Ananth Venkatesh

In the final part of the Indo-Pak story, Ananth says that India ought to not believe in words of peace and make concessions or promises till the proven industry of terrorism is annihilated by Pakistan.

Any Indian government, which negotiates with Pakistan when no tangible action has been adopted by Pakistan to incarcerate the terrorist, Hafeez Saeed, is a dishonorable government.

Any Indian government or think tank or media house, which even contemplates negotiations with Pakistan for the ‘resolution’ of Siachen/Sir Creek/J&K disputes, is a hopelessly unrealistic and inexcusably idealistic entity. This vision of talking is unpardonably utopian as the terrorist industry in Pakistan has mushroomed in the last 15 years.

The dangerous battlefield [source]

There have been murders of prominent Pakistani politicians such as the Pakistani Punjab’s former Governor, Salman Taseer, and the former Pakistani Federal Minister, Shahbaaz Bhatti. The ISI and the Pakistani military have demonstrated no concrete sign to India and to the global community of their full breakaway from these macabre terrorist groups who carried out the killings. No convictions of the detained Pakistanis have occurred in Pakistan in order to provide justice to the casualties of the 26/11 barbarities in Mumbai. The ISI and the Pakistani military will be the final deciders of the Pakistani relationship with India, not the democratically chosen feeble Pakistani government.

There have been mammoth instances of Pakistan fomenting ghoulish terrorism in India, with some help from some indigenous Indians. Temporarily, the Indian government is outraged and appalled and desists from having conversations with Pakistan. But then, with the passage of time, everything is forgotten and India is conversing with Pakistan again and issuing homilies in support of Indo-Pak tranquility. Indian PM Manmohan Singh emits commendations of the ‘Pakistani intentions of peacefulness.’ But the terrorists are there on that country’s soil planning their next atrocity on India, the laboratory of Islamic terroristic experimentation.

Shahbaz Bhatti: A cardinal has called for the Church to consider declaring 
the murdered Pakistani politician a saint [source]

It should be an Indian governmental principle that India will not negotiate with a Pakistani government that doesn’t deliver an onslaught on terrorism. Sagacious and realistic diplomacy doesn’t mean that India should continue to have unfettered dialogue with the Pakistanis even if anti Indian Islamic dragons in Pakistan continue to envenom themselves untouched. Talking to this Pakistani government and even mulling over any ‘peace deal’ with them is an affront to the thousands of casualties in India. These Indian casualties, who have been exterminated in crowded trains, buses, marketplaces and outside temples, deserve an Indian government that doesn’t compromise with a Pakistani administration that doesn’t whip terror on its soil.

The bottom line is that Pakistan will continue to adhere to the policy of making India bleed gradually. This policy was embraced by the Pakistani State after the 1971 liberation of Bangladesh by India during the Indo-Pak battle of 1971.

This Pakistani policy is likely to continue at least till Pakistan attains its prime goal of annexing J&K. The question is, should India let that happen for the sake of ‘peace’ with Pakistan? For any kind of ‘durable’ peace and for a wholesome ‘resolution’ of Indo-Pak ‘disputes’, as stressed by Pakistan, India will have to make territorial and administrative concessions on Kashmir to Pakistan. India will have to make some territorial concession to Pakistan on the strategically important Siachen Glacier.

Then only, Pakistan will be satisfied and there may be ‘peace.’

[source] Still not solved. Not cared.

• Should India make these concessions and thereby scorn the sacrifices of its military personnel in J&K, who have sacrificed their lives to continue J&K’s association with India?
• Should India make the Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh minorities in Kashmir additionally vulnerable by making concessions on Kashmir to Pakistan? What about the miserableness of the condition of the dispossessed Kashmiri Hindus, millions of whom are not in their Kashmiri hometowns and are, instead, in piteous refugee camps and in other parts of India?
• Should India lose the strategic advantage it has currently by demilitarizing Siachen in the absence of any foolproof guarantee from the Pakistani military that it will not try to reoccupy Siachen clandestinely?
• Can Pakistani ‘tranquil’ intentions be trusted by India in the presence of such terrorist sectarianism in Pakistan, in the presence of copious anti-Indian Islamic terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan (and in Pak-possessed Kashmir)?

Illogical sentimentality with Pakistan will make India appear to be a friend of foolhardiness and idiocy. Indian military potency and an indefatigable resolve to place terror in an unrecoverable comatose condition will be India’s savior, not comical emotionalism. A nation that indulges in comical emotionalism on security matters will be ridiculed by the world. India can start off by executing some of the convicted terrorists in India jails, who are with the death penalty.

Ananth Venkatesh

Ananth does not trust the peace talks of Imran Khan and charts out the path he may be taking to oust India from Afghanistan, thereby creating worse conditions for India, the West and international peace. The real messengers of peace like Burhanuddin Rabbani are being murdered while the politicos are making pacts with the murderers. Part two of three in his story on India-Pakistan peace relations. (part one)

The infrastructural robustness and the ideological verve of these Pakistani terrorist groups are largely unstained and unbroken, notwithstanding the outlawing of some of them periodically by the Pakistani government. The outlawing is so passive and ineffective that these groups regroup and rename themselves and their aims to make themselves more palatable to the global community. They reincarnate themselves as outfits of philanthropy. Pakistan can then conveniently express its incapacity to crack and illegalize these ‘charitable outfits.’

The Jamaat-ud-Dawa is the humanitarian wing of the 
Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group (source)

Essentially, these ‘charitable outfits’ have the same demoniacal aspiration as their terrorist founders. One needs to look at the ‘transformation’ of the proscribed Laskhar-e-Toiba into a ‘philanthropic outfit’, which has meant that the Lashkar has circumvented the proscription on it by adorning the guise of a ‘charitable outfit’, which it may very well be, but its intentions and infrastructure, as well as finances for funding terror, still are healthy. Lashkar, LeJ and Harkat-ul Mujahideen al-Alami were involved in the many unsuccessful endeavors to bump off Musharraf, which led majorly to their toothless banning in the first place. Of course, these terrorist groups have indulged in bloodthirsty bellicosity against Western interests as well, such as the vehicular bombing in June 2002 near the American Consulate in Karachi. The LeJ is also accused of participation in the loathsome homicide of the former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, in December 2007.

The menace of these extremist Pakistani outfits hasn’t faded away, with many of their members forging ultra-orthodox political alliances, whose mammoth congregations have been attended by the functionaries of Imran Khan’s emerging political party, Tehreek-e-Insaaf. Imran Khan has promoted himself as the bringer of a better future for the Pakistani populace. He is, apparently, a stainless candidate unlike Zardari and some of the other conventional Pakistani politicians, who have been encircled by allegations of subornment and nepotism. Imran Khan does represent a new political fragrance for the Pakistani electorate as he is untested administratively and, hence, bereft of the grubbiness of allegations of corruption. But his standpoints on Afghanistan, on the Taliban, on the Pakistani political ultraconservatives, on the Pakistani terrorist outfits, on the international military presence in Afghanistan, etc. are fundamentally worrisome for Indian interests and strategic wellbeing.

Imran Khan advocates a dialogue with the Pakistani and Afghani Taliban to procreate orderliness in Afghanistan. Talking to these terrorist outfits, which have not hesitated to murder prominent Afghan messengers of peace such as Burhanuddin Rabbani, is a catastrophic idea, which will eliminate whatever democracy and tolerance that exists in Afghanistan today under the presence of the ISAF. Talking to the Talibani outfit will mean compromising with them if success has to be accomplished during the talks. That means that the Talibani demand for political power in Kabul will have to be accommodated. The cultural, religious, sectarian and gender bigotry practiced by the Taliban will come to the fore more openly if the Taliban acquires political potency. The objective behind the justifiable liberation of Afghanistan by the ISAF in 2001 was the extermination of the poisonous infrastructure of the Taliban. To accord the Taliban political power in any form would be to infringe the core principles upon which the invasion of Afghanistan was implemented in October 2001 by the Bush administration in the aftermath of the 9/11 carnage on American soil that was thickly assisted by the Al-Qaeda leadership safeguarded on Afghan earth by the then governing Taliban.

