The Crisis In Nepal

Background

To understand the reasons behind the current crisis that Nepal it is necessary to have a brief look at its history. Nepal is an ancient kingdom ruled by benevolent and malevolent ,by wise and insane rulers from 700 BC. Around 250 BC, the Mauryan Emperor Ashoka had sent emissaries from India to build the four Buddhist stupas at Patan. In 1768, Prithur Narayan Shah, whose family had migrated in the 15th Century from India, became the first king of the Shah dynasty. Describing himself as a Rajput, he conquered the warring tribes of tiny hill kingdoms, and brought the Nepal valley,one of the Himalayan belt’s richest kingdoms, under the Shah dynasty. The death of Pritvi Narayan Shah in 1775,brought along a string of rulers, who despite having been described by historians as incompetents with a streak of insanity running through their veins, made Nepal the largest country in its history, with Garhwal,Kumaon and Sikkim under its control.

In 1846,the massacre at the armoury, known as the “ kot parwa”,took place. The mukhtiyar(or prime minister),of the regent queen, Rajyalakshmi, was killed together with 55 other court officials, leading to an exodus of some 6000 courtier families belonging to the Thapa, Pandey and Basnyat Chettri-caste families. The man behind the massacre was suspected to be General Jung Bahadur Kunwar, who then became the new mukhtiyar. So it was that another Chettri-clan rose to power. Renaming themselves Ranas, they captured power over the Shah kings by subterfuge and by marrying into the Shah family. By a decree passed by a mentally deficient king, the Ranas were to inherit the prime minister’s post,as well as the title of Maharaja conferred on Jung Bahadur, for perpetuity, the inheritance passing not from father to son but from brother to brother. They were destined to rule Nepal, for the next over 100 years. It was said that very few Rana rulers died of natural causes, most being either murdered ,exiled or over thrown through palace coups to make way for their successors. The Rana regime came to an end in 1951, when Tribhuvan Bir Bikram Shah, crowned king in 1911,was able to overthrow the Ranas(with the aid of India) and restore the present dynasty of Shah kings.

On June 1,2001, the palace massacre took place. King Birendra and his Queen Aishwaraya, were allegedly gunned down in cold blood by Crown Prince Dipendra, who was also supposed to have killed his brother, his sister and five other relatives. Inexplicably the only other persons present in the room, Prince Paras, the son of King Birendra's younger brother, Prince Gyanendra,. and Paras’ mother were spared by Dipendra. It paved the way for Prince Gyanendra, fortuitously(some maintain by design) absent from the dinner at the Narayanhity Palace on business in western Nepal. Prince Gyanendra thus become the 11th King of the Shah dynasty, an accession not welcomed by the people of Nepal, nor by a section of the Army.

Nepal-Foreign Connections

It was in 1768,when the British first came in direct contact with the Nepalese. When Prithvi Narayan Shah, the Gorkha king began his siege of the Nepal valley by blockading the Tibet and India trade routes,the British East India Company had dispatched some troops to aid Jayaprakash Malla, the king. It was the Ranas, heavily dependent on the Brtitish for their own legitimacy within Nepal, that made the British contemptuosly describe(and treat) Nepal as a ‘quasi-British protectorate’, and so it remained till India’s Independence.

King Gyanendra, who is considered one of the wealthiest individuals, having stakes in Kathmandu casinos and some profit-making industrial activities, is a die-hard conservationist. He is the head of the Britain-Nepal Society and the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation.

This association has brought King Gyanendra very close to the British royal household, particularly to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who founded the World Wildlife Fund (since renamed the World Wide Fund for Nature). As a result, the WWF has a very big presence in Nepal; what is disturbing, is the fact that the Maoists are ruling the roost in the large "nature reservations" maintained by the WWF.

While the British still have a say in Nepalese affairs,but so do the Americans and the Chinese. The Americans moved into Nepal in a big way. The US helped Nepal into colonizing Chitwan, a forest tract south west of Kathmandu, and developing it into a model district with educational facilities and healthcare centers. It was here that Pushpa Kamal Dahal, aka Prachnanda,the ‘Fierce One’ the shadowy Maoist supremo, moved to with his family, received his basic education and even worked briefly in the US AID-an independent government agency providing global humanitarian aid !

The India Connection

India's geographical proximity, cultural affinity, and substantial economic aid render it the most influential foreign power in Nepal. Nepal acting as the buffer zone between China and India has invaluable strategic implications for India,which cannot be ignored. India’s “unique'' relations with Nepal, with open borders permits 60 lakh Nepalese citizens to work in India without passport. India provides military equipment and has over the years helped to train the Royal Nepalese Army’s counterinsurgency groups. Land-locked Nepal in turn is heavily dependent on India for its economic and social survival. India, traditionally Nepal’s most important foreign friend, thus has the most to lose if there is instability in Nepal. The insurgency in Nepal is already aggravating the security crisis in India’s northeast and other parts.

But India has been accused of military and political interference in Nepal's affairs. Suman Pradhan, a communicator on Nepal’s politics ,writing in the Times of India,is of the view that India is the power most directly linked with Nepal through its open borders. As such what India does will almost certainly be followed by western powers, including the USA and UK. Its policy,therefore, holds the key to help resolve or lengthen the conflict in Nepal. “But despite centuries of amicable interaction”, according to Suman Pradhan, “there exists a deep reservoir of anti-Indian passion just lurking underneath the tranquil Nepali surface”. Much of this, feels Pradhan., can be explained away as the inevitable result of a big country-small country dynamics, but a significant portion of it is due to a sense of inflicted wrongs and heavy-handed policies from the past ,which has been nurtured by all sides of Nepal’s conflict: The Maoist, the Palace, and even political parties. In 1969, Nepal cancelled an arms agreement with India, and ordered the Indians to withdraw their military mission from Kathmandu and their listening posts from the Tibet-Nepal borders. In 1989, the Indian government closed its borders with Nepal to all economic traffic, bringing Nepal's economy to a standstill. It was then that early in the 1990s, Nepal developed closer ties with China.

