Engaging Burma

The Burmese leader Than Shwe is on a five day visit to India. My take on it at the FPA.

"The Indian Prime Minister should take this opportunity to extend support and guidance in conducting free and fair elections in Burma. As the largest and successful democracy in the region, India has the necessary experience and standing to do so. India could offer direct assistance/guidance in voter registration, ensuring security at voting booths, use of electronic voting machines, etc. It could also offer to be an external observer during the election process to oversee that the elections are held in a democratic, free and fair manner. It would help Burma’s image if it allows external observers into the process. Such constructive contribution by India to the democratic process would be of greater value than merely opposing the Burmese junta on principals."

Read the rest of the post here.

My op-ed at the Atlantic-Community.org

The Berlin based Atlantic-Community.org recently published one of my opinion pieces - 'Improving India's nuclear standing.' In the piece I argue how next month’s Nuclear Security Summit is "a chance for India to show its commitment to non-proliferation and to be a leader of setting up mechanisms for securing nuclear materials." You can read the rest here.

Bullet proof? Not really

Why does this not surprise me anymore?

Musharraf's Spiegel interview

Did he really say that!?! Pervez Musharraf disclosed in an interview that the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) and the terrorists who bombed the Indian embassy in Kabul in 2008 are connected. That is a huge admission for someone who was at the helm of affairs in Pakistan for a long time. In the Spiegel interview he bashes India and the United States for Pakistan's problems all through history.

Though not surprising, it is definitely telling that Musharraf thinks "nothing can happen to Pakistan as long as the armed forces are intact and strong. Anyone who wants to weaken and destabilize Pakistan just has to weaken the army and our intelligence service, ISI..."No one would deny that the defense mechanism is a crucial aspect in the well-being of any country, but over and above that are strong functional political institutions. (China is a strong and stable country not simply because of its military but because of a strong functioning political system.) Pakistan has been in a perpetual state of crisis since its creation due to the military dominated governments. They had no interest in laying down strong foundations for democracy or other form of civil government. Pakistan's geopolitical importance particularly during the Cold War meant that foreign governments did everything they could to ensure a well-trained and -equipped army, rather than a stable government.

And so ultimately Pakistan mastered the art of exhorting billions in aid money, without any results to show for it. The country is still destabilized and its economy in shambles. It is no surprise that when asked about how they spent the money received over the last eight years, Musharraf replied, "But why do you care about that? Why, for heaven's sake, should I tell you how we spent the money? ... I also told the Americans that it has nothing to do with them. We are not obligated to give out any details. Maybe I should have said at the time: Ok, you want us to support you, give us $20 billion a year and don't ask what we are doing with it." One could think of it as a business transaction, payment for services provided. But in that cases the vendor is expected to deliver. I see a daylight bribery.

Musharraf does tell us that some of the money was a reimbursement for past services. And how it is not possible to segregate the spendings as those on "war on terror" only, because material bought with that money travels with the moving army divisions to the Easter (Indian) border too. In effect the money is being spent to secure its Eastern border and fight India. Of course it is no surprise that he considers that India should not be left out if one is serious about combating terrorism. Read together Musharraf is saying that Pakistan spent all the aid money fighting the "war on terror" against Afghanistan and India. No surprises there.

Big-B or Whiz-B?

It seems that the multi-purpose national identity card (MNIC) for Indian citizens will be available by 2011. It is to be a smart card with an unique identification number that will store information about the citizens. This seems like a good project, and should eliminate the need for multiple address/identity proof documents for educational or business purposes. It could also be a useful tool in the electoral process which is still struggling with the voter identification cards. And maybe help its intended purposes of countering terrorism on Indian soil.

However, considering the scope of the project I think it will face the same fate as the voter identification cards. There are way too many people and far less infrastructure in place to create a comprehensive list and distribute cards. But the babus are on it.

