If army fails, China will open new flanks: General Shankar Roychowdhury

THIS INTERVIEW APPEARED ON 5TH MAY, 2012 ON THE FRONT PAGE OF FREE PRESS JOURNAL.

ONLINE LINK: http://freepressjournal.in/if-army-fails-china-will-open-new-flanks-general/

After 21 days and 19 km of intrusion by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) into Indian territory, New Delhi has failed both diplomatically and militarily to push the Chinese back on the other side of the Line of Actual Control (LAC). Gen. (Retd) Shankar Roychowdhury, Former Chief of Army Staff, in a candid interview with me, says the stand-off may lead to a 1962 war-like scenario.

Q. The third flag meeting between the two sides have failed to generate any result. Today is the 20th day of the stand-off. How do you see the situation developing?

ANS: The situation will not develop further. We have a very articulate Foreign Minister who has been making tremendously conciliatory statements. The major issue is that the Chinese have come across a line that India feels is the boundary. They have not just come across the Line of Actual Control (LAC), but have established them selves. This is a major variation. To move them back India will have to undertake a multi-pronged strategy. One arm of that will definitely be diplomacy. The second arm has to be an appropriate military build-up to contain and isolate whatever has come across otherwise New Delhi will not be able to get the right message across to the Chinese.

Nothing much will come out of this unless the government builds up its nerves and some kind of pressure is applied, otherwise we should reconcile that the Chinese will stay where they are and even militarily build-up further in the area.

Q. The government seems to have reduced the gravity of the situation by saying that it’s an ‘acne on the beautiful face’ and ‘a localised issue’. Do you agree with this?

ANS: I do not agree with the government on this at all, at all, at all, reason being: In 1996 India and China had a treaty and there were eight points of differences on the perception of border. Daulat Beg Oldie (DBO) is just one of them. If India feels that it’s a localised issue and our response is ineffective the Chinese who are attempting to establish themselves under the new regime both on the ground and on the high sea may take a chance in other areas of dispute. Response in one area may further aggravate the situation in other areas as well.

Our Foreign Minister has time and again gone out of his way and has said that we do not want any trouble. If you do not want any trouble please keep quiet. Do not keep talking.

Since India is militarily weaker and unable to influence Chinese decision making from a position of strength, our esteemed and sometimes excessively civil foreign minister should not endlessly dwell on our supposedly common background as ‘two ancient civilisations’.

Q. This is not the first incident. There are reports of over 600 incursions in past few years. This time it is very serious as they have come in about 19 km inside Indian territory and this may give rise to Kargil-like situation?

ANS: What I am more worried about is not Kargil, but a 1962 like situation of Tawang and Thag La. Many seem to be not remembering their history and those who do remember says let us not do war mongering.

India, in 1962 went forward and claimed the Thag La ridge thinking that the Chinese will not react. But it was a complete failure of Indian intelligence. And this was the basic failure in Indian thinking that Chinese will not react regardless of what we do. India tried and establish its self beyond Thag La and the Chinese came rolling down on India.

So we should keep ourselves prepared and balanced. Keeping ourselves prepared to contesting and contending this creeping by the Chinese in the disputed areas should be our considered strategy.

 And this is something that is not being taken into account.

Q. India has started building military infrastructure in the disputed area. The are feeling a little provoked. Do you think New Delhi has taken a right step to develop military facilities at forward posts?

ANS: India should have started building military infrastructure decades back. What we are doing is too little, too late. And when we get some kind of pin prick from somewhere we scramble and try to contain it and then we get ourselves into all sorts of trouble. India must retain its balance, but very seriously develop border infrastructure which has not been adequately developed, specifically in the case of Daulat Beg Oldie.

Also, the Chinese should not feel provoked. We are within our side of the border. Chine has been developing military infrastructure on their side. India has taken a non-confrontational line and will continue to develop the required infrastructure. The Chinese do not hesitate in doing what they feel right.

Q. Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid will be visiting China on 9th May. Should he visit China at all?

ANS: In my personal opinion. NO. He has avoided saying that this issue of DBO will come up in his meeting with the Chinese counterpart. The emphasis is on cultivating good neighbourly relations between the two. Nothing wrong with that, but at the same time India must work on what is in the best interest of the country.

Modi wants world at Sardar Patel's feet

THIS STORY APPEARED IN FREE PRESS JOURNAL ON 3 MAY, 2013

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi wants the world to be at the feet of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel – the man who united India in its immediate years of post-independent years by annexing several princely states.

