Release of India-US Partnership: Asian Challenges and Beyond

India-US Partnership: Asian Challenges and Beyond, a culmination of the joint study between the Vivekananda International Foundation and the Heritage Foundation, US, was released by Ambassador K S Bajpai, Former Indian Ambassador to the US, on 16^th December 2013.

The book has contributions by experts, including Ajit Doval KC, Ambassador Kanwal Sibal, Ambassador PP Shukla, Lisa Curtis, Jeff Smith, Walter Lohman, Lt. Gen. (Retd) Ravi Sawhney, Dean Cheng, Brig. (Retd) Gurmeet Kanwal, and Thubten Samphel.

In his opening remarks, Shri Ajit Doval KC, Director VIF, recognized three major events of the twenty first century: China’s assertive rise, the 9/11 incident and the US follow up of War on Terror, and India’s emergence as a democratic, economic, military and technological power, which according to him have redefined the geopolitical considerations of the US in Asia.

In his address, Ambassador Prabhat P Shukla, Editor of the book, highlighted its relevance in identifying hurdles in India-US strategic relations and in recommending ways for overcoming these hurdles. On the issues addressed in the book, he said that the participants had correctly seen the stagnation in Indo-US relations, and the slowdown in the Chinese economy. These were not widely accepted at the time of the seminar, but are more or less the accepted consensus now. An easily achievable way of removing some of the doubts in India regarding the bilateral relationship, according to Ambassador Shukla, was for the US to correct the depiction of the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, which US maps show as extending to the Karakoram Pass. This was neither legally, nor in actuality, the correct depiction, which was to extend the line due north to Indira Col along the Actual Ground Position Line. This could then be followed with an examination of the border depiction in the Ladakh region with China. Another area of importance for both India and the US to observe and examine carefully is the worsening of situation in, not just the economy of China, but also its political structure. The increase in public and high-level expressions of caution and worry over a probable collapse of China spreading through the Chinese media and the political class cannot be ignored. Ambassador Shukla concluded by referring to the importance of a substantive dialogue between the two countries on the Asian rebalance and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Ambassador Bajpai, while releasing the book, congratulated the VIF and the Heritage Foundation for the remarkable study. Quoting from the Editor’s note, Ambassador Bajpai summed up the situation of the India-US relations as follows: “We are not happy with the US on Pakistan; the US is not happy with us on Iran; and we both are utterly confused about China”. He argued that a stagnation in relations is much less a worry than the absence of trust and assurance, without which no two nations can live and cooperate together. He therefore stressed that such collaborative work as done in this book is crucial to build trust and regenerate assurances. Ambassador Bajpai observed that be it the security of the Persian Gulf, stability of Central Asia, managing power equations in East Asia vis-à-vis China, or the vast range of issues in the Indian Ocean, India and the US are the only two nations with identical strategic goals in all these four areas and we can definitely identify some common ways to achieve these common goals.

Also present at the release was the team from the Heritage Foundation, which included James Carafano, Vice President Heritage Foundation, Lisa Curtis, Senior Fellow Heritage Foundation and Walter Lohman, Director of the Asian Studies Centre at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Lohman discussed in brief his contribution in the book on the prospects and need for the two countries to work together in Burma. He stressed that development in Burma serves as an ideal example and opportunity for cooperation between India and the US. Ms. Curtis argued that while irritants in the relations may remain, the strategic goals of the two countries seem to converge strongly on China and the Af-Pak region as a whole and therefore the two nations, according to Ms. Curtis, are destined to cooperate strategically. Mr. Carafano congratulated the two Foundations for the exceptional work put into the study and argued that the governments of the two nations will not lead but only follow the path of cooperation. It will be ideational works, such as the present book, through exchanges of ideas and minds which are going to lead and direct the way for cooperation ahead. The two organisations needed to continue to work together in the future as well towards this objective.

It was therefore agreed that the two Foundations will continue their exchanges in order to create strong ideational grounds for the cooperation between India and the US to be realized soon.

India-China Relations: Mutual Concerns

Brig (Retd) Gurmeet Kanwal, 

Visiting Fellow, VIF

In the Indian perception, there are several major areas of concern that are limiting the growth of the bilateral relationship. The foremost among these is the unresolved territorial and boundary dispute. The other major concern is the “all-weather” friendship between China and Pakistan that is, in Chinese President Hu Jintao’s words, “higher than the mountains and deeper than the oceans”. The Indian government and most Indian analysts are convinced that China has given nuclear warhead designs, fissile material and missile technology as well as fully assembled, crated M-9 and M-11 missiles to Pakistan, as has been widely reported in the international media. China and Pakistan are also known to have a joint weapons and equipment development programme that includes Al Khalid tanks, F-22 frigates and FC-1/JF-17 fighter aircraft. China’s military aid has considerably strengthened Pakistan’s war waging potential and enabled it to launch and sustain a proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir and in other parts of India. By implication, therefore, it is also China’s proxy war.

