Desicritics Category: Politics: South Asia

Tarbela Dam & Karkoram Highway Threatened in Pakistan

C N Anand — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 01:09:57 EST

In 1840, upstream of the Indus, in the Shyok tributary, an ice bridge collapsed to form a dam resulting in the creation of a lake 19 Kms long, 800 meters wide, and 120 meters deep. When the dam breached, a 20 meter high wall of water and mud barreled down the gorges of the Indus, and burst into the plains at Tarbela, and reached Attock in two days time. The massive flash flood of mud devastated the Sikh army camping on the banks of the Indus near Attock! History would have taken a different course if the Sikh army had not been devastated!

In 1858, a similar landslide on the Hunza river (tributary of the Indus) created a reservoir. This also burst. Cultivated land was scoured out and villages flattened. When the flood waters reached the confluence of the Kabul river and the Indus, a reverse flow up the Kabul river, up to 50 kms, was created.

Coming to very recent times, two months ago, on 04 January, 2010, a portion of a mountain gave way to block the Hunza river at Atabad, in the Gilgit-Baltistan area. After hitting the lowest portion of the valley, the land-slide climbed up the opposite hill side and damaged the Karakoram Highway (KKH). Trade with China on the KKH remains disrupted since then. Fortunately, the water flow in the river is low in January, but the flow picks up as temperature rises and snow starts melting. By 27 February, 43 days after the landslide, the longest Bridge over the Hunza, 11 Kms upstream of the landslide area, got submerged. The water level is expected to rise another 30 meters above the bridge. The Karkoram Highway hugs the banks of the Indus and Hunza, crossing over at regular intervals to the opposite bank and back on bridges. Upstream of Atabad, the KKH is now submerged for a length of 15 Kms.

The final size of the lake is expected to be bigger than the lakes formed in 1840 and 1858.

The block in the valley at Atabad is long but narrow like the cork of a champagne bottle. It is 3000 meters long along the valley, and 200 meters wide. On top of the block, earth moving equipment has been placed to doze down the height to meet the rising waters at the earliest. The narrowness of the block restricts the number of dozers that can be deployed. Snow melt and water seepage has made the top of the earth block slushy and boggy, hindering the functioning of the earth moving equipment. The water flow is increasing day by day as temperature rises, resulting in the water level rising faster. In the race against time, the Pakistani engineers seem to be loosing. When the water level reaches the top of the landslide and starts spilling over, erosion will occur. Hopefully, the dam will be washed out slowly and not burst.

The difference between the earlier two situations of 1841 and 1858 and now is that Pakistan has created a lot of assets in the form of the Karkoram Highway (KKH) with many bridges, and the world's largest earth and rock-fill dam, the Tarbela dam. If the dam at Atabad bursts, the wall of mud will rip the KKH along the entire length of the Hunza and the Indus, till Tarbela. Bridges will be devastated. If the Tarbela reservoir is at the dead level as it is now, the wall of mud will push the sand delta over to overwhelm the off take tunnels, and clog up the turbines. The Tarbela dam will have to be written off, which will spell economic disaster to Pakistan.

Pakistan is advised to stop letting out water at the Tarbela dam immediately, and store water to a height of 30 meters above the dead level. The cushion of water in the reservoir will absorb the wall of mud well upstream of the dam and not allow the existing delta to be nudged forward and spill. The catch is that the Rabi crop will have to be allowed to wither away. Unfortunately, Pakistan is facing a drought.

The question that should be boggling every Indian's mind is how can India help? In the impending chaos, what will happen to the nukes? How will China be effected? Will history take another wrenching turn?

India and Pakistan - Future Scenarios

Sandeep Bansal — Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:46:17 EST

Sixty three years ago, the two countries started their journey, torn by bitter memories of partition. The relations between the two nations have been troubled right from the start. Two similar examples from around the world the come to mind - West Germany and East Germany, and the two Koreas.

There are some basic similarities. These countries too had to go through a bitter partition. They followed different political systems and were bitter rivals of each other. One essential difference is that they essentially were one country - i.e. both East and West Germany claimed that they represented the entire Germany. Same is true in case of North and South Korea. In case of India and Pakistan, their rivalry is essentially over Kashmir. Though India was earlier a united country, it is extremely unlikely that partition can be reversed.

The German Story

After the Second World War, both East and West Germany were essentially poor and devastated. But West Germany under the allied influence, introduced free market reforms. It also benefited by large scale aid by the US. By the 1960's and 70's, there was large and visible difference in conditions on the two sides of the border. People in East Germany wanted to move to the West in search of a better life. The Berlin Wall was constructed to stop this. The difference in living standards continued to increase. Perhaps it was the aid from Soviet Union that was keeping things just about together in East Germany. In late 80's, Soviet Union was badly battered in Afghanistan. As a result, it could not continue its aid to the East. The Berlin Wall collapsed.

