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.
On 17-18 Dec, 2025 the Indian parliament passed the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancements of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act. There was little debate in main stream media on this bill before it was tabled. In prime minister's independence day speech in August he had mentioned about reforming India's nuclear power generation sector. Ever since the Indo US nuclear deal which was signed in 2008, it was hoped by US nuclear energy suppliers that they will be able to participate in growing Indian nuclear energy sector. After all new nuclear power plant construction had almost ground to halt in US ever since the 3 mile disaster in 1979. New reactor projects started only after 2013. India was seen as a new untapped market for US companies.
The Fukushima nuclear disaster of 2011, however, put the nuclear power industry world wide under greater public scrutiny. Ever since the start of nuclear power generation in the mid of 20th century this industry has thrived on socializing the liability of nuclear power accident which is significant in case of a disaster and largely seen as uninsurable without public funds. The industry in most of the countries has followed a capped operator liability regime with channeling of all liability to the operator and no liability on the suppliers. Countries where public opinion has been sensitive to nuclear disasters like Japan, Russia, Germany and Finland follow a strict, no fault, unlimited operator liability regime. Strict and no-fault means that the claimants need not prove that the operator is at fault of the nuclear accident to be able to claim damages. Unlimited liability means that there is not cap or limit on the liability of the operator. It should be noted that even in countries where a capped liability regime exists, a steady movement towards increasing the cap amount and shifting more liability to the industry from the society is in progress.
The estimated total cost of the Fukushima nuclear disaster is in the range of $ 190-200 billion. The Japanese Law for compensation for nuclear damages has unlimited, strict no-fault operator liability, the operator needs to provide a security deposit of 120 billion Yen to the government and separately also have a liability insurance. Any person suffering from nuclear damage has priority over other creditors in respect of compensation from the amount provided by the liability insurance contract. There is right to recourse to a third party, where the employees of a nuclear operator have suffered nuclear damage and such damage was caused intentionally by a third party, the nuclear operator who has paid compensation for work accidents to the employees or families of the deceased shall retain a right of recourse against such third party.
The Price-Anderson Act of USA provides for $13.6 billion no fault liability without cost to the public or government Interestingly under the US Energy Independence and Security Act 2007, if an accident occurred outside the USA, nuclear suppliers would be required to reimburse the federal government for the amount allocated to the USA under the CSC’s formula for second-tier coverage.
As noted earlier the world over in the course of time the liability regime has changed in the way that International liability laws have moved the onus of insurance from the society to the industry. Also the amount of liability has been increasing. In such an environment, India's SHANTI Act stands out for not only reducing the liability amount compared to previous regime but also shifting the onus from industry to the state. For instance in 2004, contracting parties to the OECD Paris (and Brussels) Conventions signed Amending Protocols which removed the required for states to set a cap on liabilities. Thus allowing states to have unlimited liability just as Japan. Though these amendments are yet to be ratified in absence of Industry's agreement, we can see that the governments around the world are recognizing the need to expand the scope of liability of nuclear accident where as India has moved in the opposite direction.
We have to analyze this new law in this background. Let us note the major changes that have taken place in the SHANTI act:-
1) The strict no-fault liability clause which was part of the CLND act 2010 has been removed from the SHANTI Act. Earlier law had this clause in the Liability of Operator section "(4) The liability of the operator of the nuclear installation shall be strict and shall be based on the principle of no-fault liability.". This clause has been totally removed from the SHANTI ACT
2) The Operator liability for small and medium power plants has been reduced by introducing a graded system in which plants less than 150 MW the operator liability has been reduced to merely Rs 100 Crore from a Rs 1500 Crores in the earlier act of 2010. The maximum lability for plants more than 3600 MW has been increased to Rs 3000 Crores. One would expect that with inflation and in light of global trend the liability amount should increase not decrease.
3) The operator right to recourse to a supplier liability has been removed. CLND had the clause " (b) the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his employee, which includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services; ". This has been removed.
4) Patent regime in the nuclear sector has been changed. Since 1962 any invention in the field of nuclear energy was not patentable. As per patents act 1970 "No patent shall be granted in respect of an invention relating to atomic energy falling within sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962." As per clause 38 of the new law inventions in nuclear energy are now patentable. "38. (1) The Central Government may grant patents for inventions which in its opinion are for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and radiation:"
Patent restriction ensured that all innovation and development of technologies in nuclear science remained strictly in public interest. It did monopolize the nuclear energy sector, limited private investment and but it also enabled India to freely develop technologies in public interest which, may have been patented outside of India and hence denied to it in practical terms. The removal of the patent restrictions will benefit companies to be able to market their patented technologies like fuel in India. Reduction of operator liability to almost a pittance for small reactors will transfer the liability for Small Modular Reactors, which is seen as a new growth sector, from the industry to the society. Removal of supplier liability clause will remove the operator's right to recourse against the technology supplier for any disaster, opening the door for foreign suppliers to freely enter the nuclear energy market with lesser financial risk.
However what stands out most egregiously is the removal of the strict, no-fault, liability clause from the nuclear liability law. If following the international standards of liability was the justification of removing the supplier liability clause then the strict and no-fault liability clause is a long standing feature of nuclear liability laws world over. Its removal is quite inexplicable. So is reduction of liability cap where as the world over the movement is towards increasing the cap and moving more and more liability towards the Industry. Unlimited operator liability is also long standing international practice followed in major Nuclear energy states like Japan, Russia and Germany. One could justify its introduction on the account of the very high estimated cost of the latest large nuclear disaster which was in Fukushima nuclear plant. In fact the central government in the Financial Memorandum section of SHANTI Act it self states "Clause 14 of the Bill provides for the liability of the Central Government in the event of a nuclear incident. However, as the actual liability in the event of nuclear incident would depend on the magnitude of the incident, it is difficult to estimate the cost of liability at this stage. The Central Government has established a Nuclear Liability Fund for the purpose of meeting its liability under the Bill. "
Finally I would remind the reader to what I had explored in my previous article. In last few years one person from India's nuclear energy establishment who stands out in promoting nuclear power industry is Dr Anil Kakodkar. He has been most active in his public writings about building small modular reactor and thorium based fuel. It should to be noted that Dr Kakodkar has been associated with a US company "Clean Core Thorium Energy Inc" as an advisor for development of a thorium based fuel which has been named ANEEL after him. He has been seen promoting private investment in the nuclear power generation sector in India, both before and after the SHANTI act has been passed by the parliament. Clear Core Thorium Energy had a partnership with India's L&T and NTPC is also expected to acquire a minority stake it in. This company is seen as the first beneficiary of the new SHANTI Act. For More about ANEEL fuel read here.
PS: Readers would be interested in the parliament debate on SHANTI Bill. The speech by Mr Shashi Tharoor stands out in articulating many relevant points.