From the Indian perspective, there are several other contentious issues. These include China’s continuing opposition to India’s nuclear weapons programme; its deep inroads into Myanmar and support to its military regime; its covert assistance to the now almost defunct LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) in Sri Lanka; its increasing activities in the Bay of Bengal; its attempts to isolate India in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) while keeping India out of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation; and, its relentless efforts to increase its influence in Nepal and Bangladesh. China’s efforts to develop port facilities in Myanmar (Hangyi), Chittagong (Bangladesh), Sri Lanka (Hambantota), Maldives and at Gwadar in Pakistan are seen by many Indian analysts as forming part of a “string of pearls” strategy to contain India and develop the capacity to dominate the northern Indian Ocean region around 2015-20. Though at present the Indian Navy dominates the northern Indian Ocean, a maritime clash is possible in future as the PLA Navy begins operating in the Indian Ocean – ostensibly to safeguard its sea lanes and protect its merchant ship traffic. Hence, China’s moves are seen by Indian analysts to be part of a carefully orchestrated plan aimed at the strategic encirclement of India in the long-term to counter-balance India’s growing power and influence in Asia, even as China engages India on the political and economic fronts in the short-term.

As both China and India are nuclear-armed states, it is in the interest of both to ensure that strategic stability is maintained and that the risk of accidental or unauthorised nuclear exchanges is minimised. This would be possible only if negotiators from both the sides sit down together and discuss nuclear confidence building measures (CBMs) and nuclear risk reduction measures (NRRMs). However, China’s insistence that it cannot discuss nuclear CBMs and NRRMs with India as India is not a nuclear weapons state recognised by the NPT is proving to be a stumbling block. China’s official position is that India should cap, roll back and eliminate its nuclear weapons in terms of UNSC Resolution No 1172. That is unlikely to happen. India has been recognised as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology and has been given a backdoor entry into the NPT through the NSG waiver and the IAEA safeguards agreement. India has also signed civil nuclear cooperation agreements with France, Russia and the United States (US). It would be in the interest of both the countries to discuss nuclear CBMs and NRRMs so as to enhance strategic stability in Southern Asia. It is also in China’s interest to enter into a nuclear trade agreement with India as India is rapidly emerging as a large market for nuclear fuel and nuclear technology.

India realises that its growing external relations with its new strategic partners are causing some concern in China. China has viewed with some suspicion India’s willingness to join Australia, Japan and the US in a “quadrilateral” engagement to promote shared common interests in South East Asia. China also wishes to reduce what it perceives as the steadily increasing influence of the US over New Delhi. China knows that the US is several years ahead of Beijing in recognising India's potential as a military and economic power and has greatly increased its cooperation with India in both spheres. China fears that the growing US-India strategic partnership is actually a loose alliance and that the two countries are ganging up against China. It should be clear that India is unlikely to ever form a military alliance with the US – unlike Pakistan, which is a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) of the US and is also China’s “all weather” friend. India has always pursued an independent foreign policy and cherishes its strategic autonomy. It will be recalled that India steadfastly supported the Non-aligned Movement (NAM) for several decades during the Cold War and has never entered into a military alliance with any country. The US is an Asian country in strategic terms and it is necessary for India to maintain good relations with it. It is also India’s largest trading partner and has a large Indian Diaspora. There are major convergences of interests between India and the US. Hence, India’s newfound strategic relationship with the US need not come in the way of India-China relations, which have their own strategic significance for India.

In an article entitled “Warning to the Indian Government” (posted on the website of the China Institute of International Strategic Studies on March 26, 2008), Zhan Lue, a Communist Party member, warned India not to “walk today along the old road of resisting China” as the People’s Liberation Army is now well-entrenched in Tibet and will not repeat its mistake of withdrawing after a border war as it did in 1962. He extolled the virtues of the PLA’s newly developed capabilities and went on to advise India “not to requite kindness with ingratitude.” This surprisingly sharp attack in a scholarly journal did not appear to be an isolated piece of writing. Another Chinese scholar advised his government to engage India’s neighbours to break India into 26 parts. In the wake of the Tibetan unrest in India and across the world earlier during 2008, anti-India rhetoric in the Chinese media had been ratcheted up several notches. Analysts in India believe that such scurrilous writings could not have been published without the express sanction of the Chinese authorities as almost all Chinese media are state controlled. This type of rhetoric sets back efforts at reconciliation and mutual understanding.

