The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the end of the 20th century Cold War and created a unipolar world largely under the hegemony of the United States of America (USA). In the 21st century, however, the geopolitical tide is turning once again owing to the meteoric rise of China and its dominant position in the world economy, which is vexing the imperialist bloc, hence setting the stage for a New Cold War.
Indeed, tensions between the US and China are at an all-time high, with the former Trump administration requesting Congress to allocate a whopping $705 billion defense budget solely to check the growing Chinese and Russian influence. Writing in an August 2020 opinion piece, Richard Haass, a former key member of the Bush administration, categorically declared that the probability of a cold war with China is high and the chances of a real war are also very high! This situation is further exacerbated by the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, which made Trump pose as a war-time president facing the onslaught of a foreign invader or the ‘China virus’, a term he disparagingly used for the coronavirus. Besides fueling racial hatred for the Asian Americans, this war-time posturing of Trump has escalated the new Cold War and thwarted an effective global response to the pandemic. But with the change of guard at the White House, one can expect the current situation to improve or at least diffuse temporarily. However, this is a naïve hope, and the existing tense situation is expected to continue for reasons that I will discuss below.
In recent history, China has remained a struggling low-income country, with a very large population and a weak industrial base. To top it all the country had a pervasive social problem of opium abuse, “thanks” to the British colonial diktats of unfettered opium trade imposed as a consequence of China’s defeat in the Opium Wars of the mid-19th century. The Communist Revolution of 1949 and the subsequent politico-economic policies adopted by Mao Zedong—such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution—also did little to alleviate the Chinese misery. It wasn’t until 1978—the year when China opened up to the world economy—that the country started witnessing a change of fortunes under the visionary leadership of Deng Xiaoping. In the years since then, China has adopted an aggressive import substitution industrialization (ISI) policy and has become the leading export hub to the world. Its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown by 6% per year on average, and its economy doubles in size every twelve years. Hitherto, it is the second-largest economy in the world and is all set to surpass the US by becoming the leading economy in the world by 2028. Little wonder, then, there is a lot of anxiety among the dominant imperialist countries led by the US.
To engage in this new Cold War, the triad of imperialist countries—the US/Canada, Western Europe, and Japan—are using new and unconventional means at their disposal. The imperialist bloc cannot use a policy of isolation and containment against China as it once used against the Soviet Union since the former plays a key role in global commodity and value chains. In this regard, the former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rightly noted that the US cannot contain China because “China is already within our (economic) borders”. Rather, the triad is planning to engage China in a hybrid—also known as the 5th Generation or Non-Contact—warfare targeted at the ideological, political, economic, and cultural aspects of Chinese society. The plan is to weaken the Chinese state by attacking the Communist Party of China (CPC)—which has played a key role in China’s rise as a superpower—to exploit its internal and external contradictions. Once the Chinese state weakens to a certain extent, then the US, along with its allies, will move in and reshape the Chinese economy and society in the neoliberal order. In the league of nations, the US will then defend its actions by blaming China for its “incursions” in the South China sea, and in this imperialist plot, India is likely to play a dominant role as the Empire’s regional aider and abettor.
However, much to the US chagrin, China is hedged against this imperialist onslaught by a combination of internal and external factors that work in its favor. On the external front, China is connected to the entire global economy in an intricate weblike fashion. Political instability in China means that the global commodity and supply chains are adversely affected, thereby bringing to halt the economic wheel of almost the entire world, especially in the Western countries. Secondly, China has developed enormous political and geostrategic clout via its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), especially in the global South. The multibillion-dollar investments of BRI in the fields of energy, infrastructure, roads, information technology (IT), ports, and railways are greatly helping the least developed countries (LDCs) in their development and economic revival. Consequently, the diplomatic and politico-economic influence of China is growing by the day and appears irreversible.
Internally, the legacy of the Communist Revolution remains strong, as reflected by a spirit of camaraderie among the Chinese people and their favorable view of the CPC. Even more important is the Chinese economic management, which includes a large public sector, state-control of the banking & financial sector, and the absence of private property in agricultural land. Indeed, it is precisely the tight regulation of the banking sector that has allowed China to hedge against the financial might of the US dollar. In fact, according to political economist Samir Amin, much of the Chinese economic miracle is a result of the regulations imposed on Chinese banks and other financial institutions; to give them up is tantamount to handing over the key of its (China’s) economic success to the international centers of global capitalism.
Secondly, the self-sustenance of China in food and agriculture serves as the backbone of its robust economy. This is mainly attributable to the rural social relations of production, which to this day, revolve around the communal ownership of land, although the reforms of 1978 have tainted it a bit. While the prophets of neoliberalism rarely get tired of extolling the “virtues” of private property, the fact is that owing to the communal property, the industrious farmers of China have been able to grow food for 22% of the world’s population over just 6% of world’s arable land!
Moreover, the CPC is also devising inclusive socio-economic policies to integrate the Chinese hoi-polloi, as a way to deter the enemy in hybrid warfare. For instance, in 2017, the Chinese state introduced the policy of ‘rural revitalization’, which called for creating an inclusive (rural) economy based on sustainable development while strictly eschewing the principles of Western neoliberalism. Similarly, its policy of ‘Ecological Civilization’ focuses on protecting the environment while maintaining economic growth simultaneously. Chinese president Xi Jinping also wrote a notable article last year, in which he asserted the need to return to the principles of Marxian political economy while continuing with the people’s revolution.
Hitherto, all the signs indicate that the Chinese state is adamant in protecting the non-capitalist and the non-class substructure of its political economy. Also, it is keen to safeguard its public sector and communal land ownership from any exogenous or endogenous threats. These policy responses have emerged partly due to internal constraints, but mainly due to the ideological onslaught of Western neoliberalism on the back of globalization. However, whether the Chinese state will continue to successfully protect its local and global interests from the hybrid maneuvering of imperialist powers is an open question and something that only time will tell.
Despite the continuing aggrandizement of the “Indo-US Strategic Partnership” by Indian intelligentsia and strategic circles coupled with the megalomaniac celebrations that accompany every new agreement between the US and India, the relationship remains an abstract and complex picture of lofty expectations, phantasmal desires, and irreconcilable realities, especially from an American perspective. American policymakers, overwhelmed by the influential right-wing Indian diaspora that has permeated deep into the policy-making circles of the United States and by an ardently orchestrated influencing media campaign, have been led to believe that India shall prove to be the resolute bulwark against China in the region and that it is in the US strategic interests to help India become a global power. However, a retrospective analysis of Indo-US relations and that of the track of Indian diplomacy and strategic behavior since cold-war, indicates that Americans may be betting on the wrong horse.
Roosevelt once said, “the more you know about the past, the better prepared you are for the future”. If history can be a guide to the future, the track of Indian strategic behavior since 1947 should give us enough understanding of how the developing Indo-Strategic partnership might unfold. History tells us that India refused to play any role to check the spread of communism, it has mostly stood against the international community on issues of human rights, nuclear proliferation, condemning state aggression, and promotion of democracy despite claiming to be a country founded on secular democratic ideals. Indian foreign policy, driven by Chanakya’s teachings of deception; deviousness, unpredictability, and idiosyncratic self-righteousness, has always swayed back and forth to grab maximum economic, technical, and defense assistance both from the east and west under the garb of neutrality and that is likely to be the future trajectory of her behavior.
The History
During the early decades after independence, Indian foreign policy aimed at squeezing maximum development aid both from the East and the West under the guise of neutrality. For the same reason, the US remained wary of India and at one point US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles characterized nonalignment as “immoral.” Subsequently, when US Secretaries of State like Dean Rusk and Robert Komer were trying to convince their presidents (Kennedy and Johnson) to rely on India because it was “the largest and potentially most powerful non-Communist Asian nation”, India was lecturing United States not to pressurize USSR, ridiculed American fears of the Soviet Union and was highly critical of the American policy of containment. At this critical juncture of history when south Asia was under the direct communist threat and a huge country like India with lofty claims of democracy and freedom could have played a crucial role to check the spread of a non-democratic ideology, Indian behavior was that of an indifferent, uninvolved and guile player covertly supporting USSR while simultaneously milking the west especially the USA under the guise of non-alignment and waiting for the dust to settle after the fight between two opposing ideologies was over. The rapacious nature of Indian foreign policy during the cold war is evident from the fact that from 1947 till the mid-80s, India was able to squeeze $12 billion in aid from The United States as compared to the Soviet contribution of $6 billion despite eschewing to play any role in containing Communism. However, events of 1971 and American disapproval of India’s active involvement in destabilizing the eastern wing of Pakistan led India into an open and formal embrace of the Soviet Union that transformed into a strategic partnership and continues till date. Despite the recent Indian tilt towards the USA, Russia still supplies 56% of total Indian arms imports according to SIPRI.