Addressing a business gathering organised by Indian Merchant Chambers in Mumbai, Modi said, Gujarat will soon be building a ‘Statue of Unity’ of Sardar Patel and I want the entire world to bow down to him.”

The statue will be 182 meters (597 feet) tall i.e. double the size of ‘Statue of Liberty’ (93 meters) in New York and statue of Shivaji (94.183 meters) to be built in Mumbai off the Arabian Sea.

On the current social and economic situation in the country, Modi said, “For the first time the Indian society is screaming in anger not only at Jantan Mantar, but wherever it can find a stage to voice its anger…The country is sinking…we need to change circumstances to bring change in the country.”

Taking a jibe at the Congress, Modi said, “For over 45 years you took the country in the wrong direction, then you correct your mistakes and call it reforms. The country needs policy-driven institutions and not Modi.”

Pakistan's tryst with democracy

THE ARTICLE BELOW APPEARED IN FREE PRESS JOURNAL ON 19 APRIL, 2013.

A complete fall from grace for Parvez Musharraf. The former military dictator and president of Pakistan is absconding from the judiciary and police authorities to avoid arrest for his crimes committed against the civil society and judiciary.

  Musharraf’s second coming to Pakistan to seek democratic legitimacy has proved to be fatal. He faces treason charges, court proceedings over the killing former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, killing of Baloch leader Akbar Bugti, imprisoning 62 judges including Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and now disqualification from contesting national elections.

While, from Musharraf’s arrest both Imran Khan of Tehrik-i-Insaf and Sharif brothers of PML (N) stand to gain the most as it will be termed as ‘justice delivered’, it will be the army who would have ditched its loyal soldier who served the force for over 40 years. But in recent times, the judicial populist – Iftikhar Chaudhry has put Pakistan’s politicians, civil bureaucracy and military on the back foot.

Pakistan’s military has preferred to remain within its barracks paving the way for stronger judiciary and longer lasting democracy. In the past, numerous attempts have been made to suffocate democracy in Pakistan, but it has refused to die.

For the first time in the country’s history, the democratically elected government is about to finish its full term and elections are about to be held on time.

With Musharraf’s elimination, the Pakistani society is left with three main options i.e. Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif and Pakistan Peoples’ Party.

The young, the educated and anti-American-Pakistani nationals have sided with Imran Khan who has declared to sever ties with Washington and wage war against illiteracy.

 The country badly needs to educate the masses for the intellectual development of Pakistani society, while the former could have regional implication and India’s role in Afghanistan.

The country is surely missing its charismatic Pakistan People’s Party leader Benazir Bhutto.

Her husband and President Asif Ali Zardari has managed to hold on to his chair and run the government, but he has no hopes to offer any new politics from his politically fledgling son – Bilawal Bhutto.

Bilawal’s recent tiff with father Zardari, running away to Dubai and reluctant efforts lead PPP’s election campaign are surely hurting party and his political future.

He may speak and offer the blood shed by his ancestors, but he still is learning major languages spoken by his countrymen. He can’t even speak his mother tong – Sindhi – the language of PPP’s political base.

In 1999 Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan Muslim League (N) was the most hated man in the country and in 2000 stood behind bars – later to be sent in luxurious exile in Saudi Arabia.

 But after returning to Pakistan five years ago, Sharif is emerging to be the dark horse to lead the country once again.

As the Diplomat reports, the Sharif brothers will have to contain Imran Khan’s PTI. The latter has given the Sharif brothers run for their money in urban Punjab.

The silence of the Pakistan army raises many questions about its intentions and future course of action.

However, General Parvez Ashfaq Kiyani in post-Musharraf era and under Chaudhry’s judicial activism has appeared to have prefer to play the security guard. He has not shown any political designs and has not stopped Musharraf’s political fall.

 This can be interpreted in two ways. First, the military wants Musharraf to serve the jail term or die at the hands of Pakistan Taliban and second, quietly arrange for his safe exit from Pakistan to Dubai or London.

Fortunately, this time around, the Pakistan Army has stayed away from the political heat.

However, there is no gurantee of how and when the army will stage a coup and throw Pakistan into chaos. Anything more than a whisper and democracy evaporates in Pakistan.

Japan deploys defence shield as N-cloud gathers

THE ARTICLE BELOW APPEARED IN FREE PRESS JOURNAL ON 10 APRIL, 2013.

