by Uddipan Mukherjee
In late February this year, there were elections in the Central Asian Republic of Tajikistan. But there was hardly any coverage by the international media. The reasons were obvious. Nobody expected anyone else to win apart from the party headed by the President Emomali Rahmon. Moreover, media was engrossed in the elections of Iraq, Ukraine and Afghanistan.
Interestingly, seven months later when elections are to be held in the neighbouring country of Kyrgyzstan, there is considerable brouhaha. International media seems to have its job cut out with regard to coverage of the event. Paradoxically, anybody hardly noted the elections in the same country in July 2009. Again, the probable reason was that the results were presumably anticipated. As expected, Kurmanbek Bakiyev and his coterie ‘manipulated’ the elections to remain seated in power.
However, demonstrations at Naryn in February 2010 hinted that the political atmosphere in Kyrgyzstan had started to boil. The April upsurge at Talas and then in Bishkek and other areas finally forced Bakiyev to flee to Belarus. By now, these are all well known events.
It is also accepted at large that Kurmanbek Bakiyev was under the influence of alcohol and very much driven by his son Maxim and his brother Janysh. 12 hour power cuts in Kyrgyzstan with alleged reports that it was being sold to neighbours at the behest of Maxim generated enough outrage to finally topple the government. Amusingly, this was the very structure which had entrenched itself after displacing Akayev in the so-called ‘Tulip Revolution’ in March 2005.
The thing that needs to be deciphered though, at this juncture, is the reason behind the ethnic unrest in Kyrgyzstan in June 2010 which shook the very foundations of the fledgling ‘interim government’ led by Rosa Otunbayeva.
Quite naturally, the interim government squarely blamed Maxim Bakiyev behind the ethnic disturbances. According to them, it was financially funded by the Bakiyevs and physically abetted by Islamist Fundamentalists.
However, the government does not have any cogent proof to corroborate its arguments.
There is no doubt that the southern cities of Osh and Jalal-abad are traditional strongholds of the Bakiyev family. And these were the cities where the ethnic disturbances mostly took place. It is also a fact that Kyrgyzstan shares borders with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in its southern areas where the biggest post-Soviet Central Asian terrorist group: Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) is assumed to be active.
Moreover, an apparently peaceful Islamic organisation called Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT) reportedly has close links with the IMU. The final aim of both the parties is to overthrow secular governments and establish a caliphate in Central Asia. Interestingly, HuT has more members in south Kyrgyzstan than in the north.
Very recently, Usmon Odil, who replaced the late Tahir Yuldashev as chief of the IMU, has called for jihad against those responsible for killing Uzbeks in southern Kyrgyzstan. In a video, Odil said: “This is a blood-soaked tragedy, one of a series of sordid plots against Muslims, organised by a government of heretics. May Allah have Muslims make the right decision and be able to take the path of jihad.”
These words of Usmon are supposed to be more of rhetoric than portraying reality. IMU has been pushed to a sort of operational bankruptcy in Afghanistan. Hence it needs new fertile grounds to rejuvenate its cadres. Presently, it does not pose as an ominous military threat though for an already unbalanced Kyrgyzstan, a minor perturbation may be enough.
Also the above data do not necessarily indicate that the Islamist Fundamentalists were the actual perpetrators of the June disturbances. Rather it shows that unrest generally creates greener pastures for jihadi activism. At the same time, Bakiyev and his group are not to be exonerated from being assumed as masterminds behind the pogrom. There is a straightforward logic substantiating their involvement; i.e. turmoil in the country could have dislodged Otunbayeva’s government and somehow saved the Bakiyevs.
Plainly speaking, a proper and neutral fact finding analysis needs to be carried out to unravel the mystery. With elections round the corner on October 10 and campaigning in full flow, there are high chances that the ongoing investigations into the June disturbances would contain political colour.
In fact, the decision to imprison human rights activist Azimzhan Askarov for life was met with protests both inside as well as outside Kyrgyzstan. A local court in the village of Nooken near Jalal-abad had sentenced him and seven other ethnic Uzbeks guilty of murdering Myktybek Sulaimanov in June during violent clashes between Uzbeks and Kyrgyz in the village of Bazar-Korgon.
This is definite a pointer that in South Kyrgyzstan, the authority may be skewed against the Uzbeks. In fact, the Mayor of Osh, Melis Myrzakmatov appears to be a man with doubtful credentials. Though he was appointed Mayor in January 2009 during the Bakiyev-era, he quickly changed his political colour when the latter was losing ground.
Independent researches have hinted that the mobs during the carnage were well organised and it is quite likely that they were covertly being aided by the authorities, especially in Osh. In fact, the statement passed by the Mayor that he wants to ‘work exclusively for his Kyrgyz nation’ further complicate matters.
Incidentally, the violence in June has created a power vacuum in southern Kyrgyzstan. The position of the interim government is quite fragile there. Melis Myrzakmatov is acting as a power broker. In this scenario, to expect anything meaningful in terms of bringing the actual ‘June criminals’ to book is not logical as people like Myrzakmatov might be wielding enough political clout to camouflage the hooligans.
In sum, the parliamentary elections shall be an ‘acid test’ for Otunbayeva’s government. It did pass the June referendum with honours. But the elections in the next month may pose formidable problems for her government.
A couple of things have to be watched out for. Obviously, it needs to be seen which party comes out victorious. A record 29 political parties are fighting it out for 120 parliamentary seats. Interestingly, despite the April ouster of Kurmanbek Bakiyev, a number of parties are being led by his former officials. For instance, “Atazhurt” is led by former emergency minister Kamychbek Tashiyev and “Butun Kyrgyzstan” is being led by former security secretaries Adakham Madumarov and Miroslav Niyazov.
Another thing of importance is to see which political arrangement can provide maximum stability to Kyrgyzstan. Moreover, if the country further descends into chaos, then what shall be the role of multigovernment organisations like OSCE and SCO in general and Russia and America in particular?
The answers to these questions are very crucial to predict the future of Kyrgyzstan. Will it survive the present crisis? The key to this query lies in the success of the ‘new democratic process’ and how the present as well as the future government(s) tackle the ethnic crisis.
published in Diplomatic Courier
http://www.diplomaticourier.org/kmitan/articleback.php?newsid=571
24 September, 2010
18 September, 2010
Why India must focus on Africa
by Uddipan Mukherjee and Indira Mukherjee
One hundred and seventeen years back, a scraggy gentleman commenced his professional career in Africa. Though he carried on with his vocation, the gentleman could not remain apathetic to the plight of Indians residing in the continent’s southernmost region. In a letter to the Natal Advertiser, he asked: “Is this Christian-like, is this fair play, is this justice, is this civilization?”
It hardly requires any authoritative scholarship to discern the identity of the gentleman. Yes, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi left an indelible imprint in South Africa. His efforts against racial discrimination in South Africa are beyond praise. While sculpting a history of modernity, the ‘tallness’ of this man simply cannot be ignored. He was the first perceivable and visible link between India and Africa.
Six decades have gone by, sixty three years to be precise; and the time has necessarily not come but surely gone past: the time to seize the opportunity to emulate Gandhi in order to weave a bond between the two (sub) continents.
India’s Foreign Policy
When an analysis of Indian Foreign Policy is carried out, one is a bit bewildered that it lacks a coherent framework. Arguments may be posited that foreign policy needs to be dynamical and cannot be subsumed in an overarching theory. No doubt, yes. However, it does not imply that a nation-state must not possess a set direction and consistent ideology. Twists and turns depending on the context are tactical moves but not strategic shifts in any manner.
India though, does have a loose set of doctrines as far as foreign policy is concerned. And that ideology was proclaimed by none other than Gandhi’s most favoured disciple; Jawaharlal Nehru. Successive Indian governments, whether the centrist-Congress or the socialist-Morarji or even the so-called ‘reactionary’ right wing have more or less followed it over the years without completely dismantling it. The lofty ideals of Non-Alignment gave India emotional and ethical space in the world podium undoubtedly, but snatched away from it the weaponry of Realpolitik. Our leaders kept on receiving adulations (or did they?) from outside and as an ‘insider’ we felt the pangs of being left behind.
The germane question is in a post-1991 and more so in a post 9/11 world, what is the viable formula for a developing nation’s foreign policy? With a hegemonic America, a resurgent Russia, a ‘rising’ China and a ‘belligerent’ Pakistan lurking around, the Indian policy makers have their work cut out. In this scenario, in which direction should India move to generate maximum benefit to its masses without compromising on its core principle of ‘live and let live’?
A feasible solution which India has hopefully at last started to implement is the ‘soft diplomacy’. India is ‘infiltrating’ countries like Afghanistan and Bangladesh; but not with a target to subjugate or exploit. India’s sole aim is to permeate the socio-cultural and economic matrix of a country without blowing the trumpets.
Indian software, Bollywood films, our technical know-how and English-speaking workforce and a mammoth manpower are by every means intimidating. Instead of us being cowed down by Chinese forays into Africa or Central Asia or its alliance with ASEAN or even its flirtations in our immediate neighbourhood; India needs to pump up its own muscles since its tendons are strong enough.
In this aspect, one thing is noteworthy. Some analysts view that anyone advocating India to be pro-active in Africa or Latin America or for that matter Central Asia is necessarily ‘hawkish’ in stance and an ‘emulationist’ in principle. To them, if one suggests India to be pro-active, then the person is basically asking South Block to follow China’s footsteps. And since India is not ‘strong enough’ as China is, no point in imitating the dragon. However, even such commentators are not averse to India making inroads into regions of present Chinese dominance.
Actually, we need to appreciate the fact that China is indeed a ‘rising’ power and our relations with that country are far from normal; the recent development in Gilgit-Baltistan is a case in point. Hence if we can counter China, then it would be to our benefit.
So, there is no harm in framing a China-focused foreign policy and that does not make us ‘hawkish’.
Rather it is a security imperative. Even Lord Meghnad Desai seems to be wary of China when he says: “The Great Game is alive again. In the 19th century, it was Russia looking for a salt water port. Now it is China and China seems to be winning the Great Game.”
Among other things, China has spread its tentacles in Africa in a big manner and India simply cannot afford to miss the bus.
The African Pie?
The ‘Scramble for Africa’ began during the period of New Imperialism (in the late nineteenth century). It led to the economic subjugation and political domination over the continent. Though most African colonies were faithful to the European powers during the two world wars but after 1945, they started to throw off the yoke of foreign powers and gradually emerged victorious.
Thus, it is no surprise that in 2010, 17 African nations celebrate 50 years of their independence. The ‘dark continent’ is now on the path to modernity and globalization. From the Aswan dam to Kalahari Desert, Africa can be viewed as a tapestry of different cultures. From the geo-strategic and geo-economic perspective, there has been a significant rise in the importance of Africa owing to its location, oil deposits, mineral wealth, booming market and rich bio-diversity.
Viewed through the prism of History, trade links between India and Africa were restricted mostly to the countries in the ‘Horn of Africa’. In the 6th Century A.D., Indian ships flocked to the Ethiopian ports to trade in silk and spices.
India’s Recent Inroads into Africa
In recent years, most of the focus has been on trade, investment and economic relations. Indo-African trade has reached $35 billion and the target is to double it by 2014.
India launched the “Focus Africa” programme under the EXIM (Export-Import) Policy 2002-07, thus providing financial assistance to various inter-regional trade promotion schemes. As a result, members of India Inc. have made substantial investments in Africa.
In the Defence sector, India assists countries like Nigeria, Zambia and Botswana through training. Co-operation in health care, agriculture, mining, hydrocarbon sectors are also on the rise. Interestingly, Nigeria is the largest African crude oil supplier to India. Recently, a $200 million project to lay a pipeline from Khartoum to Port Sudan on the Red sea was also completed by India. Also in recognition of India’s growing role as an industrial and economic power, last year Egypt offered India to set up an ‘India Zone’ along the Suez Canal development area.
Indian firms have invested around $3 billion in Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique and Madagascar to produce wide variety of food and bio-fuel crops. Indian government also provides cheap lines of credit to these countries.
Furthermore, in 2009, India signed a civilian nuclear deal to trade in Uranium and build nuclear power plants with Namibia.
In July 2010, an Indian delegation participated in the 15th summit of the African Union (AU), which is an association of 53 African countries. Emphasis was laid on various aspects of the decisions taken in the India-Africa Forum Summit (IAFS) of 2008.
But is India doing enough? Is it not falling back in the race vis-à-vis China?
In 2009, China emerged as the largest trading partner of Africa, with bilateral trade touching $ 90 bn. The forum on China-Africa Cooperation was initiated way back in 2000. China is also involved in multiple infrastructural projects like dams, bridges, roads etc often in exchange of future mineral rights. It also constantly provides African countries with ‘soft loans’ and economic packages. Thus, the Chinese footprint is deeply and clearly visible on the African soil.
China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council whereas India is still struggling to be one. At present, India is all set to contest the post of a non-permanent member in January 2011. Thus, it becomes imperative to garner the support of AU. Possibly, this was the raison d’etre for Vice President Hamid Ansari’s visit to Zambia, Malawi, Botswana, Mauritius and Mozambique early this year.
Recommendations
India and Africa, both being members of the Commonwealth, the tri-continental India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) and NAM, can also try to improve their relations through these associations. In an effort to boost trade ties, India can plan to provide duty-free access to products from African countries. It can also work on double taxation avoidance mechanism with member countries. Also, in the wake of piracy attacks in the Gulf of Aden, Indian Navy has a scope to play a bigger role.
It will also be praiseworthy, if India can hold regular summit level meetings with African nations. India can also set up more consulate offices in AU countries. Organizing Indo-African games would be an innovative idea as well. Increasing contact with the Indian Diaspora in Africa would be a welcome step as they can play a large role in strengthening bilateral ties. Also, significant efforts should be made to increase ground contacts i.e. Indian officials in Africa should be appropriately trained in local languages.
Another area which can be strengthened is Indian Technical and Economic Co-operation Programme (ITEC) which aims to develop human resource through various trainings and workshops in target countries. On another front, the Indian sponsored Pan-African e-Network (in partnership with the AU) which links 53 countries through tele-medicine, education and governance, plays a crucial role in developing skills and resources that are critical for Africa’s growth.
India has emerged as the largest contributor to UN mandated operations in Africa, with a cumulative effort totaling more than 30,000 personnel. Its operations are spread across Congo, Somalia, Sudan, Sierra Leone etc. UN has also expressed satisfaction with India's performance and role in these missions. Events like the latest developments in Congo in August this year where three of its officers were killed by rebels, should not discourage India in any manner.
India has to convince Africa of its long term commitments in the continent which are unlike the ‘short term’ Chinese interests. There are rising fears in Africa of China's aggressive economic policy which threatens to take over its resources and means of production. The Chinese supply of arms to local elite, involvement in regional conflicts and its record of human rights violation could also boomerang in the long run.
India and Africa can share a symbiotic relationship. And the onus is on India to convince the Africans.
As Sunil Bharti Mittal aptly points out in an interview: “I believe the next decade is going to belong to Africa. India and China are driving the economy but where will it all move next? Africa is the next continent.”
Indira Mukherjee writes for Indian Policy
this article has been submitted for publication to Uday India
One hundred and seventeen years back, a scraggy gentleman commenced his professional career in Africa. Though he carried on with his vocation, the gentleman could not remain apathetic to the plight of Indians residing in the continent’s southernmost region. In a letter to the Natal Advertiser, he asked: “Is this Christian-like, is this fair play, is this justice, is this civilization?”
It hardly requires any authoritative scholarship to discern the identity of the gentleman. Yes, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi left an indelible imprint in South Africa. His efforts against racial discrimination in South Africa are beyond praise. While sculpting a history of modernity, the ‘tallness’ of this man simply cannot be ignored. He was the first perceivable and visible link between India and Africa.
Six decades have gone by, sixty three years to be precise; and the time has necessarily not come but surely gone past: the time to seize the opportunity to emulate Gandhi in order to weave a bond between the two (sub) continents.
India’s Foreign Policy
When an analysis of Indian Foreign Policy is carried out, one is a bit bewildered that it lacks a coherent framework. Arguments may be posited that foreign policy needs to be dynamical and cannot be subsumed in an overarching theory. No doubt, yes. However, it does not imply that a nation-state must not possess a set direction and consistent ideology. Twists and turns depending on the context are tactical moves but not strategic shifts in any manner.
India though, does have a loose set of doctrines as far as foreign policy is concerned. And that ideology was proclaimed by none other than Gandhi’s most favoured disciple; Jawaharlal Nehru. Successive Indian governments, whether the centrist-Congress or the socialist-Morarji or even the so-called ‘reactionary’ right wing have more or less followed it over the years without completely dismantling it. The lofty ideals of Non-Alignment gave India emotional and ethical space in the world podium undoubtedly, but snatched away from it the weaponry of Realpolitik. Our leaders kept on receiving adulations (or did they?) from outside and as an ‘insider’ we felt the pangs of being left behind.
The germane question is in a post-1991 and more so in a post 9/11 world, what is the viable formula for a developing nation’s foreign policy? With a hegemonic America, a resurgent Russia, a ‘rising’ China and a ‘belligerent’ Pakistan lurking around, the Indian policy makers have their work cut out. In this scenario, in which direction should India move to generate maximum benefit to its masses without compromising on its core principle of ‘live and let live’?
A feasible solution which India has hopefully at last started to implement is the ‘soft diplomacy’. India is ‘infiltrating’ countries like Afghanistan and Bangladesh; but not with a target to subjugate or exploit. India’s sole aim is to permeate the socio-cultural and economic matrix of a country without blowing the trumpets.
Indian software, Bollywood films, our technical know-how and English-speaking workforce and a mammoth manpower are by every means intimidating. Instead of us being cowed down by Chinese forays into Africa or Central Asia or its alliance with ASEAN or even its flirtations in our immediate neighbourhood; India needs to pump up its own muscles since its tendons are strong enough.
In this aspect, one thing is noteworthy. Some analysts view that anyone advocating India to be pro-active in Africa or Latin America or for that matter Central Asia is necessarily ‘hawkish’ in stance and an ‘emulationist’ in principle. To them, if one suggests India to be pro-active, then the person is basically asking South Block to follow China’s footsteps. And since India is not ‘strong enough’ as China is, no point in imitating the dragon. However, even such commentators are not averse to India making inroads into regions of present Chinese dominance.
