In Bludgeoning Balochistan, is Pakistan Army Losing Support in Punjab?

Sushant Sareen

Senior Fellow, VIF

After the huge furore in Pakistan caused earlier in the year by the Congressional hearing on Balochistan organised by US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who also moved a resolution in the US Congress calling for the right to self-determination in Balochistan, the restive province was once again the flavour of the week in Pakistan's political circles and media when the former Chief Minister Akhtar Mengal returned for a sojourn from a four year self-imposed exile to depose before the Supreme Court of Pakistan which was hearing a petition on the abysmal state of law and order and blatant violation of human rights in the province.

As was to be expected, Mengal’s presence in Islamabad provided grist for the mills churning conspiracy theories in the capital city – did he return as part of an understanding with the establishment; is he positioning himself for becoming Chief Minister in the forthcoming elections; was he representing the Baloch separatist leadership that is currently in exile and paving the way for a reconciliation between the establishment and the separatists; was he only testing the political waters to see if he could return to mainstream politics; did he come to make a last ditch effort to keep the Pakistani federation intact etc. Regardless of his real motives for appearing before the Supreme Court and presenting his arguments, what he has managed to do (whether wittingly or otherwise is hardly the point) is to jolt the military establishment and perhaps also cause a tremor which could potentially lead to tectonic changes in Pakistan's political system.

Mengal’s appearance before the Supreme Court wasn’t something that happened out of the blue. He had applied months back to become a party in the missing persons case that was being heard by the apex court. Clearly then, this was a well-thought out move. Of course, the details of the political game-plan under which Mengal decided to use the Court to make his pitch and queer that of the military establishment and the civilian government is shrouded in mystery. Without indulging in any histrionics, harangues or hysterics, Mengal, in his own soft-spoken manner, adopted quite a hard-line, not only before the Court, but also in his various TV interviews and joint press briefings which followed his meetings with top opposition politicians. What was most surprising, however, was that instead of outrage, Mengal’s tough and biting words invoked understanding and sympathy among his interlocutors like Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan and the Jamaat Islami chief Munawwar Hasan, who endorsed almost everything he demanded.

While Mengal very ably articulated the myriad grievances of the Baloch with Pakistan in his interviews and meetings – he cut the Pakistani establishment to the bone by calling the situation in Balochistan worse than that in Palestine and Kashmir (in other words, pointing out that not even the Hindus and Jews are as oppressive as Pakistani Muslims are to fellow Muslims) and even went to the extent of calling for a peaceful parting of ways rather than a bloody divorce – it was his Six Point charter of demands, or recommendations, that he placed before the Supreme Court which seem to have caught everyone in Pakistan in a quandary. These Six Points are as follows: suspension of all overt and covert military operations against the Baloch; producing all missing persons before a court of law; disbanding all death squads being operated as proxies by the ISI and MI; ending political interference by the intelligence agencies in Balochistan and allowing all political parties to function freely; bringing those responsible for torture and murder of Baloch political activists to justice; rehabilitating the Baloch displaced by the conflict.

On the face of it, these recommendations are unexceptionable because they seek nothing more than application of fundamental and legal rights enshrined in the constitution of Pakistan. But in the context of Balochistan which has been facing a very heavy-handed and brutal crackdown by the Pakistan military establishment, asking for due process of law is akin to rebellion against the Pakistani state. Not surprisingly then, these innocuous looking Six Points are not only as unacceptable, but also as un-implementable, as the famous Six Points of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman of the erstwhile East Pakistan. Akhtar Mengal seemed to be quite aware of this and that is precisely the reason why he equated his Six Points with those of Sheikh Mujib. Mujib’s Six Points, had they been accepted, would have ended up restructuring the Pakistani federation; Mengal’s Six Points, if implemented, will effectively emasculate the Pakistan Army and inalterably shift the balance of power in favour of the civilians.

That such a thing will never be allowed by the military establishment is a no brainer. This is so partly for what the army would call ‘reasons of state’ – i.e. it simply cannot countenance taking a back seat and allowing Baloch nationalists a run of the place, even less so because these demands are only a ‘confidence building measure’ that is expected to pave the way for a more substantial dialogue on the future status of Balochistan. And partly, the army will oppose these demands for ‘reasons of person’ – i.e. from top generals, including army chief Gen Ashfaq Kayani, to foot soldiers, scores, if not hundreds, will face prison, or worse – if these Six Points were to be implemented in earnest. At least, this is what Mengal expects because he has made it clear that his demand for bringing those guilty of crimes committed in Balochistan is not limited to only a Gen Pervez Musharraf but also all those officers who were directly or indirectly responsible for the killing and kidnapping of Baloch political activists. Small wonder then that the very next day, the military and law enforcement agencies submitted a statement before the court and quite brazenly denying any involvement in either ‘enforced disappearances’ or in running death squads that ‘kill and dump’ the bodies of Baloch activists. The Army also activated its proxy agents to file a petition seeking a judicial enquiry into the events surrounding the death of the iconic Baloch leader, Nawab Akbar Bugti.

