How Different is the “New Normal” from the Old Normal in South Asian Crises?

How Different is the “New Normal” from the Old Normal in South Asian Crises?

The summer “fighting season” in Kashmir appears to be heating up. Indian media reports suggest an increase in terrorist group infiltrations over the Line of Control from Pakistan. Cross-border shelling incidents between the Indian and Pakistan Armies are rising in frequency. This surge in violence raises the prospect that a high-casualty terrorist attack on an Indian military base or police forces spurs another military crisis between India and Pakistan.

Tit-for-tat airstrikes during the last major South Asia crisis in February 2019 marked a significant escalation and spurred claims by New Delhi and Islamabad of a “new normal” in their willingness to engage militarily. The “new normal” narrative and the toughness it implies suits the political and military establishments in both states. To the extent such tough talk will be backed up by military muscle, most analysts of the region worry that the next crisis could escalate faster and more dangerously, even risking a nuclear conflict.

However, the 15 months since the February 2019 Balakot crisis mostly resemble the old normal in important respects. Events that might have been expected to provoke military escalation under the “new normal” passed by far less eventfully. Is South Asia really more primed today for war?

The “NEW NORMAL”

On February 14, 2019, after a suicide bomber – an Indian Kashmiri who reportedly had joined the banned, Pakistan-based terrorist group Jaish-e-Mohammad – attacked an Indian police convoy near Pulwama, in the Kashmir region of India, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi threatened “a fitting response” against Pakistan. “This is an India of new convention and policy,” he declared. Analysts branded this posture India’s “new normal.” A subsequent cross-border strike by the Indian Air Force on February 26 on a purported terrorist facility near Balakot, in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, gave proof of the policy (setting aside whether the target was actually hit or not). While Indian officials never defined the “new normal” policy, they allowed the impression that India would not be deterred by Pakistan’s nuclear weapons from responding with increasingly punitive military force to future terrorist attacks by Pakistan-based groups.

Pakistan’s tit-for-tat airstrikes on February 27, which Islamabad claimed targeted open ground in the vicinity of Indian military installations, signalled its resolve to match Indian military reprisals. Though Pakistani military planners could not have counted on shooting down an Indian MiG-21 and capturing the pilot during the episode, this additional success fueled claims that Pakistan’s “new normal” is actually “quid pro quo plus.” As with India, Pakistani officials have left ambiguity around the meaning of “plus,” but it seems intended to project a willingness to climb the escalation ladder as a means of restoring deterrence.

Chest-thumpers in both countries seem to welcome the danger implied by the “new normal.” In India, commentators lionized the Balakot strike as a paradigm shift in India’s response to terrorist attacks. In Pakistan, analysts sought to reinforce Indian perceptions that a sharp military escalation could trigger Pakistan’s first use of nuclear weapons early in a crisis. On the strength of these polemics, it is tempting to predict that a next crisis could escalate in new and more dangerous ways – that the “new normal” will be more violent and persistently nearer the nuclear precipice than the old normal.

Beneath the rhetorical heat, however, political and economic imperatives, and the ever-present threat of mutual nuclear destruction, keep a lid on escalation. These forces are apparent in statements from current and former Indian and Pakistani officials and through the actions of the two militaries in the 15 months since the Balakot crisis.

CHANGING PAKISTANI PERCEPTIONS OF A LIMITED CONFLICT

Windows into the perceptions and crisis-thinking of top officials in South Asia tend to be limited, apart from when they periodically issue threats or conduct diplomatic manoeuvres. This pushes analysts (especially those observing from outside the region) to draw heavily on writings and remarks from former officials as indicators of the region’s temperature. A February 2020 speech by Lt. Gen. (retd) Khalid Kidwai, the former head of Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division, is noteworthy in this regard.

In remarks focused mainly on the Balakot crisis, Kidwai hammered repeatedly on the centrality of nuclear weapons to escalation calculations. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, Kidwai asserted, “deterred India from expanding operations beyond a single unsuccessful airstrike” at Balakot, through the “cold calculation that nuclear weapons come into play sooner rather than later.” He warned that “while it may be easy [for India] to climb the first rung on the escalatory ladder, the second rung would always belong to Pakistan, and that India’s choice to move to the third rung would invariably be dangerously problematic in anticipation of the fourth rung response by Pakistan.” Finally, he cautioned that the Indian air strike “was playing with fire at the lower end of the nuclear spectrum and Armageddon at the upper end.”

If nuclear deterrence sounded the base notes in Kidwai’s speech, his observations on India’s “irrational, unstable and belligerent internal and external policies” provided the shrill tones. He railed against the “extremists and religious fanatics of the RSS and the BJP [who] are the real time state and the government,…and in firm control of India’s nuclear weapons, with a track record of strategic recklessness and irresponsibility.” He also castigated Indian military leaders as “too meek, or equally reckless, to offer sound professional advice” and for giving in to the “irrational pressures of their political masters.”

Warnings of “Hindustan’s quest for regional domination” could be read as part of the battle for international public opinion in South Asia. However, the juxtaposition of Kidwai’s arguments for the success of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence with his charges of “strategic recklessness” by India’s “ideologically driven leadership” suggests real concern about the “irrationality” of Indian actors in future crises. Modi appears to personify the threat on which Pakistani strategic culture is built and perpetuated by Pakistan’s security establishment. Indeed, Modi features prominently in the Pakistan Army’s 2020 Green Book, which from the first page argues, “Mr Modi has not only endangered the immediate neighbourhood, but has also raised the ante for the entire World.”

INTERPRETING MODI

Since 2002, and perhaps earlier, military planners in Pakistan could count on Indian leaders exercising crisis restraint. There seemed to be consensus in New Delhi that engaging in military conflict with Pakistan, regardless of the cause, was detrimental to India’s larger economic and global status-building project. (Pakistanis may not agree with this assessment, but the record of crises between 2002-2016 appears to bear it out, as do many Indian narratives, including from critics of the current ruling party.) Indian restraint made the effectiveness of Pakistan’s deterrent a relatively foregone conclusion, no matter how Pakistan postured its nuclear arsenal.

Pakistani analysts argued that “full spectrum deterrence” – the posturing of nuclear weapons for use in tactical, operational, and strategic roles – had closed the space for India to conduct even limited (proportionate) military operations against Pakistan. However, Indian restraint in countering terrorist attacks even as provocative as the Lashkar-e-Taiba assault on Mumbai in November 2008, may have owed more to the outlook, priorities, and disposition of Indian leaders than to Pakistan’s deterrent. Indian governments prior to Modi sought to avoid war for many reasons and used the risks of escalation to a nuclear conflict to justify their restraint. The military space for Indian reprisals always existed, which India’s very limited Balakot air strike demonstrated, even if the strike was neither as successful or paradigm-making as Indian advocates of the “new normal” profess.

Yet the real fear in Pakistan is that Modi’s rhetoric and domestic policies during and after his May 2019 re-election indicate a level of zealotry and irrationality that might lead to deterrence failure. Modi’s campaign-trail allusions to a Qatal Ki Raat (night of the murder) and blustery warnings that India isn’t saving its nuclear weapons for Diwali could be dismissed as electioneering. But subsequent decisions by Modi to change the legal and political status of disputed territory in Kashmir and to target the citizenship of Indian Muslims are interpreted as state-directed bigotry that will also infuse India’s national security institutions.

The question is whether Modi’s nuclear threats, coupled with perceived successes in implementing anti-Muslim policies in India, are likely to embolden more aggressive action against Pakistan, with attendant crisis-escalation risks.

FROM BALAKOT, A RETURN TO CROSS-BORDER SHELLING

India’s behaviour during and since the Balakot crisis does not directly answer this question, but it provides some clues. First, India’s air operations at Balakot, though without precedent in the South Asian nuclear age, were far less forceful than many in India had called for. As Kidwai himself pointed out, a single, standoff airstrike is orders of magnitude less escalatory than, for example, an Indian “Cold Start” ground incursion onto Pakistani soil. Indian planners appear to have taken calculated targeting and operational risks.

Second, an uptick in violence across the Line of Control in Kashmir in April 2020 suggests a resumption of the usual hostilities, not a new paradigm. Both sides blame each other for initiating the actions – with India arguing it is attempting to interdict infiltration by terrorists – and for the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. If Modi was truly emboldened, why did the Indian government not use accusations of terrorist infiltration for a Balakot 2.0 strike, or something even more damaging? And if Pakistan was truly concerned about escalation, and that Modi is a madman with an itchy trigger finger, would it not do more to shut down terrorist groups whose actions in Kashmir might give India a pretence to attack?

