A SOUTH ASIAN REALITY A book by Shoaib Khan Published by ALFAAZ Centre for Studies in International Relations and Social Sciences on 14 th October 2013 Former Editor for International Relations in Zeal Times, a local newspaper in Mumbai, Has been writing articles and research papers on International Relations in various magazines, newspapers and periodicals in India and abroad. Attented many Seminars and Councils on International Relations Member of many National and International Organisations
Transcript
A SOUTH ASIAN REALITY
A book by Shoaib Khan
Published by ALFAAZ Centre for Studies in International Relations and Social Sciences on 14th October 2013
Former Editor for International Relations in Zeal Times, a local newspaper in Mumbai,
Has been writing articles and research papers onInternational Relations in various magazines, newspapers and periodicals in India and abroad.
Attented many Seminars and Councils on International Relations
Member of many National and International Organisations
S U M M A R Y
Democracy seems to be only to a certain extent in India when the media is concerned the policies of the ruling Government had always been to control the media in its favor. Unlike other democracies of the world the one like those of the westerners where media is free of the ruling regime and where the opposition are given equal opportunities to express their views, criticize and voice their concern over the ill effects about the hasty decisions taken so as to keep the pressure on the ruling parties to avoid any further stalemate whose burden may have to be borne by the citizens of that particular nation.
Here is an attempt to put forward the policies and the administration of this largest democracy in the world in the last five decades where only achievements have been focused and the ill effects and misjudgments have been ignored particularly in the context of its strategic concern. The country for which many experts consider to be one of the power of the region and was predicted to be the
emerging as economically and militarily strong enough. But the very power seems to be a wooden elephant whose strength is as hollow as its size.
To be one of the power as proclaimed by its politicians very often is a far sighted thing, it is a bitter reality to swallow that the seventh largest in size and the most powerful developing nation has lost its pressure and its presence in the region not only among the asian tigers but also in the neighboring region.
This was visible during the chaos of military standoff in 2001 and even during Kargil and the Bombay attack of 26 November 2007. Though the peace initiative was welcomed by both Pakistan and India, behind the wall preparations are still on from both sides for a possible round in the future if not near, a remote one. The Hot Pursuit option opened by the then NDA Government is also considered by Congress, the day BJP sweeps clear majority in the elections this action may be implemented without taking into account its implications.
The Indian excitement to go for war was for three main reasons:
1).The past success in the 1971 war.
2). Rise of Hindu fundamentalists forces whose grip in the Indian political scene is Increasing day by day and
3). Following the footsteps of the American action in Afghanistan and Israelis against the Palestinians, in the myth that they too are a regional power.
If the policy of hot pursuit is followed in the future, there may be many hurdles ahead. First there is a vast difference in the political environment as well as the military gap between Pakistan and India since 1971. In these years Pakistan had made preparations conventionally and on nuclear front, keeping in view of the balance policy between the West and the Muslim world. On the other hand India though big in size has pressure both from economic as well on its military preparations as it has lost vital support in the form of former U.S.S.R. after its collapse. Besides the threat from Pakistan also highlighted is the danger internally as well as from China on both economic and
military front. Also taken into consideration is the role of the lone super power and of the other countries nearby and their possible reaction in the event of a war.
SHOAIB KHAN
Lecturer Mahim Social Workers’ College
Former Editor for International Relations ZEAL TIMES, Bombay.
Participated in many Seminars, workshops and Conferences on the topics related to International Affairs, also presented Research Papers on International Relations.
CHAPTER 1
Lack of Judgement
When the Indian parliament was attacked on 13th December 2002, the immediate reaction was the build up of the armed forces on its Western front. Many thought that it was an all out signal of a large scale conflict with Pakistan, but it did not go as predicted. Then again after the Kaluchak incident on 16th May 2003 in the Jammu region of strife torn Kashmir, it was decided to attack the training camps of the militants across LOC (Line of Control) and it was also expected a retaliatory answer from across the border in the form of a full scale war. On both occasions the armed forces were sent to across the LOC and International border but after some hesitation and succumbing to the US and International pressure, the men in uniform were asked to return back to their previous positions and finally after a long ten month stand off they were send back to their barracks. Similarly after the Bombay attack on 26 th
November 2008, the Indians began to shout in the war tone, but after press release in the Chinese newspapers of that country’s support to Pakistan in the event of a war, the Indians immediately changed their stand from that of an aggressive one to that of a peaceful negotiation.
The question still arise as of why the Indians did not take action like their US counterpart in Afghanistan. In reality it is not so, India did try to react but in the present circumstances its own position did not allowed it to go ahead. The Indian media in the past had always presented the achievements of its armed forces hiding any incident from those fronts where they were at the receiving ends.
Looking at the past records, Pakistan though smaller in size in area and men in numbers was not a pleasure ride for the Indians on the contrary it inflicted heavy casualties on the latter. According to a neutral view from the International observers in the 1965 war in which the Indian claim was of its victory but according to IISE (International Institute for Strategic Studies) London, there was no outright victory for either side. It was the former Soviet President Kosygin’s intervention which averted any further catastrophe. Among the Indian circles there was a common thinking that the then Prime Minister of India Lal Bahadur Shastri had been wrongly informed of the military hardware on the Indian side that the stock of which was only maximum to a further fortnight of action. That was the reason according to some Indian newspapers as to why Lal Bahadur Shastri succumbed to Kosygin’s pressure and entered into the Tashkent agreement with Pakistani President Ayub Khan.
But having a glance at the military picture of the 1965 war according to strategic studies conducted, the Indian claim of victory seemed to be only on the paper. The Indian attacks across the border were retaliated simultaneously in the form of Pakistani thrusts on Indian positions.
1965 War
Pakistan India
Army : 250,000 825,000 (180,000 Regular Army and (47,000 additional 70,000 Paramilitary forces). territorial Army). Total: 872,000 6 Infantry divisions 20 Infantry & 1 armoured division 5 in West Pakistan 7 Infantry deployed on 1 in East Pakistan West Pakistan
No record of any attack of IAF (Indian Air Force) in Eastern Sector or any record captured territory in the Eastern Sector by any side. (Source: the British Historical Atlas of South Asia).
In the 22 day of September 1965 war on both sides
Over 7,000 dead.Over 11,000 wounded Over 550 tanks destroyed Over 100 aircrafts destroyed
Defense spending: Pakistan India
1965 – 66 Rs: 254 crores Rs: 884 Crores.
Pakistani claim of over 300 Indian tanks destroyed, 35 Indian aircrafts destroyed.
Indian claim of over 200 Pakistani tanks destroyed and 47 Pakistani aircrafts destroyed.
Source: (Illustrated Weekly of India, 6, September, 1970).Figures published from the Institute of Strategic Studies, London and Washington military sources, as quoted by Russell Brines in “The Indo – Pakistani conflict” and authoritative publications.
The Indian thirst to go for war against Pakistan is for many reasons. It is true that one out of many reasons for the Indian leaders, similar to their counterparts in Pakistan is to divert the attention of their citizens from the domestic problems on economic front like increasing unemployment and poverty which is among the largest in the world, besides militancy in Kashmir, there are cases of insurgencies taking place in other parts of the country too like the secessionist groups in North Eastern states for which India blames Pakistan for its intelligence and China for supplying arms.
The other reasons for the Indian government especially the Hindu fundamentalist elements for its decision to attack its western neighbour are firstly because of India’s success in the eastern sector in 1971 war. Secondly the successful American attack against the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan in the war against terror. In these circumstances the Indian leaders do not really understand their position and strength and the consequences that will be created in the aftermath of the conflict. In both the reasons on the basis on which the Indians were anxious to cross the LoC is very hard to digest.
In the state of Bihar, Eastern Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkand, the sudden rise of the naxalites is becoming a major problem for these economically backward states. The activity of these communist militancy is now spreading even to the southern and eastern parts of Maharashtra, the incidents has been reported in the past couple of years from the Marathwada region. In one of his speech the veteran BJP (Bhartiya Janata Party) leader did feared that the problem of naxalites controlling the central belt of India is more threatening than the Islamic militancy. With the Maoist gaining power in neighboring Nepal this fear may even turn into a nightmare for India for the alleged support given to these naxalites from across the border.
Another reason for the war cry is the resurrection of the Hindu fundamentalist forces in the last couple of decades. After the fall of the Rajiv Gandhi’s government in the centre in the 1989 election, no other party was strong enough to win a clear majority. Since then the election scenario in India has been dominated by multi – party led coalition government which gave further rise to the era of political instability and uncertainty. It is also blamed that being secular, the policies of Congress government was responsible for the rise of these Hindu fundamentalist forces. The secular Congress party when it was in full majority with no opposition strong enough to face it, did raise voices for the minority Muslims and Christians and for the backward castes but was almost nil in practical for the welfare of these minority groups.
The behavior of the Congress government created a feeling of insecurity among the majority Hindus, their fear of losing their identity gave way to the fundamentalist forces to take full advantage of the situation. Many of the minority leaders from time to time also blame the Congress government which ruled India for over forty years and was strong enough to suppress these forces within their wombs, was not only lineant but in some cases even aided and abetted these Hindu fundamentalist ideological hardline political parties by allowing them to flourish under the shadow of their secular umbrella.
During Operation Parakram the NDA (National Democratic Alliance) was in the centre lead by by BJP (Bhartiya Janata Party) whose vital decisions has always been controlled by the RSS (Rashtriya Swyam Sevak) a Hindu militant organization and the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad) World Hindu Conference, an organization of Hindu clerics being supported financially by Hindus spread cross the world.
It was the pressure from these forces who after their successful genocide against the Muslims in Gujarat and attacks on Christian missionaries in order to cheer and gather support from the majority Hindus now direct the ruling party to cross the border of the Muslim state of Pakistan.
The Indians tried to imitate their American counterpart after the attack on Parliament as the US did after the September 11, attack on WTC (World Trade Centre) twin towers. The Indians while adopting the American approach had completely ignored the size and strength of their enemy and also their own position in the new world order in compared to US where the former is seen as a market but not as a big power like the latter.
The American though being the sole superpower did not directly face the Taliban. Many thought that it will be hard for the US forces once they land in the rugged Afghan terrain as they may be faced by a guerilla warfare from the Taliban, similar to which the Soviet forces had experienced during their nine years of occupation of that land locked country, which kept on bleeding the Soviet army in the form of heavy casualties and loss of military hardware. This was one of the reasons of economic burden on Moscow that finally lead to the disintegration of the Soviet Un ion in 1991.
The situation at that time was different, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, they were faced by the Mujaheddin fighters which though had different factions but had one goal of defeating the Soviet army. These Mujaheddins were trained in Pakistan and were financially & militarily supported by the United States, and were also being regularly supplied of weapons from Pakistan. Their command and military strategies were also being controlled by professional Pakistani army officers and guided by US Defense experts. They also received support from oil rich Arabs, through Islamic Iran and also from China which had strain relation with the former Soviet Union on the border dispute.
Unlike their predecessors, the Taliban were already isolated from the world because of their harsh and narrow minded policies on the name of religion. Among the Muslim circles around the world there was also a common doubt that the leaders of the Taliban Mulla Omar besides receiving financial help from Osamma bin Laden, simultaneously were being financed by anti – Muslim forces in order to stop the Muslim population at least in that part of the world from being progressive. The only supports which they received were from the radical Saudi Arabian government and handful of
fundamentalist forces in the UAE (United Arab Emirates) and the orthodox circles in Pakistan. In Pakistan where majority populations are moderates were against the policies of the Taliban regime and even among the military ranks they were waiting for an opportunity to get rid of them. General Pervez Musharraf’s immediate support to the US in the war against terror is a big example of Pakistani frustration for the Taliban.
Despite of the military superiority the Americans did not confronted the Taliban, because of the former’s experience in the Vietnam in which more than 58,000 American soldiers lost their lives in the dense forests of that country and hundreds of thousands being wounded, and also of the Soviet army’s disaster in the mountains of Afghanistan. In stead the Americans first using their super power influence around the world successfully imposed economic sanctions and arms embargo against the Taliban and also ensured an effective blockade from the Pakistani side so that their enemy did not received any help from across the Durrand line. The US attacks were limited to ariel bombardments on the Taliban’s positions and on the ground they effectively used the opposition Northern Alliance by supplying them of arms and coordinating with their commanders the countries on the Northern Afghan borders, particularly from their Uzbek and Khazak basis.
CHAPTER 2.
Economic Weight
To go for a decisive war a country must be economically strong enough to face burden of conflict and its outcome. Unlike the Americans the Indians do not have any weight in the new world order as projected in their media. After 1991 the Indians economically suffered heavy blows one after another, the decades of 90s can be analyzed from the declining trends of its stock exchanges both the NSE (National Stock Exchange) and the BSE (Bombay Stock Exchange) often had a downward pointing arrow. The happenings in the domestic & the International scenes had a great impact on it. After the collapse of the Soviet Union which was a ready market for Indian goods besides which monetarily and technologically Indians received priority at Kremlin. But in the post cold war era the Indian producers are forced to search for new markets for their commodities where they are faced with stiff competition in efficiency and quality wise from developed and other developing countries.
Though the Indian policy of adopting liberalization and the opening up of its economy has been praised in the International forums, but in practical it still lags behind in terms of investment in compared to its near neighbours and rivals. The investment has also been affected by the events like:
* The scandals and scams from stock exchanges to Bofors guns and from financial institutions to Fodders;
* The Nationwide communal riots following the demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in
December 1992 – January 1993 followed by serial bomb blasts in March 1993 in the commercial capital Bombay;
* Frequent strikes nationwide by transports and other financial institutions in regular intervals;
* Spread of epidemics in many parts of the country from time to time for which the International community had banned many Indian goods as a precautionary measure.
* The Gulf war of 1991 too had an impact on the Indian economy as India was on the main importer of oil from both Iraq & Kuwait, the result of the aftermath of the war also came in the face of the home coming of expatriates from the gulf. The number of Indians which once stood at more than 4 million now has come down to less than 3 million. According to one estimate nearly 1 million labour force had returned from the gulf in the last decade, for many there is no alternate jobs in their homeland. The worst affected among the states it Kerala as majority of the Indian migrants to the gulf were from the State alone. The trend still continue to this day
and Kerala today is facing its worst ever economic scenario.
Amidst these situations some sectors were showing signs of recovery when suddenly in 1996 the economic recession in South East Asia began to take its toll. The depression began to spread its claws to other parts of the world and countries especially in East Asia accept China was being affected. India too could not be spared of these, as the main economically strong countries like Japan and South Korea which were the main investors in India were among the victim of this turmoil.
The Government policies to certain extent were also responsible as because of which the Indian economy not only suffered heavy blows from outside but also in the domestic arena. After liberalization the Government’s invitation to foreign investors were mostly concentrated in certain parts of the country and that too in the consumption sector rather than in the production sector. TheGlobalization too opened the way for imported items to enter freely in the Indian markets, all these resulted in closure of domestic companies which were incapable of being competitive qualitatively gave rise to the problem of unemployment. Adding injury the BJP Government went ahead with the Nuclear explosion at Pohkran (Rajasthan) in 1998, followed by economic sanctions by advanced countries andInternational Organisations. These sanctions included both economic packages and transfer of certain technical knowhow which had doubt of being used for dual purpose for civilian as well as defense.
Under the WTO (World Trade Organization) agreement New Delhi adopted the policyof disinvestment which was met with stiff resistance from labour organizations and trade unions for fear
of massive job cuts adding more to the already unemployed population. Besides the rise in urban jobcuts an increase has been noticed in rural unemployment in the last couple of years following faminesand droughts in many states affecting a large portion of agricultural labourers. The 2003 drought duringthe military standoff was one of the worst in decades the country had ever experienced since its independence. This severe drought hit more than 60% of its districts leaving more than 300 million peasants jobless. The effect and the aftermath of this natural calamity still continue and with increasing debt burden and no incentives from the Government the suicide rate of farmers in India too is the highest in the world today.
The January 2001 earthquake in Gujarat gave the Indian economy a jolt of nearly $5 billion. Within a couple of decade Gujarat became an economically important state for India; with fastest economic growth rate compared to any other counterpart. The tremors that shook even thebudget session of the parliament was as expected because of the state’s financial contribution in the National economy:
Industrially it ranked second next to Maharashtra, its contribution to the overall GDP (Gross Domestic Product) was 12%,
Besides its importance in agrarian production of commodities like wheat and cotton, its city of Ahmadabad was also an important centre for textile industry.
It was a vital state for petroleum extraction and location for India’s important refineries and theDiamond trading of Surat cannot be ignored.
In the past three decades the state became an important source of employment as among the Affected victim of 350 million a large part was labors and officers both its local and migrant from other states.
The port city of Kandla which became second next to Bombay in the industrial trade on the Western coast is still not in its normal functioning.
* The earthquake also devasted the Bhuj air base, though the functioning has been restored within weeks.
The tremor brought thousands on the streets and as they were about to recover from the shock; the state was faced by Godhra incident. The riots which followed brought the state’s economy which already in agony to a standstill as a result laborers began to flee to their home towns.Businessmen both from the minority as well majority community now began to look towards the nieghbouring states some as far as Delhi. The State which was once investor friendly, now seems
to be dragging the investors away not only from Gujarat itself but from other parts of India too. The unfriendly nature too was responsible for the destruction of millions life and properties in the following years the whole western sector of India right from Gujarat to North Karnataka faced severe floods in the year 2005, the millions affected are still not recovered psychologically and financially. Many lost their shelter for ever.
The military standoff against Pakistan in 2002 – 2003, gave further rise to the doubts in foreign investor’s minds about their returns for future, especially when the two nuclear powers are on the brink of the war. Today hardly any economy is performing to their satisfactory level, though some countries did witnessed an increase in their economy due to global growth in the last decade. India was bound to get affected by the happenings on the international scenario but at least on the domestic front things can be brought under control to a certain extent. Increasing trade deficit, more important the oil pool deficit, inflation did fell to its lowest in the early end of 1990s and early 2000s but because of the loosing purchasing power of the people, though it has increased in some quarters but only among the handful of population, no doubt new jobs are created in India but only for certain category, the increasing debt burden for which India stands among the highest ranking countries in the world, the other side of the economic picture is not not encouraging enough to take a militarily aggressive posture.
The Indians take a pride seat for the large size of its economy and pointed towards Pakistan for its ill planned and fragile economy which cannot resist the economic sanctions of 1998, for its retaliatory nuclear explosion to India’ Pokhran, the Indians themselves are in no better situation. Their own economy does not allowed them to take any risk for which it will be too late for them to recover. No doubt the trade volume of India has increased in the last decade and a half from $33 billion in 1991 to $ 89 billion in 2009, but its share in the world trade had been reduced to less than 1%. India’s ranking overall in trade according to its volume had gone considerably. As many European countries and China had jumped from their previous position and that India too had lost a potential trading partner in the form of Soviet Union.