The Korean conundrum

The story between North and South Korea is somewhat similar. Both countries have remained bitter rivals since the end of the Korean War in 1953. Both countries have contrasting political and economic systems. While North Korea is a totalitarian dictatorship with centralized economy, South Korea is a democratic country with free markets. North Korea implemented land reforms, introduced free health care and education. At one point of time, its HDI indicators were better. However, gradually South Korea's export led economy has moved way ahead. Today its HDI indicators are much better. Its per capita income is $20,000 as compared to a minuscule $1100 in North Korea.

Sung Yoon Lee in his article in ForegnPolicy says,

In contrast, beyond North Korea's southern border lies a free and affluent Korea, one that claims sovereignty over the entire peninsula and to which millions of Northerners would move if given the choice. By its mere existence, Seoul poses an omnipresent existential threat to Pyongyang.

In his article, Lee predicts that North Korea like East Germany cannot survive forever. It will collapse at some point of time. It must be noted that it currently receives aid from China (just like East Germany did from Soviet Union) and South Korea without which vast proportion of its population would die of hunger.

Comparing India and Pakistan

Can such an eventuality occur in the Indian Subcontinent? On one side we have India, a democracy (with its own flaws), an rapidly growing economy and rising living standards.But it is also the home the largest number of poor, there is growing rich-poor divide and a growing Naxal violence. On the other side of the spectrum is Pakistan, at best is a military controlled democracy, a country that is battling with an identity crisis, is a nuclear weapon state, is said to be source of terrorism worldwide.

Small signs of such a thing are present. Pakistanis today are worldwide seen with suspicion. They are lined up and frisked separately at airport. Many Pakistanis abroad claim themselves to be of Indian origin in order to escape this. Some Pakistanis artists like Musicians also want to get hold to an Indian Passport. Of course, these people are a small minority.

But is such a thing really possible. My answer to that will be for the moment, NO. The difference in prosperity in the two countries isn't that huge. India's rank according to HDI index is 134 while that of Pakistan is 141. As per Wiki, India's per capita income $1022 while that of Pakistan is $1017. Our Gini ratio is actually higher at 36.8 as compared to just 30 for Pakistan. Historian William Dalrymple too writes that there is little difference.

On the ground, of course, the reality is different and first-time visitors to Pakistan are almost always surprised by the country's visible prosperity. There is far less poverty on show in Pakistan than in India, fewer beggars, and much less desperation. In many ways the infrastructure of Pakistan is much more advanced: there are better roads and airports, and more reliable electricity. Middle-class Pakistani houses are often bigger and better appointed than their equivalents in India.

However, he goes on to point out some major differences - landholdings. democracy and education. Soon after independence, land reforms were introduced in India. This was promised the Congress. In fact, this is often referred as one of the reasons of creating Pakistan, (protecting the interests of Zamindars). In Pakistan, this feudal system still exists and as a result there is inequality and social tension. Pakistan has seldom enjoyed Democracy. However, often freedom is difficult to directly quantify when it comes to measuring prosperity. Regarding education in Pakistan, he writes

No problem in Pakistan casts such a long shadow over its future as the abject failure of the government to educate more than a fraction of its own people: at the moment, a mere 1.8% of Pakistan's GDP is spent on government schools. The statistics are dire: 15% of these government schools are without a proper building; 52% without a boundary wall; 71% without electricity.

This education gap is the most striking way in which Pakistan is lagging behind India: in India, 65% of the population is literate and the number rises every year: only last year, the Indian education system received a substantial boost of state funds.

But in Pakistan, the literacy figure is under half (it is currently 49%) and falling: instead of investing in education, Musharraf's military government is spending money on a cripplingly expensive fleet of American F-16s for its air force. As a result, out of 162 million Pakistanis, 83 million adults of 15 years and above are illiterate. Among women the problem is worse still: 65% of all female adults are illiterate. As the population rockets, the problem gets worse.

Currently, India's literacy rate is 65% and should increase to 80-85% by 2030. One obvious concern here is what is the quality of this education and are these people employable. And I am sure even in India, there are schools that don't have proper building or electricity(particularly in the Naxal belt).

Nevertheless, India is way ahead of Pakistan in terms of education. But another concern is that a large proportion of the population receives education through the outdated Madrassa system.The so-called secular forces are merely promising reservations for them, even though in 60 years, reservations haven't made enough impact on SC's and ST's. Reservations were supposed to be an instrument that removes the caste identity. Instead it has only strengthened it. A divide based on religion is even more dangerous. Ironically, it has been the so-called communal party that has talked about reforming the madrassas, something that has been looked with suspicion by the community.

Future Scenario:2030

Where will India and Pakistan be in 2030 economically, this is an important question. Will there be any difference in the level of Indian prosperity with respect to Pakistan change?