On issues of nuclear proliferation, condemning state aggression, promotion of democracy and human rights, India has mostly displayed a recalcitrant behavior and stood contrary to the international community. Few of the examples from history justify this claim. Defying international protocols, India was the first one to explode a nuclear device in South Asia in1974 raising alarm around the world and in the region about her ambitions and its refusal to sign Nuclear Nonproliferation Act in 1978 further alienated her from the West and especially the United States. Once again, in 1998 India was the first one to test nuclear weapons surprising the world community and sending tremors of instability in the region pushing Pakistan to pursue the same path for its security. India remains outside the folds of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and continues to enhance her nuclear arsenal regularly which should be a source of serious concern not only for the region but for the world.
India opposed NATO’s humanitarian intervention led by the US in Yugoslavia to help Kosovar Albanians and on April 13, 1999, abstained from voting in favor of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution that strongly condemned the policy of ethnic cleansing taking place in Kosovo. The incessant depredations and brutalities by the Indian military and paramilitary forces in occupied Kashmir on similar lines were the reasons that India abstained from voting in favor of this humanitarian resolution. This indicates the dubious stance of a nation that vehemently portrays itself as the largest democracy and protagonist of human rights at international forums.
The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991 was another occasion of international concern when India stood aloof with a delusional self-righteous stance. Contrary to the unified stance of the International Community and the US, India never condemned the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait in 1990 – 1991 owing to her historic ties with the authoritarian Baathist regime in Iraq. The statement issued by India’s permanent representative in the UN, Chinmaya R Gharekhan, did not use the word “condemnation” which upset Kuwait. It did not become part of the coalition as well rather had a softer stance for the aggressor. Moreover, India decided to shift its embassy from Kuwait to the Iraqi port city of Basra within days after the Iraqi invasion which was seen as a symbolic Indian endorsement of the Iraqi invasion and annexation and the Indian Foreign Minister became the first foreign leader to visit Baghdad after the invasion.” Again, Indian actions were triggered by the aggressive aspirations she harbors about her neighbors and the fears of becoming the target of similar international condemnation.
Similarly, in a sharp blow to America’s postwar plans in Iraq in 2003, India refused to send peacekeeping troops despite American pressure to do so. Two left-leaning former prime ministers, Indar K. Gujral and V. K. Singh stated, ”We believe irreparable damage will be done to India’s reputation and good name if Indian troops were sent to prop up the occupation of Iraq,” they said. ”Above all, it will be unwise and unfair to our army to send them on a mission to risk their lives where no national interest is at stake.”
Yet on another occasion, India did not join the Western powers’ condemnation of Russia’s intervention in Crimea in 2014 and kept a low profile on the issue. National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon replying to the question remarked, “There are legitimate Russian and other interests involved and we hope they are discussed and resolved.” A Ukrainian embassy spokesperson in Delhi responded to Menon’s comments by saying: “We are not sure how Russia can be seen having legitimate interests in the territory of another country. In our view, and in the view of much of the international community, this is a direct act of aggression and we cannot accept any justification for it.” Yet again, Indian statements are actually in the backdrop of its nefarious designs about Kashmir starting to manifest in so-called “surgical strikes” against Pakistan.
Sameer Lalwani and Heather Byrne have cited quite a few examples which indicate a dubious Indian voting behavior at the UN that neither conforms to her lofty democratic claims or portrays India as a reliable American partner. American policy experts and Govt officials have criticized this Indian behavior and termed it as “all talk no show” in private conversations.
Present and the Future
These glimpses of self-centered Indian behavior on issues of international concern, human rights, and state aggression underscore a pattern that has not changed much rather it has become more sophisticated. Today, Indian behavior is supported by a strong diplomatic effort coupled with a well-orchestrated disinformation campaign through a network of Indian intelligentsia that has permeated prominent think tanks, universities, and official circles around the world. The recent discovery of an Indian-backed disinformation network by EU Disinfolab may just be the tip of the iceberg. Although India has signed some important civil and military cooperation agreements with the USA which are being celebrated both by American and Indian strategic circles, Americans might be in for a surprise when it comes to expecting a bold stance manifested in tangible actions from India against China for various understandable reasons.
We are well aware of the famous American adage TANSTAAFL (There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”), so what are American looking for in return after opening the doors of economic, military, and technical assistance to India without fears that this technology may land in Russian hands? They have even renamed Pacific Command as Indo-Pacific Command to the much delight of Indians and foresee India as a net security provider in the region. Obviously, it would not be for Indian thankfulness, celebrations, and an enormous increase in Indian diaspora to the US alone. Surely, they are looking for more than mere rhetoric aimed at the glorification of Indian partnership with the US and its concomitant benefits that the US is lucky to reap.
Ex-US Secretary of state Mike Pompeo’s speech of June 2019 in New Delhi outlines the ideals on which Indo-US partnership is supposed to be anchored and what Americans are looking for from this partnership. He described rule of law, human dignity, the importance of civil society, and democracy as the common ideals between the US and India which bind both nations. Secondly, he emphasized a “free and open Indo-Pacific region” with special mention of Chinese efforts in the South China Sea and Iranian attacks on tankers from different countries and the role that India and the US can play in this regard. Well, it is for American scholars, researchers, and policymakers to analyze the ongoing alarming state of these ideals in India today and decide how the much flaunted Indo-US partnership may unfold in the future.
As far as expectations from India in keeping a free and open Indo-Pacific and acting as a buffer against China’s growing power are concerned, it doesn’t suit India’s strategic interests to have a confrontational relationship with China, neither India has the military, economic and technological capacity, and state-will to do so effectively. This is evident by India’s rejection of US proposals of joint patrols in the South China Sea. Former Indian Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar stated in July 2018, ” India has never participated in joint patrolling. But we do participate in joint exercises. So the question of joint patrolling at this stage does not arise.” This indicates how far India is willing to walk with the US when it comes to taking on China. On the contrary, India conducted a joint patrol with France in February 2020 from Reunion Island because it was not aimed at China which might have not gone well with Americans. Moreover, India is still a rising economy and can hardly afford a confrontation with a country much larger in size, economy and military might right on her borders. A country which happens to be its 3rd largest trade partner as well with a mutual trade of around $ 92 billion in 2019 and $ 78 billion till November 2020. Well, that is huge – and antagonizing China shall have serious ramifications for the Indian economy.
The recent stand-off between Indian and Chinese forces in Ladakh’s Galwan valley and the subsequent namby-pamby Indian response gives us clues to the future. Since the beginning of the Galwan crisis, Indian leadership has been reluctant to even name China openly despite losing hundreds of square kilometers of territory and dozens of soldiers. All they have done is to dish out haughty statements against an arbitrary and imaginary foe before turning their focus towards Pakistan for venting their frustration and anger and asking Americans to DO MORE to satiate Indian appetite for western military technology and equipment – which actually focuses on Pakistan rather than China. Probably Americans are well aware of Indian reluctance to confront China which was manifested in former United States national security advisor John Bolton’s statement saying “there is no guarantee that Trump would back India if the situation between Beijing and New Delhi escalates.” Whereas Indian strategy to respond to such statement is through a plethora of articles in Indian and International electronic and print media aimed at scaring Americans that India might back off, India may lose its strategic autonomy by siding with the US and it should tread cautiously the path of Indo-US strategic partnership. Most of these articles culminate in asking Americans to do more and understand the Indian strategic compulsions restricting India to be more assertive against China. This indicates that India wants Americans to take on China by themselves while simultaneously bestowing military aid and technology as an expression of thankfulness for the hollow Indian partnership. Americans at this point have been led to believe in the wide-ranging benefits, especially economic, of courting India by the Indian intelligentsia present in their think tanks, universities, and policymaking circles. Apart from a big Indian market for American defense and civilian companies, there is hardly anything India can offer Americans in the context of China.