Actually, we need to appreciate the fact that China is indeed a ‘rising’ power and our relations with that country are far from normal; the recent development in Gilgit-Baltistan is a case in point. Hence if we can counter China, then it would be to our benefit.
So, there is no harm in framing a China-focused foreign policy and that does not make us ‘hawkish’.
Rather it is a security imperative. Even Lord Meghnad Desai seems to be wary of China when he says: “The Great Game is alive again. In the 19th century, it was Russia looking for a salt water port. Now it is China and China seems to be winning the Great Game.”
Among other things, China has spread its tentacles in Africa in a big manner and India simply cannot afford to miss the bus.
The African Pie?
The ‘Scramble for Africa’ began during the period of New Imperialism (in the late nineteenth century). It led to the economic subjugation and political domination over the continent. Though most African colonies were faithful to the European powers during the two world wars but after 1945, they started to throw off the yoke of foreign powers and gradually emerged victorious.
Thus, it is no surprise that in 2010, 17 African nations celebrate 50 years of their independence. The ‘dark continent’ is now on the path to modernity and globalization. From the Aswan dam to Kalahari Desert, Africa can be viewed as a tapestry of different cultures. From the geo-strategic and geo-economic perspective, there has been a significant rise in the importance of Africa owing to its location, oil deposits, mineral wealth, booming market and rich bio-diversity.
Viewed through the prism of History, trade links between India and Africa were restricted mostly to the countries in the ‘Horn of Africa’. In the 6th Century A.D., Indian ships flocked to the Ethiopian ports to trade in silk and spices.
India’s Recent Inroads into Africa
In recent years, most of the focus has been on trade, investment and economic relations. Indo-African trade has reached $35 billion and the target is to double it by 2014.
India launched the “Focus Africa” programme under the EXIM (Export-Import) Policy 2002-07, thus providing financial assistance to various inter-regional trade promotion schemes. As a result, members of India Inc. have made substantial investments in Africa.
In the Defence sector, India assists countries like Nigeria, Zambia and Botswana through training. Co-operation in health care, agriculture, mining, hydrocarbon sectors are also on the rise. Interestingly, Nigeria is the largest African crude oil supplier to India. Recently, a $200 million project to lay a pipeline from Khartoum to Port Sudan on the Red sea was also completed by India. Also in recognition of India’s growing role as an industrial and economic power, last year Egypt offered India to set up an ‘India Zone’ along the Suez Canal development area.
Indian firms have invested around $3 billion in Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique and Madagascar to produce wide variety of food and bio-fuel crops. Indian government also provides cheap lines of credit to these countries.
Furthermore, in 2009, India signed a civilian nuclear deal to trade in Uranium and build nuclear power plants with Namibia.
In July 2010, an Indian delegation participated in the 15th summit of the African Union (AU), which is an association of 53 African countries. Emphasis was laid on various aspects of the decisions taken in the India-Africa Forum Summit (IAFS) of 2008.
But is India doing enough? Is it not falling back in the race vis-à-vis China?
In 2009, China emerged as the largest trading partner of Africa, with bilateral trade touching $ 90 bn. The forum on China-Africa Cooperation was initiated way back in 2000. China is also involved in multiple infrastructural projects like dams, bridges, roads etc often in exchange of future mineral rights. It also constantly provides African countries with ‘soft loans’ and economic packages. Thus, the Chinese footprint is deeply and clearly visible on the African soil.
China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council whereas India is still struggling to be one. At present, India is all set to contest the post of a non-permanent member in January 2011. Thus, it becomes imperative to garner the support of AU. Possibly, this was the raison d’etre for Vice President Hamid Ansari’s visit to Zambia, Malawi, Botswana, Mauritius and Mozambique early this year.
Recommendations
India and Africa, both being members of the Commonwealth, the tri-continental India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) and NAM, can also try to improve their relations through these associations. In an effort to boost trade ties, India can plan to provide duty-free access to products from African countries. It can also work on double taxation avoidance mechanism with member countries. Also, in the wake of piracy attacks in the Gulf of Aden, Indian Navy has a scope to play a bigger role.
It will also be praiseworthy, if India can hold regular summit level meetings with African nations. India can also set up more consulate offices in AU countries. Organizing Indo-African games would be an innovative idea as well. Increasing contact with the Indian Diaspora in Africa would be a welcome step as they can play a large role in strengthening bilateral ties. Also, significant efforts should be made to increase ground contacts i.e. Indian officials in Africa should be appropriately trained in local languages.
Another area which can be strengthened is Indian Technical and Economic Co-operation Programme (ITEC) which aims to develop human resource through various trainings and workshops in target countries. On another front, the Indian sponsored Pan-African e-Network (in partnership with the AU) which links 53 countries through tele-medicine, education and governance, plays a crucial role in developing skills and resources that are critical for Africa’s growth.
India has emerged as the largest contributor to UN mandated operations in Africa, with a cumulative effort totaling more than 30,000 personnel. Its operations are spread across Congo, Somalia, Sudan, Sierra Leone etc. UN has also expressed satisfaction with India's performance and role in these missions. Events like the latest developments in Congo in August this year where three of its officers were killed by rebels, should not discourage India in any manner.
India has to convince Africa of its long term commitments in the continent which are unlike the ‘short term’ Chinese interests. There are rising fears in Africa of China's aggressive economic policy which threatens to take over its resources and means of production. The Chinese supply of arms to local elite, involvement in regional conflicts and its record of human rights violation could also boomerang in the long run.
India and Africa can share a symbiotic relationship. And the onus is on India to convince the Africans.
As Sunil Bharti Mittal aptly points out in an interview: “I believe the next decade is going to belong to Africa. India and China are driving the economy but where will it all move next? Africa is the next continent.”
Indira Mukherjee writes for Indian Policy
this article has been submitted for publication to Uday India
14 September, 2010
India and Bangladesh: Worthy of Credit
by Uddipan Mukherjee and Rajeev Sharma
published by the South Asia Analysis Group
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers41/paper4032.html
It seems that New Delhi has finally come out of its diplomatic cocoon, at least as far as its immediate eastern neighbour is concerned. A $1 billion credit outflow accorded to Bangladesh, interestingly; is the highest that both countries may contemplate thus far.
Though analysts may argue that such disbursal of funds by the ‘big neighbour’ was already in the pipeline as per the Joint Communique signed by Sheikh Hasina and Dr Manmohan Singh in January this year when the former paid a visit to New Delhi, her first ever after coming back to authority in 2009. Nevertheless, Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s rendezvous with Hasina at Gano Bhaban on August 8 merit attention. It gave a practical shape to diplomatic formalities and provided meaty substance to dry rhetoric. It was a reality, a rather fruitful one for both the nations and not a chimera.
There is no gainsaying the fact that Bangladesh holds both geo-strategic and concomitantly geo-economic significance for India. If New Delhi needs to permanently strengthen its strategic hold in South Asia, then forging amiable relations with the countries in its backyard is an imperative. More so, when India has to tread cautiously with belligerent states lurking around; with China and its Pakistani proxy deserving an obvious mention in this regard.
On the other hand, Dhaka has to be pragmatic. Fomenting Islamic Fundamentalism and churning anti-India tirade at the behest of countries which are separated from it geographically, linguistically as well as ethnographically would imply a further detachment from reality. Moreover, acting as a satellite state of ‘upstart’ regional powers is sure to lead Bangladesh to yet another ‘failed state’ for the worse and destabilise it at best.
However, if the two countries can maneuver their ties in the present manner, then their diplomatic boat would not be rudderless; at least in the foreseeable future.
The Hasina Era
Ever since Sheikh Hasina won the parliamentary elections in Bangladesh on December 28, 2008 and assumed office as Prime Minister on January 6, 2009 for the second time (her first tenure was from 1996 to 2001), new vistas have opened up in Indo-Bangla relations. Actually, bilateral relations between New Delhi and Dhaka had touched rock bottom during the second tenure of the then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia (2001-06). It was no clandestine affair that during Khaleda’s period, Islamic Fundamentalists found a new haven in Bangladesh in a post 9/11 world.
Begum Zia’s second tenure was virtually a proxy of Islamabad and the ISI. In fact the latter was never more powerful in that country than in those five years. This was also the time when the ‘Chinese Dragon’ could spout fire in Bangladesh.
Apart from ‘political fate’, Pakistan and China would surely blame both Hasina and to a large extent Pranab Mukherjee for the present heightened bonhomie between the two nations which does not augur well for either of them.
In fact, such is the level of synergy and proximity between Sheikh Hasina and Mukherjee that when the latter took over as the Indian Finance Minister, Hasina set aside all protocol and rang him up to congratulate him.
The Hasina government didn’t belie Indian expectations and this unprecedented line of credit by India has to be interpreted in that light. It took firm action against anti-India terrorist outfits on its soil and ordered a heavy clampdown over those groups in the last couple of years. That kind of action has led to the arrest of over a dozen suspected Islamic militants belonging to outfits like Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). Incidentally, the LeT, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Harkat-ul-Jihad-e-Islami (HuJI) are among the 15 foreign terror groups who were active or may be still covertly operating in Bangladesh since 1991.
The Deal
Scrutinising the Indo-Bangla one billion US dollar deal more closely, one finds that India’s diplomatic acumen was at its recent best. For instance, the main terms and conditions of the credit line agreement, inter alia, include a low fixed rate of interest of 1.75 per cent per annum. It necessarily reflects India’s magnanimity on one hand and supposedly a reverberation of the "Gujral Doctrine" in our foreign policy portfolio on the other. The said principle notes that India should stop ‘calculating’ relationships with its immediate neighbours based purely on a precept of ‘mutual reciprocity’. Rather India should shower benefits so as to generate goodwill among the masses of the concerned country.
However, a half percent commitment fee per annum on unutilised credit after 12 months from the date of approval of the contract adds a ‘business colour’ to the whole programme of apparent largesse. Nonetheless, a 20 years' repayment period including a grace period of five years is by all means a superlative rapprochement scenario for the two countries.
While finally formalising this deal in Dhaka last month, Mukherjee emphatically declared that "this one-billion-dollar line of credit is the largest ever amount given by India to any country." He also meant business through the assertion that "I am confident that this credit line will be the stepping stone for a shared destiny and will transform our bilateral engagement."
India’s Soft Diplomacy
India definitely has taken a page out of America’s diplomatic notebook (not the "Counter Insurgency" notebook though). If New Delhi is seriously keen to establish a ‘Pax Indica’ in her neighbourhood and firmly proclaim its dominance vis-à-vis China, then these kinds of diplomatic maneuvers are essential. They say: ‘when you cannot defeat them, just buy them’. And in Bangladesh’s case, they are ready to be coaxed and molycoddled. There is no rationale for a cassus belli.
Interestingly, India has enlisted a set of 14 projects, primarily infrastructural, under this rubric of Line of Credit. And though it has not set deadlines on any of them, a commitment fee per annum itself is a countervailing measure against procrastination. Furthermore, the envisaged projects shall be an augmentation of Bangladesh’s roadways, railways, port facilities and inland water system, among others.
It is evidently clear that post 9/11, India has embarked on a spirited path of ‘soft diplomacy’ in South Asia. Afghanistan was first and now Bangladesh. In the former, India has put in almost a similar amount but in a phased manner whereas in this case, it seems to be in a hurry. Actually, India is better prepared now than it was in Afghanistan and hence the results. It has been reported that India’s soft diplomacy in the ‘land of the Buzkashi’ has earned it goodwill amongst the ordinary populace. And consequently Islamabad fears marginalisation in Kabul much more now than before.
Former Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor opines that India’s greatest asset in Afghanistan is its exhibition of ‘soft power’. Indian films and soap operas enthral the plebian in ‘the land of Abdali’. Scholastically speaking, this may be interpreted as a sort of ‘invasion’ on the "superstructure" as per Gramscian scheme of things.
And for Bangladesh, this cultural syncretism is evidently clear and does not need to be stressed further upon.
Thus New Delhi’s endeavour is exactly in that direction: to extract goodwill and respect from the citizenry of its immediate eastern neighbour. And with a friendly regime enthroned in Dhaka, life is much easier for South Block. Moreover, the fulcrum of bilateral relations between the two countries, at present is undeniably our ‘cold headed’ politician ‘Pranab-da’ under whose guidance and philosophisation, the engines of economy, trade, commerce, energy et al. is expected to run smooth without periodic lubrication.
Other Developments
To add, very recently, on September 8 2010, India and Bangladesh finalized a railway link agreement to improve connectivity. The link will reduce the distance between Agartala and Kolkata via Guwahati from an arduous 1200 km to just 519 km.
There is also the proposed 13 km long Akhaurah-Agartala railway link, 5.4 km of which would be in the Indian territory. It is to be financed by India. This was agreed upon during the last visit of Sheikh Hasina in January 2010.
Role of the Army
Somewhat surprisingly, Bangladesh Army also deserves encomiums regarding the present harmonious relations between the two countries. It had a major role to play in subduing Islamic Fundamentalism during the Caretaker Government (CG) period of 2007 to January 2009. And the most significant thing it has done is to implant, not only in the psyche of its own people but also in the minds of its neighbours; that a coup d’etat might not be a distinct possibility whenever there is a political turmoil; quite unlike that in Pakistan.
The way present Hasina government could handle the upsurge of the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) in Feb 2009; barely a month after her re-incarnation, bespeaks the covert as well as overt support provided by the Army.
Contentious Issues
Though India and the Hasina government (present as well as past) have taken positive steps to ensure that the problematic bilateral issues are resolved; few things still remain unsolved.
For instance, the proper fencing of the 4096 km long land boundary is yet to be fruitfully achieved. It is one of the perennial problems that India, especially the province of West Bengal, faces with regard to illegal migrants from Bangladesh. The decision to settle the matter was reportedly taken at the highest political level in India on the eve of Sheikh Hasina’s visit to New Delhi. But Manmohan Singh said that small disagreements cannot be allowed to come in the way of a dynamic relationship.
During the Home Secretary level talks in Dhaka (Dec 2009), India had offered a comprehensive agreement to Bangladesh --demarcating the remaining 6.1 km of the 4096 km long boundary, plus settling the matter of adverse possessions and enclaves. Factually speaking, India holds as many as 111 enclaves within Bangladeshi territory amounting to some 17,000 acres of land while Bangladesh holds some 51 enclaves amounting to about 7000 acres in India.
India has now agreed in principle to cede control over its enclaves, even though the difference is about 10,000 acres in Bangladesh’s favour. In other words, once the negotiations are complete, the Indian enclaves in Bangladesh’s territory would be absorbed in Bangladesh and vice-versa.
The Balance of Trade is skewed towards India which Bangladesh laments. Only 1 per cent of India’s imports are from Bangladesh whereas around 20 per cent of Bangladesh’s imports come from India. Closer economic ties between the two countries can offset this huge trade imbalance which can be addressed through greater Indian investment. Bangladesh Government has evinced keen interest in reconsidering investment proposals of the Indian business conglomerate TATA in this regard.
India Trade Fair (ITF) and North East India Trade and Investment Conclave were organised in the Feb 24-28, 2010 in Dhaka. The initiative was intended to attract Indian investment in Bangladesh and it helped the entrepreneurs to explore opportunities.
Bangladesh welcomed the position of the Government of India on reduction of a number of items from India’s negative list. The Joint Communiqué issued after the Bangladesh Prime Minister’s visit indicated that India would encourage import from Bangladesh. There are also indications that India would take steps expeditiously for removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers and port restrictions faced by Bangladeshi exporters. Bangladesh, on the other hand, has agreed to the Indian request for introducing ‘Border Haats’ (haat in Bengali means market).
Another facilitation that India has offered to Bangladesh is connectivity to Nepal and Bhutan through its territory. Trucks from Bhutan and Nepal would enter 200 m into Zero point at Banglabandha-Phulbari land customs station. This would boost trade activities for Bangladesh.
On the other hand, Bangladesh agreed to the Indian proposal to facilitate movement of containerized cargoes by rail and water. In the last week of February 2010, an Indian team visited Bangladesh to discuss the possibility of movement of container cargoes through railways and waterways. A joint group of customs meeting was held in New Delhi and various steps were taken for entry of Bangladeshi products to India.
Another problem zone for the two countries is with distribution of river waters. Interactions between the two countries are being held regularly under various institutional mechanisms. The 37th Joint Rivers Commission (JRC) meeting was held in New Delhi in March 2010 and it will continue to be held regularly to reach broader understanding on the water related issues for greater welfare of both the peoples. A mechanism has been set in motion to facilitate an understanding on sharing of waters of Teesta and other common rivers.
On the Tipaimukh dam issue, which has generated controversies in Bangladesh, India has made it abundantly clear that it would refrain from doing anything that might harm the interests of the other party.
Conclusion
A common thread of pluralistic culture runs between the two countries and their peoples. Both the countries share the legacy of the visionary Rabindra Nath Tagore. Naturally, Bangladesh has expressed a desire to establish a Cultural Center in New Delhi to promote and showcase its cultural heritage.
Importantly, Bangladesh has conveyed support to India’s candidature for permanent membership of the UN Security Council as and when the reform of UN Security Council takes place.
Thus, it may be inferred that the present camaraderie between the two nation-states is expected to herald a new era of bilateral relations. In that venture, keeping in mind China’s ominous forays into Chittagong, and Pakistan’s latent presence through a religious and cultural jihad; India has embarked on the right path of Realpolitik, albeit in a benevolent and apparently libertarian manner.
Hasina’s second innings has made Indo-Bangla relations creditworthy (pun intended). And if soft loan diplomacy is the food of love and cooperation, bring it on. Keeping an eye on China, India needs to replicate its Bangladesh model of soft loan diplomacy in its near abroad, with a laser beam focus on neighbours like Bhutan, Myanmar and Vietnam.
Rajeev Sharma is a New Delhi-based journalist-author and commentator on foreign policy, international relations, terrorism and security issues. He can be reached at
bhootnath004@yahoo.com.
published by the South Asia Analysis Group
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers41/paper4032.html
It seems that New Delhi has finally come out of its diplomatic cocoon, at least as far as its immediate eastern neighbour is concerned. A $1 billion credit outflow accorded to Bangladesh, interestingly; is the highest that both countries may contemplate thus far.
