Sunday, 18 December 2016

Is India's Growth Story that different from China's?

India and China – two largest nations on the Earth in population terms; chose different ways towards their right to self-determination. While India, based on the earlier established limited democratic framework under the British and the GoI Act 1935 decided for a democratically elected bicameral legislature with President as the head of the state; China went for a unicameral legislature with Communism as the core doctrine – what Chinese call as ‘Socialism with Chinese Characteristics’.

Despite China and India moving on different political trajectories post 1940 – both of them have remarkable similarities.  Both the countries gained total control to decide their future roughly around the same time – 1947 for India and 1949 for China. It is notable that both the countries had similar share of world GDP in 1950 [4.2% & 4.5% for India and China respectively] and were agrarian in nature, both had to fight illiteracy, poor health care and corruption; But China today is on much better footing than India, even HDI says so.

The start for either of these countries was marked with challenges – primarily being how to increase the pie to be effectively shared amongst the population?

India followed the Nehru-Mahalonobis model of development favouring heavy industries over agriculture and China followed a similar path – both relying on USSR initially to expand the industrial technology. Both the countries were averse to the idea of ‘West’ helping them, leaning towards self-sufficiency. Then came the famines – Earlier in China as a result of Mao’s ill-conceived Great Leap forward [1958-1961] and in India as a result of poor monsoon [1966-1969]. For India, it was a positive outcome resulting in ‘Green Revolution’. On the other-hand in China, it resulted in heavy censure of Mao. Mao had to launch the ‘Cultural Revolution’ unleashing his ‘Red Guards’ over his perceived enemies consolidating this power from 1966 till 1978. This put Chinese development on a stand-still till Mao’s death in 1978. India faced a similar situation much later in 1975-1977 when Emergency was declared and India witnessed a pseudo-dictatorial regime within a democratic framework. So for both India and China – the periods from 1947-1980 and from 1949-1978 respectively were the age of self-learning through mistakes.

China rebounded harder under the leadership of her visionary leader Deng Xiaoping who is credited with Chinese reform. One of the first things that Deng did was to make China more receptive of growth of its Asian neighbours [Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea] and learn from their experience and implement them under Chinese context. Introduction of Family Responsibility System, allowing foreign capital and opening up SEZs were great steps under communist regime. India partially opened up in 1980’s but the shock of 1991 was the actual turning point when the doors were finally opened to foreign competition ushering in LPG reforms. But, it was easier to introduce reforms in China than in India – due to the political culture in place. Chinese leader had the final say on all major reforms while Indian PM often had to appease a larger audience in the political spectrum to remain in power given the coalition politics.

The key takeaway is Chinese rise as compared to other communist countries seems an anomaly, primarily due to the fact that China has been able to segregate its Political ideology of Leninist State from its economic prerogatives and decisions [allowing limited capitalism within communist ideology]. In India’s case, economic socialism is inbuilt in Indian democracy as enshrined in the Indian Constitution, but still has a long way to go. India’s case seems to be driven primarily by private sector entrepreneurial spirit that is best served by limited government intervention unlike China. License Raj was a glorious failure. In today’s interconnected world, closed economy is a guaranteed failure. A lesson learnt by both the countries.

In conclusion, China will have to eventually address the questions of political ideology when dissent happens – but so long, the economic prosperity ensues, such questions can be kept in check. India on the otherhand may remain a soft-state as compared to China, and little chance that it can ever catch up with China in the next few decades economically, but nevertheless, free speech and actions will ensure that poverty is eventually a bygone word in Indian context.
Read More »

Tuesday, 8 November 2016

To Be or Not To Be | India's Energy Consumption vs Growth Dilemma

World is witnessing incredible changes in the sphere of environment sustainability in this decade. The steps taken, though tentative, are instrumental in reversing the damages caused due to rapid industrialization over the last 2 centuries.

Kyoto Protocol has been hailed as the most successful initiative so far that had the blessings and willingness of more than 190 countries – an amazing feat. It has been able to heal the ozone layer to an extent in a short span of 2 decades. More recent Paris Agreement on Climate Change was ratified by again a similar number of countries in less than 11 months of its conception – another wonderful feat indeed considering the challenges that are inherently associated with such a large number of countries with their own demands and needs & getting the same accommodated to everyone’s satisfaction as was highlighted by Prof. Ghosh of CEEW at the seminar conducted by Takshashila in Delhi on 5th Nov, 2016.

But few questions remain.

One should ask – Is it enough? There is enough criticism on the content of the Paris Agreement. Firstly, it is largely non-binding on the member countries. Secondly, many estimates suggest that the current commitment of NDCs are too low to restrict temperature rise below 2 degrees, while restricting it below 1.5 degrees by 2100 is more preferable. Thirdly, there are enough caveats for the developed countries to bypass the existing commitments [like purchasing Carbon Credits] – which no doubt is a great instrument in investing in cleaner energy in developing worlds; but essentially provides the right to pollute by more wealthy countries. Fourthly, it has a finance component of USD 100 Billion to be invested by 2025 which seems to be a challenge.

With respect to the last point about climate finance, Green Climate Fund [GCF] was proposed, established and operationalised in COP 15 [Copenhagen Accord], COP 16 [Cancun] and COP 17 [Durban] respectively. The objective was to generate a fund of USD 100 Billion by 2020. But only USD 10.3 Billion could be raised from member countries – with major European Countries facing tough financial situation during the period. It seems the that finance component of the new Paris Agreement is the extension of the same with an extended target. How much of it would be feasible and successful is yet to be seen; given the history of poor generation of finance from the wealthy countries who have a moral obligation to invest in such areas that focus on cleaner technologies.

But still Paris agreement is a positive step in the right direction. It focusses primarily on adaptation of new technologies rather than Mitigation. Thereby, it stresses on use and investment in cleaner and newer technology, rather than implementing safeguard measures and workarounds on the existing polluting means of energy generation. It will be a quantum jump for the developing nations and underdeveloped nations to directly use and utilise these technologies which do not come cheap. It is in the world’s best interests that the developed countries provide these technologies at an effective viable cost and subsidize where necessary along with a liberal IPR policy where required - in order to allow these technologies to be widely adopted; so that the social benefits are not traded off with development goals of these nations.

What should India do?

India has done quite a lot in this regard – slowly gaining traction as a pioneer of thought leadership in this arena. India has in place relevant laws enacted domestically to counter and support the stand it needs to take globally. But more importantly, Mr. Modi has led from the front with the foundation of International Solar Alliance – a grouping of 121 poorer and developing countries, pledging growth with the help of greener energy. Converting this motley alliance of 121 countries into a strong buyers’ club effectively has put the ball in the court of the richer developed countries that has a moral obligation to financially support these countries in the goal of achieving energy independence through cleaner energy without compromising on the developmental aspects.

