The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Out of Iraqi quagmire
It’s time for US to admit the blunder

With President Barrack Obama declaring on Tuesday an end to the seven-year-old combat mission in Iraq, the question that can be asked is: Who is more relieved — the US or Iraq? The obvious answer is the US, which got caught in the Iraqi quagmire without any real justification for it. Mr Obama will be feeling relieved because he has fulfilled his 2008 campaign promise. The US public will be heaving a sigh of relief because the days of US soldiers being deployed in Iraq are over. The Americans have lost over 5000 lives in the name of fighting international terrorism if one includes the US soldiers killed in both Iraq and Afghanistan after the September 2001 attack on the Trade Towers in New York. But terrorism still remains a major threat to peace and stability.

What happened in Iraq will be remembered as a major mistake committed by the US under President George W. Bush. He ordered the invasion of Saddam Hussein-ruled Iraq on the pretext of destroying its hidden weapons of mass destruction or facilities to make them in the shortest possible time. The world was also told that Saddam had links with Al-Qaida. However, no one could trace the so-called hidden nuclear bombs or the plants to manufacture them. Al-Qaida’s alleged connection with the Saddam regime could also not be established. But all that has happened since March 2003, when Iraq was invaded, has helped Al-Qaida emerge as a major force in the war-torn country. A nation that was known for its secular character is now suffering from a sharp and widespread Shia-Sunni divide.

Now when the US is free from its Iraq problem with only 50,000 American “support” troops remaining there, the question why the US opened the Iraqi war theatre may be debated extensively. What exactly has the US gained after it invested so much in terms of money and human lives lost? One does not have to think much to declare that it is a clear loser. Most of the Iraqis are anti-US. There are enough indications that in the days to come they may join hands with Iran, the number one enemy of the US, to pose new challenges for the Americans. Is it not a policy failure?

Delhi’s dengue fears
Clean up construction sites, attack larvae

Murphy’s Law: “Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong” seems to be operating full time as far as the run-up to the Commonwealth Games is concerned. While the debris of construction are yet to be cleared and the dug up areas yet to be filled up and levelled, the heavy rainfall not only threw the games preparation schedule off-track, it also filled up many low-lying areas with stagnant water, thus ensuring an ideal breeding ground for mosquitoes. With the number of people afflicted by dengue fever rising, there is clear danger of an outbreak which could cast a shadow on the attendance at the games.

Lack of attention to urban development has led us to a situation where there is often a patchwork of development. Those projects that are not in immediate focus are put on the backburner and then forgotten. Think of any road, the area along it is often underdeveloped, uneven and thus a source of stagnant water which attracts mosquitoes and other insects.

Statements to the effect that dengue breaks out every year and it ebbs by September-end reflect a regressive attitude. Measures like fogging with chemicals are at best effective only in a temporary reduction of the number of mosquitoes. The mosquitoes’ breeding sites need to be targeted. Mosquito larvae would have to be eradicated. The Directorate of National Vector Borne Disease Control Programme needs to take urgent and proactive measures including sorting out personnel issues that have threatened to derail the efforts of the mosquito eradication programme in New Delhi. The Delhi Government and other agencies should also pitch in to prevent at least this debacle. It is ironic that the nation’s Capital has not learnt from other progressive cities like Surat, which transformed itself after it suffered from a plague. Will it take another disaster for various government agencies in Delhi to wake up to the threat of this health hazard? One hopes not.

Thought for the Day

Thieves respect property. They merely wish the
property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. — G.K. Chesterton

ARTICLE

China’s double-dealing
India must respond firmly
by Inder Malhotra

TWO facts stand out in the wake of China’s offensive refusal of a visa to one of India’s top generals bound for Beijing to lead the Indian delegation in a high-level exchange with the northern neighbour and the calibrated Indian reaction of “suspending” but not snapping military exchanges between the two countries. The first is that both sides are trying to play down the friction generated by the ugly episode though China is doing so vigorously and this country in a low key. The Chinese defence ministry has even announced that China has “not suspended military exchanges with India, and has received no word that India has stopped military exchanges between the two countries”.

