and Quetta. ( 4-9-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
B.RAMAN
The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the anti-Shia Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LEJ), which is an affiliate of Al Qaeda, have both claimed responsibility for the murderous attacks through suicide bombers on Shia processions during the holy fasting period at Lahore on September 1, 2010, and Quetta on September 3,2010. The Shia procession in Lahore was a normal one with no political significance. The procession in Quetta was in observance of Al Quds Day on the last Friday of the fasting period. Al Quds is the name of the historic mosque in East Jerusalem, which is under Israeli control since 1967. Ever since Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967, Muslims all over the world observe the last Friday of the fasting period as Al Quds Day to remind each other that Al Quds is still under the control of Israel.
2. The call for the observance of the last Friday of the fasting period as Al Quds Day was given by Ayatollah Khomeini in a message issued by him to all the Muslims of the world----Shias as well as Sunnis---in August 1979. He said in his message: " I invite Muslims all over the globe to consecrate the last Friday of the holy month of Ramadan as Al-Quds Day and to proclaim the international solidarity of Muslims in support of the legitimate rights of the Muslim people of Palestine. For many years, I have been notifying the Muslims of the danger posed by the usurper Israel which today has intensified its savage attacks against the Palestinian brothers and sisters, and which, in the south of Lebanon in particular, is continually bombing Palestinian homes in the hope of crushing the Palestinian struggle. I ask all the Muslims of the world and the Muslim governments to join together to sever the hand of this usurper and its supporters. I call on all the Muslims of the world to select as Al-Quds Day the last Friday in the holy month of Ramadan - which is itself a determining period and can also be the determiner of the Palestinian people’s fate - and through a ceremony demonstrating the solidarity of Muslims world-wide, announce their support for the legitimate rights of the Muslim people. I ask God Almighty for the victory of the Muslims over the infidels."
3. Thirty-three people, mostly Shias, died in the explosions in Lahore and 55 in Quetta. Attacks on Shias are not unusual in Pakistan, but the attacks this year have been very virulent. In the past the Sunni extremists used to attack the Shias when they were highlighting their sectarian identity. On September 3, they attacked them even when they were highlighting their solidarity with all Muslims---Sunnis and Shias--- in renewing the pledge of the Islamic world not to rest till Al Quds was liberated from Israeli control.
4. Even though the TTP and the LEJ have projected the attacks on the processions as in reprisal for the murder of a Sunni cleric last year allegedly by the Shias, there is another angle to the anti-Shia attacks this year. The fasting period this year has coincided with the proclaimed end of the US military mission in Iraq. Sunni extremists have always held Iran and the Shias responsible for facilitating the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and accused them of collaborating with the US against Saddam Hussein.Ayman al-Zawahiri, the No 2 of Al Qaeda, had in the past accused Iran of stabbing the Ummah in the back by facilitating the US occupation of Iraq.
5. Al Qaeda, the TTP and the LEJ have a common objective in making Iran pay a price for its collaboration with the US in Iraq. In the Islamic world, anti-Shia feelings are the strongest in Pakistan. The loyalty of the Shias of Pakistan to Iran remains strong. In the past, the LEJ had attacked not only Shia targets, but also Iranian targets. It had killed Iranian diplomats and has allegedly been assisting the Jundullah, the Sunni organisation of Iranian Balochistan, which has been fighting against the Iranian regime.
6. The attacks on Shias observing Al Quds Day in Quetta were meant to punish not only the Shias of Pakistan, but also Iran. Generally, Iranian diplomats join Al Quds Day processions in different cities of Pakistan. One should not be surprised if there were some Iranian diplomats in the Quetta procession.
7. The international community has not taken note of the continuing siege of the Shias of the Kurram Agency in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) by the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban. The Shias call Kurram the Pakistani Gaza and have been repeatedly appealing to the international community to end the siege by the Taliban. They accuse the Pakistan Army and its Chief of the Army Staff, Gen.Ashfaq Pervez Kayani of inaction while pretending to act against the two Talibans.