Though analysts may argue that such disbursal of funds by the ‘big neighbour’ was already in the pipeline as per the Joint Communique signed by Sheikh Hasina and Dr Manmohan Singh in January this year when the former paid a visit to New Delhi, her first ever after coming back to authority in 2009. Nevertheless, Indian Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s rendezvous with Hasina at Gano Bhaban on August 8 merit attention. It gave a practical shape to diplomatic formalities and provided meaty substance to dry rhetoric. It was a reality, a rather fruitful one for both the nations and not a chimera.
There is no gainsaying the fact that Bangladesh holds both geo-strategic and concomitantly geo-economic significance for India. If New Delhi needs to permanently strengthen its strategic hold in South Asia, then forging amiable relations with the countries in its backyard is an imperative. More so, when India has to tread cautiously with belligerent states lurking around; with China and its Pakistani proxy deserving an obvious mention in this regard.
On the other hand, Dhaka has to be pragmatic. Fomenting Islamic Fundamentalism and churning anti-India tirade at the behest of countries which are separated from it geographically, linguistically as well as ethnographically would imply a further detachment from reality. Moreover, acting as a satellite state of ‘upstart’ regional powers is sure to lead Bangladesh to yet another ‘failed state’ for the worse and destabilise it at best.
However, if the two countries can maneuver their ties in the present manner, then their diplomatic boat would not be rudderless; at least in the foreseeable future.
The Hasina Era
Ever since Sheikh Hasina won the parliamentary elections in Bangladesh on December 28, 2008 and assumed office as Prime Minister on January 6, 2009 for the second time (her first tenure was from 1996 to 2001), new vistas have opened up in Indo-Bangla relations. Actually, bilateral relations between New Delhi and Dhaka had touched rock bottom during the second tenure of the then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia (2001-06). It was no clandestine affair that during Khaleda’s period, Islamic Fundamentalists found a new haven in Bangladesh in a post 9/11 world.
Begum Zia’s second tenure was virtually a proxy of Islamabad and the ISI. In fact the latter was never more powerful in that country than in those five years. This was also the time when the ‘Chinese Dragon’ could spout fire in Bangladesh.
Apart from ‘political fate’, Pakistan and China would surely blame both Hasina and to a large extent Pranab Mukherjee for the present heightened bonhomie between the two nations which does not augur well for either of them.
In fact, such is the level of synergy and proximity between Sheikh Hasina and Mukherjee that when the latter took over as the Indian Finance Minister, Hasina set aside all protocol and rang him up to congratulate him.
The Hasina government didn’t belie Indian expectations and this unprecedented line of credit by India has to be interpreted in that light. It took firm action against anti-India terrorist outfits on its soil and ordered a heavy clampdown over those groups in the last couple of years. That kind of action has led to the arrest of over a dozen suspected Islamic militants belonging to outfits like Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). Incidentally, the LeT, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Harkat-ul-Jihad-e-Islami (HuJI) are among the 15 foreign terror groups who were active or may be still covertly operating in Bangladesh since 1991.
The Deal
Scrutinising the Indo-Bangla one billion US dollar deal more closely, one finds that India’s diplomatic acumen was at its recent best. For instance, the main terms and conditions of the credit line agreement, inter alia, include a low fixed rate of interest of 1.75 per cent per annum. It necessarily reflects India’s magnanimity on one hand and supposedly a reverberation of the "Gujral Doctrine" in our foreign policy portfolio on the other. The said principle notes that India should stop ‘calculating’ relationships with its immediate neighbours based purely on a precept of ‘mutual reciprocity’. Rather India should shower benefits so as to generate goodwill among the masses of the concerned country.
However, a half percent commitment fee per annum on unutilised credit after 12 months from the date of approval of the contract adds a ‘business colour’ to the whole programme of apparent largesse. Nonetheless, a 20 years' repayment period including a grace period of five years is by all means a superlative rapprochement scenario for the two countries.
While finally formalising this deal in Dhaka last month, Mukherjee emphatically declared that "this one-billion-dollar line of credit is the largest ever amount given by India to any country." He also meant business through the assertion that "I am confident that this credit line will be the stepping stone for a shared destiny and will transform our bilateral engagement."
India’s Soft Diplomacy
India definitely has taken a page out of America’s diplomatic notebook (not the "Counter Insurgency" notebook though). If New Delhi is seriously keen to establish a ‘Pax Indica’ in her neighbourhood and firmly proclaim its dominance vis-à-vis China, then these kinds of diplomatic maneuvers are essential. They say: ‘when you cannot defeat them, just buy them’. And in Bangladesh’s case, they are ready to be coaxed and molycoddled. There is no rationale for a cassus belli.
Interestingly, India has enlisted a set of 14 projects, primarily infrastructural, under this rubric of Line of Credit. And though it has not set deadlines on any of them, a commitment fee per annum itself is a countervailing measure against procrastination. Furthermore, the envisaged projects shall be an augmentation of Bangladesh’s roadways, railways, port facilities and inland water system, among others.
It is evidently clear that post 9/11, India has embarked on a spirited path of ‘soft diplomacy’ in South Asia. Afghanistan was first and now Bangladesh. In the former, India has put in almost a similar amount but in a phased manner whereas in this case, it seems to be in a hurry. Actually, India is better prepared now than it was in Afghanistan and hence the results. It has been reported that India’s soft diplomacy in the ‘land of the Buzkashi’ has earned it goodwill amongst the ordinary populace. And consequently Islamabad fears marginalisation in Kabul much more now than before.
Former Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor opines that India’s greatest asset in Afghanistan is its exhibition of ‘soft power’. Indian films and soap operas enthral the plebian in ‘the land of Abdali’. Scholastically speaking, this may be interpreted as a sort of ‘invasion’ on the "superstructure" as per Gramscian scheme of things.
And for Bangladesh, this cultural syncretism is evidently clear and does not need to be stressed further upon.
Thus New Delhi’s endeavour is exactly in that direction: to extract goodwill and respect from the citizenry of its immediate eastern neighbour. And with a friendly regime enthroned in Dhaka, life is much easier for South Block. Moreover, the fulcrum of bilateral relations between the two countries, at present is undeniably our ‘cold headed’ politician ‘Pranab-da’ under whose guidance and philosophisation, the engines of economy, trade, commerce, energy et al. is expected to run smooth without periodic lubrication.
Other Developments
To add, very recently, on September 8 2010, India and Bangladesh finalized a railway link agreement to improve connectivity. The link will reduce the distance between Agartala and Kolkata via Guwahati from an arduous 1200 km to just 519 km.
There is also the proposed 13 km long Akhaurah-Agartala railway link, 5.4 km of which would be in the Indian territory. It is to be financed by India. This was agreed upon during the last visit of Sheikh Hasina in January 2010.
Role of the Army
Somewhat surprisingly, Bangladesh Army also deserves encomiums regarding the present harmonious relations between the two countries. It had a major role to play in subduing Islamic Fundamentalism during the Caretaker Government (CG) period of 2007 to January 2009. And the most significant thing it has done is to implant, not only in the psyche of its own people but also in the minds of its neighbours; that a coup d’etat might not be a distinct possibility whenever there is a political turmoil; quite unlike that in Pakistan.
The way present Hasina government could handle the upsurge of the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) in Feb 2009; barely a month after her re-incarnation, bespeaks the covert as well as overt support provided by the Army.
Contentious Issues
Though India and the Hasina government (present as well as past) have taken positive steps to ensure that the problematic bilateral issues are resolved; few things still remain unsolved.
For instance, the proper fencing of the 4096 km long land boundary is yet to be fruitfully achieved. It is one of the perennial problems that India, especially the province of West Bengal, faces with regard to illegal migrants from Bangladesh. The decision to settle the matter was reportedly taken at the highest political level in India on the eve of Sheikh Hasina’s visit to New Delhi. But Manmohan Singh said that small disagreements cannot be allowed to come in the way of a dynamic relationship.
During the Home Secretary level talks in Dhaka (Dec 2009), India had offered a comprehensive agreement to Bangladesh --demarcating the remaining 6.1 km of the 4096 km long boundary, plus settling the matter of adverse possessions and enclaves. Factually speaking, India holds as many as 111 enclaves within Bangladeshi territory amounting to some 17,000 acres of land while Bangladesh holds some 51 enclaves amounting to about 7000 acres in India.
India has now agreed in principle to cede control over its enclaves, even though the difference is about 10,000 acres in Bangladesh’s favour. In other words, once the negotiations are complete, the Indian enclaves in Bangladesh’s territory would be absorbed in Bangladesh and vice-versa.
The Balance of Trade is skewed towards India which Bangladesh laments. Only 1 per cent of India’s imports are from Bangladesh whereas around 20 per cent of Bangladesh’s imports come from India. Closer economic ties between the two countries can offset this huge trade imbalance which can be addressed through greater Indian investment. Bangladesh Government has evinced keen interest in reconsidering investment proposals of the Indian business conglomerate TATA in this regard.
India Trade Fair (ITF) and North East India Trade and Investment Conclave were organised in the Feb 24-28, 2010 in Dhaka. The initiative was intended to attract Indian investment in Bangladesh and it helped the entrepreneurs to explore opportunities.
Bangladesh welcomed the position of the Government of India on reduction of a number of items from India’s negative list. The Joint Communiqué issued after the Bangladesh Prime Minister’s visit indicated that India would encourage import from Bangladesh. There are also indications that India would take steps expeditiously for removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers and port restrictions faced by Bangladeshi exporters. Bangladesh, on the other hand, has agreed to the Indian request for introducing ‘Border Haats’ (haat in Bengali means market).
Another facilitation that India has offered to Bangladesh is connectivity to Nepal and Bhutan through its territory. Trucks from Bhutan and Nepal would enter 200 m into Zero point at Banglabandha-Phulbari land customs station. This would boost trade activities for Bangladesh.
On the other hand, Bangladesh agreed to the Indian proposal to facilitate movement of containerized cargoes by rail and water. In the last week of February 2010, an Indian team visited Bangladesh to discuss the possibility of movement of container cargoes through railways and waterways. A joint group of customs meeting was held in New Delhi and various steps were taken for entry of Bangladeshi products to India.
Another problem zone for the two countries is with distribution of river waters. Interactions between the two countries are being held regularly under various institutional mechanisms. The 37th Joint Rivers Commission (JRC) meeting was held in New Delhi in March 2010 and it will continue to be held regularly to reach broader understanding on the water related issues for greater welfare of both the peoples. A mechanism has been set in motion to facilitate an understanding on sharing of waters of Teesta and other common rivers.
On the Tipaimukh dam issue, which has generated controversies in Bangladesh, India has made it abundantly clear that it would refrain from doing anything that might harm the interests of the other party.
Conclusion
A common thread of pluralistic culture runs between the two countries and their peoples. Both the countries share the legacy of the visionary Rabindra Nath Tagore. Naturally, Bangladesh has expressed a desire to establish a Cultural Center in New Delhi to promote and showcase its cultural heritage.
Importantly, Bangladesh has conveyed support to India’s candidature for permanent membership of the UN Security Council as and when the reform of UN Security Council takes place.
Thus, it may be inferred that the present camaraderie between the two nation-states is expected to herald a new era of bilateral relations. In that venture, keeping in mind China’s ominous forays into Chittagong, and Pakistan’s latent presence through a religious and cultural jihad; India has embarked on the right path of Realpolitik, albeit in a benevolent and apparently libertarian manner.
Hasina’s second innings has made Indo-Bangla relations creditworthy (pun intended). And if soft loan diplomacy is the food of love and cooperation, bring it on. Keeping an eye on China, India needs to replicate its Bangladesh model of soft loan diplomacy in its near abroad, with a laser beam focus on neighbours like Bhutan, Myanmar and Vietnam.
Rajeev Sharma is a New Delhi-based journalist-author and commentator on foreign policy, international relations, terrorism and security issues. He can be reached at
bhootnath004@yahoo.com.
The Political Flood
by Uddipan Mukherjee and Rajeev Sharma
Published in The Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS)
http://www.claws.in/index.php?action=master&task=643&u_id=136
Wall Street Journal’s August 16 report that the Inter-Services Intelligence (popularly known by its acronym ISI) has displaced India from the position of Pakistan’s top ‘enemy’; was vindicated in barely two weeks by the string of blasts in major cities of that country, Lahore included. In fact, Pakistan suffered innumerable casualties in 2009 by the rampant ‘fidayeen’ attacks spearheaded by the Tehrik-i-Taliban. Nevertheless, the civil-military authority of the ‘land of the Quaid’ had appeared overtly insouciant with regard to the perceived threat from that angle.
A military operation in Waziristan, a melee in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the US pressures to act against the Taliban Shura nestled in Quetta notwithstanding, the Pakistani military had showcased its strength in its eastern sector last year, citing the decades-long psychoneurotic threat from its ‘childhood enemy’.
The rationale behind such a demeanour was hardly unknown to the world. However, it is ironical that even divine disasters are utilised by the pachyderm power brokers to further their own interests.
Unprecedented floods have wreaked havoc to shatter the economy of the country. Yet, the response as against aid appeals so far is not upto expectations. As the Daily Telegraph, London, pointed in an editorial, that even the Gulf States appear indifferent to the suffering of fellow Muslims in Pakistan, while the offer of help from China, Pakistan’s all-weather friend is paltry.
Does all this underscore the image deficit, if not international pariah status, of Pakistan? It is tempting to reply in the affirmative. But how will that description fit a country, which is regularly hailed as the frontline ally in the ‘global war on terror’?
A time comes in every nation’s life when it has to confront reality and the floods have merely hastened that denouement for Pakistan. The international community has refused to share the entire flood burden as it did earlier on so many occasions. For Pakistan’s government though, all that aid was Zakat, and hence nothing out of the ordinary.
The apposite answer to the above stated query is that Islamabad’s continued dalliance with the ISI-created terror outfits even as it received billions of dollars in aid to fight the very menace of terrorism itself; is in essence the raison d’etre of the changed ‘global view’ toward Pakistan. Things have reached such an impasse that British Prime Minister David Cameron asked Pakistan to stop looking ‘both ways’. His remarks, according to a British daily, carried the endorsement of the White House.
The Daily Telegraph, which is in the forefront of the global media campaign for Pakistan, has not helped her cause either. Its correspondent, Dean Nelson, reported from Islamabad that more than £300 million in foreign aid for the victims of 2005 earthquake was misused by the Zardari government. The dispatch went on to say that ‘officials now feared that the alleged diversion of funds will deter donors from showering further aid’.
So, Pakistan’s desperation, if any, at ‘image make over’ makes perfect sense but not its reported readiness to give up its paranoia about India as its ‘number one’ enemy. Is one to construe that what the Americans failed to achieve in multiple visits, the flood fury did in a matter of weeks, and nixed Rawalpinidi (the general headquarters of the army) in conjuring up fears of an Indian attack?
Theorisations aside, India is central to Pakistani policies. The Army chief Kayani has made this unequivocally clear on more than one occasion. Interestingly, before taking up the present job, he headed the ISI, which has made this famous ‘India is not our main threat’ disclosure to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Even Gen. Athar Abbas, the chief Pakistan military spokesman, said he wasn't aware of ISI’s recent assessment pertaining to the threat (or the lack of it) from across the eastern side of Indus.
Incidentally, the deluge as well as the ‘renewed blasts’ demand a roll back of the army’s traditional policy of hostility towards India; at least in public. And the ‘story’ in the American economic daily simply bears an insignia to that. In fact, as if in resonance with the said report, President Zardari, on the occasion of ‘Defence Day’, expressed fears of an ‘existential threat’ to Pakistan due to ‘terrorism’ and ‘natural disaster’. And it is a matter of further bemusement that Zardari passed such a statement on a day which the Pakistanis commemorate as their defence of Lahore from the Indians in 1965!
On the other hand, the WSJ report must have come as a big relief to the US lawmakers, who have been told by the Congressional Research Service that “the American interests are primarily focused on Pakistan’s ability to control its territory to prevent it from being used as a haven for anti-American terrorists, and prevent inter-state conflict with India that would be regionally destabilising”.
Any how, who will check if the civil-military administration of Pakistan is actually in tune with the afore-mentioned media reports? Will the Americans do it? It remains a matter of speculation because the US relishes its stakes in the sub-continent not only as a ‘friend’ but also as a seller of goods and services through a uniquely American-esque multi-speak. Indians can check and hit the high octave but will the West at all bother about their Pakistani bogey? After all, India has no Haqqani network to drive out!
And what if the flood-induced discontent threatens the very fundamentals of the military establishment and political system of Pakistan? No guesses. It would definitely mean a re-establishment of India as Pakistan’s ‘enemy number one’.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajeev Sharma is a senior journalist-cum-author based in New Delhi. He writes in several global media outlets.
Published in The Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS)
http://www.claws.in/index.php?action=master&task=643&u_id=136
Wall Street Journal’s August 16 report that the Inter-Services Intelligence (popularly known by its acronym ISI) has displaced India from the position of Pakistan’s top ‘enemy’; was vindicated in barely two weeks by the string of blasts in major cities of that country, Lahore included. In fact, Pakistan suffered innumerable casualties in 2009 by the rampant ‘fidayeen’ attacks spearheaded by the Tehrik-i-Taliban. Nevertheless, the civil-military authority of the ‘land of the Quaid’ had appeared overtly insouciant with regard to the perceived threat from that angle.
A military operation in Waziristan, a melee in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the US pressures to act against the Taliban Shura nestled in Quetta notwithstanding, the Pakistani military had showcased its strength in its eastern sector last year, citing the decades-long psychoneurotic threat from its ‘childhood enemy’.
The rationale behind such a demeanour was hardly unknown to the world. However, it is ironical that even divine disasters are utilised by the pachyderm power brokers to further their own interests.
Unprecedented floods have wreaked havoc to shatter the economy of the country. Yet, the response as against aid appeals so far is not upto expectations. As the Daily Telegraph, London, pointed in an editorial, that even the Gulf States appear indifferent to the suffering of fellow Muslims in Pakistan, while the offer of help from China, Pakistan’s all-weather friend is paltry.
Does all this underscore the image deficit, if not international pariah status, of Pakistan? It is tempting to reply in the affirmative. But how will that description fit a country, which is regularly hailed as the frontline ally in the ‘global war on terror’?
A time comes in every nation’s life when it has to confront reality and the floods have merely hastened that denouement for Pakistan. The international community has refused to share the entire flood burden as it did earlier on so many occasions. For Pakistan’s government though, all that aid was Zakat, and hence nothing out of the ordinary.
