Tricks to learn from Pakistan

Pakistan may be a failed state politically and socially. But it is demonstrably successful militarily and diplomatically. More successful than India, if you want to rub it in, for they have achieved what they set out to achieve. We have not.

Different types of dictators ruled Pakistan. All of them had one immutable objective: Make the world recognise Pakistan as a hyphenated equal of the unequally bigger ( in size, population, economy) India. Pakistan has achieved that objective - in the early days with the connivance of Britain which was an interested party in the India-Pakistan confrontation in the UN over Kashmir, and subsequently with the help of China which ensured that, as soon as India exploded a nuclear device, Pakistan did too.
The smartness with which Pakistan plays the diplomatic game is best reflected in the mileage it gains vis a vis America, and the mileage we do not gain. In the Cold War era, it was simple: Pakistan just joined the American bloc while India ploughed the non-alignment path and thereby incurred America's wrath.

More recently the game has been subtler. Yet, otherwise bankrupt establishments like Pervez Musharaff's and Ali Zardari's have been playing it very cleverly. A US-Israeli strike against Pakistan's nuclear assets was widely speculated after America expressed fears of the Pakistani bombs falling into Taliban's hands. Suddenly the Pakistan Government joined the American side and genuinely went to war against the Taliban. Domestically it was a risk, but it won America's appreciation.

America's appreciation meant that Pakistan's real game - making India run around in circles - could be played on Pakistan's terms. Consider, for example, the toing and froing Pakistan has been doing with great relish over the Mumbai terror attack. And consider America's all-words-and-no-action reactions to it.

More pointed from America's policy perspectives was the fact, revealed by the New York Times, that Pakistan had been illegally modifying anti-ship missiles and maritime surveillance aircraft for attacks on India. The US Government lodged a formal protest and Pakistan formally denied the charge. That, for all practical purposes, was that.

As India fumed in its characteristically vegetarian style, Musharaff rubbed salt into the wound saying publicly that arms provided by America to fight Islamic terrorists were instead used to bolster defence against India. Forget his subsequent retraction under pressure, for he was speaking the truth when he said he was "proud he did it for Pakistan". America said it took Musharaff's disclosure seriously. That, presumably, was that.

This is the same America that made such a fuss about the end-user clause in its nuclear deal with India. Unlike India, Pakistan uses the clause as a joke. Which seems all right with the US. Last March the Obama administration was reportedly considering increasing developmental aid to Pakistan three times ( current rate $ 450 m. a year) and boosting military aid as well (currently $ 300 m. a year).

Obviously, Pakistan knows how to manipulate American yardsticks to its advantage and how to get away with it. Can we imagine a Manmohan Singh or an A.B.Vajpayee signing the end-user agreement as America wants and then twisting it " proudly for India".
Adding insult to injury, India paid nearly Rs 13 crores in three years to Barber Griffith and Rogers, a Washington lobbying company, to get the nuclear deal passed by the US Congress. Pakistan also must be employing lobbyists in Washington. But they get in return what they want. We get what the Americans want. As a bonus we also get American travel advisories asking its citizens to stay away from India. Now we know why Ali Zardari is always plastered cheek to cheek with a grin hearty and toothy at once.

A bogus war on Taliban

Pakistan’s offensive, involving severe fighting and heavy casualties, which has reportedly cleared the Swat Valley, Buner and Lower Dir and other tribal areas of Taliban fighters, has been regarded as an indication of Islamabad’s determination to wipe out fundamentalist Islamist terrorism from its soil. Is that so? What does it mean for India?

The trouble is that the Pakistani Army’s claims of success lack adequate independent corroboration. A report by Dexter Filkin in the New York Times of May 8, stated that there was no way of verifying the claims by the Pakistani military’s chief spokesman, Maj Gen Athar Abbas, as newspersons and most outsiders had been blocked from the areas. It further quoted a woman in a refugee camp in Mardan as stating, “The Army and the Taliban are not killing each other — they are friends. They are only killing civilians. When civilians are killed, the Government claims they have killed a bunch of terrorists.”