Over the last 20 years our economy has grown consistently. In the last five years, we have grown by nearly 8%. There are rumors that we are capable of achieving 9-10% growth rates. Let us assume that we will grow at an average of 7% over the next 10 years and at 5.5% in the subsequent 10 years. The growth rates will come down because of base-effect. Despite these highly conservative estimates, India's GDP would be at least 4.2 trillion dollars. Our rate of population growth has been coming down consistently and present it is roughly 1.55% (Source). Assuming an average growth rate of 1.45% over the next 10 years and an average of 1.35 over the subsequent 10 years, our per capita GDP should be roughly 2700$ in 2030.

What would the number be for Pakistan? Under Musharraf, from 2002 to 2007 Pakistan did post impressive growth of 6-7%. But such stability in the country is rare. In 2009, the growth rate was just 2%. Assuming an average growth rate of 4% over the next 10 years and 6% over the subsequent 10 years(highly optimistic considering the frequent bomb blasts and terror attacks), in 2030 Pakistan's GDP would just be $436 billion. Assuming its population grows at 2% and 1.8% as against present figure of 2.2%, its per capita income would in 2030 would only be around $1800.

These are highly conservative estimates and the real picture might actually to be much much better than this.For example, considering current education levels in Pakistan it is highly unlikely that they can sustain such growth rates of 6% over such long periods. Despite this conservatism, India's GDP would be 10 times that of Pakistan while per capita GDP would be 1.5 times. More likely figures are that our GDP will be 14-15 times that of Pakistan and per capita GDP will be around 2.5 times that of Pakistan.

Impact of this growth

India's GDP would be at least 10 times that of Pakistan. In another five years time, India's economy would overtake China as the fastest growing economy. This should translate into enormous leverage for us. Around 10-15 years ago, China's human rights record was severely criticized everywhere. But one hardly hears that today. China's influence was very much visible at Copenhagen.

India is bound to enjoy similar influence by 2030 or even before that. By 2030, India would have almost certainly hosted the Olympics. We are not even sure whether Pakistan could host even the Asian Games by then

I do not foresee a Germany like situation which led to the reunification of Germany. But I do expect that if there is appreciable difference in prosperity and if this grow is inclusive, domestic support for terror is should come down appreciably.

Another important thing is that if there is an appreciable and visible difference in prosperity, it shall become increasingly difficult for the Pakistani Military to continue with its astronomically high defense expenditure. Presently India spends around 2.5% of the GDP on defense while Pakistan spends around 3.5-4%. Hence, in 2030 our defense budget should be close to 100 billion dollars ( 2.5% of 4.2 trillions). This would be 25% of the Pakistan GDP in 2030. Naturally Pakistan would try and match India's defense expenditure by increasing its defense to atleast 8-10% of the GDP.

There would be increasing public pressure against this and unrest among the people would rise. This would result to much more Army control over the civilian Govt and military highhandedness. Thus most probably by 2030 Pakistan would under direct Military control.Furthermore, the increasing military asymmetry would force Pakistan to lower its nuclear doctrine. Thus the sub-continent would actually become a much dangerous place in 2030.

Limitations of this analysis

The methodology of this analysis is just too simple to cover everything. First, the GDP figures are based on nominal values rather that PPP. Using purchasing parity method, the comparative figures would actually improve significantly for India.

Secondly, India has been lucky to have stable Govts. at the centre since 1999 and increasingly governance is becoming the sole criteria that is used by the people while voting. What if there is a hung Parliament. India has previously witnessed this during the 1989-91 and 1996-98. During this period, the growth was minimal and reforms were stagnant.

Thirdly, merely achieving these growth rates are not sufficient. Whether this will translate in improve in prosperity. Whether this growth will be inclusive. Whether all communities including the Muslims who are currently lagging behind in all social indicator be a part of this growth. Will the Maoists be suppressed. Will the development reach the Naxal belt.

Finally, will there be any war either with Pakistan or with China. War could change the above numbers. Of course any resolution with either of the two will also improve the numbers vastly.

These are extremely difficult questions and only time tell. However, if India plays its cards well, great glory is awaiting us. For Pakistan, it is important to understand that India's rise is inevitable. It will be their choice whether they would like to be a part of this growth or not. It is therefore important for Pakistan to understand that going forward, they will not be able to compete whether militarily or economically.

The Changing Geopolitics of South Asia

jay — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:27:45 EST

Afghanistan has been relatively quiet on the surface for the past couple of months. It might lull any one who has not been paying attention, into thinking that the situation is getting better. The truth is quite to the contrary. A lot of strategic maneuvers have been taking place between the various players in the region since the announcement of America's intention of withdrawing from Afghanistan. There are all indications that the various players, Pakistan being the primary among them, are jostling for their domination over the region once the US withdraws. According to some interpretations it appears that they are willing to go to any lengths to secure a favourable outcome for themselves.

In my December 13 article I had described how the next two years are crucial for India and others in the region. Although the doomsday scenario I painted in there will take time to play out (I hope it does not happen!), there are enough indications that Pakistan has already taken the upper hand in getting control of the situation in Afghanistan and is positioning itself to be the holder of the remote control of Kabul. The recent conferences in Istanbul and London are a case in point. Pakistan ensured that India was kept out of the conference. In fact it would like India to have nothing to do with Afghanistan - not even humanitarian assistance.

