LONG VERSION: The Trijunction Stand-Off: Raking In Gains For India

Long Version
The Trijunction Stand-Off: Raking in Gains For India

The real and diplomatic gains are pouring in for India, almost in proportion to the internationally felt relief. India has shown the world that China is not as daunting as it would have everyone believe.

The fresh developments have resulted in a quick flurry of reciprocal diplomatic moves from the US, Canada, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, and some favourable media commentary from the US too.

These broadly favour long held Indian positions vis a vis Pakistan's designs on the Kashmir Valley. And by proxy,  they undermine China and its other belligerent dependent, North Korea.

Weakening Pakistan or North Korea by way of economic sanctions, even with some imposed on China, North Korea's main trading partner, weakens China too.

Very significantly, there have been absolutely no calls for India to stand down unilaterally at the China, Bhutan, India trijunction near Sikkim.

America has instead pointedly begun to get a move on its military  relationship and support of India.
This is taking place legislatively in the backdrop of the  recently concluded Malabar Naval exercises with India,the US, and Japan participating.

This time the Malabar, that had Australia and Singapore in it earlier, emphasised anti-submarine warfare. The ships involved, including an US aircraft carrier, are still marking time in the neighborhood of Myanmar.

This is in counterpoint to China, which has deployed its large fleet of submarines, and its naval ships including an aircraft carrier of its own, in the Asia-Pacific region, the South/East China Seas, and the Indian/Pacific Oceans.

Australia, the farthest afield in the region, with large trade connections with China, is nevertheless most concerned about restrictions on the use of the South China Sea, as more than sixty percent of its trade passes through it.

It has therefore recently overcome its reservations on supplying Uranium  to India, joining Canada in doing so.

Australia, and Singapore, the latter with enormous commercial shipping using its ports, have allowed themselves to back away from the Malabar Naval exercises  this time.

Other countries affected by Chinese highhandedness to a lesser or greater extent, over rapacious trade deals, over-priced infrastructure, claims to international waterways in violation of laws, include, Vietnam, the Philippines, Borneo, Japan, Indonesia, Myanmar, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and a number of African nations. The latest addition is Mongolia, China's neighbour, with a newly elected leader opposed to Chinese domination and receiving support from India.

Russia, though not yet affected by Chinese imperialism, and working with both Pakistan and China, is clear it wants to  continue to partner India's military modernisation, and currently continues to account for 66% or so of its military equipment purchases.

But none affected adversely have chosen to block Chinese ambition in quite so direct and military a way, as India has chosen to do.

The US, seeing the  writing on the wall, apart from expediting the sale and joint-venturing of high technology military equipment, has sanctioned, in the US House of Representatives, a hefty budget running into over $ 600 billion.

This is to be spent on military cooperation with India, and the US is drawing up plans on how to best to go about it.

The enabling Bill will have to be also passed by the US Senate and signed into law by President Trump, but is unprecended in terms of its scale and intent.

India, on its part, is rapidly overcoming its reservations on military participation alongside the US in Afghanistan, and the mutual access to each other's military bases and ports.

Calls for direct military help to India are growing louder in the US from former Senators such as Larry Pressler and current Congressman Ted Poe.

As America reviews its Afghanistan-Pakistan-India South Asia policy, there is a compelling case for encouraging the restive independence movements of peoples along the Durand Line.

This, particularly in Balochistan, which has  a 1100 km border with Afghanistan, and Pakhtunistan, where the native Pathans have relatives in Afghanistan, and account for the remainder of the porous 2,430 km Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

By encouraging this, America would not only help Afghanistan while weakening Pakistan but also seriously affect China's warm water port ambitions on the Arabian Sea at Gwadur.

America has, in addressing the problems of terrorism emanating from Pakistan, stopped $350 million in reimbursement of military aid to  it, citing that the latter has not done very much to reign in terrorist organisations operating from its soil.

These include the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the Jamaat-e-Mujahideen (JeM), the Taliban, the Hizbul Mujahideen, the Haqqani Network, all named by it.

Elsewhere, the US is asserting the international right to freely use the South China Sea by way of overflights and ships passing through it, despite Chinese protests and buzzing by its ships and aircraft.

China has ignored the adverse ruling against it by the arbitrators at the International Court of Justice and continues to maintain an aggressive posture.

Canada has, at last, stopped the funding of Pakistani terrorist outfits from its soil, and South Korea has  cancelled its plans to work on hydropower projects in Pakistan occupied  Kashmir (PoK).

Vietnam has invited India afresh to explore for oil and gas in the South China Sea, despite Chinese threats.

Of course, some of this may well be coincidental to constant calls for acting against international terror, put out by Prime Minister Modi in the capitals of the world.

However, the timing of actual responses to his call, may not be coiincidental at all.

The Chinese formula of crude military sabre-rattling, combined with neo-imperialist, predatory, and unilateral attempts to alter boundaries and conventions of free use, on land and sea alike, is alarming more than 20 countries affected.

But, in the tradition of the great Sun Tzu's The Art of War, China has won quite a few matches on the table, without having to  actually play.

This has naturally further emboldened it to ramp up its psychological warfare apparatus.

China's huge debt burden, amounting to 250% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and massive  industrial and infrastructure-building over-capacity, has also prompted it to embark on a grandoise, if frantic course.

It seeks to dominate countries and whole continents, with offers of projects  in road, rail, and industry, in the name of a seemingly visionary, but in truth spurious, "connectivity".

And this, invoking the promotion of trade-links reminiscent of the legendary "Silk Road".

Spurious, because China under President Xi Jinping actually seeks to kick the can of imminent collapse of the Chinese economy, already slowed to half of its peak, down the road.

It is attempting to cleverly embroil the account books of scores of other countries  in the process. An assessment made by various impartial analysts from around the world, cautioning against the possibility of an infrastructure led "sub-prime crisis", this time, involving entire nations.

China has also developed a strange way of refusing to adhere to negotiated agreements, going back on them, introducing new elements by referring back in time to obscure premises, or flouting them altogether.

This has made it clear, at least to India, that the only way to persuade it to behave in international discourse, is to make clear to it, the limitations of its power.

In the initial period of the Modi Government, every effort was indeed made to develop a better relationship with China. This was highlighted by President Xi  Jinping's early bilateral visit to India.
But, it too was marred by a simultaneous Chinese Peoples' Liberation Army  (PLA) intrusion in the Ladakh theatre, even though Xi Jinping is the Chairman of the PLA too.

Despite Indian overtures at  fora like BRICS and the G20 recently, China chose, almost every time, to react with arrogance.

It seeks at present to expand BRICS, to take in several more countries, including Pakistan, to do away with any possibility of much Indian influence within it.

China routinely refuses to settle its borders with India,  disapproves of it building infrastructure along it, even though China has done so, and extensively, on its side.

China also protests  India's Army raising new mountain corps. It objects to India placing missile batteries and tanks for self-defence along the China border. It even objects to India calling Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh as an integral  part of it.

On the international front, China blatantly acts to thwart Indian initiatives wherever it can.
This is perhaps influenced by the adversarial attitude of ally Pakistan, but undoubtedly also by its own overweening, if quixotic ambition, to overtake America as the Number One global power.

But now, India has taken the other tack, and stood up to China.

It has done so, much to China's amazement, unilaterally, confidently, and very visibly - three times in quick succession.

The first time was in April this year, then again in mid-May, and yet again at end-June.

The last China has found particularly astounding, because it is an eyeball to eyeball confrontation, at the China, Bhutan, India trijunction near Sikkim.

Meanwhile, during the stand-off there have been highly successful Indian bilateral visits to the US and Israel, also unsettling for China.

It is this stand-off at the trijunction however that has made the strategic establishment around the world sit up.