Another important factor that clouds the Indo-US strategic partnership is India’s strategic relationship with Iran. Iran is a declared foe of the US and its interests. The two countries have avoided a possible conflict on quite a few occasions. The USA and most of the Arab nations in the middle east are not comfortable with a stable and stronger Iran in the region and the country looms as a security threat on their strategic horizons. India has a very close and strategic relationship with not only Iran but many of the Middle Eastern countries who are very important trade partners and providers of Indian crude oil needs. India has developed Chahbahar port together with Iran for possible access to Afghanistan and Central Asia which forms one of its major strategic interests. The visualized role of Indian naval and air power in collaboration with the US in the Indo-Pacific is not only aimed at deterring China but Iran as well. This may not go well with Iranians and India may end up losing its foothold at Chahbahar besides losing an important source of its crude oil needs and potential leverage against Pakistan especially in the context of insurgency in Balochistan.
Similarly, embracing the United States as a strategic partner along with Russia and managing the expectations from both would be a very difficult proposition for Indian strategic pandits especially when “Resurgent Russia” appears as a major challenge to US interests according to its National Security Strategy 2017. Russia still supplies 56% of Indian arms and Indian armed forces especially the air force is and shall remain heavily dependent on Russian military assistance in the foreseeable future. Antagonizing Russia which has an improved relationship with China, would not be beneficial for Indian interests from any perspective. India is also set to receive S-400 air defense system from Russia which has not been appreciated by Americans so far. It is also worth noting that the US has already imposed sanctions on Turkey, a NATO ally, on the purchase of S-400 air defense system from Russia invoking CAATSA for the first time to punish a close ally and there are bright chances that India would face a similar response if it goes ahead with the purchase. While backing out of the deal is not likely to go well with Russians.
As highlighted earlier, China is another important country in the equation against whom the US expects India to stand as a check in the region. Looks like history is repeating itself, this time US containment strategy is targeting China, and this time India has decided to be a part of this rivalry contradicting her previous idealistic stance of neutrality during the cold war. However, every partnership in international relations comes at a cost, and the cost of India’s strategic relationship with the US seems to be too high for India to bear. For India to deliver on American expectations, it will have to balance the intricate equation of her contradicting strategic relationships with the US, Russia, Iran, and other Middle Eastern nations at the same time which would be a very difficult proposition.
History is a witness that no great power can rise to a position of prominence in the world arena without peace at home and peace with its neighbors and that holds good for India as well. If India wants to become a global power which it very strongly aspires to be, it needs continuous growth, long-term stability, hefty foreign investments, internal peace, and above all a non-confrontational relationship with its neighbors especially China and Pakistan while the major strands of Indo-US strategic partnership and the deteriorating state of internal Indian situation seem to point in a different direction. Therefore, it would be a matter of great interest for scholars, political scientists, and experts of international relations to watch Indian strategic pundits wade through these turbulent and muddy waters of strategy. That is why strategy is a complex and intricate business – you have to deal with so many contradictory variables, most playing against each other, it becomes even more complex-ier when means fall too short to realize the ends one is pursuing. Just like in war, Chance becomes a major player reducing any strategy into a heap of ridiculous assumptions. And here, the Indian strategic community seems to be stuck in a quagmire of contradicting variables with meager means and perfidious ways to meet the ends of a phantasmal strategy. While the Indian strategic elite continues its struggles to balance this ends-ways-means equation, a few important deductions can be accrued from the discussion so far.
First of all, in the backdrop of its atrocities in occupied Kashmir and her larger aspirations, India shall always be reluctant to stand with the international community to condemn human rights abuses, it shall never condemn state aggression, and it shall never be part of international efforts to thwart such actions elsewhere to avoid being challenged herself by the international community in the future. The only exception to this rule would be if these actions and condemnations are targeting Pakistan. Secondly, India is not likely to walk into a confrontational relationship with China especially to further American interests in the region. Lastly, it shall be extremely difficult for India to let go of the strategic nature of her relationship with Iran and Russia as a sacrifice for Indo-US strategic partnership. Indian embrace of the United States is only aimed at squeezing as much state of the art military aid and technology as possible and using it towards becoming a regional hegemon by threatening smaller neighbors and getting American blessings to get a permanent seat at the UN security council. To achieve this India is making excellent use of its intelligentsia and diaspora spread across the social, intellectual, and policy-making fabric of the United States that has constructed gargantuan castles of visualized benefits that Americans are lucky to be offered by courting India. And who knows that India shall not start challenging American interests in the region as it continues its march towards becoming a Hindutva-driven world power by securing a permanent seat at UN Security Council.
It is time for Americans to go back to the drawing board of history and reevaluate Indo-US strategic partnership from a more realistic perspective that conforms to their ideals and expectations. For example, they might find the US Defense Planning Guide for the post-cold war era interesting, which stated, “We should discourage Indian hegemonic aspirations over the other states in South Asia and on the Indian Ocean” or Truman’s statement to a Congressman that “Nehru has sold us down the Hudson. His attitude has been responsible for our losing the war in Korea or Henry Kissinger’s remarks stating Indians as “superb flatterers, masters at flattery and their great skill being able to suck up to people in key positions.” Americans also need to analyze the deteriorating state of human rights across India, especially in occupied Kashmir, as highlighted by the Human Rights Watch 2020 report. According to Yelena Biberman, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, The United States would unlikely stand by if India’s rise is accompanied by authoritarianism. As it does with China, chances are Washington would perceive such a development as threatening. According to Thomas Wright, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, the new world order is one of great-power rivalry rooted in “a clash of social models – a free world and a neo-authoritarian world.” All this does not bode well for the future of Indo-US strategic partnership.
To sum up, despite America continuing to provide generous military, economic and technical assistance to India and signing new agreements, the history of the Indian behavior on the international stage, her contradicting strategic partnerships with Russia, Iran, and the US, and the compulsions of her own aspirations to become a world power coupled with the messy state of her internal situation vindicate that India shall not be able to play the role, the Americans might be expecting. The history and ground realities strongly indicate that Americans might be betting on the wrong horse when it comes to confronting China. A horse that has never run a race never won a race and has never been on a team that won a race. However, for the new American administration to see the reality, it will have to break through the spell cast by the perpetual incantations of Indian intelligentsia.
The size of the Indian Armed Forces has always been bigger in comparison to Pakistan. However, Pakistan successfully maintained the conventional balance in early years due to better training and technically advanced equipment. India’s buying spree and relentless expansion resulted into an asymmetry in conventional forces. The nuclear tests afforded Pakistan to maintain a strategic balance in the region through its missiles and nuclear programme. However, off late Indian initiatives are moving in a direction that challenge the strategic balance in the region. With Indian economy promising better dividends to the world and a hyper active foreign policy affords India a dominant role in regional and global interplay. Pakistan needs a whole of the nation approach in current milieu to maintain credible deterrence and stability in the context of strategic balance between India and Pakistan.
Indian Initiatives to Gain Strategic Superiority
Acquisition of Rafael Jets. Indian Acquisition of Rafael Fighter Jets is a big step in this direction. The first of 36 Rafael fighter jets which have been received by the IAF on 9 Oct 2019 are armed with the SCALP gr attack missiles having a range well over 300 kms. These aircrafts are described as fully versatile having the capability of carry out all combat aviation missions to achieve air superiority and air defence, Close Air Support, in-depth strikes, recce, anti-ship strikes and nuclear deterrence.
Acquisition of S-400 Missile Defence Sya=stem. On the plea of a possible two-front conflict and depleted condition of Indian Air Force’s aircrafts, S-400 missile defence system is likely to find its way on the inventory of Indian military. This capability, if achieved by India will seriously hamper execution of mission by Pakistan Airforce as the 600 km range provided by this system provides good access to the system after taking off from Forward Operating Bases. Moreover, the system is also capable of intercepting cruise as well as ballistic missiles, which will pose implications on Ghaznavi, Ghauri, Shaheen, Babur as well as Nasr missiles of Pakistan.