In compared to USA whenever it beats the war drums; billions of dollars are being spend on its defense budget as well as on the economic front whether its own or of its allies who may get affected of the aftermath of the conflict. In ongoing wars the American did rendered those who sided by it and were being the first to get affected. It did give billions of dollars to Pakistan for supporting its position and as many of its debts were also written off. In the war against Iraq the Americans did gave tremendous help to Turkey as it was the first country to get affected because of its increased trade with Iraq and that without Turkey’s accession it would have been impossible for the Americans to go ahead against Saddam’s forces with the help of handful of Kurds in Northern Iraq. On both occasions the American enemy had lost their economic and strategic importance to their near neighbours.
In such a state of its economy on which grounds India is excited to go for war in the future and that what is there for India to offer for those countries who side by it against Pakistan, a country which is and has always remained important strategically and economically for its neighbours.
CHAPTER 3 .
Previous Position
One out of many factors for which the Indians are excited to cross the LoC is based for its victory in the Eastern Sector in the 1971 war. In today’s scenario the gap between Pakistan and India has been narrowed to great extent. The situation in 1971 was much different from today. The territory of East Pakistan (Bangladesh) was separated from West Pakistan by more than 1,200 miles of Indian territory. This made it easier for the Indians to have an effective blockade against the Pakistani forces in the eastern sector and harder for the Pakistanis to regularly supply arms and ammunitions to its forces there. The Indians fully exploited the situation of political instability in East Pakistan by helping and training the Mukti Bahini guerillas to attack Pakistani forces in Eastern Sector.
Since April 1971 before the war began in December, India had been indirectly giving assistant to the Mukti Bahini and during the monsoon period it was possible as alleged by Pakistanis that individual members of the Indian Border Security Forces and even the Indian Army and Navy had unofficially participated in the incursions into East Pakistan. At the end of
the monsoon in September, the replacement of the border security force by the Indian army along the borders, Indian participation became increasingly direct. The incident at Boyra on 21 st
November opposite Jessore and later on 27th in the sector opposite Hilli where Indian tanks crossed the border allegedly after the Pakistani attack directed against the Mukti Bahini positions on the Indian sides. (Robert Jackson in his book ‘South Asian Crisis’). According to ‘The Illustrated Weekly of India,’ 19th December 1971); the Mukti Bahini had ten thousand trained men which were increased later to One Lakh Fifty Thousand. India also helped the exile Bangladesh government to run its independent Radio Station in an unknown place somewhere in the Indian state of West Bengal. That is the reason why among the International community there is a common perception for Indian allegation of Pakistani involvement in Kashmir, as it is seen a retaliatory answer from the Pakistani side against its enemy’s involvement in its Eastern wing in 1971.
The other advantage which the Indians had was the size of its armed forces.
Pakistan India
Army 324,000 930,000
Tanks 850 1,450
Aircraft 270 625
(Men and Officers) 15,000 90,000
Besides Indians had three thousand pieces of artillery and 62 ships (Illustrated Weekly of India, December 1971).
After the 1965 conflict the Western countries suspended the supply of arms and ammunitions to both the countries. India was less affected as it regularly received large scale military supplies from the Soviet Union even after the 1965 war. On the other hand though Pakistan had benefited from a limited resumption of military aid both from the United States & the Soviet Union in the late 60s and from the continuing grant of licenses for arms purchase in the west, and despite considerable Chinese help Pakistan had not been able to escape from the effects of her previous reliance on Western supplies, especially from the United States. (The military balance, 1971 – 72, London; International Institute for Strategic Studies 1971). The Indians till then had also developed indigenous armaments industry with help both from Soviet Union and the Western powers.
The Indians at that time had a clear vision to go for a war that was to separate East Pakistan from West and create a separate independent nation of Bangladesh which they succeeded within a fortnight. On the Pakistani side they had different plans and views as the
decision may also have been influenced by the logic of Pakistan’s established strategy, which had been based on the preposition that the Eastern wing could only be defended in the West; this doctrine had been successfully applied in the 1965 war. If the policy of deterrence failed and war occurred, it was assumed that captured Indian territories along the Western fronts could exchanged against any Indian advances in East Pakistan. Thus in line with the strategy Yahya decided in September & October that the Indians was to be deterred by the threat of the Pakistani offensive in the West, linked with diplomatic action to limit the scope of the war in the East by invoking the possibility of Chinese support in the Himalayas. More over after the event of 1971 the traditional strategy may have suggested another possibility to some that excepting the loss of East Pakistan and making up for it by securing an extension of Pakistani territory in the West especially in the disputed Muslim territory of Kashmir.
The Indians besides receiving full support of Soviet Union on diplomatic fronts and of supply in military hardware, the development of the crisis also seriously impaired the moral of the Pakistani forces. In the East the conditions of the counter – terrorist civil war had brutalized many army units, and in the West the defection of Bengalis in the armed services and the wariness with which those who remained were treated had damaging consequences for the fighting capability of many Pakistani units. This was true especially of the Pakistan Air force which had many Bengalis in ground staff.
Pakistan’s disadvantage at the end of 1971 did not consist only of her relative weakness in number and equipment. Of possible strategic condition those under which the war took place were worst for her and best for India. Since the 1950s the Indian forces had been organized on the assumption that they must be deployed on at least two fronts, against China in the Himalayas and against Pakistan in the West. On the other hand Pakistan’s military forces had been organized on the assumption that they would only need to be deployed on a single front, against India along the Western border. Thus while a large part of the Indian army was normally on duty in the mountains, Pakistan had built up forces suitable for action on the plains, and during the 1960s she had acquired two armored divisions as against India’s one.
But none of these strategic assumptions held true during the third Pakistan – India war. Pakistan was compelled to divide her forces between East and West; and the prospect of a third front between China and India in the Himalayas, was averted by Indo – Soviet diplomacy; by Chinese restrain, by the climatic conditions in the Himalayan passes, and by India’s caution in the West. It was doubtful that much military significance could be attributed to the fourth which it seemed might open up in the second week of the war when the United States Enterprise
Task – Force was detached from the Seventh Fleet and sent into the Bay of Bengal. On the diplomatic level too India had advantage one for the incoming refugees from East Pakistan but most important, India at that time had a secular imaged Congress Government in the centre because of which many of the countries had a soft approach towards them. The Americans, who played the neutral role in the 1965 war, were completely in favor of Pakistan in 1971. There were also discussions to supply Pakistan Air Force with more F – 104 aircrafts through Jordan as requested by Dr. Henry Kissinger (Memo on 8th December meeting, secret sensitive, Joint Chiefs of Staff Washington D.C. 20301, 8 December 1971). But in practical terms it did not happened. Though the Indians dominated completely the Eastern Sector, with penetration in Sind and Punjab in West, and in spite of their military inferiority the Pakistani offensive was seen in Kashmir and Rajasthan Sector, and even in Punjab in the Western Front. Had they received the supply and support of the Western countries in the same manner as the Indians received from the Soviets according to the Indo – Soviet treaty of 9 th August 1971, the real military scenario would have been different as it had changed the course of war not only on the Western front but also in the Eastern theatre of war.
1971 War Summary
Indian areas bombed by Pakistan Pakistani areas bombed by India. Western Sector Western Sector
Pakistani thrusts in Indian areas Indian thrusts in Pakistani areas. Western Sector Western Sector1). Longewala (Rajasthan) 1). Virgur (Sind). 2). Opposite Bikaner (Rajasthan) 2). Nagar Parkar (Sind)3). Fazilka (Punjab) 3). Gadra (Sind)4). Chhamb (Kashmir) 4). Chachro (Sind)5). Ferozpur (Punjab) 5). Shakargarh (Punjab)6). Akhnur (Kashmir) 6). Opposite Kargil (Kashmir)
(Source: British historical maps of South Asia).No areas bombed or held by Pakistan in the East which was completely taken by India.
Losses of Aircrafts
Pakistan India
Air to air 19 19
Air to Ground 15 35
On Ground 29 2 ______ _________ Total 63 56
Source: SAPRA (India).
In the 14 day war Indian claim of 94 Pakistani aircrafts destroyed, Pakistani claim of 110 Indian aircrafts destroyed mostly on Western Sector.
On the Naval front because of its size and strength Indians raided Karachi harbor twice, destroyed two Pakistani submarines.
Pakistanis attacked Indian navy returning from Karachi and Indian Naval ship INS Khukri was sunk by Pakistani submarine near Bombay.
Armed forces composition
Pakistan India
Army : 12 Infantry division, 13 Infantry division, 2 more raised 10 more raised trained for mountain fighting,
6 independent infantry brigade and 2 parachute brigades.
Armored Division: 2 armored division, 1 independent 2 armored brigades and divisions (Equipped with American Patton and deployed Centurion, Shermans, T – 54s Sherman tanks, Russian and Chinese T – 55s and Indian built Vijayanta Built T – 55s and T – 59s). Medium tanks.
Air Power : 3 light bomber squadrons (IL – 28 3 Canberra light bomber squadrons, and B - 57B), 2 Mirage III E 8 Gnat interceptor squadrons,
Fighter – bomber squadrons and 15 fighters – bomber squadrons equipped 13 fighter – bomber/ interceptor with Su – 7s and Hunter F – 56s. A Squadrons using F – 86 and Chinese substantial aid – transport capability was built MiG – 19s. was provided by a fleet of transports helicopters.
When the war began on 3 rd December 1971, out of its total 324,000 troops, Pakistan had divided her forces between west and east. In the West it had nearly 200,000 men facing India’s 500,000 men and in the eastern sector, the Pakistanis deployed nearly 4 ½ division of nearly 124,000 troops.
In the West Pakistan adopted the offensive posture in spite of its military inferiority and defensive in the east. In the eastern sector the only hurdle the Indian faced was the natural conditions of rivers and marshes. Militarily it overwhelmed the Pakistanis in numbers more than the equipments.
General Niazi’s forces in the Pakistani Eastern Command comprised approximately 35 infantry battalions, 1 armored regiment, 2 armored squadrons equipped with Walker Bulldogs and American light Chaffee tanks, 6 artillery regiments, and a number of independent mortar and field batteries. There were also several Special Services Group commando units, equivalent to one battalion. The Pakistan Air Force was represented by some twenty Sabre jets, and a naval force of gun – boats for coastal and inland waterways patrol. In addition, since April 1971, some 4,000 members of the West Pakistani Frontier Corps organized in seven wings had been brought in to East Bengal, together with 4,000 members of West Pakistani police. Some 35,000 armed razakars mostly drawn from the Bihari community had been organized in mujahid battalions, and 25,000 East Pakistan civil Armed Forces in 17 wings had also been raised in East Pakistan.
The Pakistani Eastern Command headquarters were located in Dacca, where there were no regular infantry formations directly available to General Niazi, although there were about 5,000 assorted troops. The 9th division headquarters were located at Jessore, with one brigade at Jessore and another at Jhenida. The Pakistanis had only one squadrons of tanks west of river Padma. In the north – west, the 16th division was based at Natore, with a brigade at Natore, another in the Hilli area, where it had engaged with the Indians on 24th November, and a third at Rangpur, where the Pakistani had also based their only armored regiment in East Bengal. In the north there was one brigade at Mymensingh, with a formation at Jamalapur, coming under the command of Maj. Gen. Jamshed’s 36 th
division headquarters at Dacca, which also controlled the Para – military formations. Near the Coronation bridge across the Meghna, the 14th division was centred on Ashuganj, with a brigade at Sylhet, another in the area of Maulvi Bazar, and a third at Brahmanbaria on the line of rail running along the Tripura border and south of Comilla and Chandipur. The 39 th division was located at Chandipur, with brigades at Comilla, Feni and Chittagong.
The situation along the borders was very fluid during October and November as the Mukti Bahini mounted attacks and the Pakistani forces were regrouped. By early December the Indian Eastern command headquarters in Calcutta had at its disposal a total force consisting of two divisions which had been posted in Bengal since the beginning of the year (the 9 th and the 4th divisions), two divisions drawn in October from the depth reserve formations (the 20 th and 23rd divisions), withdrawn
from the anti – insurgency operations (8th and 57th divisions). These forces were lightly equipped, but they had been carefully trained for their task and they were supported by bridge – building platoonsand by overwhelming air superiority. In addition the Indian forces were supported by the Mukti Bahini organized in eight regular infantry battalion formations, and tens of thousands of ‘Gono’ Bhaini irregulars and militants.
The rapidity of the Indian advance clearly showed the military and strategic advantage the Indians had in conflict. By the 10th the Indians had reached the banks of the Meghna at three points at Ashuganj, at Daudkandi – less than 40 air kilometers from Dacca and at Chandpur, which dominated the route from Dacca to the sea. At the same time, at Jessore sector they had reached Magura and were thrusting towards Faridpur on the Padma.
Within the first three days of the war the Indian Air Force had virtually eliminated the small force of Pakistani Sabers in East Pakistan, by air battle destruction on the ground, and by putting Dacca airfield out of action.
Pakistani troop movements along the river routes rendered almost impossible by the Indian command of the air; and along the coasts the Indian navy, notably the aircraft – carrier Vikrant hadestablished a totally effective blockade.
As the implications of this situation became apparent to them at the end of the first week of the fighting, the Pakistani authorities in Dacca decided to press seriously for a cease – fire; and the Indians grasped the possibility of a rapid and complete advance in the East.
14 Minutes of the Washington Special Action Group (WSAG) Meetings of 3, 4, 6 and 8 December 1971 and Mr. Jack Anderson’s article of
10 January 1972*
(A) Memo on 3 December meetingSecret Sensitive
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSEWASHINGTON, D.C. 20301
International Security Affairs Refer to: 1-29643/71MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
SUBJECTW S A G meeting on India/Pakistan
PARTICIPANTS
Assistants to the President for national security affairs – Henry A. KissingerUnder Secretary of State – John N. Irwin Deputy Secretary of Defense – David PackardDirector, Central Intelligence Agency – Richard M. helms
Deputy Administrator (A.I.D>0 – Maurice J. Williams Chairman, Joint chiefs of Staff – Adm. Thomas H. MoorerAssistant Secretary of State (N.E.E.A.R.) – Joseph J. SiscoAssistant Secretary of Defense (I.S.A.) – G.Warren NutterPrincipal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (I.S.A.) – Armistead I. Selden Jr.Assistant Administrator (A.I.D./N.E.S.A.) – Donald G. MacDonald
TIME AND PLACE
3 December 1971, 1100 hours, Situation Room, White House.
S U M M A R YReviewed conflicting reports about major actions in the west wing. C.I.A. agreed to produce map
showing areas of East Pakistan occupied by India. The President orders hold on issuance of additional irrevocable letters o credit involving $99 million, and a hold on further action implementing the $72 million P.L.480 credit. Convening of Security Council meeting planned contingent on discussion with Pakistan Ambassador this afternoon plus further clarification of actual situation in West Pakistan. Kissinger asked for clarification of secret / special interpretation of March 1959, bilateral U.S. agreement with Pakistan.
KISSINGER: I am getting hell entry half-hour from the President that we are not being tough enough on India. He has just called me again. He does not believe we are carrying out his wishes. He wants to tilt in favor of Pakistan. He feels everything we do comes out otherwise.
HELMS: concerning the reported action in the West Wing, there are conflicting reports from both sides and the only common ground is the Pakistani attacks on the Amritsar, Pathankot and Srinagar airports. The Pakistanis say the Indians are attacking all along the border; but the Indian officials say this is a like. In the East Wing the action is becoming larger and the Pakistanis claim as there are now seven separate fronts involved.
KISSINGER: Are the Indians seizing territory?HELMS: Yes; small bits of territory, definitely.SISCO: It would help if you could provide a map with a shading of the areas occupied by India.
What is happening in the West – is a full-scale attack likely? MOORER: The present pattern is puzzling in that the Pakistanis have only struck at three small airfields which do not house significant numbers of Indian combat aircraft.
HELMS: Mrs. Gandhi’s speech at 1:30 may well announce recognition of Bangladesh.
MOORER: the Pakistani attack is not credible. It has been made during late afternoon, which doesn’t make sense. We do not seem to have sufficient facts on this yet.
KISSINGER: It is possible that the Indians attacked first and the Pakistanis simply did what they could before dark in response?
MOORER: this is certainly possible.KISSINGER: the President wants no more irrevocable letters of credit issued under the $99
million credit. He wants the $72 million P.L. 480 credit also held.WILLIAMS: Word will soon get around when we do this. Does the President understand that?KISSINGER: that is his order, but I will check with the President again. If asked, we can say we
are reviewing our whole economic program and that the granting of fresh aid is being suspend in view of conditions on the subcontinent. The next issue is the U.N.
IRWIN: the Secretary is calling in the Pakistani Ambassador this afternoon, and the Secretary leans towards making a U.S. move in the U.N. soon.
KISSINGER: The President is in favor of this as soon as we have some confirmation of this large-scale new action. If the U.N. can’t operate in this kind of situation effectively, its utility has come to an end and it issueless to think of U.N. guarantees in the Middle East.
SISCO: We will have a recommendation for you this afternoon, after the meeting with the Ambassador. In order to give the Ambassador time to wire home, we could tentatively plan to convene the Security Council tomorrow.
KISSINGER: We have to take action. The President is blaming me, but you people are in the clear.
SISCO: That’s ideal! KISSINGER: The earlier draft for Bush is too even-handed.SISCO: To recapitulate, after we have seen the Pakistani Ambassador, the Secretary will report
to you. We will update the draft speech for Bush.KISSINGER: We can say we favor political accommodation but the real job of the Security
Council is to prevent military action.SISCO: We have never had a reply either from Kosygin or Mrs. Gandhi.WILLIAMS: Are we to take economic steps with Pakistan also?KISSINGER: Wait until I talk with the President. He hasn’t addressed this problem in
connection with Pakistan yet.SISCO: If we act on the Indian side, we can say we are keeping the Pakistan situation ‘under
review’.KISSINGER: It’s hard to tilt toward Pakistan if we have to match every Indian step with a
Pakistan step. If you wait until Monday, I can get a Presidential decision.
PACKARD: It should be easy for us to inform the banks involved to defer action inasmuch as we are so near the weekend.
KISSINGER: We need a WSAG in the morning. We need to think about our treaty obligations. I remember a letter or memo interpreting our existing treaty with a special India tilt. When I visited Pakistan in January 1962, I was briefed on a secret document or oral understanding about contingencies arising in other than the S E A T O context. Perhaps it was a Presidential letter. This was a special interpretation of the March 1959, bilateral agreement.
Prepared by: /S/initialsJAMES M. NOYESDeputy assistant Secretary for Near Eastern, African and South Asian Affairs
Approved:(illegible signature)
For G. warren Nutter, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. Distribution: Secdef, Depsecdef, CJCS, ASD (ISA), PDASD (ISA), DASD: NEASA & PPNSCA, Dep Dir: NSCC & PPNSCA, SCD files, R& C files, NESA.