Third, for all its machismo, the Modi government has come in for criticism from Indian strategists for not doing more to translate the Balakot “new normal” into a more consistent and firm policy towards Pakistan. For example, one analyst assesses that India’s 2020 resumption of cross-border shelling reveals that Modi remains interested in military action only for show, rather than deterrent effect. “New Delhi should have used every serious terrorist attack as an excuse for escalation, and any military response from Pakistan as an excuse for further escalation,” he argues. The Indian government’s continued low tolerance for risk of war with Pakistan may frustrate some Indian observers but, at the same time, indicates that rational (electoral) calculations underlay Indian leaders’ bellicose rhetoric.

Seen from this light, Kidwai’s doubling down on nuclear deterrence is a reflexive response. (And motivated by point-scoring, given his observation that after years of public handwringing by the international community over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, global powers have been remarkably silent about Modi’s nuclear threat mongering.) Kidwai’s remarks also frame the bind that Pakistan is now in. Islamabad can be responsible and measured in its responses in the face of Indian recklessness, yet the world continues to side with India. Though Pakistan’s nuclear weapons may, as Kidwai argues, “bring the international community rushing into South Asia to prevent a wider conflagration,” they do little to dissuade an aggressive, bigoted, and ideologically motivated Indian leadership from taking calibrated military actions against Pakistan. (For Modi, whether these actions harm Pakistan may be less important than their public relations value to fire up his domestic political base.)

Nuclear weapons will continue to deter major war with India and catalyze international crisis intervention, as they have always done. Yet, if the “new normal” is not substantially more dangerous and prone to a nuclear exchange than the old normal, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons do little to diminish or deter the endemic threats lurking on Pakistan’s doorstep – economic failure, political disarray, international isolation. Such weaknesses are far easier for India to attempt to exploit than any perceived gaps in Pakistan’s military capabilities.

AN ENDURING OLD NORMAL

For sure, the use of airpower in the Balakot crisis and the purported threats of missile strikes at the height of the 2019 crisis were deeply concerning. There was good fortune along the way that accidents or other possible sources of inadvertent escalation did not materialize.

Yet, the Balakot crisis fizzled rather quickly. Indian and Pakistani leaders made deliberate targeting and response calculations that (luckily) did not result in major casualties. Both sides sought a public relations victory with domestic and international audiences, then moved to de-escalate. There is sparse evidence that leaders in either capital saw benefit or opportunity in furthering the crisis, let alone in a more expansive fight.

The next time the Indian government decides to react to a provocation attributed to Pakistan, New Delhi may try again to achieve what it seemingly didn’t at Balakot: the successful targeted killing of terrorists inside Pakistan. Such a strike would likely cause great injury to Pakistan’s pride, but not grievously damage the state. In response, Pakistan could do “quid pro quo plus,” but the costs to India to receive such retaliation remain low. If the crisis stops there, the main fight again will be through the chyrons splayed across nightly television talk shows, not on the battlefield.

It remains the case that a major war favours neither the domestic politics nor international aspirations of either India or Pakistan. In this respect, though perhaps more worrying and occasionally violent, the “new normal” may not be so different from the old. With a decisive military victory out of reach, and the shadow of nuclear annihilation ever present, risking escalation beyond very limited reprisals brings no gain.

(Disclaimer: Strafasia.com provides an open platform for objective and unbiased debate on Asian security issues. The views expressed by individual authors are their own and should not be seen as an endorsement by Strafasia.com)

The Indian Army’s Delusions of Grandeur

In a recent interview to strategic affairs analyst Nitin Gokhale, Indian Army chief General Manoj Mukund Naravane commented on various aspects of operational preparedness in the COVID-19 environment. While the overall interview contained several noteworthy takeaways, there was an important but unnoticed remark of geostrategic significance.

Responding to a question about the defence budget being impacted due to counter COVID-19 efforts by the union government, General Naravane stressed that investments in national security must continue since, “We are not looking at our own security only, we are security providers for the whole of South Asia” (refer to 18:18 mark in the video).

The Indian Army’s Land Warfare Doctrine (2018) which was developed during Modi 1.0 under the watch of General Naravane’s predecessor (now Chief of Defence Staff) General Bipin Rawat had already elucidated this concept in the following words:

“India’s role as a regional security provider mandates a force projection capability to further our national security objectives. A Rapid Reaction Force comprising Integrated Battle   Groups with strategic lift and amphibious capability will be an imperative for force projection operations“.

General Naravane’s comments confirm that India has intertwined its national security with force projection in the immediate region. Essentially, any ‘weakness’ on the external front would, according to this belief, incur domestic liabilities. In the context of COVID-19 therefore, it is most important for India to ensure the integrity of its national systems and institutions.

This could explain why the CDS along with tri-services chiefs together held their first press conference to announce drills by airmen, sailors and soldiers expressing gratitude to hospital staff combatting COVID-19, an incident that was otherwise ridiculed by serious military observers including from within the Indian military veterans community. Per the prevalent mindset in India’s civ-mil leadership, the securitised projection of ‘resistance’ against a pandemic would ‘uphold’ India’s image as a ‘credible’ crisis manager.

Since long, India has focused on South Asia as a bloc where it could fulfill its ambitions to posture as a ‘regional superpower’. This unfulfilled dream was given material support by the administration of former US President Barack Obama and is ongoing through by Donald Trump as part of a larger ‘Indo-Pacific’ framework. In and of itself, India is incapable of shoring up regional acceptance considering the distinct geopolitical makeup of South Asia in which China and, to some extent Russia, also has an important say.

As the only other nuclear-armed country in South Asia, Pakistan will never accept the hegemony of a nemesis that continues to adversely impact its national security interests day in and day out. It was just over a decade ago when the Indian Army had raised a clandestine military intelligence unit (Technical Support Division) which conducted attacks within Pakistan.

Whether it is support for the Mukti Bahini leading to the transformation of East Pakistan to Bangladesh, routine unprovoked firing across the Line of Control, execution of ghost ‘surgical strikes’ for internal political advantage, testing of Integrated Battle Groups for rapid cross-border incursions, disruption of the strategic stability equilibrium through rising arms import and nuclear arms buildup, lobbying for blacklisting by the Financial Action Task Force, supporting insurgencies in Balochistan and Gilgit-Baltistan or threatening to use water as political coercion, Pakistan has a long list of justified reasons to perceive India as an aggressor.

Historically, India has also meddled in the internal affairs of countries as Sri Lanka, Maldives, Nepal and Bhutan. On account of its manipulative geopoliticking with major world powers under the redundant guise of ‘non alignment’, India continues to play different extra-regional actors to its advantage. An example is the fact that while it is one of the largest importers of Russian arms since the Soviet era, India is cementing efforts by the American establishment to develop a trans-oceanic arc of resistance against perceived Chinese expansionism. It goes without saying that policy planners in the Kremlin were compelled to re-think the durability of their ties with India leading to opening of several back-channels with Pakistan.

The declaration of a ‘Global War on Terror’ provided India the opportunity to assert itself more confidently in the South Asian geostrategic paradigm through persistent US patronage. The first public affirmation of this assertion was witnessed in the publication of Indian Navy’s 2015 Maritime Security Strategy which declared the force as a ‘net security provider’ in the Indian Ocean, later followed by the Indian Army’s ‘regional security provider’ rhetoric.

New Delhi’s efforts to this end are not without their share of risks. In mid-April, Indian press was buzzing with reports that the Indian Army was preparing to send COVID-19 assistance teams to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan and Afghanistan. This offer was vehemently rejected first by Sri Lanka’s Defence Secretary and then by a spokesperson of the Afghan National Security Council. It is obvious therefore that India’s enthusiasm has little takers in the region.

To this end, a ‘revisionist’ China (as termed by the global superpower US) assumes the critical role of an actual regional watchdog by keeping tabs on India’s petulant initiatives. Unlike India, China has made significant geoeconomic investments in South Asia in parallel to its military diplomacy.

While the Indian Navy is benefiting from USINDOPACOM’s support, the cooperation at Army-level (viz US Army Pacific) is, at best, limited as it is still in nascent stages. Due to past engagements with the Russian military, the Indian Army has not gained sufficient joint operational experience with US Army counterparts. On the other hand, Pakistan Army has sufficient experience in military operational coordination with the US vis-à-vis the war in Afghanistan. It would take many years for the Indian Army to attain some level of parity with Pakistan when it comes to operational synergy with the US.

Another important factor is the Indian Army’s deep involvement in Indian-Occupied Jammu & Kashmir which remains a source of international consternation. The unilateral revocation of Articles 370 and 35-A in August 2019 by the BJP government enabled forceful annexation of occupied territories to the Union Government and significantly dented India’s ‘high moral ground’. Continued human rights violations in IOJ&K and insider accounts of Indian Army’s extrajudicial killings in the insurgency-rife North-East raise pertinent questions regarding its professional ethos and regional standing.

In the aforementioned context, the Indian Army chief’s concerns about losing a perceived ‘dominant’ status in South Asia are nothing short of delusions. India has a lot on its plate internally.