One aspect that goes in India’s favour is that, there can be proper planning to add new energy sources to the existing power grids – evaluating in advance whether it will be through existing standard power generation techniques primarily thermal and nuclear power plants or through other means like hydel, tidal, wind or solar. GoI has already announced the target of 175,000 MW of renewable energy production to be achieved by 2022 as follows: 100,000 MW from solar power, 60,000 MW from wind energy, 10,000 MW from biomass and 5,000 MW from small hydro power projects. This provides a clear sense of direction.

Subsidies are already in place for both producers and consumers promoting solar energy adoption, especially at individual unit level. But unfortunately, the residential units figure at the bottom of the list of priorities for availing the subsidies [1]. Understandably, schools and government institutions like hospitals are higher on priority, but low income groups need to be kept in mind, specially first time energy consumers who may not have the purchasing potential to avail these schemes. There are few pockets in the country where off-grid subsidised solar energy sets are being provided at a minimal price, but as mentioned, these are happening in pockets.

Second aspect to be looked into is how soon can India reach its peak energy demands? This has various aspects and implications. Firstly, peaking is important to consider if the target of temperature rise has to be contained below 1.5 degrees by 2100. Secondly, later we peak, lesser time we have to cut down on emissions. Thirdly, can India afford to declare the peak emissions like China did [2030] at this stage? This doesn’t augur well for India at the moment, and hence no peak year has been mentioned. It would be more apt to look at the consumption pattern for another decade before a peak year is committed – as we are far behind China as far as development goals are concerned. It is a typical catch-22 situation. So, in short it is in India’s best interests to peak its energy demands as fast as possible – implementing and upgrading its existing energy infrastructure as per the policy defined above.

Last aspect being, can there be some radical means to bypass the entire discussion of energy savings and fight between rich and poorer countries on clean energy adoption and technology transfer?

We need radical technologies to effectively change the current pace of environment degradation – many existing estimates suggest that we might be a little late in containing the damage [2] [3]. There are ground-breaking new technologies like SolarCity and Hyperloop One that are being worked upon which will completely revamp two keys areas where energies are consumed in bulk – Housing and Transportation. Elon Musk’s overall objective is to tie in both of these horizontally with his Tesla project thereby creating an effective loop of energy savings. And the best place on Earth to start with, on a large scale should be China and India – two of the largest and fastest economies where appetite for energy is going to increase in the coming decades. Both India and China has to aggressively support such innovative technologies and embed them as part of national policies on energy – so that the right message is sent out to the world that we are indeed serious about climate change it is not all rhetoric and that we will walk the talk. The current challenges seem to be the investment climate of these countries coupled with complex bureaucracies that has a negative effect on investment from these companies in the energy sector.

In conclusion, there are technologies that are focussing on improving the efficiency of existing energy consumption – vehicles, power generators, etc. A renewed focus is on reduce, reuse and recycle. Actions also underway in creating carbon sinks to suck up atmospheric carbon-di-oxide that acts as a greenhouse gas. But the rhetoric is primarily around containing the temp increase below 2 degrees which may not be enough, especially for island countries. Developing countries and India also need to keep their self-interests intact and there are ways and means that have been highlighted above. It may be about time to take a step back and reassess if the existing solutions should be adequate to address the situation or should we focus more on new radical technologies and investment techniques that has more potential in saving the day and assess their impact – however radical it sounds.

Read More »

Thursday, 20 October 2016

Pakistan-China Nexus :: The CPEC Conundrum

I. The Rising Powers

There are many who argue that cinema are true reflections of the society that we live in. It shows us a portrait or a snapshot, that helps us acknowledge who we are; making us confront the truths that may be otherwise too difficult to acknowledge. With the advances of science in cinematography, we are able to recreate entire universe altogether on the large screen.

Is it a relevant discussion when we discuss geo-politics?

Well indeed it is – and will cite 2 such examples to buttress my point…
  1. “Gravity” directed by Alfonso Cuarón
  2. “Interstellar” directed by Christopher Nolan
Both of the above movies were made in Hollywood – the holy grail of sci-fi. Both the movies are critically acclaimed. Both have broken multiple barriers and records.

There is a reason, these movies are being referred to. In “Gravity”, Chinese space station Tien-gong plays a very crucial role for the American astronaut [Julia Roberts] to reach back to earth safely. In “Interstellar” Indian Air Force drone was shown at the beginning of the movie [1:35] that was in air, circling the Earth for over a decade [!!!], supposed to explain the robustness of Indian technology and to top it off, the programming language controlling the drone was in Sanskrit [2:00 – 2:07; notice the laptop screen]. Watch the video below.

These are plain imagination. But Hollywood has an uncanny ability to predict future where sci-fi is involved. The movies, which are part of American production houses, have done their due diligence and research, whose directors are critically acclaimed – that ought to say something – India and China are on the rise and will eventually beat America, technologically. That’s what these movies predict. Why not an American space-station or an American drone depicted in these movies? Well, that might be anybody’s guess; but the truth is India and China are too big to ignore today and if one charts their paths, both of these countries are moving precisely in that direction.

India’s stupendous success of Mars Mission that was on a budget cheaper than that of “Gravity” movie was the talk of the town for a long time. Today, China has sent it astronauts on the longest space mission so far on its Tien-gong 2 space station to make it eventually habitable by 2022. Both India and China are on the path to create their own regional GPS – IRNSS and Beidou respectively. While China possesses ASAT [anti-satellite] capabilities, India with its vast knowledge of missiles and satellites can quickly develop ASAT capabilities. India’s Chandrayaan mission has found water – it seems a day before NASA did. Now India is planning for a manned mission to moon that hopes to find resources and give NASA a run for its money. Space is the final frontier.

But there are issues closer to home – the Earth. The duel of China vs. India – the rise of Asian giants in the twenty-first century, wrestling to become the next world power.

II. The Clash of Titans

China clearly is in the lead given its economic clout and military advances. China had an export led growth for over two decades and is now trying hard to maintain it through domestic consumption led growth. India has a considerable catch-up to do. One of these many pawns in the game of geo-strategy is CPEC, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor ['Colonising Pakistan to Enrich China' as Christine Fair calls it] by China.

Pakistan’s [supposedly] all weather friend, China has proposed to invest a mind boggling USD 46 billion in the fledgling state. It is a miniscule drop in the huge forex reserves it has built. How should one look at it? It has thrown open a Pandora’s box of questions that is the current hot-topic on the agenda of geo-strategic analysts in South East Asia.

Is it sheer foolishness to invest in a country that openly courts terrorists and is almost an international pariah, also considering the fact that a major part of the CPEC infrastructure will run through the most hostile regions of Pakistan?
Is it a calculated move?

Is it a gift from a wealthy friend to a less fortunate one?
Is it an extension of Chinese soft power?