Burhanuddin Rabbani was the former head of the High Peace Council before he was killed in September 2011 [Reuters] [source]

The Talibani penetration of political potency in Kabul, as a part of any ‘peace pact’ arranged by the Pakistanis and even by the reluctant Americans, would be devastating for the stabilizing Western influence in Afghanistan. The Talibani access to the Afghan governmental corridors would be a blow that incapacitates Indian influence in Afghanistan, which has been beneficial for Afghan infrastructural development since 2011. The Taliban entrance into the Afghan government would mean an increased likelihood of sanctuaries being provided in Afghanistan for Taliban terrorists, who are opposed to the West and to India (non-Islamic India/Hinduism). An Afghanistan without the ISAF, even under a national coalitional administration consisting of the Taliban, will be forced to depend on Pakistani tutelage. Pakistan can take advantage of its meaningful connections with segments of the Taliban (terrorist Haqqani network) to exert considerable pressure on Afghanistan after 2014, 2014 being the year of the intended disengagement of American troops from Afghan soil.

Pakistan will then block any Indian attempt to gain a toehold in Afghani matters such as Indian investment in the Afghani economy, Indian training for the Afghani military, etc. Pakistan will subdue Afghani strategic independence to such an extent that India will be regarded as a pariah in an Afghanistan that is devoid of the ISAF and that is, subsequently, under the coercive counseling of the Pakistani State (ISI, Pakistani military). An Afghanistan, which has a central coalitional government with the Taliban as one coalitional component, will be a nation fractured by political unsteadiness, administrative procrastination and obdurate inter-ministerial divergences. In the event of a coalitional government in collaboration with the Taliban, a few ministries will have to be handed over to the Talibani hands. Such a government will be forever under incapacitating political paralysis of different degrees.

Afghan National Police officers, seen training with mock guns during a session with ISAF soldiers from the German Federal Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) at the German army camp in Fayzabad, northern Afghanistan, Monday, Sept. 29, 2008. (AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus)
ISAF benefitted the Afghan police and civilian administration in training activities.

The Taliban, on acceding to the democratic political process in Afghanistan as part of a ‘serenity accord,’ may ensure the temporary deactivation of their armed cadres to gain international succor. However, after the ISAF withdrawal from Afghan soil in 2014, the Taliban, even if it is a part of the political process in Afghanistan then, can effortlessly reactivate the militariness of its cadres as there will be, at best, an inconsequential global military presence in Afghanistan after 2014. Reactivation of its armed cadres will not be difficult for the Talibani political wing then.

After the ISAF disengagement from Afghanistan in 2014, the whole geopolitical and geo-strategic scenario vis-à-vis Afghanistan will alter. Pakistan, through means such as its endorsement of the deadly Haqqani network, may become the major foreign player in Afghanistan and the weary West may relent. This means that anti-Indian Islamic terrorist factories could reopen in Afghanistan after 2014 and function more freely. Terrorists could be pushed from Afghanistan to Pakistan, their border being unmanageably unlawful and unruly. These terrorists could then infiltrate Indian Kashmir from Pakistani soil i.e. vintage cross-border terrorism. Anti Western terrorists could house themselves in Afghanistan after 2014 with the guarantee of receiving safe havens from the Afghan government, which has the political Taliban as its part. If the moderate pro-Indian Afghani parliamentarians protest against Talibani dictatorialness, then the Taliban could disengage from the Afghani political process and threaten to instill anarchical bloodshed on the streets.

Will the West intercede militarily then to terminate the Taliban threat?

A Taliban blast in Kabul (source)

Another full-fledged Western military intercession is highly improbable considering the Western tiredness on account of the current Afghan conflict. Pakistan will be the only country that will then trumpet to the world that it has the power to stabilize Afghanistan and kill the prospective anarchy there. This will mean, at least, that Pakistan will ‘arrange’ a very strong Talibani presence in the national Afghan government, which will represent the sidelining of other relatively broadminded Afghan political parties, with strategic conviviality towards India. Pakistan, in order to assert itself in Afghanistan, may desire and come up with a heavily Talibani Afghan government. This will typify the termination of the meaningfulness of the Indian diplomatic presence in Afghanistan as the Taliban will not aspire to do any business with India.

Pakistan shares a border with Afghanistan and India doesn’t. India currently doesn’t have a military existence on Afghan soil. It will be difficult for India to penetrate Afghanistan militarily after 2014 if the Talibani virulence for India manifolds. India will be a tragic loser.

This is the reality that Imran Khan desires, despite knowing the thick connections between Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other Pakistani Islamic terrorist groups. Negotiations with the Taliban represent a core strategy of Imran Khan to heighten the Pakistani influence in Afghanistan after 2014 and to decapitate Indian influence there after 2014.  [Photo:"By 2014 Afghans will be fully responsible for their security' [source]]

Imran Khan aspires to see the ouster of a constructive Indian presence in Afghanistan. His sugarcoated talks about Indo-Pak peace being one of his primary goals must not make India position blind trust in him.

His alliances with the Pakistani political ultraconservatives, who have zero respect for India, his advocacy of discussions with Pakistani extremist groups to create orderliness in Pakistan and in the lawless Waziristan, his disparagement of the stableness that the Western military presence and the Indian diplomatic presence have brought to Afghanistan, etc. embody his political personality, which is unpalatable and indigestible for the idea of peace in South Asia.

He has not spoken at length about the measures that he would take to dissect the Islamic terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. He probably never will speak at length on this matter since he doesn’t intend to do anything of this sort. India, at this stage, can derive no comfort from the electioneering and sloganeering of Imran Khan and his allies.

Ananth Venkatesh

Pakistan is unable/unwilling to stop the mushrooming terror camps at home, though their leader speaks of mutual peace in India. In this multi-part series on India-Pakistan relations, Ananth Venkatesh talks of the condition of peace in Pakistan, the threat to their populace from home-grown terror groups, the effects of America’s troop withdrawl from Afghanistan on India, and the need to be wary of Imran Khan’s peace talks.

“If the American troops and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) withdraw from Afghanistan as planned, 2013-14 are going to be crucial watershed years for India as far as the security of our western border is concerned”  -  Air Chief Marshal N.A.K. Browne

“It is Kabul now we are dealing with. The moment we resolve that, we will take over the next phase to liberate Kashmir from Jammu & Kashmir state” –  Hafiz Saeed

The recent spiritual voyage of the Pakistani President, Asif Zardari, to India recently, which also had a Pakistani political presence enmeshed in it, epitomizes yet another measure in the tempestuous diplomatic history between India and Pakistan. In his journey to the respected Mohammedan shrine in Rajasthan’s Ajmer, known as Ajmer Sharif Dargah (ASD), Zardari had company in the form of his young son, Bilawal Bhutto, who is, at the tender age of 23, the occupant of the post of chairmanship of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), despite having exiguous active political experience. But possessing the Bhutto surname and having the Late Benazir Bhutto as your mother unburdens Bilawal from the requirement of hands-on political experience in Pakistan’s stormy, sectarian and toxic politics in order to become the chairman of the PPP. Zardari arrived in India with the prominent Pakistani Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, who is quite adept at offering the Indian political media access to him. Zardari sought connection with divinity on arriving at the ASD, which was, by then, surrounded by a high hill of security presence. Zardari’s fairly substantial grant of $5 million to the ASD, seemingly for the welfare of the ASD, was a gesture that must have been heartwarming for the ASD’s management.