8. The mutual hostility of the Shias and Sunnis of Pakistan towards each other shows no signs of abating. On the contrary, it has been increasing as seen by recent anti-Shia attacks in Karachi, Lahore and Quetta. ( 4-9-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Thursday, September 2, 2010
MY THOUGHTS ON THE MAOIST HOSTAGE-TAKING IN BIHAR
B.RAMAN
The Maoists of Bihar kidnapped on August 29,2010, Sub-Inspectors Rupesh Kumar and Abhay Prasad Yadav, Bihar Military Police havildar Ehtesham Khan and BMP ASI Lucas Tete after an encounter in the Kajra police station area the same day, which left eight policemen dead. They reportedly demanded the release of eight Maoists who are in the custody of the local authorities for allegedly having been involved in Maoist acts of violence.
2.Following the alleged absence of any move by the Bihar Government to establish contact with them before the deadline indicated by them for talks on their demand expired, they claim to have killed Sub-Inspector Abhay Prasad Yadav. They have not yet provided proof of their claim, but have promised to return Yadav's dead body to the police. They have further extended the deadline till 10 AM on September 3 and threatened to kill the other hostages if their demand is not met,
3.There is considerable indignation and shock over the claimed execution of S.I. Yadav.All TV news channels are devoting considerable attention to a discussion of the development with the participation of representatives of political parties and some retired bureaucrats.Participating in a debate on CNN-IBN anchored by Shri Rajdeep Sardesai, a leading TV anchor, at 9 PM on September 2, I pointed out that the hostage-takers will be watching the debates on different TV channels and any impression of differences as to how to deal with the situation could make a difficult situation even more difficult. I stressed the importance of everyone talking in a single voice in condemning the hostage-takers. I also stressed the importance of the State Government remaining in touch with the families of the hostages in order to keep them in the picture on the evolving situation and reassure them that everything possible was being done to rescue the hostages.
4.We should not forget that the failure of the Government of the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in December 1999 to remain in touch with the families of the passengers in an Indian Airlines plane hijacked to Kandahar by some terrorists of the Pakistan-backed and Pakistan-based Harkat-ul-Mujahideen led to a surge in protests from the relatives and their public and media supporters. This was one of the factors which forced the Government of Shri Vajpayee to concede the demand of the hijackers for the release of some Pakistani terrorists in the custody of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K).
5. The Indian TV coverage of the Kandahar hijacking and the Manila TV coverage of a recent hostage-taking incident involving a sacked Filipino police officer on August 23 showed how ill-advised coverage and comments by the participants in the TV discussions could prove counter -productive and lead to a tragedy. There has been considerable criticism in Manila of the TV coverage, with some experts holding it partly responsible for the tragic death of eight of the hostages, who were allegedly killed by the hostage-taker who was losing patience.
6. One has to emphasise the importance of balance in the TV discussions while the hostage-taking situation continues. It would be a good idea for the TV anchors to caution the participants in the beginning of the discussions that the situation is continuing and that they should keep in mind the strong possibility that the hostage-takers will be watching the TV discussions. Leaders of political parties too should caution their media persons deputed to participate in the debates. Retired bureaucrats participating in the debates should also remember that their comments will be closely watched and noted by the hostage-takers.
7. At this stage, when the hostage-taking continues, only some general observations would be in order:
* Firstly, it would be unwise to treat the present incident as an act of desperation of the Maoists. It is more an indicator of their ruthless determination to continue their fight against the Government with no holds barred.
* Secondly, the Maoists' calculation in exploiting the police officers captured during an encounter with the police as hostages has two objectives---to discredit the Government of Bihar in the eyes of the public and to try to drive a wedge between junior and senior police officers and between the police and the political leadership by projecting the senior officers and the political leaders as insensitive to the agony of the relatives.
8. It is important for the crisis managers of the Governments of Bihar and India to keep these factors constantly in view while planning and carrying out their strategy to deal with the situation. Any other comments of a specific nature relating to the handling of the situation would be unwise at this stage.The entire nation should make it clear that it is behind the brave attempts of the security agencies, including the Bihar Police, to rescue the hostages and that it shares the agony of the relatives of the hostages. ( 3-9-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The Maoists of Bihar kidnapped on August 29,2010, Sub-Inspectors Rupesh Kumar and Abhay Prasad Yadav, Bihar Military Police havildar Ehtesham Khan and BMP ASI Lucas Tete after an encounter in the Kajra police station area the same day, which left eight policemen dead. They reportedly demanded the release of eight Maoists who are in the custody of the local authorities for allegedly having been involved in Maoist acts of violence.
