Israel Palestine Talks: Joining Pieces to Attempt Peace

Col Rajeev Agarwal

The recommencement of peace talks between Palestinians and Israelis on 29 July 2013 was long overdue and marked the culmination of six rounds of shuttle diplomacy in the region over the past six months by John Kerry, US Secretary of State holding multiple meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Kerry has given the current peace process a nine month period to find a final agreement to the longest festering dispute in the region. However, given the dismal record of past talks, it would be a miracle if there is any significant peace agreement at the end of these nine months.

As the peace talk’s process gets underway, there are a number of questions seeking answers which could project a clearer picture of the emerging situation. Some of the prominent questions are:-

• In the context of a history of failed attempts, what is so new and positive about this attempt that may raise expectations of a peace agreement?
• Within the complexities of the issues, how willing would be the two sides to compromise on their hard stand and attempt a peace resolution?
• How long is it possible for the current stalemate or status quo to be maintained?

In examining these issues, it is necessary to take a brief overview of the core issues of the conflict as also an insight into perspectives and positions of each of the major players in the dispute; Israel, Palestine and the US.

Contextualizing the Problem

Borne over six decades, the issues are complex; both sides have strong and opposing viewpoints backed by huge public support which often make the core issues unbridgeable. But, both the sides and even the US realize that time is fast running out on achieving the goal of two independent sovereign states existing side by side as Israel and Palestine. That is why perhaps, despite the existing stumbling blocks and the fact that there has been no forward movement since September 2010 talks, there is guarded optimism in the atmosphere. The last time peace talks generated optimism was the Camp David Summit in July 2000¹ hosted by US President Bill Clinton when he almost got Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat to agree to a peace agreement. Unfortunately the talks failed resulting in a bloody backlash in the form of the Second Intifada killing thousands of Israelis and Palestinians. The bitter memories of the Second Intifada therefore put in a sense of caution and controlled optimism of what could happen should the present talks fail.

As the current process gets underway, a look into the core issues confronting the two sides could give an insight into the possibilities of any substantial peace agreement.

Jerusalem as the capital

Israel is unwilling to divide and share Jerusalem with Palestine and stands by the 1980 Israeli Basic Law that "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel²". The Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, an area which was occupied by Jordan before being captured by Israel in 1967. It contains the al-Aqsa mosque, the third holiest place in Islam. The US does not recognize the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem and maintains its embassy still in Tel Aviv.

Borders and shape of Palestine State

Israel accepts that there should be a Palestinian state and that there will have to be an Israeli withdrawal from parts of the West Bank (captured by Israel in 1967) to accommodate this. It, however, wants to keep major Jewish settlements that have grown up on the West Bank and Jerusalem. Palestinians want borders along 1967 lines but accept that some Israeli settlements will have to stay and insist that any land given to the Israelis would have to be compensated for by a balanced land swap. The US agrees that the starting point should be the 1967 lines and that a land swap will have to be the basis of any agreement.

Settlements

This has been the issue which has prevented resumption of talks for long. Despite being declared as illegal by the international community, Israel has continued to announce and build settlements in West Bank and Jerusalem. The Israeli government has insisted on keeping the major Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The Palestinians want that all settlements be abandoned as they were in Gaza. However, they appear ready to accept that some will have to stay but argue for a minimum number and a land swap for any that are left. The US does not recognize the international legitimacy of the Israeli West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements and has repeatedly urged Israel to exercise restrain in announcing and building them.

Refugees

This is once again a very sticky issue. Israel rejects the idea that Palestinian refugees should be allowed any "right of return" to their former homes fearing that it could adversely affect the demography of Israel and the identity of Israel as a Jewish State. Palestinians, while maintaining the "right of return” could be willing to accept the return of a limited numbers with the balance being given adequate compensation by Israel. They however refuse to recognize the concept of Israel as a "Jewish state", saying that it ignores the Israeli-Arab citizens of Israel. The US understands the Israeli refusal to take back refugees and hopes that this can be resolved by compensation and development aid.

Security

Israel is concerned that Palestinian territory, if completely independent could be used to launch attacks on Israel. Therefore, it is insisting that the state of Palestine be largely demilitarized and that it keeps a large measure of security control, including in the Jordan Valley. Palestinians argue that viable security will come from a stable two-state solution not the other way round. They want as many attributes of a normal state as possible and clearly state that client-status would be untenable and unacceptable. US, while comprehending apprehensions of both parties, feels that this issue could be resolved even at the cost of deploying international peace mission along the two states.

Changing Geo-political Context in the Region and its Effect

While Israel and Palestine peace talks were stalemated after September 2010, significant developments in the region in the past three years have changed the geo-political dynamics in the region and therefore the context of the current initiative. A brief current overview of each player in Middle East Peace Process (MEPP) would give a better insight into respective compulsions as well as possibilities of any forward movement in the current process.

A critical appraisal of Israel’s standing in the immediate neighborhood and the region at large clearly indicates that the country stands more isolated and alienated than ever. Even countries and areas hitherto considered neutral or friendly have turned hostile, although all of this was not of Israel’s making. This is especially the case with the ‘Arab Spring’, which has brought about changes both within individual countries as well as in the region as a whole. Islamist parties are on the rise and economic concerns have risen to the fore. In Egypt, it lost Mubarak, its time tested ally, who had ensured peace between Egypt and Israel. The 1978 peace treaty hangs in the balance although Egypt has not yet indicated its intent to abandon the treaty. Sinai Peninsula, the buffer between Egypt and Israel, has erupted post ouster of Mubarak and caused concern in Israel³. When Egypt permitted two Iranian warships to cross the Suez Canal in February 2011 (the first time such an event has happened since the 1979 Iranian Revolution), it naturally caused alarm in Israel⁴. Israel’s ties with other countries in the region have also become unsettled. It has fallen out with Turkey (yet another regional leader) post the Gaza Flotilla incident of May 2010 despite the patch up prompted by President Obama in March this year⁵. With civil war raging in Syria, Israel fears that Assad would finally be forced out, thus disturbing the fragile peace on Israel’s eastern borders. Jordan could go the way of Islamists any time, which would spell more trouble for Israel. The Palestinians have already been given the status of Non Member Observer in the United Nations in 2012⁶. On June 30, 2013, the European Union, coming down harshly on Israel’s continued push to build settlements, adopted new guidelines, stating that future agreements between the European Union and Israel must exclude settlements in the occupied West Bank. The directive covers all areas of cooperation between the European Union and Israel, including economics, science, culture, sports, and academia. Though the material effect may be insignificant, it is a serious blow to ties with European Union. Finally, Iran continues with its civil (?) nuclear programme and despite the alarms raised by Israel, there are hardly any takers for military action against Tehran.