China is concerned about the situation that might develop when the Dalai Lama passes away. Despite all the raving and ranting against him, the Chinese government is acutely conscious of the fact that the present Dalai Lama’s is a voice of moderation and accommodation. They know that there will be a major uprising in Tibet when he passes away as the Tibetan youth will no longer feel constrained to respect his cherished desire for peace and harmony and are likely to resort to violent attacks against the Han Chinese people and officials and state property. Despite India’s remarkable restraint over 50 years, the Chinese are not sure of how India will react to a post-Dalai Lama rebellion in Tibet. In fact, the Chinese harbour a fair deal of ill will against India for providing the Dalai Lama with sanctuary – even though India has forbidden him from any anti-China political activities from Indian soil and the Dalai Lama has honoured the restraints imposed on him by his hosts. A senior Chinese interlocutor told this analyst at a bilateral think tanks’ dialogue at Bangkok in October 2009 that relations between China and India would flourish very well if India was to hand over the Dalai Lama to China even at this belated stage. From this the depth of Chinese resentment with India for providing shelter to the Dalai Lama can be gauged. Since such a course of action would be completely out of character with India’s civilisational and spiritual values, handing over the Dalai Lama is simply out of the question. China would, therefore, do well to put this issue aside and move forward in its relationship with India.

Another area of concern for India is the rapid development of military infrastructure in Tibet by China. The Gormo-Lhasa railway line is now fully operational. The rail network is proposed to be extended towards Shigatse and then into Nepal. China has recently developed a road network of 58,000 km and five new air bases. New military camps have come up close to the border with India. Telephone and radio communication infrastructure has been considerably improved. China has been practicing the rapid induction of airborne divisions into Tibet. Some Indian analysts have estimated that China is now capable of inducting and sustaining about 25 to 30 divisions in Tibet in a single campaign season. Short range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), some of them nuclear tipped, are also known to be deployed in Tibet. Surely, all these developments are not for sustaining Tibet’s fledgling economy. The continuing improvement of military infrastructure in Tibet does not augur well for future peace and stability between the two nations in the light of an unresolved territorial and boundary dispute.

Humiliation of Indian Diplomat by US Unacceptable

Kanwal Sibal, 

Dean, Centre for International Relations and Diplomacy, VIF

The arrest and hand-cuffing of India’s Deputy Consul General (DCG) Devyani Khobragade in New York as if she is a criminal with all the intrusive personal indignities heaped on a “felon” by the US manuals raises serious questions about India-US bilateral equations and the unilateralist manner in which the US interprets the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR).

This humiliation has been consciously inflicted by the US authorities ignoring its political implications. It could have been avoided since there is nothing in the case that could have compelled them to take this drastic step. If the US authorities felt that denying the maid the US minimum wage was intolerable, they could have sought the DCG’s expulsion. Instead, they have themselves — not the maid — filed the case against the DCG by contriving a legal cover for their extreme step by claiming that she had committed visa fraud by falsely declaring the maid’s wages.

There is much chicanery involved here. Indian diplomats taking domestic staff to the US accept the minimum wage requirement when all concerned, including the US visa services and the State Department, know this is done pro-forma to have the paper work in order. To imagine that the US authorities are duped into believing that our diplomats will pay their domestic staff more than what they earn is absurd. The US authorities have been clearing such visas for years to practically resolve the contradiction between reality and the letter of the law.

Any US concerns about this practical approach exposing our diplomats to potentially lethal legal consequences do not seem to have been amicably addressed at the official level despite the numerous dialogues that we boast of to underline our transformed bilateral ties. Absurdly, US authorities first recognise domestic staff as officials because visas are affixed on their official passports (without insisting on affixing them only on ordinary passports) and subsequently de-recognising their official status by subjecting them to local employment laws. The VCCR does not require that home-based domestic staff be treated as local American employees. The other ludicrous implication of the DCG’s case is that any Indian national giving wrong information on a US visa form can be hauled into a US prison at the whim of US authorities.