The nuclear taboo has been compromised. On Tuesday, North Korea issued warning saying the Korean peninsula was headed for ‘thermo-nuclear’ war and advised foreigners in South Korea to consider evacuation, in the latest in a series of apocalyptic threats.

Responding to the threat, Japan has deployed Patriot missiles in Tokyo as it readies to defend its people living in greater Tokyo from any North Korean attack. Tokyo also called for sanctions under the UN Security Council resolutions.

Japanese defence forces have been authorised to shoot down any plane or missile headed towards its territory.

Pyongyang has blamed the heightened war risk on the ‘warmongering US’ and its South Korean ‘puppets’ who were intent on invading the North.

Pyongyang has announced to conduct nuclear test on Tuesday amidst heightened tension with South Korea and the US. While the political and military analysts sound optimistic that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s threats are just bluster and suicidal for Pyongyang, one can not neglect the fact that the Korean peninsula is one of the most heavily militarised places on earth.

Pyongyang’s bellicose rhetoric has reached fever pitch in recent weeks, with near-daily threats of attacks on US military bases and South Korea.

The Korean peninsula has been locked in a cycle of escalating military tensions since the North’s third nuclear test in February, which drew toughened UN sanctions. If the unthinkable were to happen, there would be devastation on both the sides and the major loss would occur to North Korea.

But the unthinkable is not likely to happen. For Kim and his regime it would be suicidal.

There is significant doubt that North Korea’s long-range missiles that can reach the United States. However, there is no doubt at all that its short-range missiles can reach its neighbors, both of whom are very friendly with the United States.

But the age-old animosity with Washington may prompt  Pyongyang to attack Japan and South Korea to hurt the US. The US military has significant assets in both countries, and analysts predict that a nuclear strike against Hong Kong could cripple US international trade.

Either of the actions would prompt the US to launch large-scale military counter offensive and even launch the process for regime change in the leftist nation.

Though it is difficult to know Pyongyang’s intentions and aspiration with precision, it certainly is not in a mood to sit across the table and talk to Seoul, Beijing and Washington.

Pyongyang with over one million men has the fourth largest standing army in the world. But much of the North’s equipment is seriously outdated, going back to its alliance with the former Soviet Union during the Cold War. In contrast, South Korean army is only seven lakh strong, but as compared to Pyongyang, Seoul possesses much more modern and sophisticated equipment. Overall, Seoul’s armed forces present a formidable forward defence against any possible attack by North. With massive ground attack, Pyongyang could succeed invading South in the first phase, but will have to face 28,000 US troops stationed along the DMZ separating the two countries.

Moreover, Beijing has issued a veiled warning to Pyongyang to not to throw the region into chaos. Morover, Beijing doesn’t want a democratic Korea in the neighbourhood with American military presence. Interestingly, China ‘svarious anti-access-military-development to delay and/or deny any American intervention in the region has come to be challenged by the communist regime it has nurtured over the years.

However, this is the golden opportunity for China to assert its military hegemony in the region. In all probabilities, Beijing will be forced to act to stop Pyongyang from riding the nuclear missile.

India and Myanmar: Not just neighbours

Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs visit to Myanmar, last month, was not just neighbourly.

Though it was first in over 25 years, it came at a time when the military government in Myanmar is opening up to the idea of democracy, increasing Chinese footprint in the country, obvious Western interest and the countrys critical geostrategic location.

It was significant and timely, though not unexpected, says Dr. K Yhome of Observer Research Foundation, a think- tank based in Delhi. " The visit was a combination of factors…. New Delhi cannot wait and watch as other players take the early bird advantage in a neighbour so strategic to its interests from political, security, economic and strategic fronts," adds Dr. Yhome.

Over the years, Indias Myanmar policy has largely been driven by security and economic considerations.

However, the engagement has at least laid the ground for the two neighbours to take their relationship to a higher level. The President of Myanmar, Thein Sein was received in India last year and there have been numerous visits by our respective Foreign Ministers and other senior officials", says Neelam Deo, Former Indian Ambassador and Director of Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations.

" Chinas growing footprint in Myanmar was more of a concern especially to the West, which had isolated itself from Myanmar. Access to Myanmars untapped fossil fuel resources is important for India and other oil importers", adds ambassador Deo." From a geostrategic perspective, China is wary of the changes taking place in Myanmar.

