Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Chinese Characteristics and Capabilities

China-India Relations: New Starting Point and New Framework CIIS Time: Aug 10, 2011 Writer: Rong Ying Editor: Rong Ying Senior Research Fellow and Vice President of CIIS
The year 2010 marked the 60th anniversary of the establishment of China-India diplomatic relations. The two countries held a host of grand celebrations to mark the occasion. The past year saw generally steady progress in the bilateral relations, frequent high-level interactions, more pragmatic business cooperation and enhanced cultural and people-to-people exchanges. However, the complexity of the relationship was highlighted. Against the backdrop of major changes in international landscape and profound adjustment of the international system, China-India relations are at a new historical starting point. The maintenance and enhancement of the mutually-beneficial, reciprocal and cooperative relations between China and India, two great ancient civilizations, two emerging powers and close neighbors sharing the same rivers and mountains, will be of great significance to their own development as well as to the regional stability and world peace, development and cooperation.
I. Overview of China-India Relations in 2010
The year 2010 saw new progress in China-India exchanges and cooperation across the board. Thanks to the joint efforts, the two governments worked to comprehensively implement the strategic agreement between their leaders, enrich the strategic partnership, and promote bilateral relations...
Read more Click here

Hegemony with Chinese Characteristics
From the July-Aug 2011 issue | More Aaron L. Friedberg | June 21, 2011

THE UNITED States and the People’s Republic of China are locked in a quiet but increasingly intense struggle for power and influence, not only in Asia, but around the world. And in spite of what many earnest and well-intentioned commentators seem to believe, the nascent Sino-American rivalry is not merely the result of misperceptions or mistaken policies; it is driven instead by forces that are deeply rooted in the shifting structure of the international system and in the very different domestic political regimes of the two Pacific powers.

Throughout history, relations between dominant and rising states have been uneasy—and often violent. Established powers tend to regard themselves as the defenders of an international order that they helped to create and from which they continue to benefit; rising powers feel constrained, even cheated, by the status quo and struggle against it to take what they think is rightfully theirs. Indeed, this story line, with its Shakespearean overtones of youth and age, vigor and decline, is among the oldest in recorded history. As far back as the fifth century BC the great Greek historian Thucydides began his study of the Peloponnesian War with the deceptively simple observation that the war’s deepest, truest cause was “the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta.”

The fact that the U.S.-China relationship is competitive, then, is simply no surprise. But these countries are not just any two great powers: Since the end of the Cold War the United States has been the richest and most powerful nation in the world; China is, by contrast, the state whose capabilities have been growing most rapidly. America is still “number one,” but China is fast gaining ground. The stakes are about as high as they can get, and the potential for conflict particularly fraught.

At least insofar as the dominant powers are concerned, rising states tend to be troublemakers. As a nation’s capabilities grow, its leaders generally define their interests more expansively and seek a greater degree of influence over what is going on around them. This means that those in ascendance typically attempt not only to secure their borders but also to reach out beyond them, taking steps to ensure access to markets, materials and transportation routes; to protect their citizens far from home; to defend their foreign friends and allies; to promulgate their religious or ideological beliefs; and, in general, to have what they consider to be their rightful say in the affairs of their region and of the wider world.
Click here to

Monday, August 29, 2011

Pakistan’s nuclear bayonet

Pakistan’s nuclear bayonet By Pervez Hoodbhoy | Herald Exclusive
An extremist takeover of Pakistan is probably no further than five to 10 years away. Even today, some radical Islamists are advocating war against America.
In an enthusiastic moment, Napoleon is said to have remarked: “Bayonets are wonderful! One can do anything with them except sit on them!” Pakistan’s political and military establishment glows with similar enthusiasm about its nuclear weapons. Following the 1998 nuclear tests, it saw “The Bomb” as a panacea for solving Pakistan’s multiple problems. It became axiomatic that, in addition to providing total security, “The Bomb” would give Pakistan international visibility, help liberate Kashmir, create national pride and elevate the country’s technological status. But the hopes and goals were quite different from those of earlier days.

Back then, there was just one reason for wanting “The Bomb” — Indian nukes had to be countered by Pakistani nukes. Indeed, in 1965, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had uttered his famous statement about “The Bomb”: if India got it “then we shall have to eat grass and get one, or buy one, of our own.” In the famous Multan meeting that followed India’s victory in the 1971 war, Bhutto demanded from Pakistani scientists that they map out a nuclear weapons programme to counter India’s. Pakistan was pushed further into the nuclear arena by the Indian test of May 1974.

