India’s storm in a teacup over Pakistan’s F-16s

Sultan M Hali

Indian coercive diplomacy to stop the sale of F-16s to Pakistan is akin to a storm in a teacup. India is disappointed that the United States has approved the sale of eight F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan and summoned the US Ambassador to New Delhi, Richard Verma, to ‘convey its displeasure’ regarding the Obama administration’s decision to notify the sale of the aircraft to Pakistan. Indian External Affairs Ministry disagrees with the US rationale that such arms transfers help combat terrorism. Indian aversion to the US providing eight F-16s comes in the backdrop of India having browbeaten Sri Lanka to backtrack from acquiring JF-17 Thunder fighter aircrafts from Pakistan. According to The Indian Express, the procurement process was in the advanced stages, after the Sri Lankan Air Chief had visited Pakistan and later sent an evaluation team to study the aircraft and a green signal had been given to go ahead.

The Indian Express discloses that the Indian government delivered a non-paper — diplomatic parlance for a white sheet of paper without a letterhead or signature — to Colombo at the highest levels about three weeks ago after reports that Pakistan was seriously engaging the Sri Lankan Air Force (SLAF) on the Chinese fighter aircraft to replace the SLAF’s ageing fleet of Israeli Kfirs and MiG-27s.
New Delhi has opposed SLAF plans to buy the JF-17s on the ground that Sri Lanka does not need fighter aircrafts. Sri Lankan sources said India also put forth a technical argument that the Russian engines of the JF-17 were not the best, that even China does not use these aircrafts. Earlier, some Sri Lankan reports had said India had offered its own Tejas to the SLAF instead. India is also concerned that the deal, if it goes through, will enable Pakistan, and perhaps China, to set up a facility in Sri Lanka for maintenance and training, and increase and widen contacts between Pakistan and Chinese security forces and Sri Lanka.
It may be relevant to mention that in 2014 the then Sri Lankan government had cleared a proposal for China to set up a maintenance-cum-servicing facility for its aircrafts that are part of the Sri Lankan fleet in Trincomalee. The SLAF fleet also comprises the Chengdu F-7 fighter aircraft, and the Y-12 and MA60 transporters. India had raised concerns then about the plan and the Sri Lankan government had said it would be manned only by SLAF personnel. With the change in government, that plan was shelved.
Pakistan Air Force requires the additional all weather capable F-16s equipped with precision guided munitions to beef up its effort to combat terrorism but India is bent upon denying this capacity to Pakistan with the plea that the eight aircraft will upset the balance of power in the sub-continent. Interestingly, India itself has opted to acquire 126 French Dassault Rafale fighter aircrafts, is eying Russian MiG-35 fighters and concluded a number of recent defence deals. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Report 2015, India was the highest recipient of arms. India claims that its fighter strength is at an all time low. As against the sanctioned strength of 45 squadrons it only had 34 squadrons. A recent parliamentary panel finding has put the squadron strength at 25 squadrons. This is alarming news for any defence personnel. Of the 25 squadrons, about 14 comprise MiG 21s and MiG 27s which are slated for decommissioning in 2020-25. By 2025, if India does not have sufficient Rafale aircrafts, its squadron strength would be at a dangerous 11. The delay in the Induction of Tejas which is already obsolete before it became operational and the stalling of the Indo-Russian FGFA means India has to make do only with 190 Sukhoi 30MKIs that it currently has. The MiG 29s and Mirage 2000s are slowly being upgraded. Hence, their operational availability will not be reliable. As an interim measure, IAF plans to order more Su-30MKI apart from the originally sanctioned 272. This may not be as effective as hoped. It makes the composition of the fighter fleet predominantly Su-30 which compromises the element of surprise in case of hostilities. Also, the technologies transfer with the Rafale aircraft are needed by India for its own indigenous fighter programmes such as LCA MkII and AMCA.
While unearthing its own ambitious plans, India grudges Pakistan acquiring the eight F-16s, which it knows will only enhance its war on terror capability and make no dent in the balance of forces ratio, which is already heavily tilted in India’s favour.
On the one hand, India is waving the olive branch by inviting Pakistan to a Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue for peace; on the other, it is sabotaging every defence deal of Pakistan, however infinitesimal it may be. Our foreign office mandarins or the current political dispensation occupying the corridors of power in Islamabad, who got swayed by Modi’s Raiwind yatra on Mian Nawaz Sharif’s birthday bash, should think deep and hard regarding the real agenda of the Modi government. Irrespective of what political dispensation occupies the mantle of power in New Delhi, the mantra is the same; Pakistan bashing is its foremost priority.
Although US Congress is now going through a 30-day notification period after which it will be finalised. The F-16 aircrafts along with training, radar and other equipment would allow Pakistan’s Air Force to operate in all kinds of weather, as well as “enhance Pakistan’s ability to conduct counter-insurgency and counterterrorism operations,” the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency, which coordinates such foreign arms sales, said in a statement. Each country plans its force goals in accordance with its threat perception. Currently, PAF, which is engaged in targeting the miscreants with precision guided munitions is likely to retire about 200 of its aging F-7 and Mirage Fighter aircrafts and needs at least 24 F-16s to meet the threat at hand. The addition of the 8 F-16s from USA under Foreign Military Financing will offset the balance to some extent.