The more serious concern however is that of privacy. Would having this smart card mean that the government will know what I do, buy, sell, learn, read...? Will I be required to carry it at all times and produce when requested? That is something one would associate with travelling to a foreign country. Will the government be policing our lives, instead of simply maintaining law and order? How will it ensure that the information is not abused by any government agency? I can definitely imagine a scenario where someone with influence uses it to bribe and tweak information in the database to make life difficult for someone. Can we be sure of the integrity of those with access to such crucial information? What about misuse by political parties like the MNS to determine the number of "outsiders"?

If the government can satisfactorily answer these and numerous other similar questions maybe the MNIC will be a good project. Till then I can think of nothing better than this episode of Yes Minister.

There is a method to the madness

A very new and interesting analysis of modern war data. The results are surprising and could perhaps even provide clues to ending conflicts like Iraq. As Sean Gourley presents his 'number of attacks - people killed' graphs, they seem to defy logic. How can the number of people killed increase as the frequency of attacks goes down? The remainder of the talk provides a good explanation, and the pattern displayed begins to seem almost obvious.

Children as potential terrorists

This is a very scary move not only in terms of individual privacy and freedoms, but the impact on those young minds. The police have compared it to their drug intervention program which identifies children using or susceptible to drug use. No matter how bad drugs might be, that label cannot be compared to the "potential terrorist" label.

How can the police be sure that it won't be used by extremist organizations as evidence of Muslims being targeted? How can they ensure confidentiality of identities of those "identified" as "potential terrorists?" If identities are disclosed what will stop radical organizations from trying to brainwash them completely? Those people are known for extremely secretive operations anyways. How do you ensure that the kids won't become social outcasts due to the potential danger they pose? The psychological impact this would have on them (already vulnerable in their teens) and the long term repercussions? What about the innocent children who happen to know them. How will the police look at them? Will they be guilty by association? Evidently the information would be on the kids "files" forever. So how would they have a normal life?

While I understand the importance of preventing terrorism and terrorists, the operative word in this British operation is "children." How radical can children as young as 13 be? Teenagers are rebellious. So do you keep identifying them as potential this and that, or do you let them live out their childhood? No state intervenes because a child is into extremely violent video games, or excessive porn, and what have you. I do not mean that we should let kids grow up and become terrorists, but identifying and labeling them as "potential terrorists" in their most vulnerable years is definitely not the way to go.

The 62 year old dream

Reading this piece by Einstein makes me think of how even the greatest minds are not immune to the utopian idea of a world government and peaceful no-war existence. The indirect originator of nuclear weapons, urges the United States to adopt a policy of outlawing them before any other country acquires the capability. He like many others during the period argue for a supranational control of the atomic weapons/technology, which might be a safer bet than an arms race. Considering that Cold War did not result in actual war but saw significant proliferation of nuclear weapons, makes it seem plausible retrospectively in terms of non-proliferation, but nevertheless an utopian dream. As Einstein himself points out the problems with getting the Soviet Union on board with a world government, so would it have been with supranational control of atomic weapons. The closest the world got to it was Euratom and perhaps even the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Even today supranational control of fissile material is talked of as an ideal to be achieved. Something that would reduce proliferation and the danger of a nuclear war or nukes falling in terrorist hands, and save the NPT regime. The creation of an 'international fuel bank' particularly with reference to curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions is seen as a compromise solution. While I think that having an international fuel bank is a good idea to meet the energy needs without risking nuclear weapon proliferation, I don't think the political will and diplomatic skill exists to make it happen. Issues of sovereignty, impartial and/or equal control of the fuel bank, equitable distribution of fuel are but some of the things that come to mind immediately. What happens to the fuel that countries produce or own individually? Does it automatically become a part of the fuel bank? Since it is a lucrative business with long-term potential, should uranium and fuel be regarded as any other raw material and finished product in the market? If not, why not?

The idea that Einstein hopes for, and many others since continue to hope for need not be an utopian ideal to be achieved in a perfect world. We have come so far in our quest for nuclear weapons and technology (even if only for peaceful purposes) that we need it to happen soon. It is becoming difficult to argue that the current setup has worked well and averted a nuclear war so far, and will continue to do so in the future too. Technology and players may have changed, but the world is no less immune than it was on August 6, 1945.