COVID-19 & India’s Hindutva Xenophobic Agenda

While the world is grappling with the pandemic COVID-19, India is exploiting this opportunity to push its Hindutva agenda. Coronavirus has hit India hard too but instead of providing relief to its citizens, the extremist Hindu leadership is taking advantage of the world’s preoccupation to machinate its heinous xenophobic agenda.

Hindutva is a nationalist ideology, based on a modern-day version of centralized intolerant Hinduism. It has nothing to do with the historical tradition of spiritual practices in Hinduism. This centralized and chauvinistic ideology—Hindutva—has been brought to the forefront today by a group of extremist political organizations called the Sangh Parivar  (Sangh Family)—comprising the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (National Volunteers Association—the mother organization after which the label Sangh Parivar is coined), the Bharatiya Janata Party (Indian Peoples Party—Hindutva’s political front), the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP—World Hindu Council – the formation’s activist front), the Shiv Sena (the fascist front) and numerous others.

The Sangh, in turn, preaches religious extremism emanating from Hindutva, a term coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 1923 to create a collective “Hindu” identity. Its aim is to establish a Hindu Rashtra (Nation) devoid of other religions or forced into subjugation.

In line with the fanatical policies, VHP has called for a complete ban on the Muslim missionary group, the Tablighi Jamaat and its Nizamuddin Markaz besides freezing its bank accounts and closure of all its offices for the spike in COVID-19 cases across India. The majority of pro-government Indian news channels are linking the coronavirus outbreak to the Tablighi Jamaat and its gathering held in New Delhi, stoking anti-Muslim sentiments.

Hindutva has an odious agenda for Kashmir. On 5th August 2019 BJP rescinded Articles 370 and 35A of its own Constitution pertaining to Kashmir and annexed the disputed region into its Union Territory. Article 370 provided autonomy to Kashmir while 35A forbade non-Kashmiris from settling in the Valley or acquiring property in Kashmir.

To make matters worse, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) were introduced in December 2019. The NRC demanded the citizens to register themselves but the Muslims of Assam and elsewhere were barred from it so that they remain outside the reach of registration, deprived of their basic rights and if deemed necessary, forced to leave India. The CAA, on the other hand, is an act, which has provided Non-Muslims, who entered India as refugees to become citizens, but the Muslims are being kept out of this fold.

To make matters worse, on 31 March 2020, the ‘Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (adaptation of state laws) order 2020 was enacted, which relaxes domicile rules for the valley and eligibility criteria for employment in the region. The order qualifies Indians, who have resided for a period of 15 years in the occupied region or have studied for a period of seven years and appeared in Class 10/12 examinations there, eligible for the domicile of the valley. This means that those who fulfil the new criteria will become permanent residents of Kashmir. The new law authorizes the citizens of India to settle in and compete for jobs in the disputed territory of Jammu & Kashmir.

This malevolent conspiracy aims at the introduction of an undemocratic delimitation measure seeking to ensure the constitutional entrenchment of a Hindu majoritarian agenda to dispossess the people of Kashmir. The cat is now out of the bag because the Hindutva agenda is to alter the demographic character of the Muslim-majority territory at a time when the world’s attention is focused on the worst public health and economic crises of current times. These malicious attempts to take advantage of the prevailing global circumstances are reflective of the noxious mindset of the Hindutva regime in New Delhi.

It may be recalled that in his 8 August 2019 response to India’s actions regarding abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian constitution, the UN Secretary-General had noted that the “the position of the United Nations on this region (Kashmir) is governed by the Charter of the United Nations and applicable Security Council resolutions.” Therefore, it must be emphasized that the ‘Reorganization Order’ contravenes UN resolutions #122 and #126 adopted on 24 January 1957, and 02 December 1957, respectively. These resolutions prohibit any unilateral action targeted at changing the disputed nature of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

On 16 February 2020, the UN Secretary-General declared, “We have taken a position that UN resolutions (on Kashmir) should be implemented, there should be ceasefire (on LoC), and human rights should be respected.”

All Parties Hurriyet Conference (APHC), a Kashmiri political party, has recently released a consolidated report on the atrocities carried out by security forces in IOK. According to the report, Indian forces in their anti-freedom operation, massacred 95,238 Kashmiris, including 7,120 in custody, since January 1989.

An alarming statistic in the report is that the troops molested 11,107 women. However, independent human rights activists claim that this figure is not even ten per cent of the actual number because many women hide the fact that they were raped due to fear of being castigated by the conservative Kashmiri society.

Indian lawmakers are pointing out that India must castigate Pakistan for establishing coronavirus quarantine camps in Azad Jammu Kashmir, where non-state residents i.e. from the rest of Pakistan are also being housed.

BJP MP Subramanian Swamy is facing backlash over his bigoted comments that Muslims in India do not deserve the same rights as everyone else living in the country. In an interview to a TV channel, when asked about India’s controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act, the BJP MP alleged: “We know where the Muslim population is large there is always trouble — because the Islamic ideology says so.”

The extremist Swamy claimed, “If Muslim [population] becomes more than 30 per cent [in any country], that country is in danger”. When reminded that Article 14 of the Indian constitution ensures equal rights for everyone in India, he went on to say that this was a misinterpretation of the Article, saying: “The law ensures equal rights for equals.” “Are all people not equal? Are Muslims not equal In India?” asked the interviewer. Swamy’s haughty response was: “No, not all people are equal, Muslims do not fall into an equal category.”

Indian forces are using the world’s preoccupation with quelling the negative impact of COVID-19, by violating the 2003 ceasefire agreement with Pakistan. According to Pakistan’s Foreign Office (FO) Spokesperson, “India’s belligerence continues to imperil peace in the region,” the statement said, noting that India had committed 931 ceasefire violations in 2020 alone and “deliberately targeted innocent civilians” living close to the LoC in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). Meanwhile, in occupied Kashmir, Indian forces have been targeting the youth in the garb of “so-called cordon-and-search operations”, the FO said, adding that in April alone, 29 Kashmiris have been martyred, including seven since the onset of Ramazan.

The world must take cognizance of India’s Hindutva xenophobic agenda.

The Rise and Decline of Tanks in the Battlefield

Tank Wars.     Tanks are among few weapon systems which have transformed the pattern of warfare. As the quote goes “necessity is mother of all invention”, tanks were also invented out of necessity in WWI to breach German defence lines proliferated with machine guns, bunkers and artillery pieces. The result was British Mark-1, the first-ever tank to enter in combat. The potential displayed by WWI tanks convinced the military minds that tanks can act as revolutionary addition in military warfighting provided that a balanced combination of mobility, firepower and protection is put into consideration.

In WWII, tank forces practically demonstrated the advantage they have added to ground offenses. The traditional war fighting techniques of using fixed fortified defences rendered obsolete against the mobility of armoured columns. German Panzer Divisions utilized tanks to swiftly pierce through the defence lines of the enemy and cut off their supply lines by attacking from vulnerable spots. This tactic, first implemented by Heinz Guderian, became known as the Blitzkrieg. From definition perspective, Blitzkrieg is the two-fold strategy involving: (i) the successful penetration of enemy strategic defence line followed by (ii) driving deep into enemy territory, cutting its ground lines of communications (GLOCs) and destroying its strategic node points. Germans used tanks so skillfully to implement this nascent war fighting strategy that within the opening months of WWII, they had conquered all the landmass in Europe which they couldn’t capture throughout WWI. If WWI tactical lessons can be summarized by a J.F.C Fuller quote as, ”Artillery conquers, infantry occupies,” then WWII tactical learnings can be encapsulated by Guderian’s words as, “If the tanks succeed, then victory follows.”

Russians, in contrast, relied on the strategy of Attrition to wear down German forces using mass firepower and numerical strength. The armed forces which are numerically superior, have bigger material base and are willing to absorb significant losses for sake of delivering absolute defeat to the enemy; the defeat which Clausewitz summarize as, “the complete annihilation of enemy’s forces with brute force,” are more likely to adopt the attrition strategy for war fighting. In wars of attritions fought in later stages of WWII, tanks played crucial role on both sides and evolved accordingly for delivering the requisite results.

The Cold War Period.    The most eminent feature of Cold War was the nuclear arms race between United States and Soviet Union. Within the nuclear umbrella, both NATO and USSR also continued aggressive conventional arms race. In the initial phase of Cold War, the numerical superiority of Soviet armoured forces posed a grave threat to NATO’s defences. As a qualitative countermeasure, the US introduced the idea of  deploying low-yield tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs). Hence, it can be argued that tanks were the first conventional weapon which forced the adversary to develop nuclear counter solution. This supposed solution was short lived as Soviet Union developed Battle Field Nuclear Weapons (BFNWs) of its own to deter NATO’s TNWs, thus forcing NATO to work within conventional realm to strengthen its defences. In later stages, the technological advancement allowed employment of  Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGMs) as a measure to reinforce defence against armoured offenses. However, adaptation of explosive reactive armour (ERA) restored the efficiency of tanks within battlefield. This capability race between ATGMs and armour is still in continuation today.