The apposite answer to the above stated query is that Islamabad’s continued dalliance with the ISI-created terror outfits even as it received billions of dollars in aid to fight the very menace of terrorism itself; is in essence the raison d’etre of the changed ‘global view’ toward Pakistan. Things have reached such an impasse that British Prime Minister David Cameron asked Pakistan to stop looking ‘both ways’. His remarks, according to a British daily, carried the endorsement of the White House.
The Daily Telegraph, which is in the forefront of the global media campaign for Pakistan, has not helped her cause either. Its correspondent, Dean Nelson, reported from Islamabad that more than £300 million in foreign aid for the victims of 2005 earthquake was misused by the Zardari government. The dispatch went on to say that ‘officials now feared that the alleged diversion of funds will deter donors from showering further aid’.
So, Pakistan’s desperation, if any, at ‘image make over’ makes perfect sense but not its reported readiness to give up its paranoia about India as its ‘number one’ enemy. Is one to construe that what the Americans failed to achieve in multiple visits, the flood fury did in a matter of weeks, and nixed Rawalpinidi (the general headquarters of the army) in conjuring up fears of an Indian attack?
Theorisations aside, India is central to Pakistani policies. The Army chief Kayani has made this unequivocally clear on more than one occasion. Interestingly, before taking up the present job, he headed the ISI, which has made this famous ‘India is not our main threat’ disclosure to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Even Gen. Athar Abbas, the chief Pakistan military spokesman, said he wasn't aware of ISI’s recent assessment pertaining to the threat (or the lack of it) from across the eastern side of Indus.
Incidentally, the deluge as well as the ‘renewed blasts’ demand a roll back of the army’s traditional policy of hostility towards India; at least in public. And the ‘story’ in the American economic daily simply bears an insignia to that. In fact, as if in resonance with the said report, President Zardari, on the occasion of ‘Defence Day’, expressed fears of an ‘existential threat’ to Pakistan due to ‘terrorism’ and ‘natural disaster’. And it is a matter of further bemusement that Zardari passed such a statement on a day which the Pakistanis commemorate as their defence of Lahore from the Indians in 1965!
On the other hand, the WSJ report must have come as a big relief to the US lawmakers, who have been told by the Congressional Research Service that “the American interests are primarily focused on Pakistan’s ability to control its territory to prevent it from being used as a haven for anti-American terrorists, and prevent inter-state conflict with India that would be regionally destabilising”.
Any how, who will check if the civil-military administration of Pakistan is actually in tune with the afore-mentioned media reports? Will the Americans do it? It remains a matter of speculation because the US relishes its stakes in the sub-continent not only as a ‘friend’ but also as a seller of goods and services through a uniquely American-esque multi-speak. Indians can check and hit the high octave but will the West at all bother about their Pakistani bogey? After all, India has no Haqqani network to drive out!
And what if the flood-induced discontent threatens the very fundamentals of the military establishment and political system of Pakistan? No guesses. It would definitely mean a re-establishment of India as Pakistan’s ‘enemy number one’.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rajeev Sharma is a senior journalist-cum-author based in New Delhi. He writes in several global media outlets.
06 September, 2010
Ominous Projects
Yahoo NewsSun, Sep 5 03:59 PM
Comment: Do we still need a rationale in boosting up our defence wherewithal keeping in mind the Chinese threat perception? Moreover, let us fix our stand point regarding POK and Gilgit-Baltistan.
=======================================================================
While India has independently confirmed that the presence of Chinese troops in Gilgit and Baltistan is a bit exaggerated in terms of numbers, the real concern here is on the number of projects and works China has undertaken in those areas and in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK). And the footprint is only growing larger.
At last count, South Block had noticed at least 17 confirmed projects in PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan.
These constitute more than half the Chinese projects in areas under Pakistan's control, making it a cause of major concern because of the disputed status of the areas. At present, according to government inputs, 122 Chinese companies are active in Pakistan, and most of them are also involved in projects in PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan areas.
China, sources said, has suddenly increased its involvement in almost every key sector, and has virtually taken upon itself the responsibility of building basic infrastructure in these areas. The list of projects range from providing mobile connectivity services to building power projects, highways and rail links.
Karakoram Highway upgradation: The China Road and Bridge Corporation has taken up this project and will give preferential credit of $327 million through its Exim Bank in what is a $491-million project. Two other MoUs on double-laning of the Karakoram Highway as well as widening of the Jaglot-Skardu road have also been signed.
Pakistan-China rail link: This is a 750 km-long rail link between Havelian and the Khunjerab Pass along the Karakoram Highway. While feasibility studies are on for this project, Pakistan and China have agreed to establish a joint venture between Pakistan Railways and Dongfang Electric Corporation to initially run only freight trains on this route.
Jhelum Bridge: Pakistan has awarded a Rs 1.2 billion contract to a Chinese state company for constructing a major bridge on River Jhelum at Dhangali in Mirpur District.
Five bailey bridges on Gilgit-Skardu Road: Xinjiang Road and Bridge Construction Company of China is replacing five existing bailey bridges on the 167-km long, strategically important Gilgit-Skardu road.
Mining: A Chinese company called MCC Resources Development Company Ltd has been allowed to start a mineral exploration exercise in these areas. The Gilgit-Baltistan government has given a reconnaissance licence to the company. Pakistan Surpass Mining Company, which is subsidiary of China's Xinjiang Surpass Mining Company Ltd, has submitted a $6 million investment proposal for mining in those areas. It plans to set up a hydropower station and Molybdenum processing plant in Chupurshan Valley.
Sust Dry Port: A joint venture named Pak-China Sust Port Company is managing the Sust dry port, 200 km from Gilgit on the Karakoram Highway. Opened four years ago, the Chinese side is the principal stakeholder in the JV.
Mobile communication links: China Mobile is providing mobile services in PoK and certain areas of Gilgit-Baltistan. The company has major plans to set up more towers and expand coverage.
Diamer-Bhasha Dam: China is said to have agreed to finance this $11.3-billion 4500-MW project. Also, it has agreed to provide the services of the China Three Gorges Project Corporation for the construction of the dam. Sinihydro has show interest in the development of the project.
Magla dam raising project: A joint venture comprising China International Water and Electric Corporation and some Pakistan companies have almost completed this project. Once operational, the average annual water availability for irrigation will increase by near 3 million acre feet.
Neelum-Jhelum hydro-power project: China Gezhouba Water and Power Corporation, which was part of the Three Gorges project, has formed a consortium and taken up this 969 MW project too in Muzaffarabad district. Keen on completing this project before the Kishengaga project on the Indian side, Pakistan has obtained a commitment from the consortium that the work will be finished in eight years. Meanwhile, it has raised objections and gone for arbitration with India on the Kishenganga project under Indus Waters Treaty provisions.
Besides these, China has taken up at least four other hydropower projects in these areas-Bhunji project in Gilgit-Baltistan, Kohala project (1100 MW), Naltar project and then smaller projects in places like Phendar, Harpo and Yurlbo.
Already, China has provided a soft loan of $300 million to Pakistan for reconstruction and rehabilitation works in the areas as follow-up on relief for the earthquake. Following the recent floods, it has taken up the task to get the Karakoram Highway back on track. Many of its military personnel are there for relief work and it has so far given aid of $9 million which is likely to increase.
====================================================================
Comment: Do we still need a rationale in boosting up our defence wherewithal keeping in mind the Chinese threat perception? Moreover, let us fix our stand point regarding POK and Gilgit-Baltistan.
=======================================================================
While India has independently confirmed that the presence of Chinese troops in Gilgit and Baltistan is a bit exaggerated in terms of numbers, the real concern here is on the number of projects and works China has undertaken in those areas and in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK). And the footprint is only growing larger.
At last count, South Block had noticed at least 17 confirmed projects in PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan.
These constitute more than half the Chinese projects in areas under Pakistan's control, making it a cause of major concern because of the disputed status of the areas. At present, according to government inputs, 122 Chinese companies are active in Pakistan, and most of them are also involved in projects in PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan areas.
China, sources said, has suddenly increased its involvement in almost every key sector, and has virtually taken upon itself the responsibility of building basic infrastructure in these areas. The list of projects range from providing mobile connectivity services to building power projects, highways and rail links.
Karakoram Highway upgradation: The China Road and Bridge Corporation has taken up this project and will give preferential credit of $327 million through its Exim Bank in what is a $491-million project. Two other MoUs on double-laning of the Karakoram Highway as well as widening of the Jaglot-Skardu road have also been signed.
Pakistan-China rail link: This is a 750 km-long rail link between Havelian and the Khunjerab Pass along the Karakoram Highway. While feasibility studies are on for this project, Pakistan and China have agreed to establish a joint venture between Pakistan Railways and Dongfang Electric Corporation to initially run only freight trains on this route.
Jhelum Bridge: Pakistan has awarded a Rs 1.2 billion contract to a Chinese state company for constructing a major bridge on River Jhelum at Dhangali in Mirpur District.
Five bailey bridges on Gilgit-Skardu Road: Xinjiang Road and Bridge Construction Company of China is replacing five existing bailey bridges on the 167-km long, strategically important Gilgit-Skardu road.
Mining: A Chinese company called MCC Resources Development Company Ltd has been allowed to start a mineral exploration exercise in these areas. The Gilgit-Baltistan government has given a reconnaissance licence to the company. Pakistan Surpass Mining Company, which is subsidiary of China's Xinjiang Surpass Mining Company Ltd, has submitted a $6 million investment proposal for mining in those areas. It plans to set up a hydropower station and Molybdenum processing plant in Chupurshan Valley.
Sust Dry Port: A joint venture named Pak-China Sust Port Company is managing the Sust dry port, 200 km from Gilgit on the Karakoram Highway. Opened four years ago, the Chinese side is the principal stakeholder in the JV.
Mobile communication links: China Mobile is providing mobile services in PoK and certain areas of Gilgit-Baltistan. The company has major plans to set up more towers and expand coverage.
Diamer-Bhasha Dam: China is said to have agreed to finance this $11.3-billion 4500-MW project. Also, it has agreed to provide the services of the China Three Gorges Project Corporation for the construction of the dam. Sinihydro has show interest in the development of the project.
Magla dam raising project: A joint venture comprising China International Water and Electric Corporation and some Pakistan companies have almost completed this project. Once operational, the average annual water availability for irrigation will increase by near 3 million acre feet.
Neelum-Jhelum hydro-power project: China Gezhouba Water and Power Corporation, which was part of the Three Gorges project, has formed a consortium and taken up this 969 MW project too in Muzaffarabad district. Keen on completing this project before the Kishengaga project on the Indian side, Pakistan has obtained a commitment from the consortium that the work will be finished in eight years. Meanwhile, it has raised objections and gone for arbitration with India on the Kishenganga project under Indus Waters Treaty provisions.
Besides these, China has taken up at least four other hydropower projects in these areas-Bhunji project in Gilgit-Baltistan, Kohala project (1100 MW), Naltar project and then smaller projects in places like Phendar, Harpo and Yurlbo.
Already, China has provided a soft loan of $300 million to Pakistan for reconstruction and rehabilitation works in the areas as follow-up on relief for the earthquake. Following the recent floods, it has taken up the task to get the Karakoram Highway back on track. Many of its military personnel are there for relief work and it has so far given aid of $9 million which is likely to increase.
====================================================================
01 September, 2010
Plan for It
by Uddipan Mukherjee
The Dragon Surfaces
The Chinese have certain compulsions, especially the domestic demand for energy and the sustainment of the export-oriented economy. Consequent fallout of that is the extension of its role in the world arena; in the form of devising oil and gas pipelines cutting through the Central Asian topography, the forays into the Dark Continent and the creation of naval zones ranging spatially from the Hainan Island to the Gulf of Aden.
The so-called ‘String of Pearls’ has surely spread its tentacles far and wide and the stance adopted by the PRC in the anti-piracy maneuvers off the Somali coast adduce further proof of its covetous glances. Hence it becomes contextually relevant to evaluate the current growth of the PLA Navy (PLAN) as a vital arm of the Chinese Army. The allusion of the Indian counterpart becomes pertinent too as it reminisces a bitter border struggle with the former in 1962.
When the “Commander-in-Chief” Hu Jintao inspected the PLA in 2009, there were, inter alia, some significant implications. First, it was timely as the event marked the sixtieth anniversary of the triumph of Communism. Second, after China successfully hosted the Olympics barely a year ago, the showcase of military strength was another feather to its ‘red cap’. It was an indication of the juggernaut of the Dragon which the world, and Asia and Japan in particular needed to note. Third, the choice of the locale was not merely coincidental that about two decades back, Tienanmen Square was witness to a ruthless suppression of a student-intellectual movement which could have shaped up as an urban insurgency if not tamed forthrightly.
Incidentally the PLAN had already exhibited its might in April the same year in Qingdao, headquarters of its Northern Sea Fleet. In that venue, probably for the first time, PLAN came up with its public demonstration of nuclear-powered submarine fleet.
The afore-mentioned ostentatiousness was no surprise element whatsoever. After all, this is what Mao Zedong had always dreamt of. His era comprising the Great Leap Forward (1958-61), Project 596 (first testing of nuclear weapon in 1964) and the detonation of Hydrogen Bomb (1967) was the harbinger to the present exhibition of military musculature by his country. Moreover, Deng Xiaoping’s paradigm shift in economic policy adopted over three decades ago has bestowed China with the necessary prestige as well as financial faculty to embark on the road to soldiery.
Why a solid PLAN?
To get the facts straight, China depends and naturally so, on maritime transportation for 90 per cent of its imports and exports. In 2007, the China Daily asserted that economic transactions across the sea accounted for nearly 10 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Furthermore, PRC aims to become the largest shipbuilder in the globe by 2015. To compound these, the Chinese oil demand has reached close to 8.5 billion barrels per day and at present, 40 per cent of China’s oil comes by sea. Also, it imports one-third of its oil from the African continent and hence that necessarily makes Gulf of Aden an important area to command.
Adding to these, China’s trade with the European Union is through the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). Interestingly for India, 40 per cent of the vessels transiting the Indian Ocean are Chinese. This is a pointer to the fact that in case of a skirmish with its northern neighbour, India may exercise the privilege to go for a blockade of the Chinese ships. And this is no mere hypothetical scenario. In the light of churlish political posturing of PRC with regard to Gilgit-Baltistan and an undiplomatic visa-regime, the Indian state seriously needs to upgrade its military machinery vis-à-vis China.
In fact, to obviate such bellicose circumstances, PRC has by choice gone for strategic littoral locations starting from the facilities at the Hainan Island and thereafter touching the Woody Island east of Vietnam, Sittwe in Myanmar, Chittagong in Bangladesh and meandering through Hambantota (Sri Lanka) and Gwadar (Pakistan) has augmented its Sea Lines of Communications (SLOCs) upto the Strait of Hormuz.
And though the PLAN’s recent presence at the Gulf of Aden has been logically to negate the circumnavigation of Chinese vessels around the Cape of Good Hope, it does not conceptually belie the physical extension of the ‘String of Pearls’. Furthermore, security of the SLOCs around the Horn of Africa is imperative for Chinese economic interests and more so when about one-fifth of over thousand Chinese commercial vessels were molested by the Somali buccaneers in 2008 itself.
To begin with, on 26 December 2008, PRC disbursed two fleet destroyers Wuhan and Haikou toward the Gulf of Aden and continued to replace fleets periodically. Recently, on 04 March 2010, missile destroyer Guangzhou and supply ship Weishanhu joined the missile frigate Chaohu at the same venue to supplant the last deployment. Weishanhu is PLAN’s largest supply ship and a Fuchi-class 23,000-tonne vessel. It can carry onboard over hundred crew members and is replete with 37 mm guns. Expectedly enough, PRC perceives these anti-piracy operations as nice opportunities to prepare for any future “Taiwan Crisis”.
A critical component embedded with the present formation is the Satellite Tracking and Communication System. PLAN’s Control Centre monitors all relevant Chinese merchant ships through a Ship Movement Tracking System (SMTS). Hence, video-based communications with the PRC Shanghai Maritime Safety Administration is the order of the day. A web-based IP communication network has also been developed to allow the crew members maintain contacts with mainland China.
The obvious advantage of SMTS is that real time directives emanating from the civilian authorities in Beijing can pass onto the theatre directly and ipso facto, the civilian-military symbiotic relationship would continue undiminished.
The Concerns
The above factual-analysis might go down as hawkish if some more light is not thrown on it. Though China is a party, along with India and Russia, to the Shared Awareness and Deconfliction (SHADE) programme of anti-piracy in the Gulf of Aden, it advocates a ‘patrol zone-division’ concept of managing the nautical territories. That is, PLAN is not very eager to work in unison with multinational agencies, rather is a votary of separate areas being carved out for respective nation-states. It is not averse to intelligence-sharing though.
What does this attitude of the PLAN indicate? Is it coyness in coming into contact with much more developed navies of NATO and the US, or a sense of loss of esteem in working under the command of seemingly inferior navies like Pakistan or is it an overt proclamation of its prowess as an independent naval power? Andrew S. Erickson in a paper at the Strategic Studies Institute suggests a “Cold War” type mentality in such an approach of the PLAN. Whatever be the real motive of the PLAN, it certainly does not resonate with the lofty claims of a Harmonious World as propounded by the New Diplomacy of China.
On 16 August 2010, the U.S. Defense Department released its annual assessment of China’s military. The report expressed concerns over the lack of transparency in PRC’s military growth. However, China’s defence ministry was dismissive of these allegations. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, complained that China’s suspension of military-to-military contacts with the US made it even harder for Washington to assess Beijing’s ‘real’ intentions. Beijing cut off military ties with Washington earlier this year to protest a $6.4 billion US arms sale to Taiwan; viewed as a direct transgression into PRC’s “One China Policy”.
India, Wake Up
It goes beyond sermons that India must bolster its navy, not only to thwart any Pakistani policy of sea-denial in the Arabian Sea region, but to actually counter both the covert as well as overt Chinese threat perceptions. The INS Kadamba (Project Seabird) in the province of Karnataka assumes fundamental significance in this regard. The base has a sea front of over 26 km and a total area of over 45 sq km. Reportedly; the deep-water port can easily house the entire Western Fleet of the Indian Navy. Hence, it needs to be expedited in ‘Stalinist style’ because when completed is set to be the largest in Asia.
According to India’s former Navy Chief Admiral Arun Prakash, “the Indian navy of 2020 will essentially be a three dimensional force (aka Varuna’s Trident), built around the core of two aircraft carrier task forces and closely networked through a dedicated communications satellite”.