The US-Israeli air raids in Iran raised questions about the reason and objectives of this latest war in West Asia. Various justifications and objectives were shared primarily by the US government which really appeared as an after thought rather than a well articulated justification. Ever changing objectives makes it difficult to predict how far this war will go and for how long. However it should not be difficult for any observer of the Israeli actions in its neighborhood that this is nothing but a "Mowing The Grass" war. The objective of Israel is to reduce the military apparatus of Iran as much as possible while Iran is at its weakest.
The second Trump administration has more or less followed the recommendation of the 100 days plan prepared by the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran(UANI). Which involved recommendations like Psyops, anti regime protests, using Starlink for information dissemination inside Iran, declared policy of use of force by US, transfer of refuelers and bunker busters to Israel. weaponizing Arab states, targeted assassinations, encourage defection in military, target IRGC via cyber and kinetic means. US defense secretary Pete Hegseth has long been associated with UANI hence his presence in the second Trump administration would have been a decisive factor in US finally being persuaded to engage in military action against Iran first in the June 2025 12 day war and now a repeat war with objectives beyond merely the destruction of Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
Since there are no clear end goals of this second Iran war it is expected that when both sides are exhausted enough, US and Israel will declare the objectives met and a much weaker Iranian government will survive and will be left licking it's wounds. Iran has indicated that such an outcome is not in its interest as it does not want to be faced with another war a few months or years down the line and hence would like to impose an unacceptable cost on US and Israel before it stops its hostilities.
While the war has been initiated by Israel and USA it did not take long for other western powers to indirectly or directly endorse this US-Israeli action. Amongst western nations only Spain has has openly opposed this war calling it an illegal war. Opposition from Russia and China was expected who are believed to have joined in to provide direct assistance to Iran's war effort in terms of ISR.
Gulf monarchy's have borne the bulk of Iran's retaliation in this war. Iran had earlier warned that any war imposed on it will result in a regional war and that is precisely what it has hoped to do with its war strategy. Knowing fully well that Israel is better prepared for this war and perhaps calling out the duplicity of the Gulf states which wanted all the benefit of having a weakened Iran in West Asia without necessarily engaging in direct confrontation with it, Iran decided to attack US defense infrastructure in the Gulf states. It has a large number of missiles and drones to effect this strategy which involves using up its old missile and drone arsenal first while dying up the air defenses of its adversaries before moving on the newer age weapons.
UAE and Bahrain have so far suffered the bulk of Iranian attacks. UAE perhaps because of its recognition of Israel and Bahrain because of hosting the head quarters of US 5th Fleet. Civil infrastructure in these states has not been spared either with Iranian attacks being reported in residential building, hotels, airports, oil storage facilities and even water desalination plant in Bahrain. Oil tankers and commercial ships in the Straits of Hormuz have been attacked by both sides and Natural Gas production in Qatar has been stopped. Russia's energy sector has benefited temporarily from this war since it has emerged as one of the primary remaining viable sources of energy for the energy hungry economies of Asia.
Ever since the October 7 2023 Hamas atrocities, Israel, with US help has systematically dealt with its neighboring adversaries who were primarily financed and endorsed by Iran in Gaza, Syria and Lebanon. Then last year it went after the nuclear infrastructure of Iran to destroy its capability of developing nuclear weapons. One cannot reliably say whether Iran did not have stockpile of nuclear weapons already when Israel attacked its nuclear infrastructure in June 2025 in the so called "Twelve Day War". However one can reliably say that if it did have a bomb, the numbers were perhaps not substantial yet. Leaving only a small window of opportunity for Israel and USA to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure before it could enrich sufficient quantities of fissile material for creating a bigger weapon stock pile.
One should also not overlook that this action took place not so long after India's operation Sindoor which demonstrated not only that there is room for limited war even between two nuclear weapons states but it also showed the limit of how far such a conventional war could proceed between established nuclear powers. The deterrence ability of nuclear weapons are never in question. Hence for Israel it would have further raised the now or never question for dealing with the nuclear ambitions of its adversary.
It is possible that Iran really does not have any nuclear weapon and has not enriched any fissile material to weapons grade and was merely using its fissile stockpile as a bargaining chip to lift western sanctions. At the same time and a more likely scenario is that perhaps Iran wanted to eat its cake and have it too. It wanted to be an ambiguous nuclear weapons power like Israel while being fully integrated in the world economy rather than be an overt nuclear pariah state like North Korea. The prospect of Saudi Arabia, Israel and perhaps even Turkey becoming overt nuclear weapons state as a response to Iranian nuclear weapons testing and strong opposition by the partners of Iran namely Russia and China to such a scenario in West Asia perhaps made the choice of overt nuclear testing a difficult one for Iran.
The 2003 Fatwa placed against nuclear weapons by Ayatollah Khamenei which was issued soon after the US invasion of Iraq made it impossible for Iran to openly test a nuclear device, however the west continued to suspect that a clandestine Iranian nuclear weapons program was well in progress. This lead to the enhanced US economic sanctions on Iran the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), signed by President Obama on July 1, 2010. These Obama era sanctions and India's nuclear deal with USA made it difficult even for India to continue its purchase of Iranian oil and India progressively stopped oil imports from Iran. This was perhaps the first such occasion in recent memory when US was so brazenly able to inject itself into India's foreign policy through its domestic laws and enforce compliance by India in its sanctions regime against Iran which until then was its second largest oil export destination.
The economic sanctions on Iran had its effect and it resulted in US lead nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran called JCPOA in 2015. Iran agreed to reduce uranium enrichment to approx. 3% and to IAEA monitoring of its nuclear sites. Thus allowing Iran to regain access to international markets and financial system. However the Trump administration in 2018 unilaterally withdrew from the deal and reimposed sanctions on Iran. India also once again left Iran in lurch by complying with the US unilateral sanction on Iran and stopped purchase of Iranian oil in 2019. As a side effect to this Iran-US tussle, it was revealed for everyone to see, that India's foreign and trade policy was now increasingly being determined by the US domestic law and US interests, and not by India's national interests. Its much touted strategic autonomy was progressively under stress.
With this latest war imposed on Iran by Israel and USA, India's position in West Asia and Indian ocean region has been much weakened. Not only are its millions of nationals in the gulf states in the firing line as civilian casualties of its war, its energy security and fertilizer imports are at risk due to the Gulf region being the primary source of these commodities. Already LPG supplies in India are under stress. The sinking of Iranian Naval ship which had been participating in naval exercises in India and had participated in the International Fleet review in February, so close to Indian waters just off the coast of Sri Lanka has caused embarrassment to India. GOI has tried to play down this incident but this brazen action by US Navy has dented Indian Navy's often touted claim of being the net security provider in the Indian Ocean Region. PM Modi's state visit to Israel and acceptance of Knesset Speaker's medal just on the eve of this War, has been bad optics for India. The delayed and muted reaction to this war by India is also noticeable. India, by not condemning this war, stood out from its BRICS partners Russia, China and Brazil.