The Genesis of the Crisis in Nepal

On Feb ,1,2005,King Gyanendra, seized power, effectively ending Nepal’s 14-year experiment with democracy. The immediate reasons for the present crisis goes back to the first tentative steps to usher in some form of democracy. When Judha Jung Bahadur Rana became the seventh maharaja in 1932, there were palpable signs for people’s rights movements. These were inspired by Gandhi and the Arya Samaj, and also by the advocate of armed revolt,Subhas Chandra Bose. So there was even then reports of the political parties plotting the mass assassination of the entire Rana clan in connivance with the then king,Tribhuvan Bir Bikram Shah. Nipped in the bud, it led to mass arrests, and the incarceration of the king. But the fact that these dissidents had allied with the king, did not mean that they were all monarchists. By 1940,calls for republicanisms had already been made, and by the end of World War II, a struggle, which had the potential to turn violent if need be, had started in earnest.

It was in 1950 that Jawaharlal Nehru,the Indian PM, having backed the Ranas switched his support to the political activists. King Tribhuvan sensing an opportunity to break away from the Rana shackles, sought asylum in the Indian Embassy. The entire royal party was later “evacuated” by an IAF plane to India, leaving behind the 3-year old Gyanendra, to mind the shop. When a deeply humiliated and enraged Maharaja Mohan Shumshere Jung Bahadur Rana., put him on the throne, the country erupted in agitation.. On 15 February 1951,after his three-month exile in India, King Tribhuvan, Bir Bikram Shah returned to Kathmandu to claim the throne as a constitutional monarch in a democratic government.

The period between 1951 and 1960 was to see nine short-lived governments. Between 1990 (when political parties became legal) and the summer of 2004,Nepal was to endure 14 governments. The reasons given for the failure of democracy and why the king took back absolute power are manifold. Some maintain that he and his family undermined democracy-with the Ranas out of the way,the king had no further use for political parties. .Others maintain that the political parties were squarely to blame. When King Birendra ceded power to an elected government the Nepalis watched in frustration the political parties squandering whatever goodwill they may have had by rampant corruption, venality, internal bickering and gross mismanagement. The international community feels that Nepal just wasn’t and still isn’t ready for democracy.

So enter the Maoists.

The Maoist Insurgency

At the time King Birendra got gunned down inside the palace, Nepal was already in a most unstable condition. A burgeoning Maoist insurgency movement, which then controlled about 50 of Nepal's 75 districts, had begun to set up its bases within Kathmandu, the capital. The Maoist group was formed in February 1996 when the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) and the United People's Front (UPF) started their "people's war" for the establishment of a Mao-style dictatorship of the proletariat. This followed a meeting on July 1, 1995 between the Indian Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist)—also known as People's War Group—and the Nepal Communist Party (Maoist). Since then, the Maoist group has declared war on the parliamentary system prevailing in Nepal

Pushpa Kamal Dahal was part of a national movement that took place after the failure of democracy in Nepal Calling himself Prachanda, “the Fierce One”, he went underground with his newly founded Communist Party of Nepal(Maoist). Starting what they call "people's war", and believing firmly in Mao Zedong’s maxim that “political power grows out of a barrel of a gun” they aim to turn the impoverished kingdom into a communist state. Their new political thought, Prachand-Path is said to have been modeled after Peru's Maoist Shining Path guerrillas.

The hierarchy of the Party founded by Prachanda, is traditional Stalinist. He is the Party Chairman as well as the Commander-in-chief of the Peoples’ Liberation Army(PLA). Beneath is the Party central committee, a politburo and an army command, district and sub-district committees and village heads. Prachanda favours centralization of the party ,the PLA and the United People’s revolutionary Council(UPRC).The UPRC is the rebels’ parallel government set up in 2001. His deputy, Baburam Bhattarai, a JNU graduate, is, however, reported to be at loggerheads over party issues ranging from ideology, India-centric military tactics to the arrest of its leaders made in Indian states. Bhattrai is above all against the concentration of power in the hands of one individual.

Maoist collusion with insurgents across the porous Indo-Nepal border, as well as the assistance they receive from India’s large Nepali population, make it even more difficult to act effectively against them. The threat is spread across the 'Compact Revolutionary Zone,' which stretches from the Nepal border to Tamil Nadu. Fifty-three districts have been identified as 'highly affected' by the threat of violences by the Naxalites, while 17 are 'moderately affected.' Fifty-two districts are 'less affected' and 21 are possible targets.

The Royal Nepal Army

The Royal Nepal Army(RNA) was basically a ceremonial force under the direct control of the King. Between 1996 and 2001,despite political leaders demands to fight the insurgents ,the then King Birendra refused its employment in a counter-insurgency role. Such qualms changed when the Maoists attacked an army post at Dang in November,2001, and the gravity of the situation was realised. The Indians who had undertaken the modernization of the RNA in 1990 with a Rs.500 crore package now stepped in a big way. A massive reorganization and restructuring of the RNA took place, with new raisings and induction of more modern weaponry. By the end of 2003 the RNA consisted of three infantry divisions with nine infantry brigades with necessary supporting arms and logistic units. By this year the RNA has grown from58,000 to 80,000 strong army. With the introduction of the unified command, including police and armed police, the counter-insurgency force has now a strength of 1,40,000.Hari Roka,a Nepal political analyst, writing in the Sunday Times of India of 1 May 2001,feels that by the introduction of irrelevant and sophisticated arms into the RNA ,the US, India and Britain,have reduced it into a “state of complete hardware dependency”. Even though the counter-insurgency forces have a numerical advantage of 10:1 with the Maoists,not much headway has been made by the RNA to contain the burgeoning insurrency. The Maoists armed with an easily replenishable arsenal of crude weapons have managed to cock a snook at the RNA. There is a considered view that the RNA is incapable of effectively dealing with the insurgency, and its activities have been largely confined to making the Nepal valley safe. It is not the fighting quality of the rag-tag insurgents but the territory, perfect for guerilla warfare, that is proving the main deterrent to the RNA.