Spike – Anti Tank Missile. Successful test fire of 4th generation Fire and Forget missile named Spike is an anti-tank missile capable of operating with precision at a range of four kms. The capability of fire, observe and update supplemented with the mid-course correction and ability of firing from a high and low trajectory makes it 90% reliable. With the acquisition of this weapon system, India achieves the capability to engage the armoured formations from a stand-off and hence gains advantage in operation and tactical domains.
Dhanush Artillery Gun. Indian initiative of Make in India “Dhanush” (45 calibre towed artillery gun system), having the capability to target on longer ranges incorporating autonomous laying features complimented with sophisticated suites of electronic and computer systems hass provided an edge to Indian military to strike the pin-pt tgts.
Advancement in AI and Robotics. Use of AI will also have serious implications in military domain in near future. Establishment of Defence AI Council (DAIC) by Indian Ministry of Defence in Feb 2019 is a step in the same direction. Indian Centre of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics(CAIR) has developed autonomous tech-based products having focus on net-centric communication system for tactical command and control. It is also assumed that for surveillance and reconnaissance purposes, CAIR has developed intriguing gadgets like snake robots, hexa-bots and sentries.
Indian Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Capability. “Mission Shakti” to demonstrate ASAT capability by India is not merely a tech leap but it has also strained the deterrence equation in South Asia. Amongst numerous implications, the nuclear deterrence of Pakistan has also been challenged despite having availability of various delivery means. ASAT capability is a direct threat to Pakistan’s satellites meant for communication, navigation, surveillance and intelligence purposes.
Mission Moon. Indian mission for moon landing code named as Chandrayaan-2 was the most complex mission undertaken by the Indian Space Agency (ISRO). Though the mission could not meet the desired success, it made India become part of the elite club, exploring space and provided technological and moral ascendance over Pakistan.
Impact of Indian Initiatives on Pakistan
India seems to be in a hurry to project itself as a great power and stand shoulder to shoulder with technically advanced nations. Without addressing the domestic plethora of issues of social and civic nature, it has focused on improving its outlook through acquisition of advanced technologies and project itself a giant economy. The cumulative impact may put pressure on the strategic balance and deterrence regime of the region. Pakistan being the challenger and hurdle in regional hegemonic designs cannot match every step / action, thus require innovative approach to maintain the start balance of the region. These Indian ventures are likely to cause following implications for Pakistan: –
Induction of Rafael poses a serious threat to Pakistan for defence its air space. Achieving local air superiority during critical stages of battle will be a challenge for Pakistan.
With acquisition of S-400, India aims to deter Pakistan from first use of weapons and create space for war in the conventional domain.
Demonstration of ASAT Capability provides India the option of doctrinal shift from No First Use (NFU) to First Use in nuclear domain, which further facilitates her Cold Start Doctrine.
Dhanush gun with its cost effectiveness and lethal precision guided ammunition will not only be a serious challenge with regards to counter bombardment, but will also prove to be deadly against the mechanized and vital installations.
The attempt of Moon Mission not only points towards the technological advancement but also shows Indian aspirations and hegemonic designs in the region and in the comity of nations.
Spike not only provides adequate standoff to Indian forces against Pakistan’s mechanized formations but also makes its defences an easy tgt during day and ni.
Options Available to Pakistan
Due to difference in the economic situation of both countries, matching response in same domain is unlikely, however, innovative ways are necessary to maintain the strategic balance. Other than the practical step required to be taken to counter the impact, cognitive domain also needs additional focus with regards to national resilience. Though it appears arduous to match technological progress of India due to financial constraints, the fields of AI and Cyber Space may be emphasised to counter the impending threat. To this end, following can be considered: –
Matching the initiatives of DAIC and CAIR by displaying capability through Pakistan’s SUPARCO and NESCOM.
Adoption of innovative approach, induction of modern gadgetry and upgradation of existing aircrafts’ fleet by PAF to counter threat posed by indian ASAT and S-400 missile defence systems.
Acquire or indigenously produce munitions to counter Indian Excalibur artillery guns.
Advancement in AI and cyber space domain needs to be consistently observed and counter measures be taken with minimum drain on resources. Both these domains being cost effective may be explored and young generation be motivated and utilised in this context.
Excellence in cyber domain can offset a number of advantages of the opponent. AI centre of excellence be made more dynamic and proactive.
Efforts must be made at international fora to restrain India from accelerating arms race in the region. Movement against ASAT be made at UN and international community be taken on board, so that outer space is not weaponised and polluted with debris of the destroyed space-crafts.
To maintain the existing strategic balance in South Asia, Pakistan needs to adopt a whole of nation approach as a comprehensive multi-domain and multi-faceted effort is needed. Harnessing the potential of scientists and engineers of both military and civilian sectors is needed to put up a wholesome response in both military, scientific, cyber, AI and space domains. Empowering the civilian research organizations and institutes is likely to facilitate and expedite mounting of a matching response to deter Indian from altering the strategic balance in the region.
2020, perceived as among the worst years in history, bringing misery but mostly catastrophic circumstances to the people of this world. One after another situation worsens and people of this world suffer a great deal. It all began when the deadly virus first encountered by China in 2019 which was spread later to the world. Covid-19 name was given to an airborne virus which transmits through being in contact with an infected person directly or indirectly. An indescribable rapid transmission of such a viral disease managed to generate international headlines. Later, the second layer of this virus attacked; creating more panic in the world. SARS-CoV-2 virus which is blamed for Covid-19 virus displays no genetic variation, suggesting that perhaps the outflow occurrence have strong manifestations as the virus may stay unidentified within the human body for so long. After a long devastating year on November 9, 2020; the announcement of Covid-19 vaccine was made. There are indeed major obstacles underway, however the announcement was warmly greeted among researchers who identified as “ear to ear” and several implying that in early summer people’s lives could be back on track.
While the world was celebrating the covid-19 vaccine, risk of another crisis to be leashed in the world. Covid-19 has introduced a new dimension to the indescribable plight for millions around the world with a framework in which civilians are being systematically targeted from both directions. Investigators around the globe emphasized that the world might be heading towards modern civil war. Civil wars have become increasingly widespread, lasts much longer as well as drawing enough foreign intervention in several areas of the world, including dangerous implications towards peace. Civil war can be defined as, “A violent conflict between a state and one or more organized non-state actors in the state’s territory. Civil wars are thus distinguished from interstate conflicts (in which states fight other states), violent conflicts or riots not involving states (sometimes labeled inter-communal conflicts), and state repression against individuals who cannot be considered an organized or cohesive group, including genocides, and similar violence by non-state actors, such as terrorism or violent crime”. Civil war is by far the most widely quoted global complexities to describe the declining occurrence of interstate conflict are disrupted by peace, economic expansion, sustainable development, and many others. Participating countries, along with the United Nations, have issued an ultimatum to military confrontation to promote forces to combat the pandemic as Covid-19 travels across the globe. At the very same time, due to its harmful economic implications and by providing openings for resistance forces to target confused and vulnerable entrants, coronavirus can also cause and escalate armed conflict.
Modern armed conflict gradually altered its own essence within which invasions are now unlikely, although wars are much more prevalent. Researchers of University of Melbourne stated that within the first coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) pandemic, military warfare operations escalated over 5 nations. India, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, and the Philippines all saw an outbreak of civil wars when either state instability or a lack of foreign attention was abused by opposing forces due to the pandemic. Any contemporary immigration clauses claim whereby, except if restricted as well as drastically changed, immigration would spark a civil war in the United States and perhaps other nations. The certain features in digital clashes are illustrated in the ongoing civil wars across Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Chad, Nigeria, Somalia, and many others. Different military forces battle against each other (both the government and rebel sides). As with the situations of Libya and Yemen, political divisions and military brawls also proceeded at same rate and perhaps escalated. Such a reality suggests that even the pandemic did not match a significant shift in the nature of such civil wars, amid all of its adverse effects, or it did however introduce a sustainable dynamic for stability.