..., to forgive divine!

In a recent post Gurcharan Das comments upon human rights activist J.S. Bandukwala's call to the Muslims in Gujarat to forgive the 2002 riots. This would bring closure and allow Gujarat to move on. Das adds that Modi should apologise for it.

The idea is in line with Gandhi's philosophy and would apparently resolve a lot of issues, if indeed people were able to forgive and forget. And I would like to believe that humans and societies are capable of it. But I seriously doubt it. I have personally encountered very few people who readily forgive their wrongdoer and move on contently. And unilateral forgiveness is even rare. So Das' addition of Modi apologizing seems more plausible to me in terms of generating forgiveness. But that would be political suicide. And I don't see him doing that any sooner than perhaps his deathbed.

Gandhi told us that "forgiveness is the attribute of the strong." And that is where the problem lies. I doubt how strong we as individuals and as a group are. We prefer shouting, yelling, building big tanks and weapons, our ability of attack and inflict maximum damage as the sign of our strength. The one with the biggest and greatest weapons is considered the strongest. Very few geographically small countries have been considered strong. We perceive a tall and heavily built person to be strong. We believe in strength in numbers. The idea of forgiveness and strength are paradoxical.

While Bandukwala's idea could be the ultimate solution for world peace, I don't think we are ready for it as yet.

Really!?!

What's the motivation here?

"Safaat had been in Malaysian custody since December 2001, when he was arrested because of his alleged involvement with Jemaah Islamiah, a radical South Asian terror group closely linked with Al Qaeda. But two weeks ago, Malaysia's interior minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, announced that Sufaat and five other detained Islamic militants were being freed because "they are no longer a threat and will no longer pose a threat to public order." Albar added that Sufaat "has been rehabilitated and can return to society."" (emphasis mine)

Apparently the Malaysian government's legal authority to hold him has expired. Is the Malaysian government (with all due respect) so law abiding, or can it not charge him with something else or find a loophole in the system that would allow them to hold him back? Can you rehabilitate terrorists? I would love for that to happen, what is it possible?

Arms control person of the year

Vote for the 2008 Arms Control Person of the year for their contributions to the efforts at arms control over the last year. You can view the nominations and vote here.

Last year's winners were U.S. Congressmen Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.) and David Hobson (R-Ohio).

Rickshaw reforms

A welcome move. But will it be effective?

And more on rickshaw reforms in Pune here and here.

The pirates and us

We sure can act fast on the high seas! Maybe we should move all our commandos and emergency response personnel there so that they can reach places on time.

Playing the victim again

It was a pleasure reading Asif Ali Zardari's piece in the NYT. He sympathizes with India. Says he understands the terror on a very personal level. He then calls upon the U.S. and India to join hands with Pakistan and help it, and (of course) give it money to cope with the situation. Nothing new about it really.

But I did think Zardari was being 'courageous' at certain times...

"These militants did not arise from whole cloth. Pakistan was an ally of the West throughout the cold war. The world worked to exploit religion against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by empowering the most fanatic extremists as an instrument of destruction of a superpower. The strategy worked, but its legacy was the creation of an extremist militia with its own dynamic.

Pakistan continues to pay the price: the legacy of dictatorship, the fatigue of fanaticism, the dismemberment of civil society and the destruction of our democratic infrastructure. The resulting poverty continues to fuel the extremists and has created a culture of grievance and victimhood."

He conveniently shrugs off Pakistan's responsibility and shifts the blame completely to the U.S. While I agree that the U.S.' Cold War politics is to blame for the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Iran and Pakistan, it is not singularly at fault. Pakistan is equally, if not more to blame for its current condition. Zardari seems to be conveniently forgetting how Pakistan started its terrorist activities in Kashmir in the 1970's. It was Pakistan's independent India policy at the time, not some Cold War consequence.