Domestically, Prime Minister Netanyahu leads the right-wing Likud party, which on the whole opposes the creation of a Palestinian state. Netanyahu has already faced serious criticism for the July 28 cabinet approval for release of 104 Palestinian prisoners. In a statement, Prime Minister Netanyahu recognized how difficult this decision was for many Israelis to accept, but that this was a moment “in which tough decisions must be made for the good of the country⁷.”

Like Israel, Palestinians too are confronted with serious issues. Firstly, Mahmoud Abbas, despite being the leader of PLO does not represent all the Palestinians as Hamas controls the Gaza Strip and does not recognize Abbas as the sole leader of all Palestinians. There have been no elections after the January 25, 2006 elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council which Hamas won comfortably. The subsequent struggle for power resulted in split of 2007 resulting in Fatah ruling the West Bank and Hamas ruling the Gaza Strip. In such a situation, any agreement that Abbas may procure may not be truly representative of all Palestinians. Also, with Abbas aging and no successor nominated, there could be a serious leadership crisis after his death. There is also a fear that failure of current talks after nine months could diminish his political standing and boost that of the rival Hamas. With regards to the contours of Palestinian state, prominent Fatah leaders, concerned by increasing Israeli settlements, have said that the two-state solution is no longer viable and have begun speaking in favor of the creation of one democratic bi-national state for Arabs and Jews in all of Israel-Palestine, something which may not be acceptable at all to Israel. There is also the debate regarding the forthcoming UN General Assembly Session in September where the PLO could stake claim for upgraded status over the “non-member observer state” it got in 2012. However, US annoyance of their continued bid in 2012 despite US asking them to back down has cost them adversely in terms of withheld US aid. Perhaps, concerned with the enormity of all the above challenges, the Palestinian Authority says it has currently only agreed to “talks about talks.” Also, it agreed to the first step only after Israel announced the release of 104 prisoners and the Arab League backed the peace plan⁸. Mahmoud Abbas has also indicated that any peace deal would be first put to a referendum before all Palestinians before ratification, a measure that has been indicated even by Israel in its resolutions in Knesset.

Hamas, which has refused to recognize the current peace process, itself, is not on a very firm footing. The fall of the Muslim Brotherhood-led government in Egypt has temporarily weakened Hamas. Added to it is the severe crackdown by Egyptian Army in Sinai which has virtually blocked off all illegal supply routes into Gaza Strip. Its break up with Assad regime in Syria has negatively affected its relationship with its benefactor, Iran. Post the November 2012 conflict with Israel called “Pillar of Defense” by Israel; the Hamas military capabilities also have been severely reduced. Also, an overwhelming majority of Palestinians back non-violent resistance to the Israeli occupation and reject military operations⁹. In such a situation, if a peace deal is reached, it would be very difficult for Hamas to remain defiant in Gaza Strip.

US has enjoyed tremendous influence in the region for the past four decades. It has been the virtual security guarantor for the Gulf nations and security of Israel has been one of its national security objectives. However, post the onset of ‘Arab Spring’, US has experienced diminishing influence in the region. The ouster of the dictators in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya has not brought in regimes exactly favorable to US interests. Rise of Islamists in political mainstream has added to its concern. Syrian crisis and US reluctance to get directly involved militarily has drawn the ire of the region. In the midst of all this, Iran nuclear issue continues to fester along.

In such a situation, MEPP is one issue that can get US dividends and restore some of its influence in the region. It has been one of the personal priorities of President Obama and is a conflict in which the US still has considerable leverage with both parties. Failure to reach a satisfactory resolution till now inhibits its ability to achieve its goals in the region. Former U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, Chief Gen. James Mattis described the impact the lack of a solution has had on his work and why it underscores the importance of Kerry’s efforts; “I paid a military security price every day as a commander of CENTCOM because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel. … Moderate Arabs who want to be with us can’t come out publicly in support of people who don’t want to show respect for the Arab Palestinians. So [Kerry] is right on target with what he’s doing¹⁰”.

There is also the issue of significant spin-offs from the resolution of this conflict. The most significant impact is likely to be felt on the Iran nuclear issue. If MEPP succeeds, there will be tremendous pressure on Iran to deliver. Also, Israel would be emboldened to further threaten Iran with military action. There is also the issue of US announcing its rebalancing towards Asia-Pacific in recent times. While it may not result in significant dilution of US focus and presence in West Asia, resolution of major issues like MEPP would certainly contribute towards its future course in Asia-Pacific.

US, shepherding the recommencement of peace talks, is banking upon two caveats for some success; first, that the nine month period for the talks is for all unresolved issues – there will be no interim agreement or confidence building effort that can be undermined by either side as was the case with Oslo. Second, by getting the Arab League to reaffirm its commitment to recognize Israel if a deal for Palestinian statehood is reached, it has given the Israel a major incentive to see the talks move ahead.

There is no Status Quo

MEPP has been stalemated since the breakdown of talks in September 2010. However, any talks of maintaining ‘status quo’ are misplaced as the status quo is changing by the day. As discussed above, there is constant evolution in the standing of each of the important players in this conflict. Also, with two critical factors; Israeli settlements and Palestinian population constantly increasing, status quo does not remain a feasible option. There are views which express concern that any continued stalemate might run the risk of completely jeopardizing a viable two state solution, perhaps by the end of this decade. There is also a realization that time is fast running out and if unduly delayed, there may not remain a viable scope for two independent states owing to expanding Israeli settlements and Palestinian populations. In a recent op-ed, Yuval Diskin, former head of Israel’s Shin Bet security service, wrote, “This is a matter that requires national responsibility of the highest order. It requires taking advantage of what may be the last opportunity to extricate ourselves from the deadly clutches of our conflict with the Palestinians, clutches which we have tethered to ourselves¹¹.” Thus, there is no question of a status quo in this conflict.

