The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Dying for kidney
Curb trade but encourage donations
THANKS to the Amritsar kidney-for-cash scandal that rocked this region six years ago, kidney donations by unrelated donors had almost stopped in Punjab. That is why when an authorised committee headed by a deputy commissioner cleared the case of an unrelated person donating his kidney to an additional deputy commissioner “out of sheer love and affection”, many eyebrows were raised. Under the law only close relations of a patient can donate a kidney and cases of non-relatives have to be cleared by district-level committees. The rich and the influential, it seems, are more equal before the law.

Thought for the Day

ARTICLE

Pakistan’s double-game
The war of attrition has just begun
by Sushant Sareen
Having lost all patience with what Newsweek calls “Pakistan’s dangerous double-game” in the War on Terror, the Americans have started baring their fangs and mounted the first ground action inside Pakistani territory by Special Forces troops. The storm of protest over violations of sovereignty by the top political leadership of Pakistan and threats of retaliation by the Pakistani army chief was treated with utter disdain by the Americans who have continued bombing suspected terrorist sites in Pakistan. But despite the aggressive posture that the Americans have taken against terrorist sanctuaries and launching pads inside Pakistan, the efficacy of this new policy remains suspect.

MIDDLE

New life
by G.S. Aujla
Last year has been a period of significant metamorphosis for me in that I progressed from the status of the seniormost cop in Punjab to that of a senior citizen. While “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men” fell like the proverbial ninepins the change was not entirely without silver linings. Alongside small mercies like getting a higher interest rate of my paltry savings to getting a concessional ticket on the Railways, a well-advised investment of pension, gratuity and provident fund aggregated to a far better sum than the last pay drawn.

OPED

Wall Street rescue
Bush leaves his soldiers to die in Iraq
by Robert Fisk
It was a weird week to be in the United States. On Tuesday, secretary of the treasury Henry Paulson told us that “this is all about the American taxpayer – that’s all we care about”. But when I flipped the page on my morning paper, I came across the latest gloomy statistic which Americans should care more about.

US escalates Durand Line crisis
by Maj-Gen (retd) Himmat Singh Gill
Sanction to the United States Special Operations Forces (SOF) to strike at the Taliban and al Qaida across the Durand Line as and when considered operationally necessary spells a major change in the overall strategy in fighting international terrorism in a more hard-hitting and proactive manner.

Chatterati
Living in style
by Devi Cherian
“The lady” or the “madam” knows that all eyes are on her. So BMW—Behenji Mayawati — never enters a five-star hotel from the main entrance. She prefers the side door.

Cong in decline
Looking for allies

Permanent commission
Armed forces open new door for women

WOMEN are making their mark in every field. They have scaled new heights in the armed forces also and as a mark of recognition, the government has allowed permanent commission for women in non-combat streams of the armed forces. For the time being, they will be given commission only in the legal and education wings of the Army, Navy and the IAF, but there is hope that soon they will be considered for commission in wings like engineering, ordnance, intelligence, signals, logistics and air traffic control etc also where they already serve as short service commission officers. Nevertheless, the long-term goal of women is to go into positions which involve command of men or battalion. That is going to take quite some time, considering that the army ethos will have to be restructured considerably for that goal to become a reality. We should not forget that century-old prejudices cannot be overcome overnight.

It must be underlined that women have been allowed only in branches and cadres which do not entail direct combat or physical contact with the enemy. Nor was there any such demand. While gender equality is a cherished dream, women cannot be put to the gruelling position where they become a tool in the hands of an inhuman enemy. International conventions are hardly respected in a war even in the case of men. Women will be at a greater disadvantage if captured by the enemy.

They have broken one glass ceiling but there are many others which are still intact. One is the aversion of the soldiers to be under the command of women officers. Before that mindset is changed, we have to put an end to the tendency of some male officers to treat women colleagues or juniors as playthings. Many such officers have been punished for misconduct. When such overtures are made even by an officer of Major-General rank, there is a lot to be set right before the armed forces become a woman-friendly job opportunity.

Dying for kidney
Curb trade but encourage donations

THANKS to the Amritsar kidney-for-cash scandal that rocked this region six years ago, kidney donations by unrelated donors had almost stopped in Punjab. That is why when an authorised committee headed by a deputy commissioner cleared the case of an unrelated person donating his kidney to an additional deputy commissioner “out of sheer love and affection”, many eyebrows were raised. Under the law only close relations of a patient can donate a kidney and cases of non-relatives have to be cleared by district-level committees. The rich and the influential, it seems, are more equal before the law.