Although challenged again to equalise forces by a series of five Indian nuclear tests in May 1998, Pakistan was initially reluctant to test its own weapons for fear of international sanctions. Much soul-searching followed. But foolish taunts and threats by Indian leaders such as L K Advani and George Fernandes forced Pakistan over the edge that same month, a fact that India now surely regrets.

Pakistan’s nuclear success changed attitudes instantly. A super-confident military suddenly saw nuclear weapons as a talisman; having nukes-for-nukes became secondary. “The Bomb” became the means for neutralising India’s far larger conventional land, air and sea forces. This thinking soon translated into action. Just months after the 1998 nuclear tests, Pakistani troops and militants, protected by a nuclear shield, crossed the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir into Kargil. Militant Islamic groups freely organised across Pakistan. When the Mumbai attacks eventually followed in 2008, India could do little more than froth and fume.
click here to

Bangla Desh: Transit in exchange for rivers

Monday, August 8, 2011 Transit in exchange for rivers?
Nazrul Islam River water sharing and transit are two major issues for the upcoming Indian Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh's visit to Bangladesh. So far, these two issues have been kept separate, and Bangladesh is focusing on duty, fees, etc. while considering the transit issue. This is a wrong approach. Transit is a strategic issue. Bangladesh should aim at some strategic gain in exchange for transit. Bangladesh should offer a historic compromise of giving transit facilities to India in exchange for full flow of all shared rivers.

The argument for such a compromise is very strong. It is geography that allows India to withdraw river water from Bangladesh. Similarly, that same geography allows Bangladesh to withhold transit from India. By agreeing to the "transit in exchange for rivers" formula, India and Bangladesh can trade their respective geographical advantages.

The most prominent example of withdrawal of water is Farakka. Since 1974, India has been diverting Ganges water towards the Bhagirathi-Hoogly channel. As a result, the rivers in the south-western region of Bangladesh are dying.

Another prominent example is the Gajoldoba barrage built on Teesta. India has constructed similar water-diversionary structures on Dudkumari, Khoai, Someshwari, Monu, Gumti, Muhuri, Dharla and many other rivers. The flow of Surma, Kushira, and Meghna will decrease if the water-diversionary Fulertal barrage is built in combination with the Tipaimukh dam. In fact, India has built, is in the process of building, or is contemplating to build water-diversionary structures on almost all major shared rivers. Thus restraining India from withdrawal of river water is an urgent task for Bangladesh.

Further more, three ways in which climate change will affect Bangladesh are submergence, salinity intrusion, and destabilisation of rivers. Restoration of full flow of Bangladesh's rivers is a must to resist these effects. Rivers here over time have brought in about 2 billion tons of sediment, which has raised its surface by about 2 millimetres each year. Continuation of this sedimentation process is a must for Bangladesh to withstand the submergence effect.

Yet, by withdrawing water India is also withdrawing sediment flow, which has already decreased to about 1.5 billion tons. Also, full flow of rivers can help resist salinity intrusion and full winter flow can mitigate the river destabilisation effect of climate change.

It is in India's own interest to help Bangladesh survive climate change. The millions of Bangladeshis displaced by submergence will not swim to the shores of America or Australia. Instead, they will head towards where they can reach by foot. No barbed fence will withstand the pressure of millions of desperate people.
Transit in exchange for rivers: click here to

Silent invasion of India

Silent invasion of India
August 21, 2011 9:34:19 PM by Joginder Singh

Illegal immigration from Pakistan and Bangladesh poses a serious threat to our internal security. Thanks to vote-bank politics, our politicians are indifferent.

Our international border is around 15,318 km long, of which our boundary with Bangladesh is 4,000 km long, running along West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura. It is the Government of India’s responsibility to guard the country’s international border and prevent foreigners from entering our territory illegally as well as control the entry of those travelling with valid documents. This is a responsibility that the Government has clearly failed to fulfil as was evident from a statement by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs: “As per information available, 1,283 Pakistani nationals (who presumably entered India legally) remain untraced/missing as of June 30, 2011.”

