Doomed If They Do, Doomed If They Dont

Anil #43: You have provided a long list of economic deals that Indian companies have signed. My knowledge of that is limited in comparison to yours. So I am not sure what kind of comment I can pass on that. And I am not sure how such economic deals affect any kind of peace in South Asia........Peace is not based on how wealthy or poor a country is.

``Other than Paksitan, the countries you have mentioned I have direct experience and can assure you, that their envy and grudge is just and understandable as is the Canadians with the U.S.``

I cannot agree with this. Canadians envy and grudge with the USA is quite different. Canadians accept the USA as a leader (not counting the George Bush phase). They do not feel threatened at all by the USA. There are no border skirmishes with the USA. Canada barely has an Army. And there is no intereference in the internal affairs of Canada by the USA. And vice-versa..........

How can you compare this to South Asia? A little introspection is needed here, perhaps. One needs to deal with these issues honestly, if one wants to establish true peace. One cannot simply gloss over them..............Unless they are dealt with honestly, in a just manner, I don`t think the situation in the area is going to improve much.........

My aim here is not to critique India only. But I think a lot of Indian colleagues tend to get carried away in criticizing others, and praising India. I am not sure why. And I feel they ignore any issues that other regional countries may have with India. Or they simply avoid or gloss over the issues.......Or they simply start highlighting the economic accomplishments of India. I am not sure how these problems can be solved by trying to prove one country has signed more economic deals than the other. They have to be addressed honestly and logicially and in a humane manner..........Otherwise any peace will be artificial............

I would be interested in your comments on a just solution to South Asia`s problems. Not one that is based on economics or realpolitik, etc. Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the feeling that India is only willing to have peace in South Asia on its own terms. Or no peace. And one gets the feeling that a lot of Indians think it is their right to demand only such a peace.......And I think they are unwilling to look at anything India has done wrong.......I think the only peace that will work, and that anyone will agree to, is one based on justice and fairplay and human rights..............

Re: # 43

I would love to discuss with you issues, as long as I am not dragged into discussions with religious or political slant. I no longer have interest in any of these two.

I do not know where did you form the idea about my position and the U.S. foreign policy. I probably have lived in Canada longer than you have lived and worked there, and I have lived, worked and studied in England probably longer than you have lived outside Pakistan. My business interests and investments allow me to travel world-wide, except for Latin America and Africa. Among muslim countries I have visited Turkey and had business dealings there too. As a result I have met and made life long friends all over the world, if anything I would say that I have a very wide perspective to be wise enough not to get involved with religion and politics.

Allow me to add a few more things here.

Canadian society is not as glorified as it looks to you, neither is the British. The glass ceilings there are much lower for people like you and I. The managers, professionals and investors there are quite visibly backward toward ethnic minorities.

Please conduct this test, and see what percentage, as a ratio of ethnic to total population, the student body in top Canadian and British schools and universities is South Asian, and then do the same for the ivy league U.S. universities. You will find that upward mobility of asians (East and South alike) is much higher in the U.S. Check out the student body population in ivy league and Stanford and compare it with Oxford, Cambridge, McGill and McMaster you will see the point I am making. Indeed I have discussed this point my alma-mater in England and in the U.S. and they agree and concede about upward mobility. The English alma-mater feel that they missed out on at least two generation to derive benefits that their multi-cultural society presented.

The success of South Asian and East Asian entreprenuers in Canada and Britain is despite the hurdles and not with the help of openess there. Whereas, the success in silicon valley, and wall street of Asians is because of openess.

Regarding policy making, I am neither student nor an expert. However I do believe that the west (including the U.S., Canada, and EU) is a club. It is driven by common interest and tries to forge a common interest among its members. Please study the history of the west`s involvement in Middle East, Africa and Asia, and Latin America. Colonial expansion was driven by expansion of their economic needs. Both religion, and force were freely and interchangeably used whenever and whichever suited the most.

England, Spain and France - European powers played the same role but with different style, whether they were fighting Tipu Sultan in India, or Custer`s last stand, the Alama, or spanish armada etc.

Wherever this club has interest they have found reasons to share and defend. Internally they have fought too, once internal fight was settled they tried to restore the external colonies whenever it was possible, Indian independence and Ho-Chi Minh distrubed the cart. Monroe Doctrine came out in America only when enough europeans had consolidated their positions.