Given the utter dependence of the Western world on Pakistan, Gen Ashfaq Kayani is having a great time lecturing them about who he will target and who he won't. He has already given enough indications of how he will be maneuvering the various terrorist networks such that they will be good tools for him to use, whether it would be against the Western forces or against India. The sad part is that the double game being played by Pakistan is very clear to all but there is a feeling of all-around helplessness. Pakistan appears to be acting like a suicide bomber. It is like they have bombs tied to their body and are saying, "let me go or I will blow the world apart". Right now the world is ready to let them go.

A brilliant analysis by the Indian Defence strategist Mr. K Subramaniam (Indian Express dated 17-02-10) sees the recent Pune bombing as an indicator of things to come. At the surface, that bombing seemed more amateur than what the sophisticated groups are capable of, but there could be more to it than what is on the surface. According to him, the bombing was done to raise the temperature in India to such a degree that the ever-gullible media and the politicians of Thackeray's ilk would call for an armed response against Pakistan. This would provide all the proof that Mr. Kayani requires, to cry about the Indian threat and move his troops from the western to the eastern border of Pakistan. The American forces' recent surge in the Helmand province has made it untenable for the Taliban to survive there and they need a safe passage into Pakistan. This movement of troops will provide that safe passage with no consequences. According to Mr. Subramaniam, the Parliament attack of December 2001 was precisely aimed to have India raise the saber by amassing its troops at the Pak border. India fell into the trap pretty neatly. This provided Gen Musharaff the reason to move all his troops from the Afghan border to the Indian border so as to provide Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar a safe passage into Pakistan as the operation by the Americans at the time was making it difficult for them to continue to stay in Afghanistan. So, it looks like Deja vu all over again. India has done well to see through the game this time and announced that they will go ahead with the secretary level talks. One must realize that India does not expect to achieve anything out of these talks. This is purely a strategic move on India's part, perhaps a concession to the Americans. So, if India is not moved by a small attack, perhaps a bigger attack is on its way in the next couple of weeks.

It is just not clear where all this is going to end. But, it is definitely clear that there is going to be turmoil in this part of the world for the next few years. India needs to stand as one people and see through this game. Can we do it? Given the divergent motivations we have and the lack of trust we have for each other, I have my doubts. Have we forgotten about that 400-year old strategy of "Divide and conquer" again?

Why is India Still Talking to Pakistan

Sandeep Bansal — Sat, 6 Feb 2010 14:15:19 EST

This is a billion perhaps even a trillion dollar question and there are no clear answers. India suspended its talks with Pakistan after 26/11 attacks indefinitely asking Pakistan to stop terrorism from its soil and to punish the accused in the 26/11. Other than the arrest of Lakhvi, there is little to suggest that Pakistan has done anything on that front.

So why then have talks been restarted

I believe one of the major reasons for that are the recent developments at the Afghanistan Conference in London. With a struggling economy at home and lack of public support, Obama is in no mood to fight the War in Afghanistan indefinitely. At the London Conference, it has been decided that the moderate elements in the Taliban would offered a stake in Afghan Govt.

This is where Pakistan can play a major role. It can use its contacts in the Afghan Taliban to bring them to the negotiating table and thus ensure that the Americans can have an honorable exit. But this also means that Pakistan is going to bargain hard to keep India's role in the Afghan reconstruction to the bare minimum. There are some signs that show that the West has agree to it. Furthermore, there was a renewed International pressure on India to resume talks. Afraid of losing all the strategic gains made by India in Afghanistan by investing over $2 billion, it was thought that Indian interests could be best served by re-engaging with Pakistan.

Why are people opposing talks?

Several voices including those in the BJP are opposed to resumption of the composite dialogue process at this point of time. According to them Pakistan's Army continue to be India centric and have done little to contain the anti-India forces.

This is absolutely true and the Pakistan Army continues to view them as strategic assets. Recently LeT organized mass rallies at POK and Lahore. Infact the rally at Lahore was barely a few kms away from Punjab Assembly. The Prime Minister of Pakistan has publicly said that he cannot guarantee that there shall be no further attacks. But why can't he limit such anti-India forces. Is Pakistan really serious about peace?

The Pakistan argument to the above question is that Pakistan is fighting its own war on terrorism. It has already been said that the current operation would take atleast a year to defeat the TTP. At this point of time, the Army does not wants to open another front with the anti-India forces. The LeT, due to its anti-India stand enjoys massive support in Pakistan. LeT has limited global ambitions and is largely focused on India. It has not allied with Al-Quaida. It is because of these reasons that Pakistan isn't too keen on fighting them. There are merely arresting them for a while before releasing them again.