Conclusion

The gaps between the two sides are significant and issues are complex. Declaration by both Israel and Palestine that the peace agreements will be put through public referendums reflects the skepticism of the leaders on the future of peace talks and its acceptability with respective populations. However, the good news is that all sides have agreed for the resumption of process after a gap of three years. It would be however unreasonable to expect too much too soon. Many a times MEPP talks have come on the brink and failed. Major compromises, bold decisions and domestic public support would be needed if the talks have any chances of moving ahead.

(The author is Research Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses)

Endnotes

1. History of Mid-East peace talks, BBC News, 29 July 2013, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11103745, accessed on 06 August 2013
2. Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel, The Knesset Website, available athttp://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/basic10_eng.htm, accessed on 07 August 2013.
3. Rajeev Agarwal, “Sinai: The Middle East’ New Hot Spot,” IDSA Issue Brief, available at http://www.idsa.in/issuebrief/SINAITheMiddleEastsNewHotSpot_ragarwal_301112, last accessed on 07 August 2013.
4. “Iranian warships sail through Suez Canal,” CNN News, 22 February 2011, available at http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-22/world/egypt.iran.warships_1_suez-cana... , last accessed on 07 August 2013.
5. “Obama Brokers Apology From Netanyahu to Erdogan,” Al Monitor, 22 March 2013, available at http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/03/netanyahu-apology-erdo....
6. Report available at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ga11317.doc.htm, last accessed on 07 August 2013.
7. Michael r. Gordon and Isabel Kershner, Israel and Palestinians Set to Resume Peace Talks, U.S. Announces, New York Times, 29 July 2013, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/29/world/middleeast/israel-agrees-to-pris..., accessed on 07 August 2013.
8. Kerry wins Arab League support for efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, Haaretz News, 17 July 2013, available at http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.536305, accessed on 06 August 2013.
9. Poll: Hamas loses popularity among Palestinians , Jerusalm Post, 10n April 2013, available at http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Poll-Hamas-continues-to-lose-popularity..., accessed on 07 August 2013.
10. Matthew Duss, Creating an Environment Conducive to Progress in Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks, Centre for American Progress, August 5, 2013, available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2013/08/05/71422/..., accessed on 07 August 2013.
11. Yuval Diskin, Diskin: Israel nears point of no return on two-state solution, Jerusalem Post, 13 July 2013, available at http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Diskin-Israel-nears-point-of..., accessed on 06 August 2013. 

INS Sindhurakshak Tragedy: Navy should Strengthen and Safeguard its Submarine Fleet

Radhakrishna Rao, 

Visiting Fellow, VIF

Even as the Indian Navy, the youngest of the three services, had every reason to rejoice over India’s home-grown nuclear powered submarine INS Arihant attaining criticality and the launch of the indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant in the first fortnight of August, a massive blow in the form of the wrecking of the INS Sindurakshak submarine in a devastative explosion on August. 14, turned the” mood of celebration” into a “moment of sorrow and introspection”.

The death of eighteen Indian Navy personnel on-board the ill fated Sindhurakshak, considered the key, frontline conventional submarine in service with the Indian Navy, made the tragedy all the more painful and shocking. Evidently, Sindhurarkshak was a sort of prized possession for the Indian Navy as it had come back from Russia after an extensive refurbishment. Incidentally, Sindhurakshak was deployed at the Mumbai dockyard following a US alert about the possible LeT(Lashkar-e-Toiba) attack along India’s coastline.The 2,300-tonne Sindhurakshak was, by all means, the operationally best submarine at the command of the Indian Navy since it got new sensors and underwent structural modifications which extended its lifespan by almost a decade .Following its midlife refit programme at Russia’s Zvezdochka shipyard at an estimated cost of US$80-million, Sindhurakshak, originally built in 1997, was equipped with the tube launched Club-5 cruise missile effective against the surface vessels and submarines at a range of about 200-kms. Sindhurakshak is one of the ten kilo class submarines that India bought from Russia between 1986 and 2000.

In the aftermath of this tragedy, Defence Minister A K Antony informed the Indian Parliament that “The navy has ordered a Board of Inquiry (BoI) and it has started with all the seriousness. Its terms of reference are to look into all aspects of causes of this incident. Nothing is ruled out. All likely aspects would be examined by BoI” said Antony. In a way, Antony’s statement implies that sabotage angle could not be ruled out.

Antony also revealed that the entire operational submarine fleet of the Indian Navy is currently undergoing extensive checks on the weapons related safety system and an audit of the current standards operational procedure has also been ordered. But then a serious question that begs answer is as to why the political dispensation in New Delhi slept over for more than a decade over a proposal for the acquisition of the submarine rescue system. Naval warfare experts point out that the timely deployment of the state of the art Deep Submergence Rescue Vessel (DSRV) could easily save the lives of the sailors on-board the submarine under disintegration. Naval forces of Russia, USA, China, UK and Singapore all have deep sea rescue systems in place. It may be recalled that in August 2000, more than 100 Russian sailors on-board the nuclear powered submarine Kursk, which sank in the Barents Sea, had to pay with their lives on account of the failure to deploy DSRV on time. The moral of the story is that by deploying a submarine rescue system, India could have easily managed to save the lives of the sailors on-board Sindhurakshak.

And in what seems to be the case of bolting the stable after horses have left, just a week before the Sindhurakshak tragedy, an RFI (Request for Information) was issued for a “Submarine Rescue Bell System with LARS”(Launch and Recovery System). Whether it is the procurement of the much needed artillery systems for the Indian armed forces or the acquisition of submarines for the Indian Navy, dithering and delay reinforced by a “deadly indifference” seems to have become the order of the day. And the country and its defence forces ultimately pay a very high price for the painfully slow decision making process of the poorly motivated bureaucracy associated with the defence acquisition programme.

On the other hand, India as a country has not exactly covered itself with glory in so far as ensuring safety in all its manifestations is concerned. It is high time that the Indian Navy took steps to decongest its facilities at Mumbai and Vishakhapatnam. To begin with, quickening impetus should be given to the completion of the phase two of the “Sea Bird” project at INS Kadamba at Karwar in Karnataka to help relocate some of the ships and submarines from Mumbai. It is in the fitness of things that it has been decided to berth the retrofitted aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya at Karwar naval base. In Vishakhapatnam, where the nuclear submarines are stationed, a refinery and a fertilizer plant are in close proximity to the naval facilities. What’s more, the harbour here with its narrow entrance can easily be blocked by sinking trawlers. As such, there is a need for a new green-field naval yard somewhere on the eastern coast. The principle that one cannot put all the eggs in one basket should be the guiding force of the Indian Navy.