Of course, Mengal would never really have harboured any illusion that his Six Points will be implemented. He knows well that the civilians, whether in government or in the judiciary, neither have the power nor the will to deliver on these very constitutional demands. Take, for example, the judiciary, on which Mengal claims to have placed some faith because of its ostensible assertiveness. While the Chief Justice and his colleagues are all sound and fury on the issue of missing persons in Balochistan, they have just not been able to show the same steely determination against generals and colonels serving in Balochistan that they displayed when they convicted an elected Prime Minister on charges of contempt of court. Forget about throwing some of these persons in prison, the judges have had to show enormous forbearance on the non-appearance of many of these officials despite summons and threats having been issued.

But the support, even if only verbal at this point in time, that Mengal has received from opposition parties like Nawaz Sharif’s PMLN, Imran Khan’s PTI and the Jamaat Islami signals a big shift in Pakistan's politics. All these parties receive the bulk of their support from Punjab, the province which has traditionally blindly backed the army’s version of national interest. Today, these parties which are expected to attract the bulk of votes from Punjab are challenging the army’s definition of national security and national interest. On the other hand, parties like the PPP, and to an extent the MQM and ANP, which have all traditionally been seen as anti-establishment parties and which derive the bulk of their support not from the heartland of Punjab (i.e. the politically powerful Central Punjab and the military’s recruiting ground, North Punjab) but from smaller provinces like Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the marginalised part of Punjab (South Punjab) have today become the biggest supporters of the military establishment’s conception of national security and national interest.

One explanation for this sort of a stance by these parties is that the PMLN, PTI and Jamaat Islami are in opposition and as such they have much greater latitude for taking a contrary stand from that of the military establishment. The PPP, ANP and MQM, on the other hand, are part of the coalition government and hence cannot afford to take a stand that is anathema for the Pakistan Army because if they were to do so they would never be able to deliver. Of course, some Pakistani analysts have also pointed out that despite its reputation as an anti-establishment party, the PPP has always been far more obedient, subservient and supportive of the army – whether it be during the Bangladesh crisis in 1971 or in Balochistan in 2012 [or earlier]– than the so-called pro-establishment parties like PMLN. Indeed, parallels are being drawn with the posturing of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto during the Bangladesh crisis and that of the PPP on Balochistan today.

Equally important is the political implication of this shift in the approach of the main political parties in Pakistan. To be sure, the PPPs calculation would be that both Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan would have spooked the army quite badly with their support for Mengal’s Six Points. Already, the army did not seem to be very comfortable with the prospect of having either Nawaz Sharif or Imran Khan running the next government. Their endorsement of Mengal’s Six Points would have only added to the army’s discomfiture with them. The PPP senses an opportunity to ingratiate itself further with the military establishment and derive the benefit of this in the forthcoming elections. But what if the PMLN or even the PTI manage to get the numbers in the next election to form the government in Islamabad? If these predominantly Punjab based parties renege on the support they have extended to Mengal, they will only end up further alienating the Baloch and reaffirming the extremely negative perceptions among the Baloch about the Punjabis. But if the PMLN or PTI actually live up to their commitments, then it will pit them directly against the army. This will tantamount to a Punjab versus the Army conflict, something that the army will not find easy to handle especially if popular support in the province is with these parties.

In a sense then, Mengal has set the cat among the pigeons with his Six Points. At the same time, he has taken a high risk gamble of his own by appearing before the Pakistani Supreme Court. Although by and large most Baloch nationalists who remain pro-federation have welcomed Mengal’s demands, the reaction from the separatists and anti-federation nationalists (arguably representing the predominant sentiment in the province) has been more nuanced. While people like Hyrbyar Marri and Brahmdagh Bugti have so far maintained a studied silence, others (which includes those who are either fighting the Pakistani state or are lending moral, financial, and at times even physical support to those who are doing the fighting) have been quite critical of what they see as Mengal’s ‘last ditch’ effort to save the Pakistani federation. Unless Mengal has decided to ditch the separatist bandwagon and make his peace with the Pakistani state, something that he has consistently denied, he will have to play his political cards very deftly to keep himself politically alive in his core constituency that swears by Baloch nationalism and which has all but burned its boats as far as Pakistan is concerned. Any misstep, and he stands to lose his core constituency. But if he manages to play this hand well, then he could well emerge as the rallying point for all Baloch nationalists and create the elusive ‘single party’ that so many Baloch nationalists say is required to spearhead the demand for independence of Balochistan.