If no close relative comes forward to help the patient, he or she is left to die. This is as inhuman as the sale of an organ. There is, perhaps, no official record of patients dying for want of a kidney. According to press reports, about 1.5 lakh patients in India need kidneys every year, but only 3,500 volunteer to donate. This has led to a multi-crore organ trade racket in some parts of the country. Going by the figures compiled by the Voluntary Health Association of India, some 2,000 Indians sell a kidney every year. Of late non-resident Indians and rich foreign patients have started flocking to India for cheaper kidney transplantations. Some rich Indians also go to Pakistan for kidney transplants which are cheaper there.

To curb illegal kidney transplants, the government proposes to amend the Transplantation of Human Organs Act to provider for longer jail terms and stiffer fines for offenders. Foreigners will have to bring donors from their own country with proof of their relationship. Given the scarcity of organs, Union Health Minister A. Ramadoss has suggested that all patients should be treated as potential organ donors after death except those who bar such organ donation in writing. This concept of “presumed consent” is prevalent in some countries. But in India it needs a wider debate and public awareness before being incorporated in the Act.

Thought for the Day

Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. — Robert F. Kennedy

ARTICLE

Pakistan’s double-game
The war of attrition has just begun
by Sushant Sareen

Having lost all patience with what Newsweek calls “Pakistan’s dangerous double-game” in the War on Terror, the Americans have started baring their fangs and mounted the first ground action inside Pakistani territory by Special Forces troops. The storm of protest over violations of sovereignty by the top political leadership of Pakistan and threats of retaliation by the Pakistani army chief was treated with utter disdain by the Americans who have continued bombing suspected terrorist sites in Pakistan. But despite the aggressive posture that the Americans have taken against terrorist sanctuaries and launching pads inside Pakistan, the efficacy of this new policy remains suspect.

If the objective of the new American strategy is to force the hand of the Pakistanis and leaving them no option but to clean up the nests of terror in the Pakhtun tribal belt, then it still has a chance to work. But if the aim is to act unilaterally to wipe out terrorist bases inside Pakistan, then the Americans might end up creating a bigger problem, for themselves and for the wider region, than the one that confronts them at present.

Clearly, Washington is facing a Hobson’s choice: if it continues to mollycoddle the Pakistanis and turn a blind eye to the links between the Pakistani military establishment and the Taliban, peace and stability in Afghanistan will never become possible; on the other hand, if the US troops start striking inside Pakistani territory, they could end up confronting an extremely hostile Pakistan Army and public, something that will not only widen the theatre of conflict but also severely disrupt the vital supply line of the US-led NATO forces inside Afghanistan.

Like the Americans, the Pakistanis too face a grave dilemma. Pakistan can, in an assertion of sovereignty, either obstruct the US war effort by denying transit facilities and logistics support or retaliate by stopping intelligence cooperation and shooting at US drones and personnel. But then it will face the prospect of stiff economic sanctions, which will push the tottering Pakistani economy over the edge. In addition, Pakistan will face international diplomatic isolation. And to top it all, if the situation deteriorates beyond a point, there is a real danger of armed confrontation between Pakistan and the US, something that Pakistan simply cannot sustain. On the other hand, if the Pakistani authorities do nothing about the increasing US incursions, then they risks massive domestic unrest which will almost certainly destabilise the civilian government.

To a great extent, the answer to the problems being faced by both the US and Pakistan lies with the Pakistan army. But two critical issues hamper the effectiveness of the Pakistan army in being a part of the solution. The first is the jihadist ideology that pervades the rank and file, not just of the ISI but also of rest of the army. It is this mindset that gave rise to the doctrine of “strategic defiance”, a doctrine that still dictates the policy and actions of the army. The ideological affinity that the army, and increasingly the Pakistani people, share with the Islamists makes them look upon the Americans as a bigger enemy and threat to the survival of Pakistan.