Source: New York Herald Tribune, Paris edition, 6 January 1972.
(B) Account of December 4th MeetingCovering Memorandum
THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF WASHINGTON, D.C 20301
Secret-SensitiveMemorandum for: Chief of Staff, U.S. Army
Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force Chief of Naval Operations Commandant of the Marine Corps
SUBJECTWASHINGTON Special Action Group meeting on Indo-Pakistan hostilities; 4 December 1971.1. Attached for your information is a memorandum for record concerning subject meeting.2. In view of the sensitivity of information in the N.S.C. system and the detailed nature of this
memorandum, it is requested that access to it be limited to a strict need-to know basis.For the chairman, J.C.S.:A.K.KNOIZENCaptain, U.S. NavyExecutive assistant to the Chairman, Joint chiefs of Staff
Chapter 4.
Narrowing Gap
The situation after the three decades of Bangladesh war has changed considerably. If India received tremendous help financially and militarily from the Soviet Union, Pakistan too did receive much more help economically and on defense matters from USA after the latter’s realization of its mistake by not supplying adequate defense equipments on time. The consequence of which had to be borne by its ally in South Asia.
During the 1971 war there was also one assumption in the west that there may be a secret Indian plan of a full strength assault on West Pakistan once the Indian register a full fledge victory in the
east. This was the concern in the western powers particularly the United States. According to General William Westmoreland (at the Memo on December 6th meeting 1971 at the Joint Chief of Staff Washington D.C. 20301) stated that Indian transportation capabilities were limited from east to west, and that it would probably take at least a week to move one infantry division. It might take as much as a month to move all or most of the Indian forces from east to west. But there was also thinking in other circles that it will give enough time for Pakistan to regroup its units and acquire ammunitions to give a more strong reply to the Indians in the western sector. In the eastern theatre too the Indians will risk their achievement as when a large part of their forces move towards west, the 90,000 Pakistani troops who were in the disadvantageous position and laid down their weapons at the end of the war may rise up again and it will be difficult for the remaining Indian forces and a handful of Mukti Bahini guerillas to face them.
Realizing their position of 1971, the Pakistanis began to stress more on the growth of its armed forces and more collaboration with western countries as well as with their fellow Muslim neighbors, especially the oil rich Middle East countries. The west which at that time was facing the threat from the communist world had created an anti-communist belt along the Muslim world proved to be a golden opportunity for Pakistan to enter into the group which was a shield too far strong enough for its enemy India to break.
The British propounded the theory that the “Wells of Power” of the Middle East (the oil wells) have to be safeguarded by a northern tier alliance system. Pakistan as the largest Muslim state at that time was considered a major rampart of the wells of power. Since the British and the Americans had come to the conclusion that Islam was more resistant to communism then Hinduism or Buddhism, they ordained that Muslim state of Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey would have to be activated to prevent the Soviet Union reaching the Arabian oilfields.
At the same time Pakistan needed the support of Muslim states and the western powers in its dispute with India on Kashmir. This was the foundation on which Pakistan’s Muslim as well as pro-western politics was built. Alongside building up of its conventional defensive forces, Pakistan went ahead simultaneously with its nuclear arsenal programme with the help of its Arab allies. As the fear from Israel was already in existence to the Arab world which were not as advanced in compared to the former.
On the other hand Pakistan used a number of trump cards in converting for an Arab deterrent into an Islamic bomb. In Dr. Abdul Qadir Khan, Pakistan had a top scientist worked in Almelo Uranium enrichment project from its inception and had contributed significantly to the development of the centrifuge project. Secondly, among Muslim countries Pakistan had the largest reserve of skilled manpower in nuclear technology. Thirdly, Pakistani industrial infrastructure was comparatively advanced in relation to other Muslim countries. Fourthly, the military relationship Pakistan had developed with west Asian countries gave certain credibility about Pakistan’s ability to handle the weapon for all Muslim world when fabricated. Fifthly Pakistan had fought two air wars with India
which according to the number of aircrafts they possessed compared to their enemy had performed relatively well.
Pakistan acquired considerable experience in operating a network of clandestine supply lines in its own territory; it was not hampered by the presence of outside intelligence agencies which could monitor its nuclear weapon manufacturing activities. The degree of American pressure was less in Pakistan than in many West Asian countries. The only hurdle between the Pakistani collaboration with the Arabs world in the field of defense was the American dual policy of helping Pakistan to stand strongly against India but at the same time the Americans did not want the transfer of technology from Pakistan to the Arabs. As it does not want the Israeli supremacy to be reduced in West Asia. The foreign policy which Pakistan had adopted in the 70s was carefully designed to favor the Arab world as well as the Western powers.
Joint venture of Pakistan – West Asian economic – military collaboration did accelerate by mid 1976. When five Arab countries & Iran had provided grants and loans worth nearly US$ 1,000 million. During the period 1950 – 51 to 1975 – 76 Pakistan received nearly US$ 9,000 million in the form of aid, more than half of which was from the Aid Pakistan consortium. The United States was the largest single donor and multinational arrangements through the World Bank netted US$ 1,800 million. The socialist group also gave assistance to Pakistan. The Soviet overall credits amounted to US$ 611 million; and the Chinese credit to US$ 2,232 million.
In comparison, in a matter of three years (between 1973 – 1974 and 1976 – 77), the Muslim countries ranked first in the list of aid donors to Pakistan. Abu Dhabi had by 1975 – 76 provided assistance worth US $ 10 million. Libya US$ 80 million, Iran US$ 628.6 million, Kuwait US$ 44 million, Qatar US$ 10 million and Saudi Arabia US$ 130 million. (Pakistan Economist, 19-25 March 1977, quoted by M. Weinbaum and Gautham Sen in “Pakistan enters the Middle – East”, orbis, Fall 1978).
General purpose aid from Iran rose to US$730 million in 1977, with an additional US$ 75 million for project aid, loans and investments from the United Arab Emirates came to US$ 192 million; from Libya US$ 133 million; and Kuwait US$ 50 million. Although there was cold economic reasoning behind these aid transactions and they were linked to the lending policies of global agencies like the World Bank and the IMF (International Monetary Fund), such assistance can be regarded as the symbol of a special relationship between the two parties.
Pakistan enjoyed the same status as Egypt and Syria as the largest aid recipient from the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). In the series of aid items included a combined OPEC interest free loan of US$ 65.5 million form its Special Fund and the Kuwait – based Arab Fund.
The economic collaboration between Arab countries and Pakistan encompassed the following area:
(i). Joint Industrial projects;(ii). Increased export of agricultural commodities and industrial products from Pakistan;(iii).extended deposits by the Arabs in Pakistani banks;(iv). Subsidized delivery of oil to Pakistan;(v). absorption of Pakistani surplus labor force by the Arab countries which stood around 2 million in the mid – 80s(v). and preferential treatments for Pakistani firms for contracts in Arab countries.
Several Arab countries had agreed to invest in joint projects with Pakistan. The UAE held shares in an oil refinery and a fertilizer project in Multan. With a Libyan investment a joint shipping company and a publishing house had been set up in Pakistan. Saudi Arabia had financed a cement and polyester factory. A Kuwait – Pakistani joint company had installed a 500 Kw transmission line from Tarbela to Karachi, Pakistani agricultural and industrial commodities were exported in large scale to West Asian (particularly Gulf countries. The Arab states in the 70s imported nearly 35% of Pakistani export items, Saudi Arabia being largest single market.
Another important source of foreign exchange for Pakistan was remittances from Pakistanis working in Arab countries. By the end of 1977 there were more than 300,000 Pakistanis employed in the region which further increased to nearly 2 million in the 1980s and around 3 million till the late 1990s. Saudi Arabia, UAE and Libya had the largest number. Although most of them were construction workers and skilled workers, they also included professionals such as doctors and military experts.
Cordial relations with the Arabs had helped minimize the impact of the oil price hike in 1973 on Pakistan’s economy. New economic institutions like the Islamic Development Bank (IDB) had been extending credit facilities to Pakistan to meet the increased price of oil. The idea of this bank was proposed by Pakistan and was approved by an Islamic conference of finance ministers in early 1974. The OPEC commitment of aid to Pakistan jumped from $110.5 million in 1975-76 to 554.5 million in 1976-77. On the face of it the conditions of its acceptance turned out more favorable from 1978-1982 the share of donation grew up to 23%. Although to a considerable extent this accounted for coming into existence through aid for Afghan refugees. From 1979 -85 Pakistan received $2.5 million by official channels as net aid. From 1985 and 1986 the net aid received were nearly $ 500 million. This sharply advanced remittance of money from abroad was of essential immediate importance for the high enough increase in GNP (Gross National Product 6-7% (1984-85).
In the 1970s Pakistan began to deploy large contingents of its armed forces personnel throughout West Asia and North Africa, making it second only to Cuba in the third world countries in
deploying military personnel foreign countries. Pakistan – Arab military co-operation was a two way process, because Pakistan benefited enormously from the point of view of secret reserves of hardware and the defense cover given to the Arabs in the event of any alien attack.(Pakistan Islamic Bomb; by Maj.Gen. D.K. Palit & PKS Namboodri).
These exchanges and the importance given to it were possible because of Pakistan’s development in its socio-economic structure. The Pakistani capitalism in the 70s – 80s did not forfeit its main characteristics features, the upper stratum and conservative manner of evolution primarily. At the same time certain appreciable expansion and deepening of the capitalist system foundation took place. While developing inwards the productive forces. The up to date sector turned on power engineering, oil extraction, oil refining, metallurgy, machine building, production of chemical fertilizers, of building material, motorway transport, telephone communication, and radio and Television service into operation. The agrarian sphere developed an industrial – capitalist sector. (Vyacheslav Ya Belokrenitsky in “Capitalism in Pakistan”.)
In these circumstances Pakistan hoped to received arms and equipments, mainly of sophisticated items (such as Abu Dhabi’s 32 Mirage fighter-bombers), in times of war or war crisis. There was an added benefit in having these items kept outside Pakistan. Firstly, there was no financial burden on Pakistan to maintain these items in normal times; that was to be taken care by the owner nation. Secondly, these reserves – at – one – remove is kept away from the actual scene of conflict, thus making it not only vulnerable to a surprise enemy pre-emptive strike but also undetectable by outside intelligence sources. Thus, in reckoning the overall military balance in normal times, these crucial items of arms and equipment are kept out of consideration to Pakistan’s advantage.
The Arab countries too derived benefit from this sort of arrangements. Though rich in military resources, they generally were backward in military skills and sophistication. Modern battle tactics, training techniques and command – and – control arrangements were virtually unknown to most of the non- confrontation states of West Asia. Pakistan not being involved in intra – Arab rivalries or conflicts, its military skill and reputation made it eminently suitable as a guide and manager to these Muslim forces in leading them towards military modernization.
During the Pakistan – India conflicts of 1965 and 1971 there were transfer of arms and equipment from some of these countries to Pakistan, notably from Iran and Jordan. But they were of symbolic significance only and did not influence the course of the war in any crucial way. However, that was mainly because of the lack of resources on the part of the suppliers. Now that many of these countries have considerable arsenals of sophisticated military hardware, it is possible that Pakistan might receive substantial amounts of equipment from them in the event of another round against India. Military collaboration between Pakistan and friendly Muslim countries in West Asia ranged from training assistance to joint ventures in armaments industries. In the early 70s there had been a
determined attempts on part of the Arabs to build up their own armament industry so that they can reduce, if not culminate, their dependence on external sources.
A meeting of the defense and the foreign ministers held in London in February, in 1979 was a major landmark on the road to defense cooperation among Muslim countries. It was the first ever international conference of this nature on “Defence and the Muslim World.” The conference declared it firmly believes that there was an urgent and important need to evolve and implement a new & comprehensive defence strategy for the entire Muslim world. The conference welcomed the establishment of the Islamic institute of the defense technology and called upon Muslim countries to cooperate with the institute to strengthen its activity.
Out of many of the recommendation of the conference was to commission the Islamic institute of Defense Technology to prepare a feasibility report for the establishment of an Islamic bank of Strategic materials to ensure adequate and regular supplies to the defense industries of Muslim countries; Pakistan was an active participant at this meet. Although there was no evidence of any defense treaty between Pakistan and any of its Muslim friends in West Asia (Accept under (CENTO) Central Treaty Organization, the British sponsored pact) there was evidence of close military collaboration with many. Abu Dhabi’s main air wing, its 32 Mirage aircraft, was commanded, flown and maintained by Pakistani Air Force personnel. There were about 5,000 troops in Saudi Arabia alone, including a large training group for the Royal Guard which was mostly officered by Pakistanis. Pakistani forces were reported to have being deployed at the time of border clashes in February 1979. At one time there were 1,000 strong contingent in Jordan, most of whom were withdrawn after King Hussein’s liquidation of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) in September 1970. Libya had about 1,450 Pakistani military personnel. The Libyan Air Force Academy at Zawia was mostly manned by Pakistanis as also the Mirage fighter Operational Conversation Units and most of the two transport squadrons of the Libyan Air Force. Libya’s 4 Mirage squadron were 50% manned by Pakistani pilots & technicians. 250 Army and 100 Navy personnel were also stationed in Libya. There could have been arrangements between some of these countries and Pakistan for making available forces on mutually agreed bases.
Pakistan had already demonstrated its willingness to commit troops to action on behalf of its Arab friends. According to one western observer, Pakistani pilots flew military mission against Israel in the war of 1973 on behalf of Libya & Syria. Another report said that Pakistani Planes even took part in actual air operation on the Syrian front. As for training facilities in Pakistan military personnel from friendly Arab countries were trained at the staff College in Quetta. A mirage training school which had 10 Mirage 3Ds gifted by Arab states were in operation. The new Mirage – rebuilt facility at Kamra in the frontier province handled aircraft from many countries of west Asia. These were the achievements by the Pakistani armed forces in the decades of 70s and they were possible only because of the phenomenal growth of the Pakistani armed force themselves, whose overall strength till 1978 was 429,000 men, compared to 324,000 in 1970-71. It also had a reserve of 5,00,000 men who can be mobilized at short notice.
The strength of the Pakistani forces was added further after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. These proved to be a boon as Pakistan acted as a front line state in the US and Western led coalition resistance against the invading Soviet army. The decades of 1980s too were enjoyed by Pakistan as they continuously received ready made supply of sophisticated arms from US and other Western allies. Simultaneously India too received supply of Soviet arms in that period like Mig 23
bombers, MiG 29 air superiority fighter, Mirage-2000 multirolefighter, Sukhois, T-80 tanks, submarines and naval ships all these were a clear sign of arms race in south Asia during the cold war.
Besides its deepening relation with West Asia Pakistan has been simultaneously in touch with its Western allies especially the US for these arms and economic packages. It did receive according to its need the military requirements from Britain, West Germany, France, and some from Scandinavian countries Sweden in particular. In the post 1971 era the military regime had selected a line of unilateral orientation at imperialist powers, of the USA in the first place. This tendency manifested in especially potent way since the turn of the 1970s to the 1980s. Since the mid-1950s and up to the early 1980s the USA rendered 1.2 – 1.5 billion dollars worth military aid to Pakistan. But the most significant help came from the United States after 1979 in relation to the Afghan crisis in the form of sophisticated aircraft like F-16s, Mig transportation aircraft and T-80s, T-72 tanks the latest of them were the Abraham tankis. In 1981 an agreement was concluded on affording 3.2 billion rupees worth American military – economic assistance over a period of six years. There were reports of American aid in the form of more military hardware like F-16s multirole fighters, Mirage III/IV Bombers and A-5 ground attack bombers.
The Pakistani radar system which was considered as much ahead of India even during the 1965 and 1971 wars, in the latter event it was this radar system which helped the Pakistani ground forces to resist the intruding Indian aircrafts. According to K. Subramanian, Director, Institute for Defense Studies and Analysis, in his article in ‘The Illustrated Weekly’ published on 26, December 1971, just after the war that all the air bases in Pakistan – Mauripur, Samugli, Drigh road, Peshawar, Kohat, Risalpur, Lahore, Sargodha, Multan, Chaklala, Nawabshah, Gilgit, Chitral, Malir and Miranshah were built up to NATO standards under the US military Assistance Programme. Early warning surveillance radars facing India were installed under this programme at Badin, Multan, Sargodha and Peshawar. A microwave communication network was also developed under the CENTO base programme.
Somewhere in the mid-1980s Pakistani newspapers declared of the possibility of getting the AWACS ( Airborne Early Warning and Control System ) from US. But after the Indian protest the delivery was suspended. It did not made it much difference for Pakistan because it had already sophisticated its ground radar system and that there was also a report that Saudi Arabia which had earlier received this AWACS may allow it to use in case of any event. Under the military assistance programme some of the weapons mentioned were being purchased byu US for Pakistan. Alongside the Radar system, Pakistan also began to upgrade its artillery and the main battle tanks. The area where Pakistan lacked was in its naval power which was not even enough to defend its coastal areas from any enemy attack. From mid-1980s it also began to stretch in the development of its navy by including advanced Frigates, Destroyers and Submarines, including the French Agosta with surface to surface and surface to air missile firing power. The USA did plan for the six year period (1987-1992) 4.02 million dollars grants to Pakistan for defence purpose but was halted in 1988 after the US suspicion of Pakistan developing nuclear warheads.
After the September 11, attack there was thinking in Indian circle that the Americans may target Pakistan for its support to the Taliban regime but Musharraf’s support to the Americans in the war against terror was a turning point. The same Americans which gave more leverage to India during Bill
Clinton’s visit to the sub-continent, now suddenly began to stretch on Pakistan’s geo-political and strategic importance. Today the Pakistani role is seen in the West is seen as similar to that of Saudi Arabia in the Gulf war of 1991. All the constitutional amendments of the US was set aside and the same US which hesitated to supply weapons to Pakistan in 1971 war, and also imposed sanction in 1988 for suspicion and in 1998 for going Nuclear, now had opened its gates. All the debts were being released and many of them were being written off. Some weapons have already landed in Pakistan others are on the waiting list.
It was a time when Pakistan had totally depended on the West especially for its military aid. But after the 1971 crisis it had learned a lesson and began to look towards other countries besides US. In the past too Pakistan had been purchasing arms from Britain, West Germany, Italy, France, and Sweden and even from the former USSR. Today it had spread its dealing as far as Australia and even South Africa. After the 1988 sanction which was confined only to the US, many European countries continued to supply other weapons which Pakistan did not purchase from US. Some even from other Muslim countries like the Herculles Transport Planes in the past from Iran. But the most significant help in the military preparedness came from China. Other than the US, China was the only second next in terms of arms dealing with that country. With the help of China, Pakistan today is fully prepared and even ready to experience any threat from its enemy as it is fully confident enough of regular supply of arms same as the Indians had on the Soviets. In the 1990s Pakistan also succeeded in getting a number of Soviet manufactured tanks and their spare parts from Ukraine which the Russians refused to sell them directly during the cold war.