Is it solely to bypass the Malacca strait and improve energy security of China?
Is it part of the larger Chinese String of Pearl Strategy?

Is it about making Pakistan a closer ally?
Is it a larger strategy of keeping Pakistan subservient to China’s overall foreign policy to counter India?

Should India be worried? Obviously, given the fact that China has blocked India’s NSG membership fearing India’s rise and doesn’t support declaring Masood Azhar of JeM a terrorist by UN; by no stretch of imagination is China India's friend, even 45 years after Sino-Indian War, doesn't support India in these critical issues.

China exhibits all the traits of a rising hegemonic power in Asia. The following are some examples which are more or less in news at regular intervals:
  • It has already openly threatened to disobey the judgement of the International Tribunal in The Hague regarding the claims of waters of South China Sea.
  • It regularly breaches the territorial waters of its neighbours – Japan, Philippines and Vietnam to name a few.
  • It has established military bases in Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands and Scarborough Shoals that are claimed by other countries in the region – disregarding their claim completely.
  • It has forcibly forced away Vietnam from 2 of its oil drilling operations.
  • It regularly breaches the Indian borders in Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh which it considers as disputed territories and provides stapled visas to residents of these states visiting China.
  • Also, it has a taken up an aggressive stance against India in the TAR.
  • In recent times, it has been sparring an invisible duel with America – especially in South China Sea, whenever American warships or Maritime Aircraft enters the hotly contested South China Sea.
  • The ability to declare ADIZ [Air Defence Identification Zone] that also includes the Senkaku islands claimed by Japan.
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. One cannot simply be a military might without being an economic powerhouse. This is a basic paradigm since eons – be it Roman Empire or British Empire; Or the American hegemony as of today which is on the wane, economy is the decisive factor that decides the might and standing of a nation in the global arena. A nation that aspires to be a force to reckon with, cannot ignore this simple rule. Take India’s example – the 1962 War with China; a resounding defeat primarily because defence was not a focus area for Indian leadership. ‘Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai’ was the slogan of the day and the Himalayas that was never breached was still expected to stand guardian of the nation despite modern advances in military technology – such was the naivety of the Indian leadership. There were many other issues and lacunae as well that was highlighted by Henderson-Brooks report, but the major cause still remains that defence was neglected due to poor political will despite have the largest military industrial complex amongst newly independent nations! How much one spends on defense depends on how much one can afford to spend and the opportunity cost of not spending it on the social sectors for a country that is still developing.

India spends around USD 50 billion a year [2.3% of GDP] on defense, while China's defense expenditure is in excess of USD 210 billion a year [1.9% of GDP].

III. The Money Plant

China sits on a massive forex reserve of USD 3.5 trillion. The current trade deficit between US and China stands at USD 365 billion. These 2 figures tell us how, financially, US is at the mercy of China – without even facing a single Chinese soldier. If China decides to rock USD, it can simply do so by flooding the market with US dollars and improving the standing of Renminbi. US will be held an economic hostage in such a situation. Already there are tell-tale signs that Renminbi is now considered as a racehorse – by being included in the IMF basket of currencies in IMF’s SDR – in addition to USD, Euro, GBP and Japanese Yen.

There might be a lot of rhetoric about China trying to elbow India out of Indian Ocean region and establish itself as the most credible partner in IOR and other littoral countries. So is China India’s natural enemy? It depends, as there are a lot of issues where India and China has common interests – like controlling Greenhouse emissions or addressing infrastructure bottlenecks. Each nation addresses its concerns as per their perceived strategic interests. So, essentially it makes China look after its strategic interests – and given its size, any direction it moves causes ripples which is aggravated further by its hard bullying stance against smaller nations.

But the simplest explanation of Chinese investment in Pakistan is that China can afford to spend USD 46 billion without batting an eyelid even if it is a sunk cost given the situation in Pakistan.

If CPEC is viewed through this specific lens, it doesn’t look as menacing as it sounds. The entire Malacca strait is bypassed addressing security challenges, routes shortened, jobs created in Kashghar province, bringing Uighur to mainstream economy. It seems to be in India’s interest, as it will bring more stability in the region since CPEC also tries to address the critical power shortage problem that plagues Pakistan – thereby supporting its industries and small scale businesses, providing a necessary economic boost. CPEC will also open up alternate roadways in Balochistan which can lead to new businesses opening up along the highways.

But, CPEC has unnerved India to a huge extent – primarily due to two reasons:
  1. CPEC passes through PoK [which is technically part of India under Pakistan occupation] in Gilgit-Baltistan area. Pakistan has even transferred some areas to Chinese and Chinese soldiers are present in this area. India can only protest.
  2. Gwador – the deep sea port and alternate to Karachi port can be quickly converted into a Chinese naval base if the need arises. That’s is a huge naval threat for the entire Indian Western-Seaboard.
These two points will strengthen Pakistan’s claim of legitimacy in Kashmir, in which case it will become difficult for India to claim and control PoK in future if CPEC becomes operational as it also brings China into the picture; as Chinese will have a valid claim to defend CPEC and its sanctity as part of Chinese National Interest. This poses a huge threat to India. Hence India will also have to deal with China if a possible future war with Pakistan breaks out. India’s cold-start doctrine needs to be revisited in such a situation.

IV. Indian Response

So, which is the greater good – an operational CPEC or poorer unstable Pakistan without CPEC? There is no straight answer to this, but it depends.

Operationalising CPEC is no mean feat. It has to travel through the hostile terrains of Balochistan and FATA where anti-Pakistani interests are in play. There is always a threat to the movement of goods through these regions. Secondly, there is a severe water shortage in Gwador and Balochistan in general that is difficult to address if one wants to improve population density along CPEC routes to create viable businesses and make the routes safer. Thirdly, Balochs are primarily kept outside of CPEC development in Balochistan causing a local resentment. Fourthly, at the northern end of CPEC, it goes through inhospitable Karakoram Range, where laying down navigable roads all year round would be a huge engineering feat. There are many other concerns, but operationalising CPEC is not as easy as it sounds.

Now, India can look at alternate unconventional options to block CPEC, so that the larger Indian claim on PoK isn’t diluted. And the most obvious means to do so is to support the Baloch separatists and their demand of Baloch homeland. It will be a costly proposition for Pakistan and China – one that will not be easy to sort out; exactly in the manner Kashmir issue has been kept alive by Pakistan over the last 70 years. Playing the cards, the way Pakistan does would be the most sustainable means of thwarting CPEC, with limited liability on India along with full plausible deniability clause. For this, there has to be considerable political resolve to see it through. India’s poor political will has often been roadblocks to a standard response in similar situations.