Should Power Necessarily Corrupt?

Dr. M.N. Buch
Visiting Fellow, VIF

Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Why does this happen? Perhaps we can find the answer in the words of Bertrand de Jouvenel, which are. “A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves”. In other words, if society is not vigilant in defending its own rights and it constantly acquiesces by silence in the wrongdoings of politicians, it will get a bad government. The opportunities offered by politics to do illegal deeds and thus make personal gains will tempt the politicians and the power which flows from politics will corrupt them. It is only in a society where politicians are called to account, the people are willing to vote out of power those who govern badly, there is genuine freedom of speech and there is a sense of duty, that power can be the instrument of promoting public welfare instead of being the means by which a politician can profit personally. It is here that one must recall the words of Abraham Lincoln who said, “If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. You may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time”. From the above statements of thinkers we can deduce that for politics to be meaningful, honest, people oriented and effective we need the following:-

1. There should be no wielding of power indefinitely, which means that the term in office of a person in power must be limited by law and that power should be transferable by the people through a system of clean, honest election.
2. There must be freedom of speech, thought and expression so that the people can tell the politicians what they think about them and force the politicians to listen to the voice of reason
3. There must be a sense of duty, of those in power, of those in opposition and of the average, common citizen.
4. The electorate must exercise a wise choice based on a rational review of what different political parties have to offer and how well the politicians in power have performed. Fighting elections only on account of religion, caste, social groups having a collective identity which substitutes uniformity for reasoned action, automatically converts the electorate into a flock of sheep and the government they beget would thus truly be a government of predators rather than a government of public servants.
5. The process of elections must instill in politicians a fear of losing the confidence of the people because if the people vote rationally and not like a flock of sheep, then the politician would know that if he is not respected and trusted he cannot hope to be re-elected. This point is very important because it is only when politicians learn that only when their actions generate confidence that they can hope to continue in power.

There is a saying, “For forms of government let fools contend; what governs best is best”. This would be the very antithesis of democracy. It is often contended that a dictatorship, especially in the kind of situation of near anarchy that many democracies find themselves, a dictatorship would be the best form of government, provided the dictator were a benevolent tyrant. The very expression is an exercise in self contradiction because according to the Chambers Twenty-first Century Dictionary, benevolent means “showing or involving kindness and generosity, enterprise set up and run for the benefit of others rather than for profit; charitable”. The same dictionary defines ‘tyrant’ in the following words, “a cruel, unjust and oppressive ruler with absolute power: someone who uses authority or power cruelly and unjustly”. There is, therefore, no such a thing as a benevolent tyrant. In our own immediate neighbourhood, Pakistan, we have had the absolute rule of Field Marshall Ayub, Gen. Zia Ul Haq and Gen. Pervez Musharaf. All were initially welcomed by the people because they claimed to replace by orderliness the chaotic conditions created by civilian governments. All ended up by being hated because they all ruled absolutely. Absolute rule shuts out criticism because a dictator would certainly like to hear only what he wants to hear and he would certainly not appreciate what George Orwell said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”. A dictator does not want to give this freedom because he does not like to listen to unpleasant things; he lives increasingly in a world in which true information does not flow to him and, therefore, he does not know what people think about him or how is government functioning. Therefore, first his minions begin to misuse such authority as may vest in them as officials of the tyrant, then they become corrupt and ultimately the corruption reaches all the way to the top. This is a prime example of absolute power corrupting absolutely.

There are two books which, according to me, must be read by everyone who is in the least bit interested in government. The first is William Shirer’s book ‘The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich’. The other is Alan Bullock’s ‘Hitler--A Study in Tyranny’. Hitler started as a small time politician who was deeply hurt by the humiliation suffered by Germany when it lost the First World War. The Weimar Republic which replaced the Kaiser was very weak and quite unable to stand up to the exorbitant demands of the Allies or to work purposefully to restore the shattered economy of Germany, which had suffered a great deal because of the First World War. A weak government, an economy in the throes of depression, massive unemployment and a highly devalued currency, occupation of parts of Germany by foreign troops and the massive burden of wartime reparations imposed by the Allies created fertile ground for radicalisation of German politics. Hitler had somewhat woolly ideas about restoring German pride. He was influenced by Nietzsche and racist thoughts about the superiority of the Aryan people and from this emerged a philosophy that if Germany were to prosper it must throw out the Weimar Republic and establish an ultra nationalist government which could provide strong rule to Germany. From this was born the Nazi Party which won the election that overthrew the Weimar Republic and which, in 1933, led Hitler to legislate the Enabling Act which gave him the power to rule by decree. He used this Act to assume absolute power, abolish the parliament and take control of both the civilian government and the military in Germany.

