The Peninsula Foundation

Blog

Nuclear Stability in Asia and South Asia: the Dynamics of a Fragile Stability

Download Here for Full Report

M. Matheswaran

India-Pakistan-China relations determine South Asia’s strategic stability. Recent events and disputes have heightened regional tensions, and have drawn the world’s attention on the region’s potential for conflict. The fact that all three nuclear weapon states have long-standing border disputes has been used by the non-proliferation lobbies to consistently highlight South Asia as a nuclear flash point. The intractable Kashmir dispute continues to be cited as the potential trigger for any nuclear escalation. These concerns were brought to the fore as the world witnessed the two nuclear armed adversaries fight it out on the Himalayan heights of Kargil in May 1999. While India fought the war firmly, and displayed significant escalation control and management of international opinion, it must be acknowledged that both countries kept the conflict below the nuclear threshold, thus questioning the nuclear flash point theory.

Download Here to read more…

*This article was published in Indian Foreign Affairs Journal – Apr-Jun 2018.

January 2, 2019
An analysis of the draft space activities bill (2017), as an effective impetus to private sector space activities in India.

P.Joseph Mario Ritvik January 1, 2019/Report

Space activities in India, since the early 1960s, were pursued only by Department of Space (DOS), as nodal agency for space activities in India. As per ‘Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961, the DOS has been responsible for the space activities in India, for more than five decades, with the major objective of bringing the benefits of space technology and its applications to societal needs and national development.

Internationally, the outer space activities are governed by relevant chapters of international law in general and by United Nations’ (UN) Treaties and principles evolved under UN Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) in particular.

The obligations of a State Party under international treaties on outer space activities are expected to be complied/ discharged through national mechanisms, namely domestic space legislations.

India is a State Party to major treaties of UN on outer space activities and has been performing space activities in compliance with the obligations of UN Treaties on Outer Space activities purely under Governmental control.

Download Full Report to read more..

January 1, 2019
UNCLOS and Marine Pollution

Download Full Report

SRUTHY SREEKUMAR
January, 2019

In order to appreciate the momentous significance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, it is necessary to address the historical background of this event. An indispensable dimension of the law of the sea has historically been the so-called freedom of the seas which related to fisheries and navigation in the earlier period and was extended to scientific research, laying of pipelines and air navigation in later years. However, during the age of discovery around the fifteenth century, the powerful maritime states of Spain and Portugal claimed sovereignty over large areas of ocean space. For example, Portugal claimed sovereignty over the Indian Ocean and a large portion of the Atlantic Ocean. Spain claimed sovereignty over the Pacific and England over the North Sea. However, Grotius and other leading publicists persistently advocated the freedom of the seas which was generally accepted by nations of the international community as complying with their national interests. At the same time, it was generally recognized by the eighteenth century that coastal States were entitled to a belt of sea adjacent to their coasts up to a seaward limit of three miles advocated by Bynkershoek. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the ensuing discussion outlines the development of the concept of the law of the sea with particular reference to enforcement powers of the coastal state in the territorial sea.

Download Full Report to read more…

January 1, 2019
India and China Talks: No Give, No Take

The Indian and Chinese Special Representatives, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and State Councillor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, had the 21st round of talks ostensibly to discuss the “Border Issue” on November 24 at the picturesque town of Dujiangyan in Sichuan province. Though this was the first appearance of Wang Yi at these talks, there is now a monotonous regularity in this and no resolution of the vexatious border issue seems to be in sight, let alone be discussed. Since the border issue now seems very intractable, the two representatives have broadened the scope of the talks to discuss other bilateral issues. Nevertheless, while it is clearly understood that the resolution of the border territories dispute may never be on the horizon, but at least agreeing on where the interim lines of control lie the military vigil on the borders will ease off into a less tense standstill. Sadly for us, there was a time when with a little bit of give and take this contentious and now protracted problem seemed solvable.

In 1960 Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai suggested something akin to a status quo as a permanent solution. This was repeated in 1982 by Chairman Deng Xiaoping to India’s Ambassador in Beijing, G Parthasarathy. Once again it was offered during Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure as Prime Minister to the then Indian Ambassador AP Venkateshwaran and senior advisor to then Chinese PM Zhao Ziyang. But when Rajiv Gandhi visited Beijing in 1988, both countries decided to keep a permanent solution aside and focus on immediate “doable’s”. All along India felt that the internal political situation will not allow the government of the day the room to go with it. It hasn’t changed much, with the historical issues even less understood and inflamed public opinions prevailing on both sides.

What is commonly referred to as the “Border Dispute” between India and China has now manifested itself into two distinct disputes. The first is the dispute over two large and separated tracts of territories. One is Aksai Chin, a virtually uninhabited high altitude desert expanse of about 37000 square kilometers. The other is what is now the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, a diversely populated hill region with a population of around 1.4 million people spread out over 84,000 square kilometers, which China claims as Lower Tibet.

Aksai Chin lies between the state of Jammu and Kashmir, and China’s Xinjiang province, both regions that are also riven by separatist conflicts. Arunachal Pradesh borders Tibet, which also has a separation conflict with China. India claims that these borders were agreed upon by British India, and independent or semi-independent authorities, in Xinjiang and Tibet in the early days of the last century. China doesn’t agree with these. Both countries agree that these are legacies of history and cannot be solved in the immediate or near term and best be left to the future to resolve.

But what causes the frequent frictions between the two is that they do not have agreed Lines of Actual Control (LAC) to separate the jurisdictions under the control of the armies of the two countries. The perceptions of the LAC differ at many places. At some places it might be by just a few meters, and elsewhere by tens of kilometers.