A month earlier, while replying to a query under the RTI Act in July, the Government had said: “It is not possible to estimate the total number of such foreign nationals, including Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals, who have entered into the country without valid travel documents and are staying in the country since entry of such foreign nationals into the country is clandestine and surreptitious.” The response also added that over 73,000 people from various countries have stayed on even after their visas expired; nearly 50 per cent of these people were from Bangladesh and about 10 per cent were from Pakistan, according to data available as of December 31, 2009. In 1996, the then Union Minister for Home Affairs, Indrajit Gupta, had informed Parliament that over 25 million Bangladeshis were illegally living in India.

The fact remains that despite the threat of cross-border terrorism faced by the country from illegal immigrants, the Ministry of Affairs does not maintain a centralised source of information on people crossing the border to enter India from Pakistan and Bangladesh without valid documents. Except where it suits its own concerns, the Union Government refuses to act even in the face of judicial pronouncement. The Supreme Court held in 2005 that provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act of 1983 were ultra vires to the Constitution and were accordingly struck down. The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984, were also determined to be ultra vires and hence were struck down.

The issue of illegal immigration has and continues to figure in high-level meetings related to internal security. It has figured prominently at the Chief Ministers’ Conference on Internal Security and Law and Order held in New Delhi. At this conference serious differences emerged among the north-eastern States on the issue of illegal immigration — some States openly accused Assam of contributing to the mounting problem of illegal immigration in the region.
Silent invasion of India- Read more... clcik here

Sunday, August 28, 2011

China, Cyber Control and Attacks

China official tells Web firms to control content JOE McDONALD
BEIJING— The Associated Press
Published Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2011 9:19AM EDT

A Communist Party leader has told China's Internet companies to tighten control over material online as Beijing cracks down on dissent and tries to block the rise of Middle East-style protests.
The party secretary for Beijing, Liu Qi, issued the warning following a visit this week to Sina Corp., which operates a popular microblogging site, according to the party-published newspaper Beijing Daily.
Internet companies should “strengthen management and firmly prevent the spread of fake and harmful information,” Liu was quoted as saying after the visit Monday to Sina. He said companies should “resist fake and negative information.”
Communist authorities encourage Internet use for education and business but are uneasy about its potential to spread dissent, especially after social networking and other websites played a key role in protests that brought down governments in Egypt and Tunisia.
Beijing is in the midst of one of its most sweeping crackdowns on dissent in years and has detained or questioned hundreds of activists, lawyers and others.
Click here to read more: China Throttles Dissent

Afghanistan Imbroglio and the Chinese Windfall Dream
Guest Column by Dr Sheo Nandan Pandey and Prof Hem Kusum

China’s print media has been typically agog with opinions on imperatives for China once the US troops withdraw from Afghanistan. It included both agency reports and scholarly papers.  The Chinese bloggers have literally had field day. This got into motion soon after  US President Barack Obama unveiled troop withdrawal plan on June 22, 2011.The pace and quantum of the outpour suggest the stoked up glee of the Chinese nation.
Chinese attitudes toward the troop withdrawal will be examined at two levels of analysis. The first is a conventional, international political view. It draws upon the work of international relations theorists such as Hans Morgenthau, who argued that power, prestige, and national might are the currency of international relations and that national security is a principal concern of governments.
This analysis treats China as a risen global power that has but to behave much like any other global power. The Chinese political elites thus, try to manipulate the international environment through the judicious use of political, economic, and military resources to best serve China’s national interests at minimum risks and costs in tune with a dream of their kind. By assuming that the nature of interests and concerns is fairly uniform among nations, the paper draws conclusion about China’s likely attitudes in general terms.
Read more: Afghanistan Imbroglio and the Chinese Windfall

PMO faces largest strategically targeted cyber attack
Published: Sunday, Aug 21, 2011, 11:00 IST

On July 12, some of the top officials in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), including principal secretary to the PM TKA Nair and national security advisor Shiv Shankar Menon, received a flurry of calls from the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO), India’s technical intelligence agency.
The calls were brief and to the point. All systems were to be shut down and all computers were to be unplugged until NTRO officials arrived at the PMO. As an NTRO team set off from their headquarters in the outskirts of Delhi, other key ministries were also asked to shut down.
This was perhaps the most strategically targeted cyber attack on India’s key ministries, as officials from the ministries of home affairs, defence, external affairs and the armed forces began to receive similar calls asking them to shut down systems.
It started in the early hours of July 12 when NTRO officials monitoring India’s critical systems infrastructure began to notice a mass of emails from one address with an attached Word document titled “cms,ntro:dailyelec.mediareport (2011)” being sent to inboxes of key officials of India’s vast security architecture.
Read more: DNA investigation

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Myanmar a gateway to Indian 'expansionism'

 By Francis Wade
CHIANG MAI - This year marks two decades since India's P V Narasimha Rao administration first urged policymakers and businessmen to "Look East" towards the goldmine of resources and investment potential in emerging Southeast Asia.