Balochistan is the fulcrum of the entire CPEC, where Gwador is located. Isolating Balochistan is enough for CPEC to fail. Indian government can start granting asylum to Baloch separatists and start citing human rights violation in Balochistan, to expose Pakistan’s duplicity. In the long run, it will also make Pakistan’s Kashmir claim more diluted as Pakistan will be given a dose of its own medicine and will be kept busy containing the unrest. China will be able to help little, except occasionally breaching the MacMahon line causing headaches to Indian establishment – but hopefully that would be well-calibrated and localised in nature like past incursions.

Secondly, there are too many disgruntled neighbours surrounding China. An effective nexus against China will definitely make it think twice before entering into a full blown conflict with India – which seems highly unlikely, even if India intervenes in Balochistan. India has already started creating an informal grouping of such nations through bilateral MoUs and other instruments. For example, providing Vietnam a line of credit to purchase naval vessels. It also has a robust relationship with Japan and Australia along with other SE Asian Countries. In the IOR, it has strengthened ties with Maldives, Mauritius and Seychelles both economically and from maritime security perspective. The recent LEMOA with US was signed also keeping in mind, the US’s strategy of Pivot to Asia that aims to limit China and position almost 60% of American Military hardware in the Pacific theatre to contain China’s meteoric rise.

Thirdly, utilise the issues of common interests as coercive bargaining chips. India needs to swing properly and calibrate its timing well with respect to issues where Chinese need our support – be it WTO issues related to trade and tariff barriers or climate change issues for controlling emission norms. Let’s make it a high cost bargain for China to gain India's support on these critical issues that are of Chinese interest. That way, it ensures that India’s position is not compromised like it happened for NSG membership.

Fourthly, India needs to utilize fully its soft power and 'Mausam' / Spice Route project to counter the overall Chinese One Road-One Belt and Silk Road strategy. India obviously cannot compete with China at the scale they have conceived due to huge investment needed, but nevertheless, most of the countries, especially in IOR are ideologically aligned to India's needs and interests and these projects would be a start to gain a proper foothold.

Lastly, despite covert and diplomatic initiatives, India still has to make use of the international platforms to isolate Pakistan and counter China’s position informally, without irking the neighbour. It is important to keep up the rhetoric, so that Indian position isn’t perceived to be weak; which unfortunately has been the Indian legacy for the better part of last 70 years.

As Sun Tzu says in ‘The Art of War’
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

Read More »

Islamic State :: As a Brand Success & Failure

ISIS or ISIL is a stunning success in the world of terror. It has captured the imagination of every wannabe terror entrepreneur who one day dreams to be a CEO [Chief Extremist Officer] after passing out of IIM [International Institute of Mujahideens].

Jokes apart, what makes this organization so unique, if one removes the lens of religion and extremism is the way it conducts itself as an organization, that has contributed to its success. If one keeps morality and ethics on the side-lines, there are spectacular parallels between successful organizations and this terrorist organization in terms of building a brand image.

As NATO and other allied forces converge upon Mosul, the last major stronghold of ISIS, it may be worth a thought what made ISIS such a strong brand name in the world of terrorism. As a student of management, could not help but draw the similarities between a successful brand and ISIS – what it has done right so far and also where it has and will go wrong [hopefully]. Let’s evaluate.

The Success Factors:

1. Brand Communication

The group has been highly successful in establishing its brand image as the true liberator of Islam through its PR and social media. It has found powerful mascots in the form of “Jihadi John” and others who portrays the true brand image that ISIS wants to portray. It is very active in the cyber space and has utilised it fully through its gory videos and has extensively used twitter, Facebook and other channels resulting in high brand recall – the next pointer.

2. Brand Recall

ISIS Brand Recall is extremely high. It has been high for the past 3 years or so. Only very few brands in the same space with the exception of al-Qaeda has had a successful brand recall for such a long duration. Every day on newspaper, internet, radio, one gets to hear about ISIS and their atrocities. They manage to stay in news. They are able to successfully ensure that ISIS is a dominating force in daily news and there by improve its relevance to the world and its followers – our next pointer.

3. Brand Relevance

It is borne out of the following 4 key tenets:

    a. Customer Obsession: Ensuring that its true customers, the jihadists are obsessed with ISIS Ideology that it has successfully done.

    b. Distinctive Inspiration: It has inspired those who never dreamt of picking up arms earlier, faithful to the cause. It has transcended boundaries and nationalities and has inspired teenagers, married couple, educated and elite to join the cause alike. It also has distinguished itself from other jihadist groups and factions who dare not to call themselves ISIS. It has a distinct ideology than al-Qaeda and even al-Qaeda is appalled at the gory and merciless killings perpetrated by ISIS. The utilization and positioning of ISIS itself not only against the West, but also against other sects of Islam, like the Sunnis, Yazidis or Kurds – was something that even al-Qaeda did not even dream of. ISIS took it a notch above. It is insanely ruthless and ruthlessly insane and above all pervasive to the point of being rash, resulting in too many fault lines. But again, this has been one of the success factors for ISIS’ rise.

    c. Pervasive Innovation: It has the mindset of the innovator. Just when the West thinks that it has given a resounding blow to ISIS and its tactics, ISIS comes back with a renewed vigour with a new tactic under its sleeve. America and its allies despite a multination effort has not been able to defeat ISIS even after 3 years of direct confrontation. It has been possible only because of the way ISIS has innovated on the battleground using scarce resources, using local intelligence to the fullest, driving a state of fear in the hearts and mind of people and above all trying to be a step ahead in the game. In one of the latest attempts, they have bought drones from Amazon, jury-rigged with bombs and have effectively used it against the coalition forces.

    d. Ruthless Pragmatism: They are very serious about their growth and goals to remain relevant and are relentless working in their pursuit. There is absolutely no doubt about it given its track record.

4. Brand Cannibalization

In the world of marketing, this happens when a reduction of sales volume of a product occurs due to introduction of a new product by the same producer.

This is not explicitly true for ISIS, but for the terrorism industry as a whole.

Many erstwhile supporters of al-Nusra front and those of al-Qaeda, especially al-Qaeda in Iraq [AQI] were founding members of ISIS. Brand cannibalization typically is detrimental for a brand, but for ISIS, it has worked wonders. Hence it is one of the positives, rather than a negative, in my opinion in case of ISIS. Though it has been detrimental for al-Qaeda in general.

The Causes of Brand Failure:

1. Brand Ego:

This becomes the biggest cause of failure when a brand believes that it can support a market singlehandedly beyond its means. It over emphasizes on its importance than it can allow itself to, with limited means at its disposal.

ISIS is already facing heat as it has opened too many war fronts – Iraq, Syria and Kurds. It is fighting the Sunni Militias supported by Iran. It is being bombarded by NATO coalition jets from above. On the ground, there are technical advisors from Russia advising Syria Democratic Forces while special operatives from American Military are embedded with Iraqi special forces unit fighting ISIS.