Since 1996 ,as per studies published by a Human Rights Group, 11,200 people have been killed. The Security Forces claim to have killed 1604 insurgents in that same period. The UN and Human Rights Watch have accused the RNA of having one of the world’s worst human-rights records “far more effective at terrorizing their own citizens than fighting the Maoists”. However, it is the Maoists who are the real terrorists. Besides press-ganging villagers into building roads, they have executed hundreds of their country-men whom they have classified as traitors. Innocent citizens have been caught in the cross-fire, and public works, like schools, clinics, bridges destroyed, forcing villagers to take shelter in neighbouring India.

India’s Dilemma

After the Royal takeover, India, along with the United States and Britain had frozen all military aid to Nepal. With India being the key provider of military assistance to the RNA, such an embargo had serious ramifications for the army. The Nepalese Army Chief, Gen. Pyar Jung Thapa Nepal, had to make a personal plea for continuing of military supplies to his forces, saying suspension would put Nepal's national security in jeopardy. However, King Gyanendra having snubbed India by refusing to grant an audience to the Indian ambassador for nearly two months, did not want to be seen as worried by Delhi’s reaction. Considering India to be Nepal’s strongest international critic, he banned Indian TV channels but allowed international channels like the BBC and CNN, to continue broadcasting during the emergency.

Some analysts feel that if the Maoists come to power in Nepal, both Pakistan and China would get close to the regime. Nepal, may then function as an anti-India nation, participating in the "encirclement" of India. (However, during Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji's recent visit to Nepal, Zhu made it clear that the Chinese Communist Party has no links with the Maoists in Nepal. With the ongoing CBMs with Pakistan,the latter, too, is unlikely to welcome the rise of Maoists- at least not while America is fighting global terrorism, and concerned with China’s expansionist tendencies)

The Indian Government has been wondering whether to continue military assistance to Kathmandu in the light of the political developments. One argument was that if New Delhi acceded to Kathmandu's request, it would be seen as siding with the king against the democratic forces in the country. On the other, if it denied help to the king, it may well lead to the Maoist rebels tightening their grip on the country.

In 1960, his late father,King Mahendra, having sacked the elected government and assumed total powers himself, had won the diplomatic tussle with India who had protested the take-over, by playing the China card, and this time Gyanendra had both the China,and Pakistan card up his sleeve. His calculations have proved to be correct. India had taken six months to knuckle down in 1960 by signing four agreements and re-establishing friendship with Nepal. This time it took just three months.

After the Afro-Asian summit’s side-line meeting with the Nepal King, the Prime Minister of India is reported to have agreed to the re-supply of military aid, albeit with certain stipulations: the King must lift the emergency and restore fundamental rights if the pace of aid is to be quicker, and also release those currently in detention under the Public Security Act.

King Gyanendra has had the last laugh. Immediately after having lifted the emergency(which came as a welcome move both inside and outside the country), the King imprisoned Sher Bahadur Deuba,the ex-PM,under the all-powerful Commission for Corruption Control act. He also announced that those arrested under the Public Security Act would not be released and that no demonstrations ,public meetings and picketing would be allowed in several places within Kathmandu valley. Press censorship will ,of course, continue.( He has,however, now permitted the Indian news channels to broadcast to Nepal, which may be a prelude to gradually easing of other restrictions imposed in Nepal).

India’s Options

India has a stake in the restoration of democracy in Nepal . From India’s point of view, despite the appalling performance of the political parties in the past, the ideal solution would be the establishment of a true constitutional monarchy and a multiparty democracy. The likelihood of the King agreeing to the disbanding of the present power set-up at this juncture is, however, remote. Having meticulously planned the royal coup, by lifting the emergency, King Gyanendra has ensured that he continues to have a unrelenting grip on the country, and that there is no deviation from his ultimate aim of establishing his legitimacy to the throne, acquired under a most bizarre set of circumstances

As the Indians are debating which is the lesser eveil, the Palace or the Maoists. the Maoists,too, are unsure who is their Enemy No 1-India or the Palace. They are of the view that India has made a road map that envisages the formation of an all-party government under the king. It fears that the proposed government will formally invite the Indian Army to Nepal in case the Maoists refuse to join the new dispensation. The fear of the Indian Army interceding in Nepal to stabilize the country, is a fear expressed widely. If such an action was ever even contemplated by India, it would be an unmitigated disaster. It would inflame passions amongst all segments of Nepalese society from the man in the street to the Maoists and the palace,and push all Nepalis to unite against “Indian imperialism”.

It is unlikely that Nepal’s security forces can conclusively defeat the Maoists - with or without military assistance - and, therefore, the only sustainable solution lies in a negotiated settlement. The prospect of a confrontation between the king and political parties while the Maoist insurgency continues is a dangerous one

But right now India has no option but to ensure the defeat ,or at least the containment, of the insurgency in Nepal. India will have to use whatever goodwill or clout it has with the warring groups to bring the palace and the Maoists to the negotiating table. A secret meeting between the Indian communists and the Maoists as reported in the media may be the first tentative step in this direction. The simultaneous pressure on the king with military assistance as the bargaining chip, may just do the trick.

May Cottage ,Barlowganj Lt Gen(Rted) RK Jasbir Singh

13 June 2005

References

1..”Gunning for Nepal”-The Time Magazine 2. “Is it Right for India to Resume Arms Supply to Nepal” & “Royal Dilemma” Times of India.- -Hari Roka,Ashok K Mehta- Suman Pradhan 3. BBC Nepali Services-Rabindra Mishra 4. “Nepal Maoists Split over India’s Strategy”-The Himachal Times-Dr US Kaul 5.Executive Intelligence Review 6. “MaoistInsurgency-A Challenge to the Royal Nepal Army”- AGNI-Lt Gen(Retd) YM Bammi 7. “Forget Kathmandu”- Manjushree Thapa

What Precisely Is The US Strategy For AFPak?