After the end of cold war, United States assertively displayed its combined arms concept in First Gulf War. The concept, in simple terms, has two different stages; first, in opening hours of conflict, aircrafts and stand-off weapons are used to engage enemy’s key military assets to break cohesion within its ranks; second, after establishment of air superiority the armoured forces are moved within network centric environment to destroy the remaining dispersed enemy forces. The comprehensive situation awareness of entire battlefield catalyses the planning process, reduces the threats against ground force, minimizes the risks of friendly fire and enhances the net efficiency of all tiers of forces. Within the combined arms concept, the dependency on tanks for power projection was reduced, but on upside the tank’s combat utility became more precise in modern military equation.

Tanks and the 21st Century.   The 9/11 terror attacks and subsequent Global War on Terror transformed global threat perceptions. Threats posed by non-state actors became a primary area of concern for all nations. The tanks proved less efficient in fighting low intensity conflicts due to factors like overdispersion of enemy forces, unsuitable fighting conditions, complexities of supply lines and non-supportive terrains. Instead, precise munitions, unmanned systems, better equipped infantry, mine-resistant vehicles and enhanced intelligence played chief role in success of COIN/CT Operations.

A natural outcome of the alternation of threat perception is the decline of emphasis on tanks as preferable combat tools within the western world. The most advance militaries in the world, like United States, United Kingdom, France and Germany, no longer have next generation battle tank projects. Instead, all these nations are upgrading the existing platforms to meet the future requirements.

In general, four reasons can be attributed to explain this policy. First, the objectives of warfare have evolved, and wars are now rarely fought for territorial increment. Tanks were considered as important offensive weapons to conquer enemy territory. The aspect of limited window of operability – due to efficient intervention of international community for crisis resolution, has narrowed the time space needed for execution of major tank-based operations. Second, the survivability and thus the combat efficiency of tanks have become questionable due to proliferation of modern precise weapons. Third, the economic burden of raising and maintaining modern tank fleet is increasing day by day. And finally, the epicentre and methodology of power competition has changed. Unlike USSR, resurgent China pose naval power projection challenges thus shifting focus on modern naval assets. Plus, the emergence of new diffused battlespace, e.g. cyberspace, has prompted military planners to also keep newly emerging battlespace into the chief consideration.

Tanks of the Future?     The advancement in technology can benefit the tanks as much as it can benefit any other weapon system. But it boils down on the requirement and matter of policy that a certain state is willing to undertake requisite research and development in that direction. Russia for example, has introduced new tank design, i.e. T-14 Armata, which incorporates unmanned turret, dedicated crew compartment and variety of active and passive protection systems. Similarly, Israel’s Elbit system has invented new Iron Vision head mounted display system which allows the crew to get full field view through the armour without leaving the crew compartment. Meanwhile other new technologies, like the introduction of smart tank munitions and the maturing ability to operate unmanned systems, are also likely to supplement the efficiency of armoured forces. But ultimately, the future of armoured forces in emerging battlespace will be decided by technological edge they will manage to obtain against anti-armour weapons, the room tanks will manage to occupy within future battlespace, and the power projection options tanks will be able to offer which other weapons will not. Provided these conditions are met, tanks as a weapon of war as well as an efficient conventional deterrent, will be able to secure their existence in threat environments of future.

Rising Clouds on the Eastern Horizon

COVID-19 is an affliction that has engulfed the entire human race regardless of their affinity to a specific religion, language group, nationality or accord.  All people, with sanity prevailing in their hearts, have been working ceaselessly to their maximum potentials and capacity since onset of this pandemic, solely for the benefit of humanity. However, there yet are certain identities in this world who are stuck to their ideologies of hate, frenzy and indifference to others.  They are the eccentric extremists with their fixation towards a specific religious, racial or political ideology. The unfortunate part of the story emerges when this rage immerses an entire or a large component of social strata. A somewhat similar calamity has struck in our immediate neighbourhood, where despite this great ordeal of global magnitude, the state government at large, and specific ideological groups especially, are still continuing with their policies of hate, exclusivism, conquest and hegemony.

The republic of India, the claimed biggest democracy and flagship of secularism has been turning against its own constitution and people. The current government of India, since its assumption of office, has repeatedly dishonoured the spirit of its own social contract that was enshrined in its constitution. The controversial and extremist ideology and rituals that it has been preaching and practicing have been affecting the domestic as well as regional stature and influence of India. But now, with grant of “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) status, the concern has gone global. The square responsibility of this fall lies on fanatic and venomous (RSS-inspired) ideology and practices of the BJP-dominated government, led by Mr Narendra Modi. Mr Modi has a record of expressions, inclinations and habits of employing force, excesses and violence against religious minorities, political opponents and intellectual dissidents; or a silent consent to these. An unusual rise of societal intolerance, religious bigotry and crimes against women has accompanied the political rise of the BJP of Mr Modi.  It was never there at the time of former PM Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his contemporaries in BJP. These neo-cons or revivalists of Maha-Bharat / Hindutva have played havoc in the India of Mr Gandhi, Abdul Kalam Azad, Nehru and the likes of those founding fathers of India.  The policies of the current government have torn the very fabric of the Republic. Successive incidents like the Gujrat massacre, becoming the rape capital of the world, anti-Sikh/-Muslim/-Christian/-Dalit riots, de-monetization, foreign procurement related scandals, abrogation of article 370, CAA, Islamophobia during the pandemic, have nothing but BJP in common.  Today, every minority is fearful of the majority; may it be Muslims, Sikhs, Christians or others, all are fretful about their fate and the fate of their future generations.  Abetted and endless episodes of rapes, mob lynching/burning, destruction/desecration of religious structures, organised and police-sponsored communal violence, etc. have all highlighted the chaos and abyss that India is falling into. And to top it up is her relations with her neighbours.

Historically since independence, successive Indian governments have been believing in and acting hegemonically in regard to regional politics.  A strong and militarily assertive India has always been a means to achieving regional domination and global recognition.  It was in the same hang-over of the “Big Brother” complex that several Indian governments, regardless of political affinity, have taken numerous military actions against their smaller neighbours.  The examples of military interventions against Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bhutan etc., under one pretext or other, are all part of sub-continent history.  However, since the rise of the Modi-led BJP government, the mantra and application of military might and forcefulness of its large national capacity has become overwhelmingly intrusive.  India’s quest to become a regional (and later global) power on the wings of foreign acquisitions and procurements, has not gone un-noticed from pragmatic international observers. SIPRI’s indicative rise in Indian defence spending bulging to above US$ 71 billion and becoming the largest weapon system importer, highlights concern by the rational players.  But a higher worrying consequence emerges, when such a rise is “hurray-ed” by a sizable number while 40% of Indian population lives below the poverty line. Similarly, internal anarchy (in the face of economic regression, uncontrollable law & order in post -370/-CAA, pandemic, etc.) and resultant Islamophobia has been noticed by most ME players, OIC and even the US. Insolent social media accusations, abuses and threats against Islam and Muslims has demonstrated BJP’s ever growing internal anti-Muslims handling and intolerance to Islamic ideology at large.  This has not only been demonstrated by Indian elite (MPs inclusive) inside India but also by non-resident Indians in the world.  Responses from Kuwait, UAE, OIC and now specifically from USCIRF are hardly in time, if not late, and an awakening to reality by the world community.  This phobic trend and frenzied BJP thought process is dangerous, and the world has already suffered due to such demented conceptions in the mid twentieth century.

Such situations are neither new to Indian leadership nor to their dogmatic proponents in the academic field.  The sole tested and repeatedly acted drama script is to blame Pakistan for all evils prevailing in, around, from and towards India. The BJP government supported by its social, electronic and print media toons have started blaming Pakistan for their internal chaos (remember abrogation of article 370, CAA and now COVID handling?) and also for the absurd Indian response to all those contingencies. First it was Indian government agencies and e-media alleging Pakistani hand in masses’ retaliation against 370 abrogation and CAA, then Pakistan was sending agents with COVID-19 virus to India through Nepal, then its was Pak media creating false response with fake names, then it was illegal border crossing into IOJK, next it was cross-border support to IOJK freedom fighter and now God knows what else would be in offering in their next conspiracy-theory plan.