The US sees no moral wrong in our diplomats and our India-based service staff being paid far less than their US counterparts, but feels morally outraged if our domestic staff is not paid according to the US standards. Their moral sensibilities are not aroused when their own consular diplomats, paid extra in hardship postings like India, give slave wages to their Indian staff, disregarding their own laws on what is technically sovereign US territory.

The Americans adhere to or ignore international law as it suits them. Their abusive interpretation of the VCCR cannot be challenged before any international adjudicatory body. Powerful countries can insist on their own interpretation and weaker countries have to adjust. While the US is cavalier about diplomatic immunity applicable to other countries, it seeks total immunity for its own personnel stationed in foreign countries as an entitlement. The case of Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor attached to its consulate in Lahore who murdered two Pakistani citizens in a street shoot-out, is an egregious example.

Would the US authorities have treated the DCG of Russia or China in the same way it treated our DCG? Tellingly, they have recently expelled, not arrested, several Russian diplomats for defrauding the US healthcare system, a crime that cost the US exchequer. Our DCG not paying her maid the minimum wage did not cost the US exchequer a penny. The US is more careful with countries where their stakes are higher or where the threat of retaliation is more real.

This unfortunate episode reveals a lack of respect for India and a belief that we will not react forcefully. The State Department, instead of expressing regrets, can, therefore, be flippant in observing that this incident should not affect bilateral ties.

Unfortunately, because of numerous cases of maltreatment of domestic staff in India and some cases abroad, the egregiousness of US action in humiliating a senior Indian diplomat is escaping proper public understanding. The lady DCG, whose diplomatic passport has been impounded, is in for a long torment. Whatever our unmerited prejudices against our career diplomats and grievances about the efficiency of our consular services in missions, we should not forget that our diplomats abroad represent the country’s sovereignty. Debasing them is demeaning India and its sovereign status.

The government has rightly called the US action unacceptable. Concrete reciprocal action should follow to signal that there is a price to pay for willfully humiliating our diplomatic representatives. Some steps have already been taken. A systematic review of the privileges accorded to the US government personnel in India should be made and the principle of reciprocity strictly enforced in stages as the case in New York proceeds. The US has already self-inflicted a big price for its high-handedness as the Indian Foreign Service is seething with anger against it with a lasting fallout on the relationship at the diplomatic level.

What the AAP Performance means for Indian Politics

Dr M N Buch, 

Dean, Centre for Governance and Political Studies, VIF

The Preamble to the Constitution of India starts with the following words, “We, the people of India …” and ends with the words, “hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this Constitution”. The final arbiters of what happens in this country are the people and how they will fulfill their role is given in Chapter 2 of Part IV of the Constitution and Chapter 3 of Part VI of the Constitution, which provide for an elected Parliament at the level of the Union and an elected Legislature at the level of the States. India’s Constitution makes us a representative democracy, that is, every five years we elect persons who will represent us in Parliament and the State Legislatures and who, by their participation in the activities of the Legislature, will enact laws on our behalf, sanction the budget and generally call the Executive into question about its performance. Each one of us cannot sit in Parliament, but through our representatives we can make Parliament listen to us and function according to the larger mandate given by us collectively to our representatives. The value of each M.P. and each MLA is not so much that he occupy a seat in the Legislature, but rather that he represents our collective voices and his ultimate responsibility and accountability is to those who have elected him.

Is that how the representatives view themselves? Do they really believe that they are in office because the people have chosen them and that it is the people who are supreme and that the Members of Parliament and the State Legislatures are only in office because people have decided that they should be there? If the legislators realise that the people are everything and that they themselves exist because the people have put them there, then this would be a true representative democracy. Unfortunately that is not what happens in India because our MPs and MLAs, once they are sworn in, seem to think that they are independent individuals, subject to the party whip but otherwise free to plunder the very people who have put them in office. Every act of corruption on the part of an elected representative, especially if he also holds office as a minister and makes money illegally, makes him doubly accountable, first as a minister to the House, that is, Lok Sabha in the case of the Union under Article 75 (3) or to the State Legislature under Article 164(2). Secondly he is accountable to the people of India, especially his electorate which has sent him to the Legislature as its representative and whom he fails whenever he indulges in a corrupt practice. The people of India have a right to be annoyed with such a legislator because he has violated the mandate given to him by the people. Reverting to the Preamble, the Constitution promises to all its citizens’ social, economic and political justice, liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, equality of status and opportunity and fraternity which assures the dignity of the individual. Every time a legislator takes a decision or makes a recommendation which is based on such extraneous circumstances as a bribe, he denies both justice and equality to his constituents. Whereas this is an offence under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is much more serious than an ordinary offence because the act violates the Constitution. Deliberately violating the Constitution of India to the detriment of the very people who have framed the Constitution makes the violator more than a criminal, it makes him a traitor. There can be only one penalty for a traitor, which is death and in terms of politics it should metaphorically mean death through writing finis to the political career of the guilty legislator. This power vests only in the people, the voters.

