| |
 |
ARTICLE |
 |
Firing, mindsets, reform
A split Pakistan establishment
by B.G. Verghese
The
hubbub over the recent cross-LoC firings appears to be subsiding following some deft handling by the Government of India in the face of an ill-considered clamour for immediate retaliation. There are two national versions of what triggered the action. There is substance in Delhi’s view that Pakistan once again resorted to covering fire to aid cross-border jihadi infiltration into J&K. Be that as it may, the fact is that two patrolling jawans were killed on the Indian side of the LoC by Pakistani fire and left mutilated, with one corpse beheaded. This is utterly barbaric conduct and violative of the rules of war and the Geneva Convention. It is the bland refusal by Pakistan to acknowledge and investigate this outrage that inflamed Indian opinion, with strong demands for a retaliatory strike.Strong Indian Army evidence failed to evoke a credible response, with Islamabad offering a UN Military Observer Group investigation before being compelled to conduct bilateral Brigadier-level and then DGMO-level talks. The UN Military Observer Group for India and Pakistan was rendered effete by the Simla Agreement in 1972. Thereby Pakistan agreed to deal with all future J&K matters on a bilateral basis and to convert the ceasefire line (CFL) into a Line of Control (LoC), thus moving from a military to a political line in a progression leading to its future acceptance as a settled boundary within J&K. This was not a unilateral imposition by a victorious Indian Army, following the liberation of Bangladesh and cessation of hostilities, but a Treaty signed by the two Prime Ministers, Indira Gandhi and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. By invoking the UNMOGIP, Pakistan sought to resurrect its role, revive the UN resolutions and revert from a political LoC to a military CFL. These would undo the Simla Agreement and once again internationalise the J&K question. If this was the intent, the gambit failed. Even so, it suggests that some elements are working to revive the status quo ante in J&K and move backwards to rekindle “the unfinished business of Pakistan”. Pakistan’s trump card has been to ask how its troops or jihadis could cut through India’s electrified barbed wire fence along the LoC and then penetrate further into Indian territory to ambush Indian patrols and plant the Pak Ordnance Factory mines found buried there. The answer is that both sides are mutually bound by CFL-LoC protocols to refrain from constructing any structures or defences within 500 m of the LoC. Why this simple explanation was not made widely known once again betrays a continuing communications failure on India’s part. Even the Pakistan Foreign Minister, Ms Hina Rabbani Khar, silenced Indian interlocutors with this untenable retort. The latest LoC spat also saw Pakistan bluster as usual when caught with its hand in the till and, when cornered, cynically plead that it would be best to forget the past and move on. The ISI’s sponsorship of separatist militancy and cross-border jihadi terrorism in J&K is no secret. That this trend saw a rise in 2012 betrays the growing dichotomy between those in Pakistan who feel that the only way to prevent the country from self-destruction is to come to terms with India, hitherto seen as a permanent enemy, and others who think that the US withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 could see a turnaround in favour of jihadi warriors out to punish India. The Pakistan establishment seems split on this issue and hence the many contrary voices and doublespeak emanating from Islamabad. The current impasse in Pakistan has witnessed the judiciary, or a loose-cannon chief justice, taking on the government with the backing of the mullahs, including a new cleric, Qadri, and the army. This speaks of a nation at war with itself, with sectarian violence reaching new heights of bigotry as Shias are routinely slaughtered. The military’s two voices are in the open. Genera Kayani and the latest 2013 “Green Book” have been dovish in enunciating Pakistan’s latest military doctrine vis-a-vis India even as the same Kayani and the ISI chief met with a “moderate” Hurriyat separatist delegation from India last December days after their meeting Hafez Saeed of the LeT/JUD and Syed Salahuddin, the Hizbul Mujahideen chief. According to a Hurriyat spokesman, both jihadi warriors told them that with the US exit from Afghanistan, the militants would gain a commanding position in Kashmir, compelling India to “bargain sincerely”. Newly-elected sarpanches in J&K are already being targeted. Rather than fall prey to Indian extremists, Dr Manmohan Singh has quietly but firmly stated that there can be no business as usual until those responsible are brought to book and Pakistan provides evidence that it is living up to its promises. This “delayed” statement by him has been criticised by the BJP and others but marks a sensibly graduated Indian response despite Pakistan upping the ante. Islamabad again postponed the grant of MNF status to India on January 1 and then blocked the cross-border bus service in the Poonch sector after the border skirmish on January 8. India was unfortunately stampeded into postponing inauguration of the new visa-on-arrival scheme and putting a brake on sporting and cultural exchanges after crude and ill-informed utterances by ranking BJP leaders. Sushma Swaraj advocated a policy of 10 heads for one and Nitin Gadkari wished India to go to the UN. Sections of the Indian media went ballistic, with a magisterial Times Now TV anchor displaying what seems to be becoming habitual unprofessionalism, irresponsibility, arrogance and open bias in resorting to war-mongering in violation of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Other commentators like Yashwant Sinha wanted the government to define its “Plan B” should Pakistan not mend its ways. This sort of imbecility points to the need for political parties and media houses to train defence spokespersons to comment on such sensitive issues. It also reinforces the need for a regulatory framework for the media, which most democracies have instituted or refined. Freedom cannot mean licence. At the same time we must not shut our eyes to rising faith-based revivalism manifesting itself in the denigration of other faiths and by concocting history, Pakistan style, in furtherance of Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and other right-wing chauvinism by fundamentalists of all hues. The latest exposure of the saffronisation of school texts in Karnataka and opposition to the naming of a new Central University after Tipu Sultan in Srirangapatanam are only the latest examples that cut across faiths and parties within the edifice of India’s hollowing secularism. We must beware the rise of a new divisiveness under the banner of not a two but a five-nation theory that the state is allowing to take root or even fostering. Meanwhile, the government is moving ahead with taking out its reform agenda from cold storage. The raising of railway fares has been followed by expediting environmental clearance for key projects, and a rise in diesel prices as a first step towards deregulating that commodity and reducing untenable subsidies. As expected, the BJP, the Leftists and Mamata Bannerjee, humbug gurus all, have protested while demanding a tax-the-rich policy and perpetuating ruinous subsidies even as they seek aid-packages for the states controlled by
them!
 |
| |
|
MIDDLE |
|
Roses all the way
by Ram Varma
Years
ago when I lived in Sector 16, Chandigarh, the Rose Garden was my favourite haunt. My daughters were small then and the setting sun would see us sauntering in it, admiring the lovely pageant of beauties like 'Delhi Princess', 'Queen Elizabeth', 'Cleopatra', 'Marylyn Monroe', et al. We would stoop down to admire them closely, even take the liberty of sniffing their fragrance unashamedly and freely exchange notes on their relative beauty to arrive at a consensus.It was something like a reverse ramp; rather than the beauties walking the ramp before you, you had to walk up to the bunch of beauties, standing expectantly, in a hush, some still budding while others in full bloom, striking a coy or coquettish pose. Of the hundreds of varieties of roses collected from all parts of the globe in the garden, there was none we had not examined carefully. We had graded them all — keeping in view their colour, appearance and fragrance. This occasional straying into paradise was possible only on holidays or days when I was able to get away from my work in time, which was seldom. I was working as Transport Commissioner then, running a fleet of 2000 buses besides regulating commercial traffic, a heavy duty, two-in-one job. It so happened then that the Chief Minister got annoyed with me on the issue of distribution of National Permits to truck operators and transferred me as OSD, Land Use Board. That was a bolt from the blue — the best gift I ever got from the government. I cannot vouchsafe for the present day, but at that time landing this job was getting paid full salary for doing virtually nothing. The OSD did not have even an independent office as it was always tagged as an additional charge. A superintendent sitting in the office of Joint Secretary, Special Projects, housed in Sector 17, had the few files of Land Use Board in his possession. My good friend Sharad Maheshwari was posted as JS, Special Projects, then. So, I used to saunter after breakfast through the Rose Garden to his office, have a steaming cup of coffee with him and, after some chit-chat, leisurely walk back home for the pleasure of lunching with my wife Savitri, instead of eating out the dubba she sent to my office. I found ample time to be with my lively daughters after they returned from school, chirping like birds. And then we would steal into the Rose Garden for the glorious flower show! What a perfect life! Curiously, it was considered a punishment posting and people openly commiserated with me! On the contrary, I look back with nostalgia on that period of about a year as the golden age of my entire life. Even before Savitri had departed, my daughters had flown away to their own nests. I live in Panchkula now, miles away from the Rose Garden. The memory haunts me. Nostalgia drove me to the Rose Garden the other day when the sun shone bright after playing truant for weeks. I found myself amidst new beauties mostly; only a few of the familiar faces were there. 'Delhi Princess' was looking brighter than 'Queen Elizabeth', which was drooping and wrinkly. But 'Marylyn Monroe' was in full bloom, her facial features well preserved. 'Cleopatra' (sadly spelt as 'Kelopatra') had retained her crimson hue with a pale yellow base and was merrily scattering her charm, measuring fully to the Bard's description: "Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale her infinite variety." The new-comer 'Peggy Rockefeller' (wrongly spelt as 'Peggy Rockfeller') was blithe and blood red with a heavenly scent. 'Remy Marin' (again wrongly spelt as 'Remi Martin') was a rare beauty in pale yellow flaunting a rosy tint; it was fragrant and lovely. 'Jogan' and 'Ashram' are also new entrants, the former a pale pink with a touch of saffron and the latter in ochre colour waving cheerfully and exuding subtle fragrance. 'Starlight' was appropriately deep purple and gloomy and 'Eiffel Tower' (spelt as 'Eiffil Tower') had tall lanky stalks with a spire-like bud adorning its top. The spelling demon had a field day — 'Sheer Bliss' had become 'Sher Blish' and 'Ivory' as 'Tvory'. 'Love' is a deep red flower with a touch of pink but was smothered by frost — only a few shrivelled specimens bravely stood up, lovelorn and
lonely.