A report by Jane Perlez and Pir Zubair Shah, published in the New York Times of May 19, about urban guerrilla warfare confronting Pakistani Army as it closed in on Mingora, quotes a statement by the military as claiming that it had started clearing houses in Kanju, a village in the outskirts of Mingora, and residents who had left Kanju described a mounting civilian death toll. It then added, “The Pakistani Army has closed Swat to outsiders and essentially ordered residents to leave. The authorities have also mostly barred journalists from entering the area, making it difficult to verify what is happening.”

Unverified claims by the military are difficult to accept at face value given the latter’s — and the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate’s — close ties with the Taliban. As it has been known for a long time, and as Pakistan’s President, Mr Asif Ali Zardari admitted recently, the ISI and the CIA jointly created the Taliban in 1994. According to a report by Elisabeth Bumiller in the New York Times of April 1, Ms Michelle A Flournoy, Under Secretary of Defence for Policy, acknowledged before the US Senate Armed Services Committee, the US Administration’s concern about a wing of the ISI, which American intelligence officers said was providing money and military assistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Under sharp questioning by Sen John McCain, she said that she thought the ISI or at least parts of the latter — were “certainly a problem to be dealt with”.

One has doubtless seen television news clips of the Pakistani Army directing artillery fire and rockets. But at whom? A report by Carlotta Gall and Elisabeth Bumiller in the New York Times of April 28, stated, “After strong criticism here and abroad over its inaction, the Pakistani military deployed fighter jets and helicopter gunships to flush out hundreds of Taliban militants who overran the strategic district of Buner last week.” The Taliban, however, had started retreating from Buner on April 24 under orders from its leader in Swat, Maulana Fazlullah.

According to television channels, the order followed a meeting between Taliban leaders Qari Muhammad Khan and Muslim Khan and the Commissioner of the Malakand division, Syed Muhammad Javed, in the presence of Maulvi Sufi Mohammad, the founder of Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Sharia-e Mohammadi (Movement for the Establishment of Islamic Law) who acted as an intermediary. Further, television channels showed dozens of militants, masked and heavily-armed, driving away in pick-up trucks and minibuses. Muslim Khan, the Taliban spokesman, said on April 25 that all militants who had come from Swat had withdrawn and that only local Taliban fighters from Buner remained in the area. He, however, did not mention how many had left and how many remained. Yet heavy fighting was reported from Buner district on May 6. Surely, “local Taliban” alone could not have held out for so long!

Clearly, there is more in the whole thing than meets the eye. Pakistani leaders, of course, have been talking stridently. Asked to clarify Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s statement that the objective of the north-western operations was “to eliminate the militants and terrorists”, Mr Zardari told a television channel during his state visit to the US in early May, “This means clearing out the area of the miscreants and bringing life to normalcy.” Asked if “eliminate” meant “killing them all”, he replied, “That’s what it means.” But then not all of Mr Zardari’s and Mr Gilani’s statements can be taken at face value. Besides, the Army can overrule both. After the terrorist attack on Mumbai on November 26 last year, they promised to send the ISI’s Director-General, Lt Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha, to Delhi to help in the investigations. Mr Zardari finally admitted in an interview with NBC news on May 10 what had been known from very beginning — that the Army did not let him send Lt Gen Pasha!

Clearly, it is too early to say how successful the Pakistani Army’s offensive has been and how far the Army will go in dealing with the Taliban and the Al Qaeda. It is one thing to clear Swat, Buner, Lower Dir and Shangli districts of militants, and quite another to wipe out the Taliban headed by Mullah Omar and the Al Qaeda headed by Osama bin Laden. With both untouched, Taliban militants retreating in the face of the Pakistani Army’s offensive will be sheltered in their strongholds in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas just as the Taliban and Al Qaeda elements fleeing from Afghanistan in the face of the US and the Northern Alliance’s offensive in November 2001 had been sheltered by organisations like Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, courtesy the ISI.

They will return when the going is good again. For it is one thing to drive the Taliban out and another to hold the territory thus cleared. Has Pakistan the political will to do that? Finally, the offensive does not mean that Pakistan would also act against the LeT and the JeM which it has created to stage terrorist strikes against India. Indeed, the release of Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, head of the LeT and mastermind of the attack on Mumbai on the ground of there being “insufficient” evidence against him, clearly indicates that Pakistan’s sptonsorship of cross-border terrorism against this country will continue.