Many of them require substantial participation from outside nations. Dr Tobias Ide, a Discovery Early Career Researcher Fellow from the School of Geography said, “What I found was that rebel groups try to exploit situations in which governments are busy with containing the pandemic and its economic fallout. Increased activities of the Islamic State in Iran are just one example. At the same time, there is little international protest or support as each country is focused on its own struggle with the virus.” While mentioning Covid-19 and armed conflicts, Dr. Ide expressed “Escalating armed conflicts pose significant obstacles when dealing with the pandemic as health infrastructure is destroyed and the government losses resources to respond to the virus.” Present debates on the restructuring of global health governance have been largely concerned with the efficiency and complex bureaucratic relationship of global health organizations. What could be even more important, though, is the capacity of global health governance systems to understand and engage in the complex political dynamics on the ground in civil war-torn countries.
Circumstances have worsened and the devastation leaving many unanswered questions in the public minds. Where the questions related to covid-19 vaccines and its affects haven’t been answered, individuals are in much more confused state related to civil war crisis. Covid-19 has not been tackled effectively yet by the government and now risk of civil war is up ahead, inducing more frustration as well as panic in the world. Individuals are afraid that if the world affairs prolonged like this, the damage which was caused by covid-19 will be nothing compared to the massacre civil war might bring. It is essential now that the government and their legal bodies should rethink about the policies and strategies to counter affairs immediately.
On December 18, 2020, the public relations wing of the Pakistan Army shared that a vehicle of the United Nations Military Observers Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) had been hit across the Line of Control (LOC), the ceasefire line that separates Indian-administered Kashmir from Pakistan-administered Kashmir, in the Chirikot Sector of Pakistan-administered Kashmir by Indian Border Forces in Rawalakot sector of Indian-administered Kashmir. The UNMOGIP officers were on their way to meet the victims of ceasefire violations (CFV) in Pakistan when they were hit. The Foreign Office of Pakistan termed it a ‘new low’ in the conduct of the Indian Army. The Indian authorities termed these reports false and later on, the deputy spokesman to the UN Secretary-General, Farhan Haq, confirmed that their vehicle was damaged after being hit by an ‘unidentified object’ and that the Mission is investigating the incident.
The ceasefire line was created in the aftermath of the 1949 Indo-Pak war over Kashmir. Since then, three additional wars have been fought in the region but ambiguity over territorial boundary remains—although the Indo-Pak Simla Agreement of 1971 attempted to concretize Kashmir’s borders by renaming the border LOC, these changes were not demarcated on the ground but only described on maps.
Reports about CFVs often make the headlines on mainstream media, reporting the number of casualties and injuries of people residing across the LOC. However, the scars and trauma of those affected cannot be quantified. The impact of CFVs on civilians is largely absent from popular debates on cross-border violence. This piece intends to highlight the human security aspect of CFVs by taking into consideration the life of civilians on the LOC and the human cost of cross-border skirmishes.
UNMOGIP and CFVs. The UNMOGIP was set up on the recommendations of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP). It was mandated to supervise the ceasefire in Kashmir. Its primary function is to observe and investigate incidents of ceasefire violations and report its findings to India, Pakistan, and the UN Secretary-General. The back and forth on ceasefire agreements cause further distress to the civilians on LoC. After 1971, there was no solid mechanism to control violence across the border. As a result, firing incidents and minor intrusions into each other’s territory were rampant in the 1980s and 1990s.
CFVs occur due to multiple, sometimes unknown or neglected, causes. India and Pakistan have wrongly diagnosed these causes and the linkage between CFVs and escalation dynamics has led them to adopt misleading policies to deal with the recurrent violations of the ceasefire and the consequent strengthening of bilateral tensions.
The Civilians who bear the brunt of CFVs. The civilian population on the Pakistan side of the LoC is on the zero lines and sometimes ahead of that. There are socio-economic implications of CFVs on the local population. There is a psychological and economic toll. Many people have been killed, displaced, and socially and economically affected. Educational and other infrastructure has been destroyed. Many schools remain closed for a long time, trade across the LoC suspends. Basic human rights and digital rights are violated. Anam Zakaria’s study on LoC indicated that displacement and migration due to the CFVs causes economic and psychological pressure on the people living on the LoC. Women have had faced sexual harassment and the displaced families become indebted to money lenders for life. Most of this goes unreported in mainstream media. Even when the plight of Kashmiris makes headlines, they do not capture the sufferings and miseries an average Kashmiri living close to the border goes through. The media reduces it to several casualties, how many people got injured and the amount of infrastructure destroyed. But the scars on the life of civilians are more than just numbers. The locals get to the bunkers when CFVs happen, but most of the time they get killed. Once 28 children were killed when a mortar hit a school in Neelum valley in the 1990s. This situation has made people psychologically, physically, and financially impaired. They have to remain in a situation of fear, their houses get damaged and their livelihood gets affected. On 16 November 2020 deadly shelling hit the villages in Neelam Valley, at least 15 people including soldiers got killed, many wounded, and homes destroyed. The wailing civilians questioned continue to be collateral damage in a war they have no say in.
It is pertinent to talk about state narratives on the human impacts of border and framing of media messages on Kashmir. A trend of framing messages on Kashmir has been observed on the Pakistani as well as Indian side. Pakistani State and media report CFVs by showing strong determination to protect the homeland and reiterating commitment to the Kashmir Cause. While on the Indian side the CFVs are reported by showing an upper hand of BSF. These patterns indicated that human sufferings are used by media to further the agenda of the nation rather than fairly covering the human cost.
Conclusion. India and Pakistan need to institute joint mechanisms to avoid escalation scenarios. There is a dire need for dialogue on contentious issues for which many an agreement between the two states already exist. It is important to respect and review border management agreements to ensure the safety of border communities. These agreements are about deescalating the situation and ensuring the safety of the civilians. Hospital facilities for the affected people should be increased and there must be a mechanism to spare the ambulances carrying the injured during the firing. Media can surely play a role by representing the plights of affected civilians instead of fanning brinkmanship, war-mongering, and nationalistic narratives. Kashmiri’s perspective can be represented by promoting the local newspapers by the mainstream media houses of India and Pakistan. Finally, it is the responsibility of the governments of Pakistan and India to help the civilians and look for avenues to broker peace in the nuclear environment.
The signing of the Basic Exchange Cooperation Agreement (BECA) between India and the USA has cemented the former’s position as a principal strategic partner of the later in the Indo-Pacific and into the bargain is India’s long-sought hyphenation with China, which necessitates the elevation of India’s status as a “counterweight” to China in the Asia-pacific. Nevertheless, with greater status comes greater obligations and greater obligations are not devoid of greater perils.
The immediate reverberation of India’s tilt towards Washington is an infuriated dragon next door with whom it shares an un-demarcated border alongside the overlapping territorial claims spreading over thousands of square kilometers. If the recent Indo-China border clash in the Himalayas introduced clarity in New Delhi on China, the subsequent signaling by New Delhi, most notably the signing of BECA, also removed any ambiguities on part of Beijing that India is a willing member of the US-led club to contain China and ought to be dealt as an adversary. Given the level of distrust between the two sides and in the wake of the sanguinary Galwan valley clash, neither side can afford to leave their forward positions in Laddakh, as it will provide the other side with the opportunity to step forward and occupy the contested land. Recognizing that, India now has the second active border where its forces are eyeball to eyeball with the adversary – first being all year round active border with Pakistan – and until there is a breakthrough in the negotiations – which seems remote – the stalemate is expected to prolong.
Given the stark military imbalance between the two sides and lack of political will in New Delhi to confront dragon head-on, the chances of a full-fledged military confrontation in the inhospitable Himalayas remain extremely slim. Despite that, the prevalent status quo – which entails stationing thousands of troops in extremely harsh conditions in an eyeball-to-eyeball engagement against an adversary in command of an economy almost five times and a military budget almost four times greater than that of India’s – constitutes an unpalatable scenario for New Delhi. As the things stand, almost 60% of India’s defense allocation is spent on just maintaining the country’s 1.3 million-strong Army; once this maintenance cost in the absence of a major budgetary hike is added to by the demanding round the year deployment at high altitude expenditures, the long due modernization and expansion of Indian military are likely to be imperiled. Indian Navy would particularly suffer: an even smaller share from the budgetary pie will impinge upon its much-needed capacity building to execute the USA’s entrusted role of ‘net security provider’ in the Indian Ocean Region.