From 1967 when the purchase of power through engineering defections by bribery entered our political scene, the rules of politics changed. Now it became legitimate to try and capture power by means other than the ballot. In other words, the mandate of the people was replaced by the mandate of Kuber. From being representatives of the people, the elected persons became the predators of the people. I use strong words because the extent to which our politics has fallen cannot be expressed politely. To these predators not only were the people prey, they were also the means of somehow achieving the status of predator. Misled at the time of polls, the people were thereafter betrayed once the election had been won. For forty-seven years after 1967 our so called representatives were able to betray the people without the people reacting. That, however, did not mean that anger was not seething internally or that the people any longer had any faith in politicians. Initially the people experimented by sometimes bringing one party into power and sometimes another. In Madhya Pradesh, BJP and Congress alternated accordingly. However, by giving an unclear mandate in many States and at the Centre, the people made it known that they were not happy with any party. Unfortunately the political parties did not read the signals correctly and merrily continued with their unprincipled politics because there in lay a very lucrative source of personal gain. Wherever the people found an alternative they moved away from the dominant Congress Party. New coalitions were formed and changed from time to time and India entered into an era of coalition governments. Unfortunately this has not resulted in better government, less corruption and extension of social services and social infrastructure. Ultimately it seems that the people have had enough and the signal they are sending out is that they are prepared to back anyone or party which promises positive action. The victory of Narendra Modi, Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Raman Singh and Vasundhara Raje proves that religion based politics is not what the people favour. Instead the people want performance, are prepared to punish lack of performance and are prepared to vote for anyone who, in their opinion, is likely to provide better government. Ultimately in a democracy if elections reward performance or punish nonperformance, then that is one step forward in the process of democracy. It is an unfortunate fact that our parties, especially the Congress, have preferred manipulation of elections rather than sterling performance. That is why populism has replaced ideology, expediency has replaced programmes and projects and corruption has replaced honest government. Instead there is dependence on old shibboleths such as gareebi hatao, pseudo secularism and a belief that there are vote banks which can be exploited in order to gain and retain power. That is why Congress rode into battle like Don Quixote, mouthing platitudes which became dated forty years ago and only managed a tilt at wind mills rather than a presentation of ideology, ideas and programmes. This gimmickry has not worked. The net result is a drought of votes for the Congress.

It is into this vitiated atmosphere that Arvind Kejriwal and his Aam Aadmi Party entered. They represent the collective anger of the people and their message has cut across caste and religious lines. What is more, they broke the traditional vote bank of the Congress, namely, the scheduled castes and the minorities. This time round the traditional vote bank of the Congress voted en masse for Arvind Kejriwal and his group.

In the seventies of the last century, Jayaprakash Narayan launched his ‘Sampoorna Kranti’ (Total Revolution) because the people of India were fed up with corruption, misgovernment and lack of economic opportunities. Because the movement did not define itself in specific terms, nor laid down its specific objectives from which it would not budge, the Sampoorna Kranti fizzled out and in 1980 the same old faces which had declared a State of Emergency came to the forefront. The revolutionary zeal of the Sampoorna Kranti had been dissipated by the infighting, indecisiveness and corruption of the Janata Party Government. That is why the people of India convinced themselves that Indira Gandhi was a better option and in 1980 she was back in power. The attack on institutions, the slide in morality continued and once again the legislators forgot the very people who had sent them to the Legislature. It is in this context that one has to look at the performance of the Aam Aadmi Party to whom, I admit, I had not predicted more than three seats and who in fact emerged as the second largest party in Delhi in the assembly elections. Now the ambitions of Kejriwal have increased and he is eyeing other States and, perhaps the whole country as a means of himself achieving power. The people who have reposed faith in him may find it difficult to work with him because like Jayaprakash Narayan’s Sampoorna Kranti, the Aam Aadmi Party has still not evolved an ideology, a programme or plan which would make it a continuous and serious contender for political office. Activism is not a substitute for the hard slog in Indian politics. Does this mean that the Aam Aadmi Party will also go the Jayaprakash way?