When President Barack Obama announced the new "AfPak" (Afghanistan-Pakistan) policy last month, there were hopes that the largesse bestowed on Pakistan which saw unaccounted billions in military aid showered on the Pakistan army would bring stability to the country. Of,course, the latest dole that triples aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion does come with a caveat.”Pakistan must provide access to Pakistani nationals connected to proliferation nuclear networks,and prevent cross border attacks into neighbouring countries”. The original draft had specifically mentioned “access to nuclear smuggler,AQ Khan,and to preventing terrorist attacks against India”. But due to Pakistani protests the final draft was watered down.

It now remains to be seen how Pakistan utilizes the aid flowing to keep it afloat. Time only will tell. As Robert Gates, the US Defence Secrtary put it,”They(Pakistan) are not sure who’s going to win in Afghanistan.They’re not sure what’s going to happen along that border area.So to a certain extent they play both sides”. If it comes to that neither are the Americans sure what the out come of the “war against terror” in Afghanistan and Pakistan going to be

What precisely is the strategy for AfPak?

While it appears the both President Barack Obama and Robert Gates are of the view that their strategic goals will be achieved by the elimination of al Qaeda holed up in the Afghan-Pakistan border,and all they have to do is to simply work out an agreement with the Taliban, Gen David Petraeus,the US Central Command chief, feels otherwise.

Petraeus.who had achieved a semblance of success in Iraq,has been insisting that his policy can be replicated in Afghanistan. Basically ,the policy in Iraq was to work out some sort of a détente between the Sunis and the Shias.This was achieved by a surge of troops more to reassure the Iraqis that the Americans were not going to abandon them to their fate by withdrawing peremptorily, and that the Americans would continue to play a role in Iraqi affairs.It was also a tacit admission that the US could not defeat all the insurgents and militias. (By itself additional 30,000 troops on top of the force of 1,20,000 already in Iraq,was hardly expected to change the basic military situation in Iraq).The US policy of stripping Sunnis of all power in 2003, which had the Shias dominate Iraq,had left the Sunnis in desperate straits. This had resulted in a Sunni insurgency, with the al Qaeda stepping in . Petraeus policy of re-deploying some troops with an active political programme, and a reassurance that the Sunnis would be protected both against the Shias and the foreign jihadists(the Sunnis already feared that the foreigners would not only take over the community but also radicalize them), managed to win over the Sunnis.

In Iraq,therefore, by creating a coalition government, and possibly blocking any Iranian influence in Iraq, the US made it possible to withdraw with honour and some semblance of dignity by avoiding a chaotic civil war.

Obama and Gates ,however, feel that the situation in Afghanistan,is vastly different from that in Iraq. In Iraq the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds all had genuine political power. In Afghanistan the power is restricted to the Taliban and the Americans. In Afghanistan there are a multiplicity of groups, which will never combine to form any sort of a coalition. . Afgan President Hamid Karzai, does not have the political base that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al- Malik enjoys. Karzai is someone who has been foisted by the Americans on the Afghan political scene. But above all, Iraq did not have a neighbour like Pakistan .While Iran was a factor in the Iraqi civil war, the Taliban are as much a phenomenon in Pakistan as in Afghanistan. The Pakistanis are neither willing or able to deny sanctuary or lines of supply to the Taliban.

Petraeus feels that Obama and Gates have already made it clear to the Afghans that once al Qaeda is eliminated from the scene,they will withdraw from Afghanistan.They have made it clear that Washington has placed severe limits on its willingness to invest in Afghanistan.and are overly eager to make a deal with the Taliban.

Petraeus is quite clear that the US strategic goal-eliminating the al Qaeda-cannot be achieved by an agreement with the Taliban. He is of the view that they are not as divided as Obama feels and it would be foolish to think that the Taliban can be played against each other.They just cannot be trusted to keep their word, even if they give it. Petraeus feels that the Taliban have the advantage of superior intelligence capability, better knowledge of the country and the willingness to take casualties.

Once ensconced in Afghanistan, the Americans will find it extremely difficult to turf them out.

Pakistan’s attempts to work out some sort of a peace formula with the Taliban by permitting the implementation of Sharia law in the Swat Valley, resulted in the Taliban’s forcible occupation of Buner and its neighbourhood area. The fear of Taliban further spreading its tentacles throughout Pakistan, became a stark reality. It should have served a warning to the Americans of the futility of negotiating with the Taliban.But what seems to have alarmed the Americans is the direct threat posed to the Pakistan nuclear facilities by an unopposed Taliban. This plus the scheduled meeting with Obama in Washington, seems to have goaded the Pakistanis to take punitive action against the Taliban in the Swat Valley.

What has further alarmed the Americans are the reports of Pakistan adding to its arsenal of 80 to 100 nuclear weapons. These are alleged to be new generation of weapons of mass destruction. What is more worrying is that the Army has full and unquestionable control of the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan with the civilian government kept completely out of the loop. With Islamist-sympathetic officers inducted by Gen Zia-ul-Haq, when he placed the nuclear set-up out of bounds to the civilians, the situation has all the makings of an international disaster just waiting to blow up. It would be naïve to assume that the Americans are unaware that there is a deep-rooted hatred for the Americans not only amongst the Islamists, but also amongst a segment of the officers of Pakistan Army.

Obama sees Afghanistan not worth fighting for,and is quite clear that the Americans should exit from Afghanistan sooner than later. If a “moderate” Taliban(an oxymoron, if ever there was one) takes over Afghanistan and the al Qaeda are eliminated ( Patreaus feels the al Qaeda located as they are in Pakistan can only be dealt with by surgical strikes- Pakistan being too hard a nut to crack), then as far as Obama and Gates are concerned their strategic aims for Afghanistan are achieved. When it comes to the crunch, the civilian view will prevail. As George Friedman put it (“The Strategic Debate Over Afghanistan” -Stratfor), war is an extension of politics by other means, as Clausewitz said, and generals tend to not get their way.