Interestingly, unlike the other members of the Quad, the USA is not bound by any treaty agreement to rush to India’s help if the latter is tested by China in the Himalayas. Washington, however, is likely to be inclined towards raising India’s threat perception vis-a-vis China, which would expedite widening the wedge between the two Asian giants besides stimulating burgeon Washington’s arms merchandise with India. The Western military technology would unquestionably bolster India’s military strength, but it remains a question mark whether India’s military might – without a major budgetary hike – would be robust enough to keep the dragon at bay in the Himalayas and check its presence in the IOR.
The second byproduct of Indo-US entente is India’s growing isolation within its region, which can be attributed to China’s involvement in South Asia under the compelling pretext of geo-economics, and India’s decades-long bullish and coercive attitude towards its smaller neighbors. Thanks to the irrational hubris in New Delhi, at this moment, Bhutan is the only country in South Asia with whom China has not established a multi-dimensional relationship at the cost of India’s regional influence.
Ironically, the Indian Foreign Minister during one of his addresses asserted that “regionalism is key” to India’s rise, and according to him, “connectivity is central to this endeavor”. Nevertheless, the discourse seems to be yet another manifestation of India’s paradox-ridden foreign policy: it acknowledges and appreciates the significance of regionalism and connectivity for economic prosperity in a region but is itself the biggest obstacle in the path to regional integration within South Asia.
Granted, except for Pakistan, the relations between India and its South Asia neighbors are unlikely to deteriorate to the level of being hostile and the recent “vaccine diplomacy” is also a healthy sign for India’s soft image. However, the deepening economic relations between China and India’s South Asian neighbors, and dragon’s mounting geopolitical influence in the IOR and continental South Asia is a bad premonition for India’s power projection in its immediate neighborhood and the USA’s stratagem to contain and retrench China in this crucial geographical zone.
The Indo-US strategic partnership is also reflecting poorly on India’s “special and privileged” partnership with Russia, which is also a supplier of almost 60% of India’s defense hardware. During the fateful year 2020, it has been twice, first in January and then in December, that Moscow has openly expressed its reservations over India’s growing proximity with the USA, especially India becoming an important player in the USA’s Indo-Pacific Strategy and Quad, which Moscow views as stratagems to contain China. Nonetheless, in an attempt not to infuriate New Delhi, the Russian Foreign Minister avoided directly criticizing India; instead, he shrewdly blamed the “Western countries” for trying to “engage” India in “anti-China games” thereby exonerating Moscow’s strategic partner of the connivance.
Nonetheless, even the nuance was not received well in New Delhi: Indian academics termed Moscow’s allusions as a desecration of India’s ‘Strategic Autonomy’ and the Indian External Affairs Ministry asserted that India’s relations with each country are independent of its relations with third countries besides communicating that India’s partners and allies ought to understand and appreciate New Delhi’s stance. Apart from the unusual snub that Moscow received from New Delhi, the annual summit between the leadership of two countries was canceled for the first time in two decades, which was blamed on the ongoing plague, despite the opportunity to organize it as a virtual event.
The subtle strain in India- Russia relations does not entail an instant or imminent decoupling. In fact, despite cautioning by the USA that it would trigger Countering American Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) if India consummates the S-400 deal with Russia, New Delhi has decided to send its officers and airmen to receive the required training in Russia. As the things stand, the fate of the S-400 deal and conceivable US response has emerged as major deciding factors for India’s geostrategic orientation for the time to come.
Until now, Moscow and New Delhi have been very tactful in leveraging the grey areas in foreign policy to keep their partnership impervious from their relations with third countries; however, amid the ongoing realignments in the global power structure, it would be increasingly difficult for India and Russia to continue optimizing the grey areas while making the geostrategic choices. If Moscow is aggrieved at India’s unprecedented tilt towards Washington, India also has its reservations over Russia trying to mend fences with India’s arch-rival Pakistan and the Sino-Russia strategic partnership, which – owing to Moscow’s antagonism towards the West and the USA’s geostrategic competition with China – has strengthened and expanded enormously during past few years.
As the world moves into a new phase of considered least stablemulti-polarity, three great powers videlicet, the United States of America (USA), China, and Russia wrestle for sway at the global level. Although Russia has shown sufficient disregard for US-led unipolarity, the primary challenger to US primacy is China, which was willingly allowed by three successive US administrations to free ride the US-led system until the Xi-led China aggrandized to challenge the US’s preponderance.
The Offensive Realism proposes that China’s grand geopolitical scheme ought to be to dominate Asia before trying to project power elsewhere. Conversely, as a status quo power in the international system, the US is projected to resist the emergence of great powers anywhere in the world, which can dominate their region and seek to project power at the global level. Considering the context, to rejuvenate its global primacy, the US has to make sure that China under no circumstances achieves dominance in Asia: power asymmetry between China and other countries in Asia never increases to such levels where China emerges unchallenged on the Asian landmass.
Taking into consideration that at this time no country in Asia is even closer to China on overall national power account, Washington is relying on its core strength in the international system: reinvigorating the old web of alliances and searching for new partners to form a balancing coalition against China.
India, as Washington’s deputy in the Indo-Pacific, is the frontline member of the balancing coalition and from Washington’s standpoint, India must accumulate economic, military, and technological strength so that it can undertake the duty assigned to it by the US. i.e. to play a vanguard to contain and possibly rollback China to resuscitate the US-led hegemonic order.
Likewise, India also aims to counteract China but it has global ambitions of its own manifested in Indian leadership’s long-held desire to project India as a leading global power and “shoulder greater global responsibilities”. And so, the Indo-US strategic partnership, besides being the external balancing against the threat posed by China, is a principal component to New Delhi’s shrewd stratagem to free ride the US-led system ultimately to achieve the status of global-power. Accordingly, in addition to the military and technological bolstering, India is expecting Washington to help achieve its ambitious economic goal of matching or even surpassing China’s economic strength.
Unquestionably, India possesses the latent potential of great power, but this potential is yet to be converted into tangible might that could enable India to act as a pole in the international system. The Indo-US entente, however, is likely to undermine India’s aspiration to act as a pole in the international system, not only in the current setting but also at any point in the future.
According to Prof. John Mearsheimer, “To qualify as a pole in a global or regional system, a state must have a reasonable prospect of defending itself against the leading state in the system by its own efforts.”
As India sought to externally balance against the Chinese threat by establishing a de-facto alliance with the US, its claim to act as a pole, even in Asia’s regional system, was the immediate fatality. Nevertheless, considering a long-term perspective, if India takes giant leaps with the US as an enabler and amasses strength to match or surpass China, which continues to grow at its current or slightly less pace, in the meantime, India either could be approaching the US or even surpass its senior partner in certain aspects of national power. In such a scenario, as the offensive realism proposes and callous dynamics of great-power politics entail, India would aspire to enhance the power asymmetry between itself and China, ultimately trying to establish its regional dominance in Asia and project power across the globe.
In the envisioned scenario, the US in a pursuit to contain one challenger to its preponderance would end up creating another, and hence India may replace China as the primary threat to the US ambition of revivifying unipolarity at the global level. The strategists in Washington would have to be dewy-eyed to assume that if they help India achieve the status of global-power, it will behave differently than the other great powers. The much-hyped ideological or democratic convergences in the case of India and the US are likely to be overwhelmed by the structural imperatives of the international system and the ruthless realities of great power competition would appropriate the relationship. Given the setting, India capable enough to play a hyperactive role in the balancing coalition against China, fits into Washington’s geostrategic calculus instead of an India muscular enough to challenge the US global ambitions. However, even if Washington repeats its China blunder by facilitating India’s rise to the status of global power, and India behaves exactly like other great powers and aspires to dominate Asia, Washington will still have a trump card in its hand, i.e., India’s almost inextricable entanglement in the US-led technological and military orders. By that time, India’s technological and defense reliance on the USA, which is all set to upsurge as an indispensable component of entente – is likely to emerge as the biggest impediment in the way of India asserting itself as a great power in doing so a ‘pole’ in the international system. Alternatively stated, India’s technological and defense interlinkages with the US would not allow a formal decoupling between the established pole to be precise, the US, and the aspirant pole vis-à-vis India, or else, it would come with such costly and daunting concomitants that the aspirant pole’s global ambitions would be severely dented.