Not only is India demonstrating considerable confidence in the face of a steady barrage of daily Chinese threats and insults, but, as the stand-off crosses 45 days, it has dramatically altered their own geopolitical calculations.

In their assessment, the China-India matrix has changed, and is unlikely to ever be the same again.
The first of the recent unilateral Indian actions was when it allowed  the Dalai Lama's visit to Arunachal Pradesh and the Tawang Buddhist Monastery there, in April, ignoring vehement Chinese objections.

A subset of this development took place in early July, when the Tibetan Government in exile in India was allowed to perform religious ceremonies and unfurl the Tibetan flag on the Indian side of the Pangong Lake in Ladakh, in full view of the TV cameras.

If China keeps changing the goalposts, does this mean that India will reopen the matter of Tibetan independence for the world to evaluate afresh?

In May, India ignored China's mega summit over the One-Best-One-Road (OBOR) initiative, citing violations of its sovereignty in PoK and general opacity and lack of wider consultations with regard to the initiative.

Towards end-June, this time not proactively, but in reaction, to China's attempt to change the status quo, yet again, came the stand-off at the trijunction.

China reacted petulantly at first, preventing Indian pilgrims from accessing Kailash Mansarovar via the Nathu La Pass.

India moved swiftly, pushing back Chinese soldiers from Bhutan's territory, and made clear that any alteration in the ground reality of the area would be resisted.

This last provocative Chinese surge at the trijunction, was reportedly  imagined as a "lesson to teach India".

India's National Security Adviser, Ajit Doval is in China as I write this, meeting with his counterparts from BRICS on the 27th and 28th July.

There is intense speculation, and therefore an outside chance, that Doval would  confidentially discuss the trijunction  with the Chinese.

But equally, because a climb-down is not on the cards for India, he may choose to delink the BRICS visit from the stand-off altogether.

That Prime Minister Modi  is also expected in Beijing in early September for the BRICS Summit, is adding grist to the mill.

There is a compelling case for maintaining a status quo and treating the trijunction stand-off  in the minor key from the Chinese view point, because the Chinese Communist Party will have its Summit in November, when several members of the Politburo may be changed.

Besides, Chinese trade with India tops $70 billion, and it does not make much sense to jeopardise it.
However, from the domestic point of view, will Chinese pride in its military prowess, allow it to let India go unpunished?

India is confident on its part, that, at least at the trijunction, that it has the military advantage.

Meanwhile America, drawing closer to India, has for long been unsure of how best to counter the Chinese challenge, particularly given the deep economic linkages built up for a half century since the Nixon-Kissinger tilt, and despite a gross imbalance in the trade figures   with China.

However, it feels provoked by the aggression of North Korea, China's other troublesome ally, bent on developing foolproof Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) technology, so that it can not only menace its own neighborhood at will, but mount a nuclear attack on any part of the US.

India, located as it is geopolitically, has been long seen by America and the Western powers, as the ideal bulwark and counterpoint to China and its two rogue state allies.

But little could be expected of it, unless it volunteered to play its part militarily and diplomatically. This then is the missing piece of the jigsaw that has now fallen into place.

 China has for long been following a policy of changing the ground reality in territorial or maritime boundaries first, and coming  up with fanciful justifications later with multiple countries, including Bhutan.

Picking on small, non-nuclear weaponised countries for most of its depredations so far, its intimidatory tactics have worked.

But India seems to have had enough. China has also obdurately been blocking India's bid to join the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG), along with a very small number of others.

Until lately, till America started naming Pakistani terrorists unilaterally, it mattered that China was blocking any naming at the United Nations too.

China has  not only ignored the Indian position on PoK, but has also issued a threat of military intervention in the Kashmir Valley, on the back of unsolicited offers to mediate.

The face-off at the trijunction, apart from its strategic military objectives, is a struggle for credibility for both sides.

China wants to be taken seriously as the rising dominant. And India, that has invited the leadership of 10 ASEAN countries, to its next Republic Day celebrations in January 2018, is determined to call its bluff.

For: Shorter Version For The Sunday Guardian
July 27th, 2017
Gautam Mukherjee

The Trijunction Stand-Off: Raking In Gains For India

The Trijunction Stand-Off: Raking in Gains For India

The real and diplomatic gains are pouring in for India for taking on the mantle of checking China, at least in South Asia.

The fresh developments have resulted in a quick flurry of reciprocal diplomatic moves from the US, Canada, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, and some favorable media commentary from the US too.

These broadly favour India vis a vis Pakistan's designs on the Kashmir Valley. And by proxy, they undermine China and its other belligerent dependent, North Korea.  

Very significantly, there have been absolutely no calls for India to stand down unilaterally at the China, Bhutan, India trijunction near Sikkim.

America has instead pointedly begun to get a move on its military  relationship and support of India.

This is taking place legislatively in the backdrop of the recently concluded Malabar Naval exercises with India,the US, and Japan participating.

This time the Malabar, that had Australia and Singapore in it earlier in addition, emphasised anti-submarine warfare.

This is in counterpoint to China, which has deployed its large fleet of submarines in addition to its battleships, including an aircraft carrier of its own.

Australia is most concerned about restrictions on the use of the South China Sea, as more than sixty percent of its trade passes through it. 

It has recently overcome its reservations on supplying Uranium to India, joining Canada in doing so.

Singapore, with enormous commercial shipping using its ports, is also worried by China’s attitude.

Other countries affected by Chinese highhandedness, with rapacious trade deals, over-priced infrastructure, claims on international waterways, include Vietnam, the Philippines, Borneo, Japan, Indonesia, Myanmar, Laos, Sri Lanka, Thailand and a number of African nations.

The latest addition overground, is Mongolia, with a newly elected leader opposed to Chinese domination whom India has invited to visit.

Russia, though not yet affected by Chinese imperialism, and working with both Pakistan and China, is clear it wants to continue to partner India's military modernisation.

The US, apart from expediting the sale and joint-venturing of high technology military equipment, has sanctioned, in the US House of Representatives, a hefty budget running into over $ 600 billion.

This is to be spent on military cooperation with India, and the US is drawing up plans on how to best to go about it.

The enabling Bill, to be processed via the Senate and the President, is unprecedented in terms of its scale and intent.

India, on its part, is rapidly overcoming its reservations on military participation alongside the US in Afghanistan, and the mutual access to each other's military bases and ports.

Calls for direct military help to India are growing louder in the US from leaders such as former Senator Larry Pressler and current Congressman Ted Poe, amongst others.

As America reviews its Afghanistan-Pakistan-India South Asia policy, there is a compelling case for encouraging the restive independence movements of peoples along the Durand Line.

Balochistan has an 1100 km border with Afghanistan, and would-be Pakhtunistan, accounts for the remainder of the porous 2,430 km Afghanistan-Pakistan contiguity.

America has, in addressing the problems of terrorism emanating from Pakistan, stopped $350 million in reimbursement of military aid, citing that the latter has not done anything to reign in terrorist organisations, naming several, operating from its soil.

Elsewhere, the US is asserting the international right to freely use the South China Sea by way of overflights and US ships passing through it.

China has ignored the adverse ruling against it by the arbitrators at the International Court of Justice and continues to maintain an aggressive posture.

Canada has, at last, stopped the funding of Pakistani terrorist outfits acting against India, from its soil, and South Korea has cancelled its plans to work on hydropower projects in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). 

Vietnam has invited India afresh to explore for oil and gas in the South China Sea, despite Chinese threats.

China's huge debt burden, amounting to 250% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and massive  industrial and infrastructure-building over-capacity, has also prompted it to embark on a grandoise, if frantic course.

It seeks to dominate countries and whole continents, with offers of projects  in road, rail, and industry, in the name of a seemingly visionary, but in truth spurious, "connectivity".