DeGaulle had famously said ``Nations have interests, while people have friends.``

The economic interest of oil is so common and so strong that they will never fight among themselves, few will come in first, and others will come in later, but all will come in, incluidng, the east will join. It is delusional to think otherwise.

Arabs recognize this and accept it. The oil is world`s commodity and life which happens to come from the land beneath their part of the world. The West, the East (China and Japan, and soon India too) rely on it.

This is nothing more than the case of your life line. You too will protect it, if it passes through an enemy territory, the alternative is too ghastly to imagine. You too will put your stooges and despots to defend it for you. Mughals in India, and Ottomans elsewhere did exactly the same to defend and expand their interests. Otherwise, rich and powerful fuedals in India and Paksitan would not be muslim. Only difference is that the tables are turned, and Ottomans and Mughals and therefore by default the muslims lost their advantage. This has nothing to do with clash of civilization or religion.

Now coming to India and South Asia.

Other than Paksitan, the countries you have mentioned I have direct experience and can assure you, that their envy and grudge is just and understandable as is the Canadians with the U.S.

In my days in Canada, I had seen this envy among Canadians. I had seen it being translated into Canadian pride rather than war too. Automobile agreement, lumber / pulp agreement, beef agreement, mining agreement, etc. are so one sided that they look like being negoitated for the U.S. by East India company.

Dost-Mitter can probably throw more light on these than I can. Canadians used these to gain market access and improve their life and quality and standard of life. The shaft they got in these agreement ensures higher prices of automobile and lower wages than the U.S. but still allows them to create superior quality of life and without having to send forces overseas. This is Canadian way of getting even. As they used to remind that it is better to get even than mad. I thought it was wonderful and admired it after I moved to the U.S.

I also know about Pakistan and India one-upmanship, and Pakistan`s constant struggle to maintain parity. India is no longer interested in maintaining any such parity with Pakistan. This is a new reality that Pakistan privately acknowledges, and will eventually accept too, so that it can move foward to take its sweet revenge elsewhere.

India loves the importance that it will get playing with China, Japan and the U.S. in Asia. No doubt India will spend certain percentage of its GDP on defense, but not for parity with Paksitan in mind.

The U.S. will want India to do it, India will want in return something too. Remember a lot pressure was put by the U.S. for refuelling rights and to provide soldiers during Iraq war. Pakistan had to succumb, but India did not. That is the advantage of being democratic, Pakistan still has to learn this, otherwise Mushraff will not boast that Kashmir problem can be solved in one day.

Therefore, the shape and form the U.S., India relationship will take only time will tell. It is not determinable for now. Neither is the future. I have interesting discussions with influential persons on this subject. Two of them (one Indian and one U.S.) independently and in different places remarked that India handled the U.S.S.R. better than the U.S. There is a truth in this statement. Even Nixon alluded in recently publshed tapes how Indians played and how Pakistani leadership played.

Indians want to ensure that the U.S. + Western Europe take care of Pakistan. Short giving up Kashmir India would anything to keep the west`s arms length involvement. Sadly, Musharaff has boxed himself in the corner to keep this involvement alive for many years to come. Therefore, Pakistan itself is playing the card that India wants it to play then why should India interfere and demand and change the rules. Terrorism as a bogey works great for India in this equation, until Pakistan can cut out the cancerous cells and deliver OBL. Neither can happen in the short term. Musharaff is not that strong, and democratic institutions are not there as the alternative either. Therefore, quite conveniently for India, there is common interest for all parties to remain on the poker table and continue to play the game without trusting anyone.

On the eastern side, India will play diplomacy - Kautilya / Chankya type with the U.S., China and Japan to get maximum economic benefit. There is no need to fight, it is very clear that China will not go to war with India, and neither would India want to go to war with China. Nixon could not get China to fight, Pakistan could not get China to fight with India. Both India and China see an opportunity of peace dividend.

None of these countries, India included, trust each other. This is precisely the rule of the game - ``win without trusting.``

Arms race with China is certainly not the game for India. Carving out and defining interest is called for now. This falls in diplomacy. It remains to be seen, if Kautilya / Chankya Niti will deliver or Sun-Tzu`s Art of War will deliver. These societies have history of playing in timeless way so there is no rush, if the winner is not known in Manmohan Singh`s life time, or even never known and the game contiues. Their driving philosophies are derived from conclusive wars etc.