So India should brace itself itself for an era of uncertainty in its neighbourhood. Punjab,.which is supposedly the bulwark against further incursions by fundamentalists, will,according to many, simply fold over and succumb to the Taliban ,once they push harder. This is because,Punjab, according to Sushant Sareen,writing in The Tribune, has become more orthodox and fundamentalist,over the last few decades.(Remember,most terrorists that attacked Mumbai came from the Punjab). Barring the MQM,in Sind,all political parties, in Pakistan are of the view that for Muslims,the Sharia is not too bad and its only the way that the Taliban seems to impose it that is reprehensible.

Dehra Dun Lt Gen (Retd) RK Jasbir Singh

The Baloch Question

The recent joint statement made by India and Pakistan at Sharm el-Sheikh during the NAM meeting decoupling the composite dialogue on terror and the reference to Balochistan, has drawn the ire of not only the opposition but also, it is said, by a small segment of the ruling party as well.

While some sort of appeasement was made by the Prime Minister with his speech in Parliament, assuring the House that opening a dialogue with Pakistan without first getting them to act against the terrorists responsible for the Mumbai carnage ,did not mean that India would stop pressuring the Pakistanis on this account, the opposition has been far from satisfied. And this despite Sonia Gandhi backing the Prime Minister,stating that the Prime Minister had made a “firm and unequivocal statement” and that the Party was behind him, and that their position vis-à-vis the Government’s stand on the joint statement remained unchanged.

The main objection to the joint statement at Sharm el-Sheikh seems to stem from deep rooted distrust of Pakistan. It is contended that peace with Pakistan will never be attained for the simple reason that the very existence of Pakistan hinges on continuing hostility to India. Kanwal Sibal in Times of India of 31/7/09,states “Adversaries like China exploit the situation to buttress Pakistan economically and militarily,including providing it nuclear muscle ,to contain India .Normalisation will enhance India’s status,but will deflate Pakistan’s utility to others”. In short ,there must be no talk with Pakistan, and if we had to talk at Sharm el-Sheikh then “the supposed muscular harangue to Pakistan should have shown somewhere in the pectorals of the joint statement”.

As far as the reference to Balochistan and “other areas” is concerned , the opposition feels it was inserted due to the inept wording of the joint statement,or because of machinations of the Pakistani team,that left their Indian counterparts floundering . The Indian Prime Minister drew flak,according to Neelabh Mishra (Outlook Magazine, of Aug 10,2009) from “ hawkish security analysts ,the hardline BJP, the shrill media and from some in its own confused Congress party”. To compound matters , the Pakistan establishment “leaked”, a so-called, dossier to the media providing “evidence” of the Indian hand in Balochistan.(The PM has denied in Parliament that any such dossier was given by Pakistan. Pakistan's Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting Omar Zaman Kaira, has also denied that Pakistan had handed any such dossier to India)

There is, however, much hand-wringing over Balochistan . According to Kanwal Sibal, by dragging our consulates into such a controversy, Pakistan has been given “domestic and international legitimacy-the agenda of terrorism has now become more ‘equal’ for Pakistan”.

Well,that is one view. The flipside is that it is Yusuf Raza Gilani who should have thought twice before raising the issue of Balochistan at Sharm el-Sheikh. Balochistan is not an issue between India and Pakistan per se ,it is much more than that. There are plenty of nations who are fishing in the troubled waters of Balochistan . According to Ashok Malik , for some time Balochistan has been emerging as the “locus of a new Great Game”.So internationalizing the issue may well redound on Pakistan. As far as the Baloch are concerned they feel the controversy is a blessing in disguise. It has helped to internationalise the issue. The Baloch leader,Hytbyair Marri says, “International community is taking interest now. For last 60 years it was ignored, now they can see that Baloch can play a key role in the area”.

The American view is Pakistan is merely trying to externalize a serious internal crisis while evading responsibility to crack down on home-grown terrorism. US Envoy to AfPak Richard Holbrooke has rubbished the Pakistani claim that India is actively encouraging insurgency in Balochistan He has stated that Pakistan provided no evidence of Indian involvolment in Balochistan.,and that Washington attaches no credibility to Islamabad's charges in this regard Though C Christine Fair, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation, while discounting the accusations made by Pakistan, which she feels is because they wish to “establish some kind of theory of victimization”, and that “having done far more nefarious things ,will always assume the worst”, India is doing what every other country involved In Afghanista is doing, developing information and contacts and “trying to assert itself politically”. That perhaps is closer to the truth of India’s involvement in the affairs of Balochistan.

Accusations against India in interfering in Balochistan are nothing new. In 2006 when India had expressed concern over the Pakistani military using helicopter gunships to bombard rebel positions in Balochistan, Pakistan had gone ballistic,saying this was gross interference in its internal affairs. They had further accused India and the United States of fomenting troubles there. The Indian consulates located in the Baloch area of Zahedan in Iran and in Kandahar and Jalalabad in Afghanistan had been accused of encouraging the Baloch rebels and providing training to the shadowy Balochistan Liberation Army(BLA).

The Baloch problem needs to be examined a little bit more in depth.