The second issue relates to the capacity and capability of the army in fighting the Taliban. Even if by some miracle good sense dawned on the Pakistan army to wipe out the radical Islamists, it will find it very difficult to do so. Until now, the Pakistan army has been worsted by the Taliban in practically every single ground engagement. The only successes that the army has notched up are those in which the Pakistan army has resorted to very heavy aerial bombardment of militant positions by fighter jets, helicopter gunships and heavy artillery. But this “success” has caused massive collateral damage. Around half a million people have been forced to leave their homes and take refuge in refugee camps. The humanitarian crisis has created a huge amount of resentment and anger which in turn is fuelling the desire for revenge in even ordinary people. Many Pakhtuns feel that their traditions, their way of life, their culture are under assault by the Punjabi dominated Pakistani state operating under the diktats of the Americans.

Bombs from the air are, however, no substitute for boots on the ground, something that the Americans are finding out in Afghanistan. The ferocious air attacks, in which the Islamists are sitting ducks, will ultimately have to be followed by sending in ground troops to hold territory and enforce the writ of the state. But the terrain is such that it will need a huge amount of force to mount even a holding operation in these areas. The moment ground troops move in, they will open themselves to attacks by the insurgents who will use guerrilla tactics — hit-and-run, ambushes, suicide attacks, and IED blasts — to target both fixed installations as well as supply lines of the military. For instance, in the military operation underway in Bajaur as soon as the troops backed by armour moved in for mopping up operations, they faced such fierce resistance that they were forced to retreat.

Clearly, Pakistan is facing a very long, brutal, and horrendously expensive (in men and material) war of attrition. A comparison with the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir is apt to understand the magnitude of the problem facing Pakistan. In J&K at the worst of times the estimate of armed terrorists was never more than 4000-5000. India has had to commit nearly 400,000 security force personnel to keep control over the situation. In the areas affected by militancy in Pakistan, estimates of armed militants vary from 25000 to 100,000! This means a huge military commitment to keep the peace and defeat the Islamists, a commitment which could well be beyond the capacity of the Pakistani state, more so given its security commitments on the border with India which seems to be getting active once again.

There are only two ways this can be avoided: either the Pakistani state succumbs to the Islamists, or the Islamists have a sudden change of heart and decide to bid farewell to arms. But if neither of these two options are available, and Pakistan has to confront the problem, then it will need a huge amount of economic and military assistance from rest of the world, far beyond the one or two billion dollars it is getting at present. Pakistan is clearly in no position to handle on its own the massive dislocation of people, business, and politics that this war will cause. On the other hand, if Pakistan does not join this war in right earnest, and continues to play a “double-game” and “defy” the US, then it will leave the US with no option but to take action - military, economic and diplomatic - which again will have devastating consequences for Pakistan and rest of the region.

It is therefore in the interest of the US, of Pakistan and even of India (which will have to bear the brunt of a destabilised Pakistan) if Pakistan is forced to make the necessary course correction and combat Islamic radicalism on its own, of course with lots of help from friends and neighbours. But if Pakistan is not willing to do this, then regional and global players will have to undertake this unpleasant task. In either case, everyone should be prepared for a long, long war, which is probably just starting.

MIDDLE

New life
by G.S. Aujla

Last year has been a period of significant metamorphosis for me in that I progressed from the status of the seniormost cop in Punjab to that of a senior citizen. While “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men” fell like the proverbial ninepins the change was not entirely without silver linings. Alongside small mercies like getting a higher interest rate of my paltry savings to getting a concessional ticket on the Railways, a well-advised investment of pension, gratuity and provident fund aggregated to a far better sum than the last pay drawn.

Having discovered the sense of the whole thing I regretted why I did not exercise the option of calling it a day earlier than the date of superannuation mentioned in the “Civil List”. I should have known that if things do not happen strictly according to the mythical seniority list the date of finally relinquishing office should be optionally predated to suit one’s convenience.

There have been another blessing lately. The Pay Commission recommendations announced that its largesse would date back to the first of January, 2006. I discovered that I would get a princely sum of arrears for having been in service on the first day of the calendar two years ago. It was a nice feeling to be considered among the serving when you have actually retired.

Having got rid of the noblesse oblige one starts enjoying the virtues of anonymity. Privilege imposes disabilities as well and the fruits of citizenship can be enjoyed fully only when one experiences a modicum of freedom. There is a greater thrill in walking a shopping plaza and watching the movie without any trappings of irksome authority.

As civil servants we had all along felt that we had an edge over the politician who went through a quinquennial cycle of ups and downs while we enjoyed the uninterrupted glow of office for decades at a stretch. On retiring I discovered that the politician beats you at the endgame too. While you go home at sixty he can continue beyond eighty without apologies and regrets.