Nowhere has that policy shift been more profoundly felt than in Myanmar, where New Delhi had previously supported the Aung San Suu Kyi-led democratic opposition but is now entrenched in the military's camp.

While aspirations of emerging as a political and economic powerhouse were long held in New Delhi, it only became apparent in the early 1990s that the mix of market economics and access

to cheap resources could propel peripheral countries outside of the Western hemisphere to prosperity.

Tied to this was a realization that stronger relations with the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) would allow India to leverage into the foreign investment and thriving open markets that had fueled fast growth there without putting all its economic eggs in the United States' basket.

The "Look East" policy gained full expression last year when Myanmar's junta chief General Than Shwe made a high-profile visit to India. Although elections last November allowed the hermetic 77-year-old dictator to drift into the shadows of the Myanmar's emerging new political landscape, his efforts to play competing big nations off against one another, including most notably China and India, is expected to guide new president Thein Sein's foreign policy.

In this regard, Rao's legacy is still relevant. As minister of external affairs prior to assuming the premiership in 1991, Rao had watched as China aggressively co-opted many of the strategic states near its borders, including Myanmar. In response, Rao as premier oversaw a policy that simultaneously aimed to counterbalance China's rising influence and secure access to resources, including oil and gas, that would foster the country's transition to a market-driven economy.

While Rao's courting of Myanmar's military generals after years of Indian support for the democratic opposition was viewed among many in New Delhi's political elite as a pragmatic step forward, it sparked outrage among those who had taken pride in India's post-independence status as something of a moral anomaly in a region where governments place a premium on political sovereignty and economic self-interest, often at the expense of neighboring countries.

Prior to Rao coming to office, India's overt support for Myanmar's pro-democracy opposition was clearly out of step with the so-called "Asian way" of non-interference in other countries domestic affairs and more in line with the Western values of human rights and democracy promoted as policy by the US and European countries. At the time, many Asian leaders found the West's emphasis on such values as pernicious, out of place and a potential destabilizing impediment to much-needed economic growth.

While siding with the West had put India on an ostensibly higher moral ground, touted in its claim to be the world's largest democracy, there was a feeling in New Delhi at the time that it was a somewhat archaic position, particularly as emerging economies to the east that embraced the "Asian way" sped forth to prosperity.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

India’s rise is stunted

An eminent statesman, when asked about China and India, pointed out the key difference: “China is a closed society, but with open minds and an eagerness to learn about the world. India is an open society, but with closed minds and a know-it-all attitude.” If we can change, as people do, it will take decades. One interim possibility must be attempted. We still have people who know what is needed—and there’s no basic difference on this between our main political parties. If these could agree to eschew petty politics on just a few national challenges, especially national security, India could be a leader despite its defects.

Here, There Be Dinosaurs... Cataracts, Warts And All
India’s rise is stunted by a hegemony of outmoded thought and indecision
K. Shankar Bajpai

United States secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s call for India to show greater leadership in world affairs is one more reminder of our tragedy. Just when the world starts to think of us as the major power we’ve always fancied ourselves to be, we have made ourselves increasingly unfit to take on the role. Our methods of attending to our affairs lead the other way: at best, stagnation as a backwater, or more probable, a deep ocean of trouble. We just cannot carry on like this. The immediate cause of this sorry state of affairs is the decay in governance, with our instruments of state action turning increasingly dysfunctional. But the government is the people: those in government or politics, whichever we wish to blame, are of our own creation. Ultimately, it is the way we all think and act that decides outcomes. Let alone taking leadership on the world stage, India is not even churning out far-sighted thinking on internal problems.

The reasons behind this are too complex for a detailed analysis here, but the one crucial failing is that the thinking, or considerations, that we bring to bear on any issue obstruct, instead of facilitate, decisions. Tangents, digressions, irrelevancies, non-sequiturs, the half-digested leavings of yesterday’s half-baked intellectuals, all compounded by unbridled emotionalism—the anarchic tendencies we seem to revel in are in full spate in our decision-making paradigm. Add the one constant consideration—“what’s in it for me or mine?”—and you’re assured of a bad result or none at all.