To minimize the inflammability due to actively patrolling of security personnel of both sides, the two countries have a Border Defence Cooperation Agreement that sets out norms of behavior for both sides. The important things being that nothing of a permanent nature will be built on these disputed areas, and that the patrols take all precautions not to confront each other. Which simply means, if they come face to face they will both withdraw. The corollary to this is that the patrols will not tail each other. The agreement also requires local commanders to frequently meet and exchange views and sort out local differences across the table.

Despite the adverse geographical and climatic conditions, and the overarching tensions between Asia’s biggest economies, the troops on the ground are able to show surprising bonhomie and friendliness. But periodically, either due to misunderstanding or local level posturing by either side, there are frictions that threaten to erupt into a conflict with use of arms. But it has not happened since 1967 when the two armies fought a fierce localized battle in the Sikkim sector, quite close to where the recent Dokolam dispute took place.

The two countries have been engaged in frequent talks at various levels since 1981. After Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to Beijing in 1988, both countries had agreed to set up a task force to find a solution to the “border issue”. Chairman Deng welcoming his “ young friend” suggested they “forget the past” as they stood in the centre of the cavernous Great Hall of the People and the handshake lasted three long minutes.

For three long decades since then the two countries have been meeting to discuss the border issue, but so far we have seen unwillingness by both sides to forget the past. Since 2003 these talks were elevated to a high level political dialogue between Special Representatives, in India’s case the National Security Advisor and in China’s case an official at the level of State Councilor. The first meeting at this level took place between Indian NSA Brajesh Mishra and Chinese State Councilor Dai Bing Guo. We are now having the 20thround of this dialog between India’s National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval, and China’s State Councilor, Yang Jeichi.

A former Indian NSA once told me that the talks are high in style and hospitality, with the Indian side trying hard to match the Chinese, but there has been little traction. This is because of the versions of the claims that have been internalized and now form public opinion in both countries. Both countries are gripped by strong nationalism bordering on jingoism, which makes give and take, so vital in the resolution of such vexatious disputes, extremely difficult.

But the Border Management and Cooperation Agreement is a major outcome of these talks and that has by and large worked. The next logical step of these talks should be to agree on an LAC. But unfortunately even that is now being weighed down by aggressive nationalism driven by social media that equates “giving up” with national loss of face. This is something increasingly very important to both countries. We will not be seen giving up anything, even our obduracy and historical short sightedness.

Both countries are now very different then what they were in the last century. Both, India and China, are relatively prosperous and militarily powerful, but not so powerful to take by force what they desire. The new geopolitics and the new interdependent economics also will not permit a major dislocation in the world order. But the rise of new nationalisms has also led to a hardening of hearts. Neither now seems capable of giving or taking. So once again when Ajit Doval and Wang Yi met, both sides did not give away anything and we will have to wait for another time for that.

Mohan Guruswamy is a Distinguished Fellow and Trustee of TPF. This article was earlier published in ‘The Citizen’.

December 17, 2018
Disempowering the soldier

Deepak Sinha December 02, 2018 : Commentary

With election fever having gripped major parts of the country, television coverage of Prime Minister Narendra Modi hitting the poll trail is common, as also his constant reference to the so-called “surgical strikes” in his speeches. It is obvious that through his words of sympathy and support for the sacrifice and efforts of the military, he is intent on furthering his reputation as a firm and pro-active leader. But despite semantics and bombast, his Government continues with unabated ferocity in its agenda to disempower and dismember the military. Among a host of other issues, take the case of the Armed Forces Tribunals (AFT), another important institution that has been in the line of fire by this Government over the past year.

It was just about a decade ago when the Parliament, in its wisdom, transformed the military justice system by enacting the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, in order to address the serious lacunae in the existing system where justice was dispensed within the military. As per its website, it provided for the “adjudication or trial of disputes and complaints with respect to commission, appointments, enrolments and conditions of service in respect of persons subject to the Army Act, 1950, The Navy Act, 1957 and the Air Force Act, 1950.”

More importantly, it also provided for “appeals arising out of orders, findings or sentences of courts — martial held under the said Acts and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” In addition, it also adjudicates cases pertaining to military veterans and their heirs in issues relating to service matters. The AFT also has a distinct advantage since appeals against its findings can be made directly to the Supreme Court, thereby speeding up the judicial process for the affected individuals and the Government.

The critical role played by the AFT can best be understood in context of the fact that the Armed Forces being hierarchical organisations steeped in tradition, demand unquestionable loyalty and implicit obedience to orders from its rank and file. In this paternalistic and excessively conservative environment if, for any reason, an individual finds himself on the wrong side of the track, be it with regard to personnel or disciplinary issues, his superior officer becomes the prosecutor, jury and judge — all rolled in one.

While this provides for a quick dispensation of justice, undoubtedly extremely important in certain circumstances, it may not necessarily be unbiased or provide for an impartial or just resolution of the issue. The establishment of the AFT, thus, provided for an extremely important element in the military justice system. It gave all ranks an opportunity to approach an independent authority if they felt that they had not received justice at the hands of their superior officers for whatever reason.

Besides the principal Bench in New Delhi, the AFT has regional benches in 10 other cities across the country. While Delhi, Lucknow and Chandigarh have three Benches each, all other centres have a Bench each, a total of 17 Benches. Each Bench comprises of a judicial member and an administrative member. The judicial members are retired High Court judges and administrative members are retired members of the Armed Forces who have held the rank of Major General/ equivalent or above for a period of three years or more.

It demands no great intelligence to conclude that the judicial member is appointed based on his experience and knowledge of law and functioning of the criminal justice system. The administrative member is selected based on his long and distinguished service in the military and knowledge in associated matters.