Zardari further pleads, "Pakistan’s fledgling democracy needs help from the rest of the world...The world must act to strengthen Pakistan’s economy and democracy, help us build civil society and provide us with the law enforcement and counterterrorism capacities that will enable us to fight the terrorists effectively."

In short, 'look at us, we are so innocent, poor, victimized, wrongly targeted....' For God's sake! How long is Pakistan going to play the same cards? And how long is the world going to play along? Pakistan's civil government, as far as understand, is impotent when its comes to handling the army and militant activities in the country. It is highly symbolic, a mere facade for the Western world to be forced and even blackmailed into pumping money into a failing state. Afghanistan and Iraq were disastrous, and looking back at the last eight years I would not advocate raiding Pakistan. But stricter action is necessary. Maybe terming it a state-sponsor of terrorism would be a good start.

A state-sponsor of terrorism tag from the U.S. would bring strict sanctions including ban on arms-related exports, controls on exports of dual-use items, prohibitions on economic assistance and ban on Defense Department contracts of more than $100,000 among other things. In short a complete end to all U.S.-Pakistan cooperation since their relations are based precisely on such military and "economic" assistance.

It would have repercussions. The military would have greater reason to rule, claiming that the "democratically" elected government is incapable of governing the people. The militants/terrorists organizations would have a stronger argument for recruitment. Possibly greater backlash in Kashmir and Afghanistan. But at the same time it would cut off at least some supply lines. (I assume that the Pakistani army receiving arms is as good as militants receiving them.) The economy would most definitely collapse. And it would be a failed state in the true sense.

But Pakistan's transgressions are too big to be overlooked any more. There needs to be a punishment. There needs to be some accountability. If someone can come up with an efficient plan to punish the army and government without harming the common people, I would support them whole-heartedly. But till then we cannot afford to, and we should neither forgive nor forget.

Update: All terror roads lead to Pakistan, says US report.

Indian terrorism by the numbers.

A non-profit news media industry?

Since the Nov. 26 attacks in Mumbai I, like many others, have been flooded with emails of petitions, protests, need to take action and the like. The bottom-line being enough is enough. While it is good to see such outrage and demand for action from people within and outside India, I am not very hopeful about what will actually come out of it.

A lot of anger has been directed at the Indian media, and its insensitivity in handling the attacks. One email that particularly struck me said that the Indian media should be turned into a non-profit industry. In the words of the author of the email, "...that at least news media should be compulsorily made non-profit and if they do report any profits, all of these should be donated to some orphanage or old age home or something of that sort." The rationale being that the current sensationalizing and TRP greed is due to the inherent profit-making nature of the industry, and if they are turned into a non-profit industry it would bring in accountability.

I have heard only few a more ridiculous argument before. For one, just because an organization is non-profit does mean it is responsible, accountable or sensitive. In fact, I would argue that taking away profit would take away any incentive the media has to improve its standards. Not to mention that after years of being one of the most financially deprived workforce, we are finally seeing journalists making some money. With the amount of work that goes in, they deserve to.

Secondly, were it not for the (outrageous) reporting, I doubt how many of those "coming together and joining hands" would have been motivated to do it. India has been under constant terrorist attacks from Pakistan for decades now. No one got so worked up about them before. A few murmurs here and there, and things were back to routine. I believe the constant images of destruction and terror, the 24 hour updates of deaths and fear impacted us differently. It made a difference in how we looked at it, how we felt about it, what we thought we should do about it.

While the Indian media needs to get its act together and set some standards, it is irresponsible to demands things like turning it into a non-profit, and asking the Information Ministry to dictate terms to it. India is a democracy, a free country with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, and the government is not supposed to be dictating terms. They can ask them to display better sensitivity, criticise, issue temporary ordinances for security reasons, but not dictate. The right of expression was curtailed during the Emergency, and I don't believe anyone wants a repeat of those years. They weren't exactly the best years for Indian democracy.