With China, Japan or the U.S., India would want a fair share of movements of jobs, and capital as a result of globalization of world economy. No one will deliver these to India on a silver platter. India must create environment for it to happen, and continue to flatten the earth - as Tom Friedmann put it -- and then use skill surplus as the advantage to both service the west and the east and increase purchasing power and affluence of its consumers.

Where is the foreign policy? Where is the nuclear policy? Where is the oil policy?, Where is the trade policy? etc. etc.

The guiding principle is Indian market, Indian skill-surplus and growing middle class and increasing consumer base with surplus and measurable purchasing power.

The U.S., and Europe controlled jobs when they opened the market.

Korea and Japan took iron ore from India. Only now Koreans want to set up their largest steel plant in India. Only now Japan wants to set their largest steel plant in India. What is making them change thier mind?

The steel player, Mittal and his interests. He and ONGC - an Indian company announced their plans to set up plants that will create jobs, suddenly picture changed. This is NRI factor. India will play this NRI factor to the maximum advantage.

Please study these dynamics, rather than armed race dynamics of cold war days. The answer does not belong there any longer. This is where tomorrows dawn is, I wish you can see through the old cold war glasses, otherwise please discard them.

This is how I see, the world from my window.

Anil Kapuria

Romair

If India is able to establish an unambiguous and overwhelming second nuclear-strike capability (I don`t know whether it currently does or not), then Pakistan`s nuclear abilities are, IMO, rendered quite useless. Remember, it is Pakistan, not India that is interested in first nuclear-strike option against each other.

Ijaz_Gul #44: “Romair, what I am indicating is balance of terror. What is the calculus on second strike and risidual capabilty. This is what India is trying to acquire through a missile defence.”

I think the second-strike capability that the USA and USSR had (have) against each other, was completely based on multiple domains from which missiles could be offensively launched. It was not, nor is it currently, based on missile defence. Missile defence is completely unproven technology. In fact, it does not exist. For it to be useful, it would have to be 100% reliable………It isn’t even close to that…..

For India to have second-strike capability, it would have to move to submarine launched missiles. And to things like mobile systems that can be moved around inside India. I don’t think the USA will be too interested in India getting into that domain. If it does, then Pakistan would have to do the same. In which case, both countries will have moved up, unnecessarily, one notch on the nuclear ladder.

Even with submarine launched missiles, the only successful attack that India can carry out now against Pakistan (or vice-versa) is to launch a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan’s nuclear missiles. Destroy them completely and then attack Pakistan conventionally. However, there is no way for India to successfully target Pakistan’s nuclear missiles with conventional weapons. It would have to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack against Pakistan, and hope that it destroyed all the missiles.

If it were unable to destroy all of Pakistan’s delivery systems (aircraft, missiles), then Pakistan would launch a retaliatory nuclear attack. And we will all be dead……..There is no point in having a second strike capability, of submarines, if one’s whole country is destroyed…….

I cannot see any scenario of military conflict between India and Pakistan, in which eventually both countries do not end up destroying each other nuclearly. I think our future conflicts will be, at most, things like Siachen etc. If you can highlight any such scenario in which one country destroys the other, without being destroyed itself, I would be very interested in discussing it………

Re: # 38

Kaalchakra: You can email me at: anilkapuria@yahoo.com

Thank you
Anil

Ijaz#29:

I fully agree that Nehru was central to India`s foreign and defense policies. And when I said that his foreign policy was not Pakistan centric, I did not imply the same thing about India`s Defence policy, which has continued to be largely Pakistan-centric although it has recently acquired larger ambitions of great power projection with a blue water navy and all that. I also think that there was an element of emotion in his Kashmir Policy; its vital importance for India`s secular credential is a somewhat later addition, as is its linkage with the security of Indian Muslims, which should not be there in ideal circumstances.

I believe that there is no counterpart to Muslim personal law in Hindu religion. British wanted to have a Hindu law to complement Muslim and Christian personal laws and some English researcher dug up Manu Smriti.