However, over the past year while members have retired at regular intervals on completion of the laid down tenures, new appointments have not been forthcoming with a result that presently, of the authorised 35 members for 17 Benches, there are a total of only seven judicial members and eight administrative members presently nominated to the AFT. This implies that the Armed Forces Tribunals is presently functioning at less than 40 per cent of its strength.

Another five members, including three administrative members, will retire by May 2019, which would make the Armed Forces Tribunals virtually non-functional, if new members are not appointed. For all intents and purposes, circumstances leading to the prevailing state of affairs cannot be attributed to the lack of suitably-qualified judges or service officers. But it clearly points towards a deliberate attempt by the appointing authority and the Ministry of Defence to nullify their effectiveness at the cost of servicemen and veterans alike.

It is a matter of public record that there have been numerous occasions on which the various Benches of the AFT have ruled against the stand of the Ministry, thereby causing much embarrassment and humiliation to the Ministry. As per reports in the media as on date, the Ministry of Defence has a total of over 7,000 appeals against judgements of the AFT pending in the Supreme Court.

Obviously, the Defence Secretary finds himself in an unenviable position and can hardly be happy with this state of affairs, especially given the fact that he is a member of the selection committee that appoints members to the Armed Forces Tribunals. This attempt to curtail the effectiveness of the AFT could, therefore, well be because of this, which makes it a clear case of conflict of interest. Incidentally, a petition is under consideration of the Punjab and Haryana High Court since 2012 on this very issue and the need to place the AFT under the Ministry of Law instead.

However, a more disturbing reason could be that the Government’s attempt to introduce new rules through the Finance Bill 2017 were stalled when it was stayed by the Supreme Court in its judgment of February 9, 2018, in the matter of Kudrat Sandhu versus the Union of India.

As per the new rules, the appointment of administrative members was to be no longer restricted to the military, but was also open to others with at least 20 years of public service in such fields as economics and finance. Clearly, expecting non-military members to be conversant with military traditions and customs, procedures and conditions of service was not only impracticable, to say the least, but also made no sense. Obviously, this was nothing but a brazen and unashamed attempt to add to the sinecures available for retiring bureaucrats, which given their bent of mind, would result in the Ministry of Defence getting things their way from their own erstwhile colleagues.

Whether the Armed Forces Tribunals has been brought to its knees by the deliberate actions of unconscionable bureaucrats or utter lack of empathy of politicians is of little concern. The truth is, by curtailing the effectiveness of the Armed Forces Tribunals, the Government is destroying the military justice system which is a disservice to serving and retired personnel. Moreover, it is denying them justice that is their due, given that they have no other legal recourse available.

The writer is a military veteran, a Consultant with the Observer Research Foundation and Visiting Senior Fellow with The Peninsula Foundation, Chennai. This article was published earlier in ‘The Pioneer’ on November 30, 2018.

December 2, 2018
A step closer to N-triad deterrent

PM Modi announced with justifiable national pride on November 6 that India’s first nuclear-propelled submarine, INS Arihant, commissioned in 2016, was now operational as an integral part of its nuclear deterrent. India earlier had the capabilities to launch nuclear weapons from the air, mounted largely on its Mirage 2000 and Jaguar, and by land-based missiles, ranging from Agni 1 (700-900 km) to Agni 5 missiles (5,500 km). Its aim has been to develop a ‘credible nuclear deterrent’, with capabilities to deliver nuclear weapons from multiple locations to strategic areas in its nuclear-armed neighbours, China and Pakistan.

Arihant provides India with a capability to hit either neighbour from 300 m under the sea. The sea-based missiles envisaged for this purpose are Sagarika (750 km range) and K-4 (3,500 km). While land-based missile sites can be destroyed, a submarine-based deterrent is virtually impregnable against a missile attack. India is the only country with a sea-based N-deterrent, which is not a Permanent Member of the UNSC. India will soon operationalise a second nuclear submarine (Arighat), and is expected to have a fleet of four by 2022.

According to US Federation of Nuclear Scientists, India currently possesses 130-140 nuclear weapons, while Pakistan has 140-150 and China 280. While India tested its first nuclear weapons in 1998, Pakistan’s first test was in 1990, on Chinese soil.

In a recent book, Thomas Reed, a US nuclear weapons designer and former Secretary of the US air force, stated that China’s ‘Pakistan nuclear connection’ can be explained in the following words: ‘India was China’s enemy and Pakistan was India’s enemy. The Chinese did a massive training of Pakistani scientists, brought them to China for lectures, even gave them the design of the CHIC-4 device, which was a weapon that was easy to build — a model for export.’ Gary Milhollin, another expert, remarked: ‘Without China’s help, Pakistan’s bomb would not exist.’ China has also provided Pakistan the designs of its nuclear weapons, upgraded its ‘inverters’ for producing enriched uranium in Kahuta and provided it with plutonium reactors to build tactical nuclear weapons in Khushab and Fatehjang. Pakistan’s ballistic and cruise missiles are replicas of Chinese missiles.

India’s N-doctrine stated that its weapons would only be used in retaliation against a major attack on Indian territory, or on its forces anywhere, in which nuclear, chemical or biological weapons are used. But Pakistan does not have a formal doctrine. The long time head of its Nuclear Command Authority, Lt Gen Khalid Kidwai, however, said over a decade ago that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons were ‘aimed solely at India’ and Pakistan would use nuclear weapons if India conquered a large part of Pakistan’s territory, or destroyed a large part of its land and air forces. He also held out the possibility of the use of weapons if India tried to ‘economically strangle’ it, or pushed it to political destabilisation. Pakistan’s statements in recent years have, however, indicated that it would not be averse to using tactical nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict with India.

