Globian Perspective: July 2011

Friday, July 22, 2011

How can India Tackle Terrorism from Pakistan?

(Image: India-Pakistan border in Ranbir Singh Pura, on the outskirts of Jammu, India. Courtesy of Channi Anand, NewYork Times)

Aggressive Indian view: Enough is enough. Our army is more than twice the size of Pak-army. We are technically sounder than them in all three wings of armed forces (i.e., army, navy, & air-force). We know the exact locations of terrorist camps in Pakistan (mainly, in southern Punjab & Pak-occupied Kashmir). What are we waiting for? A bigger attack??? Even if our air-strikes on those terrorist camps result in a war, we have an upper edge. Pakistan has neither money nor resources to sustain a war with us even for a month (most likely, for not even 20days), as it hardly has any international support. And there is no way it can dare to use atomic-weapons as the result would be more catastrophic for itself. We only need a government with some political will, and Pakistan will be a thing of the past. No Pakistan, no terrorism - story finished.

My take: Such speeches make great impact on the masses, and truly, can electrify public emotions against Pakistan. Also, this may win elections, and may make one very popular, attracting a large number of followers. However, this is absolutely a bogus set of flawed arguments, aimed at disguising masses heading towards a disaster. Let me explain:

· It is very important to understand how “security” of citizens is defined. Does it mean only physical security? I would like to define “security” as a comprehensive term, which consists of physical as well as economic, social & psychological security. State’s job is not just to look after its people’s physical security, but it is also suppose to make sure its people have good education, health care facilities, employment opportunities and a better quality of life in-general. If the state chooses the “aggressive-view” option as presented above, how is that going to affect the “comprehensive security” of the people of India? On the other hand, it is more likely that the people will have to sacrifice their current quality of life (of course, war will hurt every socio-economic indicator badly). We would be required to then forget about 10% GDP growth and put hold on our success stories at least for a few years, if not for ever. And the obvious unimaginable destruction (i.e., socio-economic, environmental & of precious human lives) that a war brings will put India far behind the rest of the world. I don’t think that will make people of India more “secure”.

· Now, even if you win the war, what next? The state of India is struggling to provide basic facilities to its people, how will it take responsibility of another 17crore? Can’t we see how America is struggling to manage Afghanistan currently? Fall of Islamabad does not mean end of troubles. The number of non-state warlords of Pakistan will multiple by many times, and of course, the terror strikes will increase unthinkably all over India. Can’t we see the present state of Pakistan- how the number of suicide bombing has crazily increased in past five years (as some terror groups feel the fall of Kabul is due to Pakistan’s support to the US)? (see link: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/index.htm)

Fatalities in Terrorist Violence in Pakistan: 2003- 2011

Year	Civilians	Security Forces (SFs)	Terrorists	Total
2003	140	24	25	189
2004	435	184	244	863
2005	430	81	137	648
2006	608	325	538	1471
2007	1523	597	1479	3599
2008	2155	654	3906	6715
2009	2307	1011	8267	11585
2010	1796	469	5170	7435
2011*	226	98	384	708
Total	9620	3443	20150	33213

* Data till February 20, 2011, Source: SATP

This will be like throwing over a billion people in mire of an absolute chaos and endless cycles of violence. We surely don’t want this to happen.

· Wars cannot be completely won or lost in today’s times, and it results in a compromise (e.g., recent war of USA- Iraq, & USA – Afghanistan on its way to a compromise). Practically, it is never possible to wipe out a whole country. Pakistan is a reality and it will always remain there (unless its people have some other plans).

· Extremism is psychological and guns will only provoke it. Remember, our fight is against anger; and aggression on our part will fuel extremism in Pakistan. Suppose, there are 20% extremists in Pakistan, our aggression will make them mainstream majority. If we kill one Hafeez Syed, some other will adapt to his psyche and continue attacks on India. [Note: I am not suggesting Hafeez Syed should not be killed. If the court sentences him to death, he must be punished without delay. However, this will not solve larger issue of terrorism and the problem will still persist for India.] Instead, we should kill that anti-India psyche.