2.Following the alleged absence of any move by the Bihar Government to establish contact with them before the deadline indicated by them for talks on their demand expired, they claim to have killed Sub-Inspector Abhay Prasad Yadav. They have not yet provided proof of their claim, but have promised to return Yadav's dead body to the police. They have further extended the deadline till 10 AM on September 3 and threatened to kill the other hostages if their demand is not met,
3.There is considerable indignation and shock over the claimed execution of S.I. Yadav.All TV news channels are devoting considerable attention to a discussion of the development with the participation of representatives of political parties and some retired bureaucrats.Participating in a debate on CNN-IBN anchored by Shri Rajdeep Sardesai, a leading TV anchor, at 9 PM on September 2, I pointed out that the hostage-takers will be watching the debates on different TV channels and any impression of differences as to how to deal with the situation could make a difficult situation even more difficult. I stressed the importance of everyone talking in a single voice in condemning the hostage-takers. I also stressed the importance of the State Government remaining in touch with the families of the hostages in order to keep them in the picture on the evolving situation and reassure them that everything possible was being done to rescue the hostages.
4.We should not forget that the failure of the Government of the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in December 1999 to remain in touch with the families of the passengers in an Indian Airlines plane hijacked to Kandahar by some terrorists of the Pakistan-backed and Pakistan-based Harkat-ul-Mujahideen led to a surge in protests from the relatives and their public and media supporters. This was one of the factors which forced the Government of Shri Vajpayee to concede the demand of the hijackers for the release of some Pakistani terrorists in the custody of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K).
5. The Indian TV coverage of the Kandahar hijacking and the Manila TV coverage of a recent hostage-taking incident involving a sacked Filipino police officer on August 23 showed how ill-advised coverage and comments by the participants in the TV discussions could prove counter -productive and lead to a tragedy. There has been considerable criticism in Manila of the TV coverage, with some experts holding it partly responsible for the tragic death of eight of the hostages, who were allegedly killed by the hostage-taker who was losing patience.
6. One has to emphasise the importance of balance in the TV discussions while the hostage-taking situation continues. It would be a good idea for the TV anchors to caution the participants in the beginning of the discussions that the situation is continuing and that they should keep in mind the strong possibility that the hostage-takers will be watching the TV discussions. Leaders of political parties too should caution their media persons deputed to participate in the debates. Retired bureaucrats participating in the debates should also remember that their comments will be closely watched and noted by the hostage-takers.
7. At this stage, when the hostage-taking continues, only some general observations would be in order:
* Firstly, it would be unwise to treat the present incident as an act of desperation of the Maoists. It is more an indicator of their ruthless determination to continue their fight against the Government with no holds barred.
* Secondly, the Maoists' calculation in exploiting the police officers captured during an encounter with the police as hostages has two objectives---to discredit the Government of Bihar in the eyes of the public and to try to drive a wedge between junior and senior police officers and between the police and the political leadership by projecting the senior officers and the political leaders as insensitive to the agony of the relatives.
8. It is important for the crisis managers of the Governments of Bihar and India to keep these factors constantly in view while planning and carrying out their strategy to deal with the situation. Any other comments of a specific nature relating to the handling of the situation would be unwise at this stage.The entire nation should make it clear that it is behind the brave attempts of the security agencies, including the Bihar Police, to rescue the hostages and that it shares the agony of the relatives of the hostages. ( 3-9-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
INDIA MISSES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION IN GILGIT-BALTISTAN
B.RAMAN
The Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) area of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) was one of the first and worst to be affected by the floods caused by the recent monsoon and breaches of dams and water reservoirs in Pakistan. The damages spread from there to other parts of Pakistan. The devastation caused by flash floods in GB preceded that in Ladakh and was even worse. Finding that the Pakistan Government was unable and unwilling ----because of the floods in other areas--- to come to the help of the people of GB, local nationalist organizations sent out SOS messages to India and the other members of the international community to help them. These messages started coming in from the second week of August.