There was a get-together in the Indian Prime Ministerial residence between the Indian PM, Manmohan Singh, and Zardari while the latter was en-route to Ajmer. As has become customary during such visits, the statements by the two leaders and the two nations’ delegations were symbolized by insipid and docile declarations of tranquil intentions. The two leaders pronounced that they had congeniality in their minds and hearts for the Indian and Pakistani populace. While such proclamations of warless intentions are indeed welcome from the Pakistani State’s head, one needs to refrain from forgetting that such idyllic pronouncements have been uttered in the recent history by Indian and Pakistani leaders.

There has, however, been no extermination in the Pakistani terrorist infrastructure despite these rosy and blissful statements of peace emanating from the Pakistani governments and political parties in the recent past. In fact, the numerical and infrastructural strength of Pakistani terrorism has only strengthened in the last few years, with a miscellany of outfits sprouting on Pakistani soil.

Pakistani school girls and pedestrian move away from the site of a bomb blast in Peshawar on January 3, 2012. Two separate bomb blasts in Pakistan’s troubled northwest on January 3 killed five people and wounded 26 others, police said. (1/3/2112) AFP/Getty Images 

…Sunni-Shiite bloodshed

‘Organisations’ such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Hizbul Mujahedeen, which are conventional and ill-famed, have been joined by other Islamic fundamentalist outfits such as Sipah-e-Sahaba (SeS) and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ). Each of these is characterized by virulent inimicalness towards India, towards non-Muslims in India and towards secularism in India. The aspiration of these Sunni terrorist outfits is to ground an Islamic Sultanate/Caliphate in India with the decapitation of non-Islamic religions in India. The lethality and depravity of these outfits are so copious that they have limitless hatred for Shiite Muslims’ ideological structure as well. They regard the Shiites as unworthy heretical Muslims, who deserve the kismet of subjugation and extinction. The long-standing and grisly history of the massacres of the Shiites in Pakistan has been caused by militant outfits such as SeS and LeJ.

Afghani Shiites too have not been spared by these Sunni terror groups. The LeJ is strongly believed to have been involved in the terrorist assaults on Afghani Shiites on December 6 2011, when three macabre terrorist atrocities demolished Afghani urban areas simultaneously on the auspicious Shiite Ashura, which terminated 63-80 Shiite pilgrims. The frequent murders and pulping of Pakistani Shiites, more so during the Shiite sacred ceremonies in Pakistan, is a testament to the sectarian murderousness of these outfits’ philosophy. These terrorist organizations are there intact and are mushrooming, with charitable arms sprouting out of these terrorist outfits (Jamaat-ud-Dawa). The robust popular presence at the rallies of the Pakistani Islamic extremist leaders in different Pakistani cities demonstrates their healthy base. India can’t ignore this gruesome and insidious reality in the name of peace. India can’t let ignorant, self-destructive and illogical emotionalism dictate the course of her relationship with Pakistan.

The organized systematic genocide of Shiite Muslims in Pakistan
has claimed 58 lives and injured 67 during the month of January 2012 in 32 attacks. (source)

The perilously ultraconservative Islamists in Pakistan, with political ambitions, are led by the likes of Hafeez Saeed, against whom the Indian government and the convicted terrorist, David Headley, have presented intense evidence in relation to the insidious role of Saeed in the mastership of the Islamic terrorist atrocities in Mumbai in November 2008. The Pakistani ultra-conservatism is recognized for its straightforward and tacit compassionateness for the additional terrorist outfits like the Pakistani Taliban.

…leaders themselves under threat

The Pakistani ultraconservatives have even declared their antipathy for the likes of the former Pakistani autocrat, General Musharraf, for his ‘strategic proximity’ to the West in the ‘global conflict against Islamist terrorism.’ Musharraf is despised by the Pakistani Taliban and other acidic Sunni (Punjabi) terrorist outfits for various reasons, one being that he is a Mohajir i.e. an Urdu-speaking immigrant with Indian birth, who then migrated to Pakistan in the aftermath of the horrific British Indian partition. Of course, Musharraf’s dexterous positioning of Pakistan in alliance with the West in the ‘war on terror’ generated vitriol for him in the minds of these Pakistani terrorist outfits. Musharraf did cooperate, to a certain extent, with the West by handing over certain sinister anti Western terrorists to the Western authorities. These terrorists were related to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. No meaningful action was taken by him, however, to oust and cripple primarily anti-Indian terrorist outfits on Pakistani soil. Also, the substantiation that is emerging gradually demonstrates that the global Islamic terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, could have been dwelling in Pakistan from as early as 2005-2006 itself, at a moment when Musharraf was in power. Musharraf, being the dictator and the lord of the Pakistani army, ostensibly failed to notice the presence of this terrorist monster on Pakistani soil.

Hardline Islamic opposition against Musharraf (source)

The Pakistani espionage and intelligence community also failed to detect bin Laden hiding on Pakistani territory. It is difficult to swallow this proposition for many observers. Musharraf and his government repetitively assured the international community that bin Laden was not present on the Pakistani earth. But that was the case in May 2011, when bin Laden was liquidated on Pakistani soil by an outrageously gallant operation implemented by the American special military forces, much to the dismay of Pakistan. The operation to extinguish Laden was a surreptitious one.

Next Part: ‘Chartable Outfits’ or terror groups? Plus, Imran Khan’s plans analysed.

Ananth Venkatesh

It is good that Colombo was victorious in 2009 in its fight against the poison of the LTTE and that LTTE’s terror has ended. 
Ananth Venkatesh gives us a brief account of Tamil-Sinhalese conflict that has plagued Sri Lanka.

The inability of the Indian state to execute the convicted assassinators of Rajiv Gandhi, despite the repeated judicial green signals, is a perilous and worrisome indicator of the political irresoluteness that exists in the national government.

Rajiv was an ex-PM at night on May 21, 1991, when he was pulped by the ferocious explosives triggered by the LTTE’s hardened female suicide bomber, Dhanu. Rajiv, of the Indian National Congress Party (INC), had arrived in Sriperumbudur in Tamil Nadu that month to participate in the national electoral campaigns, during which it was broadly predicted by political observers that he would reoccupy the Prime Ministerial position after the electoral results were announced. The national coalition governments, after the electoral ouster in 1989 of INC’s Rajiv from the national political arena, were headed by the impactful VP Singh, and, then, by the rustic pragmatist, Chandra Shekhar.

Rajiv’s handling, as PM, of some significant subjects such as the national religious situation related to Ayodhya and the administrative corruption personified by Bofors was dangerously mediocre. The overturning of the secular Supreme Court (SC) verdict on the Shah Bano case by his administration in 1986 riled several segments of even the moderate Hindu population, apart from giving teeth to the campaign of the ultraconservative Hindu outfits. Rajiv’s subsequent surrender to the unrighteous demands of Islamic fundamentalists by additionally constitutionalising Islamic personal laws only partitioned the public opinion in India further on communal lines

The monumental Bofors scandal, which had created questions over the integrity of the Gandhi family, had generated a political wave against the INC, which led to its defeat in the 1989 general elections.

As the King of the INC, one of India’s oldest political entities, Rajiv made no substantial effort to stem the unpalatable sycophancy that had penetrated the members of the INC during the headship of Indira Gandhi.

However, in my view, one of his few achievements as PM was his assertive and hard-nosed foreign policy, which was evident in his authorization of a military intercession by India to undo the coup in Maldives in 1988 against the Maldivian President, Abdul Gayoom. The coup was backed by the Sri Lankan Tamil insurgent organization, PLOTE. Rajiv always believed that South Asia was a zone, in which no foreign power can be allowed to wield disproportionate influence. It was his opinion that India, being the largest country in South Asia, must take the initiative in resolving political disputes in this region instead of allowing the foreign armies to enter South Asia to end the standoffs here. As per Rajiv, an inept and lethargic India, uninterested in its immediate neighbourhood, would only lead to foreign nations acquiring a strategic toehold in this region, which could then, at a later date, have put India under discomfort.