For a starter, it must be understood that Balochistan is the largest province of Pakistan by geographical area consisiting 48% of Pakistan. It has a population of 6.5 million as per the census of 1998.Iran borders it in the west ,Afghanistan and NWFP in the north, and Punjab and Sindh in the east. . Further south and west lies the Makran desert ,adjoining the Iranian desert of Balochistan and Dasht-I-Lut

Spread over 147,000 square miles ,Balochistan has only 5% of Pakistan’s population. .But what makes it a bone of contention is its richness in mineral resources and the fact that after Sindh it is the main supplier of natural gas to Pakistan. Because of its immense natural and energy resources, sitting as it does astride the oil lanes of the Persian Gulf,at the triangle where Pakistan,Iran and Afghanistan meet,makes it geopolitically and strategically, the most important part of Pakistan.It commands nearly the entire 470 miles of the Arabian Sea coast line. The Gwadar Port on the Makran coast built by the Chinese in 2008 as a part of their “string of pearls” strategy gives Balochistan immense strategic importance

There were originally four princely states in existence during the British Raj,which were ultimately combined into one,Kalat, in 1876. Quetta and a few other districts belonging to Afghanistan were ceded to India after the Second Afghan War. The Bolan Pass,lying to the SE of Quetta,and entering Balochistan from Kandhar, was also leased on a permanent basis from the Khan of Kalat. In 1893,in a negotiated settlement with the Amir of Afghanistan, the British fixed the Durand line from Chitral to Balochistan, This split the Baloch from Afghanistan and Iran from their kin in what was then West Punjab. While the northern portion of Balochisthan has been made into a sort of Pashtun strong hold, courtesy Pakistan, the southern portion which has nomadic Baloch communities,have been restive for decades. Islamabad’s writ does not run here nor did Britain’s. ( The Durand Line drawn to divide Pashtun and Baloch tribes of the area into international borders of Iran,Afghanistan and what was then West Punjab,found the nomadic ways of Baloch,disrupted by the international border. This has primarily sown the seeds of the strife in Balochistan).

Balochistan was brought under British suzerainty from Khan of Kalat in bits and pieces between 1876 and 1883. The British colonial administration subsequently divided Balochistan into ‘ A’ and ‘B’ Areas: 5 per cent of the ‘A’ Area was directly administered by the British, while they exercised only proxy control over the 95 per cent 'B' Area through the Sardars or tribal chiefs. The system was continued after Independence by the Pakistan Establishment till 2004, when President Pervez Musharraf declared that his Government would crush all anti-Pakistan movements. The entire 95 per cent 'B area' was to be made into 'A’Area', five districts in the 'B’ Area having already been declared 'A’ Area.

Baloch and Pashtuns are the main ethnic groups in Balochistan. The Baloch trace their ancestry to Syrian and Persian backgrounds, they have always considered themselves ethnically different from the other tribes inhabiting the people of the Indo-Gangetic plains..They have from time immemorial considered themselves an independent nation, ruled by feudal lords. Historically, the Baloch have been a loose confederacy owing allegiance to the Persian emperor and Afghan kings in different times of its history.

So the Baloch are spread from Pakistan to Afghanistan and Iran. While the Baloch of Pakistan and Afghanistan have a common link, the Iranian Baloch,who are a Sunni minority in Shia-majority Iran, have a different tribal composition from the Pakistani Baloch. However, all distrust their respective governments. The region thus makes it ripe for regional and foreign powers to play their little games. The Russians,for instance , had made efforts to foment a rebellion in Balochistan during their occupation of Afghanistan. Iraq was hoping to instigate violence amongst the Iranian Baloch during the Iraq-Iran war. The Afghans,of course, have been doing their damndest to destablise Pakistan- and Balochistan is the obvious choice to play this out. Afghanistan does not recognize the Durand Line ,and claims parts of NWFP and Balochistan as part of their territory.

The Americans were keen(and probably still are) to cause a bit of mayhem amongst the Iranian Baloch. They are interested in Pakistan Balochistan because of a large number of refugees from the Afghan war, making Northern Balochisthan a Pushtun base(Quetta is known to harbour Mullah Omar’s Taliban sharia). Above all,the Gwadar Port’s strategic value to China, located as it is on the Makran coast in the proximity of the Gulf of Hormuz.where it can monitor US naval activity in the Persian Gulf, Indian activity in the Arabian Sea and future US-Indian maritime cooperation in the Indian Ocean will continue to be of deep concern to America,India and Iran.

However, the problems Pakistan is facing are basically what it inherited from the British and what are self- created . Besides the historical causes of disgruntlement amongst the Baloch, the Pakistani ham-handed way of trying to douse the fire raging in Balochistan, has resulted in further exacerbating the problem. There have been five distinct attempts, since the forcible annexation of Balochistan in 1948, where disproportionate force,including the systematic killing of Baloch leaders, to suppress the discontentment amongst the Baloch has taken place. Their attempts to assimilate the Baloch in the main stream by development projects have largely back-fired. . If the Pakistan government succeeds in transforming all of Balochistan into ‘A’ Areas then the power of the Sardars,who jealously guard their socio-political and financial control in the regions,will erode. This probably makes the current insurgency radically different from past ones. .Baloch efforts to voice their concerns through political dialogue, have mostly been ignored.

Amongst the litany of complaints and demands the Baloch want are equitable distribution of proceeds from natural resources, employment opportunities(since the Baloch are treated as traitors,they have been denied representation in the military and central government jobs), political self-determination, end to military oppression and stopping of mega projects ,which benefit only non-Baloch. The Gwadar project, completed in 2008, was bitterly opposed by Baloch nationlists,as they felt that the Punjabi-dominated elite were siphoning off all the wealth and resources from their backward region,besides making huge profits from the rising prices in real estate around Gwadar. These were the main causes which had triggered off angry and violent demonstrations resulting in attacks on pipelines carrying oil from Balochistan. Earlier, three Chinese emgineers were killed and 11 others,including 9 Chinese were injured in bomb attacks by BLA.

A particular complaint is the pitting of radical Taliban against the secular and basically democratic Baloch with the help of Arab countries. This has upset the representation of Baloch in the Balochistan Assembly by causing a demographic imbalance. Of course, underlying all these demands is the historical demand for an independent Balochistan to hopefully include their brethren so arbitrarily and cruelly separated by the Durand Line.

Baloch nationalism poses the biggest threat to the integrity of Pakistan. This is rearing its head after some 30 years of uneasy peace. The current insurgency has been brought about by Islambad’s plans to transform the very character of Balochistan,and by the killing of Baloch leaders ,like Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti,whose grand-son ,Brahamdagh Bugti, is carrying on the rebellion. According to Malik Siraj Akbar of Pakistan’s Daily Times. “ The Baloch movement is rapidly trickling down from tribal chiefs to educated boys and girls, who aggressively propagate their cause”, and who would more than welcome any foreign assistance like India.