Its resources are dwindling as world is cracking down on its financial resources. Mosul, the biggest city under its capture in Iraq has been a haven for cheap oil that has fuelled much of its war-chest, second to selling antiquities.

Its human resources are also decreasing steadily as most of the operatives are now disillusioned with the ideals and hatred that is being spread with little expectations that has been met that were promised at the time of induction and has quit or thinking of leaving. Also those travelling to join ISIS are well aware of their consequences after returning to their native countries – that will be detrimental for their own well-being as well as their families – except Sweden maybe [where more than 300 fighters joined ISIS and few have returned back but were not arrested by Swedish Police].

2. Decreasing Brand Loyalty

This is a major challenge that ISIS faces right now and is going to haunt them eventually. One cannot fool over a long period of time. Teenagers and those who left their creature comforts of the home from the West to fight for the Islamic Caliphate now understood the harsh conditions and realities of their stay, coupled with the terrible manpower management and little expectation setting. There is no 360 degree feedback which also takes into account how juniors feel about their seniors and their ways of working. These dissatisfied customers will be the biggest strength of the West and its allies as they pass on valuable information and intelligence that can help bring down ISIS as and when they quit ISIS.

3. Brand Deception

This is kind of tied with the above pointer of Brand Loyalty. One can say that Brand Deception is directly proportional to decreasing brand loyalty.

In case of ISIS, the dreams and those fabulous castles shown by Abubakr-al-Baghdadi hasn’t materialised that has left many ISIS supporters disillusioned. The harsh living conditions and constant fear of death has turned an ordinary citizen, who believed in true Caliphate, feeling deceived and hurt; unable to fulfil its promise; breaking the Golden Rule in the world of Branding.

4. Brand Paranoia

This happens when a brand faces increased competition from its competitors and hence there is a fight on the claims, trying to outperform its competitors.

It is especially true in case of ISIS – wherein it has proven itself extremely distinct from its competition by mass execution and innovative strategy of drones or lone wolf killings – that keeps its competitors at bay. This has also resulting in loathing of ISIS within terrorist fraternity by those who doesn’t have the stomach for such gruesome deaths.

5. Brand Fatigue / Over Marketing

Too much marketing of a particular brand, causes fatigue in general and makes the brand undesirable as per brand marketing.

This should also hold true for ISIS. As it becomes more and more infamous, as more of its atrocities and inside workings are exposed to the world, its grotesque nature and shameful ideologies that it has twisted in the name of religion and jihad is laid bare in front of the world to see, should act as a detrimental factor for new recruits, thereby stemming the tide or influx of new fighters into the region.

A brand manager always wants to ensure that her brand does well and performs beyond market expectations. For the sake of humanity, and most importantly, for the sake of Islam and its 1.6 billion followers who believe in peace, let’s hope that ISIS does everything, as mentioned above under cons, destroying itself as a brand sooner than expected – so that this menace of terrorism is overcome, bringing it to a long awaited conclusion. The Brand should be destroyed effectively, so that there are is no remaining residual brand value to pick and build upon in future.
Read More »

Thursday, 13 October 2016

Is Pakistan a nation-state or a state that aspires to be a nation?

A very interesting proposition to mull about.

India has been a cauldron of various ethnicities, groups and religions over the past five thousand years. She has given the world 3 religions to boast about – The Hinduism, the Jainism and the Buddhism; and has equally accepted those of other faith being persecuted elsewhere like the Zoroastrians or the Jews; and has also welcomed Christianity and Islam with open arms. In her 5000 years of history, there is no known mention of open aggression beyond its border. Infact – India being considered a ‘country’ is a recent phenomenon.

Because of the diverse flora and fauna, the distinct climates as one travels from north to south coupled with vast culture and a plethora of languages, India was and is more aptly called a sub-continent! Such is the diversity of this land.

Before the British rule, India was generally not considered a homogenous nation. There have been numerous kingdoms fighting amongst each other, multi religious-multi ethnic culture too diverse to be considered as a part of a single nation. The notion of a nation-state in India is a fairly new one – primarily an outcome of the British rule – which united Indians from North to South and from East to West like never before. British rule became the single most decisive factor for uniting the Indians together – British industrialization through railways and telegraphs played a very crucial role in this regard.

As one tries to delve deeper into the aspect of nationalism in the Indian context, it would be pretty clear that there was no clear or coherent sense of nationalism before 1857 [Sepoy Mutiny]. The very term ‘Sepoy Mutiny’ is a testament to that fact; while Veer Savarkar calls this as ‘First War of Independence’, various other scholars even depict this as a fight of few disenchanted sections of the society against the mighty British empire. But the subsequent acts of British Parliament, especially Government of India Act, 1858 – which subsequently transferred the power from British EIC to British Crown was an important milestone, that slowly led to unification of Indian masses, especially the elite and educated to structure themselves in manner that united them together. Still it was elitist in nature and the first such organization came up under A.O Hume in 1885 led to the establishment of The Indian National Congress. INC established a platform where those who had the means and ways to express their views and ideologies were able to reach to a larger mass to kindle the spirit of nationalism in them. Various authors like Bankim Chandra’s ‘Vandemataram’ sparked the feeling of nationalism that was a new found feeling – uniting common feeling of hatred against British Imperialism.

So what makes Pakistan today different from India – when it had a day’s head-start since the day it gained independence?

It would be apt to have a look at the history and the chronology of events as it unfolded to arrive at a balanced conclusion as the answer lies in the process of nation-building and the approach taken.

Both Indian National Congress [INC] and Muslim League [ML] initially wanted Swaraj [Self Rule] under British Dominion. It was agreed in the historic Lucknow pact of 1916. Fast Forward to 1927, Simon Commission was formed to evaluate the efficacy of Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1919. Simon Commission report created a furore not acceptable to the leaders of INC or ML. In Lahore session of 1929, Purna Swaraj or Complete Independence by INC was declared as the goal of national struggle. This ultimately resulted in the Civil Disobedience Movement in 1930’s and the Round Table Conferences held in London to discuss India’s future. The outcome of the Round Table Conferences wasn’t so conducive for the Indian Leaders. ML Leaders, especially Mr. Jinnah, who earlier believed that Muslims in India could live together with Hindus – suddenly had his doubts – when the question of complete independence arose. At that time, the idea was quelled through the most infamous MacDonald’s Communal Award where there would be electorates based on religion; the first seeds of communalism and future partition was effectively sown.

Two other individuals played a key role around the same time propagating the seeds of thoughts for 'Pakistan' as an independent homeland for Muslims:

1. Md. Iqbal – Famous writer and poet [who ironically penned down: Saare Jahan se accha, Hindustan humara] aired his views about a separate homeland for Muslims. In his 1930, ML Presidential Address in Allahabad, he says,

“I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single state. Self-government within the British Empire, or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated Northwest Indian Muslim state appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of Northwest India.”