Becoming wiser after the event seems to have become a norm rather than an exception for the Indian ruling elite. Antony has now directed for according a top most priority for sustaining the “operational efficiency” of the thirteen conventional diesel electric submarines left with the Indian Navy after the Sindhurakshak tragedy. Of course, an overwhelming majority of them are already into the evening of their lives .And only half of them will be available for deployment at a given time since the ageing submarine fleet is being forced to spend much of their time for repairs and maintenance. Further, Antony had made it clear that there should be no more delays in the construction of the six Scorpene submarines with the technology to be provided by the French firm DCNS. Antony has also asked for expediting the thirty year submarine building project which was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) way back in July 1999.

By all means, submarines constitute the sinew of under-sea warfare strategy for they play a key role in neutralizing hostile naval vessels and blockading enemy harbours by laying mine fields. And now it looks as if India’s under sea combat arm stands compromised. Indeed, a fact filled CAG (Comptroller and Auditor General) report tabled in the Indian Parliament in 2008 had raised the alarm bells by stating that due to “ageing fleet and prolonged refit schedules, the average operational availability of the Indian Navy submarine was as low as 45%”. The report had also pointed out that the “the availability of the submarines with the Indian Navy is much below the envisaged force level and a large number of submarines in the existing fleet have become due for decommissioning in the immediate future.” Indeed, the grim ground reality is that Indian Navy has not been in a position to boost its sub-sea patrol by acquiring new submarines after the year 2000.

To make the matter worse, Indian Navy is yet to acquire air independent propulsion (AIP) system driven submarines which can stay under-sea for longer periods in comparison to the conventional diesel electric submarines which are required to surface once in a few days for recharging their batteries. In the context of the expanding responsibilities being thrust upon it, the Indian Navy would need a minimum of 24 submarines to take care of the security on both the eastern and western coasts of the country. In comparison, China has about 60 submarines of which ten are nuclear powered. China is also into building ten more nuclear powered submarines.

Indeed, India’s ambitious plan for building six new generation conventional submarines under Project 75I stands behind schedule by three years due to the delay in decision making and finalizing the purchase of equipment to be fitted into the submarine including sensors and propulsion. As things stand now, the first of the six Scorpene submarines will be delivered only by 2015 with 2022 as the deadline for the delivery of the entire lot. Under Project 75I, two of the six submarines will be delivered in ready to use condition by the French firm DCNS. The DCNS will transfer the technology to India for building the remaining four submarines. The Indian part of the project will be executed by Mazagon Docks Ltd (MDL) in Mumbai and Hindustan Shipyard at Vishakhapatnam. These submarines will come equipped with the advanced AIP system. This project forms a part of the thirty year plan to boost the under- sea capability of the Indian Navy and strengthen the indigenous base for the design, development and production of the submarines. As part of the thirty year plan, it is envisaged that 24 new submarines will join the Indian naval fleet.

Currently, the only operational nuclear powered submarine at the command of the Indian Navy is INS Chakra which was launched in 2012. It was acquired on lease for a period of ten years from Russia. This Akula-II class “Nerpa” submarine has a maximum speed of 30 knots and can go to a depth of 600-metres.Chakra armed with four 533-mm and four 650-mm torpedo tubes is, by all means, a formidable undersea combat system .Of course, under the lease terms, Chakra cannot be equipped with nuclear weapons. But then Chakra would substantially strengthen the Indian Navy’s capability for power projection in the Indian Ocean region and beyond.

Indeed, India’s home grown nuclear powered submarine Arihant going critical on August 10 as a first step towards its extensive sea trials was a landmark event for the Indian Navy. Unlike the conventional diesel driven submarines, the 6,000-tonne Arihant will remain submerged in water for months on end, thus making its detection a really difficult task. Powered by a compact, indigenous Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) capable of generating 83-MW of power, Arihant has catapulted India into the elite league of a handful of countries which have mastered the technological complexities involved in building a nuclear powered submarine. Incidentally, India happens to be the only nation in the IOR (Indian Ocean Region) to possess a nuclear powered submarine.

On its part, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is planning to induct BO-5 medium range nuclear missile into Arihant. It is also planned to equip Arihant with K-15 nuclear tipped missile which has a range of 700-km.Further into the future, Arihant can serve as a formidable platform for launching the under sea version of the Indo- Russian supersonic cruise missile BrahMos. Three more nuclear propelled submarines would be constructed under Indian Navy’ high profile Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) programme.

Clearly and apparently, Arihant and its follow on submarines including Aridhaman will substantially strengthen India’s nuclear strike capability. In the context of India’s national policy of “no first use of nuclear weapons”, the submarine arm of the nuclear triad will provide India a “credible second strike capability” to inflict “unacceptable damage” on the adversary. By all means, the submarine based ballistic missiles are considered the most effective and difficult to detect nuclear weapons delivery system.

But then it would be sometime before India’s fully home grown nuclear powered submarines go operational and become a part of the under sea arm of the Indian Navy. As such, with a view to beef up the rapidly dwindling submarine capability of the Indian Navy in the immediate future, India is now negotiating with Russia for the lease of the another nuclear powered submarine. All said and done, ensuring the safety of submarines is as critical as acquiring and maintaining them. For not long back, a US navy lieutenant who chose to remain anonymous through his blogs had expressed his unhappiness over the poor empowerment of Indian Navy personnel in terms of enforcing safety measures at all levels in a professional manner. Evidently, the US Navy blogger is known to have spent a few days with an Indian Navy ship in the Arabian Sea under the exchange programme.

Because the entire submarine fleet with the Indian Navy is both old and obsolete, the problems associated with ensuring their safety are too many and complex. For example, the fighting equipments past their designed life span are prone to mishaps and accidents. And the delay in procurement of new systems to replace the older ones only adds to the problem of ensuring safety. As is the case with the proposals for the procurement of battlefield hardware for the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force (IAF), the plan for the acquisition of submarines for the Indian Navy has been hanging fire for many years now. Unless our defence bureaucracy develops a vision and motivation for fast tracking the battlefield hardware in a time bound, transparent and cost effective manner, accidents like the Sindhurakshak tragedy is bound to repeat time and again. It may be recalled that the diesel electric driven submarine INS Sindhughosh had run into collision with a fishing boat in 2006 followed by a merchant vessel in 2007.