One achievement of Kejriwal is that he has given a rude shock to the Congress and the BJP in the Delhi assembly elections. Whether his party expands, contracts or disappears will be of no consequence, provided that the shock he has administered to the mainstream parties results in the parties themselves applying suitable correctives and returning to their true role of offering themselves to represent the people, thereafter serving the people instead of preying on them. This would be a positive contribution by Arvind Kejriwal. Otherwise he will be a passing meteor flashing through the sky and then disappear.

I cannot help but look back on the Soviet experiment in Russia after the First World War. In fact, it is in 1905 after the crushing defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese war that Tsarist Russia’s basic weakness came to the fore and there was a revolt which forced the Tsar to concede some powers to the Duma, or Parliament. Unfortunately the situation was beyond gradual reform and when the Russian armed forces broke before the German onslaught, revolution was the only answer. It is from this that the Bolshevik Revolution led by Lenin overtook Russia, which signed a separate peace treaty with Germany, thus pulling out of the First World War in its closing stage. Lenin was very clear in his objectives. The Tsarist regime was to be completely dismantled and destroyed and the entire old social order of Russia was to be liquidated, especially the Kulak class of land owners and the Russian aristocracy. A dictatorship of the proletariat was to be established in which at the lowest level the Soviet was the form of both political and administrative organisation. At one level the regime was egalitarian in that it abolished the classes into which Russian society was divided. At another level the regime was extremely totalitarian in which the only arbiters of the fate of Russia and all Russians was the Communist Party. Post Tsarist Russia was not a democracy, there was no rule of law as we understand it and horrors and atrocities were committed in the name of Soviet ideology. Nevertheless Russia’s inexorable march to become the Soviet Union could not be stopped because Lenin and Stalin thereafter had their goals very clearly set before them. To my mind what we had in the Soviet Union was a Sampoorna Kranti, with whose methods and objectives I did not agree but which did pull the Soviet Union out of the Tsarist morass and made it into a truly powerful nation. Where the Soviets went wrong was that they did not gauge or understand how people change when they become more prosperous and that is what ultimately caused the Soviet Union to unravel. Even that is a contribution because it proved that a democracy which is vibrant and open to change is always a better form of government than any dictatorship, which tends to be swallowed up by the very rigidity of its own beliefs.

I make the above point because in Russia there was no direct transition from Tsarist rule to the Soviet Union because for about fourteen years there was the intervening period of an incomplete democratic regime. In India, the danger is that if the political parties continue to bicker, are effete, practice unconstitutional means, are corrupt and fail to give good government, then the likelihood is that the rot in the political system will continue. To the extent that Kejriwal and his followers have been able to project the collective anger of the people and the refusal to accept the old rotten system, this is a very positive thing in Indian politics. The question is whether our other mainstream political parties will read the signal, stop finding excuses for defeat and instead do some introspection so that the government envisaged by the Preamble is in fact established because the message of the Constitution is understood by the politicians and the political parties. The message is good government, strong but totally accountable, firm but honest and at all times in touch with ground realities and the aspirations of the people. I will be very surprised if the Aam Aadmi Party is able to convert itself into a true political party, but to the extent that it is a sounding board for what people are thinking that should be welcomed by all political parties. Ultimately we all Indians need to have a mirror held up to us so that we can see ourselves as others see us. Jayaprakash Narayan could have done it but he faltered and instead gifted us with a bunch of some of the most rapacious politicians. Will Kejriwal be up to it? That depends upon the extent of megalomania that descends on him as the paeans of praise engulf him. Will his feet then remain planted firmly on the ground? Unfortunately his present stance of making impossible demands and refusal to concede that there might be another point of view would suggest otherwise.

Need for Enhanced Indian Surveillance in IOR

Radhakrishna Rao, 

Visiting Fellow, VIF

Indian Ocean, the third largest oceanic body in the world accounting for 20% of the total area of the world under water, holds a position of paramount importance for India. Since India occupies a central position in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), the significance of the Indian Ocean to the maritime security of the country hardly needs to be emphasized. Rightly and appropriately, India considers the Indian Ocean as its own backyard. As pointed out by the historian K.M.Pannikar, “For India, the Indian Ocean is a vital sea. Her lifelines are concentrated in that area, her freedom is dependent on the freedom of that water surface.” On another front, Indian Ocean holds the key to the climatic dynamics of the Indian sub continent including monsoon on which is dependent the fortunes of the Indian agriculture, a major contributor to the Indian economy. Further, the Indian Ocean is also crucial to the energy security of the country. According to the Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, more than 80% of the world’s sea borne trade in oil transits through the Indian Ocean choke points.