China, like India, also had proclaimed that it would not be the first to use nuclear weapons. But it has been ambiguous if this applied to India. China has maintained a measure of ambiguity on its ‘no-first-use’ pledge. This became evident when China’s foreign ministry spokesman (in 2004) rejected a suggestion from External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh that both countries should adopt a ‘common’ nuclear doctrine. Subsequent discussions between Indian and Chinese experts have suggested that China maintains deliberate ambiguity on its doctrine when it comes to dealing with India. Many ask if this is meant to signal to Pakistan that China will come to its aid in any nuclear exchange Pakistan may have with India, even if initiated by Pakistan. This ambiguity adds to India’s determination to strengthen its ‘triad’ of land, air and sea-based nuclear weapons. Agni 5 missiles can target China’s populous east coast. Within the next four years, we would have an adequate sea-based deterrent to deter China from holding out credible nuclear assurances to Pakistan that it would intervene should India choose to respond to use, or threats of use, of tactical weapons by Pakistan.

While India has a streamlined nuclear command structure headed by the PM and Cabinet Committee on Security, it needs to revamp the archaic structure of its Ministry of Defence (MoD). The key military figure in the command structure is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, who generally holds office for less than a year; hardly enough time for him to become familiar with the complexities of the command. Repeated proposals, including from defence committees and task forces, recommending the appointment of a full-time Chief or Defence Staff, or Chairman Chiefs of Staff Committee, who will hold charge of the command and report to the political authority, have gathered dust in the offices of the MoD bureaucracy.

The MoD needs to be reorganised. Recommendations for such change, even from the Parliament Standing Committee of Defence, lie unimplemented. We recently acquired our desperately needed first batch of artillery guns after the ’80s’ Bofors controversy. This happened even as detailed designs for 155 mm Howitzers provided by Sweden were gathering dust for two decades. There is also surely something wrong if it takes over a decade to acquire fighter aircraft, even as the IAF is facing a shortage of around 30 per cent in the sanctioned strength.

Ambassador G Parthasarathy IFS (Retd) is the former High Commissioner to Pakistan and is a trustee of TPF.

This Op-Ed was published earlier in ‘The Tribune’ on November 15th.

December 1, 2018
Pakistan continues to support terrorism

Kamal Davar November 30, 2018/Op-Ed

As India observes the 10th anniversary of the ghastly Mumbai terror attack on 26 November 2008, which resulted in 166 fatalities including of foreign tourists and over 600 injuries, certain misgivings continue to agitate the minds of its concerned citizens and the security establishment alike.

For decades, India has been the target of deliberate, well-planned Pakistani sponsored terrorism. Though India’s financial capital, Mumbai, has been a chosen destination for terror acts earlier too in 1993 and the Mumbai train massacres in 2006, those four horrific days of 26-29 November 2008 shook the nation and many civilized countries around the world. In matters of counter-terrorism endeavours, India woke up from its traditional languorous slumber, to a large extent, as it laboured to counter its own version of the infamous 9/11 terror strike on the American homeland. Was it a failure of intelligence, inadequate response mechanisms or, importantly, a systemic failure of the Indian security establishment? The candid answer lies in a combination of all these factors which resulted in this attack.

In today’s increasingly troubled world, terrorism remains an ever burgeoning scourge outwitting advanced nations and their security forces time and again. Terrorism has explicitly developed into a rabidly dangerous reality with an expanding footprint, both regional and globally. The South Asian region, thanks to the original perpetrator of global terror, Pakistan, remains a hotbed of this plague, with no end in sight owing to continuing Pakistani machinations in India and Afghanistan. To Pakistan, the employment of terror as an extension of state policy appears to be more than a productive stratagem. Regrettably, Pakistan persists with its myopic and self-destructive terror policies in the region, continuing to foment terror in J&K, parts of the Indian hinterland through Nepal and, to some extent, in the north-east via Bangladesh.

To successfully ward off cataclysmic events, a hard-nosed study and detailed addressal of the many professional and preparedness shortcomings which contribute to the likelihood of such occurrences is an imperative which security agencies can only disregard at the nation’s peril. It is the considered view of many security analysts that Indian commercial, public, military and other iconic, high-value institutions and infrastructure—perennial and lucrative targets for Pakistan-sponsored terror—have to have their security preparedness of the desired order to be vastly buttressed.

Global problems beckon global solutions. With terrorism now a common threat confronting like-minded nations, intelligence sharing between friendly nations is sine qua non. To a large extent, especially after 26/11, the US intelligence community has established professional links with their Indian counterparts. Though some level of intelligence sharing does exist with certain friendly nations, India must forge far more deliberate intelligence cooperation with intelligence agencies of terror-afflicted nations like the UK, France, Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh and the Central Asian Republics. Though it is not a simple affair to develop seamless coordination resulting in speedy sharing of hard, actionable intelligence with foreign agencies, the criticality of effective counter-terrorism interoperability requires the same. Thus, India must take the lead with like-minded security outfits to get them on the same page. UN protocols on counter-terrorism and agencies like Interpol and the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force must endeavour towards greater cooperation to combat the common enemies of humanity.

Looking inwards, it is endemic with some intelligence agencies in India to try and be ‘one up’ on each other by not fully sharing their inputs with sister institutions. This malaise, where existing, must be rooted out by the NSA. In addition, it is common knowledge that terrorists today are not merely in rag-tag outfits but with advanced technology and continually improving modern weaponry and tools to support their nefarious designs. Thus, security agencies have to keep abreast of all technological innovations taking place. As the nation endeavours to improve its technical intelligence capabilities in its myriad applications, human intelligence capabilities need also to be sharpened.