India should also probe thoroughly the observation of the Russian side that the violations of safety regulations could be the most likely cause of the explosion that wrecked Sindhurakshak. But here again, it would also be appropriate for the Indian Navy to evaluate the quality of Russian workmanship as well as the integrity of the systems and weapons forming part of the submarine. Of course, Indian Navy has in place well formulated and time tested procedures for ensuring the safety of submarines. But then to what extent they are implemented with all the seriousness they deserve, no one is sure as yet. And in particular this angle should be probed in depth.

For the navy personnel, living and operating in an undersea environment of the submarine, makes for a demanding and unforgiving task, for they lead a check by jowl existence with a bank of chemical batteries requiring periodic charging, inflammatory and dangerous gases as well as highly explosive warheads. This implies that even a small “mistake or lapse” could be dangerous and could cause a huge explosion leading to a certain catastrophe. Especially, while working in a submarine acquired from overseas source, the Indian Navy sailors should display a greater level of circumspection and caution as there are many “grey areas” in the safety measures and principles devised for them. There is no denying the fact that only a home grown system could ensure a greater level of safety and security in comparison to imported hardware. For here Indian naval personnel could have access to the entire range of data—starting from design phase to the level of integration and final assembly. In case of doubt, they can always go back to the original source. And this advantage would not be available with an imported system. This is one more major argument that goes to boost the case of indigenization from the word go.

Coming to the Sindhurakshak tragedy, greater stress should be placed on the safety of the propulsion system of a submarine. For it is speculated that the failure of the safety system related to the propulsion module of Sindhurakshak was responsible for the explosion. Because the diesel electric powered submarines are run on chemical batteries requiring occasional charging, the chances of their being subjected to explosion cannot be ruled out. By going in for the air independent propulsion system, the chances of submarine accidents could be minimized. All said and done, the argument of Uday Bhaskar, former Director of the National Maritime Foundation that “the zero error safety tenet will have to be reemphasized and internalized” should be the guiding principle of the safety procedures being implemented for the Indian submarine fleet. In the ultimate analysis, the security aspects of the mechanism of man machine interface should receive utmost priority to obviate the Sindhurakshak type tragedy. Under no circumstance should the safety principles be compromised. And the Indian Navy should lose no time in insulating its submarine fleet from “mishaps and accidents” by implementing safety rules and regulations at every stage of the operation.

Interaction with H. E Amb Glenn White, Australian Ambassador to Nepal

On 3^rd September 2013, VIF welcomed Amb Glenn White, the Australian Ambassador to Nepal for a brief interaction on the latest political developments in Nepal.

Having spent the last four months in Nepal, Amb White gave a succinct assessment of the ground situation in Nepal. Discussions also took place on how India and Australia can contribute to strengthening democracy and democratic values in the Himalayan state.

Both sides emphasised the need for peace, stability and progress in Nepal, which was important for the entire region.

Shri Ajit Doval KC, Director VIF, thanked Amb White for his well informed briefing and hoped to interact more with him on geopolitical and strategic issues of mutual concern. 

The Case Against Smaller States

Dr M N Buch, 

Dean, Centre for Governance and Political Studies, VIF

In his book, “The Story of the Integration of Indian States”, V.P Menon, who was Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s right hand in ensuring that the British legacy of lapse of paramountcy which virtually gave independence to the Princely States in India was nullified, negated and reversed so that India became a united country, makes certain statements which very aptly described what India was and what it is thanks to Sardar Patel. Certain quotations from his book must be given if one is to understand how India became one. He writes “India is one geographical entity. Yet, throughout her long and chequered history, she never achieved political homogeneity. From the earliest times, spasmodic attempts were made to bring about her consolidation… These and later attempts at political consolidation failed again and again for one chief reason:… The empires were held together almost entirely by the personality and might of the Emperor. The whole edifice crumbled when the line of supermen came to an end.

Even under these Emperors, a diversity of autonomous states constituted the mosaic of an empire. The Emperor claimed suzerainty over these rulers, who offered allegiance to him, coordinated their foreign policy to his diplomatic moves; usually served him in war and offered him tribute; but who, in other respects, retained their sovereignty. Whenever the authority of the Emperor weakened the subordinate rulers asserted their independence… Mutual jealousies and conflicts made the country an easy prey to any organised invasion”.

This situation continued when the Mughal Empire disintegrated after Aurangzeb’s death till the British stepped in and by conquest, subsidiary alliances, annexation and military defeat of intransigent Princes took over the entire governance of India. However, they continued to give a special place to the Princes who, within the limitations prescribed by the British Government, enjoyed considerable autonomy and freedom to manage their own internal affairs. Control vested in the Political department and the Residents appointed in Indian States or group of States. Under the Government of India Act, 1935, some sort of a federal structure was created and a new direct relationship established between the Princely States and the British Crown as represented by the Viceroy and Governor General. However, the full integration of Princely India and British India never took place and the paramount power continued to be paramount and paramountcy remained as vague and undefined as ever.

When paramountcy lapsed, there was an uncertainty about the relationship of the Indian States with newly independent India. This is the time when V.P. Menon suggested to Sardar Patel that the lapsing of paramountcy might in fact be good for India because now the State could be dealt with on a clean slate without being hampered by the treaties entered into by them with the British. It is on this basis that Sardar Patel and Jawaharlal Nehru approved the Standstill Agreement and the Instrument of Accession which were ultimately entered into by the rulers with India. Ultimately these were succeeded by instruments of merger, the Princely States were done away with and the Dominion of India, succeeded by the Republic, became one nation. The integration of Indian States brought into the Indian Union as an integral part of the country about five lakhs square miles of territory which formed Princely India under British rule. We lost 3,64,737 square miles of territory to Pakistan, but Sardar Patel ensured that this was more than compensated by the assimilation of Princely India into the Indian Union. From Kashmir to Kanyakumari, from Kathiawar to Kamrup, India became one. The Government of India Act, 1935, which was virtually the Constitution under which British India was governed and which had introduced elements of federalism into a unitary State, was replaced by the Constitution which made India a Union of States and introduced a unique brand of federalism which has no parallel. Unlike the United States of America, where thirteen separately governed colonies voluntarily came together at the time of the American Revolution to form the United States of America, in India, the provinces and subsequently the merged Princely States formed a Union of States. This was not a Union formed by the coming together of separate entities, but rather a convergence of what were units of administration into States and then bringing them together into an India which existed under the 1935 Act. The States have a degree of autonomy under List 2 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, with concurrent legislative powers of the State Legislature with Parliament on matters included in List 3.