In view of the rapidly expanding strategic importance of Indian Ocean, in recent years, there has been a growing clamour for strengthening and expanding the Indian presence in this vitally located oceanic body with a view to ensure the security of mainland India on a sustainable basis. Against this backdrop, sometime back, Avinash Chander, Director General of Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) , had stressed on the need for India to put in place an effective mechanism to fully monitor IOR in a complete and three dimensional manner. To accomplish this objective, he has suggested the development and deployment of about 80-100 satellites designed for covering the IOR in a detailed manner .There are said to be 19 Chinese satellites keeping a watch over the IOR. As it is, the growing Chinese space based ocean surveillance capability with particular reference to the Indian Ocean has been a matter of concern for US strategic planners. In recent years, ocean observation space platforms have emerged as a major technological tool to keep a tab on the oceanic expanse on a sustained basis with a high degree of effectiveness.

By all means, India has vital stakes in the IOR even as the geostrategic focus of the world is shifting slowly to this region through which a bulk of world’s shipping trade passes. The changing geo-political stakes in IOR in the last decade has acted as a stimulus for the littoral nations to look seawards and this presents India with a challenging opportunity to expand its influence over the countries in the IOR. Rapidly shifting geopolitical environment underpins the need for India to not only safeguard its own interests but also cater to the security needs of island nations in IOR. Clearly and apparently, India would need to boost its naval capabilities to reach out to the littoral states with a greater degree of confidence. The recent handing over of India’s home grown Advanced Light Helicopter(ALH) Dhruv to Maldives for helping this island nation carry out search and rescue operations could imply a shot in the arm for the Indian influence in IOR.

As pointed out by India’s former Foreign Secretary and currently the Indian Ambassador to USA Nirupama Rao, as the main resident power, India has a vital stake in IOR. ”We have a vital stake in the evolution of a stable, open, inclusive and balanced security and cooperation architecture in the region,” says Rao. She further observes “By definition, this would need to be a consensus based process where all the stakeholders, who have a legitimate presence in the region, make their respective contribution to the regional security”.

There is no denying the point that the threat of global terrorism, piracy and international crime coming together and converging at the strategically located IOR is real and serious. And the increased trade in raw materials including oil from West Asia has radically transformed Indian Ocean into one of the busiest waterways in the world. In addition, the emergence of a unipolar world in the aftermath of the collapse of the once mighty Soviet empire and the prevailing disturbed security environment in Iraq and Afghanistan have all gone to significantly diminish the importance of Atlantic even while boosting the critical importance of Indian Ocean as a significant conduit for the Western military supplies.

Meanwhile, the Indian Navy whose current primary area of focus is on IOR , has acquired an “eye in the sky” in the form India’s fully home-grown GSAT-7 multi band communications satellite launched in August 2013 .This space platform would help the Indian Navy keep a tab on IOR with a vastly enhanced vigour. Further, it would facilitate the real time networking of all the Indian warships, submarines and deck based fighters and helicopters with the onshore operational centre. The 2625--kg Rukmini, as the satellite is known, will also help the Indian Navy keep a hawk eye in the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal regions where arms running and sea piracy are reported with recurring regularity .Indeed, the seizure of the arms laden American private security ship, MV Seaman Guard Ohio by Indian Coast Guard off the Tamil Nadu coast in October this year is a clear indicator of use of IOR for arms trafficking. Evidently, investigation has revealed that the crew of this ship was in possession of sophisticated weapons without any valid documents. Indeed, the threat of arms laden privately owned vessels foraying into IOR would need to be tackled with all the seriousness it deserves.

Against such a scenario of disturbing developments in IOR, GSAT-7 with its reliable and safe communications networking capability will help expand Indian Navy’s maritime security apparatus over a wide swath of both eastern and western flanks of IOR. As things stand now, with this satellite, the Indian Navy would be able to cover well around 70% of the IOR—from Persian Gulf in the West to Malacca Strait in the east. Indeed for more than a decade now, Indian Navy has been clamouring for such an advanced space platform with a view to tighten its “sensor to shoot loop” which implies the ability to swiftly detect and tackle a threat.

Similarly, the easy access that Indian Navy would have to India’s home-grown navigational constellation IRNSS (Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System) will prove to be a game changer. The first of the seven satellites constituting the space segment of IRNSS was launched in July this year. Access to satellite navigation capability would help Indian Navy in enhancing its situational awareness and improving the hitting accuracy of its precision weapons including long range missiles. Of course, to enhance its “power projection” in IOR and beyond, Indian Navy is looking at acquiring a range of satellites designed for a variety of end uses including electronic intelligence and communications intelligence. To dominate IOR, Indian Navy should transform itself into a three dimensional network enabled maritime force with an uninterrupted access to “space resources”.