2. In a direct appeal to the international community, Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan of the Balawaristan National Front of GB stated as follows: “52 people have died and 160 rendered homeless in the village Qamrah of occupied Gilgit Baltistan region, and 22 have died, 40 rendered homeless in village Talas, 45 died and 70 injured in Giyes of Diamar. Similarly, in Talas 22 people were killed and 40 houses destroyed while in Hotoo, Rondu, Darel, Tangir, Botogah, Khinar, Thor, Hoodoor,Babusar, Gini, Hunza Nagir, Chhamoogardh Colony of Konodas and Skarkooi, Gilgit, Ghowadi Baltistan, Yasen, Gulaper, Isshqaman, Damas, Ginday, Sandhi, Hondoor, Dahrkoot, Mastuj, Booni, Garam Chashma, Yarkhoon in Chitral, and Koli and Pattan in Kohistan over 500 people have lost their lives whereas, more than half a million have become homeless and nearly 50,000 families have completely lost everything, including land, shelter, livestock and all means of living". I had referred to this message in my article dated August 26,2010, titled “SOS from Khyber Pakhtunkwa, Balochistan & Gilgit-Baltistan” at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers40/paper4000.html
3. In a statement disseminated from Skardu, Mr.Manzoor Hussain Parwana, the Chairman of the Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement (GBUM) demanded that the Indian aid coming for relief victims should also be shared with the people of Gilgit Baltistan. He also demanded that the Kargil-Skardu and the Astore-Srinagar roads should be opened immediately to provide relief to the local people. He requested the international community to play a greater role in providing relief to the flood victims of GB. He said: “The region is cut off from the rest of the world for the last 20 days due to flashfloods and landslides. Commodity and food prices have skyrocketed and causing famine like situation. Many villages have been flattened. Lack of medicines has caused endemic diseases in the region. GB is a disputed territory under Pakistani administration. The people of GB have no hope from the Pakistani Government since the country itself is in crisis and the regime lacks the capacity and the will to provide for the millions of flood victims in the rest of the country. While the rulers look towards the international community for help, the relief is coming at much slower pace due to lack of credibility of the Pakistani authorities, who embezzled billions of rupees of relief funds during the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir. Given the circumstances, the international community and especially neighbouring countries have to enhance their direct influence in the relief work."
4. He further said that the current puppet government of GB had failed to repair the road network. “Every village is cut off from the rest and no relief has reached the affectees. Government has resorted to releasing statements in the newspapers and made false claims of improvement in the conditions of the natives. With the closure of the Karakoram Highway (KKH), the Gilgit-Skardu Road, the Ghizer-Chitral road, and the Hunza-China section of the KKH, the prices of food items have increased. Food items, kerosene and gasoline are not available in the markets. The problems will continue to increase as the situation worsens. Pakistani helicopters are only working to evacuate the foreigners and military officials and related loved ones, and have failed to service the poor natives. This is sheer discrimination towards the people of GB. Pakistan has conspired to disrupt traffic on the Kargil-Skardu road and the Astore-Gurez road for all these years. Further, the creation of the Ataabad Lake has obstructed traffic to China for the coming months. Under these circumstances, the Government must make immediate effort to open the Kargil-Skardu road to provide relief to the affected people of Skardu district, Shigar district, Gangche district, Kharmang district, Astore district and Deosai-Gultari district. In the same manner, the Ishkoman road to Tajikistan and Wakhan should be opened to benefit the people of Ghizer district. The road from Astore to Srinagar must be used immediately to supply food and ration to the poor two million people of the region. In this great time of need, the people of GB expect neighbors to play a greater role in rehabilitation."
5. In a statement to the media on August 16, Chief Minister Mehdi Shah of GB said that the situation in GB was worsening due to a breakdown of road network and civic facilities in the region. "It is beyond the capacity of the Gilgit-Baltistan government to cope with the situation." He said that he had requested the Federal Government to provide Rs10 billion for the rehabilitation and compensation of the affected people. According to him, the area had been cut off from the rest of the country for the last one month as the Karakoram Highway, which was the lifeline for the region, was totally damaged. Work for its restoration has been started but it will take a considerable time to restore traffic. Fuel and essential commodities had been running out of stock in the region and the Government was supplying it through the Kaghan-Naran road.