For the past two decades or so, Beijing has taken full advantage of the international isolation of Myanmar by establishing a strong footprint in the country, which today is at stake as Myanmar opens up and welcomes other players to play a role in its development", says Dr.

Yhome.

However, Beijing has welcomed the new developments between New Delhi and Naypyidaw, despite the state media defining PM Manmohan Singhs visit as 'Indias delude mindset'. " I think the Chinese media may be reacting to the Indian medias excessive comparing of the relationship of the two countries with Myanmar and need not be taken too seriously," says Deo.

But Beijings hunger for fuel and other natural resources can not be ignored. It has long term strategic interest in Myanmar. The country is a window to East Asia for New Delhis Look East policy. " The lifting of sanctions by Western countries had been counter productive and should have been done much earlier. The move will be very helpful in expanding bilateral trade as in the past the closing of financial channels has hampered payments for our imports from Myanmar.", says Deo.

" China has long- term strategic interests in Myanmar.

Whether it is Beijings desire to reach the Indian Ocean through Myanmar or ensuring its energy security by laying pipelines in Myanmar to take oil and gas to Chinas southern provinces. In this context, India being a major regional power and a close neighbour of Myanmar that also has the potential to provide strategic alternative to Myanmar, China would closely watch Indias policy and relations with Myanmar and see India as a strategic competitor," says Dr. Yhome.

But Chinas presence in the Indian Ocean Region will challenge Indias naval dominance and emerge as a second possible flash point between the two after South China Sea dispute. At the same time, how well American ( Western) engagement with Myanmar develops remains to be seen. It could well keep a check on Beijings military moves in the region, but could well make India uncomfortable.

As the internationally isolated Myanmar opens to the world community, it would bring economic opportunities, but will for sure change political and security dynamics of the region.

Can US role in China Sea help India?

After enjoying a geo- strategic holiday for over two decades that began with the Soviet Unions withdrawal from power politics, America was left unchallenged. There was no one left to fight until Al Qaeda attacked and Washington decided to invade Iraq.

However, during this period of American unilateralism, China by making full use of that countrys engagement in the Middle East has emerged as a parallel financial support system for the global economy.

Beijing, unlike Soviet Union, has emerged as a powerful economy making it a credible military force.

However, the checkered history of East Asia with several territorial disputes involving Beijing and its lust for energy resources has raised several questions over its military intentions.

The recent announcement by American Defence Secretary Leon Panetta is one such example of Washingtons intention to reemerge in the East Asia region.

No, it was never absent in the region in military terms, but two land wars have stretched American military, economic and diplomatic resources.

It is a global paradox that, where America has been the most powerful, the region has seen the maximum instability and wars, and in East Asia, where there has been the traditional power rivalry and balance of power game, the region has been the most peaceful and prosperous in the world.

However, amid peace in East Asia two parallel hegemonies have emerged i. e. American maritime and Chinese control over regions land mass. The latter is the uncontested land power in the region. The US tried to be the land power in East Asia, but failed. It could not defeat Chinese forces in Korean Peninsula in 1950s and lost against Vietnam in 1960s.

However, the military balance in past 15 years has tilted in favour of Beijing.

It has made rapid economic progress influencing the regional economy and developing credible military that can delay an American military response in case Washington decided to change the course of action.

Former American president Henry Kissinger once said, " Once China becomes strong enough to stand alone, it might discard us.

A little later it may even turn against as….". Today it has grown from aloof posture of a spectator sizing up the game to active participation and a lively and astute promotion of its national interests. It was an economic opportunity that has grown into a military challenge for its immediate neighbours.

Maybe, America is reading through the 'China Threat'theory. What remains to be seen is whether Washington is trying to prevent any future conflict with Beijing or contain China before it becomes too big to handle. However, a second cold war cannot be ruled out. Last month Chinese military once again dismissed an American role in South China Sea saying, " The South China Sea is not Americas business…. it is between China and its neighbours." This is in complete contravention of America and India wanting to explore the regions natural resources. The sea is believed to have 130 billion barrels of oil and 25 trillion cubic meters of gas.

Beijing has already issued warnings to New Delhi against the latters planned exploration of oil off Vietnams coast in South China Sea. New Delhi is watching the situation closely after the US proposed to move 60% of its navy to region. One group may say, yes, why not, after all we are democracies.