A large number of terror outfits are labelled as ‘non-state’ actors which is a stark misnomer as some of the nations they are located in are supporting these terror conglomerates. In the case of Pakistan, its notorious spy agency, the ISI, funds, trains and equips a large number of these terror ‘tanzeems’ such as the Hafiz Saeed-led Lashkar-e-Taiba which carried out the Mumbai attacks under its watchful eye, the Jaish-e-Mohd, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, and Sipaha-e-Sahaba, among others. US President Donald Trump’s recent imposition of financial sanctions on Pakistan for its duplicity in the war on terror was a long overdue measure. Similarly, Indian financial intelligence set-ups must keep a hawk’s eye on suspicious financial transactions from abroad to accounts in India.

As Pakistan displays no signs of mending its ways, the Indian security establishment must factor in its preparedness the ever-looming and innovative terror threats from Pakistan and its proxies. Thus, for India, eternal vigilance and security upgrades remain the price to pay to fire-wall itself from terrorism.

Lt Gen Kamal Davar is an Indian Army veteran and is former chief of India’s Defence Intelligence Agency. He is a visiting distinguished fellow at the TPF.

This article was published earlier on November 25th, 2018 on Livemint.

November 30, 2018
Changing Paradigms of Political Canvas in Sri Lanka

The intransigent ethno-political emotional divide amongst the Sri Lankan society of 1980s manifested into a bloodiest insurgency with the Tamil separatists almost succeeding in carving out a separate Tamil Elam in the North and Eastern regions of the island nation. The political divide at that juncture was result of a racial cleavage between the Sinhala majority and oppressed Tamil minority which prompted the later to rebel in the face of socio-economic denials of all kinds.

It was India who came to rescue of the Sri Lankan government of the day in 1987 to ensure territorial integrity of the country even at the cost of negative political repercussions within India. The India had to pay the price of this political outreach to Sri Lanka with life of Rajiv Gandhi, the prime minister who went out of way to help them in their hour of crisis. The deeply indebted Sinhala dominated Sri Lanka of 80s seem to be chartering a different trajectory now with self serving opportunist afflictions due to inducements of easy money from extra regional players, especially China.

While encashing the apparent Chinese benevolence, the gullible Sri Lankan politicians seem to have ignored the basic dictum that ‘there are no free lunches’ in this world. And the slip is showing wherein the Sri Lankan political dispensation seems to have compromised on their territorial integrity by leasing out Habantota port and 15000 acres of land in lieu of repayment of Chinese loans. A precedence has been set for more such sovereign compromises in times to come for which India had fought a bloody battle against their own co ethnic insurgents.

The motive of the ongoing political drama appears to be focused on facilitating the Chinese cause even if it amounts to tempering with the constitutional jurisprudence. Indeed, there is a paradigm shift in political thinking with its doctrine of development through Chinese support which has obvious inherent centrifugal tendencies as against focus on internal economic consolidation. Instead of reclaiming the lost politico-economic ground to China post Habantota episode, a major part of Sri Lankan polity seem to be under compulsion to toe the Chinese lines due to debt diplomacy so cleverly orchestrated by the Chinese.

The close scrutiny of Sri Lankan political conduct in the past hinges on the non accommodation of rival ethnic, social or political groups within the Sri Lankan society which seem to continue even today in some form or other. Earlier it was based on ethnic rivalry between Sinhala and Tamils, and now it is intra Sinhala dispensation vying for more political and money power in a political set up with opportunist tendencies. Despite a vibrant democratic political dispensation to take care of well being of its subjects, the island nation has witnessed spells of changing political priorities and concomitant societal upheavals in the recent times. The military driven turbulent ethno- political complexion of 80s gave way to consolidation of socio-political synergies alongside resolving the internal security issues for almost three decades.

Subsequently, in the aftermath of subjugation of Tamil insurgency in 2009, the priorities changed to the much needed economic development of the nation. However, the tourist predominant economy had woeful inadequacies of infrastructure and public conveniences to tap the potential of the nation at par with other international tourist destinations close by. To do that, there was no money due to prolonged war effort which in turn prompted Sri Lankan polity to look outwards paving way for externally influenced politico-economic opportunism.

Chinese concept of BRI suited both China as well as the Sri Lanka as a mutually beneficial mechanism to take care of each other’s interests. The BRI concept envisages development of communication and transportation net work, industrial and power corridors as part of Chinese grand game for their global economic expansion. As far as China is concerned all the countries in the Indian Ocean are important for Chinese geo political matrix as a response mechanism for the security of her economic interests. Chinese conduct when hyphenated with their ‘’String of Pearls in the Indian Ocean’’, and their defiant politico-military stance in the South China Sea speaks of their seriousness and sensitivities of their interest in the Indo Pacific region. Sri Lanka happens to be in a pivotal position to serve the Chinese geo political interests.

In the given circumstances, close affiliation with the China is a win -win situation for Sri Lanka for their economic buoyancy and a politically strong anchor to stand by their side in the time of crisis. However, there are also apprehensions of negative fallouts of new found political bonhomie with an outsider with prospects of disturbing existing stable regional political equilibrium fully aligned with socio- cultural emotional bind of Indian legacy. Accordingly, there is an emerging pattern of an internal political divide amongst Sri Lankan parties and individuals believing in encashing the pragmatic opportunism as against continuation of stability through India centric regional cohesiveness.