Spurious, because China under President Xi Jinping actually seeks to kick the can of imminent collapse of the Chinese economy, already slowed to half of its peak, down the road.

It is attempting to cleverly embroil the account books of scores of other countries in the process.

China has also developed a strange way of refusing to adhere to negotiated agreements, going back on them, introducing new elements by referring back in time to obscure premises, or flouting them altogether.

This has made it clear, at least to India, that the only way to persuade it to behave, is to resist it militarily.

Despite bilateral Indian overtures and at fora like BRICS and the G20 recently, China chooses, almost every time, to react with arrogance.

It seeks to expand BRICS, to take in several more countries, including Pakistan, to do away with any possibility of much Indian influence. It has blocked the Indian bid to join the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG), and  has refused to allow Pakistani terrorist masterminds be named at the UN.

But now, India has at last taken the other tack, and stood up to China.

It has done so, much to China's amazement, unilaterally, confidently, and very visibly - three times in quick succession.

The first time was in April this year, then again in mid-May, and yet again at end-June.

The last China has found particularly astounding, because it is an eyeball to eyeball confrontation, at the trijunction.

Meanwhile, during the stand-off there have been highly successful Indian bilateral visits to the US and Israel, also unsettling for China.

It is this stand-off at the trijunction however, that has made the strategic establishment around the world sit up.

The first of the recent unilateral Indian actions was when it allowed the Dalai Lama's visit to Arunachal Pradesh and the Tawang Buddhist Monastery there, in April, ignoring vehement Chinese objections.

A subset of this development took place in early July, when the Tibetan Government in exile in India was allowed to perform religious ceremonies and unfurl the Tibetan flag on the Indian side of the Pangong Lake in Ladakh, in full view of the TV cameras.

In May, India ignored China's mega summit over the One-Best-One-Road (OBOR) initiative, citing violations of its sovereignty in PoK, general opacity, and lack of wider consultations.

Towards end-June, in reaction, to China's attempt to change the status quo, yet again, because this is the scene of earlier land grab attempts too, came the stand-off at the trijunction. 

India's National Security Adviser, Ajit Doval is in China as I write this, meeting with his counterparts from BRICS on the 27th and 28th July.

There is intense speculation, and therefore an outside chance, that Doval would hold discussions on the matter.

But equally, because a climb-down is not on the cards for India, he may choose to delink the BRICS visit from the stand-off altogether.

That Prime Minister Modi is also expected in Beijing in early September for the BRICS Summit, is adding grist to the mill.

There is a compelling case for the Chinese to maintain a status quo and treat the stand-off in the minor key- better for the Chinese Communist Party Summit in November, when several members of the Politburo will be changed.

Besides, Chinese trade with India tops $70 billion, and it does not make much sense to imperil it.

However, from the domestic point of view, will Chinese pride in its military prowess, allow it to let India go unpunished?

India is confident on its part, that, at least at the trijunction, it has the military advantage.

In addition, China has not only ignored the Indian position on PoK by building a road through it, but has now issued a threat of military intervention in the Kashmir Valley too. This, on the back of unsolicited offers to mediate.

The face-off at the trijunction, apart from its strategic military objectives, is a struggle for broader credibility for both countries.

China wants to be taken seriously as the rising dominant. And India, with its alternative narrative, has invited the leadership of 10 ASEAN countries, to its next Republic Day celebrations. It is determined to call the Chinese bluff.

For: The Sunday Guardian

(1,398 words)

July 27th, 2017

Gautam Mukherjee

Carry On Up The Khyber: Trump's South Asia Policy Could Create New Buffer States Along The Durand Line

Carry On Up The Khyber: Trump’s South Asia Policy Could Create New Buffer States Along The Durand Line

You may do one Mumbai; you may lose Balochistan- Ajit Doval

In  President Donald Trump's world-view, much to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's delight, Pakistan fits squarely into a "counterterrorism narrative".

Particularly now, since there is no US dependence on it anymore.

Successive military-aid cuts, and making the remainder contingent on  its acting against  international terrorist groupings receiving succour from Pakistan,have been driving home this point.

Those who are anathema include the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and other banned or watched terrorist groups that have also plagued India for decades.

But there is a rising frustration in America that not enough is being done, and what is seen to be done, is neither genuine nor effective. This is a fortuitous convergence of views for us.

The Trump administration is currently formulating, and will shortly unveil the unclassified sections of its new South Asia policy, involving Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.

And this throws up clear opportunities for India vis a vis Pakistan, now yoked to China. But only if it boldly steps up to the plate.

The usual diffidence towards getting involved militarily in Afghanistan, or how such an action will play in Tehran or Riyadh, is  changing under the Doval Doctrine, of what he calls "defensive-offensive", and, "offensive", quite by itself.

With the provision of several attack helicopters from India to Afghanistan recently, and the newly established air-corridor between Delhi and Kabul, a beginning has already been made, irrespective of Chinese, Pakistani or indeed Iranian disapproval.

If there are to be Indian military boots on the ground next, as may be requested by America, we should respond favourably, but it must be worth India's while.

And this means degrading Pakistan's ability to attack Afghanistan using proxies, and the covert action of the  Inter Services Intelligence (ISI); by the creation of newly independent buffer states between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

By inference, if implemented shortly with US/ Israeli support, it will weaken the Pakistan-China nexus in the Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) and the Gilgit-Baltistan region as well.

With every indication, given an apparent meeting of minds, that Vladimir Putin's Russia will not object to  Donald Trump's action in the region, the plan is highly executable.

The only opposition will come from China, already beleagured on several fronts at present, and in no position to threaten the US, given its own disputes with several countries, and its failure to curb North Korea's hostility. An independence movement is something to be celebrated after all, especially if it brings lasting peace to a troubled region.

The American policy review, of course, will be from the perspective of its own involvement in Afghanistan, from where it also watches Iran.

But to solve the intractable problems of cross-border infiltration  into Afghanistan, bold steps are necessary. India and Pakistan are  both bracketed as part of the solution.

The ongoing conundrum, in not-so-far Kashmir/PoK-Gilgit Baltistan, when seen as distance from Kabul, is going to continue to be left to bilateral action between India and Pakistan.

This, even as China has entered the fray, due to its ongoing work and interest in the multi-billion dollar China Pakistan Economic Corridor( CPEC), passing through, what is legally integral Indian territory in PoK.

Afghanistan already has had a long-standing US and Indian presence, though India's has been non-combatant so far.

The history stems from the post USSR occupation era, descending into a Taliban ruled and dominated spell, with Pakistan's active support; and on to its invasion by President George W Bush after 9/11, with Pakistan now running interference.

Earlier the US had to depend on Pakistan when Afghanistan was under Russian domination (in the 1980s).

America spent long years ousting it, using Pakistan’s port at Karachi and its airspace/airports, as well as the safe land routes to Afghanistan.

This, in addition to the Mujahideen created and developed by Pakistan and the CIA for the purpose.

The roles of Pakistan and India in Afghanistan have now been reversed from the US perspective.
India has consistently been an Afghan benefactor by way of contrast.

The present day Taliban, are inheritors of the Mujahideen mantle in a sense, despite the radically changed  political situation.

They are present on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border, in  their Pakistani and Afghan factions.

Russia from the conflicted Obama days, Iran,China,and other terrorist financing groups from the Arabian Gulf, are said to be paying and arming the Taliban in a bid for influence.

What is clear however, is that all the Taliban terrorist groups and their associates are opposed to the elected Government of Afghanistan.

The Opium trade, and that in its  derivatives,(Heroin and Cocaine), are an added ingredient to the heady cocktail of money and arms in the region, and its passage across porous borders. It involves many of the influential and mighty, cutting across political and security lines.