Secondly, it is not the first time that China has acted in this contradictory manner that bespeaks of double-dealing and doublespeak, nor is it going to be the last. Such a combination of aggressiveness and friendly noises seems to have become second nature of the fast-rising and traditionally arrogant country that has already become the world’s second largest economy by overtaking Japan. This approach may be particularly pronounced in the case of India but is in no way confined to it. Beijing treats most countries, including the United States, in a similar though not identical manner. It would be no surprise if China’s effrontery towards India at this juncture is partly addressed also to US President Barack Obama in the run up to his visit to this country in early November.

It is also possible that there are divisions within the Chinese leadership because the issue of succession to President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, scheduled to retire in 2012, is still unsettled. Some China watchers believe the leadership of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is more assertive and aggressive than the political leadership and even tends to act on its own. Be that as it may, the fact is that this time around the Chinese military is treating the incident as a mere visa-related “misunderstanding” that should not affect the “wider bilateral relationship” on which both India and China should “focus”.

None of this sophistry can be allowed, however, to divert attention from what is the core of the current Chinese challenge: the questioning of the Indian position in Kashmir. Beijing’s impertinent reasoning for denying the visa to Lieutenant-General R. S. Jaswal, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of Northern Command, is that his command includes Kashmir “which is a disputed territory”. The whole world treats Kashmir on the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC) as a de facto though not de jure part of India, and “Azad Kashmir” and the Northern Areas on the other side as de facto but not de jure part of Pakistan.

Until just over a year ago China too had broadly held the same view. Last year, however, it changed and began by issuing stapled visas, no longer normal ones, to Indian citizens belonging to Jammu and Kashmir carrying Indian passports. Despite New Delhi’s protests, Beijing persists in this pernicious practice. With the refusal of a visa to Gen. Jaswal, the Chinese are clearly raising the ante. Obviously because by twisting the Kashmir issue in Pakistan’s favour, they hope to kill two birds with one stone: to corner India as much as possible, and to give succor and support to Pakistan it desperately needs. Pakistan’s need for Chinese backing in furthering its nefarious anti-Indian deigns is now much greater than ever before because the humongous floods have crippled it. Nobody knows how long it would take to cope with this gargantuan catastrophe. America’s great hope in Pakistan, General Ashfaque Kayani, has already notified the Pentagon that in the existing circumstances the Pakistani Army cannot do much for the US in Afghanistan. For China, Pakistan is the one instrument to keep India confined to South Asia rather than be China’s competitor in the whole of Asian continent and indeed globally. Given India’s rise, this is a vain hope.

While appealing to India to ignore the visa episode, official and party-controlled Chinese media has also discussed even the possibility of a “limited war” with India. This is intended to shore Pakistani morale, especially now that more and more Americans are saying that their troubles in Afghanistan are really rooted in Pakistan. There is growing opposition, therefore, to the colossal military and financial aid to this duplicitous ally.

In any case, India cannot and must not take lightly China’s bellicose talk. It would be foolish to let an avoidable conflict with China take place. The new Army Chief, General V. K. Singh, has done well to discard his predecessor’s concept of a limited war or a two-front war. But we cannot lower our guard, and should be in a position to give an appropriate response should China be foolhardy enough to launch a military adventure. Surely, the Chinese must know that 2010 is not 1962. For our part, we have got to ensure that our armed forces have all the equipment and ammunition. Our infrastructure along the India-China border has to match the Chinese state-of-the-art infrastructure. Are fervent announcements in this connection being matched by action? And is there awareness that infrastructure just cannot be built the way it is being done in the case of the Commonwealth Games in Delhi.

It is no mere coincidence that China’s provocation over Gen. Jaswal’s visa and its impudent suggestion that some other military leader be sent to Beijing in his place, have been accompanied by the presence of between 7,000 and 11,000 PLA troops in the Gilgit-Baltistan region of Kashmir’s Northern Areas under Pakistani occupation. Isn’t it a disputed territory?