In recent times the Russians had shown some signs of neutrality by going back to its pre-1965 position. To a large extent it has taken a turn from its anti-Pakistan attitude for which it had to pay the price in Afghanistan. Russia signed defence co-operation with Pakistan to jointly manufacture tanks. Russia’s top battle tank plant Uralvagonzavod was in the forefront for this deal a day after Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmud Kasuri held talks with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. (11 July 2004, Hindustan Times).
Chapter 5.
Towards China
The 1962 border clash with India brought China close to Pakistan, besides trade and close cultural ties Pakistan did receive tremendous military hardware from its giant neighbor. It began with their border settlement pact of March 3, 1963, under which out of the 84,160 sq. kms of northern and western portion of Kashmir captured by Pakistan in 1948 war against India, and still under its control, a part of it was given to China. This was their first joint action against India’s sovereign borders and interests. In the years China has emerged as Pakistan’s single most trusted and enduring military ally.
This was partly because of the mutually shared complementarities; with Pakistan providing an anti-India nexus, a market for China’s low quality weapons in compared to west and in turn Pakistan became a consumer market as well as an access to western technologies that arrive there and were refused directly by west to Communist China. The most important factor shared by the two till then was
the orthodox social system, where both were ruled by authoritarian power elites with military dominated polities which made the mutual dealings easier. That may be the reason of Pakistan receiving the required political and moral support from China.
Along with their increasing trade, the two shared their special relationship especially in the matter of defense and other related technologies. Unlike the western powers that imposed embargo whenever Pakistan was involved in a war, the Chinese, have provided military assistance to Pakistan whenever it needed it the most. The terms too on which Chinese provided weapons and equipments were not aimed at perpetuating Pakistan’s dependence on Beijing but on encouraging self reliance and indigenization. The supply of spare parts, setting up local overhauling facilities, licenses production and joint ventures were included in these collaborations.
Though the quality of weapons supplied by China was not up to the advanced western standards but was considered appropriate technologies, it did facilitated their absorption and adoption by Pakistan’s armed forces and scientists with their limited infrastructure, know how and expertise. The military relationship with China suited Pakistan as the latter was often able to keep their defence cooperation secret and announced them according to their convenience. The building up of Pakistan’s defence posture was also greatly contributed by China’s continued arms supply which did generated interest amongst other supplier countries mainly the western ones, who were interested in containing China’s increasing influence in Pakistan.
One of the advantage which China in case of supplying arms to Pakistan was that it was the masters of its own whims and that its supplies did not met with any constraints, compared to the United States from where the supplies were subject to international laws and treaties, world and domestic public opinion, and other restrictive factors. The absence of a strong domestic industrial, scientific and technological base in those days coupled with the prohibitive costs of modern military technology and Chinese weapons inferior to the western quality but technologically advanced enough from those produced by the adversary across the border.
China agreed to provide technical and financial assistance for setting up an ordnance factory at Dhaka in the erstwhile East Pakistan which aimed at strengthening Pakistan’s eastern defence as also to fulfill demands of that region’s people for an ordnance factory since Pakistan had built its Wah industrial complex in 1950s near Karachi. This new ordnance factory was commissioned after three years of work in November 1970 but in the next one year it was lost to Bangladesh.
Till the early 1970s the weapons which Pakistan received from China included Infantry and Artillery equipment for nearly two divisions (AK 47 rifles, light and medium machine-guns, 60 mm., 81 mm., 120 mm. mortars, 100 mm. field guns ) and 225 T-69 medium tanks. For the Air Force it supplied 1 Squadron of IL – 28 Bombers. , 4 Squadrons of MiG – 19 Interceptors. The Chinese were believed to have supplied Pakistan Navy with an unspecified number of riverboats and coasters just before and after the 1971 war. In addition the Chinese had also assisted Pakistan in setting up two major ordnance factories, one at Joydebpur in East Pakistan and the other at Taxila in West Pakistan’s infrastructure. With Chinese assistance Pakistan succeeded in setting up facilities at the Heavy Rebuild Factory (HRF) at Taxila which would not only provide for the overhauling of Chinese type T- 59 MBTs
but which would also to start upgrading these tanks critical components such as its fire control systems, thermal sight and electronic systems. In the 1980s HRF started license production of the state – of – the – art Chinese Type – 69 MBTs.
Later, a protocol was signed between China and Pakistan to set up facilities for the license production of Chinese type-69 II BMPs. The ARV hulls were, however, imported from China along with armour plates, while other parts were manufactured in Pakistan under the technical advice of Chinese experts. China’s Norinco has also helped Pakistan in the manufacture of Chinese T-69 and T-85 II MBTs and M-113 Armoured Personell Carriers.
Similarly, the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex at Kamra was also established with Chinese assistance. The F-6 Rebuild Factory, established as a turnkey project by China, which became operational in November 1980. The F-6 had, after the American F-86 Sabres, had come to be the mainstay of the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). China later also built in Pakistan overhauling facilities for the F-6 Shenyang fighter and the Tumansky RD-9E-8II turbojet engines with over 7,000 other spare parts.
Today the Pakistani ordinance factory in Taxila with joint Chinese collaboration has been engaged in manufacturing weapons like the tanks and fighter jets which are being exported to the Middle-East and some African countries and even Sri Lanka. Some order for small arms like the rifles were also received by the US Defence department for internal security. China in recent years has also expanded to undertake the overhauling of FT-6, FT-7s. Then with phasing out of the F-6s, the facility has diversified towards maintenance and overhaul of the F-7Ps. The Light Aircraft Manufacturing Factory (LAMP), another turnkey project completed by China in 1981, was meant for producing complete airframes and eventual production of light aircraft.
By September 1983, this facility started license-production of SAAB Scania MF-1-17 (locally known as Mushshak) which later became the first step for Pakistan to initiate collaboration on the jet trained Karakoram-8 with the Chinese. This also led to their collaboration on the joint development of the Super-7 fighter.
The joint collaboration between the two was possible because of the geo-political and strategic importance of both to each other, besides the defence collaboration, China also proved to be the largest among the trading partners of Pakistan. Their only link through road was form the disputed territory of Kashmir where most of the land trade between the two countries is a proof of its vulnerability.
In the initial stages of its independence Pakistan was totally dependent on outside help especially from the US. In the later years Pakistan did made tremendous progress in the field of agricultural production as well as in the industrial sector. The Western countries provided the vital help but the most significant contribution came from China. As discussed earlier China had the access of the Western
technology from Pakistan which was denied to its directly by the West, in return Pakistan proved to be the gateway for Chinese manufactured goods to the Middle-East and Africa.
The happenings during the cold war era and even after that did not affect the ties between the two. Even today, current military cooperation between the two countries operates under the provisions of the June 1990, Sino-Pakistan Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for ten year cooperation in procurement, R & D, technology transfer and co-production. This understanding has got a fresh lease of life ever since the Pressler amendment came into force. In 1988 Pakistan started building a manufacturing plant at Taxila (completed in 1992).
In January 1990, the two countries signed an agreement to jointly design, develop and manufacture the Al-Khalid battle tank which is also called MBT-2000. Primary prototypes produced in China were fielded for trials in August 1991. This was possible in such a short time because the basic research had already been going on the China for some years. Since the repeated trials have been taking place in order to improve the MBT for Pakistan’s difficult terrain and high temperatures. Heavy Industries at Taxila were expected to start production of Al-Khalid before the turn of this century. One report also gave an indication that the Al-Khalid tanks were all ready and was about to be commissioned for use and were also being inducted in the Pakistan Armed forces.
Another project Karakoram – 8 (or K-8) was a joint venture between the China National Aero - technology Import Export Corporation (CATIC), China Nanchang Aircraft manufacturing company (CNAMC) and the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) established in 1986. The K-8 project was named after the mountain range on the Sino-Pakistan border. Aircraft Manufacturing Factory (AMF) at Kamra was collaborating with NAMC in China for K-8. This was designed and built at Nanchang by a team of engineers provided by the PAC. Its maiden flight took place in November 1990 and its low rate production started in early 1992.
Later, the two countries signed an agreement for Pakistan’s purchase of six K-8 jet trainers which were to be delivered beginning from July 1994. Developed by the NAMC, Aviation Industries China (AVIC), CATIC and PAC. The K-8 was expected to replace the ageing T-37 fighters and even partially replace the advanced Chinese FT-5 trainers as it could provide both basic and advanced training. The K-8 prototypes have already flown over the Karakoram range to Kamra during trails.
Pakistan had at one time wanted a part in the Chinese L-8 project for a tandem seat basic trainer and light ground attack aircraft. But by the time prototypes became ready in 1994 Pakistan had decided against building its own assembly line and went on to buy them from China which has already supplied 6 aircraft by November 1994.
Besides K-8, another aircraft Super-7 also known as FC-1 was originally a joint project for preliminary design between CATIC and Grumman (USA). An agreement towards this end was signed in October 1988. This project was, however, suspended by the US government following the Tiananmen
Square crisis of June 1989. Later, in 1992, to revive this project the CATIC signed a fresh contract with PAC and the development of this fighter has continued ever since. The first flight of this fighter was planned for 1996.
Along with its air force Pakistan’s missile development programme was started in the 1980s with the active assistance from the Chinese. Sino-Pak missile collaboration goes back to 1986 when Pakistan started assembling the RBS-70 Mk 1 and Mk 2 air defence missiles systems. Collaboration in the area of longer range missiles with the Chinese began once Pakistan became involved in financing their M-9 and M-11 missiles programmes. General Mirza Aslam Baig is on record for having told the press after a visit to Beijing in 1997 that China’s Red Arrows were better than US TOW-11 saying that it had the “advantage of going for reverse technology and retaining it, in proving on it till you achieve what you want to achieve.”
Chinese help is suspected to be responsible for Pakistan’s successful testing in early 1989 of its Hatf II missile. With a 300 km range, this missile is believed to be result of the French Eridan sounding rocket technology mixed with the Chinese expertise. This area of their collaboration has lately become very controversial following reports by the US intelligence agencies that China has transferred about 30 or more of its intermediate range M-11 missiles to Pakistan, which of course, China and Pakistan both have repeatedly denied. Pakistan continued to go ahead with its further test series of missiles like Ghauri, Shaheen and Ghazni in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Added to this whole gamut of Sino-Pak defence cooperation is the question of their nuclear cooperation which makes their nexus particularly alarming and create a future challenge to India’s security.
China’s major conventional Weapons Transfer to Pakistan
In terms of arms transfers as well as it is not the United States, which is so often in the news, but China that has been the most significant supplier of Pakistan since early 1960s. China, for instance had accounted for over 1/3rd of Pakistan’s arms imports during 1966-1980, which was far ahead of its other major suppliers. Even following the end of the Cold War era when arms transfers has seen as a declining trend, the Pressler amendment of 1992 has ensured China’s pre-eminence in Pakistan’s arms imports. As a result, China by now has supplied Pakistan with over 1,600 main battle tanks, 400 combat aircraft and about 40 naval vessels.
China, in fact, has developed such a stake in supplying arms to Pakistan that it has often flouted its commitment to both the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as also the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Given these realities there is no reason to presume that the
China-Pakistan military nexus will not deepen over time. (Institute of Defence Studies & Analysis New Delhi).
Chapter 6
The Strategic Setbacks
Though Pakistan did not receive any US weapons in the decade of 1990s, on the other hand India too did not get any more Russian Arms after 1991. The Indians lacking faith in the West and China did not purchased weapons from any other countries; show its difficulty to escape from her heavy reliance on Soviet Union in the last five decades. These resulted in a heavy blow to the armed forces as 80% of Indian ammunitions are of Soviet origin. Especially its combat aircraft the MiGs which forms nearly ¾ of its air force have been affected because of the lack of supplies of its spare from Russia. Another hurdle is the collapse and break up of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the economic crisis the country had faced in the decade of 1990s during the Putin era Russia did came out as one of the major
countries with economic growth, but after the economic meltdown of 2009 it again faced the economic crisis from where it is fighting hard to come out. This was the reason for which it wants to sell its weapons on cash basis that too for big purchasers and Indian cannot go ahead with their own economic problems in spite of its growth in some sectors. The result of which can be seen in the last two decades. Since 1990-91 IAF (Indian Air Force) has lost 305 fighter aircraft during their routine flights in which 145 pilots have lost their lives. (The Times of India, July 10, 2003). Out of which more than 170 were MiG fighters. (The Indian Express, July, 16, 2003).
In army today more than 10,000 posts of officers are vacant as because of lesser opportunities the youths are looking towards other roads for success. In the post 1971 period India has lost much of its strategic advantage due to changing circumstances in the area. In military terms India today is compelled to divide her forces on the Western front against Pakistan as well as in the Eastern Sector against China in the Himalayas, apart of its is also engaged in counter-insurgency measures in North Eastern states against militatnt groups of NSCN (National Socialist Council of Nagaland, both Khaplang and Moiba groups), TNV (Tripura National Volunteers), ULFA (United Liberation Front of Assam), the Bodos, and also the intra rivalry between the various tribes.
The Bangladesh borders which till yesterday had the problem of only of influx of refugees but today strained relations have developed between BDR (Bangladesh Rifles) and BSF (Border Security Forces). The incident at Pydwah in 2002 where the Bangladesh captured a village in Meghalaya and held it for two days leaving 8 Indian soldiers dead and some wounded. The soldiers were tortured before they were killed. Incidence of Bangladeshi forces intrusion has also been reported in the Indian territories in that border villages of Meghalaya. Many Bangladeshis see India as the foreign hand behind every woe that befalls their nation. Even Hasina Wajid who is considered as pro Indian lobbyists in Bangladesh said that India must negotiate on an equal footing and that Bangladesh is not a push over.
The sticking point remains the sharing of the Ganga waters, ever since India built Farakka barrage in 1974, Bangladesh has been saying that it has been robbed of its rightful share of water downstream. In fact, at UN conference in New York last year, the then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia devoted a large part of her speech to the Farakka issue, accusing India of ruining her country’s agriculture dependent economy. (Ruben Bannerji, the Bogey of Big Brother, India Today, July 15, 1996). Since the birth of Bangladesh, there had been tremendous efforts by Pakistan to gather the forces in that country loyal to it during the 1971 war and it had succeeded in doing so to a far extent. Today there are a considerable size of population in that country with anti-India feeling and doubts that one day their liberator may turn their rulers. The words used by Saffron forces at regular intervals in India did galvanized forces in Pakistan as well as Bangladesh. The country besides Burma has also been a safe haven for the secessionist groups of North Eastern states fighting the Indian forces, is a proof of the extent of the deterioration in relation between the two countries. In the year 2002 the two countries
armed forces almost stood face to face when Bangladesh refused to take back its illegal refugees from India. After some hesitation and negotiation the situation came under control.
The Nepalese border which was considered a couple of years back as the safe and peaceful trading International border accept some incidents of illicit trade here and there, now has been sealed completely because of the Maoist insurgency in the Himalayan Kingdom since 1996. Though the Nepalese army did receive help from India and other Western countries in technical terms, the casualties which the Maoist forces inflicted on the Nepalese Government forces was almost equal to what they suffered. Besides the local villagers supporting them there are indication that these Maoist forces are linked to China because of the areas of activity in the Northern part of the Kingdom and not in the Terrai region in the south, Reports of Maoist links with China had also been published in India Today, February, 10, 2003. But because of the emerging super power status of China neither the Nepalese nor the Indian Government dared to speak about it.
The growing Chinese influence in the region was seen when in 2001, the visit by the Chinese leader for a couple of hours to the Kingdom on the way back home from his visit to Pakistan and India. During that stay many important agreements were signed between the two neighbours for the first time. One of them was an agreement to construct a national highway from Lhasa the capital city of Tibet to Kathmandu which will link China with Nepal economically and strategically. The environment of Nepal too has been changed a lot in recent past, a country where India enjoyed its full friendly environment now began to see its southern neighbour as an aggressor with suspicion and doubt among the common citizen. The anti-Indian riots after alleged words against that country by an Indian film star bring out the clear picture of the people’s attitude towards their southern friends. The mysterious Royal massacre which followed soon after Kingdom’s agreement with China too created a doubt among the common man about Nepal’s closeness towards North and reducing dependence on south. In spite of the assurances given by the leaders of small neighbours of India that their soil will not be allowed to carry out any subversive activity against India, terrorist training camps are in action in Bhutan, Nepal and Bangladesh according to Indian leaders themselves.
It was admitted by many Indian leaders that any offensive against Pakistan will have to be decided and carried out by the Indians on their own. The Indians cannot expect any country to go shoulder to shoulder along with it against Pakistan as the Soviets did in 1971 war and like the Americans who enjoyed the support of many countries in the war against terror. Unlike 1971 where the Indians had a secular imaged congress government expected to remain in power for a longer period. Now the single largest political party is the Hindu nationalist BJP who when led the coalition in 2001 had tensions with Pakistan and was on the verge of going to war. One can imagine if in future the BJP wins full majority in elections. Toady India’s image among the Muslim countries is seen as somewhat of an aggressive Hindu nation against the Muslim Pakistan. India’s closeness with Israel in the past decade especially on military terms, has added further proof to this image. According to Jane’s Defence Weekly, Israeli army commanders did visit the line of control in disputed Kashmir to help its Indian counterpart in combating militancy.
Unlike Taliban, Pakistan is not isolated from the world, on the contrary being the member of many international Organizations has support from many Muslim countries as well as two big power United States and China. When during the military stand off in 2001 the Chinese Premier Zhu Rhong Ji visited India, at that very moment a package of 40 Chinese fighter aircraft were landed on Karachi harbor amidst increasing tension was clear signal of China’s strategic importance given to Pakistan despite its increasing trade ties with India. Even during the tensions which aroused after the attack in Bombay after 26 November 2008, after Indian threats of a possible attack on Pakistan, Chinese newspaper did support Pakistan in the event of a war, this move of China did forced the Indians to change their attitude from verbal threats to peace process.
The only Muslim country close to India at this hour is Iran as after the statement given by US President George W. Bush as one of the three axis of evil besides North Korea and Iraq, Iran began to see India as strategic partner. But how far both expect from each other to contain the lone super power is impossible for Indian in any case of misadventure against Iran as it was seen in the case of Iraq, the close ally of India and only Muslim country to support India during the 1971 war by supplying oil through Strait of Hormuz. It will not be wise enough even for India to expect much from Iran to go against its Muslim neighbour as Iran refused to go ahead along with US in Afghanistan in spite of the massacre of Iranian diplomats by the Taliban regime. It will be very difficult for the land of Ayatollah to go against Pakistan; it is the same country which provided military bases to Pakistan Air Force (PAF) In the 1965 and 1971 war and in today’s scenario its trade with China along the land route from Pakistan is in full swing. The same it expected in the case of India as far as the gas pipeline is concern which after India’s vote in the Security Council after succumbing to US pressure, now looks in doldrums.