The Mahindra Rajpaksha during his premiership was given loans worth $ 6 billion for various infrastructural projects including Hambantota port. Later the dept trap diplomacy of China got highlighted in their demand of ownership of the port plus land adjacent to it. It, surely, has exposed the dubious ways of China which has prompted number of recipients of Chinese benevolence to revisit their commitments with them as regards to BRI scheme. Sri Lankan civil society is ceased with this Chinese conduct and there is a resistance to encouraging Chinese intrusion into Sri Lankan affairs beyond a point.

The opponent Ranil Wickremasinghe, is known to be a proponent of the Indian lobby who had, recently , cancelled housing project of more than 50,000 houses in North and Eastern Tamil areas given earlier to China in favour of Indian companies. The Rajapaksha was brought back as the prime minister by the president through an untenable political move leaving the country in a political chaos. The parliament was dissolved paving way for fresh elections. However, the Supreme Court ruled against this unconstitutional move by the president. It was probably done as Rajapakshe, like his previous tenure, would facilitate better relationship with the China looking at their current political compulsions and national interests.

What is happening in the Sri Lankan political canvas seem to have imprints of pro India vs pro China lobbies. The fact that there is an outstanding loan of almost $ 5 billion despite handing over the Hambantota port to them, China may be pulling the strings to bring in a political dispensation favourable to them to do their bidding. The way the democratic norms are being flouted do indicate a desperate situation precipitated by the looming economic catastrophe waiting to happen.

The military geography of Sri Lanka has bestowed her with a unique location to take care of the most vulnerable security concerns of China with 70% of trade and 90% of energy supplies passing through the Indian Ocean. Therefore, it is obvious that China is here to stay as a permanent feature and to do that they seem to have acquired a substantial political space in the Sri Lanka. Whereas, the Sri Lanka seem to have lost out on her autonomy to some extent as there is a probability of China dictating their terms when they find the policies are not in sync with Chinese interests.

The likely Chinese naval presence at Hambantota port barely few hundred miles from Indian shores is a security concern for India. The Chinese politico-military afflictions in Sri Lanka is likely to prompt the western powers also to further enhance their military presence closer to the Indian shores. It, obviously, would impact the Indian security matrix with the extra regional players milling around in the areas of Indian influence all this time. The new nomenclature of ‘Indo Pacific ‘ referring to erstwhile IOR and Asia Pacific is manifestation new US maritime doctrine as a response mechanism to Chinese geo political expansion. The increase in the US sponsored military diplomacy in the region and revival of Quad are all indicative of new global strategic grand games being unfolded closer to the Indian shores.

India has no choice but to upgrade her military capabilities to take care of the inimical developments around her periphery both on land as well as maritime domain. It warrants looking beyond defensive doctrines and acquire offensive capabilities for optimum power projection in the areas of concern, besides defence of the island territories and international maritime obligations. Given the distances from the main land and bottle necks for shipping, China would always be militarily vulnerable in the Indian Ocean. It stands to an advantage for India which need to be factored in the design of the military doctrine and its political strategic outreach.

The Sri Lanka needs to recall that they stand integrated today due to unflinching support by India in their hour of crisis and sacrifices made by the Indian soldiers to hold their country together. They should also appreciate that the India continues to be the stabilizing factor for Sri Lanka and a friend in need. China on other hand is here to exploit the Sri Lankan geographical space for their geo political motives sans any benevolent emotional connect. In fact, China has already usurped their strategically located land through their manipulative ways. If the Sri Lankan polity has not understood their game plan then they should be prepared for more such disintegrating moves as part of their dubious debt diplomacy. The Sri Lanka is in economic crisis and stands vulnerable which is reflective in their recent political conduct. In that, there seem to be tell tale signs of Chinese complicity in the ongoing happenings in the Sri Lankan political space which is not a good news.

India, obviously, has not been pro active enough to sense the aspirations of her neighbours and propensity of China to exploit the political deficit on the strength of her deep pockets and liberal military outreach. The Sri Lanka has a great significance for Indian security and we need to take all the possible measures to neutralize the Chinese foot prints in the island nation. India fortunately has a large influence in the Sri Lankan society and reckonable political leverages which needs to be nurtured and exploited in our national interests. India as a responsible regional country need to go all out to extend a helping hand to Sri Lanka in her testing times as their political stability is essential to the Indian strategic interests.

Lt Gen Rameshwar Yadav is an Indian Army veteran and former Director General, Infantry. The views expressed are his own. This article was published earlier in https://cenjows.gov.in/article-detail?id=122

November 29, 2018
Avoiding the Ideology trap: Learning from History

Deepak Sinha November 23, 2018: Commentary

Alexandre Dumas once wrote that “all generalizations are dangerous, even this one.” While there is much wisdom in his words, there are also circumstances when sweeping generalizations are not only unavoidable, but also simply reflect the truth. The widespread prevalence of social media and 24 x 7 news channels have empowered individuals by ensuring that not only is information, analysis and opinion available at the click of a button but also that his or her voice is heard, sometimes with telling effect, as the ongoing ‘#MeToo’ movement has shown, both in India and abroad. While empowerment of the individual is a positive development for our democracy, it has also upended governance structures, as it allows unelected individuals and groups to stall progress or any attempt to change the status quo.

Moreover, unprincipled and unaccountable elements have used such channels to spread vicious lies and propaganda that allows them to organize and indulge in bullying, intimidation and even violence to achieve their own nefarious ends. Political parties too have seen this as a useful tool to dominate the public narrative and occupy mind space. A perfect example is what we were witness to in Gujarat recently where large number of innocent labourers from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh were threatened with violence and hounded out, ostensibly by a local politician, because of an alleged heinous criminal act on the part of one unidentified individual.