Hitler’s government from the very beginning decided to exterminate the Jews, to avenge the defeat of Germany in the First World War by occupying the whole of Europe and by destroying the regime in Russia and toward this end he moved relentlessly to re-arm Germany, build its armed forces and, subsequently, first take over Austria, then Czechoslovakia and then Poland and thus he entered into the Second World War. I narrate these events because what all this did to Hitler was to corrupt him so utterly and absolutely that not only did all power flow from him but he thereby developed a megalomania in which he thought he knew everything. Therefore, he began to intervene even at micro level in military affairs, culminating in the disastrous defeat at Stalingrad, El Alamein and the loss of the whole of North Africa. This is an example of not only power corrupting but of power creating a megalomania in which the tyrant begins to border on the insane. Ultimately it is the democracies that triumphed, because whereas decision making appears slow, because it represents debate and collective wisdom, it is for superior to the whims of a dictator.

From the world stage let us come to India. Despite the fact that India is a democracy with a strong Constitution, when the Allahabad High Court ruled that Indira Gandhi had indulged in corrupt practices and, therefore, her election was invalid, an attempt was made to neutralise this judgment by declaring a State of Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution. This was a totally colourable exercise of constitutional authority but it did temporarily pass unto government the authority to rule absolutely, with neither the judiciary nor the legislature being competent to exercise the checks and balances which our Constitution mandated. The story of the Emergency has been told so many times by people much more competent than I to comment. In some matters a degree of efficiency was restored to government, but because government was no longer accountable there was a sharp increase in corruption also. Perhaps we have never recovered from that trauma despite the fact that the absolute power enjoyed from 1975 to 1977 was nevertheless tempered by the very Constitution it attempted to suppress and never became a true dictatorship. It inconvenienced, even terrorised people, but it never advanced to becoming a true, unbridled tyranny. That makes the Emergency period one of an inefficient tyranny, which suffered from the twin ills of attempted absolute power coupled with inefficient democratic functioning.

Democracy itself is that form of the government which limits absolute power and, therefore, its greatness is that it acts as a check on absolute corruption. India may be corrupt, but because our democracy has checks and balances, our people have that freedom of thought and expression which could call the actions of government into question and, therefore, force the politicians to render account, we cannot become a dictatorship. The courts are a powerful organ in this behalf, as are such constitutional authorities as the Comptroller and Accountant General. Therefore, the large number of scandals which have been detected and revealed in the matter of spectrum allocation, organising the Commonwealth Games or allocation of coal blocks are all indicators that no one enjoys absolute power in India and that wrongdoing can be checked and punished. Genuine democracy and more of it is what India needs. What people condemn as excessive freedom bordering on anarchy is in fact our shield and buckler against absolute rule and the corruption which flows from it.

In the United States of America the President and the Governors of States are restricted from holding office for more than two terms of four years each. They cannot be removed by a vote of no confidence, which means that the government enjoys a degree of stability, but neither the President nor the Governor of a State enjoys absolute power or, for that matter, power in excess of the minimum needed for conducting the executive affairs of the country. Because there is a limit on how long that particular office may be enjoyed, there is neither an incentive for using unfair means to pervert power, nor is there an environment of dynastic rule whereby son takes over from father. In the Westminster form of government there is no limit to how long a person may hold office. A person may aspire for the post of Prime Minister or other senior political posts, but the convention in Britain is that when a person should retire he or she is made to retire. Margaret Thatcher had to go because her party so ordained. This happened with Tony Blair also. Unfortunately in India there is neither a convention, nor a system of thinking within a political party which decides on political retirement, nor a legal restriction on how long an office may be held. Therefore, we have cases of Members of Parliament winning their fifth or sixth election, Chief Ministers continuing in power for long periods of time and even the most aged politicians hanging on to the reins of power long past the age when they should have retired. My own suspicion is that a great deal of corruption arises out of the desire of politicians to hang on to office, a desire emulated by retiring senior civil servants and judges. Perhaps it is time for us to think about a retirement age for politicians and also a cap on the number of years that a person may be a Member of a State Legislature or Parliament, as also the number of years that he may hold public office. If we enforce this strictly then, perhaps, we may possibly see a reduction in corruption at high levels.