But to control all this from the Trump perspective may take more than the Obama policy of using killer drones to eliminate "bad Taliban" holed up in the  Western frontier bad-lands of Pakistan. It may take a different tack from "the mother of all bombs" too.

It might have to give power to the  resolution of problems created amongst the ethnic Pathans of  the region over the last couple of centuries.

Pakistan, in desperation, has dug a pit 3 metres deep, 4 metres wide for 1,100 km. along the Balochistan- Afghanistan border in 2011, to try and control its porosity.

It is currently engaged on  building a fence in the Khyber Pass area that is likely to run on for at least 250 km.

This in an attempt to control infiltration, under US pressure, along the nearly 2,500 km.(2,430) Durand Line, established in 1893, which separated Afghanistan from then British India, and present day Pakistan.

This Durand Line, agreed by the Treaty of Gandamak,signed between Mortimer Durand and Amir Abdur Rahman Khan of Afghanistan, was to have lasted as a de facto border for a hundred years.
But, while it was reiterated in 1919, after the British lost their 3rd and final Afghan War, it was definitively thrown over by the Afghan “Jirga Loya” in 1949, soon after their departure from the sub-continent.

Afghanistan still does not, and says it never will, accept the Durand Line as border.

Its Pakhtun people and those on the Pakistani side are ethnically the same and related to each other. This is true of  the Pashtun tribal areas, and the Baloch enthnicity on both sides bordering Balochistan.

It affects Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Waziristan too, and has been a homeland for ethnic Pashtuns since at least 500 B.C.

The Trump administration could be well served to accept and support the calls for independence from Balochistan and Pakhtunistan. India can help and assist the endeavour.

They could together solve the problem, and act as  buffer  states between Afghanistan and Pakistan, without either country having a common border anymore.

This would put paid to the most intractable of problems that has confronted the Americans in its efforts to help secure peace and democracy in Afghanistan.

As for China's CPEC project, it would have to negotiate with independent countries in addition to Pakistan, as it has to do elsewhere, and indeed as Russia  does with constituents of the former USSR who are now sovereign states.

Notwithstanding all this border talk, the Afpak Taliban  were being supported by several for  being opposed to the now disappeared Islamic State Of Iraq And The Levant (ISIL).

ISIL  has made way for a plain Islamic State (IS),working on its latter-day objective of a necessarily movable Islamic Caliphate.

 ISIL  being routed in Southern Iraq and Syria,various terrorist groups deeply connected with ISI and the Pakistan Army,are regrouping in Somalia and elsewhere.

These include dreaded names like the Al Qaida, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jamat Ud-Dawa, Hizbul Mujahideen and so on.

In the latest situation,  earlier US intelligence distinctions between "good terrorists" and "bad terrorists", based on affiliations, money/arms supply lines are date expired.

It now reflects evolving realities, not only because of its defeat in the Iraq-Syria theatre,but also the despatching of its leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi. And the informal Cease Fire Agreement between Putin and Trump in Hamburg.

It  affords therefore, an excellent opportunity to truly carry on up the Khyber with a new vision.
The reference is to the "Carry On" series, made up of 31 low-budget British films made between 1958-1992, four Christmas Specials, a TV series of 13 episodes and three West End/Provincial Plays.
They were all made to a formula, predictably camp and farcical, but of enduring popularity.

Amongst their number, was one named “Carry On Up The Khyber” involving Afghan revolutionaries shooting at the bumbling representatives of the British Raj, played by the beloved line-up of Carry On comedians, and their bawdy goings on.

But humorous as it was, it reflected, in popular cultural format, the abiding British obsession with Afghanistan,the only part of the sub-continent, that defeated the British three times, decades apart.

The British tried, unsuccessfully, to incorporate Afganistan into its Empire. They failed twice in the 19th century, suffering great humiliations and loss of life, and once again, in the 20th.

The  last time was when  the British, rather typically, were the first to breach the Durand Line. They must have thought Afghanistan  was important enough to try and conquer  one last time, during WWI, only to be beaten back, yet again.

Afghanistan was seen then as that indispensable playing field for the “Great Game”, with Tzarist Russia.

Having it meant blocking access to, and likely domination of, the sub-continent, otherwise firmly in British possession.

Later, after the British Empire was done with, the same “Great Game”, for slightly different reasons, would be picked up on once again.

This time, by the USSR, looking this time, for a warm water port on the Arabian Sea, and the US, determined to prevent any change in the Balance of Power with the Soviets. It was, almost, as it were, without a historical page break.

In India, we know Durand today mostly in terms of the Durand Cup Football Tournament.

It is now largely eclipsed by the far more popular cricket tourneys. And in any case, the Europeans play much better and well-funded soccer, accessed freely via satellite TV.

For: ABP Live
July 19th, 2017
Gautam Mukherjee

More Smiley Than Bond: Will Mossad/CIA Help India Tackle ISI?

More Smiley Than Bond: Will Mossad/CIA Help India Tackle ISI?

A Desk is a dangerous place from which to view the world- John Le Carre

Ajit Doval, India's National Security Adviser (NSA), reportedly once a spy himself, is unassuming and bespectacled.

To look at, he is much more Le Carre's George Smiley than Fleming's James Bond.

Doval, circa 2017, has the implicit confidence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, shadowing him, for example, on his recent and crucial bilateral visits to the US, Israel, and the broader based G20 Summit.

The NSA is said to be crafting an elaborate jigsaw, an altogether more robust foreign policy for India.

One beyond the confines of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) juggernaut, but working in close coordination with the MEA nevertheless.

The "Doval Doctrine" is marked by a lack of fear to depart from past precedents. It is driven by security considerations, pragmatism, and bilateralism, rather than ideology, or campism of any kind.

But will it also do something about the parlous state of our intelligence apparatus, beefing it up once more, to counter, amongst others, the formidable Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan?

Our Research & Intelligence Wing (RAW),  has been confined for long years now, to only intelligence gathering, with its budgets slashed successive times, and little or no capacity to conduct covert operations.

The opportunity has presented itself,  particularly now that we have decided to partner with Israel on, as the Prime Minister puts it, an "I to I" basis. And there is the bear-hug that takes in Donald Trump's American world-view too. Strongman Vladimir Putin, from the KGB himself, is also very close to India, and not hostile to either of India's improved relationships.

Meanwhile, RAW is today an organisation, much diminished from the days of  the last muscular Prime Minister, the Joan of  Arc admiring Indira Gandhi.

This, via the depredations of successive peaceniks in South Block, who pulled out quite a few of its good teeth.

This form of questionable dentistry, nevertheless earned Prime Minister Morarji Desai a Nishan-e-Pakistan in 1990, years after his stint as Prime Minister (March 1977-July 1979), when he actually did the dirty.

Or perhaps it was, after all the intervening years, designed to be a tit-for-tat, because of India's posthumous  award of its highest honour, The Bharat Ratna, on the Independence era Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan. The tall man from Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (NWFP).

Khan, also known as "The Frontier Gandhi", was a pacifist like Mohandas Karamchand, set, but to no avail, against the Partition.

More sentimental and unilateral gestures, that have always gone badly for India, involving a further diminishment of RAW, earned Pakistani accolades for Prime Minister Inder Singh Gujral, of the 1990s "Gujral Doctrine", as well.

The NDA I Prime Minister Vajpayee, continued Gujral's softer line with his bus diplomacy, and was duly betrayed with the Kargil War.

Meanwhile, since the mid-eighties, when ISI was created, tasked into existence by President/Dictator/General Zia Ul Haq, Pakistan has never looked askance at its most successful intelligence agency.

General Zia, who hanged his predecessor Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and was, much later, blown up himself in a plane alongside the US Ambassador, launched the infamous policy of "a thousand cuts" towards India.