· By being aggressive, we shall undermine the liberal, educated, middle-class people of Pakistan who are similar to us. Remember, Pakistani government was denying Kasab’s connection to Pakistan, but it was the main stream television channel Geo News of Pakistan, which uncovered Kasab’s family in Faridkot (in Pak). There are innumerable examples of how this class of people are introspecting in their social-fabric and are trying their level best to overcome anti-India sentiments. (Article continues below videos)

Prof. Sajjad of Lahore University of Management Sciences analyzes Anti-India ideology of Pakistan (courtesy: Dawn News)

Prof. Hoodbhoy talks about how big mistake was it to consider militants assets (courtsey: Express News)

Nazir Naji (writer) talks about terrorist safe haven in Pakistan and how it has generated existential threat to it (courtsey: Dunya TV)

Other links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ8f3s24ZoM (Najam Sethi, prominent political analyst and journalist, advocating end to India-Pakistan rivalry)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4D9goJqQME&feature=related (Hasan Nisar, popular urdu writer at Jung, indicating fault-lines in Pakistani society)

· Any observer of Pakistan would agree that these moderate people are losing voice in their country gradually (increasing number of moderate leaders are being killed). This is very dangerous for India, because they are giving a fight to the extremism in their society, which is India’s objective as well.

What should India do then?

Do I mean India should do nothing? Absolutely not… There are smarter ways which are likely to be proved far more effective in long term than a military action. [Note: I am not for demilitarisation. India must have a strong military to defend itself from every threat. I don’t want India to become a “Sone ki Chidiya” (golden sparrow) of the past that any beggar of east or (especially of) west loots away.]

· India should expand trade relations with Pakistan by many folds. Economy is one of the most important factors in international relations, if not everything. Look at China & US. The US has severe reservations for China’s militarily expansions, and it hates the idea of a world with two hard super powers (militarily at par with each other). However, it will never dare to attack the Chinese, as its economy is deeply dependent on them. After all, China is the biggest money lander to America. Coming back to the point, the common Pakistanis will clearly realize that their interest is in India’s growth and not in India’s down fall. For e.g., if Pakistani farmers are benefiting from exports of their mangoes to India, they would want India to grow so they can have bigger market and get better price returns, which in-turn will fuel their own growth. The more economic-interdependence, the more obsolete “anti-India sentiments” will become.

· We definitely need great increase in people to people contact. One can think of attacking another, when there is emotional detachment. If people have known the ground realities, have had direct interactions with the “other side”, have known their version of the story, some sort of bondage is bound to be established. Both sides (India & Pakistan) should exchange students, faculty members, artists, & intellectuals on a large scale. Visitor visas must be made easily accessible (of course, with proper background check).

· On political level, India must aggressively resolve less contentious issues (i.e., water, Siachen, Sir Creek etc). Kashmir must be resolved through backchannel (without any media hype) diplomacy with full priority. Issue of Baluchistan should be tackled only after Kashmir is resolved to push Pakistan on negotiating table.

· India should do its best to help the moderates of Pakistan gain voice, and should use its external intelligence agency (i.e., Research and Analysis Wing) constructively. Silencing extremists in Pakistan may be a good strategy, but encouraging moderate voices is surely a promising one. Covertly, India should also explore opportunities to strengthen secular, moderate and progressive democratic parties. I would like to call this “positive” use of external intelligence. This is very vital considering the present scenario in Pakistan. There will be nothing more fruitful for India than to have a stable democratic Pakistan, which practices secular values.

· Lastly, the people of South Asia are over-emotional. Indians and Pakistanis either fight or love each other. They talk about either war or reunification and wiping the border off. Let’s not have bipolar relations. Reunification is very quixotic idea. International relations are based on country’s interests and not on emotions. Let’s have warm relationships, great people to people contact & trade relations. Let’s invest heavily in “comprehensive security” of our people, instead of buying arms & ammunition. More importantly, let’s realize our fates are directly linked to one another.

Excerpt from Anand Patwardhan's documentary "War & Peace" (courtesy: Anand Patwardhan):

I welcome your comments....

Thursday, July 14, 2011

21st Century: Future World Power(s)

I am not an astrologer. However, in this article I shall try to sketch what kind of world we will have by the end of this century based on my studies, observations and personal experiences. We all know the developed economies (mainly western countries) are having a very humble growth-rates (or stagnant growth in many cases), whereas the developing countries are having more or less better growth rates. The rise of the rest of the world (excluding western) is led by China, India, Brazil & Russia (i.e., BRIC nations). The richest country the USA, having GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of almost $15 Trillion, growing at about 2-3% a year is likely to be overtaken by China, (having GDP of about $5 Trillion) which is growing at almost 10% a year. Needless to say that everything comes down to the economy of a country, while assessing its power and global influence (if you have money, then only you can have a strong military, scientific advancement, industrialization & productivity, globally competitive human resource and so on). With this background information, let’s explore various view points:

Conservative American View: If America fails to sustain its SUPER POWER status, we are heading towards a catastrophe. If America is weakened, the world will be a barbaric place to live in, mainly because, the Americans will not be able to provide security to various nations, and will not be able to supply aid to poor nations. For example what about American presence in South East Asia to safe guard Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, and Philippines etc? What about Middle-East? Who is going to handle constant frictions between the Sunnis (everywhere except Iran) & Shies (mainly Iran), and above all, between Arabs & Israelis? Who will support the poor war torn nations of Africa and Asia? In general, the whole world order will be threatened, if America loses its power. There is no other country to fit into its shoe. The Chinese never speak up and have no legitimacy on moral issues, and fundamentally there is nothing like human rights in a communist state. America’s fall will be a moral collapse of the world.