The year 2020 has consistently put spotlight on the shameful fact that not only does Pakistan remain unsafe for women, but also that the reporting channels need to rethink on how to cover rape, sexual assault and other incidents of gender-based violence.
When such criminal acts are neglected by the society, it is the media organizations job to report cases responsibly so that it instils a feeling of outrage amongst the masses and the realization to invoke pressure on the government to erase such heinous crimes that exists. In the first 60 days of 2020, as many as 73 incidents of rape were reported, including 5 gang-rape cases in Lahore. While most of these cases don’t make it to social media, pages or headlines of media organizations, the ones that manage to get attention are poorly reported.
The irony is that they are not raped just once, the media rapes them multiple times. In a patriarchal society, male-dominated institutions and lack of journalism ethics lead to loopholes in covering sensitive cases like rape by media. It is not uncommon for an implicit account of victim blaming to make its way into news report.
A decade ago, a young woman driving home, accompanied by friend, was raped and left by the side of the road in Karachi. Phrases thrown by journalists all over media were ‘late at night’, ‘returning from a party’ and ‘unaccompanied by a man’. This was followed by Advisor to the Chief Minister of Sindh, Sharmila Farooqui’s victim blaming statement on a live talk-show. When these phrases are attached to woman, a woman in trauma trying to gain her consciousness back who is to report the crime, these statements and headlines define how the crime will be covered by the media and who will carry the blame for it.
The details of the Lahore Motorway rape case were just as horrifying, as the media posted similar questions. Earlier this year, on September 9, a mother was robbed and gang-raped in front of her three children on Lahore motorway, shocked the entire nation. Videos and pictures of victim’s car, statements about the woman’s personal life and choice of route became a hot topic for debate on national television. The most senior police official in Lahore, CCPO Umer Sheikhs victim blaming statement stirred an outcry by masses and became the highlight of discussions for talk-shows. Despite the outrage against CCPO’s statement, PM’s Advisor on Accountability Shahzad Akhtar defended it. For more than 2 months, on national television talk-shows were debating on ‘why the victim had not taken a busier route’, given that she was alone with her children, ‘why she decided to travel late at night in the first place’, or ‘why she did not check her fuel before departing’.
It is important to realize the difference between reporting relevant details of a rape case and exaggerating unrelated statements for high ratings. Research on the depiction of rape and gender-based violence coverage by media globally shows ways in which media reports sensationalize sexual violence by giving a distorted view of its incidence and nature. While these details are irrelevant to the alleged assault since none of them contribute to the investigation of this heinous crime, all they do is contribute to victim shaming attitudes or imply that the victim ‘had it coming’.
When there is more rape culture in the news, there is more rape. The ever-increasing number of rape cases reflect the unfortunate culture of rape we are living in, rather than safe private or public spaces. This rape culture is not just about the crime itself, it’s about a culture in which women are objectified.
Rape culture and male-oriented institutions are not limited to Pakistan. According to a study from 2018, titled ‘Does Rape Culture Predict Rape? Evidence from U.S. Newspapers, 2000-2013’, when the tone of the coverage and statements used can be interpreted as victim blaming and an empathetic attitude towards the accused, rape occurs more often. The research finds correlation media coverage and number of sexual assault cases, it does not suggest that media reporting causes rape, but that it reflects the society norms towards sexual assault. The study found that there is more occurrence of rape in communities where media keeps the rape culture alive. While it may be difficult to measure, authors of the above-mentioned study identified four components that are characteristics of rape culture – implying survivor’s consent, victim blaming, questioning victim credibility and empathy for the accused.
Another loophole adding to faulty media reporting is not having a local word for rape and rather replacing the word rape with ‘ziyadti’, ‘zabardasti’, ‘izzat’ and so on. Such terms cannot help in framing and understanding exactly what happened, they are open ended. Whether it’s a reporter or a survivor of rape, there is no local vocabulary to inquire or report about the rape. As words like ‘zabardasti’ can simply not justify the trauma of a rape victim. Unfortunately, this is deep rooted in our society, using the word rape out loud raises more voices and concerns then the crime itself. While we don’t fall back in accepting every new term in our lexicon, the hesitation towards the word rape further strengthens the stigma attached to it.
Way forward and change. Having more women in newsrooms and talk shows, writing and reporting on such cases makes a huge difference. So far, the little progress some media fronts have made, globally as well in Pakistan, is due to more involvement of women. The way Fareeha Idrees covered the Lahore Motorway rape case is how every case must be handled on media. Media institutions need to train reporters and journalists on how to report on any type of sexual violence or trauma. The cases need to be built and reported around anonymity of survivors. Rather than making the background and personal life of the victim the highlight of newsroom discussions, they should highlight the alleged perpetrator, talk about lack of consent and accountability- only then there would be evidence of rape culture in media reporting. The ignorance towards rape culture leads police and law enforcement to be less inclined in investigating, making the victim’s case weak, and once again showing empathy towards the perpetrator. The statement given by the senior police official on Lahore Motorway rape case is a prime example. It simply shows lack of interest and ignorance by protectors of the society, giving a sense of freedom to potential rapists and discouraging victims to come forward. Pakistan ranks 164/167 on the Women Peace and Security Index (2019/2020), every two hours a woman is raped in somewhere in this country. It’s high time we as a society change – from media institutions to households, from an influential gatekeeper to every individual at the receiving end.
Every year a horrifying rape case makes a headline, every year it’s followed by news about helplines, laws/bills, NGO’s taking actions and so on, but the cases keep on increasing. It’s our failure as a society. We must talk about implementation of laws passed and the legal systems accountability, the need for police reforms and training towards handling sensitive cases, and trauma of all forms of sexual violence. Only with such steps can we transform our society into a safe place for all genders and erase the rape culture with the help of media.
President-elect Joe Biden is confronted with several challenges that include continued tensions with Iran to the chaos in Libya and Syria, and from the domestic crisis in Iraq to the growing hostilities between Israel and Palestine. There is a lot of conjecture around Biden’s policy on the Middle East and its likely contours. While the experts are debating whether Biden will revive the policies of his predecessor Barack Obama or adopt a new vision to confront global challenges. One thing that they agree upon is that his commitment to redress Donald Trump’s ‘destabilizing’ foreign policy attitude towards the Middle East.
In the first place, Biden is expected to renegotiate the JCPOA and restore the nuclear agreement with Iran conditioned by ‘strict compliance’. However, since Trump’s ‘Maximum Pressure’ has changed the ground significantly in the Middle East, especially after the assassination of Qaseim Suleimani and latest killings of the Iranian nuclear scientists, negotiating such a deal is easier said than done for the upcoming Biden administration. Irrespective of the willingness of the Rouhani government, outrage at the killings of nuclear scientists and the highly anticipated conservative turn in the national Parliament in June the next year can create hurdles for the deal.
Moreover, though Biden is equally committed to contain Iran’s ‘destabilizing activities’ in the region, Washington’s allies including Israel and Saudi Arabia will continue to resist a nuke deal that directly benefits the regime in Tehran. This is especially more probable at a time when Israel continues to earn recognitions across the GCC countries and hence a Biden push for the deal with Tehran could test the ‘good faith’ in relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv.
Biden has pledged to end the American support for the ‘Saudi-led’ war in Yemen, something that Trump administration largely ignored with continued weapons sales. Muhammad Bin Salman is no longer supposed to Whatsapp Jared Kushner, but to deal with a President who is professionally more institutional and sensitive to the human rights violations, especially in the on-going war in Yemen where Saudi led coalition has killed thousands of civilians. Biden is already concerned about the Kingdom’s desire to acquire nuclear weapons and has over the time criticized weapons sales to the ‘pariah’ state.
However despite all the concern, Biden is unlikely to ostracize Riyadh as engaging it will not only improve Saudis behavior towards policies and reforms but will also help the US to deal with the growing Iranian threat.