The reprehensible JNU controversy

Sultan M Hali

The students of New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) are staging a massive protest, which appears to be taking on a snowball effect. The origin of the controversy is based in the act that some students pasted posters across the JNU campus inviting people to a protest against the ‘judicial killing of Afzal Guru’, triggering a row. It may be recalled that Afzal Guru was hanged for being declared responsible for the attack on the New Delhi Parliament building on December 13, 2001. The trial of Afzal Guru failed to find him culpable for the heinous crime in light of the flimsy evidence submitted by the prosecutors but the Indian judiciary still sentenced him to death, which was carried out furtively.

JNU, whose students are renowned for free debate, decided to protest the hanging on the third anniversary of the odious act on February 9. Members of the Hindu extremist RSS’s Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) objected to the event and wrote to the Vice Chancellor that such kind of protests should not be held on the campus, prompting the university administration to order cancellation of the march. Vice Chancellor of JNU M Jagadesh Kumar said, “While the JNU community upholds the right to free debate on campus, the University strongly condemns the use of the University as a platform for activities that violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. However, there could be aberrations where fringe sections misuse the freedom provided.” The JNU administration instituted a “disciplinary” inquiry as to how the event took place despite withdrawal of permission and said it will wait for the probe report before taking any further action. Contrarily, Delhi Police registered a case of sedition against “unknown persons” in connection with the event, following complaints by BJP MP Maheish Girri and the ABVP. On February 12, JNU Students Union President Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested in a sedition case over the Afzal Guru event and, ironically, incarcerated in the same jail cell as Afzal Guru in Tihar Jail. Kumar’s arrest sparked a massive outrage among students and criticism from non-BJP parties which dubbed it as an “emergency-like” situation. Asserting that JNU cannot be allowed to be a “hub of anti-national activities”, Minister of State for Home Kiren Rijiju said freedom of expression cannot be “absolute and unqualified and reasonable restriction” has to be there. Meanwhile, a video clip was presented as evidence against the JNU students, alleged to be demanding freedom for Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) and raising pro Pakistan slogans. It has now surfaced that the video clip was doctored. Vishwa Deepak, a journalist working with Zee News has resigned, suggesting that the channel deliberately misinterpreted a video clip to brand some students including Kanhaiya Kumar as anti-nationals and trigger the controversy at the JNU. Delhi Police’s FIR in the case is based solely on the video clip aired by Zee News. With this fresh twist in the case, on February 20, the Delhi government sent at least five video clips of the JNU event for forensic tests after allegations that they were doctored. In his letter, Deepak alleged that the channel went out of the way to portray Kanhaiya Kumar and others as anti-nationals. “The video didn’t have any ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ slogans at all -– yet we played it repeatedly to spread madness and mayhem. How did we believe that some voices coming out of the dark belonged to Kanhaiya and his companions? Due to our biases, we heard ‘long live Indian courts’ as ‘long live Pakistan’ and working on the government line, brought the careers, their hopes and aspirations and families of some people to the brink of destruction,” Deepak wrote in his letter which he has also posted on his Facebook page. Other renowned personalities have joined the fray. Barkha Dutt, the distinguished Indian journalist, has penned an open letter to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, beseeching him to put an end to the manipulation and government’s high handedness of government functionaries in the crackdown on JNU to respect humanity. Jawaid Naqvi, an alumnus of JNU, expresses similar sentiments in his op-ed ‘To foil the nationalist narrative’. Highlighting the open thinking of JNU students, he recalls that “The day (Zulfikar Ali) Bhutto was laid low, many JNU students didn’t eat. There was more palpable sorrow than at the passing away of Mao Zedong a year or two earlier, although on that occasion too some students wore the black armband. No one was jailed or attacked for mourning a Pakistani leader or celebrating a Chinese one.” A batch of ex-servicemen, alumni of the university, threatened to return their degrees as they found it “difficult” to be associated with an institution that has become a “hub of anti-national activities”. It may be remembered that after protests escalated in Hyderabad University last month following the suicide of Rohith Vemula, students across JNU put up posters of the Dalit student outside their hostel rooms. It may be recalled that Rohith Vemula, a PhD student had hanged himself on January 17, 2016, and his suicide sparked protests and outrage from across India and gained widespread media attention as an alleged case of discrimination against Dalits and low status castes in India. The prevailing scenario across India has turned grim because of the extremism being propagated. Modi’s government was pursuing a Hindu-nationalist agenda. Last year, many prominent Indian writers and intellectuals returned national awards to protest government’s attempts to promote Hindutva, following the killing of a Muslim man by a mob who suspected he had slaughtered a cow. India is rapidly losing its secular credentials and is sinking in the abyss of narrow nationalism, radicalism and intolerance. Modi will have to personally step in and stem the rot which is setting in and rein in the extremist cadres of Hindus from openly questioning the nationalism of their opponents. The followers of Mahatma Gandhi and Babasaheb Ambedkar, the proponents of freedom of speech and tolerance, should be embracing the virtues preached and practised by their founding fathers rather than flouting them on the altar of bigotry.

Kashmir issue is alive — and very much kicking

Abdul Zahoor Khan Marwat

The Kashmir Solidarity Day, an internationally recognized day, is being observed throughout Pakistan on February 5. As a national holiday, the occasion is marked by public processions and special prayers in mosques for the liberation of Kashmir and protests that are carried out against the Indian oppression of Kashmiris.