What to expect from talks

Personally, I don't have much hopes from the talks. Pakistan would not allow any progress to made unless Kashmir is discussed. It would raise ridiculous issues such as Balochistan and comparing it with terrorism in Kashmir. Balochistan and India do not share any border and the Baloch population is just 4% of the total population of Pakistan. Even if India ever wants, it cannot bleed Pakistan in the same way as Pakistan bleeds us. As far as the issue of Kashmir is concerned, it is highly unlikely that any solution that is acceptable to all the three parties can emerge anytime soon.

Secondly, I doubt whether Pakistan would really ever go after the likes of LeT or Jaish once its operations against TTP are complete. Once the American Guns in Afghanistan go silent and the US drones are withdrawn, I doubt if the US can exert sufficient pressure on Pakistan to act against the anti-India forces. Let us not forget that India tried to LeT banned by UN Security Council but it was always blocked by China (a Pakistan ally). I expect the Chinese to use their veto power to create more problems for India in the future.

So, if the situation demands that we talk to Pakistan then so let it be. But we should never trust this neighbor. India should build more dams in Kashmir, thereby creating a negotiating point for ourselves and make it difficult to them continue their proxy war. All major rivers in Pakistan pass through Kashmir this building dams can helps in driving our point through.

We must build up additional negotiating points. India has to be prepared to fight its war on its own. Aman Ki Asha can be done without Aman Ki Bhasha from your opponent. This is a game, and that the moment its our adversary who has the advantage.

Drones for Pakistan - a Potential Game Changer

jay — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:26:32 EST

Soon after the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates left India's shores last week for Pakistan, came the announcement that the US was considering offering UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles popularly called drones) to Pakistan. This was supposedly to appease Pakistan to get them to join the US' war against al-Qaeda (see the New York Times story here).

Although the drone technology being provided is meant to be used against al-Qaeda it does not require a long stretch of imagination to see where it will end up getting used eventually - against India. It is appalling how neither the Indian establishment nor the Indian press has made any noise about this particular handout from the US to Pakistan considering the immense game changing quality of this deal.

Drones are essentially unmanned aircrafts the latest of which can fly for more than 2000 miles, stay unobtrusively at an altitude of about 3 kilometers and stay put in its position for even up to 14 hours. The latest advanced versions are able to sense the heat of human beings on earth from that height and precisely destroy something as small as a car from that height using Hellfire missiles with much less collateral damage than an F-16 would. These are therefore highly preferred by the Obama administration to eliminate terrorists in Pakistan, the most high-profile recent casuality being Beitullah Masud. The drone program is considered to be so successful that Mr. Obama has authorized more predator killings in hist first ten months than what Bush did in 3 years.

What is all the more striking about this is that being unmanned, these are actually controlled by operators who could be sitting anywhere in the world. According to experts, more questions about what it means to be "at war" is being raised due to this program. The operators of these drones are very often suburban home dwellers who drive down to their office for an 8 hour war from an air conditioned office (much like a video game) and then go home for dinner to their family. It is not clear how the concept of "being at war" itself will change with this kind of technology.

Admittedly, the US is wary of providing this technology to any other country as it provides them a military superiority over anyone else in the world. What they are offering Pakistan is only the surveillance technology and not the firing capability. However, this first step itself is going to introduce an inequality between India and Pakistan. Pakistan will now gain the capability to intrude into Indian airspace without being detected. And its Air Force will gain knowledge of the technology which is just one step behind the Predator missile-enabled technology.

From the deafening silence with which this news is being greeted by the Indian establishment, it is clear that the Indians were probably told and their acquiescence sought by the US before this offer was made. Perhaps that was one of the items in the agenda of Mr. Gates' visit last week. If so, it is a shame that India has agreed to this deal without thinking through the consequences. This is like the old Arabian tale of the camel and the sheikh. We are letting the camel just enough room to get his head into the tent to make him more comfortable. It won't be long before he occupies the whole tent throwing the sheikh out.

For more details on the Predator program, robotic warfare in general, and its consequences, here is an excellent book by P.W. Singer: Wired for War.

Exchange Ajmal Kasab for Sarabjit Singh

Vinod Joseph — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:45:29 EST

Sarabjit Singh has been sentenced to death and his sentence has been upheld by Pakistan's Supreme Court. Sarabjit has been convicted for carrying out bomb attacks in Pakistan. According to the Pakistanis, Sarabjit is an Indian spy. Sarabjit, on the other hand, claims that he is just a villager who strayed across the border after having had one too many. In the world of espionage, if a diplomat is caught spying, s/he is expelled. Diplomatic immunity is something which non-diplomat spies have. If caught, they are usually disowned and left to their own fate.

There are exceptions of course. Jonathan Pollard was a Jewish man working as an analyst for the American Naval intelligence. Caught spying for Israel, he was sentenced for life and continues to be in prison in the United States. For many years, Israel denied all official ties to him, though Pollard managed to get Israeli citizenship while in prison. However, the High Court of Israel ordered the Israeli government to admit that Pollard was its agent. Ever since then, the Israeli government has been trying to free Pollard, but the US has refused to let him go. Israeli has always done more than most other countries in getting in nationals back home. At present it is bargaining with Hamas over a deal that will see the release of almost a thousand Hamas militants for a single Israeli soldier held by Hamas. Pollard is apparently not very happy with this, but then you can’t please everyone.

