|
New
Delhi, 07 February 2002
IDC
received the following piece from a Mr Peo Nathan from the United States
and from the name Nathan, we assume that he is from India. We have said in
the past that Indians are emotional and not proactive. Since 1200 AD when
the Mughals dominated us and then the British, we have not been our own
masters and are unlikely to be so for quite some time. Our Bhraministic
culture tends to be dominated and as the writer has said it is USA for the
present post the WTC attacks.
Khuswant
Singh has just released his autobiography telling us how full of straw our
Leaders were including Pandit Nehru and Mrs Gandhi, whom he rates as the
best. Today IDC can say with confidence that India is a regional power and
can become a major player in the world in the next two decades if it
produces real Leaders in the political arena. Indian leaders’ mind set
must accept that India is a powerful regional player and they must behave
accordingly.
Peo
Nathan has given a view from America and we offer it on our site as it has
inputs on how India can behave.
War
on Terrorism –– a Paradox for India
by
Peo Nathan
India
has to look at its long term strategic interests in South Asia under the
light of current India-Pakistan standoff and the larger US presence in
South Asia, in the pretext of fighting a war on terrorism wherever it
breeds. A billion people democracy has to play an active role at least in
South Asia for the betterment of people of South Asia that would set ways
for playing a major role globally in the future. India had come a long way
in all major sectors since its independence 50 years ago, from education
to military preparedness, but, failed to assert its presence in the global
arena; a billion people democracy doesn’t have permanent membership in
the so called global body United Nations. It may not be too late however
if India begins to be assertive while the global power game is at its
doorstep. Failure to show its strengths now would probably contain it
within its territorial limits for at least another decade. Global
influence is not a status symbol; it is rather a prelude to economic
viability in the world of countries that are increasingly dependent on
each other from infrastructure building to consumer commodities.
Every
country would have to act in its own national interests, however, nobody
can deny that humanity is the broader spectrum that transcends national
boundaries. United States’ war on terrorism after September 11th
terrorist attacks on its soil was justified. It would be right to say that
America’s fight against terrorism was a justification to implement its
national interests. Its determination to assert its right to disintegrate
its newly declared enemy so called “terrorists” was nothing less
flamboyant than its war for oil against Saddam Hussein a decade ago. It
then proved to the rest of the world that it had the will and the means to
implement its interests even if it means fighting a former ally
instrumental in checking Iran’s Islamic revolution. Persian Gulf war
resulted in the permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia. However, if
anyone were to slice and dice the war in Afghanistan, pros are more than
cons; Afghans were liberated from outside rulers and terrorists that they
failed to liberate themselves. Global community is helping rebuild the
country from its two decades of conflicts and occupations. But at the same
time the global community should not fail to remind themselves that
destruction of Afghanistan was the legacy of cold war era.
There
was a major flaw in the first sentence of this article in wrongfully
saying Afghanistan was the breeding ground for terrorists. Pakistan’s
Madarsas were the breeding grounds for Islamic terrorists and not
Afghanistan. Instead of taking its fight into Pakistan, US decided to call
Pakistan as its ally in the fight against terrorism. If one were to
question that logic, it would become obvious that US was acting on its
national interests. US worked hand-in-hand with Pakistan in creating
today’s Islamic fundamentalists that served its purpose in extraditing
the Red Army out of Afghanistan in early 80’s. US would not abandon its
old ally Pakistan for India when the latter showed its vociferous
willingness to join US in its fight against terrorism after September 11th.
A former CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) station chief in Pakistan had
been quoted as saying “…never mind that the only country in South Asia
that always did what we asked was Pakistan". India does not have to
take the burden of proving to US beyond what was already obvious to world
that Pakistan had a policy of encouraging and involving itself in Islamic
fundamentalism, a foundation to Islamic terrorism.
Suddenly
New Delhi has become a busy stopover for US diplomats when India mobilized
its troops to its border with Pakistan after December 13th attack
on its parliament. If deployment of troops by India along LOC
(line-of-actual control) was merely to get the attention of the big
brother US, India has to go a long way in understanding geo-politics.
Today’s India had strategically countered China by going nuclear in 1998
and by developing short and long-range missile systems. By maintaining a
credible nuclear deterrent, India and China could resolve their border
disputes that exist in the form of Chinese occupation of Aksai Chin, a
strategic point for China against India in an event of conflict in
northern sector with Korakoram highway strategically built across
Korakoram Pass connecting to Chinese supply lines.
United
States is supposedly pressurizing General Musharraf’s Government to
lease 20,000 acres of land for military base in Baluchistan, south of
Afghanistan in the light of straining relations between US and Saudi
Arabia. An ideal ground to guard the proposed pipeline outlet to Arabian
Sea from Caspian basin believed to be the Persian Gulf of the 21st Century
estimated at more than 225 billion barrels of oil reserves. The pipeline
would have to come across Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Southern Pakistan.
By building the Caspian basin pipeline, United States would effectively
neutralize upper hand of Persian Gulf oil and the growing dominance of
Russian oil.