The day is a closed holiday and one-minute silence is observed throughout the country. Also, special programmes are held to demonstrate complete solidarity with the people of the Valley. The occasion shows to the Kashmiris and the world at large that Pakistan and its people care about the long-pending issue that has resulted in several wars between the two neighbouring countries. Officially, Pakistan began observing February 5 as the Kashmir Day to reiterate solidarity with the people of Jammu and Kashmir in 2004. On January 31, 2004, speaking at a news conference, the-then Federal Minister for Kashmir and Northern Area Affairs had said the people and the Government of Pakistan would demonstrate on the day their solidarity with the aspirations of the people of Kashmir. He said that observance of the day was meant to convey a message to the world that Pakistan would not step back an inch from its stated position on the issue. The-then Pakistani prime minister, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, visited Muzaffarabad on February 5 and addressed a joint session of the Legislative Assembly and Council. The Kashmir issue remains an international dispute. However, because of its very weak case on the disputed valley, India terms it a bilateral dispute and avoids internationalizing the issue. With the coming of the Modi Sarkar, the PDP-BJP alliance government in the Held Kashmir is making efforts for complete integration of the valley into India. In this regard, the Indian government is making attempts to change the demography of the valley by bringing in non Muslim retired army men and other law enforcement agency personnel. This is being carried out in violation of laws that prohibit naturalization of non-indigenous settlers in the disputed valley. Also the BJP and the RSS are busy in changing the religious identity of the state. For example, special concessions were given to expand the horizon of Amarnath Yatra to project that Hindus have greater stakes in the IOK than Muslims. For demographic re-engineering in the state, the so-called West Pakistan Refugees are being recruited in Indian armed forces from the IOK quota. Also, allocation of lands for separate cities for repatriating the Hindu Pundits and allocation of Rs2 million for rehabilitation of each Pundit family in the valley are aimed at creating Hindu constituencies in a thorough Muslim region of the Valley through delimitation. Legal experts in India and the Indian Occupied Kashmir High Court have dented the Indian efforts and have clarified the permanent and eternal status of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution. It said that the BJP Sarkar could only work within the status quo, not against it. But the Modi government is now aspiring to get the support of 44 or more lawmakers to change the status of the Valley in 2020 elections. For this, BJP MLAs have started controlling health, education, local infrastructure, social support and rural development. Major projects of the State are mostly being announced/ implemented in Hindu dominant/ BJP constituencies, giving the message that only BJP voters are entitled to a standard living. Now, there are greater pressures on the Hurriyat leadership that has been strongly suppressed by the PDP-BJP government. Their leaders are detained at police stations or kept under house arrests during all important events and not allowed to organize rallies for demanding freedom. For example, the detention of Masarat Alam, even after acceptance of his bail by IOK High Court, shows the coercive mechanics of Indian forces/ police in the state. The malicious Indian intent is evident from the blame game against Pakistan for every internal security issue, merely to avoid a serious dialogue on bilateral issues as well as the