6.The desperate SOS messages from the people and nationalist elements in GB were not noticed in New Delhi. The Government of India did not refer to the plight of the people of GB while announcing its offer of the first instalment of assistance amounting to US $ five million for flood relief in Pakistan. Nor has it made a reference to the plight of the people of GB, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkwa while making its offer of the second instalment of US $ 20 million on August 31. It did not even issue a statement expressing its sympathy and solidarity with the people of GB. During his visit to the flood-affected areas in Ladakh, Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh could have made a statement saying that his heart went out to the people of GB, many of whom are related to people in our Kargil area. Such thoughts never occur to him.
7. We were lethargic, negligent and insensitive in our response. Look at what the Chinese did. They mobilized their disaster relief machinery in Xinjiang and Sichuan. They set up a special facility in the Kashgar area of Xinjiang to rush to the aid of the affected people in Baltistan. They brought in the Chinese Red Cross to oversee the flow of assistance. Relief material in the form of food articles, water purification plants, mineral water bottles and medicines were rushed across to Baltistan. The engineers of the PLA were mobilized and sent into GB to repair the damages caused to the KKH and other roads and to restore electricity which totally failed in the entire GB region.
8 Admitted that we could not have done all this even if we had wanted to. Pakistan permitted the Chinese to do this and was happy to hand over the responsibility for disaster relief in GB to the Chinese. There was panic in Islamabad that taking advantage of the collapse of the administration in GB, India might make a humanitarian intervention of its own on the ground that GB is Indian territory. It urged the Chinese to do a humanitarian intervention in GB. They were happy to do it. We missed an opportunity to make a humanitarian intervention of our own. We did not even open our mouth on the plight of the people of GB.Can we blame Beijing if the people of the area start looking up to China?
9. This may also be read as my comments on the recent article in the “New York Times” by Selig Harrison on Pakistan handing over de facto control of parts of GB to the Chinese. ( 2-9-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) area of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) was one of the first and worst to be affected by the floods caused by the recent monsoon and breaches of dams and water reservoirs in Pakistan. The damages spread from there to other parts of Pakistan. The devastation caused by flash floods in GB preceded that in Ladakh and was even worse. Finding that the Pakistan Government was unable and unwilling ----because of the floods in other areas--- to come to the help of the people of GB, local nationalist organizations sent out SOS messages to India and the other members of the international community to help them. These messages started coming in from the second week of August.
2. In a direct appeal to the international community, Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan of the Balawaristan National Front of GB stated as follows: “52 people have died and 160 rendered homeless in the village Qamrah of occupied Gilgit Baltistan region, and 22 have died, 40 rendered homeless in village Talas, 45 died and 70 injured in Giyes of Diamar. Similarly, in Talas 22 people were killed and 40 houses destroyed while in Hotoo, Rondu, Darel, Tangir, Botogah, Khinar, Thor, Hoodoor,Babusar, Gini, Hunza Nagir, Chhamoogardh Colony of Konodas and Skarkooi, Gilgit, Ghowadi Baltistan, Yasen, Gulaper, Isshqaman, Damas, Ginday, Sandhi, Hondoor, Dahrkoot, Mastuj, Booni, Garam Chashma, Yarkhoon in Chitral, and Koli and Pattan in Kohistan over 500 people have lost their lives whereas, more than half a million have become homeless and nearly 50,000 families have completely lost everything, including land, shelter, livestock and all means of living". I had referred to this message in my article dated August 26,2010, titled “SOS from Khyber Pakhtunkwa, Balochistan & Gilgit-Baltistan” at http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers40/paper4000.html
3. In a statement disseminated from Skardu, Mr.Manzoor Hussain Parwana, the Chairman of the Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement (GBUM) demanded that the Indian aid coming for relief victims should also be shared with the people of Gilgit Baltistan. He also demanded that the Kargil-Skardu and the Astore-Srinagar roads should be opened immediately to provide relief to the local people. He requested the international community to play a greater role in providing relief to the flood victims of GB. He said: “The region is cut off from the rest of the world for the last 20 days due to flashfloods and landslides. Commodity and food prices have skyrocketed and causing famine like situation. Many villages have been flattened. Lack of medicines has caused endemic diseases in the region. GB is a disputed territory under Pakistani administration. The people of GB have no hope from the Pakistani Government since the country itself is in crisis and the regime lacks the capacity and the will to provide for the millions of flood victims in the rest of the country. While the rulers look towards the international community for help, the relief is coming at much slower pace due to lack of credibility of the Pakistani authorities, who embezzled billions of rupees of relief funds during the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir. Given the circumstances, the international community and especially neighbouring countries have to enhance their direct influence in the relief work."