Even if India doesn’t concede that Kasab was spying for India, there is no denying that he is an Indian national and nothing prevents India from doing more to get him home. The traditional (and generally speaking, the only way) of obtaining the release of someone in Sarabjit’s position is to exchange him for someone else. India has a mixed record in exchanging prisoners for its people held in custody elsewhere. When Rubaiya Sayeed (daughter of Mufti Muhammad Sayeed, India’s first Muslim Home Minister in the V.P. Singh government) was kidnapped by the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, India released five militants to secure her release, despite the objections of Farooq Abdullah’s state government. Years later, a BJP led government released three top militants so that the hijackers of an Indian Airlines plane taken to Kandahar would let their hostages go. One of the militants released was Maulana Masood Azhar, the founder of Jaish-e-Mohammad. However, India hasn’t been able to secure the release of PoWs from the 1971 war who are reportedly still held in Pakistani jails.

I want to see Sarabjit released and sent home to India. I don’t know if he was a spy or just a villager who got drunk and lost his way. The Indian government has made various appeals for his release, but can’t it do more I wonder. Is there any Pakistani national in an Indian jail, one held to be a spy by India and renounced by Pakistan, who can be exchanged for Sarabjit? I don’t know. However, I know that India has custody of a Pakistani national who goes by the name Mohammed Ajmal Amīr Kasāb. Kasab is currently undergoing trial in India for having taken part in the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Caught on CCTV, the case against Kasab appears to be an open and shut case and a death sentence seems to be very likely. After initial denials, the Pakistani government has conceded that Kasab is a Pakistani national, but it maintains that no Pakistani agency was involved in the planning or execution of the Mumbai attacks last year.

What would be the reaction if the Indian government offers to exchange Kasab for Sarabjit? The Pakistani government is likely to refuse. Sarabjit the official Indian spy has nothing to do with Kasab the Pakistani freelancer who fought for an Islamic militant organisation which is at war with Pakistan at the moment, Pakistan is likely to say. Kasab himself might not want to be exchanged for Sarabjit. However, just as there are many Indians who would like to see Sarabjit return home, there could be many Pakistanis who like the idea of exchanging Kasab for Sarabjit. Kasab was a pawn in a larger game. I don’t doubt for a moment that he is guilty as charged and deserves no leniency. However, if by giving him up, India could secure Sarabjit’s release, it should, in my opinion, do so immediately without wasting a moment.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Sarabjit is due to be executed soon. There are still a few good people working for his release. If you were to lend your support to his cause, he might still make it home.

Contempt of Court and the Pakistan Army

C N Anand — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:11:08 EST

While fighting a legal battle in a court, one has to tread carefully where arguments can be construed as contempt of court. In Pakistan there is an additional Damocles sword to contend with, which even the judges have to heed -- contempt of army. A hint of this was shown in the NRO (National Reconciliation Ordinance) hearings by the safety-in-numbers 17 bench court in Pakistan. The Attorney General of Pakistan claimed that GHQ (General Head Quarters) and the CIA pose a threat to the Government. Obviously, this blatant threat would not have been issued without a precedence of the courts coming to heel in the past. However, this time the 17-bench court, not to be cowed down came out roaring that an amnesty that had protected politicians, including President Asif Ali Zardari, from corruption and criminal charges, was unconstitutional. The NRO benefited 8000 Pakistanis.

General's Musharraf's National Reconciliation Order, in a country where many believe that even a petty thief's hand must be cut off in accordance with Sharia law, purported to let off many who swindled millions. Many non-Pakistanis are surprised as to how this outrageous ordinance was passed in the first place with the whole country watching mutely. To understand this, one must understand that the numbing of the Pakistani psyche started in 1954 when Governor General Ghulam Mohammad dissolved the first constitutional assembly and the government of Prime Minister Khawja Nazim Uddin. The president of the assembly, Moulvi Tamiz Uddin, challenged him in the Sindh High Court and won: the dissolution was held to be illegal and unconstitutional. On appeal to the Chief Court of Pakistan, which was later renamed the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Munir decided in favour of the governor general. The basis for his decision was the "doctrine of necessity": meaning that to preserve the country the constitution had to be abandoned.

The army then strode through the wide open door. In 1958, General Ayub Khan imposed martial law, dissolved both assemblies of parliament and abrogated the 1956 Constitution. His coup was challenged in the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court ruled that "doctrine of necessity" necessitated such actions.

History repeated itself in 1977, when General Zia-ul-Haq got away with dissolving of parliament and abrogating the constitution, which had been unanimously approved by all political parties in 1973.