With its vast potential for a range of natural resources,including oil,uranium,copper and other minerals,its crtical strategic location,Balochistan.commands about 470 miles of the Arabian Sea coast line. Sitting as it does astride the oil lanes of the Persian Gulf, at the triangle where Pakistan, Iran and ,Afghanistan meet makes it one of the most important geopolitical and strategic locations in the region..The development of the Gwadar Port through Chinese assistance gives Balochistan an added potential of future conflict-a return to the Great Game perhaps. For Pakistan(and by implication ,China) it is imperative that Balochistan becomes stable, otherwise both the functioning of the Gwadar Part and the fuel pipelines to Pakistan, will continue to be in jeopardy, at the mercy of the discontented Baloch.

Is there,therefore, any reason why regional powers should not be using and abetting Baloch tensions for their own reasons? . India is well aware of the happenings in Balochistan. Whether it is actively encouraging or inciting insurgency, as alleged by Pakistan ,is a moot question and highly unlikely. The accusation of an Indian hand in the attacks on the Sri Lanka team in March 2009,and the police training academy , are obviously a case of tit-for-tat, a sort of finding a way to pay India back in their own coin for pressurizing them over Mumbai, and put the Indians on the back foot.

India has quite a massive investment in Afghanistan,there is also the question of the proposed gas Iran-Pakistan-India pipe-line,which will be passing through Balochistan. So we do have a stake in what happens there. Our consuls in Zahedan in Iran and in Kandahar and Jalalabad in Afghanistan are there to ensure that like all countries, India, too, is “developing information and contacts and trying to assert itself politically”.

What matters, as Khalid Ahmed,of Pakistan’s Daily Times says, is that “The sooner the two countries resume the normalization process, the better it would be for both” . There is really no other alternative as Prime Minister,Manmohan Singh, and his predecessor, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, had clearly seen.

For India’s policy has always been that the only way forward with Pakistan is through dialogue. The Pakistanis may drag their feet in meeting all demands made by India ,but will ultimately see the light. We cannot shove our views down their throats - unless we go to war. Even the Yanks cannot do it. So there really is no option but to negotiate, negotiate and again negotiate.That is the only sensible path for peace, so that both our countries can get on with our lives and live as good neighbours. As Chetan Bhagat, writing In The Hindusthan Times has put it, “Every single Indian’s future is linked to Pakistan”.

So can one fault Manmohan Singh for thinking that if we are to progress in our mission for peace in the sub-continent we have to cease being prisoners of our old mindsets ?

Dehra Dun Lt Gen (Retd) RK Jasbir Singh

23 August 24, 2009

A Fresh Look At The Afghan War

In October 2009, the US Forces will have completed eight years in Afghanistan,since they went to war to oust the Taliban and the al Qaeda. This makes it the second longest war ,after Vietnam, in US history. This cold fact has made the Americans realize that the time has come to re-vamp their strategy in fighting the war in Afghanistan.

The United States strategic goal in Afghanistan has been the complete destruction of what has been referred to as the prime al Qaeda-the group around Osama bin Laden that organized and executed 9/11 and other attacks in Europe.And not the other group calling themselves al Qaeda, capable of operating only in the countries of their origin. There is a view that the al Qaeda prime has been considerably weakened as a result of the almost continuous attrition their forces have been subjected to not only in Afghanistan but in their hide-outs in NW Pakistan. Beside large scale destruction of its command and control set-up, it is also felt that the al Qaeda is facing difficulties in recruiting further fresh cadres to its primary unit.

However, the situation is very different with the Taliban. It may be recalled that having won the Afghan civil war after the withdrawal of the Soviet forces, the Taliban had also won the support of the people.This had enabled them to build a strong infrastructure and greater resilience. After the group withdrew from Afghan cities and lost formal power post-9/11,it still retained a great deal of informal influence,if not control, over large regions of Afghanistan and in areas across the border in Pakistan. The Taliban have since regrouped ,re-armed and resumed their operations in Afghanistan. The conflict has now become a classical,conventional guerilla war.

The war in Afghanistan seems to have reached a stalemate.There have been more than 1,200 casulties,out of which 730 were Americans. Britain has lost 175 soldiers and Canada 124.The civilian casualties cannot be assessed- thousands of villagers have been killed by the Taliban and because of collateral damage by the Allied Forces. Last year alone 826 civilians were killed by air strikes. The coalition forces have been accused of “killing innocent people”, and there is understandably widespread hatred against the Americans.

President Barack Obama,who has vowed to put an end to the Afghan war,has ordered the commanders to take a fresh look at the frustrating eight-year unending war in Afghanistan, and what has stalled progress in its execution.

So the commanders are back to the drawing board and examining how the lessons learnt from Iraq and in general counterinsurgency operations, can be applied in Afghanistan. The shock-and-awe tactics,or the high tech war which was an unmitigated disaster in Iraq, and where replicated in Afghanistan, led to the alienation of the people enabling the Taliban to further entrench themselves in the countryside.

The fundamental problem in dealing with counterinsurgency is that the insurgents will avoid combat when counterinsurgency forces have an overwhelming force available. They will withdraw, disperse and either harass the main body by adopting hit-and-run tactics, or hit the counterinsurgency forces elsewhere, where they are vulnerable. These are the tactics adopted by insurgents in an asymmetrical environment when cornered. India is familiar with such tactics in Mao-infested areas and elsewhere. So are the Americans having fought in Vietnam,Iraq and Afghanistan.

The insurgents have two goals-the first is to wear out the counterinsurgency operations by engaging them in endless operations ,which have little or no tangible results; and, secondly, to impose a level of unacceptable and disproportionate casualties, making the counterinsurgency operation futile. The more time passes ,the more casualties mount for the counterinsurgents, and the more likely public support for the Americans will erode.