OPED

Wall Street rescue
Bush leaves his soldiers to die in Iraq
by Robert Fisk

It was a weird week to be in the United States. On Tuesday, secretary of the treasury Henry Paulson told us that “this is all about the American taxpayer – that’s all we care about”. But when I flipped the page on my morning paper, I came across the latest gloomy statistic which Americans should care more about.

“As of Wednesday evening, 4,162 US service members and 11 Defence Department civilians had been identified as having died in the Iraq war.”

By grotesque mischance, $700bn – the cost of George Bush’s Wall Street rescue cash – is about the same figure as the same President has squandered on his preposterous war in Iraq, the war we have now apparently “won” thanks to the “surge” – for which, read “escalation” – in Baghdad.

The fact that the fall in casualties coincides with the near-completion of the Shia ethnic cleansing of Sunni Muslims is not part of the story.

Indeed, a strange narrative is now being built into the daily history of America. First we won the war in Afghanistan by overthrowing the evil, terrorist-protecting misogynist Islamist crazies called the Taliban, setting up a democratic government under the exotically dressed Hamid Karzai.

Then we rushed off to Iraq and overthrew the evil, terrorist-protecting, nuclear-weaponised, secular Baathist crazies under Saddam, setting up a democratic government under the pro-Iranian Shia Nouri al-Maliki. Mission accomplished.

Then, after 250,000 Iraqi deaths – or half a million or a million, who cares? – we rushed back to Kabul and Kandahar to win the war all over again in Afghanistan.

The conflict now embraces our old chums in Pakistan, the Saudi-financed, American-financed Interservices Intelligence Agency whose Taliban friends – now attacked by our brave troops inside Pakistani sovereign territory – again control half of Afghanistan.

We are, in fact, now fighting a war in what I call Irakistan. It’s hopeless; it’s a mess; it’s shameful; it’s unethical and it’s unwinnable and no wonder the Wall Street meltdown was greeted with such relief by Messrs Obama and McCain.

They couldn’t suspend their campaigns to discuss the greatest military crisis in America’s history since Vietnam – but for Wall Street, no problem. The American taxpayer – “that’s all we care about”.

Mercifully for the presidential candidates, they don’t have to debate the hell-disaster of Iraq any more, nor US-Israeli relations, nor Exxon or Chevron or BP-Mobil or Shell. George Bush’s titanic, if mythical, battle between good and evil has transmogrified into the conflict between good taxpayers and evil bankers.

Phew! No entanglement in the lives and deaths of the people of the Middle East. Until the elections – barring another 9/11 – they are yesterday’s men and women.

But truth lurks in the strangest of airports. I’m chewing my way though a plate of spiced but heavy-boned chicken wings – final proof of why chickens can’t fly – at John Wayne airport in Orange County (take a trip down the escalator and you can actually see a larger-than-life statue of the “Duke”), and up on the screen behind the bar pops Obama himself.

The word “Change” flashes on the logo and the guy on my left shakes his head. “I got a brother who’s just come back from Afghanistan,” he says. “He’s been fighting there but says there’s no infrastructure so there can be no victory. There’s nothing to build on. We’re not wanted.”

At California’s San Jose University, a guy comes up and asks me to sign my new book for him. “Write ‘To Sergeant ‘D’,” he says with a sigh. “That’s what they call me. Two tours in Iraq, just heading out to Afghanistan.” And he rolls his eyes and I wish him safe home afterwards.

Of course, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict no longer gets a look into the debate. McCain’s visit to the Middle East and Obama’s visit to the Middle East – in which they outdid each other in fawning to the Israeli lobby (Obama’s own contribution surely earning him membership of the Knesset if not entry to the White House) – are safely in the past.

Without any discussion, Israeli and US officials held a three-day security-technology forum in Washington this month which coincided with an equally undebated decision by the dying Bush administration to give a further $330m in three separate arms deals for Israel, including 28,000 M72A7 66mm light anti-armour weapons and 1,000 GBU-9 small diameter bombs from Boeing.

Twenty-five Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets are likely to be approved before the election. The Israeli-American talks were described as “the most senior bilateral high-technology dialogue ever between the two allies”. Nothing to write home about, of course.