humanitarian crisis in the valley. As it is, the festering problem has led to the barbaric killings of thousands of people in the valley, including women and children, by the Indian armed forces.The legal protection to the Indian troops in the guise of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) is very much there. This brutal law has allowed the Indian forces to deal with the people of the valley as they please with little fear of prosecution. As global players continue to ignore the resolution of the dispute, it has become a humanitarian issue in the region. The BJP Sarkar wants to make the people of the valley and Pakistan, a party to the dispute, irrelevant by ending the special status of the valley. This, however, will never happen; it will only prove to be invaluable in raising the profile of the dispute.

Details about top terrorist killed by LEAs surface

Waqar Ahmed

ISLAMABAD: Details about a top terrorist staunchly opposed to the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) have finally surfaced.

Dr Abdul Manan, 48, was targeted in a hideout along with his four other terrorist cronies in Mastung on January 16, 2016.
According to authoritative sources, Manan Baloch was the secretary general of the Baloch National Movement and the number two of Balochistan Liberation Front.
Being employed in the Balochistan health department, Manan was a political mobiliser, whose party held shutter down strikes in Khuzdar to propagate the separatist theme on behalf of his foreign masters. He was also instrumental in influencing the educated youth in fueling the insurgent agenda.
On the directions of his handlers, Manan was a staunch critic of the CPEC. His propagated that ethnic Baloch people viewed the project as a colonising endeavour by the military and the Chinese to usurp the Baloch land and resources. “Manan’s efforts were directed to create a perception that the Baloch leaders oppose the construction projects in Balochistan because of the fear that the Baloch will not be the primary recipient of the investment,” the sources said. “He propagated that Baloch, who make only 5% of Pakistan’s total population, will be converted into a minority in their own land with the influx of outsiders into the port city.” This perception is totally false and engineered by international forces that are opposed to the project and would be hurt by the building of the corridor.
While Manan was apparently a political worker, he, in fact, was a hardcore terrorist.
The political side of Manan was not his cause of fame but the militant activities. The sources added that Manan was a known militant commander who had appeared armed in numerous videos and photographs. In videos, he had accepted the responsibility for many attacks that killed pro-government civilians and policemen.
During the earthquake of September 2013, Manan was actively involved in targeting the law enforcement agencies’ operation for relief activities in the Awaran District.
Sources said the slain Baloch separatist was financed, assisted and propagated as a helping hand in connection with the IDPs of military operations by an INGO. Being an employee of the health department, Manan was found sharing sensitive information about the IDPs with the foreign NGO, especially on the medical needs of women and children of the conflict. This information was later used for vested designs by his foreign masters.
“Manan in any case was not a peaceful political worker and his death is not a cold blooded murder,” the sources pointed out. “The foreign funded nationalists and terrorists are only propagating the death as a human rights issue because the elimination of Manan is a major blow to them. In reality, his death is a major achievement for establishing peace in the Balochistan province.”