Zia Ul Haq developed the new policy as a military man, who knew, and internalised, that Pakistan would not, could not, based on the evidence of 1965 and 1971, win in any conventional war with India. Not unless it vastly improved its conventional military strength.

This however, would take resources Pakistan did not have, despite its considerable support from the US at the time, for Pakistan's help against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

But, the need for a low-cost but smouldering revenge was stronger than ever, ever since India helped  truncate East Pakistan into Bangladesh in the Seventies, (1971).

Gradually therefore, from 1987 onwards, kindled by the American need for a "School for Jihadists", then dubbed Mujahideen, ( Freedom Fighters), one was grown for them, by Pakistan, ironically, in Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan's stamping ground of Peshawar, NWFP.

Gradually, a formidable ISI organisation grew, drawing on the brightest and most daring from the Pakistan Army, Navy and Air Force. It reported, via a Director General, to the Chief Of Army Staff, and the Prime Minister simultaneously.

It was structured and highly motivated, peopled by personnel with a sense of mission and Islamic purpose, quite along the same lines as the Israeli Mossad, established in 1949, just a year after Israel's independence, the latter by Israel's founder leaders, David Ben Gurion and Isser Harel.

Mossad, or "The Institute" for Special Operations, with its sister organisations, Aman (Military Intelligence), and Shin Bet (Internal Security), was determined from the start to avenge the wrongs done to Zionism and Jews, and not just those from the fledgling State of Israel.

Mossad, famously went after the perpetrators of the Holocaust in the beginning.

And ISI, initially trained by America's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to help counter the Soviets in Afghanistan, on the side, went after the Hindu nation, as they saw it, despite Indian professions of Secularism.

It was, to the Pakistani, a Hindu majoritarian country with no place for Muslims, from which Islamic Pakistan had to be carved out, by its own founding father, Mohammad Ali Jinnah.

And Pakistan wanted to sequester Kashmir, as unfinished business from 1948, and in revenge for India's role in the creation of Bangladesh.

Both Mossad and the ISI have intelligence collection, covert operations, and counterterrorism in their writ, just as a full-fledged RAW and its allied organisations should.

By 1991, the ISI was ready to strike Kashmir, and the sub-continent in general.

With regard to India, the ISI has been devastatingly effective throughout, with hundreds of successful operations that go on to this day.

Pakistan has successfully deployed, via the ISI, a large number of  low-cost operatives and trained terrorists, both directly, and through a number of highly skilled terrorist organisations it has nurtured, such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), the Jamaat-e-Dawa, the Hizbul Mujahideen and so on. These in turn have spread their operations to Afghanistan and the West, sometimes in alliance, lately with the IS ans others.

India has refused so far, particularly under Congress and UPA Governments, to develop a direct response to this covert and flexible capability, probably for fear of angering its 170 million Muslim population, in an irrational, but nevertheless true political construct to do with perceived vote-banks.

So it doggedly uses its regular armed forces/paramilitary, at considerably greater expense, and cost in soldierly lives, to counter these irregulars.

Irregulars, drawn from the poorest sections of Pakistani society, illiterate, brainwashed into suicidal missions, but backed always, by the Pakistani Armed Forces and its fire power etc.

Indian attrition involves professional soldiers and innocent civilians, in almost equal measure, because the ISI has brought the battle into almost all parts of India and strikes at will.

Our intelligence failures are legion, both due to inter-agency ponderousness, and sometimes even the good intelligence is not acted upon. However, because of intelligence cooperation between many countries India has befriended afresh, things are certainly getting better on this front.

In blunt retaliation, India engages on its borders, and along the line of control (LoC), with Pakistan, and  by counter insurgency operations on its own soil. We are quite good at this, particularly when political interference is kept to a minimum.

But, as yet, we ostensibly do very little to take our striking arm across borders, though Pakistan does accuse RAW of interfering in Balochistan, Karachi, Peshawar, and other parts of Pakistan.

It may be time to change this if true, or sharply ramp it up, even if we are doing something.

Particularly as the various semi-autonomous Islamic Jihad organisations, grown up now,  manned and funded from various sources, are now increasingly working on their own terms.

The Jihadists are no longer necessarily aiding the Pakistani purpose of alienating the Kashmir Valley in favour of Pakistan.

They seem more interested  in working for an amorphous and moveable "Caliphate" of late. The Indo-Pakistani matrix plays a role still in their identity and violence, but not the only role.

Meanwhile, Pakistan was already working its way to becoming a nuclear power during the Z.A.Bhutto regime, aware that India under Indira Gandhi (1974- Pokhran-1), had already become one, albeit with a very small bomb.

After the Vajpayee Government went in for multiple and large underground tests,in May 1998, the world was left in no doubt about India's nuclear weaponisation.

Pakistan had its own covert programme, and followed  suit (1998), days later, matching the Indian tests with five of its own.  So now there was  declared nuclear deterrence capability on both sides, as in China too.

But global terrorism is a thing apart, both as a "tool" of state policy in some quarters, and its own broader objectives.

India has managed to highlight it diplomatically throughout the civilised world, now also affected by its ravages on a regular basis.

But the problem is that its financiers now criss-cross allies and enemies alike. So, for a habitual victim of terror like India, we can no longer keep afloat pacifist notions with their roots in Gandhian non-violence.

We have to get ourselves ready to hit deep into the enemy citadels, in a self driven manner, with plausible deniability wherever necessary, because most countries have their own terrorist problems to deal with now.

We can be sure there will be no gratuitous condemnation from other nations, as the September 2016 "Surgical Strikes" into PoK have shown.

Mossad and the CIA, now that we are better friends of theirs than Pakistan or China, for the first time, can teach us how and sell us the latest weapons.

A revamped RAW and its allied structures, freed of political tethers, will not be found wanting.
We draw our elite Black Cat Commandos, trained in anti-insurgency on home turf, from an inter-services pool already.

How much further is it conceptually to develop a covert strike arm that can hit deep into the innards of the enemy?

And then there are foreign operatives to be trained, for being allied to our objectives, but less conspicuous in their own backyards. Balochis, Sindhis, Chinese, Pathans, Arabs, Afghans, all looking towards India for leadership.

If China can harass us by training and arming the Maoists and the North Eastern insurgents, and the international jehadists can try to addle our 170 million Muslims, how long before we develop the capacity to hit back?

The Doval Doctrine is said to see all this in its compass. It is therefore time for India to not just develop its armed forces and paramilitary, on land, sea, and air, but be covert battle ready too.

For: ABP Live
July 12th, 2017
Gautam Mukherjee

G20 Hamburg: India Re-rated But China Still Indispensable

G20 Hamburg: India Re-rated But China Still Indispensable

The will-they-won't-they-meet face to facer did take place between India's Prime Minister Narendra  Modi and President Xi Jinping of China, quite naturally as it happens.

It was during an informal meeting of BRICS on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Hamburg.
India's Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) promptly released  a picture of the handshakes and smiles from the main protagonists, looking each other in the eye, even as  tense looking aides made up the rest of the frame.

But there is no word on whether they discussed the Doklam Stand-off, when the duo were reported to have spoken on a "range of issues".

Modi came to his meeting with Xi Jinping, later in the day, from a hard-hitting key-note speech on the scourge of terrorism and its state sponsors. This took place in the morning session  of the 7th. Modi also showcased India's economic growth trajectory and the hard won GST reform.

Modi spoke of terrorism however, without naming names, other than the several well known global terrorist organisations, such as IS, Boko Haram, LeT and JeM, used by some countries as a 'tool'.

This even as he called for a more formal alliance between nations to fight  the menace.
Xi Jinping, on his part, perhaps in relief, praised the Indian Prime Minister for highlighting  international terrorism and for India's economic progress under Modi.

Prime Minister Modi, in turn, lauded the Chinese leadership and vision in the BRICS context.