When the American imposed sanction against Taliban regime it was fully effective but the same when adopted by India was a reverse hit, for instance when India imposed flight restriction to PIA (Pakistan International Airlines) it was not much affected as hardly a couple of PIA flights crossed over the Indian air space. As most of Pakistan’s business is with Europe and West Asia. China and the Far East. For the South East Asia it uses its route via China and Hong Kong terminal. But when the same retaliatory restriction was imposed on Air- India it proved to be much more effective as more than 120 flights of Air-India crossed over the Pakistani Air Space every week.
After the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, many among the Indian circles began to think that the emergence of Northern Alliance will be a military backyard for Pakistan, as Pakistan itself is for India in the case of China. But the role of Northern Alliance was confined to the ousting of Taliban only; the American backed President Hamid Karzai was installed in the country who played a neutral role in domestic as well as International scene. The Northern Alliance too is not in a strong position so as to be a big threat for Pakistan as the latter’s one regiment is enough for the Northern Alliance forces. As because of the Northern Alliance attitude of the war regarding the post Taliban Government, and that the US had assured of not tolerating any such government in Afghanistan having hostile attitude towards Pakistan.
Any decisive war needs besides effective administration also the maintenance of the military hardware and its future programme to move in a positive direction. Besides the shortage in men in numbers in important positions there are questions being raised on the capabilities of the Indian weapons itself. After the conclusion of joint military exercise in the mid 2000s the US had voiced concerned over
the ability of the Indian authorities and that according to them the Indian army is big enough in size but difficult to control and that the maintenance of its large weaponry is not in adequate manner, the report also mentioned that it will be difficult for the US to consider in this state of its armed forces of India to be a balanced strategic power. Juli A. Mcdonald report, ‘Indo-US military relationship: Expectations and Perceptions,’ here are swipes at “Indian elites” – both in the defence services and bureaucracy – who “thrive on fine – tuned arguments and logic,” instead of being interested in practical issues.
The report argues that the US should not be deceived by the Indian military’s size. “They (US officials) believe the poor quality and lack of maintenance of India’s weapons systems limit its ability to be a capable partner. (Prepared for the Director, Net Assessment office of the Secretary of Defence). (Outlook, 7, July 2003).
According to an article published in Outlook, 30, June 2003; Trishul India’s much-troubled short range surface – to – air missile (SAM) developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). After more “misses than hits” during tests, the DRDO has decided to totally wind up the Trishul project over a three month time frame. This marked the first serious setback for India’s Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (ICMDP), an endeavour that was headed by Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam for 18 years from 1982 to 2000. The Trishul project was launched in 1983 and officials say after two full decades later, India scraps its Trishul missile project. Dr. V.K.Atre, DRDO chief and scientific advisor to the Defence Minister, confirmed to Outlook that the SAM programme had been called off. The light combat aircraft (LCA) and Arjun battle tanks are two examples. Former is a decade behind schedule and the latter has been put on the backburner after a 10 year effort. Says the officials, “A couple of years ago, Dr. Kalam spoke of 70% self-reliance in defence requirements by 2005, but we are nowhere near that. Instead, our import dependency has doubled in recent years. Our shopping list includes even clothing and shoes for our armed forces.”
Though there has been an increase in the Defence expenditure in the last couple of years but the benefit for the armed forces is yet to reach. The continuous use of the armed forces for tackling the internal disturbances too created a negative effect on the moral and efficiency. This was seen in Sri Lanka in 1987-90 where they were send as a peace keeping force and later were involved in the guerilla battle with the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam). Under this Operation Poomalai as it was called the Indians lost around 2,000 men. Also in the Kargil war the Indians lost around 750 men with more than 1,500 injured, 2 fighter aircraft (1 Mig 27, 1 Mig 29) lost, 1 Mi8 Helicopter lost. In the 2 months long conflict it was the Indian claim of flushing out the intruders and Pakistani forces. But according to International sources the intruders were militants whose command was under the control of Pakistani forces and that it was the pressure from US and other Western powers on Pakistan to pull back these intruders and not by the Indian army’s action. Had there been an increase in the number of these
militant or had there been any sign of Western support to Pakistan on this matter, the casualties on the Indian side would have been heavier.
During the 2001 military standoff, the Chief of the armed forces had informed the Government after going through the war books to be ready to take heavy casualties in men and ammunitions in the possible action. A senior official in the Srinagar based 15 Corps told ‘Outlook,’ 3 June, 2002, that many people think that a full – scale war with Pakistan is a picnic. But it is serious business. It is one thing for politicians to say that the army must teach Pakistan a lesson but quite another to do just that.
In the Jammu area that comes under the 16 Corps, daily exchange of fire between the Pakistani and Indian forces across the LoC has escalated sharply since May 14, 2002, the day of the kaluchak strike. Tracers are fired every day and on May 23, firing across the IB (International Border) resulted in massive damage to three villages near Hiranagar, a couple of hours drive from Jammu. With the snows melting, the LoC here has become active in the last one week, the massive shelling on May 21 in the Uri sector, resulting in atleast four civilian deaths. Army officials said that though firing was regular feature, this time the intensity was higher than in the previous years, was a signal given to India by Pakistan that it will not succumb to any threat from the Indian side for the deployment of its large armed forces.
Though large in number of armed forces the chaos and nervousness on the ill-management for the control was clearly visible on the Indian side who were well aware of the consequences in military terms and amidst the increasing pressure from International community, to avoid any conflict with its nieghbour especially from the ongoing war against terror in which it was acting as a frontline state.
During the 10 months stand off the Indians suffered heavy casualties in the armed forces as amidst the tension suddenly nearly 70 trucks loaded with explosives meant for the forces in Rajasthan sector caught fire and were completely destroyed. The cause of it was not known whether it was by their own mistake or was it any activity of sabotage from the other side of the border. Indians lost some 387 soldiers and around 1,031 injured during troop mobilization on operation Parakaram. (Outlook, 2 June, 2003). Defence Minister George Fernandes, in his written reply to the Rajya Sabha, cites another 1,874 killed or injured. (from 19 December, 2001 to 16 October, 2002).
Chapter 7.
A Nation Within
During the creation of Pakistan a large part of Muslims stayed behind in India on hope of a secular constitution. On the name of secularism these Muslims along with other minorities were denied of their basic rights leave alone equal rights. The majority Hindu population began to treat them as alien and also considered them as a nation within. Some also began to see Muslim in India as Pakistanis as they share besides religion also similarity in culture and Urdu language too became a point of
controversy. Besides these strategic positions and setbacks and lapses in Defence preparedness, one explosive situation which India faces in any conflict against Pakistan and its aftermath is the large Muslim population in India, of which Pakistan can an according to the Indian authorities themselves, Pakistan had been engaging the local Muslims from urban and rural areas of India for anti-disruptive activities. If it is true the Indian administration had received the answers in the form of 12 th march 1993 Bombay blasts and Akshardham incidents for the atrocities committed by the Indian security personell along with Hindu insurgent groups during the 1992-93 riots and also in Gujarat after the Godhra incidents respectively.
The ill treatment given to the largest minority in the country is also responsible to a far extent. According to article published in ‘The Times of India’ on 27th March 1996, by Zafar Jung, that Muslims constitute the single largest minority group in India. The levels of living among them are much lower in comparison to those in other communities. A majority of Muslims obtain their livelihood through petty business, small-scale enterprise and low-paid jobs. Most of them are concentrated in the peripheral and decaying areas of urban economic life.
In rural areas, where most of the Muslims are landless or poor peasants and in urban areas Muslims live in the most deplorable conditions. The percentage of Muslims living below the poverty line is higher than the national average. Data compiled by the National Sample Survey Organisation in 1987-88, the first official attempt to study the socio-economic aspects of various religious groups, revealed that the incidence of urban poverty is higher among Muslims, compared to Hindus by more than 17 per cent. The umber of Muslims living below the poverty level was more than 35 million out of total Muslim population of 76 million.
Some NGOs have conducted studies to measure the extent of Muslim backwardness. A study by Prof. Ausaf Ahmed of Third world Academy, New Delhi, found that Muslims received a mere five, or 1.25 per cent, of the total of 405 industrial licences were granted to Muslims out of the total of 386. Of the telephone conncetions, 94.6 per cent belong to Sikhs and Hindus, 2.06 per cent to Christians and only 1.52 per cent to Muslims. The Muslims had a mere 4.05 per cent of the petrol dealership of Indian Oil Corporation, 2.3 per cent of its gas dealership and 6.2 per cent of Kerosene dealership.
Trend Reversed
Another study of Mr.S. Navalakha of the Institute of Economic growth New Delhi, reveals that Hindus, constitution 82.2% of the total population, from 85.3% of the elite, the Christians, comprising 2.6% of the population, are 3.5%, while Jains, constitute 0.5% of the population, are 2.8%. It is the only case of Muslims that the trend is reversed. The Muslims, who are 11.2% of the population, constitute only 4.5% of the elite. Muslim employment in government services has drastically reduced since independence. In 1981 there were 3,883 officers in IAS cadre all over the country, out of whom only 116, or three per cent were Muslims. Similarly, in the Indian Police Service, Muslims constitute 2.85%,
in the income tax department 3%, in the railways 2.65%, in banks 2.18%, in central government offices 4.41% and in state government offices, 6.01%. There is a conspicuous absence or very low representation for Muslims at the high executive level and in top management cadres. In no state of India, except Jammu and Kashmir is the proportion of Muslim officers more than 5-6%; and in most states it ranges between one and three per cent. Not a single Muslim is on the board of directors of 20 nationalised banks, only four are Muslims.
Poor Representation
At the class III and IV levels also, Muslim representation is poor. In the clerical cadre their representation ranges from a low 2% in banks to 8% in private enterprise. In the case of small-scale enterprise it has been estimated that only 14,000 or 2.3%, of the total 600,000 industrial units, belong to Muslims. Even among these only 2,000 qualify for the official definition of small-scale industry.
The Muslim representation in Parliament and the state assemblies is also going down constantly. There were 46 Muslims in the Lok Sabha in 1982, but this was down to 26 in the 1991 elections. The number of states without any Muslim representation has risen to 14.
The state of economic degradation in which Muslims are living in India is a matter of deep concern. The government cannot absolve itself of the blame. Most Muslims believe that their backwardness is essentially due to discrimination in the government as well as in the private sector.
In multi-religious society, where employment opportunities are scarce, there must exist effective deterrents to prevent such discrimination and prejudice. It is nearly two decade since this report has been published, but not much has changed in the situation has gone from bad to worse.
According to The Sachar Committee Report going through its Salient findings one can analyse the serious conditions of Muslims in India which could have made better in the last 60 years of independence but is a result of neglect and discrimination.
(i) Education:
(a) The literacy rate among Muslims was 59.1%, which was below the national average of 64.8%.
(b) The mean years of schooling (MYS) is lower compared to the average MYS for all children.
(c) 25% of Muslim children in the age of 6 – 14 year age group have either never attended school or have dropped out.
(d) The majority of Muslim girls and boys fail in their matriculation examination or drop out before that.
(e) Less than 4% of Muslims are graduates or diploma holders compared to about 7% of the population aged 20 years and above.
(f) There is a strong desire and enthusiasm for education among Muslim women and girls across the board.
(g) Schools beyond primary level are few in Muslim localities. Exclusive schools for girls are fewer.
(h) Lack of hostel facilities is a limiting factor, especially for girls.
(i) Muslim parents are not averse to modern or mainstream education and to sending their children to affordable Government schools. They do not necessarily prefer to send children to madarsas. However, the access to government schools for Muslim children is limited.
(ii) Skill development
(a) Skill development initiatives for those who have not completed school education may be particularly relevant for some sections of Muslims given their occupational structure.
(b) The skill demands in the manufacturing and service sectors are changing continuously and youth with middle school education would meet these needs.
(c) A rehabilitation package for innovative re-skilling and for upgrading the occupational structure in the wake of liberalization is seen as an urgent need.
(iii) Employment and economic opportunities:
(a) Self-employment is the main source of income of Muslims. They are engaged more in self-employed manufacturing and trade activities compared to others.
(b) The share of Muslim workers engaged in street vending is the highest. More than 12 per cent of Muslim male workers are engaged in street vending as compared to the national average of less than 8 per cent.
(c) The percentage of women Muslim workers undertaking work within their own homes is much larger at 70 per cent compared to all workers at 51 per cent.
(d) The share of Muslims in the total workers engaged in the tobacco and textiles/garment related industries are quite significant.
(e) The share of Muslim workers in production related activities and transport equipment operation is much higher at 34%, as against 21% of all workers.
(f) More than 16 per cent of Muslims were engaged as sales workers, while the national average was only about 10 per cent.
(g) While the participation of Muslim workers is relatively higher in production and sales related occupations, their participation was relatively lower in professional, technical, clerical and to some extent managerial work.
(h) Muslims, by and large, are engaged in the unorganized sector of the economy and have to bear the brunt of liberalization.
(i) The participation of Muslims in regular salaried jobs is much less than workers of other socio-religious categories.
(j) Muslims are relatively more vulnerable in terms of conditions of work as their concentration in informal sector employment is higher and their job conditions, even among regular workers, are less for Muslims than those of other socio-religious communities.
(k) Percentage of households availing banking facilities is much lower in villages where the share of Muslim population is high.
(iv) Poverty and development (a)About 38 % of Muslims in urban areas and 27 % in rural areas live below the poverty level.(b) Muslims are concentrated in locations with poor infrastructure facilities. This affects their access to basic services like education, health facilities, transport, etc. (c) About a third of small villages with high concentration of Muslims do not have any educational institutions.
(d) There is a scarcity of medical facilities in larger villages with a substantial Muslim concentration. About 40% of large villages with a substantial Muslim concentration do not have any medical facilities. (e) Muslim concentration villages are not well served with pucca roads. (f) Policies to deal with the relative deprivation of the Muslims in the country should sharply focus on inclusive development and mainstreaming of the community while respecting diversity.
(v) Social conditions
(a) A community-specific factor for low educational achievement is that Muslims do not see education as necessarily translating into formal employment.
(b) The Muslim population shows an increasingly better sex ratio compared with other socio-religious communities.
(c) Infant and childhood mortality among Muslims is slightly lower than the average.
(d) There has been a large decline in fertility in all the religious groups including Muslims.
The secular forces blame the fundamentalists for such a crime but these fundamentalists have been emerging in the last couple of decades. The post independence era was dominated by a strong secular party. With such a well planned socio-economic genocide of Muslims clearly predicts the ideology of these real fundamentalists behind the masks of secularism. It has become an old tone now for these leaders to use Muslims and other minorities as a secular shield against their theorocratic neighbour.
The already existing worse economic condition of the Muslims added with time to tiem frequent riots in which authorities play an important role. The Shrikrishna Committee Report on the Babri Mosque demolition riots which followed gives a clear picture of the Indian authorities involvement in the organised massacre of Muslims in the country. The post Godhra riots in Gujarat was an example of this. Where not only the police force but the whole administrative machinery of the state was involved in the genocide of Muslims, on the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) radio this genocide was compared to that of Bosnia Herzegovina and Rwanda. The embassies and Diplomats residing in India did give an account of it. The German, Swiss and the British as well as the US diplomats voiced their concerned over it. The words which came out of the British embassy did shock the entire world as well as created furore in the Indian administration. It said that even if godhra incident had not taken place, they had received reports that the riots against the Muslim community was bound to take place. The riots came at such a time when the forces of both Pakistan and India were standing eyeball to eyeball to each other. It may be a message send across the borders that inspite of your forces standing in full action, we can go ahead further with the genocide of your fellow community and that we are not scared of any situation arising out of it whatsoever. The result of it was as expected from the Muslim community. The Akshardham incident and the blasts in the commercial city of Bombay from time to time especially in the Gujarati dominating areas and also targeting the Gujarati community were a clear signal of the confrontations to come.
With such a treatment given to the largest minority in the country, it will be very foolish on the part of the Indian Government to expect any patriotic mood to exist within the community. Except a handful of religious leaders the clerics who do not represent the real leadership of Muslims and act a puppet to the ruling parties at regular intervals. In such a situation of the community, they are bound to take help from Pakistan, for their security.
It will not be suprising to hear in the coming days that if besides Pakistan, any other country hostile towards India may starttaking advantage of the internal situation in India. If this is the confrontation and consequences with Pakistan, one cannot think of any conflict with the other giant China, any further skirmish with it and the result will be beyond imagination.
Chapter 8.
Threat from An Army Within.
Today another threat which India faces from within is the rising power of the Maoists naxalite movement. Around 1972 the first Naxalite flared –up which sparked in 1967 was largely suppressed, particularly in the urban centers of Bengal which some of the urban leadership from continued the rural activities, the movement became fractured and remained dormant for much of the next few decades. The more recent uprising in the last decade appears to be much wider and better organized and has, moreover, emerged within more distinct geographical or spatial perimeters.
In the 1990s and 2000s, the Maoist movement in India has arisen in the so called “Red Corridor” which occupies large swathes of hilly forest lands and is inhabited in large part by indigenous peoples. Even in the first phase, the Naxalites found their main support among the indigenous adivasis (tribal) communities such as the Santhals in Bengal – Bihar area and among Girjans in Andhra Pradesh.
The advent of the modern post colonial state seems to have focused the uprising to a still greater extent in this kind of peripheral geographical space. While the exploitation of these spares intensifies, the modern state apparatus and the agrarian social order appear to have a limited capacity to penetrate these areas. One might say that the exploitation of these regions is external and the people typically escape domination and interdependency on an everyday basis that is more common in agrarian society. As such they have a greater capacity for horizontal solidarity.
The intensification of uprising in the forested and indigenous regions in India in the recent period has to do with the deepening exploitation of forest resources that has accompanied the expansion of multinational and Indian capitalist interests with collusive state interests, particularly in the mining industry. Thus not only has the independent state neglected these communities, it is now contributing to the deprivation of the resources for their livelihood. Despite their relative isolation, the adivasi communities, are very conscious of heir modern rights not only in the local or India context, as a global phenomenon and movement. This awareness also reinforces the justness of their cause. (Prasanjit Durana, Economic & Political Weekly, April 30, 2011. Vol.XLVI No. 18).
Clearly India has spatial peripheries in the interior of the country, occupied by peoples more likely to take the insurgency than those within the agrarian heartland. This is both because they are economically oppressed and because they have the spatial capacity to develop horizontal solidarity by a powerful mobilizing organization. The modern Indian state is hardly like the weak Kuomintang state in the republican period. Even less does the situation resemble the period in China where the Japanese invasion alienated large segments of the population in both core and peripheral regions. Nonethless, unless the state and capitalist interests begin to pay due attention to the livelihood needs and dignity of the indigenous and marginal people, the “Red Corridor” will fester like a wide open gash streaking the body politics of the Indian Republic.