Sycophantically, all kinds of media monkeys and pseudo-highbrows of Hindu-supremacist mindset follow this piper and commit intellectual suicide by negotiating reason, rationality and truth for petty monetary gains and party/class loyalties. No doubt that there are few other religions’ representatives as well. But it is coercion, bribery and personal agendas that dictate these collaborators to turn against their own communities, be it Muslim religious leaders, Sikh political leadership, Christian socialists or Dalit community heads; all have their own (justifiable or otherwise) explanations to express their verbal or media support to Mr Modi. Nonetheless, whatever is happening and/or is expected to happen is not ultimately beneficial to India or the region.  Although BJP’s ideological master Chanakya has delineated, “One should not allow, enemies posing as friends, to grow at one’s expense,” but in our candid ethical and hearty reckoning, “an India at peace with itself is in the best interest of Pakistan.” But the peace comes at the cost of soul-searching, self-realisation, surrendering inhuman beliefs and abandoning racial/religious fanatic ideologies or any notional superiority of one over the other; and that under existing BJP’s (RSS-inspired) leadership is least conceivable.  The disciples of Kotiliya have inability to comprehend the presence of goodness in neighbouring relations.

The previous trend of the BJP government very distinctly demonstrates the approaching apocalyptic scenario.  Attack on any Indian element, be it in eastern, northern, southern or western extremities, is first pasted against Pakistan. Later-on, the Indian investigation may reveal otherwise, but the media is filled with a jingoistic war-cry.  Many a case have proven the veracity of internal dissident elements.  However, Indian media never had the courage to reveal the truth. Mr Modi, treading on a similar path and beating his claimed “50-inch” chest, jumps the wagon and raises warmongering slogans and punitive threats. He has, on occasion, gone to the extent of raising nuclear ante, without considering the implications of such an exchange to both the people, region and the world. The more fearful account is the overconfidence of Mr Modi and his military lieutenants in the superiority of their conventional as well as unconventional capabilities and in undermining the capability and resolve of the enemy.  After the Uri incident, Indian army claimed that they carried out land “surgical strikes” across LoC into AJK and killed of dozens of preparing terrorist groups (hundreds of terrorists).  Pakistan Army, however, reported only an exchange of fire on LoC; and the very next day took national and international media representatives to all those claimed spots and showed no sign of any such activity. The Pulwama incident was, similarly, expected and forecasted by Pakistani political observers; especially, once Mr Modi’s re-election campaign was reaching a critical stage. The aerial attack that ensued was also prophesised by pundits.  The response therefore was swift and calibrated. The latest addition to this conundrum is the establishment of the office of CDS. General Rawat and his (lots of 3-Stars) staff has a new assignment to pursue: “fulfil Mr Modi’s dream of regional supremacy (read hegemony)” … meaning subdue Pakistan. The next three years are therefore a test run for all big wigs in Indian Armed Forces. CDS moving up for ministership, Services Chiefs to CDS and 3-Stars to 4th.  Carrots hang in front and the task is nothing more than an adversary with less than half the military strength; albeit with proven full spectrum nuclear capability.

Based on foregone assessment of India’s homegrown havoc, external complications, and their historical Indian-style solutions; it is expected that under the current situation of internal mayhem and foreign embarrassment (or failures), India might try to rearrange the situation and attempt to implicate Pakistan in any scheme of deceit that it has woven to rid itself of internal and external pressures. Such tricks, though repeated and old, have mostly gained the Indian government a change of citizens’ focus and unified domestic support on the home front while simultaneously achieving global sympathy and support for her victim status.  Indian overtures in such garb have previously been amicably tackled by Pakistan but the severity and viciousness of the next plot cannot be underestimated. Chanakyan deviousness in statecraft is ugly but so are the realities of international politics. In order to achieve larger (perceived) national interests and glorification, the sacrifice of few hundred citizens is not costly.

The dots on eastern horizon are flashing and thunder clouds are getting darker.  Someone needs to look and prepare.

COVID Politics in India

COVID Politics in India The recently released report of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom ( USCIRF) for 2020 has designated India as a country of Particular Concern for ¨engaging in and tolerating systematic ongoing and egregious religious freedom violations¨. This annual report compiled by the American State Department under a Congressional  Mandate evaluates the state of religious freedom in different countries. The last time it mentioned India was in 2003, following the massacre of Muslims in the Gujrat State of India at which time the current Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, was the Chief Minister of Gujrat, and was accused of complicity in the massacre. As a result, he was denied a US visa – a restriction that was withdrawn when he was first elected Prime Minister in 2014. This change in American policy was dictated by growing US strategic interests rather than any change in Modi’s commitment to religious tolerance towards the Muslims of India.  In fact, over the last six years, the Indo –US strategic alliance against China has ensured that Washington turns a blind eye to Modi’s systematic persecution of Muslims and other minorities in India.

Now with the spread of COVID-19 pandemic in India, yet another excuse is being used to discriminate against Indian Muslims.  It remains to be seen whether the US Government will act on the recommendations of the USCIRF report to restrain Modi’s repression of Muslims or American Strategic Interests will trump American ‘commitment’ to Human Rights, including religious freedom.

So far, the Modi Government has quite literally got away with mass murder. The policies of persecution implemented in Gujrat, are now being extended on a national scale. Guided by the fascist ideology of its RSS mentors, Modi’s BJP views India as land only for Hindus, in which Muslims need to be either purged or to live as second class citizens if they refuse to return to their original Hindu faith. Muslims are projected as’ oppressors’ during their rule over India and their religion as an alien faith which did not emerge within India.  As a result, Indian history is being rewritten to portray Muslim rulers as villains, their heritage is being destroyed, such as the Babri Masjid, and their memory is being erased from the names of cities, roads and buildings.

Mobs of Hindu vigilantes and thugs have been given a free hand to extract `revenge’ on Muslims for imagined crimes such as cow slaughter or marrying a Hindu. Their places of worship have been desecrated or destroyed. Entire localities and villages of Muslims have been demolished and their inhabitants forced to flee. In these pogroms against the Muslims, fuelled by derogatory and inflammatory rhetoric by Hindu leaders, state institutions, such as the police, have just stood by as spectators or even actively engaged in the violence. Government officials, the judiciary and even the armed forces have become willing or forced collaborators.  With a few exceptions, the Indian media has promoted this anti –Muslim campaign, spewing venom against Muslims in line with BJP/RSS policy. Those who resist are branded as `Pakistani agents’ to be tried in Kangaroo courts or just simply beaten up.

Encouraged by the absence of the international opprobrium, Modi has taken even more draconian and institutionalized measures against Muslims in his second term which started in May 2019. In August, he changed the Indian Constitution to remove even the fig-leaf of autonomy given to the Muslim majority occupied the State of Kashmir, placed it under lockdown and media censorship which continues arrested thousands of people, including children and unleashed a wave of renewed repression by more than 900 thousand troops. Also by enabling non –Kashmiris to buy properties and settle in Kashmir, Modi’s objective is to change the Muslim majority demography of the occupied state, turning it into a Hindu majority area. This is nothing short of genocide.

Within India itself, the BJP has enacted the Citizenship Amendment Act which bars only Muslims to acquire Indian citizenship. It then approved the National Population Register, initially meant to identify illegal migrants in Assam, as a first step towards nation-wide National Register of Citizens, in which people would have to prove their Indian nationality.  The real purpose of this subterfuge is to deny nationality to Muslims who can then them be expelled and India’s Hindu`purity’ ensured. At the very least this law will enable the Modi government to hold Muslims hostage to its whims. Reaction to these developments by Muslims and secular Hindus, which had been peaceful throughout the country, was met by violence by the police and Hindu facist volunteers.  Muslim educational institutions like Aligarh University and Jamia Milia in Delhi were particularly targeted, with students being beaten up and arrested from their dorms  and libraries.  At least fifty innocent people were killed in this state sponsored violence.  Then in February 2020, even as US President Trump was visiting India, anti- Muslim riots provoked by BJP leaders broke out in the Muslim areas of Delhi, leading to hundreds of causalities, destruction of Muslim homes and damage to mosques. Not surprisingly, Trump described this as India’s `internal affair’.

It is against this toxic background, that the Corona Virus struck India. Instead of forging a united front against a virus that does not distinguish between religion or caste, Modi and his fascist henchmen have tried to use the pandemic to promote their anti-Muslim agenda. Blaming the occurrence of COVID symptoms among some members of the Tableeghi Jamaat, the spread of the virus was blamed on Muslims – even though other Indians had been infected by the virus before this incident. As a result, Muslims in different parts of India have been ostracized, their homes and businesses boycotted and even denied treatment for Covid infections or other medical ailments.

In occupied Kashmir, the situation is even worse. With the continuing lockdown, patients are unable to get treatment or obtain essential supplies. At the same time, medical services are woefully inadequate, with no support from the central government. In fact, the Covid lockdown is being used to further isolate the Kashmiris and keep them in a virtual prison. This enables India to prevent any Kashmiri expression of public dissent against Indian repression. Meanwhile, Indian troops on the LoC have increased firing on Kashmiri villages on the Pakistan side, leading to several casualties.