The insurgents will always have a tactical advantage being native to the area of operations.They will have a network of informants ,updating them in all activities of the counterinsurgents, and all operations planned. While the Americans have had the advantage of firepower,both in the air and on the ground, the Taliban have a war-winning weapon-intelligence. The Allied Forces are severely hampered by the paucity of reliable and timely intelligence.The Afghan translator,the soldier and the government official,can be possible breaches of security for the Americans ,rendering a sense of insecurity amongst the counterinsurgency forces. Since the coalition forces are operating in a foreign country,they lack the means to distinguish allies from enemy agents, and, valid from invalid information. Unless a solid base is achieved in some area of Afghanistan, and a sense of security engendered amongst the population, the intelligence problems will remain.

To get the ball rolling in a reappraisal of the operations in Afghanistan, Army General David McKiernan, who had commanded the International Security Assistance Force(ISAF),was replaced by Defence Secretary Robert Gates ,by US Army General Stanley McChrystal, saying “fresh eyes” were needed on the war. McChrystal,has had close and intimate association with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because of his command of the Joint Special Operations Command, the secret corps of Army Delta Force and Navy Seals. This force has been regularly deployed in Afghanistan and is responsible for the killing of Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq.

The first order McChrystal passed was to find more subtle ways, rather than the application of brute force tactics, in dealing with the intractable problem of Afghanistan. McChrystal has appreciated that there is more to the Afghan insurgency than just Islamic fundamentalism, there is tribal loyalties and alliances and the strategies of war-lords ,who are in no mood to abrogate their authority and power.There is also the question of lack of employment openings, which lead people to indulge in illegal activities like the opium and timber trades, which Taliban fully exploits.

McChrystal has also appreciated that the most important military action is not happening in Afghanistan ,but in Pakistan. Both countries are inextricably linked. The operations against the Taliban in Pakistan, has certainly effected the supply of arms, money, and resources to Afghanistan. The Taliban in Afghanistan can no longer find safe havens in Pakistan after hit-and-run operations. The Pakistani operations have certainly impacted on the Afghan Taliban operations. But Pakistan is objecting to the expanded American combat operations in neighbouring Afghanistan. Pakistan complains that the operations in Hemand province,currently underway, will lead to militants crossing into Pakistan, further inflaming the troubled province of Baluchistan. The ISI maintained that Pakistan does not have sufficient troops to deploy in Baluchstan to take on the Taliban, without denuding the border with India,in their two-hour briefing to the US administration.

The Americans are well aware of Mullah Muhammad Omar, with his inner circle of commanders, based in Quetta directing and guiding the war in southern Afghanistan. This Quetta shura is sheltered by the Pakistanis, who always have hoped to employ the Taliban as future allies in Afghanistan, once the coalition forces leave. It is for this reason that the ISI has been advocating that rather than recommitting additional forces and resources in southern Afghanistan, they negotiate with the Taliban

However,it is appreciated that while Pakistan’s co-operation is vital, by itself it does not make the task of bringing peace to Afghanistan any easier. Afghanistan’s current force of 86,000 troops and 82,000 are insufficient to protect the country. Even with reinforcements in the pipeline, a full-blooded counterinsurgency operation in Afghanistan may not be feasible. All that may be a possibility is the tackling of provinces piecemeal-that also with limited or no air and ground firepower.

The latest directive issued to the troops by McChrystal, enjoins them “to scrutinse and limit the use of force, like close air support amongst residential compounds,likely to produce civilian casuaties”, and that , “We will not win based on the number of Taliban we kill, but instead on our ability to separate insurgents from the people”. This policy will naturally result in more casualties(In the operations in Helmand Provice, some 15 British soldiers were killed,50 injured. The Americans, too, lost 11 soldiers, making July the highest casualty month since the Afghan War started).

Based on the new policy, some 4,000 Marines and 650 Afghan troops launched an attack on Helmand , a southern province of Afghanistan.It is here that the Taliban are largely funded by the opium trade. This is the first major offensive where the Marines used neither airpower nor artillery. It is successful, and while it may not have inflicted many casualties on the Taliban, who in classical guerilla tactics melted away to strike elsewhere, it is a first , because it is intended to stay put in the “liberated” areas, and not pull out after an operation as has been the practise earlier. Small outposts are to be established, to provide protection to the people. The troops will live near the locals, and offer protection in advance of the Presidential elections scheduled on 20 August 2009.This is basically, the strategy followed in Iraq by US General David Petraeus, now overall commander of Iraq and Afghanistan Forces, when secure zones were created in hostile territory, true to the counterinsurgency principles of winning hearts-and- minds. It is now being applied to the Helmand province, and it is to be seen if it will also be applied to other areas of Afghanistan held by the Taliban..

The probe into Helmand may be just a flash in the pan of limited strategic value, ending after the presidential elections are over. Or it may signify an intention to see the war in Afghanistan to its logical conclusion, with the ouster of the Taliban. The ultimate decision will hinge on how Obama and the American intelligence read the situation in AfPak.

Despite the low level of casualties in the Helmand operation,the reaction in the media and in Britain ,where the fact that British casualties in Afghanistan have already surpassed the number killed in Iraq, has highlighted the sensitivity of the issue.There is a general clamour for putting an end to the operations in Afghanistan amongst most participants of ISAF.

So knowing that the potent al Qaeda threat no longer exists, will the coalition forces continue their war against the Taliban ? Or will they decide that fighting a long drawn and “resource-intensive” campaign, with mounting casualties, and against political resistance, not only in America but more so amongst their allies, is not worth the effort, and call it a day ?

If Obama does abandon Afghanistan, without vanquishing the Taliban, then the Taliban, will surely take over Afghanistan -and perhaps Pakistan. After all having fought as an organization since 1990, they have a much more stake in Afghanistan than the rest of the world. They really have nowhere else to go.

Dehra Dun Lt Gen (RK Jasbir Singh)

24^th July 2009