The cost of this war is not limited to West Asia alone but has global ramifications. Gulf being the energy center of the world and a region with overwhelming number of immigrant population, any instability in this region directly or indirectly affects every household in the the world. Given such a large impact of this war, it is essential that the west should have had very well thought out reason for engaging in this war. Regime change was not a likely outcome of this war without out right invasion which was unlikely from the outset. The prospect of another mowing the grass war every few months or years will plunge West Asia into another crisis and the world economy will continue to remain hostage to instability in the Gulf. India will have to find its feet and break from Israel and USA on this issue and stand with those bystander countries whose economies are being damaged by this war, to ensure that this war now comes to an end and a repeat war of this nature is not imposed by Israel and US again.
The risk of Iran now overtly becoming a nuclear weapons power by testing a device and causing a ripple effect in the region with Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey following suite also exists. Iran has every incentive to test a nuclear device now, if it still has the capability left. In such a scenario it would become necessary for India to resume open ended nuclear testing and develop a robust thermonuclear arsenal (as has been advocated in past by Bharat Karnad, K Santhanam, P K Iyengar and Ashok Parthasarathi) and much longer range delivery systems to secure itself in a changing world order.
PM Narendra Modi in his latest independence day address to the nation, had mentioned about the coming reform in the nuclear power generation sector. There is also some hint in the media, about a change in the civil liability law, in order to facilitate private sector investment in nuclear energy. Everyone in the country is also aware of the way the US government, under the new administration, has begun pressurizing India on economic and national security issues. This is perhaps the most direct public rebuke that Indian leadership has faced from a western government since our Independence. Anyone with even a little understanding of the history of India's relationship with the west is aware of the risk of defence and technological cooperation with the west. It was always said and every child in India knows that most of what comes from the US comes with strings attached.
Our leadership in the past has attempted to keep a healthy distance with the world powers knowing fully well their tendency to use leverage on us in ways which may be detrimental to our national interest. We have been since independence trying to negotiate our growth while breaking various shackles put on us and avoiding new ones being placed. However ever since the Civil nuclear deal between US and India, we have been building a close partnership with the US hoping that it would be mutually beneficial in economic and defence domains. There has always been skepticism in India among a few about too close a cooperation and analysts have always warned that there should be sufficient guard rails in place in our relationship. The gross display of coercion that is coming from Washington today has again given credence to such skepticism.
Given this context, this recent interview to The Print given by Dr Anil Kakodkar regarding India's Thorium based civil nuclear program is worth noting. The core of the discussion was around a special patented thorium based reactor fuel that has been developed by a US company "Clean Core Thorium Energy Inc". Interestingly Dr Kakodkar is an advisor to this company along with India's former NSA Mr M K Narayanan. This fuel is now being developed in cooperation with L&T for use in PHWR and CANDU reactors. The description of their profile on the company website(public access to the website is now restricted) is interesting. Mr Naraynan's contribution to the Indo US nuclear deal has been mentioned and the fuel has been specifically named ANEEL; recognizing the contribution of Dr Anil Kakodkar in its development. Incidentally India's L&T has an MOU with this company for the development of this fuel for "developing countries".
Clearly the primary customer in mind for the use of this fuel is India and we can see ominous signs here of India's three stage nuclear program and its energy security being made dependent on the US. The revolving door involving some primary actors behind the Indo-US nuclear deal also raises red flags. One wonders why Dr Kakodkar did not deem it fit to use his expertise to advise BARC where he was the director to develop such a fuel in India rather than promote a US patented fuel for India's thorium based nuclear program. This appears to be a critical technology. One cannot fathom that China would ever allow dependency on any foreign country on such critical areas. Even in high-end Chips it is now promoting local industry rather than becoming dependent on the west.
On the one hand Mr Kakodkar says imported uranium makes India vulnerable, on the other hand he promotes a properietory imported Thorium fuel from a US based company, instead of "advising" BARC to make such a fuel indigenously within India.
The transfer of this fuel technology from the US also requires the US government's so called 810 approval which entails a requirement to satisfy the US government's non proliferation concerns and national security interests. Quite likely dependence on this fuel will make India's nuclear program susceptible to US sanctions pressure in future. This is equivalent to attaching another shackle on ourselves. India's three stage nuclear program and fuel reprocessing has so far been kept out of any IAEA inspections under the Indo US nuclear deal. With this imported fuel from the US all this independence India had carved out for itself appears to be in jeopardy.
One needs to be reminded of the red flags that were raised in the book Strategic Sellout by Bharat Karnad, PK Iyengar et al immediately after the Indo US nuclear deal. Mr Ashok Parthasarathi had specifically mentioned in a press conference organized by him and Mr Santhanam circa 2009 that India had 11 years since the Pokhran test yet to deploy a Thermonuclear weapon. Several scientists had mentioned the need for India to resume nuclear testing in order to get a credible Hydrogen bomb deterrence against China since the yield of 1998 test is questionable. We seem to be walking into another trap with this talk of changes to nuclear liability laws and increasing dependency on the US for our civil nuclear program. GOI needs to tread this carefully and not mortgage India's energy future to a US company by using patented fuel for its reactors. It appears that people like Dr Kakodkar and Mr Narayanan who have been at the echelons of India's nuclear establishment are contributing to making the country's energy future vulnerable to a mercurial US government. There is also a conflict of interest that such persons who have served in senior positions in government of India are post retirement cooperating with a foreign company in such a critical area.
A number of senior scientists who had raised red flags about the Indo-US nuclear deal and some of the primary actors who had contributed to the deal are no longer with us. I am sure a few like Mr Bharat Karnad and some others who may not be as well known publicly are still with us. At a minimum we should have a public debate about the future direction we need to take on our relationship with the West in nuclear technology and whether we should really risk creating dependence on the US and the West rather than pursue self-reliance like China.
Dr Anil Kakodkar has recently been interviewed by The Print on the patented ANEEL thorium fuel developed by US company "Clean Core Thorium Energy Inc" in which Dr Kakodkar is an advisor along with former NSA M K Naraynan. This fuel has been specifically designed for use in PHWR and CANDU reactors. The description of their profile on the company website is interesting. Mr Naraynan's contribution to the Indo US nuclear deal has been mentioned and the fuel has been specifically named ANEEL recognizing the contribution of Dr Anil Kakodkar in its development. Incidentally India's L&T has an MOU with this company for the development of this fuel for "developing countries".
Clearly the primary customer in mind for the use of this fuel is India and we can see ominous signs here of India's three stage nuclear program and its energy security being made dependent on the US. The revolving door involving some primary actors behind the Indo US nuclear deal also raises red flags. One wonders why Dr Kakodkar did not deem it fit to use his expertise to advise BARC where he was the Director to develop such a fuel in India rather than promote a US patented fuel for India's Thorium based nuclear program. The transfer of this fuel technology also requires the US government's so called 810 approval which entails a requirement to satisfy US government's non proliferation concerns and national security interests. Quite likely this will make India's nuclear program susceptible to US sanctions pressure. Readers should note that India's three stage nuclear program and fuel reprocessing has so far been kept out of any IAEA inspections under the Indo US nuclear deal. With this imported fuel from US all this appears to be in jeopardy.