Trump’s legacy in Iraq is painful reminder to the Iraqi people as he continued using the Iraqi soil to counter Iran including the killings of Iranian commanders Qaseim Suleimani and Abu Mehdi Al–Muhandis which slides the country towards a renewed chaos. However, Biden too is not an appreciated figure among Iraqis for his radical proposal in 2006 of ‘partitioning’ the country along ethnic lines in his “Unity Through Autonomy in Iraq” and support to Nouri Al- Maliki as Prime Minister, who was reasonably responsible for the rise of ISIS and other violent groups in Iraq. For today’s Biden, however, the situation is changed as he neither wants another SOFA as he previously did nor is interested in keeping the US forces in Iraq.
Unlike Donald Trump, Biden is expected to normalize ties with Baghdad, keep the country together, to revive democracy from where Obama ‘abandoned’ it, help the country solve its impending economic crisis and mitigate the violent suppressions of political uprisings, and seek a safe exit from the country with considerable presence to checkmate Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region.
Palestinians stayed aloof to the White House for the last four years with a President that rewarded Israel more than required for a just settlement. Describing Deal of the Century as ‘political stunt’, Biden rejected Trump’s approach of encouraging ‘unilateral moves’ while he believes in an all inclusive engagement and taking both Israel and the Palestinians together towards a two state solution.
The Palestinians expect Biden to restore US aid to the Palestinian Authority and its UN aid agency, reopen PLO’s mission in Washington as well as a US consulate to the Palestine in East Jerusalem. On the other hand, however, Biden seems positive about recent recognitions to Israel by the UAE and calling it a ‘historic step’; he is unlikely to reverse anything including Israeli sovereignty over Golan Heights, US decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s ‘undivided capital’ and moving its embassy to the city equally claimed by the Palestinians.
However, Biden’s return does neither mean a return to the Oslo times nor a swift back off from the Deal of Century but a prudent revival of Washington’s traditional role as the mediator between Israel and Palestine. In short, Biden’s election may be less threatening to the Palestinians than Trump ever was, but the former is unlikely to facilitate the freedom desirable to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West bank.
Libya remains out of the US foreign policy agenda in the Middle East over the successive administrations, especially after the killing of its leader Muamar Qaddafi in 2011. Though Joe Biden is expected to keep the flow, his policy towards Libya depends on his engagement with Russia, UAE and Turkey all of whom are engaged in Tripoli. Similarly, Syria will continue to be a bastion base for the US military in the North, sanctions under the Ceaser Act to stay intact while any normalization with Assad comes second to Biden’s engagement with Iran and a prospected dialogue with Russia will define the level of US engagement in Syria.
Finally, while Biden presidency may bring hopes for the Kurds, he is less likely to deliver more as his interest’s lies more in Ankara.
Biden’s victory in elections though will alter US approach towards the developments in the Middle East. His ‘new diplomacy’ will filter important drawbacks in Trump’s approach and address the challenges with cooperative framework with its European and regional allies. This includes reviving nuclear agreement with Iran which, besides opposition by Israel and Saudi Arabia as challenges, depends on the upcoming elections in Tehran. Engaging Iraq to promote democracy and human rights, improve the governance and solve socioeconomic problems will be on the table, in addition to cooperation with stakeholders such as Russia and Turkey to bring stability to Syria and Libya.
The Palestinians though will get some relief but Biden is less likely to deliver more, especially in reversing all that Israel has gained over the last four years. Hence, Biden’s foreign policy towards the Middle East seems to change its course especially towards Iran, Iraq and Syria; it is less likely to bring about major changes to the nature of conflict and status quo between Israel and Palestine.
The Indian government is facing a huge internal crisis in the wake of the farmers’ protests in New Delhi. Separatist movements in India have strengthened themselves and a structured campaign has started to challenge the biased policies of BJP. The Hindutva driven ideology of Modi in the so-called secular state of India threatens political and social stability in the country and worries stake holders of peace. After getting exposed by the report of “EU Disinfolab”, India may try to divert public attention through a military expedition.
India has previously tried to deteriorate the strategic stability of the region by launching Balakot strikes, but Operation swift retort was efficient enough to restore the notion of deterrence. Indian leadership however continue to remain engaged in warmongering is involved in the process of military up-gradation, especially the Air Force.
The malicious intentions of India coupled with its ambitions for superpower pushed it to raise its inventory of modern jets and modernizing of its weapons along with sophisticated defence systems and smart long-range weapons by procuring weapons from the US, Russia, Europe and Israel.
Over the last decade, the IAF has been transforming itself from an army-support instrument to a broad-spectrum air force, and this prompted a radical revision of the Indian air power doctrine in 2012. Currently, the IAF is the fourth largest, having 170,000 personnel. It has thirty-three squadrons but for aerial dominance it may need at least forty-two operational squadrons. IAF is planning to acquire fifty to fifty-five combat squadrons. The inventory includes SU-30 MKI, Mirage-2000, MiG-29, MiG-27, MiG-27 BISON, Jaguar and the recently acquired Rafale fighters. In addition, the Mirage 2000 was the only aircraft in the inventory at the time capable of being modified in time to use laser designation pods (the Israeli Rafael Litening) and laser-guided bombs (LGBs, American Paveway II kits mated to standard 1000-pound gravity bombs).
An operation using the air element in the current scenario is the best option available for a calculated attack upon the adversary – under the nuclear threshold. Using the air force to keep the belligerence proportional is game changing – practicing the ‘strike and run’ tactic. Indians have targeted the LoC to satisfy their war-mongering attitudes. Modi’s aim of Akhand Bharat enveloped in the Nazist doctrine of lebensraum has deteriorated the peace and stability of South Asia. Indians have deployed indigenous combat fighter jets Tejas along the Line of Control. The fighter jet is Mark 1 version, having BVR (beyond visual range) capabilities. It also has the capacity for air to air refueling and updated flight control software and avionics. Indians have also deployed the light combat helicopter (LCH) and newly procured Apache helicopter along the LOC and LAC. LCH helicopters have the ability to launch attack operations at high altitudes. The stealth features of this helicopter are dangerous for the target state. Adding to it another advanced light helicopter Rudra has been deployed in the same region which is equipped with 70mm rockets and 20mm M621 cannon. Indian euphoria after procuring Rafale jets, claiming that they could be game changing against Pakistan, is another concern. The complete squadron of 36 jets will be in the hands of India till 2022, but till now they have received 10 of them. The Chinese have claimed that the Indians are planning to deploy a short squadron of Rafale jets in the border regions of Pakistan and China. Rafale jets are nuclear capable and their deployment along the border will be a serious threat to the deterrence stability of this region. Such heavy deployments depict a militaristic Indian nature.
Indian governments have always used the strategy of belligerence whenever they wanted to gain populism within the country. They are facing a similar kind of situation at the moment because of the ongoing protests. BJP has failed to deliver its citizens, which is evident in the future as well looking at the influence of RSS on it. The Doval doctrine has also been defeated considering the increase of ethnic disparities in the state. Hindutva will prove to be a self-killing tool for Bharat because of its extremist views.
The concern here for Pakistan is that India may try to launch another military adventure along the LoC to escape from the internal mishandlings. Pakistan should keep itself ready through necessary Air capabilities and continue the military exercises similar to ‘Shaheen-9’. The air element is of prime importance so the Air defense should be on alert, especially along the Line of Control. A clear message should be conveyed to the Indian establishment that any misadventure will be dealt with an iron hand.
Pakistan should communicate with the regional states regarding such a possible misadventure. The peace of the region is at stake and every nation should work in co-ordination to avoid such circumstances. Pakistan should also alert the international community beforehand and convey all the military options they can use to retaliate in case of an Indian military expedition.
No doubt India is the biggest arms importer of Asia, but the new procurements of modernized equipment will require an equally trained human resource which India lacks. The inexperienced Indian human resource was exposed in Operation Swift Retort and the event in which an Indian naval submarine was destroyed. They are continuously working on this issue and the number of military exercises which India conducts annually is far more than the military exercises conducted by Pakistan mainly due to the economic restraints. However, analyzing the current situation, Pakistan should get itself ready with the same element of surprise and a few fantastic cups of tea.