The illustrations of our condition are endless. A common feature emerges though: decisions are not taken, or taken for the wrong reasons, and then, only poorly implemented. The spectre of Maoism looms larger because of this. Perhaps the worst hit is our defence-preparedness. Delays in procurement are endemic; more worrisome, and wholly ignored, are the deteriorating civil-military relations. Many leaders are aware of this, but are stultified by the most petty of politics... Click here to read more

Friday, August 5, 2011

The US and Pakistan are headed towards a confrontation over nuclear arms

Islamabad - The US and Pakistan are headed towards a confrontation over nuclear arms, warned a Pakistani daily.
An editorial in the News International Friday said the US plans to force Pakistan to sign the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty and halt the production of nuclear bombs material.
"This has understandably caused much alarm in Pakistan."
While noting that Pakistan and the US are heading towards confrontation yet again, "this time over nuclear arms", the editorial observed: "The US-Pakistan relationship has challenges but remains strategically vital: this about sums up the relationship as it stands now..."
It said it seems that "Pakistan’s ultimate worth to the US - despite all posturing to the contrary - is becoming increasingly clear".
"The Americans would rather have assistance from Pakistan - in the fight against terror in Pakistan and beyond in Afghanistan - than have that assistance cut off. It would rather that its spooks were allowed to do their work in Pakistan than that they were eased or pushed out," it added.
It went on to say that "all this talk of ties reaching a fever pitch and threatening to explode eschews the fact that the US values its leverage over Pakistan and also realises...that leaving Pakistan now would mean a much bigger headache later".
"Yes, Pakistan worries the United States. But for precisely that reason, the United States isn’t going to be able to ignore Pakistan’s interests anytime soon."
The US and Pakistan are headed towards a confrontation over nuclear arms
Related Reading
Mongolian connection
Pakistan-India relationship: ‘New era’ dawns in ties

Monday, August 1, 2011

Pakistan's double game foxes International Community?

Pakistan and the US: Implications of Growing Rift
Alok Bansal E-Mail- alokbansal_nda@yahoo.co.in

The recent decision by the US Administration to withhold $ 800 million military aid to Pakistan marks the lowest point in US-Pak relations since 9/11. The decision taken with a new Defence Secretary at the helm of US military indicates its resolve to avoid giving further unilateral concessions to Pakistan. The Defence Secretary, who was earlier the head of CIA understands the thinking of Pakistan’s military hierarchy and has accordingly been able to call the Pakistan military’s bluff. Till now the Pakistani military especially the Army was quite upbeat that the US could not stay in Afghanistan, without its cooperation. As a result, despite Osama’s discovery in its neighbourhood in Abbottabad, it refused to initiate military action in North Waziristan, as repeatedly requested by the US. Besides, all Pakistani citizens, who were suspected to have assisted the CIA in Abbottabad Operation, were arrested.

Through out Pakistan’s existence as an independent nation, it has sought an artificial parity with India and this necessitated acquisition of sophisticated weapons far beyond its economic means. This was overcome by hitching Pakistan to American band wagon during the Cold War. This enabled Pakistani military to get the advanced weaponry from the US as military aid, far beyond its needs. Even after the Cold War, Pakistan retained its importance by creating Taliban and turning Afghanistan into a citadel for exporting radical Islam. The same mindset allowed it to shelter Taliban leadership in FATA after it had been uprooted from Afghanistan. Since then it has been warding off US pressure to act against these elements, by taking some tentative steps against them on and off. They have handed over some lower functionaries of Taliban to the US, whenever the pressure increased. It however, realizes that its significance in the US eyes would diminish, once the radical Islamists are eliminated. Hence it has tried to shelter those, whose names appear in the ‘most wanted’ list of the US. This probably explains the refusal of Pakistani Army to launch an operation in North Waziristan, despite repeated prodding by the US.

The Pakistani military was quite confident that the US would withdraw from Afghanistan soon, after appointing Pakistan as its local satrap to manage affairs in Afghanistan. However, once President Obama unveiled his pullout plan from Afghanistan, it poured cold water on Pakistan’s aspirations. The plan clearly showed that the complete withdrawal by the US from Afghanistan is not likely to take place in the near future. Moreover, the US resolve to strengthen the Afghan National Army (ANA) has caused further consternation in Rawalpindi. Pakistan has so far ensured that the ANA remains a glorified police force without any armour, aircraft or worthwhile artillery, but things are beginning to change. Pakistan Army has been venting its frustration by firing across the Durand Line.