I am not surprised by your observation regarding kholis of Sindh. I observed that the fate of low caste Hindus in Bangladesh, too, is worse than that of their counterparts in India. If their fate has improved somewhat in India, it is because of the consistent efforts of the State and their empowerment through democratic politics.

I also agree with your observations regarding hatred. My own observation is that there was a complete change after Kargil. Before Kargil, Indians generally talked of friendship with Pakistanis whereas Pakistanis had a generally belligerent attitude; post-Kargil the situation has reversed, although one sees fairly favourable coverage of people-to-people contacts in the Indian media.

Romair, what I am indicating is balance of terror. What is the calculus on second strike and risidual capabilty. This is what India is trying to acquire through a missile defence.
Cheerios

Anil #23: I will attempt to reply to your reply. However, I will have to request you to keep an open mind to comments that I make that may not agree with your definition of right and wrong, your views, or how you see the world, and on your definition of ethical and unethical. I have noticed that you, perhaps, tend to get somewhat emotional towards comments that tend to portray US foreign policy negatively. My view of the world, - of what is ethical and unethical etc.- is quite different from how the USA views it in its foreign policy, and perhaps how you may view it (in certain specific areas)……….

I will answer the detailed parts of your reply in a subsequent reply. However, here are the broad outlines:

- I think it is quite ridiculous for any country in South Asia to start thinking of itself as a, “Player” in the Great Game of superpowers. We need to open our eyes and realize that South Asia is the second-worst area to live in the world. We are dirt-poor. The average South Asian is around 80 places below Russia, Cuba and Libya on the Human Development Index. We are even lower than the PLO areas………….If India wants to get involved in this Great Game, best of luck. I would certainly suggest Pakistan just keep a bare minimum deterrence and concentrate on economic development……….

- There are two, “views of the world” in the Western society. One is the USA view. And the other is the EU (plus Canada) view. After living in both environments, I am convinced that the way to go is the EU way. The USA way is only going to result in long-term violence and under-development for third world countries.

Specifically, within South Asia, it is only the EU view that is going to work. The USA view will be disastrous. South Asia is more like EU. Amongst other things, there are only two areas in the world that have enough money to implement the USA view of large military alliances, utilizing military power as a deciding factor in foreign relations. One is the USA and the other is EU. EU has rejected that view. In the next century, China will be the only other country that can implement it. All other countries, (like the USSR did), will go bankrupt trying to implement it. USSR actually broke up, trying to pursue that view.

- Under any and all factors, India should have been the natural leader of South Asia. It is more influential in all factors - geography, population, history, demographics, location, etc. – in comparison to all other countries in the region. India should have been leading South Asia much like USA leads North America. However, India has not been able to achieve that status. Not a single country in South Asia is willing to voluntarily accept India as a leader. Not only that, nearly all of them feel very threatened by India, and will do everything in their power to ensure India does not become the leader….This includes Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal etc.

It would be good, if our Indian colleagues asked themselves, why? Why is the USA (not including the current George Bush phase) accepted as the leader of North America (and of the Western world, to a great extent), while India is not accepted as a leader in South Asia? In fact, the rest of the Western countries (including Canada) actually consider the USA their protector………

A country that is not accepted as a leader in its local geography can never attain leadership position in the world arena. It is impossible. However, leadership requires behaving like an elder brother, not like a, “big brother.” Being an elder brother requires sacrificing and compromising, usually in favour of the younger brothers. It requires giving the younger brothers a feeling of security. Not a feeling of insecurity. It demands initiating genuine peace. Not attempting to force peace on one’s own terms. It demands buying defensive weaponry to defend itself against external threats. Not piling up offensive weaponry, which can only be used against its younger brothers. It demands a secured maturity against the younger brothers’ insecure immaturity.

This is, in my opinion, the main problem with India, i.e. it is a large country that thinks too much like a small country (while Pakistan has the opposite problem, i.e. it is a small country that thinks too much like a large country).

If India had settled its border conflicts with its smaller neighbours (including Pakistan) decades ago; even if it had to be done in favour of the smaller neighbours;, if it had not interfered in the internal affairs of its neighbours (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan), it would have been the voluntarily accepted leader of South Asia today. South Asia would have been like EU, with India as the undisputed leader……….