His foreign policy as regards the ethnic disorderliness in the gorgeous Sri Lankan island was a balanced one. The civil strife between the minority Tamils and the majority Sinhalese had grilled Sri Lanka ever since Ceylonese liberation from British colonialism [Photo: Tamil population in blue]. The secessionist Tamil outfits (PLOTE, LTTE, EROS, TELO, etc.) were recognized for their efficient barbarousness in their pursuit of their primary objective: the secession of northern and eastern Sri Lanka and the formation of a sovereign Tamil nation, Tamil Eelam, there. The north and east were sectors of Sri Lanka that were inhabited by Tamils conventionally.

The response of the ‘Sinhalese Sri Lankan state’ to the Tamil secessionism was largely domineering, which produced ghoulish repercussions. For the Sinhalese, the oneness of Sri Lanka had to be maintained at any cost as surrender to Tamil terrorism would inevitably have meant the breakup of Sri Lanka. The possibility of Sri Lankan division infuriated the ordinary Sinhalese nationalists, who were endorsed by the two prominent Sinhalese opposition parties, the SLFP and the UNP. As terrorism become deadlier gradually in the 1970s and 1980s with clandestine international branches opening up for acquisition of weapons, Sinhalese Sri Lanka responded even more domineeringly.

The roots of this burning ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka had begun during the era of British administration of Sri Lanka. The unilateralism of Britain in colonial Ceylon, absence of meaningful British consultation with the locals and shortage of adequate British understanding of the potential inflammability of the ethnic issue in Sri Lanka made Britain adopt some measures, which were deeply disliked by several Sinhalese. One such measure was the transfer of millions of Indian Tamils to Sri Lanka by Britain to work in the Sri Lankan coffee and tea plantations. This measure increased the Tamil presence in Sri Lanka and strengthened their clout. For the average Sinhalese, however, the Indian Tamil was nothing but an alien colonizer of Sri Lankan land. However, the economic, administrative, political and educational welfare of numerous Indian Tamils, due to their realistic cooperation with British colonialism in Ceylon, were looked at unfavourably and unkindly by the Sinhalese.

Also, the native Sri Lankan Tamils were able to stitch up a favourable relationship with the colonial British that led to the Tamils filling up several seats in the Ceylonese civil service and in other departments of the Ceylonese state.
In addition, the wars between Sinhalese and Tamil kingdoms had been occurring for ages in Sri Lanka, with each side claiming righteousness was on their side.

Yes, after Ceylonese independence in 1948, the Sinhalese were able to organize and unite themselves effectively to espouse the Sinhalese cause. There was cohesiveness between the Sinhalese politicians on issues central to the Sinhalese identity and its preservation in a self-governing Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese had no Tamil kingdoms, with which they had to deal. The Sinhalese could utilize their numerical dominance to push through legislations to institutionalize Sinhalese domination of the state. That is what happened. The SLFP and the UNP, during their control of Sri Lanka respectively, after being mandated by the Sri Lankan electorate, ratified several legislations that alienated sections of the Tamils. Sinhalese was made the solitary official language of Sri Lanka, with Buddhism being pronounced as the official religion. The Sri Lankan Tamils, of course, were predominantly Hindus.

Tamil Settlement in Central Sri Lanka

Considerable Indian Tamils were disenfranchised politically by contentious legislations that had the unspoken support of some native Sri Lankan Tamils besides the vocal backing of Sinhalese political parties. Reservations in higher academic institutions designed to favour Sinhalese students agitated the Tamils, who interpreted these reservations as a malicious Sinhalese tactic to undercut the Tamil dominance in the Sri Lankan public sector. Even the native Sri Lankan Tamils slowly began to view the electoral disempowerment of the Indian Tamils as a signal from Sinhalese Sri Lanka that the Sinhalese would always receive an extraordinary place in a free Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese attitude was that the Tamils would simply have to adjust to the new ground realities.

The Sri Lankan Tamil parties were alarmed by these legislatorial moves, which weakened the Tamil position in the island. The moderate Tamil parties requested the federalization of Sri Lanka with reasonable linguistic, cultural, administrative and religious autonomy for the Tamils. But in sovereign Sri Lanka, some Sinhalese parliamentarians were severely distrustful of Sri Lankan Tamil intentions in general and considered even Tamil demands for reasonable autonomy as a step in the direction of Sri Lankan partition in the future. The geographical proximity of Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka placed fear and suspicion in Sinhalese minds that India, through the province of Tamil Nadu, could provide shelter to Tamil autonomists and agitators and exert influence upon Sri Lanka.  Sizable Sinhalese politicians were opposed to the ceding of any ground to even flexible Tamil parties.

As legislatorial means were not achieving the aim of even Tamil autonomy, Tamil terrorism was born. Outfits such as LTTE denounced the Sri Lankan democracy and labelled the Sinhalese parliamentarians as bigots, who would never give dignity to the Tamils. Bellicosity against Colombo was the only method to attain Tamil Eelam. Terrorism commenced, which led to the murders of moderate Tamil politicians as well as of the nationalist Sinhalese administrators. The Tamil terrorist outfits were responsible for these murders as well as for attacks on Sri Lankan security personnel. The rejoinder from Colombo to contain Tamil secessionism was stormy. Unfortunately, the Sinhalese rage was such that thousands of innocent Tamils were pulped in this state rage. The detestation among the Sinhalese parliamentarians for the Tamil terrorism became so strong that even requests from moderate Tamil parties for autonomy within one Sri Lanka became anathema to Sri Lanka.

Rajiv Gandhi’s active intercession to resolve this crisis in India’s neighbour demonstrated to the world that India was, at last, embracing assertiveness in its foreign policy. India intervened militarily in June 1987 to terminate the humanitarian disaster in Jaffna when it was under Colombo’s military blockade during Colombo’s struggle against Tamil separatism. However, the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord of July 1987, formalized by the then Sri Lankan President, Jayewardene, and the Indian PM, Rajiv Gandhi, was an apt example of proactive diplomacy aimed at tranquilizing a searing Sri Lanka, conserving Indian strategic interests there, preventing a foreign power from emerging in Sri Lanka to get a foothold there.

Of course, the Accord also laid down the conditions explicitly for the reinstatement of ethnic tranquillity in Sri Lanka. The Accord had provisions that expressly granted considerable autonomy, federalism and democracy to the Tamil areas in Sri Lanka. It was an accord that had the ingredients of peace and success provided there was political will on both sides. The Accord also assured Sri Lanka that its territorial integrity would not be diluted in any way and that its oneness would be intact. The principal Sinhalese demand that there be no disintegration of Sri Lankan unity was also assured by the Accord. It was a fairly model Accord for sowing the seeds of sereneness in a violent region.  Also, the Accord was legislated by the Indian Parliament and was given the go-ahead by Jayewardene.  The Accord also permitted a large number of Indian soldiers to travel to Sri Lanka to carry out military operations to curb the Tamil militancy, to disarm the terrorists and to create conditions agreeable for the democratization of the mainly Tamil northern and eastern Sri Lanka. The merger of northern and eastern Sri Lanka into one administrative unit was also enshrined in the Accord. The Indian Peacekeeping Force (IPKF) was in Sri Lanka with the presidential consent of Sri Lanka to kill the menace of Tamil terror and to bring about tranquil contact between the Tamil secessionists and the largely Sinhalese Sri Lankan Parliament to create a peaceful solution of the ethnic war.