|
| |
|
OPED
— World |
|
The return of Al-Qaida
The new Obama administration will have to fine-tune its war against terror if it has to retain a semblance of control in North Africa, which has become a dangerous hunting ground for Al-Qaida as the recent siege of a gas installation in Algeria revealed
R.K.Raghavan
 The
euphoria that was most striking at US President Obama’s inauguration on Monday could hardly mask the enormity of the tasks ahead of him. There is no doubt that on the positive side the American economy is showing signs of recovery. His hint during the inaugural speech that immigrants would get a better deal could also possibly help to enhance his acceptability and enlarge his support base among the Hispanics. Despite these pluses with which he starts his second innings, what should continue to nag Obama and his advisers — who have not disclaimed responsibility as a global policeman — is the growing instability in many regions of the world where the country has a high stake. The Middle East may have become predictable with a festering Syria alone causing some anxiety. Egypt and Libya have comparatively speaking become more manageable, provided the White House keeps only a listening watch.
 |
|
|
| (Top) An oil installation on the outskirts of In Amenas, deep in the Sahara; (Above left) A delegation of Algerian and Japanese officials visit the Tiguentourine Gas Plant, 50 km from In Amenas; (right) Algerian soldiers patrol in the desert at an undisclosed location — Photos: AFP |
A horrendous act
What should be most worrisome for the US and Europe are trends in North Africa that has become a hot bed of extremists of the Al-Qaida variety. This is especially against the backdrop of a horrendous happening last week in Algeria. The country no doubt saw a lot of unrest in the 1990s because of a bitter civil war. But it had somehow settled down to reasonable standards of governance once the conflict was over. The latest incident at a gas plant in the southern part of the nation that had the classical stamp of a terrorist action – armed attack, hostage-taking and wanton destruction and killing — is however a setback that would take a long time to reverse. This was at a gas plant that was seized by a jihadist group and led to enormous bloodshed. It is ironic that the commencement of Obama’s second term in office should coincide with the winding up operations against the militants (believed to be a suicide squad) who had taken control of the In Amaneas gas installation in southern Algeria, situated in the heart of the desert and about 1,300 km from capital Algiers. A joint venture between British Petroleum (BP), Norway’s Statoil and an Algerian state concern called the Sonatrach, this plant, which produces about 10 % of the country’s needs, was the scene of an armed intrusion by a group which is reported to have originally owed allegiance to the Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) that was born in the 1990s as an offshoot of the horrendous Algerian civil war. The raiders took control of the plant on the morning of January 16, and held more than 700 hostages, who included many from different nationalities but had a majority of local citizens. This action was a totally unexpected, and the swiftness with which security was breached and the installation seized has surprised many experts. One first theory was that the raid was facilitated by some insiders owing allegiance to the marauders. This is yet to be confirmed. The Algerian Prime Minister has now gone on record to say that it all began on the ill-fated morning with the militants attacking a bus that was carrying plant workers to the nearby Amenas airport. After gunfire between the security staff escorting the bus and the attackers, the latter drove into the gas plant and took their hostages as also laid mines to prevent anybody from escaping. Refusing to negotiate with the militants, the government launched a major offensive with the help of its security forces. The three-day long operation ended after 29 of the invading group were killed. As is usual in such operations there was a huge loss of (48) lives (including 37 foreigners of eight nationalities) among the hostages. There has been muted criticism of the Algerian government for its decision not to associate other nations with the rescue operation, something which might have saved a few lives.