While what we saw in Gujarat was at the extreme end of the spectrum, and was clearly criminal in nature, a more insidious and harmful impact of social media is the constant attempt to question and vilify decision makers and leaders, without necessarily being fully aware of all the facts. Such criticism, apart from creating fissures and uncertainty within an organization, also tends to severely constrain leaders from taking initiatives that fall within their ambit and are necessary if progress is to be made.

Interestingly, one group who appear to be the torch bearers at the forefront of this “criticism tsunami”, if one can call it that, are military veterans. There are those among them who are extremely critical of the manner in which this government has treated the Armed Forces, with some justification one may add, and are appalled by the seeming subservience of the top brass. There are also those, in fairly substantial numbers, who tend to be extremely conservative in their outlook and view all issues through the prism of nationalism and, for all intents and purposes, are allied to the present governments’ ultra- nationalistic plank. Indeed, there are many among them who have taken the plunge into politics and are members of the BJP, with one former Chief reportedly having even joined the RSS. When you add to this the fact that our adversaries spare no effort at feeding misinformation aimed at polarizing the military community and civil society, there is little doubt that the military finds itself a veritable minefield of clashing ideologies and attitudes through which it has to tread exceedingly cautiously.

To be fair, much of the criticism against the Forces has been brought on by patently silly attempts of those at the helm to grab headlines and credit to inveigle themselves into the good books of the governing dispension, probably in the hope of post- retirement sinecures. This is not something new, though what differentiates it from earlier times is this governments’ ill-concealed and voracious appetite to take advantage of these officers to politicize much of what the military does in the hope of deriving advantage against its political opponents. Sadly, it has also got into the habit of appropriating military infrastructure for use by the public to win votes, without bothering about the impact of such a step on the military. For example, while military veterans are barred from using military hospitals except in some circumstances, and are therefore covered by the Ex Servicemen Health Scheme, the Government has recently permitted all those covered by CGHS to utilize facilities at Service Hospitals. With an additional 50 Crores personnel to be catered for where will all serving personnel and their dependents go?

The recent celebration of “Parakram Parv”, a three day commemoration of the cross-border punitive strikes in retaliation to the terror attack against the Uri military camp in which 17 soldiers were killed and scores injured, is another recent example. Without downplaying the significance of the cross-border strikes, probably a far more appropriate manner of honouring the forces, if the Prime Minister indeed genuinely appreciates their contribution, would have been for him to have taken the initiative to get back home the fifty four soldiers still held as Prisoners of War by Pakistan since the 1971 Indo-Pak War. Their continued incarceration, with no attempts by successive governments or civil society for their release, is a matter of national shame that reflects poorly on each and every one of us.

This brings us to the elephant in the room that must be seen for what it is. It is well known fact that our military’s exemplary record of remaining apolitical is what differentiates it from all other militaries in the region. Individual ideologies and beliefs just have no place in the military’s firmament and politicians of all persuasions have been kept at arms- length, though one must also admit that most political parties have reciprocated similarly and kept their distance from the military as well. Unfortunately, the unsubtle attempt by the current dispensation to foist its ideology amongst the military rank and file, attempting to use “deep selection” among the higher ranks and indirectly through the veteran community that is enamoured of its ultra – nationalistic agenda, and all that it implies, appears to be showing nascent signs of putting down roots. This is an extremely dangerous trend that needs to be dealt with ruthlessly if we are to maintain our military’s neutrality and inclusive character. It seems the time has now come for including a provision within the Service Rules for an appropriate “cooling off” period before any soldier can join either a political party or involve himself in politics. This is particularly so for those leaving in the higher ranks.

The unedifying manner in which this government has dealt with the Armed Forces over the past four years, whether it be in its dealings with veterans or its refusal to adhere to long standing norms, customs and traditions, has led to increasing antipathy among the rank and file that is clearly reflected in some of their actions that have embarrassed the senior hierarchy and the MOD and shown them in poor light. Seven hundred personnel individually petitioning the Supreme Court on their apprehensions of being victimized while deployed in operations, serving officers publicly criticizing policy directions issued by Army Headquarters on social media and the non-implementation of policy directions issued by the MOD, as has happened in nearly all military cantonments with regard to providing open access to the public, are examples that should be cause for worry. All of this has adversely affected morale, which can also be gauged from the most telling example of an officer having reportedly applied for premature retirement on grounds that his conditions of service have been violated by the down- gradation of the military. That his application was rejected is no cause for optimism.

The situation is hardly likely to improve given the reported fact that the government is once again attempting, surreptitiously and without appropriate consultation with the military leadership, to look for a method by which it can prevent the Cantonment Boards from taking back bungalows from their present owners on expiry of the 99 year lease period, as required vide the Cantonment Act 2006. One reported solution being considered is to replace the ex officio appointment of the Local Military Authority as President of the Cantonment Board by an elected representative to supposedly further its “democratization” A move that would be violative of the Cantonment Board Act, not that such statutory provisions have stopped it before, especially keeping in mind that some extremely influential people have obtained ownership of these leased bungalows.

Finally, it should be a matter of great concern that amongst a host of other issues, the Service Chiefs have also quietly acquiesced to the appointment of Mr. Doval, the National Security Advisor, as the de-facto Commander-in-Chief, despite lacking both the constitutional authority and the credentials to hold such an appointment. The irony cannot be missed given that the Services themselves seem reluctant to accept the appointment of a Chief of Defence Staff fearing loss of power.