All this is being done by taking cover behind the global pandemic crisis, with the international community preoccupied with its own national emergencies.

Nevertheless, the discrimination against Indian Muslims with state patronage has led to reactions from the UN, the OIC and the Gulf states, apart from Pakistan. All have expressed grave concern over these developments. But just as in the case of the USCIRF report, the Modi government has rejected these concerns as interference in India’s internal affairs. Unfortunately, those countries that do influence to compel a change in Indian policies, like the US, give greater weightage to their strategic partnership with Modi and are in any case consumed by their COVID challenges, rather than focus on discrimination against Indian Muslims. In these circumstances, there is unlikely to be any check on the Indian government’ s victimization of its Muslim citizens.

However, over the longer term, adding the COVID layer of discrimination against Muslims, who are over 200 million people, will eventually tear the Indian polity apart. These policies discriminating against such a large minority would severely test India’s ability to remain a coherent, functioning multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-ethnic state. It was in recognition of this diversity that India’s founding leaders pursued secularism as the glue that would bind such a diverse country together. Now Modi and his fascist henchmen have torn even the pretence of secularism to sherds. Eventually, the very survival of India could be jeopardised. This process of disintegration has already started with the alienation of the Indian Muslims. The resort to COVID politics in India has made the situation even worse.

The Chronic Imbalance

Your civilization will commit suicide with its own dagger

What’s built on a shaky foundation will not last long 

Allama Dr. Iqbal

Pakistan’s Poet Philosopher

 

Just in case one didn’t agree with this prognosis that the world was hopelessly out of plumb; the corona crisis might help take another look.

To keep ahead of the pack some hounds had indeed gone on steroids. A rat-race depleted the natural resources and produced plenty of junk. If growth became the goal, seeking contentment was like reaching for the lights of a moving truck. Military-Industrial complexes needed perpetual wars to survive. Smaller families was a good idea – taken beyond a point, where children became a drag on the lifestyle, some societies could not raise enough for the old age benefits. Ever more money was being recycled in the same piece of dirt, called real-estate.

In other words, the system was collapsing under its weight. But the worst part was that though it was all too obvious, nothing could be done but to sleepwalk with eyes wide shut. Anyone who suggested that the process was unsustainable; if not pooh-poohed as a naysayer, was shrugged-off with our legendary laissez faire: yehan to apni guzarti hey maze main, akhrat ki khabar khuda janey (enjoy while it lasts – who has seen the hereafter). But no one, not even Iqbal, had the faintest idea that this wobbly structure could be so brutally rocked by a microbe.

When it happened, one was reminded of another shrug.  Zia-ul-Haq was often warned that some of his actions would backfire. When they did, he simply said: yeh toe hona hi thaa ; yes, that had to happen”. One still cannot deny all the collateral benefits: air getting cleaner, birds chirping louder, friends and families coming closer, moods more reflective, and personal hygiene now nearly an obsession. And of course we are delighted that corona has lined-up all the high and mighty who were getting too big for their boots (no pun intended) in the same firing line

Understandably, we do not want to lose these gains and have therefore assured ourselves that once the crisis was over, it will no longer be business as before. Possible; but not if history or even mythology were any guide. Nimrod was killed by a mosquito; an ant creeping up the tusk felled an elephant; and David got the better of Goliath. None of that convinced the people at the helm that the balance of power was a sound concept. The UNO, established after the Second World War to prevent or preempt conflicts, cannot fulfill its raison d’être because the Big Five, reluctant to loosen their grip, scuttle all efforts to restructure the world body. At home, the political dynasties resist changes that could infuse new blood. One might still argue that the corona phenomenon was a gamechanger and some citadels must therefore fall. The problem is that even revolutionary movements were hijacked by the better organized or the more powerful.

The Iranian revolution was spearheaded by the Communist Tudeh Party, but was taken over by the Mullahs in quick time. The Arab Spring, triggered by a lone self-immolator, helped the Egyptian military entrench its regime. The Kashmir uprising of the 1990s was led by the pro-independence JKLF, which was soon edged out by groups sympathetic to Pakistan. “The more we change, the more we remain the same”, may sound cynical, but it’s essentially because the beneficiaries of the old order do their best, or their worst, to defend the status quo – in this case, to restore the status-quo-ante. And, they will also be better placed!

Yes, the Virus may not discriminate between the poor and the rich, but the latter have more cushion to absorb its onslaught. Stronger economies, though certainly under stress, were more likely to survive this crisis than those barely keeping their heads above water. Individually too, despite the lockdowns; people with money in bank could put food on the table, while the daily wage earners were out begging for alms. But for our charitable traditions, most of them would have kicked the bucket or stormed the Bastille. Depending upon when we will limp back to a new normalcy, our emaciated masses would rather take out their pushcarts than rally to support a just order. And then there are no signs that the post-corona world would be a more level playing field for the underdog.

To start with; pleas by the UNSG notwithstanding: wars continue; no relaxation of sanctions on Iran; and no letup for the besieged Kashmiris. Reduced violence in Afghanistan, Syria, or Yemen may be due to the diminishing capacities of the belligerents – and some of them must already be positioning to resume combat with more vigour. The state that claims monopoly on power is hard at work to grab even more. Its rationale: after terror, it has to fight another global war – against an invisible enemy. And the looming economic meltdowns provide just the right pretext to declare an emergency. That all these challenges were more effectively met by devolving power—to the point of application, as they say in the military—never crossed an establishment mind.

Lockdowns may or may not be the best option in the current crisis, some of the arguments from the pro-lobby clearly showed that it couldn’t care less about the plight of the powerless. One of them who had never missed a meal in his life believed that since the hunger takes longer to kill than the virus, therefore corona first. Another from his ilk consoled us that in Pakistan people do not die of starvation. If they don’t – as those who defied the recent lockdowns must have noticed – it’s because some of our compatriots take food to the hungry. In the process, the people thus saved will keep the country afloat—and not the state. One can reasonably assume that our big business would suffer because of the worldwide recession, but also that the informal sector could still provide livelihood to the masses. Given a choice therefore, I would rather shut down the government than our undocumented enterprises.

The unipolar world order was already on the mend because the sole superpower had overstretched itself and was running out of steam. In Pakistan, when people whisper in your ears that it was now worse than under Zia, the imbalance was clearly beyond critical. I don’t know why the “tiger force” reminds me of Tiger Niazi, but its creation has uncomfortable similarities with FSF, the mafia that blew-up in ZAB’s face. And if there was any Churchill around to ask if in the present state of war, the courts were still functioning, he was likely to draw a blank.

Indeed, we do not know in what shape the virus will leave us. If we are by then prostrate on ground, all bets are off and the sphinx that will rise from the ashes will lead the new order, or the disorder. But it’s more likely that the world would not be beyond repairs and then the onus of chartering an equitable course would be on the victims of the old order. It can be done, but only if one learnt from the laws of nature.

Open any channel like the Animal World, and the chances are that a predator was chasing a herd of zebras. It gets one, and the others feel relieved under the illusion that they had saved their skin. Sure as hell, another of the species would be hunted in the next round. The French military thinker, Beuf, has formalized this phenomenon as “the piecemeal strategy”.  The next episode was likely to show how the horned buffaloes deal with such threats: they build a cauldron for an all-round defence. it’s then the animal of prey that beats the retreat. Now that corona has locked-up the pillagers of earth, time for its saviours to rally around is just right.

Of course, there is a better course available, but that’s for the powers that be to take. According to an old Subcontinental wisdom, jab sara dhan jataa dekhiey to adha dijiey baant – when all that you have was in jeopardy, give away some of it. A just distribution of resources and powers is the proclaimed objective of states and societies. Post-corona, if it was not done voluntarily, some may rally together to snatch all of it.

India-France Military Partnership: Implications for South Asian Stability

India-France Military Partnership: Implications for South Asian StabilityInternational and regional stability is ultimately the product of broader political, economic, and military dynamics among many players, in which political, technological, strategic alliances and decisions perform multiple roles as agents of change for the strategic environment. France and India have a fairly multifaceted strategic relationship, one of cooperation spanning multiple domains, including the defense, civil nuclear energy, space and climate change arenas. During President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to India in March 2018 the two countries signed 14 agreements covering these areas. And Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during a state visit to Paris in 2019, coined the term ‘INFRA’ to denote the alliance of India and France. Reciprocal visits by each state have been a feature of their ties for decades now.

Background.          Historically, there has always been a rather unique quality to the Franco-Indian relationship.  Even at the height of the Cold War, when India’s rapport with NATO was frequently colored by mistrust due to its rapprochement with the Soviet Union, but relations between France and India remained relatively functional and cordial. France was one of the first Western countries to lift the arms embargo that hit both India and Pakistan in the aftermath of the 1965 conflict. Likewise, during the 1971 war, France was one of the only Western capitals to comment on the legitimacy of India’s concerns regarding the refugee issue in its border regions with Bangladesh (East Pakistan). Perhaps the most important gesture was when France refused to chasten India after the 1998 nuclear tests and openly opposed U.S. sanctions. Since 1998, the Franco-Indian relationship has become increasingly strategic and now, arguably, is nearing its full economic potential.