The Strategic Sellout which Bharat Karnad, PK Iyengar and K Santhanam had warned off, seems to be paying dividends for a few. Given that PM Modi had specifically mentioned plans for reforms in nuclear energy sector in the country during his recent independence day speech and some talk in media about change in India's nuclear liability laws, GOI needs to tread this carefully and not mortgage India's energy future to a US company by using patented fuel for its reactors. It is disappointing that people like Dr Kakodkar and Mr Narayanan who have been at the echelons of India's nuclear establishment are contributing to making the country's energy future vulnerable to a mercurial US government.
It is only India which painstakingly worked on an FTA with USA, a draft of which, is already on Trump's table. No other country has any written deal let alone a full blown FTA. India already conceded on zero tariff on capital goods import and open market for agriculture in certain areas like meat, fruits and even milk products like cheese(what happened to blood meal?) and defence purchases. India got a bad deal because it started off with appeasement. India removed Google tax, alcohol duties, Harleys, Tesla and Starlink even before Modi went to US and even before trade deal. So all this was a tribute that India paid to Trump. Trump's trade minister had already conceded that India will not open agriculture and has bluntly said in mafia like tone that India buying russian weapons gets under the skin of USA. So agriculture is a red herring that leaders on both sides are waving at gullible citizens.
Having got the deal he wanted, Trump decided to push India more and hence raised issue of Russian oil to settle non trade related issues like Ukraine deal and who knows what else behind the scenes. Trump team is gloating that no country except China has retaliated. Trump team is not expecting any retaliation from India because it understands that decision makers' will to respond is already compromised. It is a result of not building guard rails over the years in US relationship.
China is indeed gloating and its media is egging on India to stand up to USA. A hard break in US India relations is to its advantage. One is skeptical if there will be any real response or weather India has any cards left. WTO afterall is dead now, Lula wanting collective action by WTO does not work. The only thing India should definitely do now is not sign any FTA with USA and work on diversifying trade with other countries. Hopefully India will also stop further defense purchases from USA. After all no one else has signed any FTA with USA since trump tariffs everyone had only a framework agreement, details of which they are incessantly disputing. So Trump has got no deal with anyone till now. A US China grand bargain looks inevitable though since only China cose to standup to USA. All cards are now with China.
India should wait for internal court proceedings in USA to strike down Trump tariffs as they definitely will and wait for political turmoil in USA to start, once tariff lead inflation begins to pinch. It needs to scale back its ties with USA especially defence. It is the security dependence on US which makes USA's allies vulnerable to pressure on trade. Hopefully Indian decision makes have that much independence still left to ride it out rather than strike a bad deal. Their dream of becoming China plus has been already been shattered by Trump.
This the first time such operation has been acknowledged publicly. Perhaps the first with a scale of this nature too. One needs to see if this is employed more often. I was expecting that some skeptical defense journos would at least remain silent this time. But to my surprise without naming names at least two of these influential defence journos have publicly mocked this as placating jingoistic domestic audience and are not accepting the army version that many terrorist were hurt. I hope no operation details are further revealed even to placate the skeptics.
Some people have asked for footage to be revealed. But that hopefully wont be done. One hopes such actions are done more often not as response but actively to make wider ranges of LOC itself a sanitized zone.
I also hope such actions are not given an impression of being throttled by US approval and veto on this occasion or future.
People have been anticipating and wondering about Pakistani response. I suppose they will fall back to doing what they do. Which is more terror. We talk of isolating Pakistan in the world. But even if only India, Bangladesh and Afghanistan remain steadfast together for another decade perhaps some change can be brought about. India's isolation against Pakistani terror seems to be ending.
Barak Obama President of the United States had during his recent trip to India given Indians a lecture on upholding religious tolerance. He showed us article 25 of our own constitution. For those of us who thought this was a one off comment he repeated his "concern" in the so called National Prayer Breakfast which was started by a Mormon Evangelist Abraham Vereide. He said "Michelle and I returned from India -- an incredible, beautiful country, full of magnificent diversity -- but a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other peoples of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs -- acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhiji [sic], the person who helped to liberate that nation". He did not single out any one faith at least not explicitly. But if anyone wants to know what he really meant in these two speeches one needs to read this press release(Feb 6, 2015) by United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.
The press release after quoting Obama's two speeches goes on to mention this "The President’s concerns come at a time of increasing abuses against India’s minority religious communities. Hindu nationalist groups, such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), have assaulted these communities and forced community members to convert. In just the last three months, five churches were attacked in Delhi; Hindu nationalists reportedly forcibly converted Christians and Muslims; and a mob of more than 5,000 people attacked the majority-Muslim village of Azizpur, Bihar, killing three Muslims and setting about 25 houses on fire. In addition, on February 5, police detained hundreds of Christians demonstrating against attacks on churches in New Delhi, including John Dayal, a human rights activist, who testified on April 4, 2014 before the Tom Lantos Commission on 'The Plight of Religious Minorities in India.'"
So while Obama has not singled out any religious community this press release by USCIR which is also incidentally headed by a Mormon Katrina Lantos Swett makes it clear what it was all about. American right wing churches which do not want any breaks to be brought about in their evangelist activities, do single out Hindus, who they intend to convert. Any resistance is pre-empted by pointing out incidents some of which may not even be true to weave a story which is used as persecution propaganda. Indians need to be aware of how the west is an active participant in the religious discord in our country. Barak Obama's lecture to India on religious freedom squarely equates it with freedom to evangelize which is the real concern not religious "Bhai Chara".
Notes:
1) To know about what really happened in Azizpur read this.
2) About the assault and forced conversion by RSS I don't know where this story came from. I presume it refers to the so called 'Ghar Wapsi'. A typical report condemning 'Ghar Wapsi' is here. It says "Clearly, the force involved in conversions across the religious spectrum, need not be physical. It can be psychological, social, and as is often the case, economic."
3) Minority commission of UP report on the 50 so called 'Ghar Wapasi" was covered by India today here. It talks about "lured". Not that luring is in anyway more respectable. But if the commissions recommendation were to be implemented that would put so many evangelists churches in the dock.
4) John Dayal is a more or less discredited figure who appears regularly to testify against India in such forums.
This is in reference to the recent editorial published in NY Times regarding the religious conversion controversy in India. While I find that it correctly mentions several facts about the recent events. It does not cover the whole picture.
Hinduism being a non proselytising religion is under constant assault by western fundamentalist Christian churches which have a stated goal to Christianize India.
Organizations like JoshuaProject, Worldvision, Harvest India and innumerable other missionary churches have in past and at present continue to use allurements like superstitious faith healing, cash, medical services, education etc to "Harvest Souls" & save "poor Indians" from the "darkness" of their "false gods" & "evil spirits". Billions of dollars are directed each year to India for this purpose. Recently a case was registered in Kashmir against a Christian pastor trying to convert Muslim youths in Kashmir by allurement.
Christian missionaries are known to come to India on tourist visas and illegally engage in proselytism of children in their schools.