There are certain other reforms that we need, not economic reforms which beggar the common man, but serious political reforms:

1. Our political parties have to do thinking on what their own role is in the Indian democracy. All democracies need parties which, while believing in the basic tenets of democracy, have their own ideologies, agendas and programmes. One or more such party would be in government and there would be a counterpart opposition. For these parties, therefore, being in power should be no great gain and losing power no great loss.
2. The parties must rigidly adhere to a code whereby local candidates are promoted, there is genuine intra party democracy and there is a complete absence of caste and religion based politics.
3. The parties’ own structure must be democratic and office bearers must be democratically elected.
4. Party funding should be open; the accounts must be available for inspection and at all times the working of the party should be above board.
5. Because the parties should have internal democracy, each party must have a mechanism whereby if any member of the party, especially one holding high public office, is accused of wrongdoing, including corruption, the party itself investigates the matter and takes strict action against the offender. This would reduce wrongdoing.
6. Elections should be fought on issues and not on the basis of personalities. Issue based politics tends to be more honest than personality based politics, especially because those in power would know that trying to hide or bypass issues will only arouse public anger and this would manifest itself as an adverse voting pattern at the next election.
7. All political parties should agree on a minimum agenda of governance. If this is done the present wildcat political assaults on individuals and parties would cease and instead we would have a degree of politics based on clean, open electoral competition between candidates who are also intrinsically clean. If the politicians realise that power is an instrument for enhancing public welfare and not a mechanism by which they can enrich themselves, the tendency of power to corrupt would be substantially reduced.

Our objective should be to prove Lord Acton wrong because if the enjoyment of absolute power is eradicated altogether from the system, if power itself can be enjoyed only for a finite period, if abuse or misuse of power results in deprivation of power, then power need not necessarily corrupt. Come on India, together we can do this!

Brajesh Mishra: India's First Intelligence Tsar

Satish Chandra
Distinguished Fellow, VIF

Many before him have exercised great influence on an Indian prime minister but no one's influence has been so extensive particularly in foreign policy and security related areas. This was, perhaps, an inevitability given his close personal friendship with Vajpayee dating back to the latter's days in the opposition, his simultaneous occupation of the key offices of principal secretary to PM and the National Security Advisor, his foreign policy expertise, and, of course, his aforementioned qualities of head and heart.

Mishra was no ideologue but was rather the supreme pragmatist. Accordingly, he could easily accommodate the imperative for a better relationship with the United States with the requirement of a modus vivendi with China. That India under the Vajpayee regime was able to make much progress in revamping our relationship with both the USA and China, and that too after our nuclear tests which were distasteful to both, is testimony to Mishra's diplomatic skill.

Not being a rigid ideologue Mishra had the propensity to zero in on the best possible outcome on any issue that the political leadership could collectively live with and to manoeovre a decision in that direction.

This may not have been the ideal solution or even his own preferred choice but was one which carrying near consensus was the most practicable under the prevailing circumstances.

The three areas in which Mishra left an indelible imprint were India's nuclear policy, its security systems and its foreign policy.

Given the fact that as the Bharatiya Janata Party's foreign policy spokesman, Mishra had unequivocally made known that if elected to power the BJP would make the bomb, it is no surprise that he presided over the nuclearisation of India. It is tribute to him that he ensured that India's nuclear tests were successfully conducted within weeks of the NDA government's assumption of office and that the veil of secrecy so necessary to facilitate their conduct was duly maintained and not lifted till completion of the tests.

Having tested, it was Mishra who oversaw the country's nuclear weaponisation and put in place viable systems and structures not only to manage this process but also to ensure the effective use of these weapons, should the need arise, in accordance with prescribed policies and directives. Indeed, India's nuclear doctrine, its nuclear command and control system and its increasingly more effective deterrent are to no small extent due to Mishra's exertions.

Being the prime minister's pointman on security, in his capacity as the NSA, Mishra was inevitably involved in all security related issues both internal and external. One of his most important contributions in his role as NSA was to build a host of new security related institutions and structures. It was thus under his direction that the National Security Council system (comprising the National Security Council, the National Security Council Secretariat, the Strategic Policy Group, the National Security Advisory Group, and the office of the National Security Advisor) was set up designed to cope with both existing and emerging security challenges as well as to fuse and coordinate intelligence.

In addition, an Intelligence Coordination Group was created to task the intelligence agencies and ensure their accountability, a National Information Board was established for national level policy formulation on information warfare and information security and an apex techint agency was set up.

All these newly created entities and structures were assiduously nurtured by Mishra and had begun to find their feet by the time he demitted office. He, however, candidly admitted that while the NDA government had embedded these entities in the Indian security firmament they would take years to fully establish themselves and accordingly their future would depend upon whether or not succeeding governments would continue to similarly support them.

It may be mentioned that by virtue of his position as the NSA and his heading the Intelligence Coordination Board, Mishra in effect became India's first intelligence tsar who regularly interacted with all the intelligence agencies and sought to exercise effective oversight over them and to ensure proper intelligence sharing.