Almost equally unreported in major US papers – save by the good old Washington Report – was a potential scandal in good old Los Angeles to which Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa recently returned after a $225,000 junket to Israel with three council members and other city officials (along with families, kids, etc).

The purpose? To launch new agreements for security at Los Angeles international airport. Council members waffled away on cellphones and walked out of the chamber when protesters claimed that the council was negotiating with a foreign power before seeking bids from American security services.

One of the protesters asked if the idea of handing LAX’s security to the Israelis was such a good idea when Israeli firms were operating security at Boston Logan and Newark on 9/11 when a rather sinister bunch of Arabs passed through en route to their international crimes against humanity.

But who cares? 9/11? Come again? What’s that got to do with the American taxpayer?

By arrangement with The Independent

US escalates Durand Line crisis
by Maj-Gen (retd) Himmat Singh Gill

Sanction to the United States Special Operations Forces (SOF) to strike at the Taliban and al Qaida across the Durand Line as and when considered operationally necessary spells a major change in the overall strategy in fighting international terrorism in a more hard-hitting and proactive manner.

While presumably shoring up the operational interests of the American field commanders in Afghanistan, the near certainty now of physical ground attacks across borders spells troubled times ahead for President Asif Zardari, who finds himself in an unenviable situation in keeping his army on the right side and at the same time the United States reasonably satisfied so that when the SOF and air operations hot up, the Pakistani government would not buckle under to domestic opinion and a likely counter-offensive within the country.

Across the fence President Hamid Karzai, already hard put to ensure law and order in the countryside, now increasingly faces mounting criticism from his own people over the issue of casualties inflicted on civilians because of the allied forces’ aerial strikes often hitting the wrong targets, including gatherings of marriage parties, due to faulty land-based intelligence.

That President Bush is uneasy with the Pakistani effort so far to fight terrorism on its borders in Waziristan and the Khyber-Parachinar salient regions and expects better results from the new dispensation in Islamabad is pretty evident in itself, but of far-reaching consequence is the increasing focus on successfully ending the war in Afghanistan now that the prolonged American troop presence in Iraq is beginning to tell on both the Iraqi government and back home the average American citizen.

Within Pakistan a new civilian government still finding its feet amidst dissensions from Nawaz Sharif and his followers, an army with a new chief fighting hard to keep the powerful ISI from gaining more independence of operations, and the difficulty in keeping in check various extremist groups like Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and the Taliban, who all operate in isolation with their own command and control, does indicate that depredations in Afghanistan are unlikely to end in a hurry and that this entire region will remain an unexploded powder keg waiting to blow up the minute the Americans are out of the country.

There are some very obvious failings in the American strategy regarding ending terrorism that even now continues to fester seven years after the 9/11 strikes and their subsequent intervention in Afghanistan.

They have failed to impress upon Pakistan not to enter into peace negotiations and covert deals with the Taliban and other militias that make frequent forays across the Durand Line, and neither have they been able to ensure a secure and continuous arms and logistic supply line, which runs for the better part through Pakistan for their troops fighting the war in Afghanistan.

Secondly, whereas the NATO forces, totalling a near 50,000, continue to go after the Taliban, the 10,000-odd American contingent’s main mission remains oriented to rooting out al Qaida and in capturing their key leaders and field operatives.

Thirdly, whereas the major strongholds from where the forays into Afghanistan occur have been identified like Bajaur and Swat in the North, North and South Waziristan home to the Mehsud and Ahmedzai tribes, who often ingress into the Pakhtika and Pakhtia provinces under Kabul, and the Nushki-Chagai borderlands to the south in Balochistan from where depredations are carried out into Helmand province interdicting the Kandahar-Herat road that runs parallel to the border with Iran, the resources in military terms to meet this challenge have never been sufficient or cost effective.

The American shift in policy in carrying the war into the heartland of the frontiers with Pakistan could mean different things to different nations now directly or indirectly involved in the war since 2001.

George Bush in the remaining months is likely to beef up his forces in Afghanistan and expect Pakistan’s army chief to push for better results against the Taliban and
al Qaida.

Pakistan’s half measures in combating terrorism because of the clout of the ISI, which deals independently with warlords on the frontier with Afghanistan and Karzai’s inability to rein in the tribal chiefs, who will not accept Kabul rule happily, has brought the war in Afghanistan to the brink where America could take some very rash action.