2020 is fast approaching and one can only hope that his vision materializes, even if not in entirety. Nevertheless, as of now, Russia has assured that it will keep to the time period specified in the contract for the retrofit of the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier for the Indian Navy. A statement from the Indian government's security committee states that it would allocate $2.3 billion to retrofit the ship. The initial refit agreement of $750 million went up by an additional $1.5 billion. In line with the contract, the aircraft carrier will be handed over to India by 2012.
Admiral Gorshkov is a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier, originally named Baku. The ship was laid down in 1978 at the Nikolayev South shipyard in Ukraine, launched in 1982, and commissioned with the Soviet Navy in 1987.
According to a February 2010 report published by the NTI, the Indian Navy currently operates 16 submarines based at Vishakhapatnam and Mumbai. The backbone of the fleet is formed by ten Kilo-class Type 877EM - or Sindhugosh-class - units that are being progressively retrofitted to accommodate the Klub/3M-54E Alfa cruise missile system. In addition to its fleet of diesel-electric submarines, India is also in the process of developing an indigenously built nuclear-submarine capability. It is noteworthy that PLAN already has a fleet of six active nuclear capable submarines.
Procrastination has been synonymous with indigenous defence development in India. Likewise, the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) submarine, work on which began in the 1970s, is yet to come out from the cobwebs of logistical complexities. However, in July 2009 India launched its first ATV submarine, the INS Arihant,,at the Ship Building Centre in Vishakapatnam. However, the vessel will undergo at least two years of extensive sea trials before being commissioned into the Indian Navy
As per an August 12 report of Ria Novosti, INS Sindhurakshak is being upgraded under a direct contract between the Zvezdochka shipyard and the Indian defense ministry, signed on June 4, 2010. The upgradation program, which includes a complete overhaul of the submarine, as well as improved control systems, sonar, electronic warfare systems, and an integrated weapon control system, is set to cost around $80 million.
Conclusion
There is probably no gainsaying the fact that the Indian Navy appears to be leaning toward Russia in its development paradigm. However, that should not deter us from pursuing our goals of a defence “Autarchy”. Actually, the writing is clearly on the wall. As the lethal PLAN cruises ahead, the Indian Navy hardly can afford to schlep. And if that happens, then no homilies can safeguard India’s strategic interests in a futuristic mode.
a part of this paper has been submitted for publication to "geopolitics"
The Dragon Surfaces
The Chinese have certain compulsions, especially the domestic demand for energy and the sustainment of the export-oriented economy. Consequent fallout of that is the extension of its role in the world arena; in the form of devising oil and gas pipelines cutting through the Central Asian topography, the forays into the Dark Continent and the creation of naval zones ranging spatially from the Hainan Island to the Gulf of Aden.
![]() |
| String of "Pearls" |
The so-called ‘String of Pearls’ has surely spread its tentacles far and wide and the stance adopted by the PRC in the anti-piracy maneuvers off the Somali coast adduce further proof of its covetous glances. Hence it becomes contextually relevant to evaluate the current growth of the PLA Navy (PLAN) as a vital arm of the Chinese Army. The allusion of the Indian counterpart becomes pertinent too as it reminisces a bitter border struggle with the former in 1962.
When the “Commander-in-Chief” Hu Jintao inspected the PLA in 2009, there were, inter alia, some significant implications. First, it was timely as the event marked the sixtieth anniversary of the triumph of Communism. Second, after China successfully hosted the Olympics barely a year ago, the showcase of military strength was another feather to its ‘red cap’. It was an indication of the juggernaut of the Dragon which the world, and Asia and Japan in particular needed to note. Third, the choice of the locale was not merely coincidental that about two decades back, Tienanmen Square was witness to a ruthless suppression of a student-intellectual movement which could have shaped up as an urban insurgency if not tamed forthrightly.
Incidentally the PLAN had already exhibited its might in April the same year in Qingdao, headquarters of its Northern Sea Fleet. In that venue, probably for the first time, PLAN came up with its public demonstration of nuclear-powered submarine fleet.
The afore-mentioned ostentatiousness was no surprise element whatsoever. After all, this is what Mao Zedong had always dreamt of. His era comprising the Great Leap Forward (1958-61), Project 596 (first testing of nuclear weapon in 1964) and the detonation of Hydrogen Bomb (1967) was the harbinger to the present exhibition of military musculature by his country. Moreover, Deng Xiaoping’s paradigm shift in economic policy adopted over three decades ago has bestowed China with the necessary prestige as well as financial faculty to embark on the road to soldiery.
Why a solid PLAN?
To get the facts straight, China depends and naturally so, on maritime transportation for 90 per cent of its imports and exports. In 2007, the China Daily asserted that economic transactions across the sea accounted for nearly 10 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Furthermore, PRC aims to become the largest shipbuilder in the globe by 2015. To compound these, the Chinese oil demand has reached close to 8.5 billion barrels per day and at present, 40 per cent of China’s oil comes by sea. Also, it imports one-third of its oil from the African continent and hence that necessarily makes Gulf of Aden an important area to command.
Adding to these, China’s trade with the European Union is through the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). Interestingly for India, 40 per cent of the vessels transiting the Indian Ocean are Chinese. This is a pointer to the fact that in case of a skirmish with its northern neighbour, India may exercise the privilege to go for a blockade of the Chinese ships. And this is no mere hypothetical scenario. In the light of churlish political posturing of PRC with regard to Gilgit-Baltistan and an undiplomatic visa-regime, the Indian state seriously needs to upgrade its military machinery vis-à-vis China.
In fact, to obviate such bellicose circumstances, PRC has by choice gone for strategic littoral locations starting from the facilities at the Hainan Island and thereafter touching the Woody Island east of Vietnam, Sittwe in Myanmar, Chittagong in Bangladesh and meandering through Hambantota (Sri Lanka) and Gwadar (Pakistan) has augmented its Sea Lines of Communications (SLOCs) upto the Strait of Hormuz.
And though the PLAN’s recent presence at the Gulf of Aden has been logically to negate the circumnavigation of Chinese vessels around the Cape of Good Hope, it does not conceptually belie the physical extension of the ‘String of Pearls’. Furthermore, security of the SLOCs around the Horn of Africa is imperative for Chinese economic interests and more so when about one-fifth of over thousand Chinese commercial vessels were molested by the Somali buccaneers in 2008 itself.
To begin with, on 26 December 2008, PRC disbursed two fleet destroyers Wuhan and Haikou toward the Gulf of Aden and continued to replace fleets periodically. Recently, on 04 March 2010, missile destroyer Guangzhou and supply ship Weishanhu joined the missile frigate Chaohu at the same venue to supplant the last deployment. Weishanhu is PLAN’s largest supply ship and a Fuchi-class 23,000-tonne vessel. It can carry onboard over hundred crew members and is replete with 37 mm guns. Expectedly enough, PRC perceives these anti-piracy operations as nice opportunities to prepare for any future “Taiwan Crisis”.
A critical component embedded with the present formation is the Satellite Tracking and Communication System. PLAN’s Control Centre monitors all relevant Chinese merchant ships through a Ship Movement Tracking System (SMTS). Hence, video-based communications with the PRC Shanghai Maritime Safety Administration is the order of the day. A web-based IP communication network has also been developed to allow the crew members maintain contacts with mainland China.
The obvious advantage of SMTS is that real time directives emanating from the civilian authorities in Beijing can pass onto the theatre directly and ipso facto, the civilian-military symbiotic relationship would continue undiminished.
The Concerns
The above factual-analysis might go down as hawkish if some more light is not thrown on it. Though China is a party, along with India and Russia, to the Shared Awareness and Deconfliction (SHADE) programme of anti-piracy in the Gulf of Aden, it advocates a ‘patrol zone-division’ concept of managing the nautical territories. That is, PLAN is not very eager to work in unison with multinational agencies, rather is a votary of separate areas being carved out for respective nation-states. It is not averse to intelligence-sharing though.
What does this attitude of the PLAN indicate? Is it coyness in coming into contact with much more developed navies of NATO and the US, or a sense of loss of esteem in working under the command of seemingly inferior navies like Pakistan or is it an overt proclamation of its prowess as an independent naval power? Andrew S. Erickson in a paper at the Strategic Studies Institute suggests a “Cold War” type mentality in such an approach of the PLAN. Whatever be the real motive of the PLAN, it certainly does not resonate with the lofty claims of a Harmonious World as propounded by the New Diplomacy of China.
![]() |
| Missile? |
On 16 August 2010, the U.S. Defense Department released its annual assessment of China’s military. The report expressed concerns over the lack of transparency in PRC’s military growth. However, China’s defence ministry was dismissive of these allegations. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, complained that China’s suspension of military-to-military contacts with the US made it even harder for Washington to assess Beijing’s ‘real’ intentions. Beijing cut off military ties with Washington earlier this year to protest a $6.4 billion US arms sale to Taiwan; viewed as a direct transgression into PRC’s “One China Policy”.
India, Wake Up
It goes beyond sermons that India must bolster its navy, not only to thwart any Pakistani policy of sea-denial in the Arabian Sea region, but to actually counter both the covert as well as overt Chinese threat perceptions. The INS Kadamba (Project Seabird) in the province of Karnataka assumes fundamental significance in this regard. The base has a sea front of over 26 km and a total area of over 45 sq km. Reportedly; the deep-water port can easily house the entire Western Fleet of the Indian Navy. Hence, it needs to be expedited in ‘Stalinist style’ because when completed is set to be the largest in Asia.
According to India’s former Navy Chief Admiral Arun Prakash, “the Indian navy of 2020 will essentially be a three dimensional force (aka Varuna’s Trident), built around the core of two aircraft carrier task forces and closely networked through a dedicated communications satellite”.
![]() |
| Project Seabird Shipment Facility |
2020 is fast approaching and one can only hope that his vision materializes, even if not in entirety. Nevertheless, as of now, Russia has assured that it will keep to the time period specified in the contract for the retrofit of the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier for the Indian Navy. A statement from the Indian government's security committee states that it would allocate $2.3 billion to retrofit the ship. The initial refit agreement of $750 million went up by an additional $1.5 billion. In line with the contract, the aircraft carrier will be handed over to India by 2012.
![]() |
| Admiral Gorshkov |
Admiral Gorshkov is a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier, originally named Baku. The ship was laid down in 1978 at the Nikolayev South shipyard in Ukraine, launched in 1982, and commissioned with the Soviet Navy in 1987.
According to a February 2010 report published by the NTI, the Indian Navy currently operates 16 submarines based at Vishakhapatnam and Mumbai. The backbone of the fleet is formed by ten Kilo-class Type 877EM - or Sindhugosh-class - units that are being progressively retrofitted to accommodate the Klub/3M-54E Alfa cruise missile system. In addition to its fleet of diesel-electric submarines, India is also in the process of developing an indigenously built nuclear-submarine capability. It is noteworthy that PLAN already has a fleet of six active nuclear capable submarines.
Procrastination has been synonymous with indigenous defence development in India. Likewise, the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV) submarine, work on which began in the 1970s, is yet to come out from the cobwebs of logistical complexities. However, in July 2009 India launched its first ATV submarine, the INS Arihant,,at the Ship Building Centre in Vishakapatnam. However, the vessel will undergo at least two years of extensive sea trials before being commissioned into the Indian Navy
As per an August 12 report of Ria Novosti, INS Sindhurakshak is being upgraded under a direct contract between the Zvezdochka shipyard and the Indian defense ministry, signed on June 4, 2010. The upgradation program, which includes a complete overhaul of the submarine, as well as improved control systems, sonar, electronic warfare systems, and an integrated weapon control system, is set to cost around $80 million.
Conclusion
There is probably no gainsaying the fact that the Indian Navy appears to be leaning toward Russia in its development paradigm. However, that should not deter us from pursuing our goals of a defence “Autarchy”. Actually, the writing is clearly on the wall. As the lethal PLAN cruises ahead, the Indian Navy hardly can afford to schlep. And if that happens, then no homilies can safeguard India’s strategic interests in a futuristic mode.
a part of this paper has been submitted for publication to "geopolitics"
28 August, 2010
India's Maritime Vision : 2020
from the Indian Defence Review
“What ship? Where bound?” is the traditional nautical query that goes out on the air when a warship encounters a stranger on the high seas. Recently an Indian Navy frigate on passage to the Persian Gulf was challenged on radio by a ship of the Coalition Task Force on patrol: “Unknown ship what are you doing in this area?” The IN ship shot back with barely concealed annoyance, “ I happen to be an Indian warship in the Indian Ocean. What are YOU doing here?”
While this story may be apocryphal, it does serve to illustrate two aspects. Firstly that old mindsets take time to dissipate; guarding the seas East of Suez was historically considered the ‘white man’s burden’, and in some perceptions we may still be seen as interlopers in our own backyard. And secondly, that India has neither acknowledged her role as a pre-eminent maritime entity in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), nor done enough to shoulder the concomitant regional responsibilities.
While others are reluctantly coming to terms with India’s quest for her rightful place in the evolving world order, Indians themselves have remained irresolute and diffident in this regard. Consequently, there is a likelihood, that the concept of ‘Maritime India’ may present a conundrum, to the citizens of a nation which has remained hostage to a continental mind-set for centuries.
Therefore, before making out the case for a Maritime India, a decade and a half into the future, I would like to briefly take my countrymen back into the hoary past to examine the context in which a substantive maritime underpinning can be claimed for India’s history.
Our Blissful Ignorance
While we revere our past and have been brought up to blindly believe that we are the inheritors of a great culture and tradition, as a nation we have been sadly remiss in neither researching the past, nor adequately recording our own history. William Dalrymple provides us a poignant reminder of this shortcoming in the Introduction to his celebrated new book, ‘The Last Mughal’. He refers to the 20,000 virtually unused Persian and Urdu documents relating to Delhi in 1857, known as the Mutiny Papers, that he found on the shelves of the National Archives of India and says, “…the question that became increasingly hard to answer was, why no one had used this wonderful mass of material before.”
It was left to conscientious British administrators, Jesuit scholars and other European researchers to unravel our glorious past by learning Sanskrit and studying our sacred Vedic literature. The discovery and collation of India’s history and culture by European scholars not only created great respect for it amongst them, but also inspired Indian nationalists to value and cherish their own inheritance, as they had never before viewed India from such a perspective.
However, those who write history also enjoy the license of giving it whatever slant they wish to; and this as we will see, is often at the cost of objectivity.
Their History
Almost all works on maritime history from Western sources start with a description of the seafaring tradition of the Mediterranean basin (circa 2500-2000 BCE), and dwell on the sea power of Crete, Phoenicia, Greece, Carthage and Rome. The first reference to the Orient generally relates to the Greco-Persian war in the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, where mention is made (with relief) of how Greek sea power thwarted an “attack by Asia on Europe”. In this context Greece was fortunate in having two accomplished historians: Herodotus who is known as the “father of history”, and the Athenian historian-soldier Thucydides, who maintained a meticulous record of the Peloponnesian Wars between Athens and Sparta (431-404 BCE).
In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries Western Europe came once again under threat from the east; this time from sea power of the Ottoman Turks, who brought pressure to bear in the Mediterranean. The Battle of Lepanto in 1571 put an end to this last Asiatic challenge. Historians conclude that this was also the period that seafaring countries of Europe made certain breakthroughs in the fields of ship-construction and navigation, which enabled its sailors to start undertaking long-distance voyages. At the same time advances in gunnery and specialised fighting vessels provided them the means of overwhelming the opposition of ‘other races’.
As Paul Kennedy puts it, the Western onslaught into the East was inspired by a mixture of political, religious and economic motives, particularly the latter. Once the Spanish and Portuguese fleets had demonstrated the ease of conquest, and the economic benefits to be gained by such maritime forays, the race was on, with Dutch, French, and English adventurers joining in what became a scramble for trading links, political advantage, proselytisation and loot.
So much for early maritime developments in the West; but it is intriguing to note that nowhere in these historical accounts does one find even a passing mention of India or the seafaring skills of ancient Indians.
Our History
For this we have to turn to the lone voice of Sardar KM Pannikar (1895-1963), our first ambassador to China, who combined in himself the attributes of statesman, diplomat, historian and visionary. Among the large number of his works in Sanskrit, Malayalam and English is a seminal essay entitled ‘India and the Indian Ocean’. First published as a monograph in 1945, this treatise is now out of print, and although read and quoted extensively by foreign scholars, it is little known to Indians.
According to Pannikar, for geo-physical and meteorological reasons (currents, prevailing winds etc.), it was the Indian Ocean, and specifically the lands washed by the Arabian Sea, which saw the first naval and oceanic sailing activity; and European historians err grievously when they assume that the navigational tradition first emerged around the Mediterranean.
Long before seafaring developed in the “limited” Aegean waters, according to him, oceanic navigation had become common with the coastal people of peninsular India. He clinches his argument by stating that: “Millenniums before Columbus sailed the Atlantic and Magellan crossed the Pacific, the Indian Ocean had become a thoroughfare of commercial and cultural traffic between the west coast of India and Nineveh and Babylon (modern Iraq) as well as the Levant (E. Mediterranean)”.
Pannikar goes on to assert that not only do the earliest Indian literature, the Vedas (1500 BCE), speak frequently of sea voyages, but that much of the materials found in the remains of the Indus Valley Civilisation (3000-2500 BCE), and many products discovered in Mohenjodaro came either from the shores of the Red Sea or the extreme south of India and “could only have been transported by sea”. He places Indians firmly alongside the Greeks and the Arabs as ancient seafarers and claims that the Hindus had already in use a magnetic compass (matsya yantra) for accurate navigation, and having acquired the skills to build ocean going ships of great strength and durability ventured into the distant reaches of the Arabian Sea.
Though Socotra was perhaps an Indian settlement and Indian communities existed in Alexandria, and in other locations in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, maritime activity in the Arabian Sea was confined to commercial purposes only. On the other hand, the Bay of Bengal provided a highway for a succession of kingdoms in the southern and eastern Indian peninsula to embark on cultural, colonisation and proselytisation missions to lands beyond the Malacca Straits – as Far East as Japan. Interestingly, Pannikar debunks the commonly held belief that all Hindus had a religious objection to crossing the seas, saying: “it was never true of the people of the South”.