Because of China's immense trade connectivities with host Germany,  and where Angela Merkel is headed for an election in September, Merkel was careful to extend pointed courtesies towards Xi Jinping.

The other participants too had to take note of the fact that Russia blocked a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution just before the Summit, which wanted to impose additional sanctions on North Korea.

This, for flouting international objections to setting off its latest intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which Russia justified as no more than a medium range missile.

Significantly, America does not, as yet, have the technology to block an intercontinental ballistic missile in mid-flight. And the latest launch from North Korea, quibbling aside, does have the potential to reach Alaska on the US mainland.

Indications are therefore, that the US may unilaterally impose additional economic sanctions on North Korea, and its lifeline China,while not ruling out its military options. Remarks to this effect were made, not just by Trump in his tweets, but in the United Nations itself.

The truth is, between the 11th G20 Summit, the first ever hosted by China at Hangzou in September 2016, and the  12th one at Hamburg on July 7-8, 2017, the Chinese Dragon has begun to breathe intermittent fire, sometimes via its proxies Pakistan and North Korea.

This might have theoretically shot the "China question" to the top of the unofficial agenda, even as the activists outside, some of them violent, were in a frenzy of anti-globalisation.

So much so, that the wives and accompanying delegations were mostly confined to their secure hotels, while thousands of armed security forces were out on the streets to tackle the demonstrators.

The official discourse at Hamburg, by way of contrast, discussed the pressures on "free" trade, harder to come by these days, and its allied topic, what host Angela Merkel calls "competitive taxation".
There  were new trade initiatives discussed, with regard to Africa.

The contentious Islamic refugee policy is something off an elephant in the room, with uneven consensus, and little mention, except in the context of terror. The US, of course, is implacably opposed, but did not have to say so afresh.

And yes, despite Trump's  scowling presence on the topic, things like carbon footprints, credits and climate change did take up some of the Summit's time. This is seen as something of a victory for new French President Macron.

India has reiterated its commitment to implement its share of the Paris Accord in letter and spirit.
Though of less concern to others besides Japan, Australia and India, the sheer aggression and bluntness of China's foreign policy rhetoric from home, in contrast to Xi Jinping's cordial behaviour abroad, has raised a serious question in the minds of some China watchers. As in Pakistan, who's really in-charge?

Is it the Communist Party political leadership, headed by President Xi Jinping, or the People's Liberation Army (PLA), led by General Fan Changlong, plus a phalanx of other key generals?

While President Xi Jinping is technically the Chairman of the PLA too, it must be remembered he came to his more genteel, suit- wearing civilian job, via Army fatigues too.

 Xi Jinping too is heading for the Chinese version of an election in November 2017, at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. The question arises, is he being put under deliberate internal pressure by the PLA?

But then, it may not be that clear-cut. President Xi Jinping did seek to preemptively blunt the expected pressure on North Korea via a recent visit to Russia's Vladimir Putin,  his 6th.

President Trump, the allegations of Russian links  notwithstanding, seems to have developed a much better working relationship with  President Putin, via over his first set of two hours of one-on-one talks.

Trump, despite the clamour at home, is obviously not very concerned with the issue of Russian "interference" in the US elections.

And now that ISIS, the faction opposed to Syria's Bashir Assad, has been nearly wiped out in Iraq and Syria, Russia and America need not remain on opposite sides.

Significantly, the Bashir Assad Government has survived the maelstrom intact.

Trump, unlike Obama, will not seek the instability of "regime change" in Syria, having learnt from the chaos of the "Arab Spring", on his predecessor's watch.

And that has probably gone down very well with Putin, an Assad backer. Even if it doesn't play quite so well in Tel Aviv which views Syria as an Iranian ally, with both implacably opposed to Israel.
Meanwhile, the remnants of  the anti-Assad ISIS, are already regrouping in Somalia, with a degree of safe passage afforded by the US.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, his stature enhanced by two back-to-back economic/security partnerships with the US and Israel, came to the G20 on a stronger wicket.

This may have moderated China's stance, while nevertheless objecting to any counter moves, even joint military exercises from those affected.

While China has blatantly flouted the ruling of the Hague's Permanent Court of Arbitration with regard to the South China Sea, the issue is not being highlighted.

This even after China had earlier ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) demonstrating its selective application and attitude to international law and convention.

China continues to pursue a ham-fisted claim to the whole of the South China Sea, all the expected oil and gas in it, and the islands that dot it,  including some new man-made ones constructed by it.
Vietnam, bravely, it must be said, and in consortium with India, has decided to go ahead with oil explorations in the contentious area.

This even as China is displaying its new aircraft carrier on a tour to Hong Kong.

The Chinese thrust with One-Belt-One-Road (OBOR) has not come up on the official discussion list either, despite concern about its propensity to bankrupt participating nations.

India has, of course, kept out of the initiative, citing the illegitamacy of driving the road through technically Indian territory, in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) and nearby Gilgit and Baltistan.

Some say its non-participation has further geopardised the viability of the project, and angered/embarassed Xi Jinping.

Besides all this, the port city of Hamburg, located on the Elbe River, has quite a lot to offer culturally, which, given the protests, will not be sampled in full by the masses of visiting delegates. There is art, architecture, theatre, museums, music, history. The Summiteers were, in fact, treated to classic music concerts in the evening.

While the mood on the street is angry this time, it was in Hamburg, in the neon-lit and sleepless nights of the Reeperbahn,  that the legendary, but then unknown Beatles, once polished their  unique repertoire.

The G20 Summit itself, held at the Messehallen Convention Centre, would have been backed up by salubrious retreats for quiet discussions, if not for the security challenges.

India's Narendra Modi, now in his third year in power, is being treated to the joys of being rerated by the august assembly, with his speeches setting the agenda in some instances.

This, even as the benefits of his recent bilateral diplomatic coups will take time to play out. However, the likelihood of him remaining Prime Minister for another 7 years is being noted.

Besides the US and Israel are all-weather allies. And for India to join them within Prime Minister Modi's characteristic bear-hug, is potentially a large development.

India's improved relationship with America and Israel, of course, comes on top of, and not at the expense of a long-standing and tested one with Russia. In a multi-lateral world today, this is important too.

Russia still supplies two-thirds of India's military needs. But growing fast, is the military and civil cooperation with both America and Israel.

India is modernising and rearming.The sale of Guardian unarmed drones for surveillance from the US,  and the possibility of F-16's being manufactured in India, are in addition to the sale of light-weight 55mm howitzers, and military transport aircraft, all ongoing.

From Israel could shortly come the much sought after armed Heron drones, and a small arms joint venture in  short order, apart from missiles already on order and extensive training, intelligence sharing and so on.

This in addition to several MoU's, just signed, spanning agriculture, water, and space, and their further modernisation with Israel.

The enhanced military relationship with Israel, also couched in terms of "terror", could also provide vital R&D and innovation inputs, in addition to setting up a joint venture ecosystem to make it much easier to make defence equipment, including planes, in India.

The new US President, on his part, has seen fit to come to the G20 after a bilateral meeting each, with China first, and then India -both within six months of taking over.

This new equivalence, it is apparent, is between a rapidly growing  and necessary India, and a much bigger, somewhat threatening, but slowing, China.

For: The Sunday Guardian
July 8th, 2017
Gautam Mukherjee 

G20 Hamburg: India Rerated & China In The Dock

G20 Hamburg: India Rerated & China In The Dock

Between the 11th G20 Summit, the first ever hosted by China at Hangzou in September 2016, and the  12th one at Hamburg on July 7-8, 2017, the Chinese Dragon has begun to breathe fire.

This has shot the "China question" to the top of the unofficial agenda at Hamburg, even as the protestors outside, out-flanked by events, are readying to take on the right-wing policies of new President Donald Trump.