2. Rahmat Ali – A Political Science student, studying in Cambridge, came up with a paper in 1933, coining the term “Pakistan” for the new homeland, envisaged for 30 million Muslims in the North-Western areas India consisting of Punjab, Afghan Province, Kashmir, Sindh and Balochistan.

Thus the concept of Pakistan was born and in essence Jinnah’s Two Nation Theory came into being. In 1940 All India ML Lahore session. Mr. Jinnah says,

"It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs… …To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state."

Thus, two factors that played an important role for the birth of Pakistan – Religion and Location.

This was the final nail in the coffin for the ‘Partition’ to happen. Eventually, during Quit India movement [1942] and later talks of Cripps Mission, followed by Rajaji Formula, Wavell Plan and Cabinet Mission, Muslim League had their own say and still some vestiges of hope in keeping India united was retained. Finally, when Direct Action plan was put in motion in Aug 1946 by ML, massacring a large number of Hindus, the INC leaders gave up on the future of Unified India. Mountbatten Plan was eventually introduced on 3rd June 1947 and a bloody partition ensued. India was dissected into two parts – Muslim Dominated West Pakistan and East Pakistan as a single nation [or rather a state?] – separated by 1000 miles, with religion as the only uniting factor and the rest of India, which was Hindu majority became the secular Republic of India. It was a unique experiment in the history of mankind.

Pakistan as a state, had all its tools at its disposal, when it gained independence – a political elite, the British state machinery it inherited to run its judiciary and public offices and an army that was crucial to invade and annex Balochistan and parts of Kashmir. So did India.

But, Indian nationalism was already in place in the Indian context at the time of independence and it was one of the uniting factors whereas Pakistan had to create the platform for Pakistani nationalism – one that couldn’t be generated overnight.

There is no doubt Sardar Patel and V.P. Menon played a very important role in integrating 565 princely estates; but the key point to be remembered is that religion was never the lynchpin in uniting these princely estates. Yes, there were differences wrt to language to be adopted or how the state borders are to be drawn – but our founding fathers ensured that India always remains a “Union of States” as stated in Art. 1 of the Indian Constitution. There was enough freedom given to an Indian citizen to pursue her religious freedom or protection of minority languages or culture as part of Fundamental Rights. Directive Principles of State Policy further strengthened and unified India, by adopting Socialist ideals in a democratic framework.

Now, if we compare this with Pakistan, its primary reason for existence was Islam-centric and Hindu-phobic – as per Jinnah’s two nation-theory. Secondly, Pakistan’s founders also primarily believed the West Pakistan to be the cradle and the power-center of both West and East Pakistan. Thirdly, Urdu became the state language – which was primarily spoken in NW Uttar Pradesh and not within the borders of the new country of Pakistan. Fourthly, Pakistan, which is an acronym did not account for East Bengal [East Pakistan] which had accounted for roughly 50% of the landmass and slightly larger population base in the larger political game-plan. The Bengalis are hugely intellectual with an enriched literature and thought process was given no weight in the new country. Urdu was enforced on them. Infact, they were treated as second rate citizens. Same goes for the land of West Pakistan which has a huge rural tribal population of Baloch, Sindhis and Pashtuns who were not radical enough to be completely Islam-centric and embrace the new state of Pakistan. Even, those who emigrated to Pakistan from India after independence were called Mohajirs and were also looked down upon. Only Punjabis of Pakistani Punjab-sindh province had the major say in the country’s future and politics. So there was a lacking of Pakistani Nationalism at all levels to be precise – the magic ingredient for any nation to rise and shine.

India succeeded where Pakistan failed. India granted enough freedom without undermining national security in its constitution – evoking a sense of patriotism and nationalism. Pakistan just did the opposite – though claimed to be a secular nation, but in truth became an Islamic nation that persecuted those whose ideals were not in sync – irony being, only a small percentage of the population belonged to that category who truly believed in the cause and ideals of Pakistan, creating an effective divide. Thus there was no other unifying factor other than religion – Islam.

Hence, the first major blow came in 1971 when East Pakistan had to be liberated by India giving rise to an independent nation of Bangladesh, dividing Pakistan into two halves. One may argue that sub-nationalism played an important role; But would beg to differ, given the chain of events leading to 1971 war, integration of Bengalis of East Pakistan to mainstream Pakistan effectively never happened and hence there was never a chance for sub-nationalism to arise. Rather, it would be preferable to call it 'Bengali Nationalism' that was more coherent and homogenous in nature, in terms of culture, language, mindset and a feeling of persecution by West Pakistan that gave rise to Bengali Nationalism and thereby the Nation of Bangladesh.

Thus, Pakistani Nationalism is an illusion or a mirage based on which the nation was created. Till date there are examples of atrocities being committed on Balochis or Zarb-e-azb being conducted in FATA region which demonstrates that ‘National Integration’ in Pakistan seems to be a distant dream. India has succeeded largely to an extent – even though issues like Maoism persists or discrimination against NE states, but it is nothing compared to the scale and level that is being played out in Pakistan.

So, in light of the above arguments, it might not be wrong to state that Pakistan as a state apparatus is serving only a section of the elite to govern the rest where the feeling of ‘nationalism’ is possibly a mis-placed notion. Pakistan hence, existed as a state to an extent unfortunately, rather than a nation in the truest sense.

I would like to leave you with the following enlightening video why India has succeeded to a larger extent and why it stands where it is today - it is a talk by eminent historian Ramchandra Guha that would be an eye-opener for many and you may land up appreciating the fact, what a difficult situation it was for our founding fathers to remain steadfastly committed to the ideals, creating a rock solid foundation - the bed-rock of Indian Democracy!

Read More »

Saturday, 8 October 2016

Do new-age Terrorist organizations behave as nation-states?

This becomes a very pertinent question in today’s world where boundaries and traditional concepts of nation and states are taking a beating in the face of newer, ever-evolving challenges – the common example being ‘terrorism’, that is threatening the very core of peaceful human existence globally.

Nitin Pai in his video “Rise of the Netions” [below] mentions positive aspects of the political interactions that were hitherto unimaginable are now becoming more relevant given today’s scenario; he highlighted the example of Facebook and other imagined communities, that are not sovereign, but has a considerable presence and clout to sway public opinion and cause impact at different parts of the world.

In the same vein, would like to draw attention to the menace of terrorism – that is often touted to have no religion – true; but are now behaving more as organizations, capable of taking on nation-states head on. Let us take 3 such examples – ISIS, LTTE and FARC, that covers the broad spectrum of extremism.