I don’t know what South Asia will gain by India trying to become a pawn in the Great Game, which is about to occur between USA and China. I think Indians are greatly over-estimating their importance in that game. India can only be a player in that game; if it’s close geographic neighbours support it. China will be defining its area of influence in the world soon. And it will want it to stretch from Japan to Australia to South Asia to the Middle East. And, like any superpower, it will not tolerate any competition.

Unfortunately, South Asia will be screwed in this scenario, with India supporting USA and Pakistan supporting China. Both pawns to somebody else, much at the expense of their own citizens. And specifically because, India – a country that should be the natural leader of South Asia – is unwilling to act like an elder brother and is hell-bent on acting like the Big Brother……….

Romair : ``I think India should actually de-militarize, which will result in further de-militarization of South Asia, thereby freeing funds for human development………….``

It doesn`t matter what you think.

Ijaz_Gul/Anil # various: This is turning into an interesting discussion. I will post a detailed reply to Anil’s point in a subsequent reply…….

“Perhaps Pakistan has decided to take the economic route and it is the political economy that shall lead the way till the balance of power model changes.”

The thought process of the Pakistan military is to arm itself at the same ratios as India. They want to remain at 1/3rd of India in military power. They genuinely feel India will some day attack Pakistan, if it can. India’s massive Pakistan-specific purchases tend to add to this feeling. However, I think Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent has had a calming and securing affect on the military and on the population of Pakistan. And I do think that the country is now, correctly, moving towards the economic route.

Pakistan should match all strategic developments that India makes on the nuclear side, while de-scaling the conventional side. The recent pile-up of troops and then their eventual withdrawal by India was a clear indication that the two countries, for the first time, are in a situation of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).

Hence Pakistan does not need to arm itself any more………….Regardless of what India does…….Pakistan should now put everything into economic development and aim for a 7% or so growth rate for the next ten years……..It should, in fact, turn its current Defences skills into an export-oriented industry, specifically for Middle Eastern countries……….

“Just consider that if India gets a percentage of the anti Missile Defence capability like USA/Israel, Pakistan`s deterrence gets degraded.”

No country in the world has credible missile defence capability. Nor does any exist. Even the USA isn’t close to developing any such capability. It has had all kinds of massive problems with its Star Wars plan because it was not feasible. And even that required a high available detection time of minutes. In addition, it is order of magnitude easier to develop an offensive counter to any missile defence capability than to develop a new missile defence system.

There is absolutely no defence against sub-minute missile launches, below space – the type that will occur between India and Pakistan. Patriot missile defence systems cannot protect against that. They do not have even close to 100% reliability. And they are designed to protect buildings and localities. Not to protect cities.

Hence, no sensible country will risk a nuclear strike, based on such equipment, even if it is 90% reliable. In addition, the close geographical proximity of Pakistan and India will result in radioactive affects travelling to the other country, after nuclear strikes.

Pakistan and India, now, will completely destroy each other in a war. No one should have any kind of doubts about that………

“So latest friendly overtures nothwithstanding, covertly both Pakistan and China emerge as challengers and enemies in the political calculas.”

To some extent, I agree.

However, I don’t think India can make policy based on emotions only. I don’t see any advantage India can gain from military growth. It is much larger in that area than all South Asian countries already. It can influence the policies of all of them, through military advantages, already. Other than Pakistan. And due to the nuclear deterrent, I don’t think India can influence Pakistan. At the same time, I don’t think India can ever catch up with China, militarily. In fact, the gap is growing……….Hence any growth in India’s military capability is not going to change the already established balance in the area. India would have to develop the world’s most sophisticated Nuclear Missile Defence system, without any counters, to be able to change the balance in the area. Which is why I think much of the military purchases on the Indian side, nearly all of which are Pakistan-specific, are based more on emotions than anything else……..Or perhaps to get Pakistan into an arms race........

I think India should actually de-militarize, which will result in further de-militarization of South Asia, thereby freeing funds for human development………….

ijaz

Almost. The India that was did begin in Pakistan. Much of our hatred lies in the history and politics of appropriation and rejection.

With relations that close, one cannot be unconcerned. We could have been either the greatest of friends or the greatest of enemies. We chose to play the latter.

kaalchakra,
Both are to blame. Both have become nationalists. Its a tit for tat and both play each other.Yes we too have an attitude like all aspiring nationalists.