Chinese threat looms large: Govt must wake up

Throughout history, there have been numerous rulers with the ambition to lord over the entire world or at least a large chunk of it. The Second World War happened due to the over-riding ambition of Adolf Hitler. Thereafter, Soviet Union nourished the ambition to have global ideological sway over the world through its puppet Governments. We all know the end. Today, USA nurtures the same ambition. George W Bush attacked Iraq without any valid reason to control its oil resources as if all the world reserves must belong to the US. Imagine the brutal force of Robert Gates, Defence Secretary of US Administration, frightening Pakistan President Musharraf to be an ally to fight against terror or perish into stone age. That it suited Pakistan, is another matter.

Today, the emergence of China as a world power at par with the US, carries a global threat. Being a neighbour, India should be the most worried country. India has not yet gotten over the humiliation of the 1962 War. The first Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, actually lost vigour and ego.

Ultimately, he did not survive this jolt. He underestimated Chinese designs and diplomacy in spite of timely warning from Sardar Patel explaining expansionist ambitions of the Chinese. Similar thoughts were expressed by Dr Mukherjee, Mr Malkani and Prof NG Ranga. In fact, KM Munshi wrote that China's has an aggressive history. Whenever she was strong, it tried to include many countries in its empire.

Recently, The History of China published by the Chinese Government contains a map showing Chinese territory, which includes Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Ladakh and NEFA (50,000 square miles area). The map also includes Burma, Malay, Thailand, North and South Vietnam, Combodia and chunks of Soviet Siberia, Mangolia, Tajikistan and Khirurgiia. The book declares to bring back every territory. Some think that by-and-large status-quo would prevail in the world order but if one looks at the world's geo-political map of past 500 years, with an interval of 50 years, the map changes drastically. Those who do not think beyond get shocked when international boundaries change.

Nearly 5 months back Defence Minister, AK Antony told that "with China developing anti-satellite missiles, lasers and other space capabilities, India has no option but to be fully prepared for Star Wars in future." Army Chief added that Space War was increasingly becoming the ultimate high ground to dominate war in the future. I can quote dozens of such warnings. China has positioned its nuclear submarines in Gwadar naval base at Baluchistan and more than half a dozen naval bases of Suludao, Quingdao, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Ningbo, Hongkong and others. We have naval bases but inferior submarines at Mumbai, Goa, Kochi, Port Blair and Vishakhapatnam. China has developed observatory towers from where they can watch our movement at Sriharikota and other centres. They have also prepared metal roads till the nearest points of India, Nepal and Sikkim borders. Their missiles in Tibet are targeted towards all Indian cities. Even US targets are included.

It must be noted that the Defence Budget of China viz-a-viz India is atleast double. According to Pentagon's assessment, China's military build up poses a direct threat to India as well as Taiwan, Japan and Russia. China has infiltrated 75 millions 'Hans' to Manchuria, 7 millions to Sinkiang, 8.5 millions to inner Mangolia and 7.5 millions into Tibet. Chinese leadership has always followed the war strategy of their master Sun Tzu. Mao was particularly influenced by him. Sun Tzu has said, "to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence, it consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." This is what China is doing to India through Pakistan. They are aligning with Sri Lanka to develop its war machine. They are also trapping Bangladesh. In Nepal, their mysterious diplomacy has succeeded.

The Defence Ministry's annual report, stated that 50-60 cities are targeted from Greater Tibet. Just this week, Chinese troops entered Sikkim by nearly two kms. Similar happenings have been occurring in Tawang area of Arunachal Pradesh but our Defence Ministry has not taken a serious note and said they are local skirmishes. The Government minimises the seriousness of all these threats.

Our security challenges are multi-fold and include Islamic terrorism in J&K and elsewhere, Bangladeshi infiltration, Left-wing extremism, troubled neighbouring States, insurgency in north-east and Chinese military push.

There are experts in India who feel that there is no immediate threat from China, as its priority is to develop its economy. But this opinion stands discounted by ground realities.