In the realm of foreign policy, Mishra's role, given his background as a professional diplomat, was considerable. It is, therefore, not surprising that after having gotten over the downturn in our ties with the USA and China following our nuclear tests India generally had good ties with countries all across the globe during the NDA regime.

As mentioned earlier improved ties with the USA coincided with better relations with China, relations with countries like Russia and France were refurbished, and we had robust links with both Iran and Israel at the same time.

Both Mishra and Vajpayee showed little hawkishness on either Pakistan or China and presumably there was no perceptible difference of approach between the two. Nevertheless it is significant that former Pakistan President Musharraf declared a ceasefire across the LoC and in the India-Pakistan joint statement of January 2004 negotiated by Mishra provided an assurance that he would "not permit any territory under Pakistan's control to be used to support terrorism in any manner." It is also significant that it was during the NDA regime that the Chinese authorities shared maps pertaining to their claims in the middle sector.

Mishra also deserves unqualified credit for the upturn in India-US ties. After the damage done to the relationship as a result of the US reaction to our tests had been arrested, Mishra made it plain to his US interlocutors that ties between the two countries would never be able to achieve their full potential unless there was cooperation on the trinity issues notably high technology commerce, civilian nuclear energy cooperation and civilian space collaboration. To its credit the US in turn recognized the substance of this argument and sought to rectify the situation which led to the blossoming of ties between the two countries.

All those privileged to work closely with Mishra would testify to the fact that he was an ideal boss. Always accessible his decisions were quick and instructions precise and clear cut. While not one to suffer fools easily he was quite willing to permit one to take a position not in consonance with his own. He was big enough to take an honest difference of opinion in his stride and not allow it to come in the way of a productive professional relationship geared to promoting the national interest.

All this taken together with the complete backing and support provided by him to those who worked with him in fulfillment of their mandate explains the unflinching loyalty and trust that he inspired from them and helped him in achieving as much as he did.

Enter The Dragon

Kanwal Sibal
Member Advisory Board, VIF

In the background of a perceived shift in global power from the West to the East, future relations between a rising China and India are a fit subject for analysis and speculation. The title of Bertil Lintner’ book - “Great Game East: India, China and the Struggle for Asia’s Most Volatile Frontier” whets even more the reader’s appetite as it conjures up chess-board strategic moves and countermoves by China and India to promote their respective geopolitical interests in the insurgency-ridden region spanning India’s North-east and Burma.

Associated with the Far Eastern Economic Review for 20 years, with expertise on ethnic minorities and insurgencies in South East Asia and South Asia, and personal knowledge of ground conditions and contact with key rebel leaders, Lintner’s credentials for writing this book are impressive. In 1985 he travelled with his Shan wife 2275 kilometers overland from north-east India- which he entered illegally- through rebel held Burmese territory to China, for which he was blacklisted by the Indian government until the early 2000s.

The author acquaints the reader with the historical roots of the insurgencies in India’s north-east, their evolution, the role played by China, Bangladesh and Pakistan in providing arms, training, shelter and travel assistance to the insurgents, and India’s political astuteness in containing the revolts. Lintner credits India with masterly use of Kautilya’s four principles of sham (political reconciliation), dan ( monetary inducement), danda (force) and bhed (split) to control if not end the insurgencies, and admires R&AW’s human intelligence capabilities that combined with Kautilya’s maxims on statecraft makes it, according to him, a formidable force- a view hardly supported by the organization’s current reputation.

China’s direct support ended with Deng Xiao Ping’s ascendancy but Indian insurgents apparently continue to have access to the grey arms market in Yunnan run as private businesses by former officers of the PLA. Under Sheikh Hasina, Bangladesh’s support to ULFA and Manipuri rebels has ceased, which makes Pakistan’s mischief-making more difficult.

Lintner tries to fit the seemingly localized conflicts in the region into its geopolitics defined by the rising Indian challenge to Chinese supremacy in Asia, the differences between the two over Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh, Chinese arms supply links with ethnic rebel movements in India’s north-east, with continuing turmoil in Burma providing the vital geographical link for such activity. But Lintner also says, somewhat contradictorily with the book’s title, that while the Himalayas will remain important strategically, the main conflict of interest between India and China will play out in the Indian Ocean.

This book should caution those in India who are enticed by the idea of linking Yunnan to India’s north-east to end its isolation and enable its development in a regional context. It also underscores the necessity of a lasting solution to insurgencies in the north-east for the connectivity through Burma and Thailand to Singapore that our Look East policy seeks to establish.