However, in this Constitution there are certain factors which make it centripetal. The first is that the Governors of States are appointed by the President. The second is that the Judiciary forms a single hierarchy from the lowest civil court or magisterial court all the way through the District and Sessions courts, the High Court and the Supreme Court. Any Judge or Magistrate can try any case under any law, whether of Parliament or of the State Legislature. In the United States of America, there are separate Federal Judges and State Judges, each of them having jurisdiction over federal laws and state laws respectively. In India, the Supreme Court is at the apex. In the United States, at the apex is the Supreme Court, but otherwise the Federal Courts do not have any jurisdiction in matters of state laws and the States have no jurisdiction in matters of federal laws.

The third element which distinguishes the Indian Constitution from others is that residuary powers vest in the Union under Article 248, whereas in the United States, under the Tenth Amendment, residuary powers vest in the State. The fourth element of centripetalism is the provision relating to the All India Services contained in Article 312, whereby officers of the All India Services, who are under the rule making control of the Central Government, man all cadre posts, whether in the States or at the Centre. No other federal constitution has such a provision. This Union of States, with its centripetal orientation, is what keeps this country united because unfortunately India has always had a tendency to fissiparousness, to which V.P. Menon has referred in his book. What Sardar Patel brought about by the integration of States, what our Constitution makers have enshrined in the Constitution, is that a system has been established which would keep India politically homogenous and end the dependence on the personality of the ruler. Theoretically the Indian Union cannot be broken merely because the rulers have become weak. A democratic, constitutional entity is ruled by the will of the people and, therefore, no individual leader can cause the disintegration of India.

That is the theory. What is the reality? After good and positive government by leaders who had been through the freedom movement, we suddenly introduced an element of acquisition of power through engineering defections. When history is written objectively, we would perhaps find that the single biggest blow to good governance and primacy of the rule of law is this single act of the making power a purchasable commodity. Pt. D.P. Mishra, the then Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh whose government was threatened by the defections engineered by Govind Narain Singh, had advised the Governor to dissolve the assembly and order fresh elections. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, who was Prime Minister and who personally disliked D.P. Mishra, informally advised the Governor not to accede to this demand and instead invite Govind Narain Singh to be the Chief Minister. I am sure she herself did not realise what disturbances, what a political whirlpool this single pebble thrown into a tranquil lake would cause and what irreparable harm it would do to the country’s political fabric. It introduced corruption into politics on a scale which could not even be imagined in 1967 because it converted power from being an instrument of public service into a commodity which could be purchased. A commodity market cannot be expected to be philanthropic and once political power had been converted into a commodity, such politics could not be expected to be welfare oriented. Now the sole purpose of politics was to somehow collect the funds through which power could be purchased and then to use power to recoup the funds and earn a surplus which could be used to buy power next time. Countervailing bidding was naturally done by the Opposition aspirants for power and thus the levels of corruption kept jumping up. Today the position has become one in which every politician is suspect, the motive of every political decision is deemed to be dishonest and every policy of government seems to be short term and aimed not at welfare but at obtaining some political advantage which can be encashed in terms of funds for the next election. This is a horrendously ugly scenario because a democracy, in which the entire political class comes into disrepute, can no longer function as a democracy at best it becomes an oligarchy and at worst it becomes a collection of thugs, thieves and dacoits. The graph is moving fast in the direction of the worst case scenario. The people now become the prey, good governance has been buried deep underground and the State itself has become a milch cow which has to be exploited to the point where it runs dry. This is the stark reality facing India, in which political power is the most profitable lever of business for unscrupulous politicians.

Political power is even more easily gained when through vivisection, we partition existing administrative units and create new ones so that the number of posts increases. Every new State creates the post of a Governor, a Chief Minister, Ministers, a new Legislative Assembly with a Speaker, a new High Court with a Chief Justice and Judges, a new Public Service Commission and the entire paraphernalia of government. In a large State for a person to be Chief Minister he has to have a State wide image and identity, which a person like D.P. Mishra or Shyama Charan Shukla had in what was then India’s largest State, Madhya Pradesh. Local influence could make you the Mayor of your city, but it would not earn you power in the State. If, on the other hand, a city itself becomes a State, the Mayor automatically becomes Chief Minister. Political interest, therefore, lies in creating the maximum number of States. The statement of K C Rao who has led the agitation which will now create a new State of Telangana that all government servants from outside the ten districts of Telangana will have to quit Hyderabad puts in a nutshell the mindset of our divisive politicians. There is no question of any public interest in the creation of the new States, there is only the question of how a small minded person of no status can suddenly acquire the stature of a Chief Minister.

There is a fallacious belief that the demand for States’ reorganisation is a popular one having mass appeal. To the people it makes no difference where the Chief Minister resides because the interaction of the common citizen with officialdom is at the level of the village, the town, the tehsil or the district. He wants that the interaction should be absolutely minimum, but the attitude of government officials should be positive, they should be insulated against unauthorised influence and the legitimate work of the citizens should be done with due dispatch. From this, one can deduce that the demand for new States is entirely engineered by selfish politicians who are looking after their own interests.

It is these politicians who say that if the United States of America can have fifty States, then why should India be confined to twenty-eight plus one, the twenty-ninth State of Telangana. What they forget is that the territorial spread of the United States of America is three times that of India and the States have come into being as the nation expanded from the original thirteen colonies through westward migration right up to the Pacific shore. It is the extent of the colonisation of America and quite often geographical boundaries which determined the shape and size of the States of America. For a very long, time there were only forty-eight States and the States of Hawaii and Alaska were added only because these federally administered areas had become ripe for statehood. In India, we seem to run a cycle whereby we think that agitations can redraw the boundaries of States at the whims of the politicians.

