Iran War - A Fragile Ceasefire

After much bluster and genocidal threats, US President Trump has announced a 14 day cease fire with Iran. This Pakistan mediated ceasefire in which Pakistan has been characterized as more of a go between rather than a credible neutral mediator is already quite fragile. The hostilities between Iran and Arab states of UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain have not yet come to an end with report of continued targeting of infrastructure in these Arab states by Iran and UAE's retaliation on Iran's Lavan Islands as of Monday morning. Israel has also refused to include Lebanon in a any ceasefire. It operations in southern Lebanon continue as usual. 

Any ceasefire does take some time to come into effect while the communication to stop hostilities trickle down to local units. In the case of Iran, due to its decentralized regional command, there is the added issue of all commanders agreeing to the temporary ceasefire. So we will have to wait for a couple of days to see if this cease fire settles in and holds. Israel however is unlikely to give up on its objectives in Lebanon so easily, hence we still need to wait and see how this pans out. There are already some voices in Israel's security establishment criticizing Trump for his decision. Israeli President Netanyahu is also facing criticism from opposition politicians for failing to achieve his objectives. As analyzed earlier, Israel's achievable objective was primarily "Mowing the grass", which, one can argue has been achieved to a great extent. The collapse of Iran's government could not be realistically expected to happen by arial bombardments and decapitation of its leadership has so far not been able to bring about internal fracture. 

One cannot rule out an eventual weakening of the governance structures in Iran over a period of time. But for now it seems the Islamic State has won the war by not losing it. The control of Hormuz strait which it has de facto achieved and will hope to convert into a de jure agreement with USA may be problematic for the Arab states, Asian states and pretty much most of the world. Iran hopes to recover its war damages from the revenue from transit fees. This means the bystander Asian nations who had no role in this war and whose interests were set aside by US and Israel while initiating this war will have to foot the bill for this war in perpetuity. Iran may also seek to use access to Hormuz as a leverage to force Asian nations to resume normal economic relations with it.

The biggest economic loser in this War other than Iran and gulf states is indeed the large energy hungry Asian economies. India for now appears to have made a mistake by not being able to maintain its neutrality in this war. Its dependency on the Gulf monarchies for economic needs and on Israel for defense needs put it in a difficult situation. Its traditional warm relations with Iran were already under stress under the weight of US economic sanctions on Iran. Its current situation is in making for a long time ever since the 2010 Obama era sanctions on Iran. Complying with those and later sanctions on Iran and Russia has lead to weakening of its energy sovereignty over the years. Hence India's position as a supplicant of USA in international relations has been solidified thanks to US sanctions regime and unwillingness of India leadership to develop any kind sanctions evasion mechanisms like China has done. India's relations with Iran in particular and increasingly its relations with Russia have become subject to US Veto.

We will have to see how this cease fire holds and whether a lasting settlement is achieved during the negotiations between Iran and USA over the course of next weeks. The differing perceptions between Iran and USA on what has been agreed to as the draft 10 point proposal from Iran does not bear much confidence in this era of social media diplomacy, where the state leaders seem to make all kinds of often contradictory statements in social media, for one to make any coherent sense of their intentions. But even this temporary fragile cease fire has come as a respite to everyone and a hope of seeing and end to this latest West Asian conflict exists. Asian nations need to get involved in this peace process at least now and not just leave it to the principal actors because much is at stake for them. The prospect of another war in West Asia over unresolved differences exists and their economic interests and immigrant population in the Gulf are both at risk if this happens.

 

     

Of Cotton Shirts and Canvas Shoes

October marks the 50th anniversary of the 1962 Indo-China war. This was a war in which the Indian army suffered a complete defeat in the erstwhile NEFA region and the extent to which the Chinese Army was able to invade in the Indian territory can be gauged from the fact that the city of Tezpur in Assam was ordered to be evacuated. The accounts of the events leading to the war, the dispatches from the war as it happened have all been extensively written about. Many commentators complain about the Handerson-Brooks report which was the Army's own official account of the war not being declassified by the defense ministry.

When I read these accounts what I see are the glaring similarities between the high altitude war of 1962 with China and the Kargil conflict of 1999. While the build up to 1962 and the actual war was for a longer duration than the Kargil war and with completely different outcomes, in both cases India was left unaware of extent of enemy incursions, enemy's strengths and was completely unprepared to fight the war. A reader may not agree with me on this and might say that we were not as unprepared for the Kargil war as we were for the 1962 war, but the fact is that in both these wars the soldiers on the ground were woefully ill equipped for the kind of conditions in which they had to fight and that is what is revealed in the repeated citing of the kind of clothes and equipment that the solders were supplied with during both these conflicts. In 1962 while the enemy infantry units were acclimatized to the harsh Himalayan conditions and were equipped with state of the art AK-47 assault weapons, the Indian soldiers were recently deployed in the region and the standard issue equipment they had was the Lee-Enfield .303 rifle which had already become obsolete after the second world war. They were sent to guard posts in difficult terrain with no road infrastructure to support their deployment and when the enemy attacked they were left to fight them off with only limited supply of ammunition with them.