China’s diplomatic assaults have also to be answered in kind. The moment the visa affair broke, New Delhi conveyed to Beijing that Kashmir was as “sensitive” to India as Tibet was to China. It follows, therefore, that we stop reaffirming in season and out of season that Tibet is an integral part of the People’s Republic of China until China accepts that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Chinese nationals and officials from the Tibetan region should henceforth get only stapled visas. The US administration in its latest report on Tibet has regretted that the talks between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese have so far been futile. Washington has asked for “unconditional” talks between the Tibetan spiritual leader and the Chinese government. We should endorse this, and the matter should be reviewed during President Obama’s visit to Delhi.

MIDDLE

Get the dictionary
by Roopinder Singh

Two words that are indelibly associated with the Oxford dictionaries in my mind don’t figure in them, in spite of the steady march of Indian expressions that have now been accepted as English! They are “unparh” and “jahil”—the Punjabi words for illiterate and uncouth.

How? Therein lies a story that has interesting elements. The place: Bhupindra Kothi, Patiala, one of the minor palaces in the city. Time: 6 pm. Dramatic personae: A man with a large turban and a youngster wearing an under-turban or a patka. Scene: The man fuming and fretting, and uttering the aforesaid words repeatedly.

I was wary, since I thought that the words were directed at me. It was to my immense relief that I realised that some unnamed others were the target. The gentleman had come home to meet my parents, and while they were out for a walk, I was trying to entertain him. His angry demeanour notwithstanding, there was something that attracted the 10-year-old me to him.

“How dare they say that the Sikh icon was cyclothymic,” he thundered. I ventured to ask him what cyclothymic meant. “Don’t you know? Get the dictionary!” I scurried away to the nearest bookrack. I thought the world was too big for the small ELBS dictionaries we used for school and thus picked up the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, which despite its name, was quite hefty. I went to the right page to find out that the word meant “a mental state characterised by marked swings of mood between depression and elation.” In the meantime, the gentleman spoke about words, linguistics, philosophy and history, and I just sat listening, mesmerised.

By the time my parents came, he had inculcated in me a deep desire to know more about things in general and the beginning of a habit to consult the dictionary when in doubt. Nowadays, instead of thumbing through the pages, I tend to use my fingers to type out my query, just as, instead of writing in longhand, I input my articles straight on a computer. I thus tend to see the online editions of various dictionaries, although I must confess that I am not one of the many subscribers who pay around Rs 14,000 to access the digital version of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), the largest and most comprehensive of the dictionaries published by Oxford. It gets 20 lakh hits a month. The many free online dictionaries widely available on the Net serve my needs.

OED takes many years to compile. The latest print edition came out in 1989 and is in 20 volumes. It will take many years for OED’ s new edition, which is still being compiled, to be published, but even then, the news that when it is finally completed, it may only be online, disturbed me.

I still use a fountain pen to write, and consult print dictionaries, especially when offline. On the Net, you type the word and get its meaning. However, when you open a printed dictionary, you look for the page, and then the word nestled among others…there is something to be said for meandering that happens, which often takes you a pleasant detour.

With this memorable encounter, and many that followed, Sirdar Kapur Singh, ICS, ignited my mind. He put on the path of lexographic discoveries and set me off on a journey that I still enjoy, although a bit more while thumbing through the pages of the dictionary than by accessing it online.

OPED DEFENCE

While the US will remain the global policeman, countries like India, China and Russia are likely to play a dormant role externally, as they will be preoccupied with their own economic and political restructuring. Increasing tension is likely in Asia due to abundance of resources and the emerging security structure
With Asia in flux, US dominance will remain
Brig Kartar Singh (Retd)

In today's world it may be difficult to forecast any definite strategic scenario, though an effort can be made to arrive at certain deductions through identifying and analysing important players dominating the scene. One thing that can be said with certain degree of surety is Uncle Sam remaining the global policeman and affecting most global situations -- be it Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East, South Asia or Central Asian Republics.

A survey of few world events will indicate three very strong elements at play globally. These are, first, non acceptance of use of force to settle political disputes by countries other than USA and/or the United Nations. USA and Russia had jointly declared that a nuclear war cannot be won and should, therefore, not be fought. Also a conventional war may not, any longer, be an instrument of politics. Does this then mean that there shall be no wars ? Some strategic thinkers while agreeing with the above premise believe that a speedy surgical type of military operation can be mounted with adequate pay-offs. Coercive diplomacy, which is becoming increasingly viable with technological advances, may still be a viable alternative.