Taking their name from the Indian town of Naxalbari and inspired by Chinese leader Mao Zedong, Naxalites have advocated peasant revolt against India’s caste system and oppression by landlords and government officials in the state of Andhra Pradesh since 1968. Both government and rebel representatives suggest that the roots of this conflict are primarily economic. Andhra Pradesh is one of the poorest regions in India and suffers from extreme wealth inequality. Conflict over resources is growing with India’s increasing demand for coal-fired electricity. Some 85% of India’s coal reserves come from the five states most affected by Naxalites. Since India is still heavily reliant on coal, Naxalism puts almost half of India’s total energy supply at serious political risk, according to a report by the Insititute for the Analysis of Global Security in Washington. (The Christian Science Monitor, 1 May, 2007). Chhattisgarh is among a dozen Indian states where Maoists control large swathes of mineral rich foreszts and mountains, from where they attack government buildings and security forces. (Reuters India, November 25, 2008).
The Maoists say they are fighting for the rights of millions of India’s poor labourers and landless peasants in an insurgency that has killed thousands of people in India. ( Indian state orders probe into Maoist surrenders, Reuters, Monday 8, January 2007). The leftist insurgency is fuled by ineffective and corrupt governance, entrenched feudalism, and militant ideology, analysts say. At the heart, it’s a land war between the upper class and the lower class. The rebels survive through extortion of landowners and businessmen. They have redistributed 350,000 acres of farmland. (The Christian Science Monitor, October 29, 2003). Leaders cutting across party lines say that solution to the naxal problem could only come by accelerating development in the region, considered one of the most backward areas in the country. (The Hindustan Times, January 14, 2000).
In 1980 the insurgents, especially the militant Peoples War Group (PWG), began guerilla style attacks on police who responded with extra judicial massacre of suspected Naxalites in encounter killings. Incidents of the latter declined in 1995 and 1996 when the state government unilaterally refrained form many enforcement actions. Following continued Naxalites violence, the state renewed counter insurgency operations in August 1996, reintroduced a ban on the PWG first imposed in 1992, and allegedly established the “Green Tigers”” armed vigilante group to combat Naxalites.
In recent years, conflict casualties have escalated as combatants target not only rivals but also civilians suspected of supporting rivals. In late 2004, the PWG merged with the Maoist Communist Centre of India to form the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and fighting has spread to most of rural India outside Kashmir and the North East Indian state, with significant conflicts in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Chhatissgarh, Orissa, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Bihar and parts of Eastern Uttar Pradesh. In large parts of rural India the rebels form a parallel government including a parallel justice system and taxation that in many rural areas enjoys significant legitimacy. The rebels count on popular support among India’s numerous rural poor who sympathize with their anti – caste and anti – landlord politics. In response to rebel attacks, a government – allied civilian militia group called Salwa Judum, or “peace mission” was created in 2005. Reportedly supported by the state of Chhattisgarh, the group was responsible for a number of attacks on villagers throughout 2007. In 2008 reports of Salwa Judum abuses grew to the extent that in April, the Supreme Court of India ordered the National Human Rights Commission t investigate these reports.
The Naxalite’s ability to harass and terrorize, however does have an effect on India’s development. They can shut down certain roads at night and make a few districts like Dantewada of – limits for security reasons. But the greatest impact could be yet to come, as a growing thirst for electricity leads power companies toward the Naxalites remote strongholds. (The Christian Science Monitor, 1 May, 2007). More than 6,000 people have died during the rebels decades long fight for a communist state in parts of India. (BBC News, December 19, 2007).
According to the Home Affairs Annual Report, 76 districts in the nine states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh Uttar Pradesh and west Bengal were affected by Naxalite violence. ( Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, India, 2008, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, US Department of State). From January to June 2009, India saw 1,128 incidents of violence related to the Maoist insurgency. The first accounts of Maoist violence
came on April 16, the first day of the country’s month long elections and continued as voting ended on May 16, Maoists had called for a boycott of the elections and sought to sabotage them by setting off landmines, snatching ballot boxes and destroying voting machines.
Fears have begun to mount that the Maoist threat is increasing. It is estimated that the group has 22,000 members and has been described by India’s prime Minister as the biggest threat to internal security. In June, Maoists took control of Lagarh region in west Bengal. The government responded with Operation Lalgarh to reclaim the area. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh admitted in September that the police campaign against the Maoists is largely unsuccessful and that violence is on the rise in many states. N October 9, the government announced a new anti Maoist offensive. The operation would include the deployment of 0,000 paramilitary troops targeting top Maoist leadership. Maoists continued to launch attacks targeting trains, railways and other infrastructure. The government responded with plans to launch “Operation Green Hunt” which began in March 2010. The plan is to send troops into former no – go zones deep in the forests, rid them of militants, then build schools, hospitals and other infrastructure. A massive offensive was also launched in mid- January 2010 spanning five states. Some 100,000 troops are set to be deployed.
The Communist Party of India (Maoist), created after 2004 merger of the Peoples War Group (PWG) and the Maoists Communist Centre, is the largest Maoist rebel group in conflict with the government. Members of the Communist Party of India and other smaller Maoist groups call themselves Naxalites after the Indian town of Naxalbari where their movement began more than 25 years ago. Naxalites are belived to number about 22,000 (Source: Reuters India “Q + A – How Big a Threat are the Maoists in India?” April 19, 2009), and are ctive on a loarge scale in as many as 13 of India’s 28 states, mainly Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Maharashtra, orissa and Chhattisgarh. The Andhra Pradesh state government banned the PWG in 1992 and renewed this ban in August, 2006. The Naxalite movement includes a number of other autonomous groups such a Revolutionary Youth Forum and the Parakala Dalam.
According to the state Police establishment, Chhattisgarh is home to roughly 10,000 highly militarized Maoists who are backed by another 35,000 – 40,000 sangham cadres. (Chhattisgarh Assessment 2009, South Asia Terrorist Portal).
Chapter 9.
Across The Himalayas
There has always been a phobia of Pakistan projected by the Indian leaders. If it does exist, then there has to be something to think about the Asian giant. When the former US President Bill Clinton visited India, one of the Indian expectations from the US administration was to view India as one of the regional powers of the world, somewhat to counter balance with China. But had the Indian leaders realized the fact and position their country stands in compared to their neighbour across the Himalayas, they would have never raised their expectations to such a high level.
If we compare the two nieghbours, India outnumbered by China not only in size of area and population but also in almost each and every field. This is the case whether it is the military superiority or the performance on economic front,
its overall infrastructural development or the industrial output, the average annual rate of growth for which is twice in compared to India.
Its crude oil production is six times higher than that of India and its overall agrarian sector is well balanced and organized compared to their southern counterparts.
The flourishing of tourism industry can be analysed with tourists visiting China are nearly seventeen times greater and the foreign exchange earnings from tourism alone accounts for nearly three times more than that of India.
The inflow of FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) in China is nearly eleven times more than India and its foreign exchange reserves is double than that of the latter.
Despite of praising the democratic structure of the Indian government and abuse of human rightsperformance of the authoritarian regime in China, the Western investors are more interested in the latter. It is because of their faith in the overall economic performance and the increasing returns under the stable administration whereas here in India there is always a cloud of uncertainty which creates a doubt in the investor’s minds.
One of the main disadvantages which India faces are the increasing tensions with its neighbours, compared to which the Chinese tension seems to be only with Taiwan. The importance given to China can bee seen after the failure of talks between the European Union representatives and their Chinese counterparts in the year 2000 on trade agreements on which the US advised their fellow westerners to resume talks if they are to get maximum benefit from the region. In another incident in April 2001 when an American Toohey spy plane dashed two Chinese fighter jets, in which one pilot was killed and the other succeeded in landing safely. The US plane was forced to land on the Hainan province and in spite of US objection its crew members were released after interrogation and the plane was checked by the Chinese authorities. This show the strength of China when on any occasions the US succumbs to Chinese demands as the former is aware of the stre4ngth of the new emerging super power as well as its dependence on trade with that country.
There has always been a worry about India’s concern with Pakistani military built up. But very little stress is given on the Chinese front. When Defense Minister George Fernandes openly declared China as enemy no.1 during the Pokhran explosion in 1998, to a far extent it is true as far as the ratio of nuclear stockpiles are concerned. Some opposition and even the ruling members of his cabinet interrupted him instead of supporting him, clearly shows their attitude of avoiding any confrontation and its consequences in the aftermath of the clash.
India has still not recovered from the shock of the humiliating defeat it suffered at the hands of China in 1962 and the policy of avoiding any misadventure with the Red Army still continue. It all began in the mid- 1950s when Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru being encouraged by Western world who had a misconception that democratic India could be used well enough to contain the communist China. After China’s conquest of Tibet in 1950 and India providing base for the exile Tibetan government, the seeds of bitter rivalry had already been sown. There were reports that the Nehru
government did actively went ahead with the plans of westerners for setting up of training camps for armed Tibetan youths to be trained for militancy and to attack the Chinese posts across the Himalayan range in the plains of Tibet. The task which was similar to what Pakistan is doing in Kashmir. But for the Indians, the Chinese seemed to be far ahead not only in military strength but also in intelligence. Before the Indians could go ahead with their plans, the Chinese raised the border questions and territorial claims which finally resulted in the 1962 border clashes between the two.
The Indians lost 43,000 Sq. Kms of its territory to China, in the North Eastern region of Kashmir. One of the most sordid events in India’s national history; the military debacle in the year 1962 was the outgrowth of many factors which included:
The placing of the destiny of the post independence Indian army in the hands of a western oriented top brass lacking the necessary experiences, professionalism and national commitment. Thus causing heart burning in the thinking sections of the Army.
The existence of large – scale groupism and eliques operating in a big way within the Indian Army.
No physical inspection of the border areas by the senior army commanders, which led to confusion at the lower levels virtually no ground reconnaissance, improper appreciation of tactical difficulties, and ad – hoc and irregular patrolling of the border areas.
The excellent use of Monpa tribe by the Chinese as spies in NEFA (North East Frontier Agency). Large scale sabotage, organized in a most subtle manner by the Chinese, with participants
planted in the army contingent at NEFA.
Relations did run in hot waters for three decades with China’s continues help to Pakistanimilitary build up and also to its nuclear development. China also refused to recognize Sikkim as part of India after the latter’s annexation of the tiny Kingdom in 1975. Though recently it has agreed to recognize it but at the cost of Tibet.
The Chinese went ahead with territorial clams of NEFA the name of which was changed by Indian authorities to Arunachal Pradesh. There was a bit war of words and as reported Chinese forces did move towards its Southern borders in 1987, but after a brief negotiation the tension were eased between the two. The Indians adapted the policy of ignorance and neglect in the lst decade to avoid any confrontation, by not raising its concern on the happenings of Tiananmen Square in 1989 and the human rights situation in Tibet and elsewhere in China. Though the trade ties between the two has increased tremendously in the last decade of 1990s, with both countries entering in to agreements with each other in many fields. The traditional culture of doubts and suspicion still moves around despite the visit by leaders from both sides to each other’s countries.
Despite of the claims by Indian leaders of improvements in relations between the two and that there is no immediate threat from the other side; incidents have been reported in recent past which mayh turn the avalanche around the Himalayan ranges. Somewhere in 2002 there was a report of two Indian patrol boats being sunk by Chinese in the disputed lake in Ladakh. The built up of Chinese Air Force strength at Lhasa airport and also a complained was launched by the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh to the Defence Minister George Fernendes of increasing military activity on the Chinese side of the issues on which the ministry did not took it seriously. On 23 June, 2003, when the then Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee was on a visit to China, the Chinese forces entered the Indian territory and forced to quit the Indian rangers across the Yume bridge in Arunachal Pradesh. IN this incident the Chinese came in full force and the Indians were forced to quit 15 posts without firing a single shot. (CBI Deputy director J.S. Negi reported to Prime Minister, Cabinet Secretary, DEfence headquarters, No. D.I.V.U.O.3/B Intelligence/2003 (11) Dt:1.07.2003). (Sahara Samay, Hindi Newspaper, 26, July 2003).
The External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha, in his inaugural address at an Asian Security Conference focusing onchina, organized by New Delhi based institute of Defence Studies and Analysis said that China’s position on sikkim and India’s permanent seat in the United Nation Security council “sow doubts.” The visit by dissident Tibetan leader Karmappa Lama too created a thaw in the relation of two nieghbours. Tibet Youth Congress, which has a large following, have spoken against the government in exile for not opposing the stand taken by the Indian Government on Tibet during Prime Minister Atal behari Vajpayee’s visit to China in June 2003. Tibet Youth Congress President Kalsang Phunestok has been quoted as sayings that his group was not afraid to even take up to guerilla activites against the Chinese forces in Tibet to defy the Dalai Lama. (The Asian Age, 5 July, 2003). In the monsoon session of the Parliament on 19th August 2003, the opposition Congress leader Sonia Gandhi too mentioned about Indian Prime Minister succumbing to the Chinese by aceepting Tibet as an integral part of China.
In the year 2002 Channel News Asia in its broadcast gave a news of visit by India’s top Air Force officials to Taiwan where they had a meeting with their Taiwanese counterparts, this too created doubts in the mainland China as the island had already created rift with the US for its supply of arms to eh island and now India too may be on the list. The details of discussion between the Taiwanese and Indian officials in this meeting were not disclosed.
Under its ‘Ring of Pearls’ Policy China had been surrounding India from all sides. Its economic and military policy for near abroad countries by engaging them with its influence has been in progress in the past few years. The inclusion of Burma (Myanmmar), China’s closest ally in the ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nation) group ignoring the Western criticism and China’s agreement with the ASEAN group to form China – ASEAN economics forum indicates its influence in the region is of great concern for the US and India. After the creation of Bangladesh it was considered that the bay of Bengal was fully under the control of Indian navy and it was true in the decades of 70s, 80s and even early 90s. But in the late 90s there have been reports of China’s growing military links with Bangladesh. Its relation with trouble torn island nation of Sri Lanka was confined to supply of military hardware only but after successful armed victory of Sri Lanka over LTTE guerillas in which there were reports of active support of both China and Pakistan to Sri Lanka armed forces. In return for which the Chinese did receive military bases of Hambantota and another place. There island archipelago of Maldives has also
allowed China to built a military base. The closeness of China and Burmese ties can be analysed that besides its economic and military exchanges, Burma has now allowed China to built up a naval base on its Coco island just on the Northern tip of Andaman and Nicobar islands. There4 was also reports of Chinese naval bases in the two coastal towns of Burma with which they will be able to keep an eye on the activities of the Indians in the Bay of Bengal, in the Coco island the Chinese had also installed their listening post to be watchful on the Indian Missile Programme being carried out in Orissa.
Besides these China had already built up a joint naval base in the Pakistani port city of Gwadar according to the agreement between the two countries. According to Indian sources some 12,000 Chinese troops has already been stationed on the Pakistani side of Kashmir facing India. China has increased its military ties with Malaysia and Indonesia as well as to face the pirates in order to save the Chinese ships from attacks it has increased its naval activity in the Indian Ocean as according to one estimate nearly 80% of China’s trade takes place through the Strait of Malacca. To reduce this dependency China is searching for a new route for its trade and the increasing importance of Pakistan to China is seen as China building of Gwadar port is one of the factor for China to reach the Arabian and Gulf countries as well as Africa through Arabian Sea through Pakistan which is the main concern and a nightmare for India. China has also increased its military activity in the Tibet region and is also moving close to Nepal economically, militarily and also to some extent politically.
On Israeli Prime Minister Sharon’s visit to India in September 2003, there was a possibility of Israel selling Barak anti – missile, Phalcon AWACs and electronic warefare systems. Arrow missile was also on negotiation. Under an agreement reached between the two countries:
Israel is training 3,000 Indian soldiers in anti – insurgency operation. India signed a $30 million deal for 3,400 Tavor assault rifles, 200 Galil Sniper rifles, night vision
and laser range finding and targeting equipment. Israel will upgrade MiG 21s, supply avionics for MiG 27s, UAVs, laser – guided bomb and
thermal images. 2 Elta Green Pine radar systems and Phalcon and possible arrival of Early Warning Systems
from Israel. HAL and IAI ato jointly market the advanced light helicopter (ALH).
Strategic Vision
In the war o terrorism, Israel and India have increased the exchange of intelligence. Jewish and Indian lobbies are working together in the US to further common goals. The main goal to counter Muslim extremism and China. (India Toady, August 4, 2003).
The concern leveled in Pakistan had ratcheted up dangerously if India buys large quantities ofarms from Israel. Arab nations too had concerns over India’s closeness to Israel and Iran wondered whether this will dry up its own ties with New Delhi. But the development was watched more carefully and with interest by china on India’s defence acquisitions from Israel. China buys the same aircraft and the same ships from Russia tat India does, but it will be superior Israeli avionics if inducted in the Indian arsenal that will make all the difference.
China’s increasing activity around India are the real concern for the Indians as in future any conflict with China will not be confined to eh Himalayan ranges and Glaciers, the Chinese threat will also be from Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea. According to an IAF report that it is its responsibility to protect vital installation in the country, but its missile systems are getting older. It has at least 30 years old missiles with which it is forced to defend. If in the near future, it does not get new missiles, nearly 50% of these vital installations will become vulnerable to every fighter jets. (NDTV 24 x 7 report, 11 July, 2003). Keeping in view of these Defence lapses the Indian parliament had approved Rs:6,000 crores (US $45 billion ) for the purchase of AJT (Advanced jet Trainers), but these will be considered a more token as against which the Chinese Air Force four times larger than the Indian Air Force is under going technological change rapidly. Chinese Air Force becoming stronger and technologically advanced, the technology may be passed on to the Pakistan Air Force, as well are the signs of future threats to the Indians. The day Indian parliament announced of the approval to purchase AJTs (Advanced jet Trainers), on the same day there were news from both Islamabad and Beijing of a successful test being carried out of a new fighter jet FU – 17 jointly produced by China and Pakistan as an answer to new Delhi. On 13th December 2003, Pakistan launched its first locally built submarine, which according to sources received help from China as far as its spare parts manufacturing is concerned.
In the recent past there are reports coming in of China slowly moving on the verge of becoming another super power as the gap between the United States and China is decreasing day by day. With its increasing economic and military strength as well as China’s increasing role in Asia and Africa and its increasing influence in Europe, North and Latin America, are signs of a shift in the new world order. Also the United States is confused in its foreign policy as it is seen in the Gulf and North Africa but on the other hand China is firm on its foreign policy and also on its aims and goals in various regions. In the last few years it has also been observed that India too had been soft on any matter related to US as it its expectation from the lone super power is too much as far its economic needs are concerned. That is the reason India had been succumbing to US pressure on many occasion but on the other hand China had been clearly defining its policies in order to achieve not only short but long term aims and objectives.In this context China’s close cooperation with Pakistan in South Asia is a matter for worry for India. This is happening at a time when according to Chinese expert on International Affairs, it will be in China’s interest if India is divided into twenty different regions is a clear proof of China’s intention for India in the near future.
Chapter 10.