We Pakistanis too have a sense of history. The ``Wonder that was India`` In fact comprised most parts of what is now Pakistan. South India was never part of that INDIA. I CAN ONLY GUESS THAT THIS ATTITUDE OF INDIANS ALSO MAKE PAKISTANIS WARY WHO RELATE IT TO AKHAND BHARAT.

The Great Mauryan empire had its centre in Taxila, next to Islamabad.
The Nara Civilisation, what you call Saraswati was perhaps centred around Harrapa.
There is lots of Sindhi folklore that found its way to europe thousands of years ago.
Some Biblical Scholars believe that River Pishon of Eden was in fact NARA
Cheerios

re: anil # 35

I want to privately share with you a very old idea. Could I do so?

Thanks in anticipation.

ijaz_gul

When I said that there is something wrong with Indians, I wasn`t kidding. Like the Chinese, we see ourselves as an ancient, great people who, despite all our challenges, must be, and will be, a great future power. Many people inside and outside of India understandably decry that ambition, but that ambition is a fact, nevertheless.

Now, specific to Pakistan, Indians have a particular attitude. It is for Pakistani intellectuals to help explain to Pakistani people whether Pakistani state has played any part in shaping that Indian attitude.

i`m curious. what do most pakistanis we come across on the net behave like? sheep? downtrodden? angels? behaving as wannabe fill-in-the-blank -ists? comparing india to nazi germany et al.?

i should have posted this thought in yodaesque. perhaps next time

Re: # 28 & #29:

Ijaz & Dost-Mitter:

Law of society in modern India will not come from Hindu Code Bill or Sharda Act of 1950s.

It will evolve out of the new knowledge base society that is forming in front of our very eyes through revolutions in IT and telecommunication, and soon through affordable air-travel revolution too.

While Indians have Manu-Smriti, as a reminder - I have commented on it a few time here on Chowk a few times. More importantly, Indians have even stronger and longer tradition coming from vedic tradition of challenging Hindu Thoughts. This knowledge worker of India is challenging each aspect of Indian social tradition, and will continue to do so and form anew, rather than reform the old. If you study the social aspect of this revolution, be in Bangalore, Chennai, Hydrabad, Pune, Gurgaon or NOIDA - it becomes very clear that this group of people have transcended regional (therefore linguistic), and religious boundaries. More are crossing at faster rate than ever before. They have a new thinking, which is certainly more influenced by not the U.S., but silicon valley (only a small corner of the U.S.). They are extremely proud and confident as a knowledge worker (closer to brahmins and banias of older times). Certainly not all are brahmins in the older framework of caste.

Emancipation and empowerment among women is greater than even in Silicon Valley. Caste and regionalism plays little role in their thinking. I can go on more but will save it for now.

Ijaz, you saw Pakistani-hindu kholis who probably are boxed in older ways by external perceived threats from non-hindus, and acceptance of their submissive position to fuedals and upper caste. They are numb from living in seize mentality for generations, much like the African-Americans of the South. Essential part, not necessarily the whole.

You would not find any such thing among this group of knowledge workers in India. They have their own language, and are amassing wealth and knowledge in India faster and wider than any other generation ever generated. When you will apply all other tests of social phenomenon in making, this group will yield surprising results for you. Give a few more generations to this seed to evolve.

It will have its own symbols and icons as well. I have indeed seen people IIT and the U.S. trained of this group, starting their day by actually folding hands, closing their eyes and bowing thier head to the computer screen before starting their work day. I call this a ``computer jee ka mandir`` phenomenon.

Hindu society has been a very layered society. This is the drawback of the natural law of what I call distributive society, as against centralized society where the laws are codified in a single book. Some layers will never change because they do not feel the need to change. Some layers will resist and reject the change. Even Amish in the U.S. have resisted and rejeted changes. However, the beauty of the distributive society is that every layer and sometime sections within a layer have their own rules and laws which allow them to co-exist, like a microcosm. India is such a microcosm.

I have recenlty submitted an essay to Chowk on ``what binds us into ..... respective national identities?`` I hope it is published here, as I would love to get the reaction.

Anil Kapuria