Christian churches are also known to support terrorist organizations that target local Hindus. Killing of Swami Lakshmanananda in 2008 by left wing extremists supported by Christian organizations which resulted in Kandhamal riots in Orissa and the recent killings of 80 Hindu Vanvasis by NDFB terrorists in Assam are a few examples. One of the stated demands of Christian NDFB terrorists is to replace the traditional Devanagari script of Bodo language with Roman alphabets.
So the issue is not as straightforward as NYTimes seems to suggest, that the so called oppressed Hindus convert to other faiths under their own volition.
I hope in future your paper carries a more balanced story on the real facts on the ground and calls the american churches by name which play a part in generating discord in India through their unethical practices backed by loads of US dollars.
Ever since 26/Nov Mumbai attacks in the year 2008 the people of the subcontinent are being lead to believe that there are some rogue ISI elements who have been out of control of the Pakistani Army and who have not severed there links with the terrorists and Taliban and who have possibly planned and carried out the attacks. Mr Ahmed Rashid a well respected author and journalist who is an Afghanistan/Pakistan expert had argued in 2008 immediately after that attacks that the attacks were perhaps planned and executed by the al-qaeda along with "disbanded LeT". He had written in an article for BBC "Al-Qaeda is looking for some relief and a diversion... This strategic diversion ploy for the sake of al-Qaeda and its surrogates is the principle motive behind the Mumbai terrorist attacks." He went on to say "Charges that the Pakistan government, army or its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) were behind the attack appear unfounded." In the words of the Pakistani government after they finally agreed that the attack was planned in and executed from Pakistan, they were "non state actors".
However in the same year before Mumbai attacks while discussing his book Descent into Chaos in the Conversations With History program with Harry Kreisler Mr Rashid had categorically stated that "there is no rogue ISI". The so called rogue ISI was created to continue supporting Taliban while avoiding detection by the CIA of its activities. Retired Army generals, and ISI men who had worked with the Taliban were given "part time" jobs to go on a "vacation from home for 4 weeks 5 weeks" and work with the Taliban.
Ahmed Rashid - "There is no Rogue ISI" (26:02)
All this has been in public domain for quite sometime it is also in the US government's knowledge for a. long time that Pakistan is supporting the Taliban and keeping it as a "Strategic Asset". A 2007 Congressional Research Service report RS22632 titled "Pakistan and Terrorism: A Summary"released by Wikileaks in Feb 2009 in its summary mentions that "The outcomes of U.S. policies toward Pakistan since 9/11, while not devoid of meaningful successes, have neither neutralized anti-Western militants and reduced religious extremism in that country, nor have they contributed sufficiently to the stabilization of neighboring Afghanistan. Many observers thus urge a broad re-evaluation of such policies."
The report says "Throughout the opening months of 2007, Administration officials, U.S. military commanders, and senior U.S. Senators issued further incriminating statements about Pakistan’s assumed status as a terrorist base and the allegedly insufficient response of the Islamabad government." it goes on to say "The United States also remains concerned with indigenous extremist groups in Pakistan, and with the ongoing 'cross-border infiltration' of Islamist militants who traverse the Kashmiri Line of Control and other borders to engage in terrorist acts in India and Indian Kashmir. Many analysts consider such activities conceptually inseparable from the problem of Islamist militancy in western Pakistan and in Afghanistan. Domestic terrorism in Pakistan, much of it associated with Islamist sectarianism, has become an increasingly serious problem affecting major Pakistani cities. Separatist violence in India’s Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir state has continued unabated since 1989 with some notable relative decline in recent years. Many experts reject efforts by the Pakistani government and others to draw significant distinctions between U.S.- and Indian-designated terrorist groups fighting in Kashmir and those fighting in western Pakistan and Afghanistan, and in Pakistan’s interior".
The report clearly raises doubt on Pakistan's intentions by stating that "Numerous experts raise questions about the determination, sincerity, and effectiveness of Pakistani government efforts to combat religious extremists. Doubts are widely held by Western experts, many of whom express concerns about the implications of maintaining present U.S. policies toward the region, and about the efficacy of Islamabad’s latest strategy, which appears to seek reconciliation with pro-Taliban militants." The report is so damning that I can go on quoting from the report but it is rather better if the interested reader reads it himself/herself. It is also in my view one of the main inputs if not the cornerstone of the subsequent Obama government's policy in Pakistan as I have covered below.
Mr Rashid's assertions in the interview to University of California Berkley, and the picture of a typical handler of this "ISI within ISI" fits well people like Hamid Gul a retired ISI chief with links with both Taliban and LeT founder Hafees Saeed. He openly conducts meetings with Hafees Saeed and other Jehadi outfits in Pakistan on a supposed pro Kashmir and anti India platform. There is no dearth for such India baiters in Pakistan who fit the bill of these "ISI within ISI" operatives. The narrative since Mumbai asking for restraint from the people of India and from the GOI at the face of all provocations has been that al-Qaeda and Taliban affiliates "want to divert attention from the west of Pakistan to the east". On the face of it this argument seems logical and valid. US war in Afghanistan would have been jeopardized by any Indo-Pak flareups, so it was valid for the US to make this argument. But the odd price for this restraint will have to be paid by innocent citizens of India. The perpetrators of Mumbai are still not punished and Hafees Saeed is a free man.
Frankly there are so many diversions in the diversions that no one can say what the real story behind Mumbai is. Was it to divert Pakistan from the west? Or was it planned with an assumption that no trace will be found as to who was behind that attacks? Did the ISI within ISI get embolden with its success in hoodwinking the CIA and felt it was time to punish India as a warning to keep out of Afghanistan? Was the planning for the attack done with full knowledge that there will be no military response from India after all Pakistan had built up conventional and nuclear military since 9/11 with US military aid. Is it wrong to suspect that the real perpetrators were pretty much the establishment itself rather than any rogue elements?
But what is interesting is to note the response of the United States and India to these Mini ISI's activities. While India replied under the time tested "good faith policy"(I am not sure if it has ever worked) and resumed uninterrupted and un-interruptible dialog with Pakistan. US also had "time tested"(never worked?) response in the lines of continuing to provide aid carrots to its "strategic ally".
Obama government replaced the Bush government in Jan 2009. Under Obama's watch AF-PAK policy was formulated. Under this policy an attempt was initially made to include India too which the Indian government declined. The idea was to engage the whole region for solving Pakistan's problems. India did not want to be clubbed so as to avoid any external pressures on its own national interest, especially pressures to "resolve" Kashmir as an incentive to Pakistan for stop supporting the terrorists. But never the less all said and done after Mumbai we still started dialog with Pakistan "in spite of terrorism". In US a policy change was perhaps undertaken and Afghanistan was brought back in focus. A military surge was ordered but unfortunately at the same time a withdrawal date was announced thus emboldening the Taliban and its friends to dig in and fight it out.