Unfortunately for Pakistan, this time the US has not yet yielded to Pakistani pressure tactics and the Defence Secretary has categorically stated that Pakistan will not get a blank cheque until it takes action against targets assigned. Secretary Clinton also reiterated that “Government of Pakistan must take certain steps, and we have outlined those steps on more than one occasion, to ensure that we can deliver all the military assistance that the United States has discussed with Pakistan.” She termed the recent action as a temporary pause in military assistance and asserted that civilian assistance will continue unabated. This has led to allegations against the PPP government that it was trying to act against the military in alliance with the US. At this point of time when there is a great deal of public resentment against the military and ISI for its inaction at Abbottabad and a commission is already enquiring into the incident. The attack on PNS Mehran, discovery of military officials linked to Al Qaeda and other radical organizations and killing of journalist Salim Shehzad have further tarnished the Army’s image, which finds itself on a weak wicket and is trying to drum up all the support that it can get from friendly politicians and media.

The aid withheld amounts to almost one-third of $ 2.7 billion annual military aid to Pakistan and was primarily intended for counter terrorism and counter intelligence cooperation. With the ordered expulsion of over 100 US military advisors in end May, all training being imparted towards this end had already come to a halt. The material components of the aid that has been suspended are believed to include explosive ordnance disposal support and apparatus, small arms, ammunition, helicopter spare parts, radios and equipment to counter explosive devices. It also includes around $300 million, which was to be reimbursed to Pakistan as the cost of deploying its soldiers along the Afghan border. The US has linked the resumption of aid to granting of visas to US advisors and resumption of training, as the aid included money for training as well as equipment that ordinarily would be provided with a trainer or adviser. Pakistani Army has refused to accept the conditional aid saying that it had 140,000 soldiers in the North West more than the 90,000 American troops in Afghanistan. It has claimed that the cutback will not affect its ongoing campaign against militants and has pointed out that it has conducted successful military operations in the past without external assistance. It has also asserted that China will help fill gaps arising from reduced military aid from the US. Although Pakistani civilian leadership has tried to play down the differences, Pakistani Ambassador to the US Hussain Haqqani has stressed that the American propensity to use aid as a weapon of influence was counterproductive as it insults the Pakistani citizens.

The current rift is not the result of an overnight development, but a culmination of series of developments that began in January, when Raymond Davis, an employee of the US Consulate in Lahore was arrested for shooting down two Pakistani nationals. His subsequent release under US pressure further inflamed the Pakistani public sentiment. General Kayani’s statement opposing continued US drone attacks inside Pakistan showed a clear disconnect between the two militaries. This resulted in a number of minor irritants like refusal of visas to US personnel believed to be working for CIA, scaling down of CIA presence and eventual expulsion of CIA station chief. However, the assassination of Osama Bin Laden deep inside Pakistan without any notice or permission, not only highlighted the US mistrust of the Pakistani armed forces, but also its disdain. Subsequent US revelations about ISI’s involvement in 2008 Mumbai attack and elimination of investigative journalist Salim Shehzad, have taken the relations to their nadir. The Americans appear to have realised that Pakistan is unlikely to stop playing the double game and will continue to patronise Afghan Taliban and certain other radical terrorist groups. They are also fairly certain that Al-Qaeda’s remaining leadership is hiding in Pakistan and its territory is still being used by the Afghan Taliban and allied Haqqani network. On the other hand most of the Pakistani soldiers believe that they have been forced to fight the America’s war in FATA.

It is generally believed that the absence of any major terrorist attack in India since 2008, has primarily been due to US pressure on ISI. The blasts in Mumbai on 13 July, could be a ploy by the ISI to pressurize the US to yield. The involvement of Lashkar-e Toiba or any other organization aligned with Lashkar in the blasts in Mumbai is therefore a distinct possibility. India must demonstrate to the US, the futility of reliance on Pakistan for operations in Afghanistan and it can best be done by training the ANA and equipping it with low end armoured vehicles and aircraft. The possibility of seeking access to Afghanistan through a sovereign Balochistan must also be suggested to the US.
(The views expressed in the article are that of the author and do not represent the views of the editorial committee or the centre for land warfare studies).
Pakistan and the US: Implications of Growing Rift
Related reading: Can we survive without foreign aid?