Strategic and Political Cooperation.           The India arms trade graph has been climbing since Prime Minister Narendra Modi took charge in 2014 and pursued hawkish strategic and economic policies. Arms imports from France, a major supplier to India, increased by 715%, thereby making it the third-largest supplier during 2015-19 among other exporters like Russia, the U.S. and Israel. The military equipment includes fighter aircrafts, helicopters, submarines, warships, artillery guns and assault rifles.  The long list of strategic defense equipment acquisitions including Rafale fighter aircraft, Dassault Mirage 2000 fighter aircraft and a squadron of DCNS Scorpène-class submarines (called Kalvari-class submarines), are significant for their capabilities and implications. The armed-services of both nations conduct joint-exercises on an annual basis. The Indian and French Navies will be able to use each other’s naval bases, under an agreement signed in 2018. Indian warships will be able to use French bases in the Indian and southern Pacific oceans.

Simultaneously, France is one of the prominent suppliers of nuclear fuel to India, under the “Framework Agreement for Civil Nuclear Co-operation“, signed in the aftermath of India’s waiver of U.S. 123 Agreement in 2008. On 30th September 2008, both nations signed an agreement that would pave the way for the sale of French-made nuclear reactors to India. France has also supported India’s bid to be a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, along with other missiles and nuclear related import Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Australia Group (AG) and Wassenaar Arrangement (WA).

Additionally, France and India view each other as important partners in space technology and its applications. The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) and its French counterpart Centre National de Etudes Spatiales (CNES) have a history of cooperation and collaboration spanning about four decades. The research and development communities of both nations cooperate in joint radiation experiment, space components development and space education. The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) Vikas rocket engine benefited from Indo-French scientific collaboration in France on the Viking 4A engine built by CNES/SEP.

In the political domain France, alongside Russia, is considered a more reliable ally supporting India in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for all strategic matters; this includes support over abrogation of Article 370 by India for Jammu and Kashmir and its bid for permanent membership in the UNSC. Traditional cooperation in the defense, space, and civil nuclear domains has now expanded to counter-terrorism, maritime cooperation and cybersecurity. The collaboration in Artificial Intelligence was positioned on top of the agenda during Modi’s 2019 visit.

Implications for South Asian Strategic Equilibrium.    The convergence of strategic and political interests is the major rule of International relations and inherently has implications for other states. The Indo-France strategic, political and technological partnership is high in strategic aspirations, with the development of military and hybrid technologies. However, it has a direct impact on regional and international strategic stability, in both mid-term and long term.

Mid-term risk factor effects pertain to the impact of political and military equipment cooperation by France; essentially, it contributes to a volatile strategic environment in the South Asian region where two bordering nuclear weapons capable states (India and Pakistan) have uneasy relations. It refers to the risk of inadvertent escalation of any military crisis between the two countries due to perceived threats with aggressive political and strategic military actions/signaling.  

This can be assessed by France’s response to India’s revoking the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. France supported India’s abrogation of Article 370 in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Pakistan called for a UNSC debate over the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir, a demand which China supported and Russia’s position was not in total favor of India either. Therefore, the support by France emboldened India to adhere to its unlawful stance and triggered a regional military crisis. The consequences of such political decisions, followed by military actions by India in the Pulwama-Balakot episode are aptly explained by Former Director General Strategic Plans Division, Lt. General (R) Khalid Ahmed Kidwai who states, “It is clear that the strategic and military consequences of an irresponsible political decision by poor professional military advice were not thought through or war gamed to their logical conclusion. Therefore, nuclear India, and international actors who are issuing a blank pass to India, must consider the strategic costs in an active military conflict situation and escalation dangers could be disastrous for the region and the globe”.

In military equipment deals between France and India, specifically the induction of Rafale fighter aircraft manufactured by France-based Dassault Aviation, is not just an addition to the inventory. It indicates the impetus for arms race, threat perception and signaling, consequently destabilizing the strategic equilibrium.

Long term effects address cooperation in nuclear fuel supplies through nuclear agreements, despite the fact of peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  The dual use factor still remains a strategic concern as it results in radically different outcomes like unlimited fissile material production. This, along with French support for India’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), adds to the pressure of a nuclear arms race environment in the South Asian region.

Another strategic concern for Pakistan is the substantial investment of France in the Indian maritime domain by supplying sophisticated weapon systems and surveillance technologies, as well as military training and exercises. These provisions raise concerns for blocking the sea lanes of communication in times of crises by manipulating maritime intelligence and communications.

Conclusion.     The India-France Strategic partnership is for boosting the economic market, convergence of high strategic interests for geo-political gains and continuation of strong support to India as a strategic investment. Yet, all the elements of India-France cooperation trends, trajectories in developments and deployments are exacerbating geo-political competition and the regional arms race, all of which may lead to crisis instability. Therefore, technological asymmetry may lead to deterrence failure. No doubt, international and strategic relations are based on the realism rules but Dwight Eisenhower explains another strategic perspective for coexistence: “The world must learn to work together, or finally it will not work at all.”

Chinese Role in Afghan Peace

Peace remains elusive in Afghanistan, despite serious efforts by various stakeholders and the accord signed between the US and Taliban. The people of Afghanistan have suffered immensely, having been ravaged by wars since 1979; the Soviet invasion, followed by internecine warfare, the US-led war in 2001, the war on terror, the rise of Taliban and Daesh have all taken a huge toll. Besides Afghanistan, its neighbours too have a stake in Afghan peace. Numerous development projects of Pakistan are on hold till peace returns to Afghanistan. Prominent among these are the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan- India (TAPI) gas pipeline and the Central Asia-South Asia power project, commonly known by the acronym CASA-1000, a $1.16 billion project currently under construction that will allow for the export of surplus hydroelectricity from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Iran, Pakistan and China besides the Central Asian States are those neighbours who are keen to see peace return to Afghanistan. Among them, China is the most powerful as well as most keen to invest in Afghan peace. Chinese strength and development model through engagement and connectivity will work best for Afghans. China, along with other regional stakeholders and neighbouring countries, is likely to extend its constructive role in the Afghan peace process from political, economic, and security aspects once the NATO troops withdraw from the country.

Recent events in Afghanistan, however, indicate that the spoilers of peace are still active and influential. Initial zeal and expectations of the Afghans from the US-Taliban peace deal have reduced a little after the delay in a prisoner exchange and expected intra-Afghan talks. Political crisis in Afghanistan has weakened existing Afghan Governance and its reputation. Common Afghan views developments with despair as political opponents callously play with the peace deal related steps only to undermine life and security of the people. Proxies are still in action with the Afghan Intelligence Agency NDS playing politics through Afghan Daesh (ISKP) related violence. ISKP mysteriously opted to surrender to Afghan intelligence after having been comprehensively defeated by the Taliban initially in Nangarhar and finally in the Kunar Province. Ironically, ISKP has accepted responsibility for multiple attacks in Kabul including Gurdwara Attack targeting the Sikh community.

In this milieu, China’s role in Afghan peace becomes more significant because there is no trust deficit between Afghanistan and China. Iran and Pakistan have endeavoured to act as a catalyst in brokering peace but the Afghans remain wary of both because of their previous vested interest. Pakistan’s age-old notion of finding strategic depth in Afghanistan and the Iranian quest for propagating Shia theology in predominantly Sunni Afghanistan make them suspect in the eyes of Afghans. The US is perceived as an invader and a foreign element so its peace overtures are viewed as a desperate attempt to extricate itself after wreaking havoc in Afghanistan for the last two decades.

Afghans are cognizant of the factor that after the withdrawal of the US and other NATO forces, the local law enforcing agencies will not be able to manage the peace. The withdrawal of US and NATO troops will put a great and serious effect on Afghanistan’s policy, economy, and security. The war on terror has not been won yet. Neither terrorist networks are dismantled nor did stability emerge in the country. In this backdrop, China, recognized as a global power while also enjoying secure relations with Iran and Pakistan, will be welcomed. Iran will not put impediments in any Chinese propositions for peace while Pakistan, which is a strategic ally of China, will welcome any Chinese initiative.

Afghans are well aware that China has no hegemonic designs and has no history of military interference in any countries; contrarily it seeks to consolidate its relations with other states through spreading economic exchanges. This policy of non-interference and extending economic support to less-developed nations carries great significance for Afghanistan.