On the aid front United States had now installed an old Pakistan friend and India-baiter Ms Robin Raphel as Ambassador responsible for the targeted civilian aid to "improve the image of United States". At the same time it seems the Pakistani concerns as mentioned in the Congressional Report were being addressed during the drafting of the so called Kerry-Lugar bill sanctioning civilian aid of $1.5 billion per year. When the US congress was pushing President Bush to be tough on Pakistan after his years of leniency for inaction on Taliban as per the CRS report "In response to U.S. congressional signals of a possible shift in U.S. policy toward Islamabad, the Pakistani National Assembly’s Defense Committee unanimously passed a resolution threatening to end or reduce Islamabad’s cooperation on counter terrorism if U.S. aid to Pakistan were to be made conditional." later the report says "Other analysts, however, including those making policy for the Bush Administration, believe that conditioning U.S. aid to Pakistan has a past record of failure and likely would be counterproductive."
The Kerry Lugar bill does impose certain restrictions. For civilian aid it requires a certification each year by the special representative to Pakistan (Robin Raphel) to certify that "principal objectives" are being met in order to release the full quantum of $1.5 billion, but is also allows up to $750 million to be released without such certification. The bill also puts a certification requirement for certain military assistance. Limitation on Security-related Assistance for fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and a limitation on Arms Transfers for fiscal years 2012 through 2014. Why arms transfers we allowed for another year without certification requirement? I don't know.
Bulk of the arm purchases of conventional variety by Pakistan from the US had already taken place during the Bush-Musharraf years. A CRS report of 2012 on this subject says "Major U.S. arms sales and grants to Pakistan since 2001 have included items useful for counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations, along with a number of big ticket platforms more suited to conventional warfare.In dollar value terms, the bulk of purchases have been made with Pakistani national funds, but U.S. grants have eclipsed these in recent years." it goes on to say "The Pentagon reports total Foreign Military Sales agreements with Pakistan worth about $5.4 billion for FY2002-FY2010 (in-process sales of F-16 combat aircraft and related equipment account for about half of this).", It should be remembered that in the 90's the US had denied arms sales to Pakistan. The sale of F16s were done under the garb of using them in counter terrorism operations.
It is always possible for the US government to block transfer of weapons already contracted. A CRS report of Aug 2009 says ", all government-to-government agreements or licensed commercial contracts for the transfer of defense articles or defense services may be halted, modified, or terminated by the executive
branch should it determine that it is advisable to do so. In this context, should the Bush Administration decide that actions taken by the government of Pakistan are contrary to the national security interests of the United States, the President can suspend or terminate existing arms sales agreements or prevent the delivery of weapons previously ordered, as he deems appropriate. The Congress can also pass legislation that would suspend, modify, or terminate any arms sale contract should it choose to do so."
Of course none of these weapons sales were ever suspended. All this while the ISI within the ISI continued to support Taliban and blunt the US army's efforts. Under Obama's watch Osama Bin Laden was found in a safe haven within the garrison town of Pakistan, again the so called "rogue elements" in ISI were blamed to have provided support to him without the knowledge at the "highest level". Then in 2011 there was a border skirmish between Pakistani forces and the American forces in which 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed. In response Pakistan blocked the supply routes and threatened to evict US from the Shamsi air base. After US apology the blockade was lifted. But the US government had to take some action too so the aid was reduced for a while.
Obama's second administration has now taken office. After the cooling down period of 2011-2012 the relations between Pakistan and US are back on track. Pakistani foreign minister visited US in January and during an interview with Charlie rose said that relations are much better now. I believe they were assured of support from the US government of continued aid and assistance despite their chequered history. The statement from newly appointed Secretary of State John Kerry in which he said "aid cut will be unkind" should be indicative.
While all this was going on there was an incident on the LOC in January 2013 in which two Indian soldiers were killed there bodies mutilated and one dead body beheaded by the Pakistani army as claimed by India and as usual denied by Pakistan. This incident was supposedly in response to a previous incident in which one Pakistani solder was killed in cross border firing by India which was in response to Pakistani shelling in which three civilians had died which India claims was to enable cross border infiltration. When India protested to Pakistan about the beheading incident the Pakistani FM denied any role of her Army and in the wake of Indian Army Chief's statement that "we reserve the right to retaliate at the time and place of our choosing" did not miss the opportunity of her US attention to blame India of "war mongering ".
While all this is important the most important story here is, and what even Mr Ahmed Rashid is now pushing in the west is, that before exiting Afghanistan USA should get a peace settlement done between Pakistan, Taliban and the Afghanistan government to avoid any post withdrawal conflict between the regional players via their proxies in that country. So the mini ISI has pretty much succeeded in ensuring that its interests in that country are served through the Taliban and also ensured that any talks should not happen without its knowledge. One should be reminded that the Pakistanis had detained Mullah Baradar when they found that he was talking to Afghanistan government without their knowledge. In Sep 2011 Burhanuddin Rabbani who was holding peace talks with the Taliban on behalf of the Afghan government was killed in a suicide attack.
What ever happens in Afghanistan after american withdrawal, I am afraid history is witness, that whenever western countries have interfered in this region for their strategic reasons even if it was for a reason as morally justified as stopping terrorism, the effect has been detrimental to the citizens of the subcontinent. In their "strategic interest" the tilt has well and truly always been in favour of the establishment in Pakistan at the detriment of India. So I doubt if the LeT will be eliminated or the perpetrators of Mumbai be punished by the time US exists Afghanistan. Time will tell and as they say history will be the judge. But one thing is for sure to me after hearing Mr Rashid and seeing what all has happened since his interview in 2008, there is no Rogue ISI only a clever indirection. I wonder who was deceived. Was it the US government? Was it the Indian Government? Or the people of the subcontinent?
Mr Barack Obama has taken oath of his second term in office of the President of United States Of America. His first speech after his oath on 21 January was much appreciate in the media. I could not keep myself from comparing this speech with the speech he gave in 2009 after taking office of his first term and the most important aspect which I was looking for and found, was the skipping of terrorism from any direct mention in his latest speech. In his speech in 2009 he had made a very substantial reference to terrorism when he had said "Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." where as in the speech of 2013 he has said that "This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending.". He went on to say "We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war." and "...we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war; who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends - and we must carry those lessons into this time as well."
President Obama is no doubt one of the best Orators of our times in the world so his speeches are always interesting to listen to. His latest speech should not come as a surprise to any listener because it was long known that USA was looking for an exit strategy in Afghanistan since the day Mr Obama was sworn in. He winded up Iraq and had to do the same in Afghanistan. Iraq was a war against a regime which could be ended once an alternative regime was established. Ending of wars is always welcome to the people who suffer the pains of war, except for the fact that Afghanistan was a war like no other war. It was not a war against a nation it was a war against certain organizations and group of people with a certain ideology who in Mr Obama's own terms were a "far-reaching network of violence and hatred". USA may have run out of appetite for war and do not want to fight a perpetual war, but I wonder if their war in Afghanistan has really succeeded. Osama Bin Laden was found in Abbottabad and as we hear about the various drone strikes which USA does with in Pakistan, that they have managed to get several al-qaeda terrorists. But unfortunately the Taliban leadership and several members of al-qaeda leadership have survived. Other banned organizations like the LeT, the Jaish-e-Mohammad and other al-qaeda affiliates still survive and we all know where all these outfits find a mostly comfortable home. It is is within Pakistan.