By conceding their authority the Chiefs have placed the Services in a very tenuous position which can impact their professional standing and functioning in the future. They would do well to study the case of the German Armed Forces, the Reichswehr, formed post the First World War, as an apolitical and professional force. However it rapidly deteriorated after it was ideologically suborned and converted into the Wehrmacht, the unified armed forces of Nazi Germany. This happened largely in part due to the acquiescence of the High Command to orders that were wholly unconstitutional and undemocratic and partly due to the fierce loyalty of some to Nazi ideology. Our hierarchy must not let themselves be lulled into a state of complacency but hold firm on retaining customs and traditions that have allowed our military to occupy the preeminent position that it does in the hearts and minds of our citizens.

This article was published earlier in Times of India.

Brigadier Deepak Sinha is a Visiting Senior Fellow at TPF. The views expressed are his own.

November 23, 2018
The Economics Nobel: From the Esoteric to the Practical

Mohan Guruswamy October 15, 2018 : Commentary

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel was instituted in 1968 by the Swedish central bank, and laureates are selected by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. It is commonly called the Nobel Prize in Economics, though the Nobel Endowment has nothing to do with it. It has mostly tended to go to scholars doing esoteric research in economics. Much of economic research has tended to be quite remote from influencing public policy. My professor at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Professor Thomas Schelling who taught me “game theory” used in nuclear strategy, and only sometimes in economics, got an Economics Nobel for just that in 2005. Now the trend from the esoteric and philosophical is moving towards the practical.

This year two American economists, William Nordhaus and Paul Romer, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for their work in two diverse areas, but current concerns. Nordhaus won it for his warning policymakers during the first stirrings of concern about climate change in the 1970s that their economic models were not properly taking account of the impact of global warming and he is seen as one of the pioneers of environmental economics.

The co-winner – Romer – is seen as the prime mover behind the endogenous growth theory, “the notion that countries can improve their underlying performance if they concentrate on supply-side measures such as research and development, innovation and skills”. This simply means developing nations that want to get out of their rut, like India, must invest in quality education and R&D. Instead our bureaucratic centralism has created a huge system whose outcomes are so low grade, that mediocrity passes off as brilliance. The fact that Indian students and scholars have to go abroad to fully harness their brilliance and gain recognition tells us what has gone wrong with our system.

Paul Romer has argued, “Technological change can be accelerated by the targeted use of state interventions in areas such as R&D tax credits and patent regulation”. He called it “post colonial endogenous growth theory”. This famously inspired the an Oxford don, the economist Derek Morris, to write an odd to it. Its the history of economic theory in verse and is very witty and clever. The relevant verse for us is:

“Only inventions seemed to have any effect
And from where these arose everyone was quite bereft
So people then began to get rather weary
Of the once almighty neoclassical growth theory

A new explanation arrived,
over which there was quite a fuss
Technical progress – innovation, ideas – were “endogenous”

Invention was crucial but needed embodiment
In people – in skills – and in capital investment
So these were important to make growth shine
Although others had known this for a very long time.”

But how does one nurture invention without a national mood? For it is now well understood that how we do as a nation depends a great deal on how we perceive ourselves? This psychological factor is now understood to be critical to sustained economic growth.

Classical economics was linked closely with psychology. Adam Smith’s other great work was “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” and dealt with the psychological principles of individual behavior. Smith emphasized the concept of empathy, the capacity to recognize feelings that are being experienced by another being. Jeremy Bentham described “utilitarianism as the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong” and is considered by many as the father of the welfare state. Classical economic theory, also known as laissez faire, claims that leaving individuals to make free choices in a free market results in the best allocation of resources. Since individuals made choices the emphasis was on understanding human beings and their behavior as individual and as groups.

Neo-classical economists based their thinking on the assumptions that people have rational preferences; individuals maximize utility and firm’s profits; and people act independently. Consequently neo-classical economists distanced themselves from psychology and sought explanations for economic analysis heavily based on the concept of rational expectations. For most of the last century economics became increasingly mathematical. Much of economic theory came to be presented as mathematical models, mostly calculus, to clarify assumptions and implications.

It is not as if the switch was complete. Many great economists like Vilfredo Pareto, John Maynard Keynes and Joseph Schumpeter continued to base their analysis on psychological explanations.

In more recent times this school of economics has been given greater importance and is reflected in the award of Nobel Prizes to behavioral economists like Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University and last year to Richard Thaler. Making the announcement Nobel Committee said: “His empirical findings and theoretical insights have been instrumental in creating the new and rapidly expanding field of behavioral economics, which has had a profound impact on many areas of economic research and policy.”

There is a delicious irony in the award of the Nobel to Richard H. Thaler. He works in the University of Chicago, the nursery of classical economics, where he is the Ralph and Dorothy Keller Distinguished Service Professor of Behavioral Science and Economics at the Booth School of Business. Incidentally Raghuram Rajan who is also an economics professor is a colleague, was reported to also being considered for the Nobel for his “contributions illuminating the dimensions of decisions in corporate finance”.

The dominance of the classical school on the world of economics can be gauged by the fact that since the relatively recent inception of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1968, the Chicago economics department faculty have won the Nobel as many as twelve times, twice as many as MIT, which has six Nobel laureates. Seen from Harvard University’s ivory tower even MIT is considered as leaning more towards classical economic theory. Recent Harvard winners for economics such as Oliver Hart (2016), Alvin Roth (2012) and Eric Maskin (2007) were rewarded for their work based on mathematical empiricism than behavioral speculation. Amartya Sen (1998) was one of the few who broke this mold and won it in recognition of his work and abiding interest in welfare economics.

Every politician worth his salt knows that national mood and perceptions are decisive in determining national outcomes. And often people do not always make rational choices, something that marketers of diverse products such as automobiles and soap, and political dreams know. But economists took their time recognizing this, and the Nobel Committee even longer. Better late than never.

Mohan Guruswamy is a well known political and economics commentator. He is a Trustee of TPF.

October 15, 2018