In Musharraf's case, the full bench judgment was less monotonous. It not only upheld the coup but went so far as to give General Musharraf unlimited power to amend the constitution as he pleased. It is a popularly held belief in Pakistan's legal circles that this decision was written outside the court and handed to the judges to pronounce.

Against this background where the Pakistani courts have proved to be poodles, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry roared like a lion and felt that Musharraf has had enough fun with the constitution. However, in a country where every one including the top brass of the army and the opposition parties are tainted, a clean sweep will produce a vacuum at the top. The only party not involved in politicking is the Taliban who have a case in insisting that it is their turn to run Pakistan. The Taliban's interpretation of "doctrine of necessity" is that they are bound to arrive.

Considering that Pakistan is bristling with nukes, the Supreme Court could have trod warily and allowed the criminals (8000 in number) to get away and enjoy their ill gotten wealth and let bygones be bygones in the larger interest of the world. How should justice be defined in Pakistan is a polemic that should seize the world.

The State of the Indian Union

Somik Raha — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:36:39 EST

As the media debates the issue of statehood through the Telangana crisis, and we see other demands pouring in, from Gorkhaland in West Bengal to Harit Pradesh, Purvanchal and Bundelkhand in Uttar Pradesh, the common man is left wondering what to make of all these demands.

On the issue of Kashmir, and in general, ceding Indian territory to other countries, the emotional response comes pretty quickly, leaving no ambiguity. However, carving out new states is not an emotional issue for those who are not involved in the demand. The question boils down to one of efficiency and development, and the usual argument is that underdeveloped regions need more attention which they hope they will get with a smaller and more focused state.

Let us examine this question in the light of decision-making. There are two distinctions that accurately describe most government decisions - "isolated" and "distorted." We will start with decision isolation. Government decision-makers are mostly isolated from the people who are affected by their decisions. A central idea of governance is the idea of the head of the family, who acts in the best interests of the rest of the family. This metaphor breaks down pretty quickly, due to physical distance. As head of the family, we can see how our actions affect our loved ones. As head of the government, we simply cannot see all of those affected by our actions, and hence, we land ourselves in the isolation trap. We end up making decisions that we would never wish on our loved ones.

The decision isolation that results is inversely proportional to the size of jurisdiction of the government. Someone in New Delhi decides what is best for the country and this applies to people in Kannyakumari who are left scratching their head about what's going on. It is a lot better when most decisions about Kannyakumari are left to someone in Chennai. But the isolation is still very much there, and it is a matter of degree, not of kind.

The second issue is that of distorted decision-making. When making government decisions, the preferences of the decision-makers get distorted by the punitive incentive system. It is quite rare for outstanding government decision makers to be rewarded. On the contrary, it is quite common for those who've landed with bad outcomes to be punished. This distortion in the incentives results in long decision cycles where risk-taking is avoided as much as possible. The result - we shoot for mediocrity and mostly fail to achieve even that. There is a silver lining though. Unlike China, the Indian government has a low commitment to action. That would mean both good and bad decisions don't get implemented properly. Since good decisions are so rare, this really means India is somewhat spared from the aftermath of terrible policy decisions, simply because the government does not have the werewithal of implementing it. In China, once the government has decided that it is good to have one child, they make it happen. The disaster that has led from this policy is not yet fully understood by contemporary Chinese - most don't have brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles! Their culture has been transformed in a very artificial manner, and few remember it.

We can now see that if we have smaller states, we will begin to tackle the issue of decision isolation. We also end up taking away large concentrations of power - this is one of the best things we could do to gain more freedom in our society. One of the biggest reasons politicians are in a tizzy over the split is that they will now have less economic power (through corruption in a smaller state). For regular people, this is great! We also have a better chance at reducing decision distortion, as less and less can be done by a less powerful state government, and so, voluntary initiatives will have the chance of emerging, where politics is not the main driver.

I wish everyone and their grandmother would start asking for their own state. And while we're at it, we should ask for a couple of Union Territories as well. Since both Telangana and Andhra Pradesh are fighting over Hyderabad, why don't the citizens of Hyderabad have their voices heard and get incorporated into a Union Territory or perhaps their own state (like Delhi)? That way, Hyderabad can avoid facing parochial pressures like Mumbai and retain its cosmopolitan nature.

An India which has tons of state governments, none of which is big enough to do too much damage would imply more power to the people to take over their own destiny, and develop the ability to think outside of traditional taxation-driven progress. It would mean unleashing the creativity of India's population of which there is no dearth. It would mean challenging linguistic, religious and economic identities that we have come to accept. It would mean accepting that the lines we draw are in our head, and not in the world out there.

2010-11: Crucial Period for South Asia

jay — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 01:05:45 EST

The coming two years are likely to be 'make-or-break' years for the future security situation in Central and Southern Asia. By 2011, the US will have decided what it would like to do in Afghanistan and Pakistan and what their role in this region is going to be. President Obama would like to begin the withdrawal of his troops from there by 2011 with an Afghanistan that is stable and functioning. But the situation on the ground in all likelihood will be very different from what he is planning for. Here is why.