From the day the Americans threatened war on Taliban the Pakistani establishment has played a double game with them. It has been established and commented on by many journalists that when the ISI chief under Parvez Musharraf, Mahmoud Ahmad was sent to Taliban leadership to make them break links with al-quaeda he instead encouraged them to dig in and fight it out. He was later sacked by Musharraf. After the US invasion in Afghanistan Taliban leadership was provided a sanctuary in Pakistan. We all know in which circumstances Osama Bin Laden was found within the Pakistan garrison town close to their most important military academy. The Pakistanis continued to support Taliban to regroup and fight NATO forces in Afghanistan while at the same time supporting NATO supply lines in Pakistan in exchange for money. When USA attempted to pursue and punish the Pakistani armed forces supporting the Taliban in 2011 they were greeted with an angry Pakistani reaction which lead to the closure of these very supply lines, which eventually lead to a US apology. I am reminded of an interview of Hamid Gul the Ex ISI Chief of Pakistan who was one of the master minds of the first Afghan Mujahideen war against the soviets. He continues to openly support the terrorists invading Kashmir. In his interview he mentions by attacking Pakistani forces "the Americans have shot themselves in the foot" since their supply lines run from Pakistan he also threatens the countries north of Afghanistan to desist from providing an alternative route to the Americans because "the fallout will be on them.. this is an irregular warfare .. which can travel across borders".
A lot has changed since the 2011 incident the relations between USA and Pakistan have normalized again, there is talk of settlement with Taliban and centrality of Pakistan's role in it. The 21 January speech of Mr Obama hints at the possible settlement with Taliban which US is contemplating. This is a victory of sorts for the Pakistani ISI. They were saving Taliban as a possible asset to be used once the US exits. They also did not allow any direct negotiations between Taliban and the Afghan government lest they come to an agreement which is not acceptable to them. As being stabbed in the back goes the Obama administration also has its share of people with dicey record when it comes to Taliban I am hinting at the so called "Lady Taliban" Ms Robin Raphel. More about her later but there is little doubt as many journalists and Afghanistan experts and even Afghans themselves have said Pakistan is the problem as far as fighting the Taliban is concerned in Afghanistan.
Coming back to the Obama speeches. As speeches of Mr Obama go I am reminded of a speech he gave to college students in Mumbai during his 2010 India visit. Mr Obama was asked by a student a very pertinent question perhaps stated in such blunt terms that Mr Obama had to use an equally blunt answer. The question was "Why is Pakistan so important to America that it does not declare it a terrorist state?". The answer along with a lot of other explanation was that "Pakistan is a Strategic country, not just for the United States but the world."
When I heard this term "Strategic" in this speech as I was listening to it recently, after having read quite a bit about the history of western influence in Pakistan I was immediately reminded of the effect these influences and interference have had on the people of the subcontinent. It is well known that the very first interference was by the British in creation of Pakistan when after the 1942 quit India movement by the Congress they had firmly decided to support Muslim League in their demand for a separate state. A friendly Muslim state of Pakistan in the subcontinent gave them "strategic" leverage over USSR and it also gave them an ally in the Muslim world. It has been written that the British strategic interest also drove their Kashmir policy. I wonder if Mr Nehru was hood-winked into approaching the UN by Lord Mountbatten when the west had no interest in making the aggressor Pakistan vacate Kashmir for a plebiscite to take place under Indian administration, as Nehru had intended to do. One needs to keeping in mind that the Maharaja had acceded to India after Pakistani aggression in order to save the population of Kashmir from the invaders and Nehru had in Shekh Abdulla's own words no obligation to promise a plebiscite in the first place.
It was also for strategic reasons that the west armed the Pakistani Army and Air Force during the 50's and 60's and confident of their new found strength they planned another invasion in Kashmir ostensibly to raise a revolution which lead to the 1965 war. Is it also for strategic reasons that Pakistan Army was propped up for all these years in ways that allowed it to usurp power from the civil administration all too frequently in Pakistan. There was another "strategic" reason that the west had for providing aid and arms supply to Pakistan during the 80's. It was the first Afghan war that USA fought covertly along with Pakistan against USSR in Afghanistan. That war as we all know is the genesis of the current radical "Islamic Terror" that the world is facing. The current breed of terrorists who have been waging a war on Indian on behalf of the Pakistani's are all a result of the lessons learned by Pakistani Army and the networks built by them with these forces. The rise of Taliban in Afghanistan provided the Pakistani's with a ready supply of afghan fighters to be sent into Kashmir.
One would have thought that 26/Nov attacks in Mumbai would be a turning point in how India would be looking at its policies towards terror emanating from Pakistan. One had imagined that the tolerance for western military and financial support to Pakistan would no longer be so high within the Indian leadership and there would be considerable pressure put on the Americans to link their aid to progress on fighting all kinds of terrorists with in Pakistan. But it seems the support continues. Robin Raphel the wife of late Pakistan ambassador Arnold Lewis Raphel who was killed along with Zia-ul-Haq in the plane crash in 84, is a member of the Obama administration's Af-Pak diplomatic group. Ms Raphel is ex CIA and a known Taliban sympathizer before 9/11. She is infamous in India for her comments about Kashmir in the 90's when she had said "US did not recognize the instrument of accession, as meaning that Kashmir was an integral part of India.”. Ms Robin is responsible for the civilian aid that Pakistan gets from USA as per the provisions of the Kerry-Lugar bill. After the shock of finding Osama bin laden in Abottabad USA had slowed down the disbursements, but after the Dec 2012 talks between USA and Pakistan the aid in her own words "is expected to pick up pace".
The Pakistani Army uses the military aid and reimbursements it gets for building is strengths in conventional and nuclear warfare against India. Substantial portions of aid for civilian purpose and war effort reimbursements is alleged to be siphoned off for other purposes. So all in all my conclusion is that historically the western powers and China have for strategic reasons of their own kept the Pakistani military on steroids which allows them to punch well above their weight. Their self confidence in defeating any military response from India allows them to continue supporting terror in Kashmir and elsewhere against us. So I wonder, especially in the aftermath of the recent incidents in LOC in January 2013, if the Indian leadership will ever ask the western and eastern friends of Pakistan that when it comes to terrorism "Are you with us? Or are you against us?".
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the Scoundrel" this often mentioned quote of Samuel Johnson has been used in many different contexts to mean several different things. It easily fits in various contexts to highlight the hypocrisy that many a times surrounds the idea of patriotism. The recent events on the border with Pakistan in which the bodies of two Indian soldiers were insulted with mutilation and the reaction (or lack of) by the Indian government, media and political parties make me wonder how true he was when he made this statement two centuries ago in 1775. There have been statements from government leadership that they have lodged "strong protest" with Pakistan while in the same breath mentioning that "there should not be any escalation over this incident". Sections in the media have taken grave exception to what has happened, while others have tried a bit too hard to be balanced, going to the length of suggesting that both sides might have carried out beheading.