Pannikar recounts the continuum of colonisation as well as cultural and religious osmosis from India’s east coast, by sea to Southeast Asia. Starting with the Mauryan emperors, he traces Indian maritime activism through the Andhra, Pallava, Pandava, Chalukya and Chola dynasties. To make his point about intrepid Indian mariners providing continuous cultural sustenance and support from the ‘mother country’, he refers to the 500-year long dominance of the seas by the Sumatra based Sri Vijaya Empire (of Indian provenance) and to the growth of large Hindu kingdoms and empires in Champa (Siam), Cambodia, Java, and Sumatra from the 5th to the 13th centuries.
From this apogee, India’s maritime prowess went into rapid decline, mainly because the Central Asian dynasties, which ruled in Delhi, knew more saddles and stirrups than concepts of sea power.
The arrival of the 20-gun Portuguese frigate San Gabriele off Calicut in May 1498 marked the beginning of what Pannikar terms as the ‘Vasco da Gama epoch’ and commencement of four centuries of ‘authority based on control of the seas’ by European powers; and not all the daring, valour and patriotic fervour of the Zamorins, Marrakars or Angres could stand up to it.
An Indian Ocean Entity
“Status and symbolism” said George Tanham a RAND Corporation researcher in his monograph on Indian strategic thought, “matters greatly in Indian society…and Indian Admirals may need no justification or rationale for a powerful navy other than that India’s greatness mandates it.” Others have alleged hegemonistic intentions on the part of India. With mindsets of this nature, I considered this somewhat lengthy prologue necessary to obtain a correct perspective about our past, and to provide reassurance that Indians are neither interlopers nor parvenus in the Indian Ocean.
We, therefore, need to examine whether in trying to become a pre-eminent IOR entity India seeks merely ‘status and symbolism’ and hegemony; or is it actually seeking to fulfill a manifest destiny and a tangible need. The British, because they had arrived in India by sea, realised the gravity of the potential maritime threat, especially from their European rivals. Accordingly they adopted a maritime strategy for India, which was a sub-set of their global game plan to gain and maintain control of all major oceanic choke points worldwide, especially those leading to the IOR.
Our post-independence leadership, for various reasons, developed a utopian outlook, which led to a moralpolitik rather than realpolitik orientation in our policies and a focus on lofty concepts like ‘non-alignment’, ‘universal disarmament’ and ‘zones of peace’ which were rich in rhetoric but did nothing to further our national interests, gave us a moralising image and endeared us to no one.
The British have not forgotten that their economic rise and fall had been closely linked with their navy’s rise and fall. Shorn of all imperial or colonial trappings, their Defence Doctrine still speaks of maintaining the capabilities required “for independent action to meet inescapable national obligations and safeguard British interests worldwide”. Many times the size of this tiny island nation, we need to make a serious assessment of India’s own national interests and compulsions in the context of the IOR.
Due to a lack of vision, diffidence, and preoccupation with internal matters we have over the past 60 years embraced insularity and neglected our maritime security. Even if some kind of a ‘Monroe Doctrine’ was cultural anathema for us, we should at least have declared to others our strategic frontiers, and defined for ourselves a strategy to safeguard our interests within their bounds.
A Maritime Destiny?
India’s overarching interests are clearly defined by the need to guarantee a stable and tranquil external environment for two reasons. Firstly, our own people expect that favourable conditions will be maintained for speedy implementation of the nation’s lagging developmental process. Secondly, we have an obligation to the international community to ensure that trade and shipping traffic flows unhindered in the IOR sea-lanes.
With ample justification, our strategic frontiers can, therefore, be considered to extend from the Persian Gulf down the east coast of Africa, across to the Malacca Strait and south to the Southern Indian Ocean. In this context, as a peace loving status quo power and a law-abiding nation state with an impeccable record of observing international conventions, we must disregard those who are inclined to cry wolf about ‘hegemony’.
Admiral Mahan the renowned American strategist, had specified six conditions, as having a vital bearing on the sea power of a nation: (i) geographical position; (ii) physical conformation; (iii) extent of territory; (iv) number of population; (v) national character; and (vi) policy and nature of government institutions. Let us examine our country against the touchstone of Mahan’s conditionalities.
As far as the first three, essentially geographical conditions are concerned, no country – perhaps not even an island state – could be as favourably placed as peninsular India, for the development of maritime power. The next two conditions relate to the commercial enterprise and seagoing proclivities of the populace; and with 11 maritime states and island territories India probably has more seafaring people than the population of most European countries; but more of that later. It is the sixth and last condition, on which we will need to focus our attention rather sharply.
Having seen that the portents are appropriate and propitious for India to redeem her maritime destiny, we have to recognise that there are a number of distinct strands to the logic, which must underpin her endeavours in the maritime domain. It is necessary that we examine (the threats, and opportunities that constitute) these strands and then weave them all together into a cohesive cord.
States & Non-State Actors
For a threat assessment to be objective, it must recognise Lord Palmerston’s dictum about nations having neither permanent friends nor foes, but only permanent interests. An appraisal, divested of sentiment, will therefore show that India and China are going to be competitors for the same strategic space in Asia, and no matter how peaceful their rise or how intense their bilateral trade, a clash of interests cannot be ruled out. It is intriguing, in this context, to note that of her 15 neighbours, China has painstakingly settled land boundaries with all, but stoutly maintained her claim on Arunachal as well as occupation of Aksai Chin.
The sustained transfer of not just conventional arms but also advanced nuclear weapon technology as well as missiles, to Pakistan either directly by China or through the North Korean conduit has no precedent in international relations. In addition, China’s strategy of creating a ring of weapon client states right around India has placed us strategically on the backfoot. This situation is, however, of our own making, because over the years, China has provided sufficient indications of her plans for ‘containment’ of India, which we have disregarded.
It should come as no surprise to us if in the next few years PLA Navy ships and nuclear submarines are put regularly into harbours like Chittagong, Sittwe, Hambantota or Gwadar in our immediate neighbourhood. In pursuit of their grand design, the Chinese are planning or in the process of building container terminals in all these ports.
By herself, Pakistan may or may not have been able to do much vis-à-vis India, but as China’s surrogate she has received strategic support, and managed to achieve a great deal. And of course the Chinese puppet-masters have manipulated a willing Pakistan brilliantly to checkmate India at minimal cost to themselves.
Developments post 9/11 have garnered for Pakistan, moral and material support from the USA, and further buttressed the position of her military ruler. As a consequence of this implicit and explicit abetment, Pakistan continues undaunted, to be the nursery of religious fundamentalism and fountainhead of nuclear/missile proliferation.
Moving away from our immediate neighbourhood, we also need to factor into our calculus, the substantive presence of extra-regional powers in the IOR. Friendly they may be, but one should never forget that they are in these waters, not for altruistic motives but specifically to safeguard their perceived national interests; economic and strategic.
Should a conflict of interests ever arise, we must be in no doubt that coercive force will be brought to bear on us. Under such circumstances, we have to be prepared to act in our own self-interest. And we must let neither the Hyde Indo-US Nuclear Energy Act, or any similar document, nor the manifold ‘strategic partnerships’ that we seem to have crafted with other nations ever cloud our vision.
The seven tons of explosives, which created mayhem in Mumbai in 1993, arrived on our shores by sea. Today, the Golden Crescent and the Golden Triangle on either side of India are the source of financial sustenance for terrorist organisations like the al Qaeda and Jemmiah Islamiah, which use maritime routes for lucrative narcotic and arms trafficking. The LTTE, apart from its combatant Sea Tiger wing, also has a small merchant fleet, which conducts clandestine trade in Southeast Asia to replenish the organisation’s logistics. Add to this, the freewheeling piratical activity in locations like the Horn of Africa, the Bay of Bengal and the Malacca Straits, and one gets an idea of the vigil that is necessary to maintain order in the waters of the IOR.
Maritime Assets & Liabilities
The Indian Ocean sees about 100,000 ships transiting across its expanse annually. Two-thirds of the world’s oil shipments, one-third of its bulk cargo, and half the world’s container traffic pass through its waters.
The vibrant economies of China, Japan, and South Korea as well as the rest of Asia-Pacific rely on oil supplies, which emerge from the Strait of Hormuz and transit via the Malacca Strait into that region. Over 70% of our own oil comes by ship from the Persian Gulf. Any disruption in oil traffic could destabilise the price levels, resulting in a major upset for the world economy and a setback for our developmental process. As mentioned earlier, India’s fortunate geographical location astride Indian Ocean sea-lane gives her a key role in safeguarding their integrity and ensuring unhindered traffic.
India’s burgeoning economy, which ranks fourth in the world in PPP, is inextricably linked with sea borne trade. Our exports were about US$ 100 billion in 2005-06 and are slated to double over the next five years. Of our foreign trade, over 75% by value is carried by sea. India’s growing merchant fleet is the 15th largest globally and operates out of 12 major and 184 minor ports scattered along our 7500 km long coastline.
Another aspect of the ocean, which presents the prospect of wealth and prosperity, and yet contains the seeds of conflict, is undersea resources. The average depth of the Indian Ocean is less than 4 km, and that is the distance, which tantalisingly separates us from a veritable treasure-house of rare minerals, gas and hydrocarbons awaiting exploitation on the ocean bed. India has a mineral rich EEZ extending currently, over 2.2 million sq km (and likely to increase). In many instances, especially in deep basins of the Andaman Sea, technology is the only barrier that currently hinders exploitation of these resources at this moment.
In an effort to diversify resources and ensure stability in supplies, ONGC Videsh Ltd has acquired oil concessions abroad in Russia, Myanmar, Iran, North Africa, the CARs and South America. These represent investments of several hundred billion dollars in real estate, infrastructure and national resources, which may one day require us to reach out across the seas for their protection.
The frozen wastes of the Antarctic have been attracting expeditions of Indian geologists, meteorologists, oceanographers and others for over two decades now. Our scientific community has established a succession of manned scientific stations, which have yielded valuable data over the years. Their worthy endeavours have been fully supported by the navy, and should this unique continent have anything to yield in terms of mineral or organic wealth (even if 50 years hence) India’s stake would need to be protected.
Fish provides 25% of the world’s supply of animal protein. The control and management of fishing resources is a problematic area, with most seafaring nations deploying their fleets to more lucrative grounds in the EEZ of other countries. India’s EEZ contains an estimated potential yield of 40 million tons of fish. Of this, we harvest less than 10% and the rest are either poached by foreign trawlers (especially in our island territories), or die of old age.
Maritime Cooperation
During peace, which fortunately prevails most of the time, the main business of navies is (apart from preparing for war) to act as instruments of state policy in offering “a range of flexible and well calibrated signals” in support of diplomatic initiatives. The options available could include projecting maritime power for intervention, or influencing events on land, showing presence to either convey reassurance or threat, cooperating with allies in training exercises or simply rendering humanitarian relief when required.
Recent experience, including the relief rendered by us during the tsunami disaster and the Lebanon crisis has shown that our neighbours are inclined to look instinctively to us for assistance in times of distress. Even in the normal course, they feel that India is well placed to provide military training as well as material aid to them. It is only when we fail to respond to their repeated appeals that they turn to other countries in the region. Regrettably, this scenario continues to be repeated with depressing regularity.
As pointed out earlier, we have been neglectful of this aspect and need to make early amends. Our foreign cooperation objectives should essentially aim to curb or prevent powers inimical to India from intruding into our neighbourhood, and to help us shape the environment favourably for operations in peace and in war. The Indian Navy does have in place a well-oiled mechanism as well as long term plans for foreign cooperation, which needs the Government’s backing for implementation.
Safety of the Undersea Deterrent
India’s Nuclear Doctrine clearly envisages a deterrent in the form of a triad with land-based, aircraft borne, and submarine launched ‘legs’. Of these, we possess only the first two at the moment. Nuclear weapons are not meant for war fighting, and achieve deterrence by convincing the enemy of the futility of contemplating a nuclear first strike, because the instant response would be so horrific and devastating as to render the strike pointless.
In order to convince the enemy, your deterrent must have two essential attributes, which render it ‘credible’: it should have massive destructive power, and a major component of it must be survivable in the face of a sneak first strike. The only platform, which can claim to be ‘undetectable’ and hence invulnerable to pre-emptive attack, is the nuclear propelled, ballistic missile-armed submarine (known in USN parlance as the SSBN), which can remain concealed in the ocean depths for months on end.
The waters of the Indian Ocean provide a sanctuary where the SSBNs of various nuclear powers, including the Chinese, lurk unseen with their missile warheads programmed to strike designated targets; some of them, no doubt, our own cities. Location and tracking of these submarines may become necessary to keep the threshold of coercion at a reasonably high level. This is however, a daunting task, which requires tremendous anti-submarine warfare hardware and skills, which the IN should be acquiring.
However, to complete the triad of our own Strategic Forces we must have a small number of Indian SSBNs. Developmental work is reported to be underway, and when this platform becomes operationally available, we will need suitable areas in the distant reaches of the Indian Ocean from where it can be safely deployed to pose deterrence to our adversaries.
The Ingredients of a Maritime India
At Independence, agriculture generated seventy percent of India’s GDP, and it is a sign of the times that today its share has dwindled to less than 20% while services (including IT) contribute over 50%; and industry does the rest. The dramatic growth of the Indian economy is being spurred by its interdependence on, and integration with the global economy. This factor, coupled with our energy requirements, burgeoning trade, oceanic wealth; both mineral and organic, and many other vital interests require us to focus attention on our maritime environment.
A supporter of all UN organs, and an aspiring member of the Security Council, India’s own well-being and progress depend on promoting international stability, freedom and economic development. Since our economy is dependant on international trade, India’s vital interests are not going to be confined merely to the IOR. Just as we see foreign direct investment pouring into India, Indian investment overseas is also going to grow rapidly. Thus, along with an Indian diaspora of over 20 million, we are also going to have vital economic interests scattered worldwide.
The concept of maritime power encompasses far more than most people seem to imagine, and certainly goes much beyond the military aspects. Although it may be no longer fashionable to quote Admiral Sergei Gorshkov, in the opening pages of his book ‘Sea Power of the State’ he highlights his expectations from maritime power thus: “In the definition of sea power we include as the main components, ocean research and exploitation, the status of the merchant and fishing fleets, and their ability to meet the needs of the state, and also the presence of a navy to safeguard the interests of the state since antagonistic social systems exist in the world. Sea power emerges as one of the important factors for strengthening the economy, accelerating technical development and consolidating economic, political and cultural links with friendly people and countries.”
Thus, contrary to popular perception, a strong and capable navy is just one (albeit very important) component of a nation’s maritime strength. We need to focus on the ingredients required to make us shun our centuries old continental mindset and put us on the path of becoming a truly maritime nation. This brings us to the different ingredients that will go towards constituting a vibrant Maritime India 2020.
Ports and Merchant Fleet
Considering that 97% of our international trade by volume, is carried by sea, the Maritime Sector, in which the Ministry of Shipping and Transport includes port operations, the mercantile fleet and our shipbuilding industry, has been sadly neglected since Independence. A study commissioned by the Confederation of Indian Industry as recently as 2006, to examine the revival of this sector, points out that with our sea borne trade rising at a rapid rate, there is urgent need to focus inter alia on the following areas:
• Ports
• Global Maritime Security Environment
• Hinterland Connectivity
• Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Industry
• Human Resource Development
Compared to the efficient cargo handling and speedy ship turnaround times available in most of Asia-Pacific, our ports are slothful and grossly inadequate to meet the current cargo throughput requirements. Considerable planning and investment would be needed to bring our ports up to international standards. In this context, the exacting requirements of security protocols like the ISPS Code would also need to be kept in mind. Moreover, unless hinterland connectivity in terms of efficient railroad and fast highway connections are available, investment in ports may be rendered infructuous.
India’s merchant fleet comprises of 760 ships of 8.6 million tones GRT, and the average age of its vessels is about 17 years. It can carry less than half of the country’s foreign trade, and India’s shipping capacity in the words of Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, is “…woefully inadequate, and by any reckoning out of synch with its overwhelming dependence on seaborne trade.” Consequently we are continuously dependant on foreign carriers and losing earnings to them. The fleet is also qualitatively mismatched to market needs; lacking container vessels, as well as product and specialised carriers. All these shortcomings constitute strategic handicaps and need to be redressed.
Shipbuilding
Of all the Indian flagged vessels, only about 10 percent have been built in Indian shipyards because of higher costs, lengthy delivery times and indifferent quality. There is deep irony in this statistic, because we have an ancient shipbuilding heritage. In Lothal (Gujarat), archeologists have excavated, possibly the world’s oldest dry-dock going back to 2500 BCE, and anchored in Hartepool harbour is the 38-gun frigate HMS Trincomalee built of stout Malabar teak by the Wadia master-shipbuilders of Bombay way back in 1817. Today the Indian shipbuilding industry is a pale shadow of the magnificent Wadia tradition.
India is at the centre of a spectacular IT boom and many industrial sectors in the country are at the cutting edge of technology or of production engineering, but not shipbuilding. It is an index of our shortsightedness that while China, South Korea and Japan have marshaled their strengths to produce quality ships at competitive prices in large numbers, India with all her advantages, has completely neglected the shipbuilding industry. India may be world No.1 in low-tech ship breaking, but a modern supertanker needing repairs in our waters may well have to go to Dubai for dry-docking.
Of the 28 established shipyards in the country, only seven public sector and two private yards have reasonable building capacity. While the public sector shipyards lack the technology, as well as finances, work ethic and innovative spirit necessary to be competitive, the private shipyards await a ‘level playing field’ to make their mark. This depressing scenario may persist unless the GoI takes a long-term view and implements some hard decisions in this strategic sector, bearing in mind that a boom in shipbuilding will spawn a multitude of ancillary industries too.
A Central Maritime Agency
The sixth issue figuring in Mahan’s agenda referred to earlier, spoke of ‘government institutions’. Today there is no single government agency, which has either the span of responsibility or the authority to act as the focal point for India’s maritime policies and interests. Nor one, which has the physical means to exercise control over the myriad activities that take place on and under the oceans. As many as sixteen different ministries, departments or organisations, (including the Indian Navy and the Coast Guard), are involved in ocean-related matters, and much of the time the left hand does not know what the right is doing. The result is; confusion, crossed wires and compromised national security.