China has deliberately picked a fight with a number of countries. It has blatantly flouted the ruling of the Hague's Permanent Court of Arbitration with regard to the South China Sea and its dispute, initially, just with The Phillipines. Instead of complying, it tried, with some success, to buy off  the impoverished country and its needy leader Duterte.

This even after China had earlier ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) demonstrating its selective application and attitude to international law and convention.

Glaringly, despite near universal condemnation, China continues to pursue a ham-fisted claim to the whole of the South China Sea, all the expected oil and gas in it, and the islands that dot it,  including some new man-made ones constructed by it.

Typifying the problem, another unrelated but recent tally had it that China has land and territorial disputes with 23 countries small and large. It seems to underline a self-serving interpretation of cartography and an insatiable urge towards expansionism.

In the South China Sea, it is sharply militarising the passage, and warning off  all ships from any country that enter or pass through it including those from the US.

Closer to our bailiwick, it has developed another dispute and stand-off at the Sikkim/Bhutan borders with India and Bhutan, accompanied by daily threats and rising rhetoric of a millitarist kind.

This is in addition to its loud claims and warnings with regard to Arunachal Pradesh, and elsewhere along its long border with India.

China is also thuggishly aiding and abetting its vassal state Pakistan's terrorism in Kashmir, and  helping to suppress all protest against its One-Belt-One-Road  (OBOR) road leading through Pakistan, from its Xinkiang Province, into PoK/Gilgit-Baltistan, via Islamabad, and on to the port of Gwadur in Baluchistan on the Arabian Sea.

China, while claiming to be restraining North Korea at American request, is apparently and tacitly encouraging its near unhinged belligerence vis a vis America, South Korea, Japan and others.

The sheer aggression and bluntness of its foreign policy of late, unmindful of all opinion, has raised a serious question in the minds of many China watchers and analysts. As in Pakistan, who's really in-charge?

Is it the Communist Party political leadership, headed by President Xi Jinping, or the People's Liberation Army (PLA), led by General Fan Changlong, and his phalanx of other generals?

While President Xi Jinping is technically the Chairman of the PLA too, it must be remembered he came to his more genteel, suit- wearing civilian job, via the fatigues of the PLA too.

And now that Xi Jinping is heading for the Chinese version of an election in November 2017, at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the question arises, is he being put under deliberate internal pressure? Why are so many undiplomatic fights being picked? Is the PLA acting on its own?

So, while, the 12th G20 Summit at Hamburg, Germany, may have well wanted to address an array of other issues, the problem of a runaway, possibly out-of-control China, may have to be urgently, if unofficially catapulted to the top of the agenda.

 In the formality of the Summit, there are mostly heads of Government from 20 member countries, the leaders of a number of invited participating countries, and world bodies.

All are on their way to Germany even as I write this piece.

The "official" and likely deliberations, and some of the bilateral, "pull aside" discussions expected, are also already in the air.

How will President Xi Jinping of China respond to demands from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) members (Britain, France, Russia, America and China), all expected to be present, to  rein in the provocations of its protectorate North Korea?

Has President Xi Jinping sought to preemptively blunt the expected pressure on this, during his recently concluded 6th visit to Russia and its President Vladimir Putin?

Will President Trump of the US, the allegations of Russian links  notwithstanding, develop a much better working relationship with  President Putin? This particularly, now that ISIS has been nearly wiped out in Iraq and Syria.

Significantly, the Bashir Assad Government has survived the maelstrom intact.

Trump, unlike Obama before him, will probably not seek the instability of "regime change" in Syria, having learnt from the chaos of the "Arab Spring", on his predecessor's watch.

And that should go down very well with Putin, an Assad backer. Even if it doesn't play quite so well in Tel Aviv. But Israel won't, mercifully, be present at the Summit to say so.

Meanwhile, the remnants of  the "bad" as in anti-Assad ISIS, seem to be already regrouping in Somalia, curiously, with a degree of safe passage afforded by the US.

Will Prime Minister Narendra Modi, his stature enhanced by two back-to-back economic/security partnerships with the US and Israel, arrive at a solution to the China-India stand-off at the Sikkim/Bhutan border?

Or will both Modi and Xi studiously avoid the topic, possibly avoid each other, and leave it, if at all, to the professionals in their delegations? China is smarting at the US upgrade afforded to India, and may be unwilling to make any bilateral moves.

The official discourse at Hamburg might well discuss the pressures on "free" trade, harder to come by these days, and its allied topic, what host Angela Merkel calls "competitive taxation".

There is most likely going to be new trade initiatives discussed, with regard to Africa, the continent with massive untapped potential.

The contentious Islamic refugee policy and not just from Syria, may be put on the table. On it, there is uneven consensus, even within the EU, and neighbours like Switzerland and Britain. The US, of course, is implacably opposed.

And yes, despite Trump's  scowling presence on the topic, things like carbon footprints, credits and climate change may take up some of the Summit's time.

The Chinese thrust with OBOR could be on the official discussion list, because it has elicited already concern with regard to its propensity to bankrupt the participating nations. Earlier efforts along the same lines have seriously rocked the financial boats of Laos, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and some countries in Africa and threaten to do so very shortly in Pakistan.

India has kept out of the initiative citing the illegitamacy of driving the road through technically Indian territory in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and nearby Gilgit and Baltistan. Some say its non-participation has further geopardised the viability of the project and angered/embarassed Xi Jinping.

But,  nevertheless, the expectedly financially distressed nations would probably turn to the global lending institutions like the International Monetary Fund(IMF), the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and so on, in turn, expecting to be rescued.

This could  set off its own chain of financial crises in the lending institutions too given the size of the requirements.

While President Putin may prefer to sit on the fence on this one, as Russia  assesses it could benefit from OBOR, President Trump may well decide to use it as a lever to exact concessions from China, albeit obliquely.

Some others may also be on board the bus designed to rein in Chinese ambition, including India, Japan, South Korea, and Australia, affected directly because of their geopolitical location. The EU countries,Britain, perhaps some others, could chime in too, acting in solidarity.

NATO may, or may not, figure in the G20 Summit,  because the main bone of contention, participation of its constituents, with soldiers, equipment, armaments, and money, has already been addressed by President Trump at the G7 Summit in May 2017.

Besides all this serious to grim stuff, the port city of Hamburg, located on the Elbe River, has quite a lot to offer culturally  for the masses of visiting delegates. There is art, architecture, theatre, museums, music, history.

It was in Hamburg, in the neon-lit and sleepless nights of the Reeperbahn,  that the legendary, but then unknown Beatles, once polished their  unique repertoire. This was over 50 years ago now.

The G20 Summit itself will be held at the Messehallen Convention Centre, and no doubt be backed up by salubrious retreats for quiet discussions, and well out of town.

India's Narendra Modi, now in his third year in power, will be treated to the joys of being rerated by the assembly, even as the benefits of his recent bilateral diplomatic coups will take time to play out.

However, the likelihood of him remaining Prime Minister for another 7 years will be noted.

Besides the US and Israel are all-weather allies, and for India to join them within Prime Minister Modi's characteristic bear-hug, is extremely significant.

History has played its part in delaying these accords through the non-alignment years, the years of being a Soviet satellite, the misguided years of dogmatic socialism, and the questionable if haughty moralising.

But now, it is here.

It is  indeed partially a lateral gift occasioned by a risen  and assertive China. Changed geopolitical stakes in the Asian and Pacific theatre have pushed up India's importance.

Be that as it may, it is also, inevitably, reworking the unofficial pecking order at  the G20.

India's improved relationship with America and Israel comes on top of and not at the expense of a long-standing and tested one with Russia.