According to Anderson, in order to give rise to a nation, the underlying basis, i.e., nationalism should be an imagined community, that should be also limited and sovereign. Does ISIS, LTTE and FARC fit the bill? Let’s evaluate.

ISIS is fundamentally based on religious extremism that plans to build an Islamic Caliphate on most stringent sharia laws, now defunct LTTE was borne out of discontent against Sinhalese majority oppression and FARC of Columbia is based on Communist ideology that believes that the government is the oppressor. Now, we can definitely agree that these organizations are/was imagined – as not all members will not know each other and has their own version of ideals in their mind in tune with the organization they affiliate with. They are obviously limited as only those who believe in the ideals of these organizations align themselves. They fall in the traditional definition of community as only those people affiliate themselves who’s the ideals match with those of the organizations and they have a sense of bonding and comradeship that makes them willingly die and many cases kill primarily for their ideals.

Also, in reference to Anderson’s 'Print Capitalism', it needs to be added here that information dissemination through print, television and digital media, plays/played a very critical role to build the support base and mobilise sympathy from followers/believers of the ideals and has/had acted as a key catalyst in their spread and reach.

But when it comes to Sovereignty, one can argue that none of these are/was sovereign in nature. True. But, in all the 3 cases, sizable area of land is/was under their direct supervision and control – where the elected government had no say and the law of the land are/was decided by these organizations rather than the elected government. But who decides sovereignty? According to me, it depends on perception and which side of the line one is standing. In the eyes of the world, these may not be sovereign organizations and does not represent the will of the majority people; but again none of these organizations would have flourished without the basic common denominator – Human Resource; which means there is a sizable chunk of population that still considers themselves as part of a larger goal of these organizations – wherein sovereignty may exist in their mind as imagined! And why not?

So, in a way, it can be argued that all these 3 organizations are imagined communities – but do they theoretically fulfill the requirement of a nation and a state to be ascribed as nation-state?

In order to be considered as a state, it needs to be under a specific political community, having a political institution, that acts as a vehicle or agent to carry out day to day functioning. In all the 3 examples mentioned, they are political communities and had large tracts of land under their command, a sizable armed forces, a functioning judiciary which can be a kangaroo court following their own diktats, financial arm to generate and finance their ideologies which can be donations, kidnapping, selling drugs, etc., media & public relations wing that maintain and promote their viewpoints to the world, acting as their mouthpiece, setting up a brand image and so on and so forth. In short, they have/had set up parallel governments.

From this perspective, it can be argued that these terrorist organizations are definitely imagined communities and behave as nation-states. It is a different discussion altogether whether there is any folly in engaging with these organizations considering them just as an offshoot representation of an ideology or needs to be tackled in the manner nation-states are usually dealt with.

Read More »

Saturday, 1 October 2016

#IndiaStrikesBack - Part 2 | Implications

India’s retaliation in the form of surgical strike is a watershed moment in India’s foreign policy with Pakistan. This has multiple far-reaching implications and long term ramifications not only on our foreign policy, but also as a growing economic power. Let’s, delve into each one of these aspects and dissect the same.

1. Indian retaliation will now become the benchmark in future dealings

A clear shift in policy with respect to India’s approach in dealing with the menace of terrorism emanating from Pakistan’s so-called non-state actors - The Policy of Offensive Defense.

Despite conducting surgical strikes across terror camps of Naga militants in Myanmar last year, India till date did not consider surgical strikes as a viable option against Pakistan based terror groups, expecting rising escalation. This encouraged Pakistan to continue with such attacks with impunity without the fear of being retaliated. So called India’s “Strategic Restraint” which was basically to do nothing and wait, had boosted their morale to bleed India with their “thousand cuts” policy. The Indian retaliation will now become the benchmark in future dealings. If India doesn’t continue to retaliate in similar fashion against future terrorist adventurism, we will fall weak in the eyes of the terror-bosses and hence need to maintain the onslaught of hitting terror infrastructure hard every time India is attacked – to reinforce the point that there are negative consequences attached in attacking India. There cannot be any half-hearted approach and backing down at this stage. “An eye for an eye” is the motto to be adopted. A lot can be learned from the way Israel has been able to cope with this issue. This is not war-mongering – but leveraging fear to prevent loss of innocent Indian lives for the greater good. It is a shame that India’s military despite being twice the size of Pakistan has been brought to its knees in the past due to poor political will and support. Thankfully, that phase is hopefully a passé.

2. Pakistan’s nuclear sabre-rattling is a farce and will never engage in a conventional war.

Pakistan’s use of proxy is primarily because it can never take on India in a conventional war and sustain. Hence this asymmetric warfare and trying to kill India through thousand cuts. Bring nukes into the picture and it’s a powerful concoction.

After the surgical strikes, the Indian side of International Border and LoC have been cleared of civilian population, expecting a retaliation from Pakistan. The chances are less of engaging into a full-scale war. The reasons are many, one being Pakistan is still in the mode of denial that I have discussed in the next point. Also, Pakistan’s army is tied up in Baluchistan and Zarb-e-Azb operations in Northern Areas. They are stretched thin to fight out a two pronged war, reducing chances of full blown war further. Though Pakistan has very little to lose if ever a full-fledged war arose, still they will not go for a nuclear war with India, primarily because India’s actions were well-calibrated to localise the issue. Escalating this localised conflict from LoC to international border across Punjab and Rajasthan, especially when India is on high alert would be the most foolish action Pakistan can resort to.

Pakistan understands and also realises the fact that it can never win against India in the conventional war; hence designed the Tactical Battlefield Nukes against India’s Cold Start Doctrine. Pakistan also knows and understands that any use of even battle-field tactical nukes will warrant a massive barrage of nukes from Indian side decimating Pakistan completely. Hence, Pakistan’s bluff of nuclear sabre-rattling has been called. Once, this is out in the open, Pakistan has nothing up its sleeve of which India has to fear of directly. China, as a staunch ally of Pakistan brings in a different complexity which I will discuss in another blog post in this series.

As possible outcomes that I envisage, Pakistan will act through its proxies. blaming India for the escalation of attacks without taking responsibilities. It can activate the sleeper cells across India or attack diplomatic missions in other countries like Kabul, Afghanistan to spread the message. It can also initiate cross-border firing with mortar and heavy artillery across LoC and IB to heat up the situation, but still will not escalate it a full blown war, unless India chooses to. It will also go crying to US and UN of blaming India instigating a war and shed crocodile tears of being affected by terrorism itself – as if one expects to sleep with the cobra without being bitten – such naivety.

3. The message is loud and clear – time for talks are over

Indian government has openly acknowledged and announced the fact that Indian Army has conducted cross-border raids, and has laid it bare in front of the world. The Indian DGMO in his press briefing, clearly highlighted that, had it not been pre-empted, there were three dozen terrorists lying in wait to conduct attacks on Indian civilian and military population like Uri and Pathankot.