Let me provide a few examples here. Merchant ships blatantly pollute our waters with impunity, unsafe ships ply in our waters and often run aground or sink outside harbours, licenses to fish in Indian waters are given for foreign trawlers who fudge papers and have Chinese or Pakistani crews, we lack radar chains to monitor shipping traffic, and the crowning irony; while hundreds of retired Indian naval personnel are debarred from crewing our merchant ships, we look abroad to hire foreigners for this purpose.
A comprehensive proposal for the constitution of a multi-disciplinary ‘Maritime Commission’ was mooted a few years ago by Naval Headquarters, but ran into rough weather and finally foundered on the rocks of inter-Ministerial rivalry and insecurity. A nation such as ours urgently needs to evolve an overarching Maritime Policy and create a central agency to monitor its implementation.
Varuna’s Trident
Coming finally to the Indian Navy, which is the instrument for safeguarding our maritime security perimeter, for creating a position of influence in the region where India’s national interests lie, and in extremis for defeating the nation’s enemies at sea. Of all the entities that have found mention so far, it is the IN, which has prepared itself best to be the keystone of the nation’s maritime edifice in 2020.
Therefore, instead of embarking on a discussion of diverse issues, I will confine myself to informing the reader of the navy’s outline plan of action for this period. The navy considers that the resurgence of our maritime power is a sine qua non of India’s rise as an economic giant. While undertaking the planning process, the navy’s leadership has taken care to create not just the intellectual underpinning necessary for it, but also to provide, for decision-makers, a rationale for its projected growth path.
The Indian Maritime Doctrine published in 2004, essentially set out the ‘rules of the game’ for deployment of maritime assets for attaining national objectives. In 2005, the navy decided to undertake an exercise to quantify the ‘capabilities’ (for example air defence, amphibious, anti-submarine, maritime patrol etc) that would be needed to discharge all the roles envisaged for maritime forces in the doctrine. Given the performance of modern ships, aircraft & submarines, these capability requirements were then translated into numbers of platforms that would be necessary.
A sensitivity analysis was undertaken with the numbers that emerged, against budgetary variables up to the end of the 13th Plan (2022). Having essentially met all bottom lines relating to threat perceptions, fiscal resources, and shipbuilding capacity, this force planning exercise was converted into a Maritime Capabilities Perspective Plan which now forms the navy’s force planning blueprint till the end of the next decade. This capability-based approach has served to make tomorrow’s navy leaner, while packing far more punch and keeping the ‘capital to revenue’ ratio at a very healthy level; which means that there is much more money available for modernisation.
In late 2006 a Maritime Strategy was promulgated by the IN. This document has served to fill the residual philosophical hiatus, and to provide tangible guidelines, within the specific geo-strategic environment anticipated in the next decade, for the acquisition, build up and employment of maritime assets in peace and in war.
The navy of 2020 will essentially be a three dimensional force (“Varuna’s Trident”) built around the core of two aircraft carrier task forces and closely networked through a dedicated communications satellite. Indigenously built destroyers and frigates will be available in adequate numbers to provide escorts for the carriers as well as for independent surface action and anti-submarine hunter-killer groups. All escorts will have modern sensors and long-range weapons of offence and defence, and will carry multi-role helicopters.
While replenishment ships will ensure long legs for the combatants, we will also have enough friendly refueling ports in the IOR (and South China Sea) to allow extended operational reach. Long-range anti-submarine warfare and maritime patrol aircraft of a new generation would provide support to our forces in the distant reaches of the oceans.
We would have in service by then, six indigenously built submarines of the Scorpene class, and perhaps another 3-4 boats of an advanced indigenous design, all equipped with missiles and air independent propulsion. The decline in submarine force levels should have been arrested and reversed.
It is now an article of faith with the IN that all operations by maritime forces at sea will be designed to produce a direct or indirect impact on the land battle. Future operations will invariably demand that information dominance be the opening gambit. Sea control, if required, could then be established as a prelude to maritime manoeuver and littoral warfare. In such a scenario, land attack, naval air, amphibious, and Special Forces capabilities will require due emphasis, which is being provided by the naval planners.
Many of these concepts are new, and require radical reorientation of mindsets as well as operating procedures. The navy has, therefore, triggered a process of ‘Transformation’ to deal with orderly the management of change.
The navy’s focused thrust would have ensured by 2020 that much technology and many products of indigenous or collaborative origin are at sea. In the area of propulsion, we would have advanced diesels and gas turbines, as well as electric drives on our warships. It is entirely possible that the endeavours of our scientists would by this time have succeeded in putting indigenous nuclear propulsion at sea, either on a submarine or an aircraft carrier.
Conclusion
It may be mentioned with utmost emphasis, that of all the ingredients, which go into the making of a great maritime nation, none is more important or significant than the human mind. Unless determined efforts are made to create a consciousness of our ancient maritime heritage, and an affinity for the seas in the minds of young Indians, all efforts at creating a Maritime India could come to naught.
There will be skeptics who point to our populous landlocked states. To them I would say that while the Indian Navy today does have its share of sailors from the ‘maritime states’, the bulk of our Service consists of land bound people from Bihar, UP, Rajasthan (two former Chiefs), Haryana, Himachal and Punjab; and they all make excellent sailors. So much for Mahan’s predictions!
In an epic and hazardous voyage, the navy’s sail training ship INS Tarangini circumnavigated the globe in 2004. The Captain describes with delight, the incredulity of thousands of visitors who boarded the ship in various ports across the world at the sight of Indians (!) sailing around the world. By next year, we hope that a courageous IN officer will set another seafaring benchmark for his countrymen by undertaking a solo sailing voyage around the world.
We must also note the example of continental Russia where Peter the Great almost single-handedly created not just a maritime tradition but also a magnificent navy, which recently celebrated its 300th anniversary. So if a maritime tradition can be created, it can certainly be revived.
There is a great deal that the Government can and must do in this context; and we have dwelt on it at length. However, there are a handful of organisations and individuals of dedication and conviction working today, to kindle the spark which will revive India’s glorious maritime tradition amongst the populace, and especially her youth. Noteworthy amongst these are the Sea Cadet Corps in Mumbai, the National Maritime Foundation in Delhi and the Indian Maritime Foundation in Pune. They are all deserving of our goodwill and support in this worthy cause.
Admiral Arun Prakash, former Chief of Indian Navy and author of From the Crow’s Nest.
“What ship? Where bound?” is the traditional nautical query that goes out on the air when a warship encounters a stranger on the high seas. Recently an Indian Navy frigate on passage to the Persian Gulf was challenged on radio by a ship of the Coalition Task Force on patrol: “Unknown ship what are you doing in this area?” The IN ship shot back with barely concealed annoyance, “ I happen to be an Indian warship in the Indian Ocean. What are YOU doing here?”
While this story may be apocryphal, it does serve to illustrate two aspects. Firstly that old mindsets take time to dissipate; guarding the seas East of Suez was historically considered the ‘white man’s burden’, and in some perceptions we may still be seen as interlopers in our own backyard. And secondly, that India has neither acknowledged her role as a pre-eminent maritime entity in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), nor done enough to shoulder the concomitant regional responsibilities.
While others are reluctantly coming to terms with India’s quest for her rightful place in the evolving world order, Indians themselves have remained irresolute and diffident in this regard. Consequently, there is a likelihood, that the concept of ‘Maritime India’ may present a conundrum, to the citizens of a nation which has remained hostage to a continental mind-set for centuries.
Therefore, before making out the case for a Maritime India, a decade and a half into the future, I would like to briefly take my countrymen back into the hoary past to examine the context in which a substantive maritime underpinning can be claimed for India’s history.
Our Blissful Ignorance
While we revere our past and have been brought up to blindly believe that we are the inheritors of a great culture and tradition, as a nation we have been sadly remiss in neither researching the past, nor adequately recording our own history. William Dalrymple provides us a poignant reminder of this shortcoming in the Introduction to his celebrated new book, ‘The Last Mughal’. He refers to the 20,000 virtually unused Persian and Urdu documents relating to Delhi in 1857, known as the Mutiny Papers, that he found on the shelves of the National Archives of India and says, “…the question that became increasingly hard to answer was, why no one had used this wonderful mass of material before.”
It was left to conscientious British administrators, Jesuit scholars and other European researchers to unravel our glorious past by learning Sanskrit and studying our sacred Vedic literature. The discovery and collation of India’s history and culture by European scholars not only created great respect for it amongst them, but also inspired Indian nationalists to value and cherish their own inheritance, as they had never before viewed India from such a perspective.
However, those who write history also enjoy the license of giving it whatever slant they wish to; and this as we will see, is often at the cost of objectivity.
Their History
Almost all works on maritime history from Western sources start with a description of the seafaring tradition of the Mediterranean basin (circa 2500-2000 BCE), and dwell on the sea power of Crete, Phoenicia, Greece, Carthage and Rome. The first reference to the Orient generally relates to the Greco-Persian war in the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, where mention is made (with relief) of how Greek sea power thwarted an “attack by Asia on Europe”. In this context Greece was fortunate in having two accomplished historians: Herodotus who is known as the “father of history”, and the Athenian historian-soldier Thucydides, who maintained a meticulous record of the Peloponnesian Wars between Athens and Sparta (431-404 BCE).
In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries Western Europe came once again under threat from the east; this time from sea power of the Ottoman Turks, who brought pressure to bear in the Mediterranean. The Battle of Lepanto in 1571 put an end to this last Asiatic challenge. Historians conclude that this was also the period that seafaring countries of Europe made certain breakthroughs in the fields of ship-construction and navigation, which enabled its sailors to start undertaking long-distance voyages. At the same time advances in gunnery and specialised fighting vessels provided them the means of overwhelming the opposition of ‘other races’.
As Paul Kennedy puts it, the Western onslaught into the East was inspired by a mixture of political, religious and economic motives, particularly the latter. Once the Spanish and Portuguese fleets had demonstrated the ease of conquest, and the economic benefits to be gained by such maritime forays, the race was on, with Dutch, French, and English adventurers joining in what became a scramble for trading links, political advantage, proselytisation and loot.
So much for early maritime developments in the West; but it is intriguing to note that nowhere in these historical accounts does one find even a passing mention of India or the seafaring skills of ancient Indians.
Our History
For this we have to turn to the lone voice of Sardar KM Pannikar (1895-1963), our first ambassador to China, who combined in himself the attributes of statesman, diplomat, historian and visionary. Among the large number of his works in Sanskrit, Malayalam and English is a seminal essay entitled ‘India and the Indian Ocean’. First published as a monograph in 1945, this treatise is now out of print, and although read and quoted extensively by foreign scholars, it is little known to Indians.
According to Pannikar, for geo-physical and meteorological reasons (currents, prevailing winds etc.), it was the Indian Ocean, and specifically the lands washed by the Arabian Sea, which saw the first naval and oceanic sailing activity; and European historians err grievously when they assume that the navigational tradition first emerged around the Mediterranean.
Long before seafaring developed in the “limited” Aegean waters, according to him, oceanic navigation had become common with the coastal people of peninsular India. He clinches his argument by stating that: “Millenniums before Columbus sailed the Atlantic and Magellan crossed the Pacific, the Indian Ocean had become a thoroughfare of commercial and cultural traffic between the west coast of India and Nineveh and Babylon (modern Iraq) as well as the Levant (E. Mediterranean)”.
Pannikar goes on to assert that not only do the earliest Indian literature, the Vedas (1500 BCE), speak frequently of sea voyages, but that much of the materials found in the remains of the Indus Valley Civilisation (3000-2500 BCE), and many products discovered in Mohenjodaro came either from the shores of the Red Sea or the extreme south of India and “could only have been transported by sea”. He places Indians firmly alongside the Greeks and the Arabs as ancient seafarers and claims that the Hindus had already in use a magnetic compass (matsya yantra) for accurate navigation, and having acquired the skills to build ocean going ships of great strength and durability ventured into the distant reaches of the Arabian Sea.
Though Socotra was perhaps an Indian settlement and Indian communities existed in Alexandria, and in other locations in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, maritime activity in the Arabian Sea was confined to commercial purposes only. On the other hand, the Bay of Bengal provided a highway for a succession of kingdoms in the southern and eastern Indian peninsula to embark on cultural, colonisation and proselytisation missions to lands beyond the Malacca Straits – as Far East as Japan. Interestingly, Pannikar debunks the commonly held belief that all Hindus had a religious objection to crossing the seas, saying: “it was never true of the people of the South”.
Pannikar recounts the continuum of colonisation as well as cultural and religious osmosis from India’s east coast, by sea to Southeast Asia. Starting with the Mauryan emperors, he traces Indian maritime activism through the Andhra, Pallava, Pandava, Chalukya and Chola dynasties. To make his point about intrepid Indian mariners providing continuous cultural sustenance and support from the ‘mother country’, he refers to the 500-year long dominance of the seas by the Sumatra based Sri Vijaya Empire (of Indian provenance) and to the growth of large Hindu kingdoms and empires in Champa (Siam), Cambodia, Java, and Sumatra from the 5th to the 13th centuries.
From this apogee, India’s maritime prowess went into rapid decline, mainly because the Central Asian dynasties, which ruled in Delhi, knew more saddles and stirrups than concepts of sea power.
The arrival of the 20-gun Portuguese frigate San Gabriele off Calicut in May 1498 marked the beginning of what Pannikar terms as the ‘Vasco da Gama epoch’ and commencement of four centuries of ‘authority based on control of the seas’ by European powers; and not all the daring, valour and patriotic fervour of the Zamorins, Marrakars or Angres could stand up to it.
An Indian Ocean Entity
“Status and symbolism” said George Tanham a RAND Corporation researcher in his monograph on Indian strategic thought, “matters greatly in Indian society…and Indian Admirals may need no justification or rationale for a powerful navy other than that India’s greatness mandates it.” Others have alleged hegemonistic intentions on the part of India. With mindsets of this nature, I considered this somewhat lengthy prologue necessary to obtain a correct perspective about our past, and to provide reassurance that Indians are neither interlopers nor parvenus in the Indian Ocean.
We, therefore, need to examine whether in trying to become a pre-eminent IOR entity India seeks merely ‘status and symbolism’ and hegemony; or is it actually seeking to fulfill a manifest destiny and a tangible need. The British, because they had arrived in India by sea, realised the gravity of the potential maritime threat, especially from their European rivals. Accordingly they adopted a maritime strategy for India, which was a sub-set of their global game plan to gain and maintain control of all major oceanic choke points worldwide, especially those leading to the IOR.
Our post-independence leadership, for various reasons, developed a utopian outlook, which led to a moralpolitik rather than realpolitik orientation in our policies and a focus on lofty concepts like ‘non-alignment’, ‘universal disarmament’ and ‘zones of peace’ which were rich in rhetoric but did nothing to further our national interests, gave us a moralising image and endeared us to no one.
The British have not forgotten that their economic rise and fall had been closely linked with their navy’s rise and fall. Shorn of all imperial or colonial trappings, their Defence Doctrine still speaks of maintaining the capabilities required “for independent action to meet inescapable national obligations and safeguard British interests worldwide”. Many times the size of this tiny island nation, we need to make a serious assessment of India’s own national interests and compulsions in the context of the IOR.
Due to a lack of vision, diffidence, and preoccupation with internal matters we have over the past 60 years embraced insularity and neglected our maritime security. Even if some kind of a ‘Monroe Doctrine’ was cultural anathema for us, we should at least have declared to others our strategic frontiers, and defined for ourselves a strategy to safeguard our interests within their bounds.
A Maritime Destiny?
India’s overarching interests are clearly defined by the need to guarantee a stable and tranquil external environment for two reasons. Firstly, our own people expect that favourable conditions will be maintained for speedy implementation of the nation’s lagging developmental process. Secondly, we have an obligation to the international community to ensure that trade and shipping traffic flows unhindered in the IOR sea-lanes.
With ample justification, our strategic frontiers can, therefore, be considered to extend from the Persian Gulf down the east coast of Africa, across to the Malacca Strait and south to the Southern Indian Ocean. In this context, as a peace loving status quo power and a law-abiding nation state with an impeccable record of observing international conventions, we must disregard those who are inclined to cry wolf about ‘hegemony’.
Admiral Mahan the renowned American strategist, had specified six conditions, as having a vital bearing on the sea power of a nation: (i) geographical position; (ii) physical conformation; (iii) extent of territory; (iv) number of population; (v) national character; and (vi) policy and nature of government institutions. Let us examine our country against the touchstone of Mahan’s conditionalities.
As far as the first three, essentially geographical conditions are concerned, no country – perhaps not even an island state – could be as favourably placed as peninsular India, for the development of maritime power. The next two conditions relate to the commercial enterprise and seagoing proclivities of the populace; and with 11 maritime states and island territories India probably has more seafaring people than the population of most European countries; but more of that later. It is the sixth and last condition, on which we will need to focus our attention rather sharply.
Having seen that the portents are appropriate and propitious for India to redeem her maritime destiny, we have to recognise that there are a number of distinct strands to the logic, which must underpin her endeavours in the maritime domain. It is necessary that we examine (the threats, and opportunities that constitute) these strands and then weave them all together into a cohesive cord.
States & Non-State Actors
For a threat assessment to be objective, it must recognise Lord Palmerston’s dictum about nations having neither permanent friends nor foes, but only permanent interests. An appraisal, divested of sentiment, will therefore show that India and China are going to be competitors for the same strategic space in Asia, and no matter how peaceful their rise or how intense their bilateral trade, a clash of interests cannot be ruled out. It is intriguing, in this context, to note that of her 15 neighbours, China has painstakingly settled land boundaries with all, but stoutly maintained her claim on Arunachal as well as occupation of Aksai Chin.
The sustained transfer of not just conventional arms but also advanced nuclear weapon technology as well as missiles, to Pakistan either directly by China or through the North Korean conduit has no precedent in international relations. In addition, China’s strategy of creating a ring of weapon client states right around India has placed us strategically on the backfoot. This situation is, however, of our own making, because over the years, China has provided sufficient indications of her plans for ‘containment’ of India, which we have disregarded.
It should come as no surprise to us if in the next few years PLA Navy ships and nuclear submarines are put regularly into harbours like Chittagong, Sittwe, Hambantota or Gwadar in our immediate neighbourhood. In pursuit of their grand design, the Chinese are planning or in the process of building container terminals in all these ports.
By herself, Pakistan may or may not have been able to do much vis-à-vis India, but as China’s surrogate she has received strategic support, and managed to achieve a great deal. And of course the Chinese puppet-masters have manipulated a willing Pakistan brilliantly to checkmate India at minimal cost to themselves.