We have common interests. And, this could be the opportunity for India to play the balance of power politics in the region with Washingtons help. We can fix both Pakistan and China. However, the questions arise are: Will America in the region be any better? Will India become Washingtons client state? However, America will be better than Beijings increasing prominence in the Indian Ocean Region that is supported by Islamabad.

The region is likely to entertain Washington keeping Beijings desire for land and energy resources.

Not all neighbours of China prefer her influence in the region. New Delhi is already wary of Chinas interest in Indias North- East. New Delhi cannot let Beijing jeopardise its national interests by allowing Beijings monopoly both on the international sea lines and border areas.

As Indian economy expands and engages both China and America, and the international community New Delhis bargaining power is sure to increase.

Iran poses no existential threat to Israel, US

What we know about Irans nuclear programme is not encouraging, but is it enough to judge Tehrans intentions? No clear leads have emerged to link attacks on New Delhi, Bangkok and foiled terror plot in Georgia.

So the question arises, do America and Israel have a strong case to attack Tehran and scuttle its nuclear ambitions? The answer could be in affirmative for many in Washington and its close allies.

However, unless Iran commits an unpardonable act, nothing qualifies Tehran for military action.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejads recent flaunting of nuclear card leaves no doubt about Tehrans ambition to possess nuclear technology. But unleashing American and Israeli military strength would throw the region into chaos. Tehran would be forced to accelerate its nuclear programme and may even take recourse to clandestine means, making it difficult to detect, inspect and attack, if need be.

The present Iranian nuclear ambitions do not pose any existential threat to America, nor to Israel. If Washington could live with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuke China and a clandestine nuclear Pakistan, then it can live with a nuclear Iran. If Jews could survive the Nazi Holocaust, have a separate nation carved out in West Asia and survive the Arab animosity, it would for sure survive any military misadventure of Iran, as Tehran would face decisive American military action.

But what remains to be ascertained is Tehrans nuclear status - that is, whether it is nuclear or near nuclear and how afraid is Israel.

The deliberate conviction of Iraq for possession of weapons of mass destruction should caution both America and Israel, when trying to ascertain how close Tehran might be to acquiring nuclear weapons.

Washington in 2003 insisted that we could not wait for nuclear inspectors to finish their job in Iraq. The then British Prime Minister Tony Blair joined a US- led coalition force in an illegal war against Iraq to ferret out Saddams WMDs that never existed. Iraq was depicted as a closing window.

The Iraq Survey Group, a 1400 strong member organisation set up by the CIA and the Pentagon, made every attempt to prove otherwise, but only came back empty handed. It its final Duelfer Report released in September 2004, the group found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the nuclear programme.

How could Iraq, a country economically besieged, politically isolated and war torn, have produced nuclear weapons to attack America or pose a threat to Israel? Yet the country was ruined with military ferocity. However, the Iraq war invasion plot has started to play again in Iran. The drums of war beat louder as Iran and Israel step up rhetoric. Once again, leading the rhetoric is the American media.

A recent article, titled 'Al Qaeda in Iran,'published in a foreign policy journal, Foreign Affairs, elaborates that several of al Qaedas most senior leaders are being held in Iran under house arrest and that " evidence of the Iranian- al Qaeda partnership abounds," despite the fact that the Sunni terrorist group despises Shias.

The story is pushed further by Wall Street Journal in an article titled 'US Fears Irans Links to al Qaeda,'stating that US officials believe Iran recently gave new freedoms to as many as five top al Qaeda operatives who have been under house arrest, including the option to leave the country, and may have provided some material aid to the terrorist group.

Following the Journal story, Sky News has taken the story even further with an article titled 'Fears Iran is Helping Al Qaeda Plot Atrocity'. The article elaborates on Irans links with al Qaeda and training to latter in advanced explosives 'some funding and a safe haven'. The piece also cites a 'secret intelligence memo'claiming that " Iran has significantly stepped up its investment, maintenance and improvement of operational and intelligence ties with the al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan in recent months." The case against Iran is in the making. Defending Israel from some imagined Iraqi threat was used by Bush, his war enthusiast team members and the media.

The option of war against Iran has been tossed back and forth for a very long time, but no sensible reasons are to be found.

The picture has just begun to unfold. Iran is not a closing window. The international community would be profoundly shortsighted to go to war on the basis of recent ( failed attempts to) attack Israel, failure of nuclear talks, some irresponsible statements by Tehran and deliberate construction of fears of Iranian attacks.

If history repeats itself, it does so only when we fail to learn its important lessons.