The second element at play at the international and intra-national level is increasing regression towards ethnic, religious, regional and linguistic roots. Autonomy, separatism or sub nationalism going as low as tribes and castes may be a "watch word" for sometime to come. Many argue that this phenomenon directly demonstrates economically backward societies while countries with sound economy will be comparatively free of these tensions.

The third such element is the ugly side of human face with its excuses of religion, caste or sectarianism in the form of terrorism or violence and this may continue for some time. In spite of all efforts by various nations, terrorism is likely to dominate the scene as a tool of cheap war and dirty politics.

What are the other inputs we are getting worldwide? First, a singularity of military power i.e. the US. The world will be economically and technologically multi-polar but in terms of exercise of power globally, US will dominate the current decade. Japan, Germany, China, Russia, United Europe and India, if at all, will take time to rise. Increasing tension is likely in Asia due to abundance of resources, markets and the new emerging security structure.

Russia, China and India, major regional powers, are likely to play increasingly dormant roles externally, in this decade. They will be preoccupied with their own economic and political restructuring. Implications of this are that Russian help to India may decline; the Indo-Russian treaty not withstanding, Military threat from China will be marginal or demonstrative and present strategic tilts like that of USA towards Pakistan may continue.

Because of our political and economic situation, the dominant force at play in India today is regression of the population towards regional, religious and linguistic roots. From this emerges our greatest vulnerability -- internal instability. It is perceived that this instability may increase before improving. As a result of this, separatist movement in Kashmir, north east and elsewhere can be exploited by adversaries. Population explosion, illiteracy, internal security situation and economic backwardness are root cause for the present state of affairs, coupled with policy decisions that are based on narrow political, sectarian and sub regional interests.

As for external challenges, the conventional threat from Pakistan is not likely to change appreciably in the near future, but we need to retain a proactive military capability. A factor that has to be taken into account is Pakistan's nuclear capability. The deterrence value of this may preclude any large-scale operations by both countries.

Pakistan knows it cannot win a war against India. However, Pakistan is "not a country with an army but an army with a country". It is, therefore, unlikely that Pakistani army will sit back and cool its heels. Pakistani army is likely to adopt a middle path, that is to maintain the present dispensation with fluctuating intensity like providing support to militant activities in J&K and north-east and other vulnerable areas, and correlating with internal tensions and political situations and thus bleed India through the cheap option of proxy war.

Pakistan cannot live without tension with India, at least in the near future, due to internal dynamics of its Army, ISI and jehadi groups. Jehadi groups have turned out to be an industry, promoted and benefited by Pakistani military and ISI. These will be made to continue their strife for cause of Kashmir, revenge of 1971 defeat and fear of explosion and division of Pakistan by internal differences among various Jehadi groups.

China is undergoing changes on most fronts and as a result it seems to have changed its external perception, now feeling that most developed countries may have entered a passive phase. It perceives nuclear or a major conventional war may not be fought, that diplomacy may replace confrontation and economic and technological developments are major prerequisite for super power status.

Internally China is having its share of centrifugal forces, a state of economy that accentuates dissatisfaction between economic free zones and rest of the country; internal strife amongst various ethnic groups, upsurge for democracy and effect of the Islamic republics of erstwhile USSR.

Additionally, China is likely to pay greater attention towards a unified Korea, defiant Taiwan and an economical muscle flexing Japan. Tibet will continue to be a low priority area. Hence, in the coming years, China will be more inward looking and militarily will adopt a dormant role vis-a-vis India. Existing linkages with Pakistan will continue but is unlikely to give any concrete help to it in an Indo - Pak conflict.

Since the border dispute between India and China has been put on a settlement track, for some time no other major irritant with China is likely to erupt. If at all China perceives a serious threat, it will be from Japan and unified Korea as these countries are economically developed.

Neighbours like Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka are likely to continue to be apprehensive about India's capabilities and intentions. Bangladesh may continue to enhance inkages with Pakistan. None of them, of course can be considered a potential threat in coming decade.