Developments post 9/11 have garnered for Pakistan, moral and material support from the USA, and further buttressed the position of her military ruler. As a consequence of this implicit and explicit abetment, Pakistan continues undaunted, to be the nursery of religious fundamentalism and fountainhead of nuclear/missile proliferation.
Moving away from our immediate neighbourhood, we also need to factor into our calculus, the substantive presence of extra-regional powers in the IOR. Friendly they may be, but one should never forget that they are in these waters, not for altruistic motives but specifically to safeguard their perceived national interests; economic and strategic.
Should a conflict of interests ever arise, we must be in no doubt that coercive force will be brought to bear on us. Under such circumstances, we have to be prepared to act in our own self-interest. And we must let neither the Hyde Indo-US Nuclear Energy Act, or any similar document, nor the manifold ‘strategic partnerships’ that we seem to have crafted with other nations ever cloud our vision.
The seven tons of explosives, which created mayhem in Mumbai in 1993, arrived on our shores by sea. Today, the Golden Crescent and the Golden Triangle on either side of India are the source of financial sustenance for terrorist organisations like the al Qaeda and Jemmiah Islamiah, which use maritime routes for lucrative narcotic and arms trafficking. The LTTE, apart from its combatant Sea Tiger wing, also has a small merchant fleet, which conducts clandestine trade in Southeast Asia to replenish the organisation’s logistics. Add to this, the freewheeling piratical activity in locations like the Horn of Africa, the Bay of Bengal and the Malacca Straits, and one gets an idea of the vigil that is necessary to maintain order in the waters of the IOR.
Maritime Assets & Liabilities
The Indian Ocean sees about 100,000 ships transiting across its expanse annually. Two-thirds of the world’s oil shipments, one-third of its bulk cargo, and half the world’s container traffic pass through its waters.
The vibrant economies of China, Japan, and South Korea as well as the rest of Asia-Pacific rely on oil supplies, which emerge from the Strait of Hormuz and transit via the Malacca Strait into that region. Over 70% of our own oil comes by ship from the Persian Gulf. Any disruption in oil traffic could destabilise the price levels, resulting in a major upset for the world economy and a setback for our developmental process. As mentioned earlier, India’s fortunate geographical location astride Indian Ocean sea-lane gives her a key role in safeguarding their integrity and ensuring unhindered traffic.
India’s burgeoning economy, which ranks fourth in the world in PPP, is inextricably linked with sea borne trade. Our exports were about US$ 100 billion in 2005-06 and are slated to double over the next five years. Of our foreign trade, over 75% by value is carried by sea. India’s growing merchant fleet is the 15th largest globally and operates out of 12 major and 184 minor ports scattered along our 7500 km long coastline.
Another aspect of the ocean, which presents the prospect of wealth and prosperity, and yet contains the seeds of conflict, is undersea resources. The average depth of the Indian Ocean is less than 4 km, and that is the distance, which tantalisingly separates us from a veritable treasure-house of rare minerals, gas and hydrocarbons awaiting exploitation on the ocean bed. India has a mineral rich EEZ extending currently, over 2.2 million sq km (and likely to increase). In many instances, especially in deep basins of the Andaman Sea, technology is the only barrier that currently hinders exploitation of these resources at this moment.
In an effort to diversify resources and ensure stability in supplies, ONGC Videsh Ltd has acquired oil concessions abroad in Russia, Myanmar, Iran, North Africa, the CARs and South America. These represent investments of several hundred billion dollars in real estate, infrastructure and national resources, which may one day require us to reach out across the seas for their protection.
The frozen wastes of the Antarctic have been attracting expeditions of Indian geologists, meteorologists, oceanographers and others for over two decades now. Our scientific community has established a succession of manned scientific stations, which have yielded valuable data over the years. Their worthy endeavours have been fully supported by the navy, and should this unique continent have anything to yield in terms of mineral or organic wealth (even if 50 years hence) India’s stake would need to be protected.
Fish provides 25% of the world’s supply of animal protein. The control and management of fishing resources is a problematic area, with most seafaring nations deploying their fleets to more lucrative grounds in the EEZ of other countries. India’s EEZ contains an estimated potential yield of 40 million tons of fish. Of this, we harvest less than 10% and the rest are either poached by foreign trawlers (especially in our island territories), or die of old age.
Maritime Cooperation
During peace, which fortunately prevails most of the time, the main business of navies is (apart from preparing for war) to act as instruments of state policy in offering “a range of flexible and well calibrated signals” in support of diplomatic initiatives. The options available could include projecting maritime power for intervention, or influencing events on land, showing presence to either convey reassurance or threat, cooperating with allies in training exercises or simply rendering humanitarian relief when required.
Recent experience, including the relief rendered by us during the tsunami disaster and the Lebanon crisis has shown that our neighbours are inclined to look instinctively to us for assistance in times of distress. Even in the normal course, they feel that India is well placed to provide military training as well as material aid to them. It is only when we fail to respond to their repeated appeals that they turn to other countries in the region. Regrettably, this scenario continues to be repeated with depressing regularity.
As pointed out earlier, we have been neglectful of this aspect and need to make early amends. Our foreign cooperation objectives should essentially aim to curb or prevent powers inimical to India from intruding into our neighbourhood, and to help us shape the environment favourably for operations in peace and in war. The Indian Navy does have in place a well-oiled mechanism as well as long term plans for foreign cooperation, which needs the Government’s backing for implementation.
Safety of the Undersea Deterrent
India’s Nuclear Doctrine clearly envisages a deterrent in the form of a triad with land-based, aircraft borne, and submarine launched ‘legs’. Of these, we possess only the first two at the moment. Nuclear weapons are not meant for war fighting, and achieve deterrence by convincing the enemy of the futility of contemplating a nuclear first strike, because the instant response would be so horrific and devastating as to render the strike pointless.
In order to convince the enemy, your deterrent must have two essential attributes, which render it ‘credible’: it should have massive destructive power, and a major component of it must be survivable in the face of a sneak first strike. The only platform, which can claim to be ‘undetectable’ and hence invulnerable to pre-emptive attack, is the nuclear propelled, ballistic missile-armed submarine (known in USN parlance as the SSBN), which can remain concealed in the ocean depths for months on end.
The waters of the Indian Ocean provide a sanctuary where the SSBNs of various nuclear powers, including the Chinese, lurk unseen with their missile warheads programmed to strike designated targets; some of them, no doubt, our own cities. Location and tracking of these submarines may become necessary to keep the threshold of coercion at a reasonably high level. This is however, a daunting task, which requires tremendous anti-submarine warfare hardware and skills, which the IN should be acquiring.
However, to complete the triad of our own Strategic Forces we must have a small number of Indian SSBNs. Developmental work is reported to be underway, and when this platform becomes operationally available, we will need suitable areas in the distant reaches of the Indian Ocean from where it can be safely deployed to pose deterrence to our adversaries.
The Ingredients of a Maritime India
At Independence, agriculture generated seventy percent of India’s GDP, and it is a sign of the times that today its share has dwindled to less than 20% while services (including IT) contribute over 50%; and industry does the rest. The dramatic growth of the Indian economy is being spurred by its interdependence on, and integration with the global economy. This factor, coupled with our energy requirements, burgeoning trade, oceanic wealth; both mineral and organic, and many other vital interests require us to focus attention on our maritime environment.
A supporter of all UN organs, and an aspiring member of the Security Council, India’s own well-being and progress depend on promoting international stability, freedom and economic development. Since our economy is dependant on international trade, India’s vital interests are not going to be confined merely to the IOR. Just as we see foreign direct investment pouring into India, Indian investment overseas is also going to grow rapidly. Thus, along with an Indian diaspora of over 20 million, we are also going to have vital economic interests scattered worldwide.
The concept of maritime power encompasses far more than most people seem to imagine, and certainly goes much beyond the military aspects. Although it may be no longer fashionable to quote Admiral Sergei Gorshkov, in the opening pages of his book ‘Sea Power of the State’ he highlights his expectations from maritime power thus: “In the definition of sea power we include as the main components, ocean research and exploitation, the status of the merchant and fishing fleets, and their ability to meet the needs of the state, and also the presence of a navy to safeguard the interests of the state since antagonistic social systems exist in the world. Sea power emerges as one of the important factors for strengthening the economy, accelerating technical development and consolidating economic, political and cultural links with friendly people and countries.”
Thus, contrary to popular perception, a strong and capable navy is just one (albeit very important) component of a nation’s maritime strength. We need to focus on the ingredients required to make us shun our centuries old continental mindset and put us on the path of becoming a truly maritime nation. This brings us to the different ingredients that will go towards constituting a vibrant Maritime India 2020.
Ports and Merchant Fleet
Considering that 97% of our international trade by volume, is carried by sea, the Maritime Sector, in which the Ministry of Shipping and Transport includes port operations, the mercantile fleet and our shipbuilding industry, has been sadly neglected since Independence. A study commissioned by the Confederation of Indian Industry as recently as 2006, to examine the revival of this sector, points out that with our sea borne trade rising at a rapid rate, there is urgent need to focus inter alia on the following areas:
• Ports
• Global Maritime Security Environment
• Hinterland Connectivity
• Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Industry
• Human Resource Development
Compared to the efficient cargo handling and speedy ship turnaround times available in most of Asia-Pacific, our ports are slothful and grossly inadequate to meet the current cargo throughput requirements. Considerable planning and investment would be needed to bring our ports up to international standards. In this context, the exacting requirements of security protocols like the ISPS Code would also need to be kept in mind. Moreover, unless hinterland connectivity in terms of efficient railroad and fast highway connections are available, investment in ports may be rendered infructuous.
India’s merchant fleet comprises of 760 ships of 8.6 million tones GRT, and the average age of its vessels is about 17 years. It can carry less than half of the country’s foreign trade, and India’s shipping capacity in the words of Rahul Roy-Chaudhury, is “…woefully inadequate, and by any reckoning out of synch with its overwhelming dependence on seaborne trade.” Consequently we are continuously dependant on foreign carriers and losing earnings to them. The fleet is also qualitatively mismatched to market needs; lacking container vessels, as well as product and specialised carriers. All these shortcomings constitute strategic handicaps and need to be redressed.
Shipbuilding
Of all the Indian flagged vessels, only about 10 percent have been built in Indian shipyards because of higher costs, lengthy delivery times and indifferent quality. There is deep irony in this statistic, because we have an ancient shipbuilding heritage. In Lothal (Gujarat), archeologists have excavated, possibly the world’s oldest dry-dock going back to 2500 BCE, and anchored in Hartepool harbour is the 38-gun frigate HMS Trincomalee built of stout Malabar teak by the Wadia master-shipbuilders of Bombay way back in 1817. Today the Indian shipbuilding industry is a pale shadow of the magnificent Wadia tradition.
India is at the centre of a spectacular IT boom and many industrial sectors in the country are at the cutting edge of technology or of production engineering, but not shipbuilding. It is an index of our shortsightedness that while China, South Korea and Japan have marshaled their strengths to produce quality ships at competitive prices in large numbers, India with all her advantages, has completely neglected the shipbuilding industry. India may be world No.1 in low-tech ship breaking, but a modern supertanker needing repairs in our waters may well have to go to Dubai for dry-docking.
Of the 28 established shipyards in the country, only seven public sector and two private yards have reasonable building capacity. While the public sector shipyards lack the technology, as well as finances, work ethic and innovative spirit necessary to be competitive, the private shipyards await a ‘level playing field’ to make their mark. This depressing scenario may persist unless the GoI takes a long-term view and implements some hard decisions in this strategic sector, bearing in mind that a boom in shipbuilding will spawn a multitude of ancillary industries too.
A Central Maritime Agency
The sixth issue figuring in Mahan’s agenda referred to earlier, spoke of ‘government institutions’. Today there is no single government agency, which has either the span of responsibility or the authority to act as the focal point for India’s maritime policies and interests. Nor one, which has the physical means to exercise control over the myriad activities that take place on and under the oceans. As many as sixteen different ministries, departments or organisations, (including the Indian Navy and the Coast Guard), are involved in ocean-related matters, and much of the time the left hand does not know what the right is doing. The result is; confusion, crossed wires and compromised national security.
Let me provide a few examples here. Merchant ships blatantly pollute our waters with impunity, unsafe ships ply in our waters and often run aground or sink outside harbours, licenses to fish in Indian waters are given for foreign trawlers who fudge papers and have Chinese or Pakistani crews, we lack radar chains to monitor shipping traffic, and the crowning irony; while hundreds of retired Indian naval personnel are debarred from crewing our merchant ships, we look abroad to hire foreigners for this purpose.
A comprehensive proposal for the constitution of a multi-disciplinary ‘Maritime Commission’ was mooted a few years ago by Naval Headquarters, but ran into rough weather and finally foundered on the rocks of inter-Ministerial rivalry and insecurity. A nation such as ours urgently needs to evolve an overarching Maritime Policy and create a central agency to monitor its implementation.
Varuna’s Trident
Coming finally to the Indian Navy, which is the instrument for safeguarding our maritime security perimeter, for creating a position of influence in the region where India’s national interests lie, and in extremis for defeating the nation’s enemies at sea. Of all the entities that have found mention so far, it is the IN, which has prepared itself best to be the keystone of the nation’s maritime edifice in 2020.
Therefore, instead of embarking on a discussion of diverse issues, I will confine myself to informing the reader of the navy’s outline plan of action for this period. The navy considers that the resurgence of our maritime power is a sine qua non of India’s rise as an economic giant. While undertaking the planning process, the navy’s leadership has taken care to create not just the intellectual underpinning necessary for it, but also to provide, for decision-makers, a rationale for its projected growth path.
The Indian Maritime Doctrine published in 2004, essentially set out the ‘rules of the game’ for deployment of maritime assets for attaining national objectives. In 2005, the navy decided to undertake an exercise to quantify the ‘capabilities’ (for example air defence, amphibious, anti-submarine, maritime patrol etc) that would be needed to discharge all the roles envisaged for maritime forces in the doctrine. Given the performance of modern ships, aircraft & submarines, these capability requirements were then translated into numbers of platforms that would be necessary.
A sensitivity analysis was undertaken with the numbers that emerged, against budgetary variables up to the end of the 13th Plan (2022). Having essentially met all bottom lines relating to threat perceptions, fiscal resources, and shipbuilding capacity, this force planning exercise was converted into a Maritime Capabilities Perspective Plan which now forms the navy’s force planning blueprint till the end of the next decade. This capability-based approach has served to make tomorrow’s navy leaner, while packing far more punch and keeping the ‘capital to revenue’ ratio at a very healthy level; which means that there is much more money available for modernisation.
In late 2006 a Maritime Strategy was promulgated by the IN. This document has served to fill the residual philosophical hiatus, and to provide tangible guidelines, within the specific geo-strategic environment anticipated in the next decade, for the acquisition, build up and employment of maritime assets in peace and in war.
The navy of 2020 will essentially be a three dimensional force (“Varuna’s Trident”) built around the core of two aircraft carrier task forces and closely networked through a dedicated communications satellite. Indigenously built destroyers and frigates will be available in adequate numbers to provide escorts for the carriers as well as for independent surface action and anti-submarine hunter-killer groups. All escorts will have modern sensors and long-range weapons of offence and defence, and will carry multi-role helicopters.
While replenishment ships will ensure long legs for the combatants, we will also have enough friendly refueling ports in the IOR (and South China Sea) to allow extended operational reach. Long-range anti-submarine warfare and maritime patrol aircraft of a new generation would provide support to our forces in the distant reaches of the oceans.
We would have in service by then, six indigenously built submarines of the Scorpene class, and perhaps another 3-4 boats of an advanced indigenous design, all equipped with missiles and air independent propulsion. The decline in submarine force levels should have been arrested and reversed.
It is now an article of faith with the IN that all operations by maritime forces at sea will be designed to produce a direct or indirect impact on the land battle. Future operations will invariably demand that information dominance be the opening gambit. Sea control, if required, could then be established as a prelude to maritime manoeuver and littoral warfare. In such a scenario, land attack, naval air, amphibious, and Special Forces capabilities will require due emphasis, which is being provided by the naval planners.
Many of these concepts are new, and require radical reorientation of mindsets as well as operating procedures. The navy has, therefore, triggered a process of ‘Transformation’ to deal with orderly the management of change.
The navy’s focused thrust would have ensured by 2020 that much technology and many products of indigenous or collaborative origin are at sea. In the area of propulsion, we would have advanced diesels and gas turbines, as well as electric drives on our warships. It is entirely possible that the endeavours of our scientists would by this time have succeeded in putting indigenous nuclear propulsion at sea, either on a submarine or an aircraft carrier.
Conclusion
It may be mentioned with utmost emphasis, that of all the ingredients, which go into the making of a great maritime nation, none is more important or significant than the human mind. Unless determined efforts are made to create a consciousness of our ancient maritime heritage, and an affinity for the seas in the minds of young Indians, all efforts at creating a Maritime India could come to naught.
There will be skeptics who point to our populous landlocked states. To them I would say that while the Indian Navy today does have its share of sailors from the ‘maritime states’, the bulk of our Service consists of land bound people from Bihar, UP, Rajasthan (two former Chiefs), Haryana, Himachal and Punjab; and they all make excellent sailors. So much for Mahan’s predictions!
In an epic and hazardous voyage, the navy’s sail training ship INS Tarangini circumnavigated the globe in 2004. The Captain describes with delight, the incredulity of thousands of visitors who boarded the ship in various ports across the world at the sight of Indians (!) sailing around the world. By next year, we hope that a courageous IN officer will set another seafaring benchmark for his countrymen by undertaking a solo sailing voyage around the world.
We must also note the example of continental Russia where Peter the Great almost single-handedly created not just a maritime tradition but also a magnificent navy, which recently celebrated its 300th anniversary. So if a maritime tradition can be created, it can certainly be revived.
There is a great deal that the Government can and must do in this context; and we have dwelt on it at length. However, there are a handful of organisations and individuals of dedication and conviction working today, to kindle the spark which will revive India’s glorious maritime tradition amongst the populace, and especially her youth. Noteworthy amongst these are the Sea Cadet Corps in Mumbai, the National Maritime Foundation in Delhi and the Indian Maritime Foundation in Pune. They are all deserving of our goodwill and support in this worthy cause.
Admiral Arun Prakash, former Chief of Indian Navy and author of From the Crow’s Nest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)