Mr. Obama's plan hinges heavily on having a cooperative and willing ally in Pakistan. And that is where his hinges begin to come loose. He needs a Pakistan that will not provide a safe haven to the Afghan Taliban leaders. A Pakistan that is willing to wage a proxy war for the Americans against their own self interest. He is just not going to get that.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, there are three different extremist groups in their midst which the government views as operating in their own silos, each with a different purpose.

1. The Afghan Taliban - comprising the Pashtuns and their brethren who have spilled over into Pakistan - who are only interested in capturing Kabul. It is in Pakistan's interest that they win in their endeavor so that they can have a friendly regime in Afghanistan to encircle India. So their leaders - Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden et al, continue to live in Pakistan and run their operations from there with impunity. This is the same gang that hijacked the Indian Airlines plane in 1999 and are definitely anti-India.

2. The anti-India militants - LeT and others - whom Pakistan likes to encourage and support to wage a war against India by a thousand needle pricks. Despite all the noises India makes, neither does Pakistan want to do anything about it, nor does America think it is their business.

3. The Pakistani Taliban which is waging a war against their own government . They would like to eliminate them and the Americans are today helping them in this endeavor using drones (e.g. Baitullah Mehsud's elimination two months ago).

The Pakistan government and the military are only interested in eliminating the Pakistani Taliban while nurturing and feeding the other two extremist groups. The US is trying to get Pakistan to fight the Afghan Taliban, with no luck so far. There is no reason to believe that Pakistan will change their tacks now given that the US is not interested in staying in the region for ever. Lost in this melee is India's opprobriums to rein in the LeT and other groups waging a war against India. So, given that Pakistan has a very narrow goal which does not align either with the US's goals or India's goals it is not very difficult to see how Mr. Obama is never going to get any help from Pakistan.

There are only two reasons why Pakistan does not want to tell the US off, when there is no confluence of interests between them.

1. Pakistan needs the billions of dollars that they get from the US by feigning cooperation and play-acting as if they are doing the Americans' bidding.

2. The US already has quite a good handle on the nuclear weapons installations in Pakistan and in the eventuality that they tell the Americans off, they could move in to secure, takeover or eliminate them completely.

Therefore, Pakistan continues to play the double game with the Americans. Mr. Obama and his administration have at last realized this game that Pakistan is playing (Mr. Bush never paid attention and never understood this), but their hands are tied. The Americans do not want to spend their own blood and toil on a lost cause, and they have no one else to rely on except Pakistan. India will not, under any circumstances, do the Americans' bidding. Nor will China. The other major country in the region is Iran. Less said the better about the relationship between the US and Iran (ironically, Iran is against the Taliban taking control over Kabul - talk about the confluence of interests!!).

Perhaps one of the most muddleheaded things that Mr. Obama did in his speech on Afghanistan was in setting the deadline for troop withdrawal (later clarified as the beginning of withdrawal). This has given a clear signal to both the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan that the US does not have the stomach for a fight and all they need to do is to wait it out for another two years. So, one can expect reasonable calm for the next two years. This will give Mr. Obama his fig leaf to claim that they have established control over the region and begin the withdrawals. What happens after that will be chaos and India and other countries in the region better watch out for the repercussions. It could even undermine the economic progress we have made so far in the past two decades if the security of our borders is not strengthened.

An important threat that should also be noted is that although the Pakistan government continues to treat the three exrtemist groups as separate entities, there is a lot of co-mingling between the three groups. This was established with evidence by the US recently, complicating matters a lot for every one in the region. As it usually happens, the three could coalesce at some point in the future and direct their energies at a single target. The first target in such an eventuality could very well be the Pakistan government, because they possess the ultimate holy grail that can be easily pried off - the nuclear weapons.

We are in for precarious times and unless India is prepared for this eventuality we could find ourselves being subject to major security situations after 2011. The Indian government's responses so far to such breaches do not give us much hope. So, we can only pray that things do not turn out as bad as I have portrayed here.

Poem: 1947 to 2009

Kashkin — Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:41:04 EST

In four minutes and few seconds,
We will discuss, the progression
Of our country, how we moved
To depict this story of our demise
How we killed ourselves,
The notions of freedom and purpose

All gone, from Jinnah to our present
The country we fought so hard
Now lies bare, in its awake,
Who is to be blamed?
They say "its establishment"
And some say its "22 families"
Some say it's the politicians,
And some the Army.

All to be blamed
Only the ones, who did not destroy
The ones who pay with their lives
Have always done so,
The ones, the people of this nation
For whom nothing exists
No education, no infrastructure,
No health and distribution of wealth

Adopted we have ways of the traders
From the days of the gold rush to
The pirates of the west
When will they learn?
To redeem themselves and admit
The old failures of the past,
Learn from your past but not fight
We are the mirrors, we are the reflection!