This is a book by a journalist, not an international relations scholar, and relies a great deal on anecdotes and personal accounts. There is much detail that displays the author’s rich knowledge of personalities and events in the separate chapters on the Nagas, Mizos, Manipur, Assam and Bangladesh as well as Burma, but it is the introductory chapter and that on the Indian Ocean that provides some geopolitical perspective.

The book does not quite live up to its dramatic title. On closing it the reader is not left with the feeling of having experienced the strategic thrills of a new Great Game East being played out inexorably by the elephant and the dragon.

Foreign Direct Investment and Economic Growth

Dr. M.N. Buch
Visiting Fellow, VIF

Paul Theroux in his book, ‘Riding The Iron Rooster’ has made some fascinating comments on China which can help us in trying to understand why China is today an economic power-house and India is still struggling. This book was written in 1988 and describes a series of train journeys that Theroux undertook across China in trains which were obviously not the new Bullet Trains that China has now introduced.

Starting from Victoria Station in London Theroux travels across Europe, Russia, and Mongolia and then enters China through Inner Mongolia, making landfall at Datong. After the emptiness of Mongolia Theroux finds Datong and the China it represents to be shabby, busy, disorderly, very crowded and thoroughly polluted by smog which was a combination of desert dust, fog and industrial smoke. The shops were full of goods; there was an air of prosperity, but coal as the source of energy and manufacture, especially of steam locomotives, created a lasting impression. The industrial process was not automated, but everyone was busy working. The guiding philosophy was the three great goals of the workers. To quote Theroux these goals were, “timing of production, so that no work was wasted; keeping the right mental attitude; and increasing productivity”.

I have begun this paper by referring at some length to the very first impression that Paul Theroux had when he entered China from Mongolia. It was one of a country which has industries, whose people had a mindset of production and whose government obviously had a commitment to manufacturing. After the revolution Mao Tse Tung deliberately fostered an economic policy which strove to build a huge manufacturing sector in the country so that China could become an industrialised nation. Remember the slogan that China would overtake America in steel production? The huge number of backyard furnaces that came up and produced very low quality pig iron was a part of this effort to industrialise. Not much pig iron was produced this way, but the people were weaned away from a rural psyche to one in which manufacturing became central to the economy. It must be remembered that in China only ten percent of the total land area is cultivable and more than sixty percent of the land consists of uncultivable wasteland. Geology, geography, topography, hydrology and soil morphology encouraged, in fact mandated, that China could not continue to prosper on the basis of agriculture alone. The industrial revolution in China was then an inevitable consequence of the land configuration, though to give Mao credit he hastened the transition from a basically subsistence rural economy to a very powerful industrial economy.

Industrialisation carries with it a number of prerequisites, sequential growth of support infrastructure, capital requirement and capital formation and research and development which would lead to invention, innovation and improvement. Industry cannot survive without power and the development of the power sector becomes a sine quo non for industrialisation. The development of communications so that goods, people and services can be transported over long distances is absolutely essential for industrial growth. Because a country starting from a low level of economic capability does need assistance for capital formation and for development of technology, China had to find partners. Therefore, despite the fact that China is a Communist country whose ideal is socialism and State ownership of the means of production, China opted for an open door policy in which foreign investment was welcomed and the off-shoring of foreign industry and its location in China was encouraged. China provided the land space and labour and many of the world industries established a base in China. A great deal of Chinese industrial grown has taken place because of this open door policy. The Chinese Government at no stage felt that it could not keep the multinational corporations under control and, therefore, the Chinese had no hesitation in letting in foreign capital. Despite the handicap of having a one-party rule and a judicial system which is certainly not Anglo Saxon, China has been able to reassure the foreign investor that his investment would be safe.

Let us contrast this with India. We have always been suspicious of foreigners coming and investing in India because after all the East India Company and its Dutch, French, Portuguese and Danish counterparts initially came to India for trade. Because of a succession of wars in Europe in which Britain emerged as the dominant naval power and also a great military power on land, the French, Portuguese and other European interventions in India were virtually liquidated and Britain emerged as the supreme European power. Starting from trading posts such as Bombay, Surat and Calcutta the British trader gradually grew into being an arbiter in matters of local, native administration and the East India Company expanded into an imperial power. These memories are fresh in the Indian mind and, therefore, the Indian people and the Indian politicians have always had a deep- rooted suspicion and antipathy towards the successors to the East India Company, the multinational corporations. That is why there is strong political opposition to allowing foreigners to come and take over our companies, our manufacturing units and our trade outlets. Surprisingly China, which calls itself a Peoples Republic and has the single party rule of the Communist Party of China, is today most openly capitalist and gives the warmest possible welcome to foreign investors. India, on the other hand, is a multi-party democracy in which the word “socialist” used in the Preamble to the Constitution is more a comforting slogan than a political commitment, but we are still hostile to the idea of foreigners participating in our economy because we still feel that Surat may become the base of a foreign empire. That does explain why there is such strong political revulsion whenever the question of opening up of our market to foreigners comes up for discussion.