Welfare delayed is welfare denied

Mian Saifur Rehman

No two countries of the world enjoy such intertwined relations like the ones enjoyed by China and Pakistan where litigation, controversies and political gimmickry don't come in the way.

Isn't this a strange yardstick to be applied for judging the depth and cordiality of any ties? Normally, it is said that Pak-China ties are higher than Himalayas but here we are coming across a new yardstick that these ties are far above or far higher than litigation and controversies raised by a handful of litigation-happy 'Ashraafia'.
The man behind this innovative yardstick is none other than Punjab Chief Minister Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, who has rightly pointed out that investment, especially FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) is litigation-shy. Businessmen and industrialists shy away from countries that are buried under the debris of litigation and controversies. And international investors in particular wind up their projects in places 'where there is litigation'. The first impression formed in the minds of foreign investors and joint venture collaborators is that a society infested with controversies is an unstable society where investment is unsafe and then the country has already suffered a lot due to rampant terrorism that created a sense of insecurity for a considerable period of time till the Operation Zarbe Azb started bearing its fruits. "But, China has chosen to continue its projects in general and the Orange Line Train project in particular despite these bottlenecks", says Shahbaz Sharif. Isn't it a manifestation of true love that the Chinese have in their hearts for the people of Pakistan, asks the provincial chief. And isn't it a love story rather than a mere arrangement of bilateral diplomatic ties? Both the questions are quite pertinent on any regional or global yardstick of inter-state and inter-society ties. Pak-China friendship is much more than a routine diplomatic relationship as it has stood the test of times (of late, according to Shahbaz Sharif, it has also stood the test of controversies).
It seems it is not some kind of a battle between mere right or wrong, good or bad but some kind of a war of egos rooted in our overall socio-political milieu that is negatively impacting our economic uplift as well.
The people who are churning out controversies have probably only one motive before them and that is denying the welfare to the ordinary masses. They are convinced that the public would ultimately be the winner as is usually the case with the societies where the public awareness is on the rise.
So, the strategy picked up by these forces of 'Ashraafia' (to quote Shahbaz Sharif according to whom 'Ashraafia' constitutes the handful of elitist people who dislike the people travelling through ordinary means of transport) is to delay the welfare, if it can't be totally denied. But 'welfare delayed is welfare denied', isn't it?

Pakistan refused to accept India’s dictation

Mian Saifur Rehman

“The enemy in their extreme arrogance has forgotten the rules of communication and are openly threatening us. Today’s date is history in the making. God has given us the opportunity to take this step for our country’s defence which was inevitable. We never wanted to participate in this nuclear race. We have proved to the world that we would not accept what is dictated to us”.

So this was the underlying factor, as gathered from May 1998’s address of the then prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, that made his government take the historic decision of testing the nuclear device at Chaghi on May 28, 1998, which day is remembered throughout the Islamic world as Yaum-e-Takbeer (the day when Allah’s name was exalted).

It was that dictation from India that was thwarted forever through this historic decision. This action on the part of the Pakistan government had become “inevitable”, to quote Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, in the wake of five tests conducted by India. Certainly, it was history in the making in the sense that the country was faced with enormous pressure from the global leaders who were not bothered about existential threat to Pakistan from a three-to-four time bigger and well-equipped adversary which had fought three major wars with Pakistan. The circumstances were already not much favourable as Pakistan was struggling for economic stability, steadily climbing the economic ladder. And it was history in the making in the sense that the decision itself to go nuclear, albeit in response to India’s dictation and defiance of the “rules of communication”, challenged the hegemony of a select group of nuclear powers.