The writer supports the IPKF and its military activities in Sri Lanka. The IPKF was, on several occasions, trapped by the bloody slyness and disingenuousness of Tamil terrorists and, on other occasions, by the inharmonious ultra nationalism of sections of the Sinhalese population. The ultranationalist Sinhalese, on occasions, cooperated surreptitiously with the LTTE cadres to bring about the downfall of the IPKF. These ultranationalists wanted the ouster of the Indian military from Sri Lankan soil. Sinhalese ultra nationalism was convinced that Tamil terrorists and autonomists have to be defeated heartlessly by the Sri Lankan military alone devoid of foreign intervention. The IPKF, therefore, inadvertently, maimed certain innocent Sri Lankans, who were callously utilized by the LTTE, at times, as shields in their battle against the IPKF.

The IPKF wasn’t a unilateral military venture by a domineering India. It happened with the unambiguous approval of the Sri Lankan executive, headed by Jayewardene.  But the IPKF performed certain commendable tasks such as the enhancement of the damaged infrastructure in the embattled zones of Sri Lanka, the provision of assistance to Tamil victims of the civil war, democratization of the Tamil areas and the induction of reasonable serenity in the erstwhile gory areas of Sri Lanka’s north and east.

The LTTE targetted Sri Lanka’s main international airport and the adjoining military base in July 2001, destroying 13 aircrafts. Photo Sena Vidanagama / AFP / Getty Images

That Rajiv didn’t back the cause of Tamil Eelam was right. The writer believes that independence for Sri Lankan Tamils and the breakup of Sri Lanka on account of Indian military conduct would have only emboldened the LTTE. The LTTE was a dictatorial organization, which had systematically annihilated all the opposition to it. Moderate as well as fundamentalist Tamils, who disagreed even slightly with the LTTE, were bumped off by the LTTE. Through this mercilessness, the LTTE had emerged as the ‘champion’ of the Tamil cause in Sri Lanka. There is a serious possibility that the LTTE would have institutionalized its autocracy in a sovereign Tamil Eelam. An independent Tamil Sri Lanka would have forged strong bonds with Tamil Nadu, which could have increased the numerical strength of the admittedly tiny Tamil secessionism in India. The dormant Tamil secessionism in India could have been inspired by the LTTE’s attainment of a sovereign Tamil state and may have advocated aggressively the merger of Tamil Nadu with Tamil Eelam or independence for Tamil Nadu. The LTTE, in all probability, would have been the autocrat of Tamil Eelam and could have extended nefariously its support for Tamil secessionism in India. India would then have had to deal with a potentially serious linguistic problem. Also, in the 1980s, the Indian forces were bravely battling against the venomousness of Khalistani secessionism in Punjab, which had clandestine Pakistani endorsement. So, India couldn’t afford another secessionist disturbance, small or large.

The writer deems that an independent Tamil Eelam in the north and east of Sri Lanka would have been a calamity for Indian strategic interests. If the Indian military had broken up Sri Lanka, ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ would never have forgiven India for partitioning Sri Lanka. India would have lost all its influence in the ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ then and would have no strategic toehold there today. China would have inundated Sinhalese Sri Lanka militarily, strategically, economically, etc. ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ would be taking advice from Chinese diplomats on how to deal with the ‘Indian enemy.’ Pakistani espionage agents and Islamabad would have seduced ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ that would have been seething with victorious Indian military aid for Sri Lankan Tamil secessionism. A battered, bruised, furious and humiliated ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ would have thrown itself in the arms of India’s foes, China and Pakistan. China and Pakistan, with their invidiousness, would have been at our doorstep as ‘Sinhalese Sri Lanka’ in Sri Lanka’s west and south is closer to the Indian mainland geographically.

It is good that Colombo was victorious in 2009 in its fight against the poison of the LTTE and that LTTE’s terror has ended.  The LTTE was culpable for scores of political assassinations in Sri Lanka, killing of blameless Sinhalese and destruction of Sinhalese Buddhist sites. LTTE was a frighteningly barbarous organization. Peace has come back to Sri Lanka. It would be prudent if the moderate Tamil parties arrive at an agreement with Colombo on the devolution of administrative powers to the Tamil areas in the Sri Lankan north and east. Again, this provision is enshrined in the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord.

The assassins of Rajiv deserve zero mercy from the Indian executive. Our judiciary has gifted them the death penalty. The verdict must be honoured. Anti national and base politicking over this issue, as has been observed, is a sorrowful reminder of the parochialism that can emerge in India’s polity. India lost its PM because of a gruesome assassination. The LTTE plotted and carried out it. It had the depravity to assassinate our PM. Monstrous behaviour merits no clemency.
 

Ananth Venkatesh

Standalone story. You may like to read ‘The Case for Israel’ by the same author.

The Palestinians today have to accept certain ground realities. They refused to share their land with the Jews in 1947. The Palestinians have no land for themselves even now. Palestinian leadership has to discontinue making unrealistic demands such as to accommodate refugees from the 1948 war.

Israel can’t accommodate the descendants of the Palestinian refugees from the 1948 War. It isn’t a feasible demand. That will mean an alteration in the demographics of the Israeli State. The Jewish identity of democratic Israel would be threatened by an influx of Palestinian refugees. These refugees would have to be housed in a sovereign Palestine. The condition of these refugees is pitiable but a realistic solution is necessary to end this problem.

Envisaging a Peace Deal

Also, some massive Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem will remain a part of Israel even after a peace pact with the Palestinians. This is a ground reality. The Palestinians are on the back foot. They are negotiating from a weaker position. That means that they will have to make some concessions. East Jerusalem and its Jewish structures are too integral to Jewish identity and spirituality for Israel to surrender them to Palestine. What should happen is that the religious affairs of East Jerusalem’s Palestinians should be governed by Islamic laws. A democratic Israel will allow East Jerusalem’s Palestinians to study in the area’s educational institutes and will provide them with fair treatment. These Palestinians will have certain rights granted to them by the Israeli democracy, parliament and judiciary. There are millions of Arabs in Israel, who, notwithstanding the suspicion with which they are looked at, continue to receive the benefits of Israeli democracy. These Arabs work in Israeli institutions.

Nearly 95% of the West Bank will be awarded completely to the Palestinians in any peace deal. That is a sizable amount.

…Ideas for the Road Ahead

The Palestinians will have to win the trust of the Israelis with their conduct. Therefore, for a few years after its founding, Palestine should be a demilitarized State. This demand of the Israeli PM Netanyahu is legitimate.

Gradually, as the Palestinians build their national institutions and security forces, the possibility of militarization can be looked into. Palestinians will have to demonstrate their peaceful intentions over a sustained period, after which one can entertain thoughts of arming the Palestinian State like other States in the world.

Israel will not compromise on its security. Weakness while dealing with Islamic terrorists never pays. Israel disengaged from Southern Lebanon in 2000 under UN instructions, after which the terroristic Hezbollah took over the area. Today, there are terrorist camps operated by Hezbollah’s military wing in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah continues to provoke Israel like it did in 2006 July when it kidnapped and killed certain Israeli soldiers in an ambush. Giving away all of West Bank to the Palestinians, having no Israeli military presence in the strategic Jordan River, militarizing a self-ruling Palestine in the next few years, etc. could lead to terrorists being sent to the West Bank by Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran to maim Israeli forces and civilians in Israel proper.

The Palestinian government in a newly independent West Bank may not be strong enough to stem the surreptitious entry of these terrorists into West Bank. Hamas continues to propel dangerous rockets into Israel, which has killed people in the past. Killing of innocents can’t be tolerated for the sake of peace.

One can rely on Israel to make lasting peace. Israel made peace with Egypt in 1979, after which it handed over the Sinai to Egypt. The tranquillity has lasted. There has been Israeli peace with Jordan. Peace sometimes depends on ground-breaking gestures and actions. May be, the Palestinian leadership should have agreed to keep the Jewish settlements in the West Bank in an independent Palestine. The Jews in this Palestine could have been given the option of following their religious laws. The Palestinian government could have given concrete assurances to the world that the Jews in sovereign Palestine would be treated equally.