Motive unclear
The motive for the attack on the Algerian gas plant remains unclear. One theory that is trotted out is the government’s decision recently to facilitate French operations against rebels in southern Mali by opening up its airspace to French jet fighters. This seems plausible going by the bond that exists between disparate elements owing loyalty to Al-Qaida. In any case this aggression against a third country for its sympathy towards a lawful demand for help in a contingency confirms the dastardly nature of the jihadists who brook no obstruction in their way. This is a warning to all countries, irrespective of their location, that they should desist from even a semblance of assistance to whichever nation is at the receiving end of jihadist misadventure. We ourselves had been a victim when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated on May 21, 1991, for helping a beleaguered Sri Lanka savaged by LTTE thoughtlessness. Such a danger has become the hallmark of international relations in the present times. Responsibility for the gas plant attack has been taken by a group called the Signed-in-Blood Battalion, a splinter of the AQIM. The battalion is led by Mokhtar Belmokhtar, who figured in the anti-Soviet operations in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Earning big money from cigarette smuggling across the Sahel region, he had been responsible for many acts of terrorism for which he has been convicted in Algeria and is now a fugitive from justice. Distinctive for the patch he wears on the eye he had lost during an operation, he is said to have masterminded the recent operation, although he chose not to be present at the site. The actual commander at the scene was Abdul Rahman al-Nigeri from Niger, and he had volunteers from six different countries, including Canada. This international composition of the militant squad is again a confirmation that terrorists have a large pool from which to choose — again a feature that nations fighting terrorists will have to factor in while evolving a counter-terrorism strategy. No wonder then that the US is so rigid in checking the credentials of anyone entering its territory, however genuine he or she may be. This is again why our policy of ‘visa on arrival’ becomes questionable. The Algerian episode highlights how the terrorist scene in Africa has changed over the years. The twin bombings of 1998 — one at Nairobi and the other at Dar-e-Salam — aimed at US diplomats demonstrated that it was east Africa which was the theatre for action. Naturally, all American policy of containment and counter-reprisal concentrated in that geography.
Shift in strategy
Recent years have seen a shift in terrorist strategy and base of operations. There has been the birth of a host of groups which are in sync with al-Qaeda but have displayed a penchant for independent operations. According to some observers, this phenomenon of new groups operating outside Al-Qaida’s purview and violently anti-American constitutes the “new face of terrorism.” The optimism that followed bin Laden’s liquidation, therefore, seems misconceived, and US policymakers have been specifically criticised for their apparent lack of appreciation of the nuances of a dynamic situation that offers little scope for complacence. This is no brand new turn of events. A few days ago I quizzed my dear friend Louis Freeh, a former Director of the FBI, on the recent happenings. An iconic figure in the US, one who has retained his interest in security matters, he is very clear that the US cannot fight the battle single-handed but will have to collaborate with many other countries. He also believes that Al-Qaida is more a “movement” rather than a “space”. It succeeds wherever the government is corrupt and more feared than respected. Freeh pleads for Arab Spring-like reforms which would place a premium on honest government and respect for the rule of law. Anything short of this is an invitation to disaster and will provide an opportunity for Al-Qaida to rejuvenate itself. Wise words, indeed, from a man who adores India and what it stands for! It must be remembered that in a new dispensation which focusses on North Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan could assume lesser priorities for the US. This has its own implications for India in the sense that a waning American interest in the area reinforces the oft-held belief that India is in wilderness when it has to fight events in our neighbourhood. The recent Pakistani aggression near the LoC is an example of a situation where we will have to fend for ourselves. In the context of the events in Algeria there is at least a slight case for a re-look at our counter-terrorism policy. As always, it is our own judgment, rather than sensitivity to international opinion, that should mark all our policies and actions. Taliban, LeT and other similar outfits will continue to be hostile to us, especially because of the proactive nature of our presence in Afghanistan. Their affinity or lack of it to whatever that remains of Al-Qaida is irrelevant to us. What is of greater concern to us is their proclivity and capacity to hit us, and our infamous neighbour to aid mischief against us. When this is so, there is no room for any let-up of our guard. I am especially concerned about the safety of our large power plants and other critical infrastructure. The Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) has shaped into a fine clued-up organisation. It needs all support for enhanced facilities to discharge its role. At the same time, we want to believe that, in conjunction with the IB and RAW, it makes periodic assessments of threats to our centres of production and maintenance services. Any laxity here could be disastrous. The Algerian incident should persuade us to beef up security at vital installations. Indian terrorists have proved themselves to be quick learners. They need to be kept under greater surveillance if we are to frustrate a repeat of what happened at the Algerian gas plant. The writer is a former Director
of the CBI
|