The accounts of both the Kargil war and the 1962 war cite the bravery of the soldiers who fought against great odds but the fact remains that if bravery was the the only criterion for winning a war then why spend so much in training the top brass of the military in war strategy and why even have an elite top brass in the services with all the privileges it enjoys. Neville Maxwell's book 'India's China War' paints a very negative picture about the leadership of the Army and the civilian Indian government of the time. Although he has been criticized in India of being 'biased' against India, I find it completely plausible for the kind of disregard for sound military strategy, the nepotism in appointing the Army leadership of the time and the failure of diplomacy with China as has been cited in the book to have occurred. Please also be reminded that before Kargil came the Lahore bus diplomacy just as before 1962 came the Panchsheel accord. The Indian military and civilian leadership was lulled into a false sense of security on both occasions and were caught sleeping when the road in Aksai Chin or the Sanghads in Kargil built by the enemy were discovered.

I frankly do not want to write too much about the war preparedness or war strategy of the leadership of that time. I do not have the credentials to write about it either. It is best left to the experts, but what I want to mention is that condition of the Indian solders comes out as appalling in every account of both these wars which one reads. They were fighting a high altitude war in canvass shoes and cotton shirts. Half the Indian casualties in the Sino-India war were weather related. The soldiers who went up the hills of Kargil were also not prepared for the mountain warfare.The condition was poor 50 years ago and it remained poor 13 years ago. The question is whether it is acceptable today or will we continue to demand bravery from our solders against all odds to get us out of the situations which are a creation of our failure of leadership in the first place, while at the same time giving them barely sufficient in return.

Silent Protest

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising against the Chinese rule. In March 1959 the people of Tibet finally revolted against the Chinese army following events which were termed as ‘Rape of Tibet’ by the Hindustan Times. The Chinese had invaded Tibet in 1950 to establish political and military control of the region. In 1959 it undertook to conquer the entire Tibetan territory. At that point of time Beijing then known as Peking had a feudal suzerainty over Tibet, but Tibet depended on India for most of its communication and trade links with the rest of the world. India never had any claim in Tibet apart from a historical right to trade with the region. Communist China annexed Tibet with military might and the rest of the world watched. There were protests by India but with no avail [1]. In 1959 following the failed uprising the Dalai Lama made a dramatic escape to India dressed in Chinese army uniform. The young spiritual leader of Tibet was given asylum in India and he formed a Tibetan government in exile. Ever since the failed revolt of 1959 Tibetans have been silently protesting against the occupation. 50 years have gone by and much has changed in the world. For almost 30 years now the Dalai Lama has changed his demand of full independence of Tibet to that of a ‘meaningful autonomy’. Essentially Tibetans want nothing but freedom to preserve their culture, environment and religion in Tibet.

Tibet has a highly developed culture. Buddhism spread to the rest of East Asia from Tibet and it has been a high learning center of Buddhism in the world. The people of the country are economically and politically poor because of the harsh climate, but spiritually it has always been rich. Communist china has subverted that freedom. There isn’t much political freedom in the regions which can be termed as heartland of China, expectation of such a freedom in Tibet is an illusion, under the current political system there. India’s position on the topic of Tibet is termed ‘overly cautious’ by the Dalai Lama.
Over the years the Dalai Lama has transformed from the Spiritual leader of Tibet to high moral leader of the world. His words should not be taken lightly by any government in New Delhi. The overly optimistic view that government of India had about its ability to keep friendly relations with China in the 50’s resulted in a surprise attack by China in 1962. The principles of Panchsheel were broken by China with this war. None of the principles have been followed by China ever since. The principles were:
(1) Mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty;
(2) nonaggression; (3) noninterference in each other's internal affairs; (4) equality and mutual advantage; (5) peaceful coexistence and economic cooperation.

The overly cautious attitude that we have about not meddling in China’s affairs has enabled it to continue to subvert the people of Tibet and at the same time continue to hurt India in other matters of its security. China has maintained its claim on parts of India, continues to occupy parts of Kashmir, and continues to support Pakistan militarily.
There were recent revelations by an ex CIA officer about suspicion of China being responsible for the transfer of Nuclear know how to Pakistan, including that of China conducting the first nuclear bomb test on behalf of Pakistan within China.

While we compromise on the Tibetan cause in a hope to keep friendly relations with China, the Chinese have lost no opportunity in acting in ways counterproductive to India’s interests in the world. The recent Chinese protest against expansion of UNSC is a slap in the face. One can’t help but compare with how India went to all lengths to get the world to recognize China and award it a permanent membership in UNSC in the  1950s.

India need not ignite or fan the fire of protest in Tibet. But what India can do is allow the Tibetans forced to live in exile in India to be more vocal of their demand without being too worried about the Chinese response. By silencing their protests we are helping Beijing subvert the people of Tibet. We should facilitate a resolution of the Tibet issue. We should be taking up the cause of Tibetans in bilateral discussions with China and in international forums more openly. Their protests need not be silent any more. Their demands should be allowed to be more vocal. We believe in a multicultural, multi religious, multi ethnic democracy at home. We have created a system in our nation to give equal right to all citizens in India. We have an interest in the political freedom of people in all the neighbouring countries. That is directly related to our future security. A regime that subverts the freedom of its people is a threat to its neighbours too. A transformation in Tibet can bring a transformation in China as a whole that would be beneficial for the rest of Asia as well.

References:

[1] Nehru: The Years of Power by Vincent Sheean, Random House, 1960