It started with Potti Sriramulu who agitated for the creation of a separate Telugu speaking State, which would include the Telugu speaking districts of the Madras Presidency, together with the Telugu speaking districts of Hyderabad State. The agitation succeeded because unfortunately Sriramulu, who was on a fast unto death, died because his followers who had a vested interest in a Telugu speaking State did not allow him to break his fast. Jawaharlal Nehru panicked, a States Reorganisation Commission was set up, Andhra Pradesh was formed, Malabar District was transferred to Kerala from Tamil Nadu, the Kannada speaking districts of Hyderabad State was transferred to Mysore State, which became Karnataka, the Marathi speaking districts of Hyderabad State were transferred to Bombay State and became Marathwada and in sharp contrast with other States, the new bilingual State of Bombay was enlarged by merging Saurashtra into it, Even this was undone subsequently through public agitation in Bombay which brought the State of Gujarat into being. Madhya Pradesh lost Marathi speaking Vidarbha to Bombay State but gained the Hindi speaking States of Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal. Punjab was split, with Himachal and subsequently Haryana separating from it. In the east, Assam has been divided, with NEFA becoming the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Meghalaya being made into three separate States out of Assam and the empty shell of residuary Assam being left to fester with sponsored revolts by the Bodo people and Ahoms. The British left us with a unified North East and we have divided it into a mosaic of tiny States.

In the last splitting up of States, Madhya Pradesh lost Chhattisgarh, a State with such paucity of administrative infrastructure that the Naxalites have virtually captured it. In Bihar, Jharkhand was separated and the new State became a byword for political instability. Residuary Bihar lost its entire forests and mineral wealth and in the parochial environment in which we find ourselves, Jharkhand has always refused to share anything with Bihar. It will not end here because the demand for the splitting of Uttar Pradesh into four States, the creation of a State of Vidarbha and a demand for statehood for Darjeeling and Bodoland have picked up steam. A weak Central Government whose political leadership seems to have become completely bankrupt is all set to surrender to such demands and one fears that the mosaic of tiny States which existed when paramountcy lapsed may be re-created in India. The BJP, which has publicly come out in favour of small States, is as much a partner in the disintegration of States as is the Congress.

The argument is that small States are better governed and better designed for development. Has the separation of Uttarakhand from Uttar Pradesh brought it development? In the recent catastrophe which overtook Garhwal, one thing has emerged very clearly. Being a hill state, the administration in Uttarakhand is very thinly spread on the ground. The State Government’s resources are very limited and whereas the huge resources at the disposal of Uttar Pradesh would have been diverted to Uttarakhand had it continued to be part of Uttar Pradesh, they were no longer available to the new government. But for direct central intervention and the superb work done by ITBP, IAF and the Army, the death toll in Uttarakhand could well have gone into five figures. When the entire resources of Madhya Pradesh were available to the whole State, of which Chhattisgarh was a part, Madhya Pradesh Police had Naxalism under control. In Chhattisgarh, it is absolutely rampant.

Even if small States do show some initial signs of progress, that soon fizzles out because the politics of a small State tends to be incestuous. What this means is that the same half a dozen families and interest groups which, in a large State, would have been submerged, now rotate power amongst themselves. I stated earlier that power is no longer an instrument of service and, therefore, the purchase of the commodity called power opens unlimited opportunities to the purchaser to milk the State and make huge sums of illegal money. How can such a State promote welfare? Small States also breed extreme regionalism and as has been our experience in the recent past when regionalism moved into Parliament and small regional groups assumed excessive importance because delicately balanced coalitions need the support of regional parties, then compromise, corruption and bad governance become the order of the day. That is what small States do to us. 

Moderate and Balanced Afghanistan: Imperative for Regional Security

Ajit Doval, KC

Director, VIF

A moderate and balanced Afghanistan is not only an absolute necessity for regional security but is equally imperative for rest of the world. A radicalised and unstable Afghanistan, imbued with an intolerant jehadi fervour, has implications for US or Europe as much as for South Asia. Any resurgence of violent Islamic terrorism will have a cascading effect that will define the future trajectory and intensity of global terrorism, endangering the people here as much as in the region. Al-Qaeda is down but not out. Its structures and cadres have been degraded but in its new incarnation as an ideological hub driving and uniting violent form of political Islam poses a threat that is real, more complex and extensive. We are seeing some early trailers in the Gulf, North Africa and Western Eurasia etc.

The debate is not about agreeing upon the end objectives but examining emerging ground realities, re-validating assumptions on which our policies rest, and evaluating new initiatives to see to what extent they enhance or reduce the possibility of achieving the end objectives. Are the critical players and stake holders involved in this complex imbroglio pursuing the policies that will lead to a stable and moderate Afghanistan? Are there gaps and anomalies in their stated positions and real intentions? Good intentions are important but not sufficient to achieve intended objectives.

US and other members of ISAF have invested heavily in last 12 years to bring peace and stability in Afghanistan. US alone has suffered over 2,000 military casualties and spent over $600 billion in this fight. The results though commendable, have not been proportionate to the cost. The outcome might have been different if assumptions about Pakistan, the non-NATO ally with front line responsibilities, had proven to be correct. Moral of the story- When assumptions are wrong, the strategies fail to deliver.

The security environment in Afghanistan is far from optimal for smooth transition to a stable and moderate Afghanistan post 2014. The Taliban and their allies are better organised and resourced, have deepened their coercive influence in new areas and exude a sense of triumphalism. Islamist hardliners world over are looking at them with awe and respect. Within Afghanistan, their political engagement on the asking, if not cajoling, by their erstwhile adversaries has given them a sense of legitimacy as victors on one hand and generated a fear of uncertainty and insecurity among those who stood on the side of religious moderation, human rights and democracy.

The recent developments indicate that there is lack of synergy and coherence among major stakeholders responsible for a stable post 2014 Afghanistan. The ruckus over Afghan President Hamid Karzai objecting to blatant display of the Taliban flag and a plaque with the inscription ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’ at its Doha office and US talking about a zero option in post 2014 Afghanistan underlines that the two players critical for stability in Afghanistan are not on the same page. The left over elements of Al-Qaeda and undented Haqqani group being allowed by Pakistan to consolidate their positions along the Af-Pak border are ominous. Pakistan ISI’s duplicitous deals with various factions of Taliban and other armed groups in Afghanistan in furtherance of its unknown post 2014 agenda has compounded the situation further. Pakistan’s advocacies of including sections of Taliban close to it but known to be soft on Al Qaeda in the peace process have serious long term implications. The cost of promised co-operation in future by Pakistan may prove more costly for the world than estimated.