Such a Palestinian gesture would have been one that would have obtained favourable PR globally for the Palestinians. May be, it would have been easier to convince the Israelis then to hand over all of West Bank to the Palestinians. Just a thought.

Also, I strongly believe that, for tranquillity accords with the Palestinians, there needs to be a stable Israeli administration. Peace can be forged with the Palestinians if there is an Israeli alliance between leftist Labor, rightist Likud and centrist Kadima. These are the largest political parties of Israel, whose alliance will give Tel Aviv the numerical power to create peace with the Palestinians. There will be no need then for the Israeli government to depend on the intransigent ultraconservative Israeli political parties. Such ultraconservatives are essential for the current Israeli government’s survival. These ultraorthodox parties are opposed to any territorial concession towards the Palestinians and are full of prejudices against the Palestinians. An alliance like the one mentioned above might seem shocking. But if it is formed, it could pave the way for lasting peace and harmony with the Palestinians.

In any case, a ‘two State’ solution, as advocated by Obama, is the only sensible solution. A little bit of territorial tinkering and swapping by both sides would be good enough. Pragmatism is the need of the hour.

Ananth Venkatesh

American president Barack Obama has recently outlined his vision as regards the solution to the cancer that has bedevilled the Middle East since 1948 i.e. the Palestinian-Israeli territorial conflict.

What Obama spoke was, basically, a reaffirmation of the policy pursued by his conservative predecessor, George Bush, on this significant issue. Obama, unequivocally and lucidly, voiced that an independent Palestine would have to be created on two of the four territories that Israel had occupied during the June War in 1967. The two territories are West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Gaza, governed by the terroristic Hamas, is imprisoned by Israeli blockades but is independent in one way as there are zero Israeli settlers and forces there today. Israel, under Ariel Sharon’s practical Prime Ministership, had disengaged fully from Gaza in August 2005.

What was the 1967 war?

That War was one, in which Jewish Israel had pounded the Arabic forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria in a classic pre-emptive war that produced cataclysmic results for the Arabs. The Arabs lost territories as well as self-esteem because of their defeat at the hands of a tiny Jewish State that offset its territorial smallness with a shrewd and ruthless military strategy that caught the Arabs unawares. The war, which started on June 5, lasted 6 days only but engendered deep-seated repercussions for Middle Eastern politics, which reverberate even today.

Egypt had governed the Gaza Strip from 1948 onwards after the first Arab-Israeli War. Jordan was one of the beneficiaries of this war as the Jordanian military managed to seize the largish West Bank, including the sacred Eastern sector of Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is an area of immeasurable religious significance for the Semitic faiths.                             

• Egypt lost Gaza when the Israeli forces overran the hapless and unprepared Egyptian forces in June 1967.
  Jordan lost West Bank when the Israelis subdued the Jordanians stationed there and established Israeli control.
• Syria, which had a terribly disputed border with Israel in the Golan Heights, was also smashed as the Israeli services captured the Syrian Golan Heights, a zone of considerable agricultural importance.
• Also, Israel captured the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, which is a vital and sizable chunk of Egypt. The Sinai was strategically important as it was ideally placed for Nasser’s Egypt to attack Israel.
  Also, there was ‘black gold’ in the Sinai i.e. oil. Therefore, vanquishment of the Arabs resulted in colossal territorial loss. The standing of Arab political heroes such as Nasser, Egypt’s autocrat then, received a thrashing. The Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian political and military heads were vilified by their national populace respectively.

The June War was a  conflict that Israel had no choice but to execute as the neighbouring Arab States refused to accept the Israeli State’s legitimacy and continued to intimidate Israel. Egypt and Jordan had formalized a defence pact some days before the June War’s initiation. The formalization of this pact was another instance of Israel being bullied by Arabs.  Israel had to demonstrate that it was committed to protecting and furthering its existence as well as that of its Jewish populace. The memories of the horrifying Holocaust were still raw in Jewish minds. After all, the Nazi and Fascist forces had targeted the Jewish race as a whole to eliminate it fully. By refusing to acknowledge the Israeli State’s right to exist in the Holy Land and by claiming all of Palestine for themselves, the Arabic States had pointed fingers at the Jewish race.

The June War silenced the Arabic hostility and made some Arabic nations accept, howsoever grudgingly, that Jewish Israel was here to stay as a self-confident and determined nation in the Muslim Middle East.

Before even the birth of Christianity and Islam, the Holy Land was the ultra sacred homeland of the Judaic people. Over centuries, various military, cultural and political factors such as the Roman mercilessness, Christian anti-Semitism and the Islamic expansionism led to the decline in the Jewish population in the territory of ancient Israel. Intellectual degradation, internal divisions and the shortage of willpower to fight for your religion’s survival were diseases that afflicted certain segments of the Jewry. You can state that this is a malaise that had also afflicted the adherents of the Hindu religion, especially when Hindu India was steadily overpowered by the marauding foreign Islamic forces, beginning from the 8th century.                                                                         
What is often forgotten is that, in 1947, respectable and pragmatic Jewish leaders such as David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir, etc. had agreed to the partition of ancient Israel into a Jewish State and a Palestinian Arab State. There was no opposition from these realistic and indefatigable Jewish voices when the UN’s Partition Plan for the Holy Land was ratified by the member countries in November 1947. The Jewish political heads then were willing to see a Jewish Israel coexist in peace with a sovereign Palestine in a partitioned Holy Land. However, in 1947, the Arab States were implacable in their opposition to the creation of a self-governing Israel in a Palestine that had been steadily Islamized ever since the triumph of the Mohammedans in the Crusades against Christians. There was only an inconsiderable minority of Jews in Ottoman Palestine that had been subjugated by the Allied powers during WW 1.

The Need for the Jewish State

Britain was mandated by the highly flawed League of Nation to administer Palestine/Israel (Holy Land) after WW 1. British policy vis-à-vis Jewish immigration in the Holy Land was inconsistent and marked by fluctuations. It needs to be remembered that, in the 1890s, the idea of a Judaic nation in the Holy Land had sprouted among some leading Jewish intellectuals such as the legendary Theodore Herzl.  This idea was one that was quite controversial and inflamed passions. That such an idea emerged wasn’t surprising considering the venom of anti-Semitism that had permeated countless Christian minds in Europe through several centuries. One manifestation of that venom was the banishment of numerous Jews in the 15th century from Spain and Portugal by these countries’ Christian monarchs. This banishment happened after the ‘Reconquista,’ which was the liberation of Iberia from Islamic rule by the Spanish and Portuguese Christian soldiers.

British immigration policy from 1918 onwards resulted in the relaxation of norms for Jewish immigration into the Holy Land. There was some deliberateness behind this British policy. Of course, the sorrowful memories of Christian defeat in the Crusades against the Islamic warriors would have played a role in Britain deciding to allow more European Jews to immigrate to the Holy Land.

Islam was seen as the foe by certain Christian Britons in the British government then. There was sympathy in them for their Jewish brothers. There were sections in British Christianity that felt that allying with the Jewish demand for a national homeland in Palestine was the right thing to do. Christianity and Judaism were, after all, inextricably linked by historical developments. Some of their spiritual roots were the same.

Whatever it is, British governance in Palestine resulted in a marked increase in the Jewish population in Palestine by 1945. The Jewish population was large enough and reasonably well-equipped to fight against the Palestinian Arabs in a civil war just after WW 2. The Jewish determination to create a homeland for themselves was strengthened after the savagery of the Holocaust and the Arabic refusal to accept a Jewish nation in the Holy Land. The civil strife resulted in bloodletting on both sides. Finally, Israel managed to muster adequate global diplomatic support, after which Israel declared its independence in May 1948.