Conservative Chinese View (also called pragmatic view in China): For the past 2-3 hundred years, the world has been governed on the conditions suitable to the west. However, now the west should be prepared to obey, rather than dictating its terms. The western ideas of democracy, capitalist-society and universal human rights have absolutely nothing to do with China. Rights and laws are subjective, depending on the social structure of a country, which can vary country to country. Every country/society should find its own solutions. Chinese government is to secure interests of the people of China, and all other governments should do the same for their people. The west has no right to tell others what they should do; let others figure out what is to be done. Even when there is genocide in some distant country, China should not intervene. Let those people find their solutions; and let time take its own course as it has taken to bring us all to this date. China will continue to remain a communist country and Chinese government will continue to secure interests of the people of China only. The west should adjust to this; else China will fight its terms out when needed.

The liberal thinkers around the world (including in US, & China): We are going to have a world that is multi polar. There will be no one super power country, but we shall have many countries with influential power. America will lose “Super Power” status, but it will not be its fall, rather it will be the rise of the rest (as Fareed Zakaria argues all the time). It will be something like the Britain, who lost its Super Power status by ’40s, but it has remained an influential global player even today.

Moreover, America still has great fuel to remain globally competent for a longer duration:

· Infrastructure and institutions for future technologies & industries like no other country has (i.e., Biotechnology, nanotechnology etc)

· World class universities & research labs (needless to mention, 37 of top 50 universities of the world are American)

· Attracts highly skilled immigrants (unlike any other developed country, America is growing younger as the population is on rise)

· It houses most of the global companies, most of the fortune 500s, and keeps generating newer multinationals

· And of course, from hip-hop to Harvard, from Hollywood to Gates foundation, its soft power is probably influencing the whole world like no other nation is in position of doing so.

My take: Thus, one great thing would be that the world would be truly democratic in nature. It is very ironic that the country which believes in democracy (USA) is trying to avoid sharing of power, while the country which believes in having only one party (China) is advocating for a multi-polar world, where power is shared between many. Nonetheless, we will not just have two great powers, but many indeed. Though India’s GDP is currently at 10^th position (about $1.5 Trillion), it is expected to grow faster than China, mainly because of its economic design and its demography. Let me explain this:

· China is attracting huge foreign direct investments (FDIs). In one month it attracts FDIs that India attracts in one year. Now, this is great for faster growth, but it is risky and you are dependent on foreigners to pump in money. At some point if FDIs are low or if people book profit and walk out of your country, it may surely hurt your growth rate.

· China’s one child per family program is great for population control, but it will make it grow old, whereas India will be one of the youngest countries of the world (challenge for India to take advantage of this unintended opportunity). This year UN has come out with a report that pointed out that China is going to have a demographic collapse over the next 25 years. It is going to lose 400 million people.

Of course, this is not a race. There is no gold medal for a country with the highest GDP or growth rates. After all, the quality of life of the individuals of a country matters, and both the countries will be able to do it best by cooperation with each other and the rest of the world. I was very glad when India simply declined the Bush administration’s tacit offer of obtaining help from America in return of taking stands against China (in short, Americans wanted India as a counter power to China). India does not have to choose between US or China; rather it should have deep warm ties with not only US & China, but with every other nation of the planet. Wellbeing of its people should be the only goal for India.

Moreover, both India & China will be closely followed by Brazil, Russia, South Africa, and Mexico and so on. The economic rise of the world would mean that the global poverty would fall below 15% by 2015 (it was 40% in 1981).

All nations will be required to act responsibly. Things that could hurt all sorts of projections are wars, social (and political) instability, scarcity of resources and environmental disasters. These constraints can be overcome only through cooperation and mutual respect. Hopefully, there will be no one country with all mussel power that threatens others.

What kind of India I wish: I think India should never become a hard Super-Power that suffocates the rest of the world, expands its boundaries and dictates its terms in arrogant manner. However, India must generate global citizens, who lead the world through education, mutual respect and sustainable development. India has a great potential of becoming a role model for the developing world, and it must realize its Soft-Super Power.

I welcome your comments....

Image Courtesy: http://www.paggu.com/business/us-india-and-china-relations/

Hans Rosling: Asia's rise -- how and when (c) TED conferences