All said and done, India would, in the years ahead, face a serious challenge from China which is trying to dominate IOR in a systematic manner. As defence analysts point out, China’ strategic calculations in the Indian Ocean is to protect its sea lane of communications especially the transport of energy from West Asia to China through Malacca Strait. But on the other hand, there is also a perception that through its “string of pearls” strategy, China is trying to encircle India by creating its own sphere of influence in India’s neighbouring countries forming part of IOR.

Along with Myanmar and Pakistan, China has been fast expanding its influence in Sri Lanka, Maldives and Bangladesh. As diplomatic experts observe, by making available soft loans on generous repayment terms along with the engineering expertise for putting in place infrastructure and utility projects including roads, dams, energy pipelines, as well as military assistance, China has succeeded in expanding its influence and securing goodwill among many of IOR countries. Of particular concern to India should be China’s forays in the telecom, IT and other strategic sectors of the trouble torn Maldives which has historically been a close ally of India. Significantly, Maldives has also sought Chinese assistance for realizing its “space ambition.” Media reports also reveal that China is setting up a naval base in Seychelles. Though on the face of it, this facility is primarily meant for the purpose of seeking supplies and recuperating its navy, it could be a significant addition to China’s expanding footprints in IOR.

And in India’s immediate neighbourhood, China has taken over the administrative control of Gwadar port at the mouth of the Arabian Sea in the restive Balochistan province of Pakistan. Located about 400-kms to the east of the strategically located Strait of Hormuz, Gwadar can provide China an ideal spring board to monitor the US activities in the Gulf region and Indian activities in the Arabian Sea. The proposal for a pipeline from Gwadar to transport oil and gas to China could help this communist giant minimize its dependence of Malacca Strait which can be closed during war or become vulnerable to piracy.

China, which has already built a port for Sri Lanka at Hambantota has also become a space partner of this island nation which shares a common culture and history with India. As part of the Sino-Sri Lankan “handshake in space”, Supremesat-1 communications satellite was launched at the head of a Chinese Long March rocket last year. This partly Sri Lankan owned satellite perched over the Indian Ocean could help China in providing a boost its commercial, strategic and military interests in IOR. And as a follow on, Supremesat-2 is planned to be launched in mid-2016 by means of a Chinese Long March vehicle.

Chinese involvement in building Sonadiya deep water port near to Chittagong in Bangladesh is yet another instance of Chinese strategy of “string of pearls” aimed at encircling India in IOR. Bangladesh is also looking at China for giving a practical shape to its satellite project. The immense strategic significance of space cooperation could provide China with a platform in IOR to expand its geostrategic interests, rapidly and efficiently.

China has also strengthened its presence in IOR by signing a contract with the UN backed International Seabed Authority to gain rights to explore polymetallic sulphide ore deposits in IOR for the next fifteen years. China will have exclusive rights to explore 10,000-sq.kms in Southwest Indian Ocean. And this venture would provide a strategic platform for this communist giant to expand its sphere of influence in IOR.

Of course Indian Navy has developed its own military capabilities in the Strait of Malacca. In IOR, India holds a clear geographical and military advantage over China. India has a natural advantage in the Indian Ocean including short lines of communications to its own bases and resources along its coast. The Indian Ocean is a long way from China as well and control of the choke points could be useful for bargaining in the international power game. However, even though China’s maritime objectives in shipbuilding and port construction projects in the countries of IOR are primarily driven by commercial interests, the possibility of these large Chinese investments being used later for military purposes cannot be ruled out.

In view of its location close to Indian Ocean, India happens to be the country in the IOR having adequate resources and more importantly, a central strategic location to effectively provide a security umbrella for the region. Not surprisingly then IOR occupies a central position in Indian Navy’s strategic vision. India’s strategic doctrine for IOR highlights its willingness to enter into cooperative security in policing the region. India’s initiative in quelling the menace of piracy has been led by the Indian Navy which started its anti piracy operations in October 2008. Indeed, India has responded to China’s perceived presence in the Indian Ocean by trying to pre-empt China’s presence in the region by developing its own military capabilities near the maritime choke point particularly in the vitally important Malacca Strait. India is fully well aware that China’s strategic vulnerability in the Indian Ocean creates a dynamics of its own.