Pakistanis are, till today, indebted to former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, for giving practical shape to the concept of going powerful via the nuclear club route and then to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for taking the vital most decision to become a functional nuclear power whose nuclear system has been adjudged by IAEA and other world inspectors as one of the safest, multi-layered systems and which stands committed to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Going somewhat into the background, on May 11, 1998 India tested three of its nukes and on May 13 tested yet another two nukes to show their strategic strength in the region.

 
On March 18, after the explosions, the then Indian home minister, LK Advani, called on Pakistan to “realise the change in the geo-strategic situation in the region”. He warned Pakistan against trying to intensify an insurgency what he termed a “separatist Muslim insurgency in the Kashmir Valley”.

There are people who ask as to what benefits accrued out of the decision to go nuclear and how this decision could be termed a historic decision? The answer lies in evaluating the situation in the backdrop of India’s aggressive designs and Indian leaders’ ‘regional superpower mindset’ that has always been a source of fomenting tensions and conflicts in the region. The latest fiery message from Advani ie to “realise the change in the geo-strategic situation in the region”, was also quite meaningful and smacked of continuity of India’s jingoistic designs. Then, Pakistan had not forgotten the overt, practical measures taken at a large scale towards the country’s dismemberment (East Pakistan debacle of 1971). Even in the nuclear realm, India had been continuing with its nuclearisation designs since 1974 without any reservations or self-restraint.

The decision on the part of Nawaz Sharif government to go nuclear was thus necessitated by this background. Pakistan was left with no choice. And now, in hindsight, it occurs to every Pakistani’s mind that it was a very big decision (if weariness of the anti-historic lobby doesn’t allow to call it historic) in the history of the subcontinent. And, in this manner, it won’t be wrong to say that Yaum-e-Takbeer (May 28) is a day of national solidarity.

No Exceptions for a Nuclear India

By Editorial Board

America’s relationship with India has blossomed under President Obama, who will meet with Prime Minister Narendra Modi this week. Ideally, Mr. Obama could take advantage of the ties he has built and press for India to adhere to the standards on nuclear proliferation to which other nuclear weapons states adhere.

The problem, however, is that the relationship with India rests on a dangerous bargain. For years, the United States has sought to bend the rules for India’s nuclear program to maintain India’s cooperation on trade and to counter China’s growing influence. In 2008, President George W. Bush signed a civilian nuclear deal with India that allowed it to trade in nuclear materials. This has encouraged Pakistan to keep expanding a nuclear weapons program that is already the fastest growing in the world.

Now, India has Mr. Obama’s strong support in its bid to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a 48-nation body that governs trade in nuclear-related exports and aims to ensure that civilian trade in nuclear materials is not diverted for military uses. Membership would enhance India’s standing as a nuclear weapons state, but it is not merited until the country meets the group’s standards.

All group members have signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, either as nuclear weapons states (the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China) or as non-nuclear weapons states (everybody else). India has refused, which means it has not accepted legally binding commitments to pursue disarmament negotiations, halt the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and not test nuclear weapons.

President Bush squandered an opportunity to demand more of India when he signed the 2008 deal, which opened the door to American trade in nuclear technology for civilian energy, something India had insisted was a prerequisite to more cooperation and lucrative business deals.

As part of the 2008 deal, the Indians promised they would be “ready to assume the same responsibilities and practices” as other nations with advanced nuclear technology. But they have fallen far short by continuing to produce fissile material and to expand their nuclear arsenal.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group is to discuss India’s application later this month. Mr. Obama is lobbying for India to win membership through a special exception. If he succeeds, India would be in a position to keep Pakistan, which has also applied for membership, from gaining membership because group decisions must be unanimous. That could give Pakistan, which at one time provided nuclear technology to North Korea and Iran, new incentives to misbehave.

Opposition from China, which is close to Pakistan and views India as a rival, could doom India’s bid for now. But the issue will not go away. India is growing in importance and seeking greater integration into organizations that govern international affairs. If it wants recognition as a nuclear weapons state, it should be required to meet the nuclear group’s standards, including opening negotiations with Pakistan and China on curbing nuclear weapons and halting the production of nuclear fuel for bombs.