The said email also made another request. "Also do forward this to people you think would agree and do something. Please do not forward to those you do not expect to react, like we need people to." The less said about this, the better.

It's raining pirates!

"Pirates capture Saudi oil tanker."

"Hong Kong grain ship hijacked by pirates."

"Danish oil ship briefly seized off Nigeria."

Good news or bad?

India's private sector defense industry is seeking higher FDI investments. [link]

Aitya gharat gharoba?

It raises suspicious when so many Pakistanis go missing in India. My first reaction was the same as the TOI story, it could be a way of infiltration. If so, then the security apparatus in India needs to examine the situation carefully and identify the missing people as soon as possible. This, I think, is important especially in the current environment of insecurity. Official infiltration figures are low, but terrorist activities within India have not gone down. Instead they have spread far beyond the disputed Kashmir region. While these missing persons may have no relation to any terrorising elements, it would be in our interest to have verified it.

But once we keep aside all prejudices and security concerns it is possible to think of alternative reasons for the missing people. In the worst case scenario, many of them might have died while in India. On a more positive note, it is possible that considering the dire economic and political situation Pakistan is in, many of these people simply decided to stay back and make a living in India. With our shared past and physical attributes it is easy to live relatively unnoticed. India does not have very stringent centrally organized rules and procedures for hiring. It is up to the employer to verify and be satisfied of the person he is employing. No national record or database is generated for each person being employed. This I think makes it very easy for illegal immigrants to get work in India. Places like Mumbai absorb hundreds of new workers daily and I do not see a way of identifying the Pakistanis overstaying their visa limits.

It could be either or, or even both. In any case it important to take notice and necessary action. If they are infiltrators the course of action would be fairly straightforward. However, if it is for economic reasons our policymakers could have a good opportunity staring at them. It could be a chance to take a step towards improving relations (specifically economic relations) between the two countries, just like the opening of trade across the LOC is. Security concerns exist and I do not argue that they should be overlooked for symbolic gestures of goodwill and some economic gains. Yet, trust building requires such everyday economic contacts. Increasing the costs of fighting a war, or harming the other country can decrease the likelihood of increased tensions between the two countries.

Only time will tell if the missing Pakistanis bore good news or bad.

Stories in ACT

I have two pieces in the November 2008 issue of Arms Control Today. The first one discusses the 2008 session of the Conference on Disarmament. The second piece looks at potential candidates for Director-General of the IAEA.

The One

It is good to know that I am not alone in my admiration for Shivraj Patil. And unlike my passive admiration, the Central Association of Private Security Industry and the Association of Private Detectives and Investigators is vocal. It has readily conferred upon Patil the Rashtriya Suraksha Naik award.

Deservedly so. Terror incidents in India have gone down (from 36,000 to 25,000) in the last four and half years, as compared to the years of the NDA rule. So have the causalities in terror incidents by a massive 5000 (from 11000 to 6000.)

"This only goes to prove that the situation had improved and not worsened", said Patil who was conferred the Rashtriya Suraksha Naik award at the conference. [Link]

All you 'power hungry' people know is to criticise. The government has its constraints. It is beyond it's power to do more than what it is doing. It cannot change laws, appoint new people, set up more police stations. That's your job. So stop complaining and start 'policing.'

"Pointing to the limited constraint of manpower, he said there were just 14,000 police stations to guard around 6.5 lakh towns, villages and cities. He suggested adoption of old system of policing whereby the kotwal and police patel collected intelligence and shared with the authorities."

Big deal if the recent spate of attacks in major cities, including the one in Kanpur today, have created an environment of fear incomparable to anytime in my recent memory. Those measly low intensity bombs killed only couple of people here and there. The bomb squads found only a few live bombs spread across the cities' trees, bikes or malls. It did not kill anyone. The alleged culprits are only homegrown "mujaheddin," not the Pakistanis or Osama bin Laden.

What matters is the big picture. NDA - 11,000: UPA - 6,000. NDA - 36,000: UPA - 25,000. UPA wins!!!!!!