The problems of governance, internal security and weak economics both in Pakistan and Afghanistan may only give a fillip to further radicalisation in these two countries. While the world is closing in to the 2014 drawdown, the insurgency and law and order situation, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, is under serious drift. In the first six months of this year, over 800 Afghan army and police personnel, 365 civilians and 63 ISAF soldiers have lost their lives. The situation in Pakistan where Islamic terrorists are in control of large tracts in tribal regions is no better. In the last six years alone, more than 2000 Pakistanis including 400 security personnel have been killed in terrorist related violence in the country. All these straws in the wind raise serious doubts about emergence of a moderate and stable Afghanistan after draw down unless basic correctives are applied at this stage.

I have great respect for the optimists, not because they are always right but because they keep the hopes alive, at least till the things go wrong. On Afghanistan, the hopes of optimists are premised on following assumptions:

• Taliban will change. They will severe their links with the Al-Qaeda and its affiliates with Pan-Islamic global agenda. People in last twelve years have developed vested interest in democracy, development, and respect for human rights. Taliban will not get their support if they revert to their old ways. Democracy will stay and ethnic rivalries will be subsumed by a resurgent Afghan nationalism.
• The nearly 3,35,000 strong Afghan National Army and police will remain a cohesive force, will be adequately resourced and remain committed to its fight against terror; irrespective of political complexion of the people who assume power.
• Most importantly, Pakistan will change and will not pursue its three decade old policy of furthering its strategic and political objectives by using Jihadi terror as an instrument to keep Afghanistan under its control to the exclusion of others. It will no more follow a duplicitous policy in dealing with terrorism and terrorist groups.

If these assumptions hold good, even to a reasonable degree, we can hope for a moderate and stable Afghanistan. I am not a scientist but a great admirer of Einstein. He defined insanity; as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting that the results will be different next time. Pakistan will change is a possibility but not a probability.

It is true policies and strategies cannot always be made on the basis of totally proven facts and crystal gazer’s ability to peep into the future. But it is necessary that we do not deny the existence of facts because they are unpalatable and do not deliberately work in a direction that negates the assumptions on which our policies rest. The right approach at this time should be to put in collective efforts to ensure that the above assumptions on which the end objectives are premised are reinforced, resourced and refined. There are plenty that we can do at this stage but the window of opportunity may not remain open indefinitely.

Affirmative and coercive actions in three important domains from now till 2014 will be necessary to ensure that the post-2014 Afghanistan is reasonably stable and minimizes security threat to the region and the world at large. First, no agreement or assurances to Taliban or other radical groups contravening the constitution, as it exists or is amended through due process, should be made. It is also important that no covert arrangement is arrived at by extraneous forces without taking into confidence the constitutionally elected government in Afghanistan. Whatever its shortcomings and failings may be, which indeed are plenty, undermining constitutional or moral authority of a democratically elected government will weaken constitutionalism and rule of law in Afghanistan that has been one of the major achievements of last 12 years. This is, however, still feeble and needs to carefully nurtured.

Second, the continuation of foreign financial assistance for maintaining the ANSF would be necessary. The security apparatus should also remain apolitical and selection of military commanders should not be influenced by ethnic considerations or political proximities. Large private armies and armed groups working under varying influences, ranging from drug syndicates to radical Islamic groups and to political parties, under a well calibrated plan of action should be de-legitimized, disarmed and demobilized. Any external force trying to control or influence them to sub-serve their agenda in post 2014 setting should be shunned.

Third, Pakistan’s role is going to be critical in defining the future. It has a past that is not very re-assuring. Measures have to be taken and compulsions created that makes it unaffordable for Pakistan to pursue a course that undermines stability in Afghanistan, boost terrorism in the region and most importantly endanger Pakistan’s own safety and long term security. Let us look at some expert views about Pakistan in the last few weeks:

• Barely two week back in Washington DC, Ambassador Robert Blackwill speaking at the Ambassador’s Round Table said, “there is no evidence that Pakistan military has changed its view- its primary role is to prevent the rise of India. It continues to look at Taliban as a strategic asset that can be leveraged to further its strategic objectives, particularly vis a vis India.”
• Brig AR Siddiqi writing in The News, Pakistan’s leading daily, on July 11 quoted Gen Pervez Musharraf when he was the President and Army Chief, as saying “Taliban are my strategic reserve and I can unleash them in tens of thousands against India when I want...” Gen Kayani was probably the ISI Chief at that time. He indicated that there was no shift in this mindset.
• On July 3, Afghan Army Chief Gen Sher Mohammed Karimi told the BBC that “The Taliban are under Pakistan’s control – The leadership is in Pakistan.”
• Bruce Riedel – on July 3, said “By 2004 under the leadership of its then spy chief and today top general, Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, was deeply engaged in helping the Taliban again. It still is. The senior Taliban leadership including Mullah Omar are protected by the ISI in Quetta and Karachi.”

All this and many more such inputs indicate that Pakistan continues to pursue a plan that may not be in consonance with what the world wants – a stable and moderate Afghanistan. It estimates that with American provocation gone and political space apportioned by its surrogates like Mullah Omar and Sirajuddin Haqqani, it will be able to play the Islamic card and regain lost ground with militant Islamic groups on both sides of the border. The recalcitrant few could be neutralised with their support. On one hand, it will help it to mount over its precarious internal security predicament and on the other make available “strategic assets” for pursuing its agenda in the region like India, Central Asia etc. Pakistan’s assumption may prove to be its nemesis but many others may have to pay a heavy price.

More than anyone else, it is the US which exercises the leverage and influence to make Pakistan follow the right course and force it to abandon its policy of using terrorists as instruments of its state policy. It should be unequivocally made clear to the new regime in Pakistan that support to any form of terrorism irrespective of its cause, target or ideological persuasion would be unacceptable and involve costs. All financial assistance and aid to Pakistan should be made conditional to its deliverance on the terrorist front.

An assumption which must be dumped is that the threat emanating from Afghanistan would only affect the region. It won’t. It will engulf the regions far beyond. From Al Qaeda down to the lone wolves, the developments are being seen by the Jihadists as their victory against the sole superpower and rest of the world that stood by it in their fight against terror. They also are hopeful that the new dispensation in Afghanistan will provide them a foothold for pursuing their global agenda. The challenge is what we can do to prove them wrong. And, if despite our best efforts, desired results do not come forth, start preparing for the worst- an unstable Af Pak region - right from today, jointly and more resolutely. You often don’t have to fight the wars you had prepared for in advance.

(Based on the talk delivered on July 23, 2013 at Cannon Hall, Capitol Hill in a function organised by US-India Political Action Committee, American Foreign Policy Council and Foundation for India and Indian Diaspora Studies)