What followed was the Arab invasion to kill the nascent Israel and to maintain Palestine for the Arabs fully. The Israelis were compelled to wage war in 1948 because of Arab belligerence and intolerance. It was a war for Israeli survival, which Israel won. Israel conquered more territory than was awarded to it by the UN Partition Plan.

Another part on the same topic by the author in the coming days.

Ananth Venkatesh

Osama was slaughtered in Pakistan. He had been residing in Pakistan for some time. His compound was located close to the Pakistani military centre. Obviously, it doesn’t take too much cerebral effort to determine that sections within the Pakistani services were safeguarding Osama.

This is a classic case of Pakistani ‘two-facedness’. The difference is that, before 9/11, Pakistani duplicity skinned and drained India largely. Hence, the influential nations in the world were unconcerned or, at best, indifferent, believing Pakistani terrorism in India to be linked only to the broader Indo-Pak disputes. 9/11 changed the perception of the West. It made the West realize the poisonousness of terrorism and its strong roots in Pakistan.

It is evident that Pakistan continues to control certain sections of the Taliban to destabilize Afghanistan and to make life there miserable for the American and NATO militaries. These segments of the Taliban would then be stage-managed by Pakistan after the NATO withdrawal from Afghan territory. Pakistan would utilize these factions of the Taliban to entrench itself in Afghan politics subsequent to the American departure from Afghanistan.

The Pakistan of the fairly secular Mohammad Jinnah has become a celestial territory for Islamic terror. Terrorist outfits, of differing degrees of ferociousness, are housed in Pakistan. Pakistan has targeted them selectively by capturing only some anti Western terrorists. Pakistan has let off the hook malignant tumours such as Hafiz Saeed, Masood Azhar, etc. It has not initiated any action against these anti Indian terrorists.

The truth is that Pakistan will never punish these dastardly individuals for their crimes against innocent Indian civilians via terrorist attacks in India. Pakistan regards these corrupt terrorists and their terrorist organizations as assets that can be utilized to enfeeble India. Only one solution can undercut Pakistani espionage and its military and compel it to think twice before harming India. This solution has been stated before. India needs to be inspired by the victorious Israeli pursuit of the Islamic terrorists, who had killed defenceless Israeli sportspersons, at the Munich Olympics in 1972.

I deem that the possibility of an extremist takeover in Pakistan is very real. It may not happen in the near future but, after a few years, extremists could seize Islamabad. That would be a calamity as war could erupt between nuclear India and Pakistan. It wouldn’t be unsurprising if the Americans resort to regime change in Pakistan then to install a moderate leadership.

India needs to confederate with America and the West to position severe and undying pressure on Pakistan for its disingenuousness in tackling Islamic terrorism. I am an impassioned votary of meaningful Indo-U.S. ties. India needs to deepen its bond with America even more after the slaughter of Osama in Pakistan. The common foe of India and America is Islamic terrorism, sizable chunks of which are housed in Pakistani territory.

If a situation arises in the future, in which Pakistan has to be ‘remedied’, India should have a say in how to remedy that unsteady Pakistan. The overly rosy predictions about Pakistani stability from Indian politicians such as Mani Shankar Aiyer are irksome and dangerously misleading. It gives commonplace Indians an inaccurate portrayal of Pakistan and its intentions.India needs to understand that tranquil means alone cannot make Pakistan combat anti Indian terror. The threat of force from India has to be displayed secretly and prudently to Pakistan.

Ananth Venkatesh

The slaying of the international terrorist, Osama Bin Laden, and the liquidation of his confederates by the American Special Forces have ceased a gory chapter of Islamic terrorism. Osama was a vile terrorist, whose ideology was responsible for the engenderment of a slew of young Muslim terrorists globally. One interesting facet of Osama is that his blood-spattered fundamentalism disseminated through the Muslim world because of his monetary assets and apparent charismatic persona.

The American military intervention in Afghanistan in the 1980s to uproot the Communist Soviet forces stationed there led to the arrival of militant Islamists and their prominence. The Crescentic extremists such as Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Osama and others were backed by America monetarily and militarily to oust the Soviet troops from Afghan territory.

Whether the Soviet occupation of Afghan land was illegitimate or lawful depends on your ideological leanings. I, for one, deem that Afghanistan was politically wobbly and ripe for foreign intervention in the 1970s. Such was Afghan administrative brittleness then. I believe that the Soviet Union had valid arguments to justify its military intervention in Afghanistan as a military pact was formalized between the Afghan government and the Soviets in 1978, which allowed the Afghans to request Soviet military assistance to maintain stability in the country.

America had ideological and strategic reasons to oppose the Soviet presence in Afghan areas as America feared that the Soviets would undercut American influence in the Persian Gulf and would acquire access to the Indian Ocean by subduing a weaker Pakistan. Therefore, military and fiscal aid was offered to the Afghan religious rebels by the U.S. to topple the Soviet lordship in Afghanistan.

Pakistan, it needs to be remembered, enacted a crucial role in funding the operations of these Islamic rebels in Afghanistan. Pakistan, then governed dictatorially by General Zia, also coached the Afghan insurrectionists about the usage of lethal weaponry supplied by America and its friends.

However, no one had thought then that these anti communist Afghans would convert themselves into venomous terrorists opposed to global tranquillity. Osama, Zawahiri and several others, who were subsidized by America and Pakistan in the 1980s, entrenched themselves during the Afghan Civil War in the 1990s and became sadistic masters of Afghanistan under Taliban headship.

America should have stayed put in Afghanistan even subsequent to the Soviet withdrawal and ensured a proper governmental transition that would have thwarted the utter chaos that engulfed Afghan life during the ghoulish Civil War in the 1990s, which led to the macabre slaughter of President Najibullah in 1996. Hence, it is imperative that America stays the course in Afghanistan this time and not depart from the country in a hurry. One doesn’t need the reinstatement of the terroristic Taliban in Kabul.

Also, let us not forget that America didn’t implement a 9/11 or 26/11 in Afghanistan during the reign of the Taliban. It was the Al-Qaeda, sheltered by the Taliban in Afghanistan, and its chief, Osama, who plotted and executed the carnage that occurred on 9/11. America was attacked savagely by Osama and the Al-Qaeda. It is only natural that a self-respecting country like America would act decisively and determinedly to bump off an implacable enemy like Osama.

On a personal note, copious credit needs to be showered upon the American soldiers, who assassinated Osama and his henchmen in Abbotabad in Pakistan. They have served the world well. Never forget that Al-Qaeda and its fraternal terrorist entities such as Lashkar, Jaish, etc. have vowed to carry out ceaseless destruction in the non-Muslim world. Their objective is the Islamization of the world, which would involve the decimation of the non-Muslim way of life. Certainly, their version of Islamic is barbaric. Barbaric is an understatement.

Any nationalistic Indian outlook will not desire the dilution of Indian connection to AP and Sikkim as Indian troops have sacrificed their lives and shed their blood to keep these two provinces with India.

China is a godless nation, with which India shares a colossal frontier. Ideally, China should never have been permitted to border India. The attachment of the Chinese border to the Indian border took place in the 1950s as a consequence of the grisly and lawless conquest of Tibet then by a hatchling Communist China.

India has copious reasons to worry about a militarily and financially burgeoning China as China, on being confident of military success, could, in the future, attack Arunachal Pradesh (AP) and Sikkim to annex them.

Military infrastructure is being bolstered far more quickly by China in the disputed bordering zones than by India. China is attempting to asphyxiate India by expanding its military and civilian presence in South Asia in Nepal, Burma, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Pakistani slavishness towards China is well-known. China occupies Aksai Chin (AC), which is claimed by India as a part of Kashmir. AC cannot be bartered by India as part of a compromise as long as China asserts its dominion over AP and Sikkim.