The two Indian soldiers who have died are among the many that have been lost since independence in Indo-Pakistan conflicts. It is unfortunate that the day the new nation of India was born it was born with a sworn enemy to contend with as a neighbor. Most enmities between nations in history are created based on political divergence or conflict over resources. India's case has been if not entirely unique then quite peculiar never the less. Free India was born with a predestined enemy even before it was independent of colonial rule. The partition which was meant to save lives and avoid civil war within the newly independent nation served no such purpose. Not only was the birth of Pakistan and Free India preceded and followed by civil violence, within two months of independence the two countries were fighting a war in Kashmir. The events following the conflict are well known I need not repeat them at length here. It should suffice to say that for a nation based on Muslim religious identity it was unacceptable that the Muslim majority region should remain independent or join India. They felt they had a right on Kashmir and all means were justified in obtaining it. The fact that Geo-political reasons and the support of western powers in this quest played a part in their attempt to wrestle Kashmir in October of 1947 is not hidden, but religion was the moral justification and the rallying call for the leaders in Pakistan to get their population behind their quest.
There is no denying that both nations would be better of without this enmity and both nations would benefit from permanence of peace. But one cannot brush aside the enmity by refusing to acknowledge that it exists. It has been so long since the seeds of this hatred were sown that the original reason if ever there was one has been convoluted beyond recognition. The reasoning for the Pakistani Army's perpetuating this enmity is so confusing that any logical person should fail to explain why they continue to pursue it. The Idea of getting Kashmir by force is not achievable is something I am sure every logical general in the Pakistan Army understands. The past wars are a testament to that fact. So if the basis of enmity is Kashmir as leaders in Pakistan seem to claim and military force will not deliver Kashmir to them then why pursue it? The answer lies in the fact that a lot of water has flown down the Indus since the first war. During the first war in 1947 the Maharaja of Kashmir paid the price of his prevarication, the Ex-British, Pakistani military got its first taste of using religious extremism for politico-military purpose, the idealistic Indian political leadership got its first lessons in realpolitik and the Indian military got its first experience of premature cease fire. But since then one can argue that the political benefits to the leaders in Pakistani civilian governments and military of continuing this obsession far out weighed any logic.The single minded obsession has lead to pathological hatred within the Pakistani establishment for their eastern neighbor. This obsession lead them to plan 1965 infiltration and subsequent war, the clandestine and illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons, the creation and growth of the Jihadi culture and use of terrorism as a state policy.
In the face of this increasing threat from across the western border, the Indian soldier has been expected to be patriotic to the nation since the first war onward and to preserve the idea of newly created multicultural, secular and peaceful India. At the same time the political leadership in our country has repeatedly failed in its responsibilities towards the soldier. Indian soldier is expected to be professional, to make sacrifices, to follow orders, to continue serving the country, while the leadership pays lip service to patriotism. I am afraid the sacrifice of our soldiers is being taken for granted. It is the responsibility of the leading officers in the Army that such an attack could take place on the patrol and also go without immediate retaliation. Some have started fixing responsibility on the local commanders for laxity. Hopefully this will not be an exercise of shifting blame but of fixing problems. Questions should be asked if the soldiers are properly equipped for their job? The INSAS rifle which the Indian army currently uses was developed to give the nation an indigenous capability of manufacturing such weapons. How is it that within 12 years of its formal induction and after 300,000 of these rifles are in use, design issues in the weapon are being found now and a replacement is being sought? Somebody should be held responsible for such a botch up but it is unlikely that anybody will. For this replacement we will be spending Rs 10,000 Crores. The defense spending that India does in the name of patriotism seems to be more to the benefit of the defense contractors and arm suppliers and middle men than for the benefit of the Indian soldier.
The Kargil War in 1999 followed the infiltration and capture of strategic mountain positions by the Pakistani army in the winter months of 1998-99. No responsibility was ever fixed on anyone as to how the strategic peaks could be so easily captured and how the infiltration could not be discovered for so long. This war which should never have been necessary had we been better prepared was fought by the Indian soldier in difficult Himalayan conditions in "cotton shirts and canvas shoes". There was also a corruption scandal that came to light in the purchase of coffins for the martyred soldiers.
The Kargil war was itself preceded by the nuclear tests by both Pakistan and India. Truth was finally out in the open that Pakistan has nuclear parity with India and with a first strike option has the ability to deter any serious conventional military action by India. It has been suggested that Pakistan had developed the weapon in the 80's. They had not tested it openly within the borders of Pakistan but they had a working design and also had some delivery capabilities. It can't be a coincidence that the insurgency in Kashmir followed the Jehadi victory in Afghanistan and the acquisition of the bomb by Pakistan. So the first and the biggest failure of our political leadership since the 1971 war for me is in allowing a sworn enemy to acquire nuclear weapons so easily without much protest either militarily or diplomatically. It can't be that nobody in India was aware of their weapons program. The Indian political leadership has failed the Indian soldier by allowing Pakistan to acquire a nuclear weapon.
Some have argued that the ceasefire in 1971 was also premature and was agreed to without a permanent settlement on Kashmir border issue. It is no secret that the Pakistan army has it seems sworn to do to Kashmir what has happened to East Pakistan. Every newly recruited officer in the Pakistan army swears to avenge the 1971 loss. That is why the Pakistan army continues aggression in Kashmir and develop capabilities to continue hurting the Indians by any means however immoral they may be in the eyes of individual citizens of any country of the world. The Pakistan backed terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir and in other parts of the country continues in spite of evidence of their involvement out in the open. One wonders why the military support for Pakistan from the west and the east continues and one wonders why it continues to be an ally of the western powers. Questions are to be asked of our leadership on how the common friends of Pakistan and India can remain neutral when is suits them and take sides when it suits them and what have the Indian leaders done about these double standards on their part? If Russia can be persuaded not to sell arms to Pakistan why not United States and France.
It is my submission that the Indian political leadership has failed the Indian soldier, and if they claim to be patriotic and expect continued sacrifices from the soldier and his family. If they expect the soldier to continue fighting this war of attrition in Kashmir while they do nothing substantial about the continued moral and material support that Jehadi's get from Pakistan then they are perhaps expecting too much from the soldier. It doesn't take long for the message of Samuel Johnson and the deep meaning that it contains to reach patriotic individuals when they realize that they are being taken for granted by a leadership which is incapable of truly valuing their sacrifices. Which either only pays lip service to patriotism when in government or calls for some esoteric tough measures or worst still asks for more sacrifices to teach the enemy a lesson when part of the opposition. If they really value the Indian soldier they should deliver in putting an end to the terror machinery in Pakistan as a condition to improving ties both with our western neighbor and with its western allies. Dialog at all costs is clearly not delivering expected results. Letting the friends of Pakistan off the dock when they are clearly as much responsible for this situation as Pakistan government is hard to comprehend.