The
military base in southern Pakistan would eavesdrop more on India than it
possibly does on China. Except for the far fetched scenarios to rapidly
deploy US ground troops against China in an event of a military conflict
to protect Taiwanese independence, this base would not strategically
affect China as it would affect India. It is imperative to point out that
China’s irritant is already the huge US naval presence in Taiwan
Straits. Also the proposed military base would be in the Arabian Sea
unlike Diego Garcia in Indian Ocean. US naval power in Arabian Sea would
be a greater hindrance to vastly active Indian Navy than Chinese Navy that
has zero presence in Arabian Sea. America would achieve three major
objectives with this base other than the economical gains from the Caspian
pipeline. Firstly, counter Indian military dominance in South Asia and
effectively contain India within its territory. Secondly, evict Chinese
influence out of Pakistan thereby effectively terminating Chinese military
alliance in South Asia. Thirdly, US will have absolute control over the
“Islamic bomb”- the nuclear weapons of Pakistan that would cohesively
continue to counter and intimidate India.
India
has two options, either ignore the geo-politics that are taking shape in
its backyard or stand determined to assert its influence in South Asia by
going beyond mere troops deployment. India’s troop deployment as is
being thought in some circles in New Delhi was to force Pakistan to act
against terrorists would be a short-sighted and an expensive measure for
both India and Pakistan that would bring little results. One thing for
sure hardliners in New Delhi understood that assertiveness commands
attention and respect.
Cleaning
up terrorism in Pakistan is a humongous ordeal that would not happen
overnight. If it is true as was stated by Indian leaders that
de-escalation will occur only when cross-border terrorism ends, then it
would turnout exponentially expensive and quite an impractical ordeal to
India. The reasons are simple; more pressure on Pakistan from India over
prolonged time would work out favorable to US, as Pakistan would find
asylum in signing the proposed military base in southern Pakistan. When US
and Pakistan enter such an agreement, India was bound to loose in its
pressure tactic, as Pakistan would have assurances from US to be protected
from any kind of aggression from India. US in Pakistan would be more
interested in preventing further terror strikes on its interests and soil
but would have no interest in stopping cross-border terrorism in India. As
a matter of fact it would be more attractive to US to mediate Kashmir
issue directly or indirectly between India and Pakistan to effectively
subdue India if its presence in Pakistan were permanent. With Kashmir
issue for India and Taiwan independence for China, the two major
South-Asian powers balance each other and would be under the scrutiny of
international community influenced by United States.
It
is in the best interest of South Asian neighbors to seek out their
differences and to control and manage their assets without bringing a
mediator. Pakistan and India have more in common than the rest of the
world. But Pakistan consistently tried to internationalize Kashmir dispute
in spite of tolerance showed by India in the last decade even after Kargil
incursion into India by Pakistan in 1999. No feasibility to resolve
Kashmir dispute bilaterally puts India to explore a hypothetical solution
to its terrorism and sovereignty issues. Should India unilaterally act by
attacking terrorist camps along LOC that would preclude further attack on
terrorist camps deeper inside POK or go further by implementing its 1994
resolution of declaring Pakistan occupied Kashmir (POK) as an integral
part of India? Either of these hypotheses would assert India’s position
in the international arena and discourage US presence in the Asian
Subcontinent. In such events, US and the rest of the world would have no
moral right to object democratic India’s action in defending itself
against violent terror attacks on its interests and its people emanating
from POK. Such military actions would drive the world powers on to the
negotiating table with India as there would be a lot at stake for everyone
in the region in the event of a full-scale war between India and Pakistan.
This would open up the opportunity to address the fate of loosely
controlled Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, the proposed US base in southern
Pakistan and the Caspian pipeline as well, which are of strategic and
economic importance to India.
China,
military ally of Pakistan, showed apathy to embroil itself in the
Indo-Pakistan anti-terrorism conflict while it faces fundamental Islamic
terrorism uprising in Xinchiang province coming from POK and from earlier
Taliban Afghanistan. China would view India’s military action in POK to
its benefit as such an action could discourage US in establishing
permanent bases in Pakistan. Russia do have means to work with India as
well owing to its own interest in co-operating with its former Soviet
Republics in Caspian Sea region in exploring oil in Caspian Sea basin.
Reports
suggest that considerable efforts that were made by some top leadership in
New Delhi to lean towards signing joint military alliance with Washington
had been averted by hardliners in New Delhi. It would be oxymoronic to
have US base in southern Pakistan and for India to indulge itself as an
ally to US in the superstitious war against terrorism and a military
partner in South Asia. In addition to loosing strategic upper hand in
South Asia, India would not only lose the trust of its once trusted friend
Russia that thwarted every effort by the West to interfere in Kashmir
dispute by its veto in United Nation, but also the future of itself as a
major shaper of world politics that has immense economic benefits. Some
might argue that such a military alliance between India and US would help
India’s long-term technological and economical interests. Such an
argument has no basis or fact whatsoever. India attracts foreign
investments owing to its size irrespective of whether it exhibits its
loyalty to the West or not. Economic liberalization that began since early
90’s by India has and would take its course in attracting major foreign
investments. India and US, the two largest democracies, have lot to
contribute to the betterment of humanity across the globe, however, they
have to evolve along their own lines of national interests.
Implementing
the 1994 resolution to integrate POK to India or attacking terrorist camps
in POK are bloody affairs that would cost lives and livelihood of
thousands of people across the LOC in both Pakistan and India. With
poverty on one hand and slowing economy on the other, the Government and
the people of India are in the better position to make that judgment.
Peo
Nathan
Back
to Top
Disclaimer
Copyright
|