4. He further said that the current puppet government of GB had failed to repair the road network. “Every village is cut off from the rest and no relief has reached the affectees. Government has resorted to releasing statements in the newspapers and made false claims of improvement in the conditions of the natives. With the closure of the Karakoram Highway (KKH), the Gilgit-Skardu Road, the Ghizer-Chitral road, and the Hunza-China section of the KKH, the prices of food items have increased. Food items, kerosene and gasoline are not available in the markets. The problems will continue to increase as the situation worsens. Pakistani helicopters are only working to evacuate the foreigners and military officials and related loved ones, and have failed to service the poor natives. This is sheer discrimination towards the people of GB. Pakistan has conspired to disrupt traffic on the Kargil-Skardu road and the Astore-Gurez road for all these years. Further, the creation of the Ataabad Lake has obstructed traffic to China for the coming months. Under these circumstances, the Government must make immediate effort to open the Kargil-Skardu road to provide relief to the affected people of Skardu district, Shigar district, Gangche district, Kharmang district, Astore district and Deosai-Gultari district. In the same manner, the Ishkoman road to Tajikistan and Wakhan should be opened to benefit the people of Ghizer district. The road from Astore to Srinagar must be used immediately to supply food and ration to the poor two million people of the region. In this great time of need, the people of GB expect neighbors to play a greater role in rehabilitation."
5. In a statement to the media on August 16, Chief Minister Mehdi Shah of GB said that the situation in GB was worsening due to a breakdown of road network and civic facilities in the region. "It is beyond the capacity of the Gilgit-Baltistan government to cope with the situation." He said that he had requested the Federal Government to provide Rs10 billion for the rehabilitation and compensation of the affected people. According to him, the area had been cut off from the rest of the country for the last one month as the Karakoram Highway, which was the lifeline for the region, was totally damaged. Work for its restoration has been started but it will take a considerable time to restore traffic. Fuel and essential commodities had been running out of stock in the region and the Government was supplying it through the Kaghan-Naran road.
6.The desperate SOS messages from the people and nationalist elements in GB were not noticed in New Delhi. The Government of India did not refer to the plight of the people of GB while announcing its offer of the first instalment of assistance amounting to US $ five million for flood relief in Pakistan. Nor has it made a reference to the plight of the people of GB, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkwa while making its offer of the second instalment of US $ 20 million on August 31. It did not even issue a statement expressing its sympathy and solidarity with the people of GB. During his visit to the flood-affected areas in Ladakh, Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh could have made a statement saying that his heart went out to the people of GB, many of whom are related to people in our Kargil area. Such thoughts never occur to him.
7. We were lethargic, negligent and insensitive in our response. Look at what the Chinese did. They mobilized their disaster relief machinery in Xinjiang and Sichuan. They set up a special facility in the Kashgar area of Xinjiang to rush to the aid of the affected people in Baltistan. They brought in the Chinese Red Cross to oversee the flow of assistance. Relief material in the form of food articles, water purification plants, mineral water bottles and medicines were rushed across to Baltistan. The engineers of the PLA were mobilized and sent into GB to repair the damages caused to the KKH and other roads and to restore electricity which totally failed in the entire GB region.
8 Admitted that we could not have done all this even if we had wanted to. Pakistan permitted the Chinese to do this and was happy to hand over the responsibility for disaster relief in GB to the Chinese. There was panic in Islamabad that taking advantage of the collapse of the administration in GB, India might make a humanitarian intervention of its own on the ground that GB is Indian territory. It urged the Chinese to do a humanitarian intervention in GB. They were happy to do it. We missed an opportunity to make a humanitarian intervention of our own. We did not even open our mouth on the plight of the people of GB.Can we blame Beijing if the people of the area start looking up to China?
9. This may also be read as my comments on the recent article in the “New York Times” by Selig Harrison on Pakistan handing over de facto control of parts of GB to the Chinese. ( 2-9-10)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)