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.
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.
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…
“Gravity” directed by Alfonso Cuarón
“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? Or Is it a calculated move?
Is it a gift from a wealthy friend to a less fortunate one? Or Is it an extension of Chinese soft power?
Is it solely to bypass the Malacca strait and improve energy security of China? Or Is it part of the larger Chinese String of Pearl Strategy?
Is it about making Pakistan a closer ally? Or 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:
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Conclusion:
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.