Gearing up for a Nuclear Race
In the year 1974 when India conducted its first nuclear test at Pokhran, inspite of the declaration by India that it was for a peaceful purpose and that it has no intention of using it for defence matters, across the border it was taken as an act of aggression.
Pakistan which had not yet recovered from the shock of the loss of its Eastern wing, took it very seriously as was expected. Though the test was a peaceful one it had come at a time when Pakistan was
gathering its conventional strength, was now forced to thing about the nuclear technology as well as for its neighbour China who had already gone nuclear, till then had threats form its neighbour Soviet Union in the North and in the Korean peninsular from the Americans, now began to direct its attention towers its southern borders.
After the 1973 war in which Israelis suffered defeat at the hands of Egypt, it was reported that Israel had in fact ordered assembly of the nuclear weapons before the United States intervened and dissuaded them from further action. This was the period when along with the flow of conventional arms, nuclear technologies between states began to play an important part in the international political game. The ideology of Zionism, the militant character of the Zionist state and the continues flow of Western arms to Israel were all considered potent challenges by revivalist Islam, just as the occupation of Jerusalem were regarded as deliberate humiliation inflicted on Muslims. The unilateral peace treaty concluded by Egypt with Israel under the auspices of the United States had further deepened this sense of frustration and hurt the pride of Muslim nations. It must be borne in mind that underlying this peace treaty was Egyptian recognition that Israel had gone nuclear and that nuclear Israel was unbeatable in war.
According to the Arabs, Israel in many ways was an extension of the United States. Therefore the real power of Israel, both economic and military lies in the United States. Further more, the Arabs knew all about the American role in the nuclear arming of Israel. In this situation, it had become a necessity for the Arabs to reach out for the symbol of power in the international system namely, nuclear weapons.
Various reports in the late 1070s suggested that Arab leaders had for some years been looking for opportunities to develop a nuclear option. Colonel Gaddafi of Libya sent his Prime Minister, Major Jalloud, to China in 1971 on a special mission to but nuclear weapons from that country. Earlier he had approached president Pompidou of France for the same purpose. The Arab quest for nuclear weapons had to be understood in this context that the Middle – Eastern military balance, which had always been predominantly in favor of Israel, was further tipped in the latter’s favor by the introduction of the nuclear factor.
The Arabs had adequate money. On the conventional front, there was no problem in acquiring sophisticated weaponry from the West, since the West was only too eager to recycle some of the mounting reserves of petro – dollars by selling back arms. But till then conventional weapon superiority was not good enough though even this had persistently eluded them, because the United States had ensured that Israel would always have superiority in this respect and the nuclear ambition could only be a dream.
Two factors turned this dream in to a foreseeable reality. The Arab nations Saudi Arabia and Libya in particular and their close ally the other non- Arab Muslim nations especially Pakistan came to a conclusion that it was possible to develop an Islamic nuclear option. Secondly, the Pakistani civilian nuclear programme had till then reached such a level of sophistication that it was possible for Pakistani
scientists, with the facilities available to them, to embark on a weapons programme if only it could be supported financially by the oil rich Arab countries.
There was no direct evidence of either Saudi Arabia or Libya or any other Arab country having actively collaborated with Pakistan on the nuclear project, in any case they had the manpower but its industrial infrastructure till then was not adequate enough to participate directly in a Nuclear weapons programme. However, Saudi Arabia and Libya had been the major financial supporter of Pakistan in this venture. Both countries had a common though not necessarily a shared interest in nuclearising the Arab world. The Libyan leader was noted both for his fanatical anti-zionist fervour and his claim to the leadership of the Arab world; and Saudi Arabia considered itself the rightful guardian of a future Islamic bomb because, after all, it exercised guardian ship over Islam itself.
The other major development which nurtured the idea of an Islamic bomb was the global proliferation of nuclear technology, materials and components. Most of the components for the fabrication of fissile material were available in the open market, thanks to the loopholes in the Non- proliferation Treaty in which the sponsors, the Nuclear weapons powers, exempted themselves from all Nuclear safeguards. Pakistan, through its nuclear scientists abroad and its covert industrial connection, and the Arabs through their oil and money connections, had considerable leverage in the European nuclear markets to get access to the required materials.
In the circumstances of mid – 70s the Muslim countries had a consideration on the manufacturing of an Islamic bomb. Pakistan had been pursuing both routes of plutonium device or uranium one on the path of its achievement of the task. Although Pakistan’s attempt to get a nuclear reprocessing plant from France for chemical separation of plutonium from spent fuel had been temporarily halted, it came to light that Pakistan had also been buying components for a uranium enrichment facility. Pakistan in those days had kept three choices. Either a plutonium device with fissile material obtained by means of a separation plant, a uranium bomb through an enrichment facility and fabrication of a bomb with fissile material.
The policy makers of the Muslim world had a common perception of the Pakistani Islamic bomb to have the following repercussions:
(i) The full- scale invasion and occupation of Arab countries by Israel can be deterred.(ii) A Nuclear reprisal by Israel to a concerted Arab offensive would also be deterred.(iii) Any threat either by the American or any other pressured can be easily faced by the oil
rich Arab states.(iv) The Israelis will have a psychological fear for PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation)
having access to any such a device will be an advantage to all the Arabs. (v) As far as the Pakistani nuclear weapon is concerned it would deter India from carrying
out any conventional attack against any Pakistani offensive say on disputed Kashmir.
(vi) If Islamic nuclearisation becomes a reality it will strengthen the solidarity of Muslim world right from Middle – East to North Africa and the Mediterranean and from South Asian, Central Asia to the Balkans and Caucasius.
Pakistan had for long been considered a potential nuclear weapon power; and policy wise, it hadkept out of not only the Non-proliferation Treaty, but also the Partial Test Ban Treaty. Pakistan had always created an image of having linked its policy with that of India. The Pakistanis had easily convinced the Western world for its justifiable reaction to India’s nuclear policy and it was proven to be true after the 1971 war. This Pakistani move also diverted United States and its allies to have a convenient leverage to apply pressure on India.
India claimed that it had gone far ahead of Pakistan as far as the nuclear technology and its weapons upgradation is concerned. It had also announced that its programme began to take shape as far back as 1950s. In reality along with China and India in their respective Nuclear potentialities in Asia, Pakistan too was not far behind in this race.
Pakistan’s Nuclear programme began in 1953, when the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission was set up. The committee was entrusted with the following tasks:
(1). The survey of radio – active minerals.
(2). Working out a plan for the establishment of an Institute of Atomic Energy in Pakistan and
(3). Making recommendation on all connected with the utilization of atomic Energy.
In 1956 the Atomic Energy Committee was upgraded to the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (P.A.E.C.) and the Commission son made arrangements for the training of a large number of scientists in radio sotopes and reactor. The 5W “swimng pool” reactor was subsequentlyh set up in 1963 with the assistance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.). In the second five year plan a sum of Pakistani Rs: 46.5 million was earmarked for the atomic energy programme. During the next few years till 1968, Pakistan’s expenditure on nuclear development amounted to Pakistani Rs: 324 million.
The P.A.E.C. principal research center, the Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology (PINSTECH) at Nelore in Islamabad is to Pakistan what the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (B.A.R.C.) is to India; it was designed to be the country’s leading research and training center. The P.A.E.C. had also set up center of research at Lahore, Tandojam, Jamshore Karachi, Rawalpindi and Multan. In erstwhile East Pakistan too it had already set up in Dacca and Roopur, which was to be constructed with Belgian aid before the 1971 crisis. In 1967 the first batch of radio – isotopes was produced in the PINSTECH, which had since been able to produce a number of radio – isotopes like Potassium 42 Iodine 131, phosphorous 32 and Sodium 24, intensive research on the application of radio – isotopes in industry, agriculture and medicine was going on in these centers.
The center at Lahore, established in 1961, had a 14 MW neutron generator, a natural uranium light water sub - critical assembly and a 13,000 curie Cobalt 60 source. Till then Pakistan had also entered into agreement for cooperation in the field of Nuclear energy with a number of countries including Canada, the United States, France and some extent Soviet Union.
Pakistan’s first nuclear power plant (KANUPP) had a capacity of 137 MW and located some 15 miles west of Karachi at paradise point on the Buleji coast, was built on a turnkey basis by the Canadian General Electronic Company and was inaugurated in 1972. Canada granted a soft loan of US$ 23 million and a credit of another US$ 24 million to cover the foreign exchange cost of this plant. Japan provided a credit of US$ 3.6 million for a turbe generator. The reactor used the loss expensive and more readily available natural uranium as fuel and heavy water a moderator. It was lightly smaller version of India’s RAPPI at Rana Pratap Sagar. This plant was under I.A.E.A. safeguards. Canada abrogated its nuclear cooperation agreement with Pakistan in December 1976 because of Pakistan’s refusal to agree to full scope safeguards. However, the I.A.E.A. safeguards continued to apply.
In June 1973 the government of Pakistan announced that a plan for nuclear desalination of seawater and the production of energy had been approved. It was also reported that Pakistan had plans to set up a 13 tonne heavy water plant. Dr. Munir Ahmed Khan, former Chairman of P.A.E.C. was an ardent advocate of an ambitious nuclear power programme. In matters of energy Pakistan till then had the following constraints: low consumption of energy but a large potential requirement in the future: abundant hydro – electric potential, it was clear that an enhanced nuclear energy programme was not economically viable to that country. Its hydro – electric potential can, according to some estimates of that time, place Pakistan even in the position of a power exporter. Deposits of uranium had been noted in Gilgit, Dera Ghazi Khan and southern Punjab.
In Dr. Munir Ahmed Khan’s words, Pakistan within a few years would be self sufficient in uranium, a pilot plant with a capacity of 100 pounds a day had been set up in Lahore. It was also reported that work on a fuel fabrication facility with Canadian aid was in progress. The most significant help to Pakistan’s nuclear programme came from its closest ally China especially in the 1980s and 90s.
Furthermore, close friendship with the Organisation of Petroleum Countries (O.P.E.C.) enabled Pakistan to import oil at subsidized rates, and natural gas was also reportedly imported from Iran at comparatively low price. Thus, Pakistan’s decision to go in for a massive power reactor programme was certainly not based on economic considerations. Whatever financial hurdle s it faced in its project was similarly met by its adversary India too.
Weapons grade plutonium Kg
Low Medium Heavy
Pakistan 280 400 600
India 5 15 45
Weapons Capacity
Low Medium Heavy
Pakistan 35 60 95
India 40 70 120
Source: French based Centre for Nuclear studies.
Chapter 11
Positioned for Retaliation
The Indians who were engaged in the built up of its nuclear powers from energy sources to arsenals with the help of Soviet technology during the 1970s and 1980s, on the other hand Pakistan too was busy preparing up to meet any nuclear misadventure. Pakistan, now began to divert its strength and
attention from already full fledged nuclear energy producing plants to manufacturing and designing of its weapons programme.
Observers of the Pakistani nuclear scene were not surprised, therefore when Indian Foreign Minister revealed in Parliament in March 1979 that the Government of India had learned through its own sources that Pakistan’s nuclear intentions were not entirely peaceful, though this was the first ever official admission by the Indian government that Pakistan was seeking a weapons option. It will be recalled that in November 1978, a leader member of Parliament asked the British prime Minister for information regarding supply of certain materials by a British company to Pakistan. These component, he alleged could be used to build a gas centrifuge plant for uranium enrichment. Pakistan declared that these components, called “frequency inverters,” were bought for use in a textile mill.
The Indian Government also revealed that it had come to know about certain clandestine purchase by Pakistan of other nuclear related equipment in Europe. Prime Minister Morarji Desai had earlier written to both President Zia – ul – Haq of Pakistan and Prime Minister Callaghan of Britain about these matters, though to no satisfactory purpose. President Zia – ul – Haq promptly replied to Morari Desai reterating that Pakistan’s atomic energy programme was peaceful. The British Prime Minister replied saying that such transfers of equipment had been banned. Meanwhile, reports indicated that Pakistan had already bought the required components and were in the process of setting up a uranium enrichment plant at Kahuta, near Rawalpindi as a military project, independent of Department of Atomic energy. The United States, which had been in the forefront of the crusade against proliferation, did not but reached to Pakistan’s clandestine attempts to acquire nuclear bomb once it had come out into the open. This they did in 1979.
The Islamic background of the bomb was particularly important. The Pakistani press and government officials did accused the Jewish lobby in the United states for putting pressure on the administration to twist Pakistan’s arm and have characterized the move as one directed against the Islamic nuclear capability. The United States knew well that its decision to cut off economic aid, amounting to a paltry $85 million in two years, was not going to restrain Pakistan, which would promptly be compensated by its Arab financers, and indeed this was exactly what happened. The American gesture was merely a token.
The United States renewed the earlier Kissinger offer to modern fighter aircraft to Pakistan if it gave up the bomb option and opened up all facilities for International inspection. The motive for this American move was to be traced to their obsession that all Pakistani moves were related to its fear of India and an inadequate appreciation of the Islamic nature of the effort, that is, to countervail the Israeli nuclear capability.
In spite of the assurances given by United States and other Western countries in words and in term of supply of military hardware, Pakistanis declared that they cannot trust anyone when the actual crisis takes place. They had gone the experience of 1971. Their country was broken into two by India. The United States sending of the Seventh fleet in the Bay of Bengal was just considered a moral rather
than a practical support. There are many laws and bye-laws standing in front of the White House, but there was not transfer of arms to Pakistan directly or indirectly to defend its Eastern Wing. Some even considered the United States under pressure from the Jewish lobby. Pakistan did what it required to produce nuclear arsenal.
In 1974 explosion there was no answer from across the border, but in 1998 Pakistan went for 5 nuclear explosions for India’s 4. Around the world there were predictions and doubts about Pakistan’s ability to sustain economic sanctions. They were aware of its. Just before the blast, a Pakistani delegation did visit China and had an important discussion which was not disclosed. It was clear, that as expected the West will impose sanctions against Pakistan as it had done just a week ago against its adversary India. At that time it will be China which will come to their rescue economically. No doubt today if Pakistan is considered as a nuclear power in the world along with India, it is not just for its mere explosion but also for its capability to retaliate if attacked by its enemy.
Some experts even considered that India did not retaliate with its full capacity in the Kargil war just for fear of being dragged into a nuclear conflict. The Pakistanis till then had acquired enough arsenal to face its huge neighbor. According to one estimate till then in 1999 India had some 25 missiles ready to launch each with some 1,500 to 2,500 kms of range against Pakistan’s 10 missiles with similar range; China on the other hand possessed some 300 missiles with maximum range of 15,000 kms. According to India media itself there were reports of some secret transfer of ready made missiles from China and Pakistan, if its is true, then the Indian concern for not engaging the Pakistanis conventionally or in a nuclear war was a matter to think over.
The Indian missile coverage areas include the whole of Pakistan and extending beyond it to Afghanistan in the North, Iran in the West and even parts of China in the East especially the Tibet region. The Pakistani missiles too cover the Indian territories up to West Bengal in the East and Kerala in the South. According to G. Parthasarathy (The Indian Express, April 21, 2003), with Chinese help of transfer of nuclear and missile technology, Pakistan have acquired the capability to target the Indian cities as far as Calcutta and Thiruvananathapuram. The Chinese missile system have a range beyond one’s imagination, they cover the Indian territory and goes further ahead as far as south of Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean, till the tip of Indonesia.
Crossing the Himalayas again the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), spurred b a double digit hike in its budget for the 14th straight year, is galloping ahead with its modernization programme. (Rajat Pandit, The Times of India, 27th June, 2003). These range from inducting solid fuel mobile Inter Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) like the 8,000 kms – range ‘DF – 31’ to under taking new generation fighter aircraft production projects. The Defence Ministry itself says, “Every major Indian city is within the reach of Chinese missiles and this capability is being further augmented to include submarine launched ballistic missiles.”
Apart from aiding Pakistan, China’s up gradation of its strategic capabilities, its growing military presence in the Indian ocean and the construction of “road, rail and air heads” in Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) continue to cause concern here. The ongoing 1,1118 kms railway project to link Gormoin, Qinghai province in mainland China with Lhasa in Tibet, for instance will enhance the induction and sustenance capability of Chinese troops in TAR. India’s strategy is to continue efforts to achieve “didduasive capability against China. Towards this goal, New Delhi also plans to test the China specific 3,000 kms plus ‘Agni – III’ missile by the end of 2003 or by early 2004.
India may have acquired Sukhoi – 30 mk I fighters to hit targets deep inside China, but the six times larger PLA Air Force is still several steps ahead. Apart from inducting SU – 27s and SU – 30 mkk fighters, the PLAAF (People’s Liberation Army Air Force) has several ongoing fighter production programmes. It is was expected that by the next two decades, the PLA Air Force (PLAAF) will replace its ageing fleet of 4,500 1950s – era planes with about 600 Sukhoi SU – 27 and SU – 30 nculear capability fighter – bombers and 300 units each of the indegginous J-10 and Super – 7 fighters. (Jehangir Pocha in Beijing, India Toaday, December 8, 2003). China is also said to be developing a stealth fighter, currently called J – X. Significantly, the PLAAF is also acquiring force multipliers such as aerial tankers, airborne early warning and control aircraft and electronic intelligence platforms.
At sea, China is pursuing its dream of possessing a blue – water navy by buying four 6,000 tonne Sovremenny – class ships from Russia. Five indigenous LU Hu and LU Hai – class destroyers are also under construction. China is also acquiring eight of Russia’s eerily silent kilo – class submarines and replacing its five rusty nuclear attck submarines (SSNs) with the new Model 093SSNs. It will also replace its solitary nuclear – powered aircraft carriers is also being considered. The changes will leave the PLA Navy (PLAN) substantially larger and more potent than Indian Navy.
On land President Hu Jin Taos’ move to deduce the 2.5 million army by about 10 per cent is not designed to diminish it, but to turn it into a learner and meaner force. Special mission units are being created and new weapons systems are entering service in large numbers. About 350 CSS short – range ballistic missiles are also being deployed across the country, mostly opposite Taiwan and China replacing its land based nuclear arsenal of about 20 DF – 5 intercontinental ballistic missiles with an estimated 60 longer – range, multiple warhead versions of the DF – 5.
`In the past two ears China has extensively modernized its military both in equipment and in thinking. For a nation that claims no military ambitions, the scale of the modernization is stupefying. Analysts estimate that by the next two decades PLA wil be the world’s second most powerful conventional force.
Robert Karnial, the Asia editor for Janes’ Defence Weekly and a grand sage of Asian military matters, says the 1991 Gulf war awakened China to the fact that the Maoist idea of the “People’s War,” where an endless stream of infantry subdued an opponent, was obsolete. Now, he says, china is
determined to achieve deterrence against the US, both to defend itself and to project itself as a global power.
Source: Duncan Lennox ed. Jane’s Strategic Weapon systems (Coulsdon, Surrey, Jane’s Information Group, 1990); The Artillery Journal 1990.