Trade created an empire in India and, subsequently, this empire systematically destroyed such manufacturing capabilities that India had so that the factory-made goods of Britain may be sold in the Indian market and India may then be reduced to the position of a supplier of primary products to Britain. Despite this history the Government of India has decided to open up two sectors of the Indian economy to Foreign Direct Investment. These are retail trade and the civil aviation sector, the latter named being in absolute shambles because of mismanagement. Foreign Direct Investment in the retail sector is strongly opposed by the Left, BJP, Trinamool Congress and several such parties, some of which are a part of the present Congress led coalition. The argument advanced by government is that foreigners taking over the aviation industry will pump necessary working capital into the system and this part of the economy would revive. Similarly, Foreign Direct Investment in retail trade would cut out middlemen, create the infrastructure which would enable the supply chain to reach from the farmer right up to the customer in the retail store and would bring direct benefit to the cultivators while ensuing good quality of the produce and a reasonable price for the urban consumers. It is argued that the present system of agricultural production and marketing is such that there is considerable wastage of agricultural produce by inappropriate storage, spoilage and even destruction through putrefaction in the process of transporting the produce from field to market. The foreign investment retail chains would reach out directly to the producer, create adequate storage, including cold storage facilities and build an efficient transport system which would quickly bring goods to the retail stores. This would put more money in the hands of farmers, prevent wastage and enable the consumer to buy agricultural products at an affordable price. The fact that it would throw a very large number of small vendors, road side hawker and itinerant sellers who carry fruits and vegetables on hand carts right up to the doorstep out of a job does not seem to bother our American Business School, World Bank trained or oriented economists and policy makers.

We seem to be quite willing to allow foreign investors to invest capital, including working capital, in airline companies, most of which are utterly mismanaged. Why do we not encourage foreign investors like British Aerospace, Boeing, Dassault, etc., to invest in producing aircraft in India? Why do we not try and have foreign companies invest in building factories for producing the refrigeration equipment which keeps cold storage plants functional? In other words, why do we not encourage foreign companies to invest in the secondary sector in a big way in India? We have had a fair amount of success in the Build, Operate and Transfer model (BOT model) of road construction and certainly on highways such as that which connects Bhopal to Indore the BOT model has enabled a first rate road to be built. If a sufficiency of off-shoring of manufacturing facilities is done in India we would certainly be able to create more gainful employment, India would be able to evolve an industrial culture instead of the present satisfaction with trading and as our manufacturing capacity increases, we would become a major industrial power, economic power and military power. Obviously we need to take a fresh look at our policy relating to Foreign Direct Investment in India. Given the choice I would cut down all FDI in retail trade, the service sector such as running an airline and in real estate. I would have an open door policy towards investment in the secondary sector, including the setting up of hundred percent foreign owned manufacturing facilities in India. I would certainly give meaningful incentives for investment in physical infrastructure. My only restriction would be that employment generated by these activities would go to the citizens of this country so that their earning and welfare are enhanced.

The great advantage of having a powerful industrial economy is that it forces the manufacturing companies to invest in more research and development because if they do not improve, innovate and invent, their products will become unsaleable in the market. Therefore, industrial growth will bring about simultaneous growth in scientific research for the purpose of innovation and invention. This, in turn, will strengthen our institutions of technology and management because as industry grows, as the need for research grows, the market for these disciplines will expand, the research and development establishment will become stronger and the Institutes of Technology and Management will be forced to redesign teaching methodologies to keep up with the new demand.

My final words would be that government must realise that so far as the foreign direct investor is concerned, he would prefer an activity in which his own capital investment is miniscule, there is a quick turnover of commodities and, therefore, profits are earned almost simultaneously with trading. The gestation period in envisaging, constructing, commissioning of an industrial establishment and then going into commercial production is quite long and profit would have to be deferred to an appropriate date in the future. That is why in India trade is more attractive than manufacture. This would be true of the foreign direct investor also. We need to break this mindset, to make the industrialist realise that waiting for profit is not such a bad idea after all because the production capacity created will yield results year after year after year and that a well managed industrial enterprise will always be more profitable than just trade, whilst being less risky because it is unlikely to be affected by daily market fluctuations which retail trade has to face. Therefore, let economic reforms be targeted at opening up our economy to productive investment but not indiscriminately to trade. America and the developed world want exactly the opposite to happen and this we must resist.