China is working relentlessly to undercut the Indian standing in Africa. China has also irked India immensely by releasing stapled visas to Indian Kashmiris desirous of visiting China. It has also remarked that the folks of AP do not require visas to enter China as AP is a component of China.

There is a credible feeling in the Indian security establishment that the ‘far left’ Maoist terrorists in India are being backed by Chinese espionage entities clandestinely as state-of-the art weaponry has been recovered from the arrested Maoists in India. One can only hope that the Indian diplomatic world is prepared to offset this Chinese maliciousness in every way and is able to convince the world of the hegemony of Chinese intentions.

Let it be clear that China has not yet acknowledged unequivocally the territorial inseparableness with India of Arunachal Pradesh (AP) and Sikkim. China has not even vaguely accepted Indian democracy over these territories, with China continuing to illustrate these two Indian provinces as parts of China.

The Chinese media has never attempted to conceal that China will never cede ground on these two territories. What does that mean? China yearns to position its hands on these two regions in one way or the other such as via combined rule over these two areas with India or through their outright annexation into Chinese territory. The Indian government has voiced its desire for tranquillity with China. But is India willing to dilute the degree of its association with AP and Sikkim to create peace with China?

Any nationalistic Indian outlook will not desire the dilution of Indian connection to AP and Sikkim as Indian troops have sacrificed their lives and shed their blood to keep these two provinces with India. It is obvious that a preponderance of the populace of these two provinces yearns to be with India completely as they respect and are grateful to Indian democracy and her religious tolerance. The Buddhist APs and Sikkimites have seen the persecution, victimization and enfeeblement of the Buddhists in the neighbouring Tibet that has been overrun by the sadism of atheistic China.

The World’s Reaction to the China Problem

Developed countries such as America and those of Western Europe are committing errors by attempting to placate the China of today for economic reasons. The hegemonic actions of China regionally and overseas are being overlooked. China is, after all, an authoritarian nation:

• It has repeatedly elucidated its policy of bombarding Taiwan even if a democratic Taiwanese government votes to ‘secede’ from Beijing.
• China is the financial and military backer of the tyrannical Communistic North Korean regime.
• The regime has been characterized by its illegal nuclear activities, its association with the dishonourable Pakistani atomic scientist, AQ Khan and by its unabashed military aggression against its democratic neighbour, South Korea.

There is apprehension in Southern Korea and Japan over the increasing powerfulness of China economically and militarily. There is mounting corroboration in the world of espionage about Chinese cyber-subversiveness to weaken the countries China detests.

This story follows “The Chinese Menace and India’s Faults”

The author traces China’s fall to the state of intellectual and administrative disintegration that has now led to its confrontations with India.

• The commonplace Chinese citizens were enmeshed in a civil war for four years subsequent to the culmination of WW 2 in August 1945 after the Japanese surrender.
• Then, the civil strife in China had, as its participants, Communist militias pitted against the anti Communist (Nationalist) militias. Also, millions of the Chinese civilians, who were the members of either the Nationalist or Communist camp, participated in this civil war, which spawned additional disorderliness in China.
• However, ever since the 19^th century, China had been experiencing humiliation and subjugation by the Western European powers, which had been penetrating China monetarily by seizing the management of Chinese wealth and its natural resources.
• The country was, in effect, a transnational colony, the financial path of which was being propelled by the arrogance of Britain, France, Germany, each of which, along with an increasingly imperialistic America and Japan, had carved ‘zones of influence’ for itself in Chinese territory.
• The U.S., Japan and the West Europeans directed the economic affairs of their zones respectively, which consisted of enforcing guidelines on trade and levies on overseas goods. These guidelines were fashioned by the imperialists disproportionately in a way that boosted the imperial treasure and ensured the stagnation of the Chinese financial system, which had, prior to becoming a casualty of the spiteful Western imperialism, been extremely potent.
• China underwent economic mortification of this sort, which was worsened by the supplementary political, military and spiritual concessions bequeathed to the West by a debilitating Chinese monarchy. Also, subornment had infiltrated the politics of China during this period of Western monetary exploitation. This subornment was in service as a result of the dissoluteness of numerous provincial Chinese warlords.
• Also, the attempt to Christianize China by the malignant Christian missionaries there kindled the enragement of the non-Christian Chinese. It appeared as if China, which once was a majestic civilization in the ancient and medieval epoch, had come to the point of intellectual and administrative disintegration.
• The military conflicts waged by the Chinese monarchy against Japan and the West in the 19^th century over economic and territorial issues had severely paralyzed China as it was trounced in those wars and was compelled to fork out oceanic war reparations to the victors. China relinquished Korea and Taiwan to the Japanese.

Post-WW2 China, Mao, Nehru, Patel And India:

• Coming to 1949, in this landscape of monetary inefficiency and shortfall, the Communists, directed by Mao Zedong, ultimately battered the Nationalists and conquered all of mainland China. The Communists inherited a fragile Chinese economy and a complete dearth of efficient governance.
• The Nationalists, headed by Chiang Kai-Shek, escaped to the neighbouring island of Taiwan, in which the Nationalists entrenched their government under the autocratic headship of Chiang. Thus, the military of Communist China, in 1949, was not as steely, well-oiled and sophisticated as it became later.
• Also, the Indian military, as opposed to the Chinese, was more effectively organized then, with the Indian military being more regimented and in possession of formidable weaponry. The military lethality of India then was one of the few genuinely constructive bequests of British lordship over India.

Nehru’s Errors

• Therefore, a more street-smart Foreign Minister of independent India would have been able to handle the Tibetan subjugation by China more shrewdly. Nehru, the primary Foreign Minister of decolonized India, was, at the end of the day, predominantly unsuccessful as Foreign Minister. The two-facedness of his professed non-aligned overseas policy was exposed when he refused to condemn unmistakably the Soviet military belligerence in Hungary in 1956 to quell the anti Communist uprising there.
• However, the same Nehru had vocally vocalized contempt for the Anglo-French and Israeli assault on the Egyptian Suez Canal in 1956 subsequent to the Canal’s nationalization by the Egyptian autocrat, Gamal Nasser.
• Nehru’s supposed repudiation, in the 1950s, of the U.S. tender of an eternal seat for India on the UNSC continues to wound India even today as China, whose inclusion in the UNSC was favored by Nehru then, is the primary blocker of Indian penetration into the august UNSC presently.
• Nehru’s internationalization of the Kashmir question in 1949 by taking it to the UN was an oceanic blunder when a continuation of the war against Pakistan for the liberation of Kashmir would have sizably increased the prospects of complete Kashmiri accession to India. This internationalization was despite the righteousness of India’s claim and conflict over Kashmir against the invading Pakistanis.

Sardar Patel Ignored

• There was pragmatic advice from the commendable Indian Home Minister, Sardar Patel, to Nehru that urged Indian military assistance for the relief of the beleaguered Tibetans under the onslaught of the Communist Chinese marauders.
• Patel was a leading advocate against the connection of the Chinese border to the Indian one. Patel had espoused the maintenance of the self-governance of Tibet and the deactivation, by the Indian military, of the devastating Chinese military takeover of Tibet.
• Nehru had attempted to mollycoddle and appease the atheistic Chinese on several issues, including the bordering issue, which procreated the appalling Chinese attack on Indian territorial integrity in 1962.

Failure of the Non-Aligned Movement

• The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which Nehru had fathered, was a voiceless and characterless character as it refused to explicitly excoriate the Chinese bellicosity against India. It was American intervention, pioneered by the then U.S. President, JF Kennedy, and the Presidential warning to Mao that assisted India and ensured the Chinese military disengagement from sizable Indian territory in the Northeast.

In the Next Part, the author writes about China’s Border troubles with India