Chapter 12
Implication of Hot Pursuit
It has been announced from time to time by the Indian Defense Minister and other leaders that the hot pursuit is an option. But when it will be in actual action and that how far they can carry on no
one is aware of it. The decision seems to be uncertain. In such a situation any such move without a proper direction may create havoc.
The operation of hot pursuit was itself an uncertain decision as because of which twice the forces were send to the front and ordered to return. According to he Indian authorities the hot pursuit action will be confined to destroy the militant camps across the LoC but the question then arises as to how much intelligence do the Indians have as far as the location of training camps are concerned. One report also say that the training camps are being shifted from time to time by the Pakistani army and that it is very difficult without proper intelligence to recognize whether it is the training camps or the army post.
Even if the Indians get the exact knowledge of the training camps if not from their own may be fro some other sources say the Mozart ( Israeli Intelligence), then there is a question of how to target it. It is not the Taliban headquarters for US air force or the Palestinian guerilla camps for the Israeli forces where the opponent is in no position to retaliate. There the attackers go unscratched, but in this case the opponent is strong enough to retaliate. The possibilities in which the Indians can attack these camps will be met by retaliatory measures from across the borders. If these camps are attacked by missiles there is s a possibility of these missiles being shot down by the anti-missile-missile of the enemy. They may also respond in the form of their own missile attack. If air power is used, the opposition too can shoot down one of the jets, as they did in the Kargil conflict. There will also be threat of the Pakistan Air Force’s retaliatory bombardment on Indian positions. Another possibility discussed was about the use of commandos in which there will be a danger of some of them being caught. In such a situation the action of hot pursuit will be of great risk. As already declared by the Pakistani authorities that any move to cross the LoC will be taken by them as an act of aggression and that there will be no hesitation from their side to start a full scale war.
In all these developments discussed the role of the lone super power cannot be ignored. The day India crosses the LoC or the first Indian bomb is dropped on Pakistani soil, the immediate reaction will be from the United States. Pakistan is equally an important ally for the United States in South Asia as Israel is for the US in the Middle-east. Even in the past it had come for the formers rescue whenever it was threatened by external aggression. In today’s scenario besides its geo-strategic location and the role it played during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and what it is doing now in the war against terror by acting as a frontline state, it is from here that the Americans are toady in full control of Afghanistan as well as Central Asia.
In 1990 too when both countries were on the verge of war, the US clearly stated that it will go against the country which will attack first, in that case the option to attack lies with India, on the other hand Pakistan is the only Muslim country besides Turkey, on which the Western attitude had been soft. Whether it is the gathering of conventional strength or the collections of nuclear stockpiles are concerned, the US if not directly, had indirectly helped the Pakistani authorities to go ahead with their plans by ignorance and neglect of transfer of weapons technology from China to Pakistan.
Even in today’s scenario the American pressure is not much on the transfer of missile and nuclear exchange between Pakistan and the rouge state of North Korea or Iran. Pakistan put forward its case of sovereignty and the situation of 1971 which keeps the Westerners quite on this act. The US had already lost Iran in 1979 revolution, its own Saddam went against them, the threat from the Soviets is no more but the threat is increasing with China’s emerging super power status. In such a time it does not want to loose Pakistan an old ally.
On the other hand in the post cold war era relations with India have been improving, if not the close friend, the US does not want to be the clear enemy of India too. It has already entangled itself in Iraq, the North Korean tension is still high, the Iran affairs too are running sour. Open rivalry with India will put the Americans in the new ball game. In such a situation for United States it is a vertical tightrope between Pakistan and India, it cannot accuse Islamabad of fomenting violence in Kashmir because of the fear of jeopardizing the hunt for Al Qaeda militants. Neither can it pressurize New Delhi to retract from its resolve to fight the menace of terrorism as it would erode the moral underpinning of the global war against terror. Going against Pakistan will risk US severing relations with the Muslim world by backing Hindu India against a Muslim coalition partner.
Defense analysts say Parakram II, the large scale operational maneuvers by the Indian army along the borders with Pakistan, initially scheduled for May by then moved up the calendar to April 2002, came when Pakistani troops were becoming more active is assisting US troops in Western Pakistan. The problem for the US is that Pakistan’s 11th and 12th military corps vital reserves in a potential conflict with India are needed in Western Pakistan, where they are normally stationed, to hunt Al Qaeda and Taliban militants. In January, after Indian troops began to move to the borders, Islamabad pulled elements of the 11th and 12th corps of the Afghan border and shifted them East. Washington was concerned that in the eventuality of war between Pakistan and India, it will completely lose Pakistan’s assistance in the war against terror.
The peace initiative move by the Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and its acceptance by President Musharraf in Pakistan was a welcome sign globally. But how far this action will continue is uncertain, this happened in the Agra summit where both the sides they continued to believe of a long term friendly tie and suddenly the turn in the International political scene brought both the forces face to face. Even today people on both sides may be hoping for a peace but are certain of a confrontation ahead. Many among the American circles do see India’s anti Pakistan attitude as an attempt made to create obstacles on his path to fight terrorism. They also hold India’s behavior responsible to some extent for the emerging of fundamentalist forces in Pakistan’s election of 2002 who in the past years had only 2% of supporters.
With the Hindu nationalists gaining grip in the Indian politics with the anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan feelings and India’s closeness with Israel, along with its attempt to get more weapons from Israel as well as its old ally Russia is the preparations of a future round if not near a remote one. The soft taken by the BJP may also turn saffron the day they win full majority in elections. On the other hand Pakistan too is preparing for its defense requirements especially from China and there too elements of the fundamentalist parties are sitting in the parliament are clear signs of gearing up for a large scale conflict behind the wall. As discussed earlier the situation of the largest minority in India, and its
network across the border, it will not be surprising if there in the future India is involved in a long battle with Pakistan with no clear objective, along with it if there is a civil war in the form of large scale communal riots as already declared by some heads of communal forces in India.
Some analysts do believe that India, which had an aggressive attitude in the past and suddenly the peace move both by Atal Behari Vajpayee after the 2001 military stand off and by Man Mohan Singh after the Bombay attack is a decision not taken by the Indian authorities on their own, it is the pressure from behind by the United States to do so. It was this pressure which forced the Indians to remain silent in spite of regular attacks by militants on its military convoy in Kashmir during the stand off and even in the post peace initiative period.
Actually the Indians need to come out of the myths of being an emerging power in the world. It may be a large sized economy with a big armed forces, but in the region itself the small nations take it as granted instead of succumbing to is pressure unlike US. In the present scenario it is doubtful that Indian will be able to maintain its present status in whatever field it has achieved particularly after the series of corruption scandals coming out at regular intervals which had affected the country’s image as well as the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).
To be one of the powers in the world is a far of dream. After the explosion in Pokharan there was thinking that India besides being an economic giant in the future will be recognized India as a nuclear power but the second assumption was in doubt. The Kargil invasion and the attack on the Parliament and also the Bombay attack was message send to the Indian authorities that even though being a nuclear power our enemies are strong enough to cross the borders and knock the doors of your Parliament and held you hastage for days.
All over the world especially in the Muslim world the role of United Nation is seen as the puppet in the hands of anti-Muslim forces, its role in East Timor as well as in Cyprus and Iraq and now also in South Sudan has been observed carefully all over. If in the near future there is an attempt made to avoid any conflict in the nuclear flash point of Kashmir, then United Nations intervention is a must as with the help of which it is the people of Kashmir to decide of their future status.
Military comparison between China, Pakistan and India as on December, 2003.
China Pakistan India
Army 2,500,000 550,000 1,000,000
Reserves 500,000 – 600,000 500,000 1,000,000
Tanks 7,180 2,315 3,454
Towed Artillery N.A. 1,470 3,454
Air Force
China Pakistan India
Aircraft 4,500 481 733
Men and Officers 210,000 40,000 140,000
Helicopters 327 15 32
Transport Aircraft N.A. 150 200
Navy
China Pakistan India
AircraftCarrier - - 1
Personnel 250,000 24,000 45,000
Submarines 69 10 19
Frigates N.A. 10 20
Destroyers 21 7 8
Missile Craft 93 8 12
Minesweepers 38 3 18
Aircraft Types:
China : SU-27; SU-30mkk; J-10: Super-7: J-X (Similar to Stealth fighter)
Pakistan : F-16 multi role fighter: F-7P interceptor; Mirage III/IV bomber; A-5 Ground attack bomber
India : Mig 23 bomber; Mig-29 air superiority fighter; Mirage-2000 multi-role fighter; Jaguar deep strike jet.
Source : IISS ( International Institute of Strategic Study) London; Military balance and Jerusalem based Centre for Defense studies.
Conclusion
Today the Indian politics is in a state of flux, the exact pace and direction of change remains uncertain. Many attack authoritarianism and the corruption as the cause of India’s troubles. After the cold war people and the government by and large are bewildered between the identification of their friends and enemies.
A sizeable population invokes a strident Hindu nationalism that would consign the various minorities to a second class status. These forces in the years have been carefully drawing out strategies to take political control of the country. Some by forming direct parties and organizations on communal basis and others by penetrating its members in secular parties.
This has been noted by the policies adopted by the Indian media and Government in the past. The treatment given to Muslims and other minorities in India on socio-economic front, besides these projecting Muslims as the main cause of every trouble in India has been the main policy of media through history books, films and periodicals. For instance India still does not recognize Pakistan as a technically nuclear capable and that it has received full ready made weapons from China. But on the International front this has been countered when the US intelligence report revealed about transfer of nuclear technology from Pakistan to Iran, Libya and North Korea to whom China would have supplied these technology directly. In another incident when the world media focused on the spread of bird flu virus in South East Asian countries and no where Pakistan’s name was involved, the Indian media constantly broadcasted about the bird flu being spread across Pakistan in spite of friendship verbal used by the Indians. With this attitude in the coming days the peace initiative by both sides will not work further.
From across the border there has been a lobby especially among a certain level of military officers, to follow a policy of aggression especially against India. In the past during Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Zia regime had taken help from the fundamentalist forces from the Arab nations, and that volunteers from these countries were exchanged for different wars against the Muslims. This group among the military ranking and political circles of Pakistan do not support this cause as their thinking is that except the occupation of Jerusalem, the Arab cause must be treated solely as the concern of the Arab world. The Israelis on the other hand had done no harm to Pakistan till now. The Americans has helped more to Pakistan than the Arab world. According to this group, there is no need for the Pakistanis to be more sentimental for Iraq as the same country had sided with India in 1971 war. Pakistan had continued to support the Palestinians and Arab cause by among the Arabs Indira Gandhi was more popular and honored and the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) Chairman Yaseer Arafat had called same Indira Gandhi his sister who had separated Bangladesh from Pakistan. In the Gulf especially in United Arab Emirate Hindus are working in large numbers, where as Pakistan and the Muslims of the sub-continent had not contact economically, politically or culturally with Israelis.
Though the Arabs had provided political support to Pakistan but not of significant nature. This group in Pakistan expects the Arab attitude towards India to be same as Pakistan’s attitude towards Israel. How far the Pakistani had been successful in this cause is not known but the Indian policy in the past has provided enough support to this cause. The rise of Hindu fundamentalists in the National at the National and International level has been a common topic of discussions among the Muslim countries of the Arab world and Central Asia. In this context the Pakistanis too had followed the policy of not providing any members of Al Qaeda or any other Arab terrorist organization to operate from within its
territory against any Western country, but those involved in any activities against India were allowed to carry on with their work behind the scene. The attacks in Kashmir and other parts of India even after the peace initiative is an example. The Western countries too keep a silent tone on this issue as they consider this a part of the conflict between two neighbors until their own interest is hurt.
Some analysts do believe about the US pressure in the peace initiative taken by Vajpayee, but for some there is no other alternative left for India except to fight the insurgency within its own borders. The Kargil invasion was a proof of India’s loopholes in defense. The overthrow of Nawaz Sharif by President Musharraf was because of he former succumbing to the American pressure to call the militants back. Musharraf actually wanted the Kargil conflict to continue for a longer period and that Indian forces were entangled in a guerrilla warfare with more casualties in which more Indian officers were killed in compared to any other previous wars, whose shortage will be hard to fill by the Indians. He was fully aware that the conflict will continue within the Indian borders and that Indians too kenw well they had no option except verbal threats to cross the LoC.
Indians need to accept some harsh realities, that it has still not been considered as a power especially by the unipolar super powers, namely the United States and China. South Asia had no intrinsic value as such. Its strategic value is only in the context of the outside powers. From the United States view its strategic objectives in Gulf & Central Asia can be achieved by use of South Asian foothold. Pakistan foots the bill here much more compared to India. Similarly, for China, South Asia provides aa fertile field for use as a strategic pressure point against United States interest and for balance of power politics with India. Pakistan, once again foots the bill.
India on the other hand has not developed her full strategic potential commensurate with her attributes of power qualifying her of a major power status. Today India stands strategically confused still as to what her national security interest are. It still continues to be apologetic about the use of power of its own. It continues to have expectations of external powers to restrain her adversaries. It continues to have expectations of external powers to restrain her adversaries. It is strategically hesitant to use her military power against elements posing threat to her national security. At the height of its strategic flaws, the option of hot pursuit still exists, when it will get the signal remains with the time till the power comes fully in the hands of Hindu fundamentalist forces. The price a community will have to pay for this, no one is concerned as the sentiments play an important role here. The preparations for which had already begun psychologically if not physically. In many Indian schools where the syllabus reveal a saffron bias, writes Nalini Taneja the map of India “ is shown as including not only Pakistan and Bangladesh but also Bhutan, Nepal, Tibet and even parts of Myanmmar (Burma).” (Amitara Kumar, Outlook, 23 August 2004).
On February 3, 2004, the former Chief of the Armed forces of India, Gen.S.Padmanabhan, who was in command of eh armed forces during 2001 stand off, in an interview to Radio DW (Deutchewelle, the voice of Germany, Urdu language service), said that it is not a right thing for Indians to have more faith in United States. He also stated that the Indians need to establish more close friendly ties with Pakistan, because if in the coming days, at any stage the Americans feel any threat to its interests from here, its missiles may turn towards India and that it can make use of Pakistan as a base for this purpose similar to that of Kuwait against Iraq. This concern of the General did forced the Indians to think in
terms of is strategic positions when suddenly the US Secretary of State Collin Powell on his visit to this region announced on 17th March 2004 of declaring Pakistan as a non-NATO ally. Pakistan now stands in queue along with Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, Kuwait, Egypt, Israel, Bahrain and Jordan. Under which Pakistan had received millions of dollars in aid packages and more military help. The Indians will be sorting out new strategies to counter this and some activity will be the scene in the wake of new terrorist threats new developments will be visible in the coming days in the region.
As far as India’s International relation is concerned Walter Lipmann’s writing for US foreign policy in 1943 equally applies to that of India foreign policy today. He had warned that the divisive partisanship that prevents the finding of a settled and generally accepted foreign policy is a threat to the nation. “For when a people is divided within itself bout the conduct of its foreign relations, it is unable to agree on the determination of its true interest. It is unable to prepare adequately for war or to safeguard successfully its peace.” In the absence of a coherent national strategy, India is in the danger of losing its ability to safeguard its long-term peace and prosperity.
Today India’s foreign and security policy appears strewn with wreckage on all sides. The Chinese have upped the ante on the border dispute, the terrorists are attacking the country with utmost impunity, the morale of Indian defense forces is at an all time low, the Maoists are gaining ground in large parts of the nation, the peace process with Pakistan is going nowhere, and the US-India nuclear deal is stuck with n o resolution in sight. The absolute control of the Communists on all realms of policy making, the single point agenda of the Congress Party to stay in power as long as possible and the insistence of the BJP upon destroying its own credibility as a national party, all have ensured that the Indian foreign policy continues to drift without direction. There is a whiff of fragility and under confidence in the air; as if at any moment the entire façade of India as a rising power might simply blink out like a bad idea.
References:-
1). Aristiva L.B. Production Infrastructure in Pakistan, Moscow, 1978.
2). The Times, London.
3). The Indian Express. 12 July 1971.
4). Dawn, 16 July 1971.5). The Indian Express, 14 July 1971.
6). The Times of India, 15, July 1971.
7). Financial Times, 18 July 1971.
8). The Times of India, 23 July 1971.
9). The round Table (London). Editorial: ‘Mr. Nixon’s Philosophy of Foreign Policy.’ October 1971.
10). Wariavwalla, B.K. ‘The Indo-Soviet Treaty.’ The round Table (London), April 1972.
11). Zinkin Maurice. ‘The Political Aftermath of the Indo-Paksitan War.’ Survfival (London), XIV, No.2. (March/April 1972).
12). Seth, S.P. ‘China as a Factor in Indo-Pakistani politics.’ The World Today (London), January 1969.
13). Canadian Department of external Affairs. ‘The Indo-Pakistan Conflict.’ International Perspectives (Ottawa), March/April 1972.
14). Canadian Institute of International Affairs. ‘India, Pakistan, Bangladesh.’ International Journal (Toronto) XXVII, No.3 (Summer 1972).
15). Arhens H.Zingel W.P.Towards Reducing the Dependence on Capital Imports. A Planning Model for Pakistan’s Policy of Self-Reliance. Wiesbaden, 1982.
16). Gilmartin D.P. Tribe, Land and Religion in the Punjab: Muslim Politics and the making of Pakistan, Ph. D. Thesis. University of California, 1979. University of Microfilm International Ann AShbor (Michigan), (1982).
17). Palmer, Norman D. ‘Alternative Future for South Asia and United States Policy.’ Orbis (Philadelphia). XV, No. 1 (Spring 1971).
18). Subrahmanyam, K. ‘The Challenge of the Seventies to India’s Security .’ India Quarterly(New Delhi), XXIV, No.2 (April/June 1970).
19). Pakistan Horizon. Various articles in XXIV, No 2, 3, 4 and XXV, No.1. (1971-72).
20). Hansen, G. Eric. ‘Indian Perceptions of the Chinese communist Regime XII, No.1 (Spring 1968).
21). ‘Sino-US Détente and India.’ India Quarterly (New Delhi), XXIV, No.3 (July/August 1971).
22). Luard, Evan (ed). The International Regulation of Civil Wars (London; Thames and Hudson, 1972).
23). India Today.
25). Pakistan’s Islamic Bomb, P.S. namboodri and Gen. Palit.
26). Capitalism in Pakistan, Vyacheslav Ya Belokrenitsky.
27). A South Asian Crisis, Robert Jackson.
28). The Illustrated Weekly of India.
29). International Institute of Strategic Studies, Switserland.
30). Chatham House, Royal Institute of International Affairs, London.
31). The India-Pakistan Military Standoff, Crisis and Escalation in South AsiaInitiatives in Strategic Studies: Issues and PoliciesEdited by Zachary S. Davis
32). S. Paul Kapur, Ten Years of instability in Nuclear South Asia.