Russia still supplies two-thirds of India's military needs. But growing fast is the military and civil cooperation with both America and Israel.

The sale of Guardian unarmed drones for surveillance from the US,  and the possibility of F-16's being manufactured in India, are in addition to the sale of light-weight 55mm howitzers, and military transport aircraft, all ongoing.

From Israel could come the much sought after armed Heron drones, and a small arms joint venture in  short order, apart from missiles already on order and extensive training, intelligence sharing and so on.

This in addition to several MoU's, just signed, spanning agriculture, water, and space, and their further modernisation along with Israel. The military relationship with Israel could also provide vital R&D and innovation inputs, in addition to setting up a joint venture ecosystem to make it much easier to make defence equipment of various kinds, including planes, in India.

The new US President, on his part, has seen fit to meet with the Indian leadership, following closely on a similar bilateral with the Chinese leadership -both within six months of taking over.

This new equivalence, it is apparent, is between a rapidly growing  and necessary India, both economically and militarily, and a much bigger, somewhat threatening, but slowing, China.

So, just how long will China manage to stave off India from joining the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) going forward?

For: The Sunday Guardian
July 6th, 2017
Gautam Mukherjee 

Indian Textiles: Readying To Walk On The Wild Side

Indian Textiles: Readying To Walk On The Wild Side

The Charkha, being worked on by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi in his self-woven Khadi loincloth, was certainly a potent symbol of our freedom movement.

In English, more in the cultural context, than in direct translation, that Spinning Wheel represents Time itself.

So,  the adoption of the Charkha by a shrewd M.K.Gandhi, was no doubt, deliberate, in protest at the machined cloth from Manchester flooding the Indian markets then, and important symbolically.

In political terms, it was as important as the Khadi handkerchief the Mahatma wove and sent to Princess Elizabeth, then in her twenties, for her wedding to Prince Philip of Greece, none other than Lord Moutbatten's handsome nephew.

Queen Elizabeth, now in her nineties, showed that very "rumal" to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, when he visited her at Buckingham Palace recently, after all these years.

Charming as the association with the Independence Movement is, the Indian love affair with "Vastra" goes back into the misty sands of Time.

There are frequent references to resplendent Indian cloth and apparel, Vastra - shot through with gold and silver, in the Upanishads,Vedas, the great epics and elsewhere.

Sumptuous clothing is often showcased as metaphor, in our languages, literature, plays, movies, and culture.

Today, we have turned that simple hand-woven Khadi, the "Fabric of Freedom", into its blended and machined designer avatar, and India now boasts of the largest installed  textile weaving capacity in the world.

We are also the world's largest producers of natural fibres, cotton, jute. We  are a  substantial producer of silk. India is now the second-largest producer of man-made fibres too.

As a focus area for the Government in 2017, Textiles makes good sense, because we have everything necessary for growing this activity available in-country, except perhaps the latest developments in textile machinery.

With the echoes of Gandhian and the freedom struggle traditions in the background, it was appropriate that the first ever China/Japan/Europe/US style mega business-to-business (B2B) event, Textiles India 2017, should have been held at the massive exhibition centre at Mahatma Mandir, Gandhinagar, Gujarat.

It may be new to us, but the world has come to routinely expect such one-stop solutions if things are to get substantially ahead.

The convergence, this time, of international and domestic buyers, textile machinery suppliers/manufacturers, high-end designers and the harnessed Government of India machine, aims to double the Indian Textile business from its present $108 billion to $223 billion by 2021.

In terms of the Prime Minister's over-arching vision of Make-in-India, the Textiles Sector is a good prospect, particularly for its connect between farm, industry, domestic and overseas markets.

It currently employs 51 million people directly, and another 68 million indirectly. This is second only to Agriculture as it stands, and the implication is that it could draw upon the surplus manpower in rural India, via appropriate skill development, for its growth.

Textiles, particularly in cotton, silk, and jute, blends,  and man-made fibres, contribute 4% to India's GDP, some 15% of its export earning, and represents 14% of India's Industrial Production.

Exports as a whole, the bulk of it coming from a now weakening Information Technology (IT), only accounts for between 12-15% of GDP and needs to be reworked.

India has  therefore approved 100% foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Textile Sector.
This affords great collaborative opportunity to experiment, blend, design, innovate; all backed by intelligent and affordable manpower.

The potential activity can lead to integration from sourcing and production on to marketing the end-product, both to the massive domestic market, and for export.

And yes, as many as 65 MoU's were indeed signed at the three day event, as per Minister of State for Textiles, Ajay Tamta.

The Prime Minister, with his penchant for visual alliteration, spoke in terms of a value-chain: Farm-Fibre-Fabric-Fashion-Foreign-his "Five F formula".

The well attended exhibition itself, with a 1,000 exhibitors, 15,000 domestic buyers, and 2,500 foreign ones from 106 countries, including some from the ASEAN region, was held for three days from June 30th till July 2nd, 2017.

The event, coordinated and showcased the efforts of artisans, weavers,  mass-manufacturers, the signature presentations of several participating states, and traditional skills, including those from the Prime Minister's own constituency of Varanasi.

There were leading  captains of business and industry,fashionistas, fabrics, apparel, carpets, soft-furnishing fabrics, India's top designers and fashion models present.

There was a substantial fashion show to cap all the presentations and conferences, many  helmed by as many as   nine prominent Union Ministers, speaking on different aspects of the Textile opportunity.

Textile India 2017 not only demonstrated size and scale, potential agility, speed to market, innovation, digitisation, as Niti Aayog CEO Amitabh Kant put it, but a new approach that is becoming a Modi hallmark.

It is the harnessed efforts of multiple ministries, including, notably, the Ministry of Skill Development, and that of Tourism to show people how things are made, particularly in the handloom/handicraft sectors.

And all this was backed up in turn by myriad government departments and export promotion bodies, cutting across states and ministries, in a manner that is a  notable departure from earlier efforts.

Before NDA II, it was never more than the showcasing of the single Ministry of Textiles itself, and while this too did much to promote the skills and creativity of professionals and artisans involved, India steadfastly took on nothing from the way the international community presented such things.

This, of course, isolated us, despite our merit, because the global scenario in this business runs like a well-oiled machine, with little or no tolerance for outliers and exotic behaviour, except in a niche and boutique capacity.

And therefore, India's textile exports, remain a small part of a small overall total in the world of exports as yet.

Modi, on his part, now seeks to mass merchandise India's potential in the area, and this calls for new efforts and proccesses.

The young Union Minister for Textiles, Smriti Irani, was at pains to point out that the days of individual manufacturers and vendors touting their wares door-to-door at European, Chinese, Japanese, and American buying houses - working at a net disadvantage, without back-up, were now truly over.

The major departure in policy terms is the Narendra Modi led bid to organise collaborations, joint ventures, and manufacturing projects, sited in various parts of India, on favourable, incentivised terms, as the desired outcome.

This, while not ruling out larger volumes of straight sales of ready-made fabric, carpets, and garments, pretty much as before.

This implies that though this event was the first of its kind, it certainly won't be the last.  But will India become a preferred soucing hub and investment destination for Textiles, as desired by Union Commerce & Industry Minister Nirmala Sitharaman?

It depends, of course, not just on such well-organised and orchestrated mega-events, but India's  continued success at becoming an "easy place to do business".

The  coincidental operationalising of the General Sales Tax (GST) era, is indeed a demonstrator of things to come. With its single tax to replace more than a dozen, it was launched during the mega event on an All-India basis, save, as yet, the state of J&K.

However, as  several forthcoming and bold stage II structural economic reforms, on labour and land, amongst lesser items, are predicated, on electoral success, political will,and legislative ability- Time, like the Charkha, will have to tell.

For: SirfNews
July 4th, 2017
Gautam Mukherjee