Peace and stability in the country are in the interests of both Afghanistan and China. Sustainable peace will not emerge in Afghanistan through mere agreements, which are the beginning of a long-haul process. No sooner the Taliban lay down their arms, the Afghan government will be desirous of executing rehabilitation, economic development and poverty reduction, all of which are directly dependent on sustainable peace. China has the capacity to support Afghanistan both politically and economically in achieving lasting peace.

A war-torn and unstable Afghanistan is detrimental to China too since terrorist groups seek safe havens and the separatist East Turkistan Independence Movement (ETIM) had wreaked havoc on China’s Xinjiang province till the Chinese government managed to control it with sustained measures. China’s ambitious mega project, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) can also gain the desired impetus through peace in Afghanistan.

Not only did former Afghan President Hamid Karzai but the incumbent Dr Ashraf Ghani also reached out to Chinese President Xi Jinping for aiding the Afghan peace process but Taliban delegations have also travelled to China to repose their confidence in China’s initiatives for peace.

China has constantly revealed its interests to play a constructive role in Afghanistan so that the peace process moves forward. US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad had a trip to Beijing in July 2019 after completing its seventh round of negotiations with the Taliban in Qatar.

Geopolitics and location play an important role in a country’s power potential. Currently, Afghanistan is located in the centre of many regional and trans-regional mega projects including the BRI which connects China to Europe and Africa through routes, railroads, pipelines, energy lines, ports, and other infrastructures and Chabahar Port, which connects Afghanistan to high seas. Afghanistan is also endowed by nature with numerous mineral resources which are of interest to China.

Despite the Sino-US rivalry, Washington DC has taken Beijing into confidence along with Russia to ensure that all stakeholders are on the same page. Contrary to previous apprehensions about the US’ motives of staying in Afghanistan for an indefinite period, this move also shows that the US has tried to raise the comfort level of China and Russia to assure that it does not view Afghanistan as a listening post for the region any longer, thus beckoning Afghanistan’s neighbours (China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran) to take the responsibility of stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan.

An important consideration is China’s investment of 3.5 Billion US Dollars in Afghanistan in the Aynek Copper and the Amu Darya oil exploration projects.

China, which shuns chest thumping and cock crowing would prefer to be a part of the multilateral process rather being a solo player to maintain good ties with all the stakeholders in Afghan peace.

It is now an acknowledged fact that despite maintaining a neutral instance on Afghanistan in the past, China has been playing an important behind the scene role in nudging the different players in Afghan politics to sit at the negotiating table. Where numerous powers have failed in the past, China will be conscious of a letdown thus it will proceed rationally and pragmatically to secure peace, which has been elusive in Afghanistan so far.

India’s New Nuclear Mindset: Counter Force Targeting.

India’s New Nuclear Mindset: Counter Force Targeting.Nuclear deterrence plays a pivotal role in maintaining peace and stability in South Asia. The main actors in the region are India, Pakistan and China. Since independence, India has been keen to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of civilian use. India got nuclear assistance from Canada, United States and France for peaceful purposes. After the 1962 Indo-China war, humiliation faced by Indian Forces compelled scientists to speed up weapon program. In 1974, India tested its nuclear device and named it “Smiling Buddha”. India successfully camouflaged its nuclear device under the cloak of peaceful use through a brilliantly orchestrated campaign, even though, this device was based on implosion technique which was highly suitable for weapon usage. After the 1971 tragedy, Pakistan’s insecurities were further heightened and after India’s tests, Pakistan embarked upon the journey of acquisition of the nuclear bomb, as a reactionary step. In 1998, both India and Pakistan had tested their nuclear weapons, but India took the lead and Pakistan followed suit.

This writing will primarily be concerned with India’s shift towards counter force pre-emption. Counter force approach refers to hard military targets rather than counter value, i.e. city (soft) targets. A pre-emptive strike is a surprise attack in response to an anticipated attack. Indian nuclear policy was based on two important notions: No First Use (NFU) and minimum credible posture, as stated by India’s Draft Nuclear Doctrine (DND) 1999 Article 2.3, “India shall pursue a doctrine of credible minimum deterrence.” Article 1.1 of reviewed DND by Indian Cabinet Security Committee states, “Nuclear weapons will only be used in retaliation against a nuclear attack on Indian Territory or on Indian forces anywhere.” A credible minimum posture is basically a minimum plus. In this posture, you tend to develop a capability to engage a good number of enemy targets either soft or hard, but former Indian National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon recently stated, “India’s nuclear doctrine has far greater flexibility than it gets credit for.” Initially, India relied on massive retaliation or punitive strikes in the context of nuclear policy, however, in the aftermath of the attack on Indian parliament, Indian forces failed to execute punitive conventional strikes on Pakistan. This inaction was a result of the threat of the use of tactical nuclear weapons by Pakistan. This inaction continued even in the aftermath of Mumbai attack. India failed to give Pakistan any admissible proofs about terrorist groups operating from Pakistani soil. This inaction forced Indian strategists to think of new proactive and more aggressive strategies as India failed to deter sub-conventional warfare.

General Sundarji has contributed a lot towards Indian strategic thinking. The element of pre-emptive strikes in Indian strategic thinking can be traced back to the preventive war doctrine of Gen Sundarji. The idea was to destroy Pakistan’s nuclear facilities under the fog of war. This idea continued in the 1980s. Operation Brasstacks was the manifestation of this idea. Indian strategist modernized Gen Sundarji’s idea and suggested a pre-emptive counter force approach. The Idea was to engage all counter force nuclear targets of Pakistan and destroy their nuclear capability completely. Menon used the term “splendid first strike”. Once all nuclear forces of Pakistan were destroyed, India could freely carry out a conventional strike. General B.S Nagal (Former Strategic Force Commander) and Menon were chief advocates of this idea.

If we examine provisions of Indian nuclear doctrine, the idea to use nuclear weapons in response to chemical and biological weapons attack somehow lowers the threshold of use of weapons. We can infer that Indian Nuclear Doctrine has great flexibility and there exists a grey zone regarding the first use of weapons. Doctrinal ambiguity and flexibility allow India to respond differently in an evolving situation thus rendering NFU (No First Use) ineffective.

Now we will examine the technological evidence that will support our argument. India is investing heavily in its missile system. It has developed short range, medium range and long range ballistic as well as cruise missiles. It is developing supersonic as well as hypersonic missiles. BrahMos-A, a medium range super-sonic missile loaded on Su-30MKI, can be used as a stand-off weapon, having a range of 400km. Shaurya is a hyper sonic missile having a speed of Mach 7.5 (9,187.8km/h) with an effective range of 700km. Prahaar, prithvi-1 and 2 are short range ballistic missiles. The central idea behind short and medium range missiles is to engage Pakistan’s military targets, especially garrisons, that are near the border. The Agni missile family mainly comprises long range ballistic missiles. Submarine-launched ballistic missile K-5, named Sagarika, having an effective range of 3500 km, provides an assured second strike to India.

India has developed sophisticated ballistic air defences, for instance, EL/W-2090 air borne early warning and control systems. Barack-8 is also an effective air defence system while Prithvi Air Defence is also an apt example. Air defence systems instil confidence in states to go for first strikes. If you successfully launch a comprehensive first strike and reduce the enemy’s repository capacity to a greater extent, then the remaining weapons can be intercepted with the help of air defence systems. India has RISAT-2: an all-weather, day and night surveillance satellite. All these technological pursuits indicate that India is effectively posturing towards counter force pre-emption and has failed to maintain credible minimum posture.

Till now we have observed that India is effectively posturing towards counter force targeting and it has doctrinal flexibility to facilitate such actions. Now we will look into the credibility of this claim of “splendid first strike”. Pakistan has a large number of mobile delivery systems rather than silos. Eventually it becomes very difficult to exactly locate all delivery vehicles which are placed at distant locations. Now the idea of “splendid first strike” loses its utility.

This idea of India’s counter force pre-emptive strike is destabilizing regional stability in two ways. An arms race has been triggered in South Asia by virtue of Indian actions. Secondly, it is the “first strike instability” that is an inevitable consequence of counter force pre-emption. For instance India is planning to launch a comprehensive first strike on Pakistan, whereas Pakistan in its insecurity may fire weapons first. Consequently, regional stability is threatened.

Conventional asymmetry compels Pakistan to develop an effective nuclear deterrent. India, having larger resources and military might, must not pursue belligerent designs. It needs to revisit its policies towards Kashmiri people. The right to self-determination of Kashmiris must be respected. Indigenous freedom struggle of Kashmiri people is not an act of cross border terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. India has to re-think the very nature of sub-conventional warfare. Alleging Pakistan of terrorism and then using this pretext to launch punitive pre-emptive strikes is undermining deterrence stability. This idea that a limited war under the nuclear umbrella is possible is flawed at its root. Irresponsible Indian statecraft was visible during the Balakot episode. Pakistan acted maturely and controlled escalation, while deploying military force for wining cheap electoral objectives was an act of shame.