India, China locked in zero-sum geopolitics
Brig Kiran Krishan (Retd)

Indian news channels are at it again - on what else but India's bete noire, China. By denying visa to the GOC-In-C, Northern Command, Lt Gen B.S. Jaswal for a planned official visit, an ill-mannered diplomatic move in itself, Chinese diplomats have given a cause celebre to Indian news czars, who even in ordinary circumstances, can blow any thing to high heaven.

To them, at this time, an article in The New York Times (NYT) stating that 11,000 Chinese soldiers are currently working on construction projects in Gilgit-Balistan region of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) and also building tunnels, has come as a breath of fresh air. "Mystery surrounds the construction of 22 tunnels in secret locations where Pakistanis are barred. … they could also be used as missile storage sites," writes Selig S. Harrison in his August 28 piece entitled 'The other Kashmir problem'. This has given rise to all sort of speculation. The tunnels have to be for housing nuclear missiles! And the Chinese are likely to open a new front against India from there! Of course, PLA troops could be there for other mundane purposes as well. Who cares?

Is an article of this nature in NYT at this point in time a pure chance? The American establishment has made a high art of media management. Planted news and paid news is no news to the American intelligence establishment. The United States is having its own problems with China's assertiveness regarding the freedom of movement in South China Sea, ostensibly claimed by China as its exclusive domain. The US has made friendly overtures to Vietnam after a long hiatus and also held a number of joint naval exercises with friendly forces as a sign of American resolve to maintain its stake in the region. What could be better than to provide fuel to the Indian media to inflame Indian passions with when the Chinese diplomats are seen to have acted brutishly with India?

One would have thought that with the trade between India and China pegged at US$ 60 billion annually, the two would have realised where their interests lie and be better disposed to treat each other with equanimity. Obviously not! Petulance appears to be the reigning theme in Sino-Indian relations. This belies the cordiality usually observed when the leaders of the two countries meet. Is that all a sham?

The die for adversarial Sino-Indian relations was cast 51 years ago in March 1959 with the Dalai Lama being provided political asylum in India. The Tibetan Government-in-exile was allowed to function from India soil, and continues to do so till today. China took revenge by militarily humiliating India in 1962.

The Chinese are unable to let go off the episode and reconcile with the Dalai Lama's presence and privileged, albeit politically curtailed status in India. The Dalai Lama was given shelter in India when the structure of the international politics was completely different from what it is today. India of that time under the leadership of late Pandit Nehru, as leader of the non-aligned movement and champion of world peace, could hardly have behaved otherwise. And today, even with a totally altered global political landscape, India cannot think of throwing out the Dalai Lama without losing its place as a self respecting independent entity in the comity of nations.

The China of today enjoys great respect and admiration in the Indian public. China's successful economic rise has brought it unexpected adulation. Do the diplomatic pin pricks, the issue of stapled visas to J&K residents, the denial of visa to a senior Indian general on rather phony reasoning, repeated claims on Arunachal Pradesh help advance the Chinese cause or enhance its prestige in any manner? There are no tangible benefits in evidence. Au contraire, these help fritter away whatever goodwill China has lately gained in India. 1962 is almost a forgotten past, a distant memory. Petty diplomatic retorts only keep that unhappy memory alive.

As for India reacting to every odd diplomatic faux pas only exposes its latent insecurities. India is now a nuclear power and would shortly be testing an ICBM, Agni-V. In 1971, Indian forces, in more than ample measure, proved their mettle. The bag of 93,000 Pakistani prisoners that the armed forces secured is yet unmatched post-Second World War. In any case, even if militarily not as comparable, today India is capable of seriously denting China's image and upsetting its economic applecart. Even so, a military confrontation between the two countries is hardly like to benefit either.

A detached observer cannot but notice petty petulance that has crept into the Sino-Indian diplomatic intercourse. Need pettiness remain the leitmotif of Sino-Indian relations? Do statesmen not owe it to themselves and the nations they seek to lead and guide to rein in diplomats resorting to small-mindedness? But before that happens, both China and India have to rationalise, and internalise each others' compulsions. The two countries are widely acknowledged as rising powers and yet locked in a pointless zero sum geopolitical game. A sure sign of doing well is letting go of the old shackles.