Previous such sanctions, remained covert activities which were hardly announced by Indian Government – which suited Pakistan so long it’s nefarious activities aren’t impacted and exposed by media coverage. Indian Army PR and Government must be lauded at the well-articulated message that has been sent out clearly stating that the main target of the operations were terrorists and terrorist infrastructure and were not conducted against the Pakistani Army. The few Pakistani jawans killed in the operation raises further questions, for Pakistan to answer, as to why these jawans were colluding with the terrorists at the time when the India’s retaliation took place.

India has clearly demonstrated that we will walk the talk when retaliation is concerned.

4. World is behind India and has hardly condemned Indian Action!

A very important point to note here is the world reaction. Hardly, any country has condemned India’s retaliatory strike. This proves how well India has been able to isolate Pakistan on the diplomatic front; even US has not openly condemned India. This shows the efficacy of Mr. Modi’s continual reach out to heads of foreign governments [those who questions his frequent foreign trips], relaying India’s stance and preparing ground-work for a situation that has now taken place. China’s reaction has been surprisingly guarded. Partly because, if it condemns, it contradicts Pakistan’s stance that it was a cross-border firing and nothing more.

Today, India doesn’t need to defend its actions and the world stands together as one behind India! A remarkable shift in attitude towards India since early 2000, I must say. Even Mr. Tony Blair in an interview with Barkha Dutt, way back in 2010 had acknowledged that the West should have listened to India more during the nineties regarding terrorism and how it has now become a huge headache for the countries that believed themselves reasonably beyond the reach of these Jihadis. 9/11 finally woke them up. Watch the video…

5. Pakistani Army is no longer Sacrosanct

Pakistani Government and Media is in a state of denial, no doubt in shock as well; I would prefer to call it a temporary comatose state. They are in total dis-array, how to respond to this armed retaliation – simply because, they had taken India’s “Strategic Restraint” for granted. There have been 5 different press releases on different lines from Pak Army, Foreign Ministry and other Pakistani government agencies, exposing the fact that there is a no clear ownership in Pakistan on this issue. India was always perceived to be a gentle giant, incapable of retaliating in the fashion it did. Only bravado that India demonstrated according to Pakistan’s foreign policy makers [I mean Pak Army and ISI] was on the diplomatic table. Humiliating defeat and surrender of 93,000 Pak Army soldiers in 1971 war is now a distant memory – one of the largest such PoWs captured ever after WW2.

Acknowledging the surgical strike will be a huge moral blow to Pakistani nation as a whole that diminishes the izzat of Pakistani Army which is highly worshipped and respected. Once it sinks it, there will be a tremendous impact on the psyche of the Pak Army generals and the masses as a whole – that they cannot allow which will shatter the myth that Pak Army is sacrosanct and is now vulnerable.

I can well imagine, the shock and chatter that must have followed after the surgical strikes, amongst Pakistani Terror CEOs Forum; that none of them have so far openly challenged India or promised further strikes. That’s odd, unless one is hit where it hurts the most.

6. Taking advantage of Baloch issue

Mr. Modi has openly urged Balochs, Pashtuns and other groups to ask their local government as to why Pakistan exports terror while India exports Software to the world after 70 years of independence? It will not be improbable to imagine that India fully supports the cause of Baluchistan and other oppressed groups like Pashtuns in Pakistan and will also prefer to go for covert offensive, best held and discussed behind closed doors – with enough plausible deniability in place. It is India’s interest that these issues are fully explored and deftly manipulated so that we have enough aces up our sleeves to deal with this menace emanating from Pakistani non-state actors. Granting asylum to Brahumdugh Bugti would be a good start. If Pakistan can shelter Dawood, we can very well support the genuine cause of Baluch repressions.

There are some analysts who also believe that future of Pakistan’s integrity is bleak. There might a good possibility that the country might break into fractions and republics, if Pakistani Army is weakened. It will be a menace for the world and especially, India and Afghanistan, which has to bear the brunt as it will be playground for different terrorist factions, running amok unless checked. But I have full trust in our NSA Mr. Doval who am sure will look at it from a long term perspective, that works out best; even if it means that geographies and boundaries needs to be altered. There can be a very well thought out plan that is already in action without our knowledge... that is what covert action is supposed to be.

In this complex situation, ownership and safeguard of Pakistani Nuclear Weapons should be kept in mind ensuring that it does not fall into Jihadi hands – that already has an eye on it, in the event of Pakistan collapsing as a state and Pak Army not in a position of control.

7. Indian Covert and Operational Readiness needs to be re-looked

Some news commentators of Indian Media channels, high on jingoism, have baffled me by comparing this surgical strike with the one conducted by US Navy Seals in Abbottabad to capture and kill Osama bin Laden. I was not sure whether to laugh or cry at the suggestion – simply because there are no similarities in the nature and scale. Both were covert actions no doubt – but it ended there. Do not doubt my patriotism and respect for the Indian Army; but some Indian news channels stretched it a bit far. If we conduct a similar operation to nab Dawood Ibrahim from his Lahore or Karachi hide-out and present him to the world, well it will be worthy of the comparison to the Abbottabad Mission.

Though Indian Special Forces were involved, various experts do believe that India hardly possesses capabilities to conduct offensive covert capabilities during peace-time like British SAS or German GSG-9. Our Special Forces are more trained for war-time conflicts in the methodologies and techniques. But this does not undermine in anyway the professionalism and the bravery of our soldiers! Only NSG comes close, in dealing with such operations – but again its more of a reactionary force rather than a pre-emptive force. Only a small section of Frontier Force that RAW operates is capable of performing such damage and carry out sabotage behind enemy lines on terrorist infrastructure to an extent. India should acknowledge this fact and strengthen its doctrine to plug this operational gap.


In the end, it is may not remain a “Zero Sum Game” as many pundits claim; status quo will be maintained, atleast at this stage. But it is possible that politically, Pakistan may again go under an Authoritarian / army rule if the Pak civilian government tries to normalise ties with India, witnessing a coup. It will be a huge win for Narendra Modi led Indian government as it administers a dose of Pakistan’s own medicine on Pakistan.

There will be economic impact, one which has already impacted Sensex in India – tanking by 500 points in a single day. Pakistan has little to lose in this regard.

But this one single strike has a huge implication. Pakistan had dared India to carry out surgical strikes within Pakistan after Myanmar operation and face the wrath of the mighty Pakistani Army. 72 hours have passed, yet to face that wrath. Wrath doesn’t happen in cold blood or when one is at the losing end. Mr. Modi’s single largest legacy may not be his dramatic economic policies; but his diplomatic and foreign policy in dealing with Pakistan and creating a range of options previously unexplored due to lack of political will / courage.

I would like to end this post with the following video. More post in this series to follow soon.

Read More »