RSS Agenda: India, Again, Threatens Surgical Strikes

By Sajjad Shaukat

In the aftermath of the terror attack at a military base in Uri, close to the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan, India has been deliberately increasing war hysteria against Pakistan in accordance with the agenda of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The situation developed after the Uri base assault has clearly proved that with the help of Indian intelligence agencies, particularly RAW, India has itself arranged the attack not only to defame Pakistan, but also to achieve a number of sinister aims.

After the Uri episode, without any investigation, India’s top civil and military officials, including their media started propaganda against Pakistan by accusing that the militants who target the Uri base came from Pakistan’s side of Azad Kashmir and the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba controlled by  Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) were involved in it. Under the mask of the Uri base assault, India started mobilization of troops near the LoC to wage a limited war with Pakistan, while considering surgical strikes on the Azad Kashmir.

New Delhi claimed on September 29, 2016 that it carried out surgical strikes on terrorist launch pads across the LoC in Pakistani side of Kashmir.

On the other side, in a statement, the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) rejected Indian claims by saying, “There has been no surgical strike by India, instead there had been cross border fire initiated by India. Pakistani troops befittingly responded to Indian unprovoked firing across the LoC…the notion of surgical strike linked to alleged terrorists bases is an illusion being deliberately generated by Indian to create false effects…to create media hype by rebranding cross border fire as surgical strike is a fabrication of truth.”

Meanwhile, the representatives of The Washington Post and The New York Times, who visited the villages adjoining LoC in the disputed Kashmir region have reported that the people they met there told them that there were no surgical strikes.

Reports suggest that myth of Indian surgical strikes was exposed. Hence differences existed between the civil and military leadership—as to how cover the falsehood. In this regard, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and country’s former Army Chief Gen. Dalbir Singh Suhaag had decided to prepare a ‘fake video’ of surgical strikes so as to pacify the Indian public and media.

In this context, Indian Express wrote on October 5, 2016, “Mumbai Congress chief Sanjay Nirupam on Wednesday attacked BJP even as he continued to face flak from several quarters for suggesting army’s surgical strikes could be “fake” Unfazed by the heat, even from within his party, Nirupam fired a fresh salvo accusing BJP of trying to extract political mileage out of the national security issue with eyes set on ensuing elections in the state to be held next year.”

It is mentionable that since July 8, 2016 against the martyrdom of the young Kashmir leader Burhan Wani by the Indian security forces in the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) in wake of continued sieges and prolonged curfews, Indian forces have martyred more than 150 innocent persons who have been protesting against the martyrdom of Burhan Wani.

In wake of new phase of uprising in the Indian Held Kashmir, pressure on the BJP-led Indian government of Modi has been mounting both domestically and internationally.

But, setting aside the internal and external pressure, days after being named the new Indian Army Chief, Gen. Bipin Rawat said on January 3, this year that so-called “surgical strikes” against Pakistan were meant to deliver a message. While threatening Islamabad, Gen. Bipin Rawat told NDTV in an exclusive interview that the possibility of similar action in the future could not be ruled out by adding, “If there are terrorist bases across and if they continue to disrupt the situation on our side of the Line of Control then we have a right to take action against the terrorists.”

In response, Pakistan’s Army Chief Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa on January 5, 2016 rejected claims by his Indian counterpart Gen. Bipin Rawat about “so-called surgical strikes” and their possible recurrence.

According to ISPR, Army Chief Gen. Qamar Bajwa made it clear that “Pakistan Armed Forces were fully geared to respond to any aggression by India.”

However, like the BJP-led Modi government, Indian new army chief is also following the RSS agenda which is, the real controller of Indian internal and external policies, based upon anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan approach.

Taking cognizance of various developments such as unprecedented rise of Hindu extremism, persecution of minorities, forced conversions of other religious minorities into Hindus, ban on beef and cow slaughter, inclusion of Hindu religious books in curriculum and creation of war-like situation with Pakistan, analysts have still been opining that being the leader of the BJP, Indian Prime Minister Modi is implementing the fundamentalist agenda of his party with the support of other Hindu fanatic outfits. But, a Mumbai-based writer, author and lawyer, A. G. Noorani in his article, “Modi’s loyalties,” published in a Pakistan’s leading daily, on October 10, 2015 proved with authentic events and arguments that Hindu fundamentalist party, RSS is the real controller of India and BJP is only a show piece.

In the article, A. G. Noorani said, “It was an unprecedented journey; but caused little surprise. On September 4, Prime Minister Narendra Modi went to Nagpur, the headquarters of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, to present himself before the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat. Almost his entire council of ministers and the BJP’s parliamentary board were there to demonstrate their accountability to the RSS. On Oct 2, a dozen or so junior ministers of state got into a huddle with senior RSS functionaries in New Delhi in what was described as a regular review meeting. A press release issued thereafter revealed: The prime minister said he was proud to be a Swayamsevak and he had reached where he had because of the values he had imbibed as a member of the RSS.”

A. G. Noorani elaborated, “Modi is a lifelong RSS activist (pracharak), having left his family to dedicate himself to the organisation. It, in turn, ensured his rise to the post of the highest executive of the country. The entire exercise was a flagrant violation of the fundamentals of the parliamentary system.”

The writer pointed out, “The BJP general secretary Ram Madhav is an RSS man who was seconded to the BJP along with many others—recently the RSS model is unique. It has a parivar [family] of 40-plus organisations. The RSS is their ideological fountainhead. It is also the BJP’s muscle; it provides the cadres and foot soldiers who are indispensable at election time. Bhagwat disapproves of the personality cult which Modi and his men have built up ever since he became prime minister.”

He wrote, “The stark reality is that the BJP can never be a right-wing party in the traditional sense. Its ideology binds it to the RSS which also controls it organizationally.”

He explained, “The word ‘fascist’ was aptly chosen. As Donald E. Smith says in his classic India as a Secular State—The leader principle, the stress on militarism, the doctrine of racial-cultural superiority, ultra-nationalism infused religious idealism, the use of symbols of past greatness, the emphasis on national solidarity, the exclusion of the religious or ethnic minorities from the nation-concept—all of these features of the RSS are highly reminiscent of fascist movements in Europe. A responsible correspondent reported in August that the RSS membership is growing at 10,000 to 15,000 recruits every month and says it has reached every district except parts of Kashmir and Assam. The RSS influence on governance was obvious when Atal Behari Vajpayee was prime minister. It successfully vetoed Jaswant Singh’s appointment as finance minister. The RSS shadow lurks ominously on issues dear to it. Ram Madhav specifically mentioned Kashmir as one of them; which implies also relations with Pakistan.”

Nevertheless, these new revelations prove that all the extremist parties like VHP, Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena and other extremist outfits including his own ruling party are subsidiaries of the RSS, while under the influence of RSS; Prime Minister Modi has been rapidly radicalizing India.

While, the constitution declares India to be a secular state, granting equal rights to the religious minorities, but in practice, ideology of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) prevails. Hindu politics and culture dominated by the fundamentalist parties—under the control of RSS have been propagating Hindutva. Provocative utterances of their extremist leaders have resulted into unending violence against the Muslims and Christians including other minority groups.

In fact, Modi who was also a volunteer worker of the extremist Hindu terrorist outfit RSS since 8 years of age is a natural born Hindu extremist, while RSS involved in Muslim genocide, rape of women, demolition of mosques and alive burnings of the innocent persons.

It is noteworthy that especially, on the basis of anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan slogans, BJP got a land sliding triumph in the Indian elections 2014, and enabled BJP hardliner, Narendra Modi to become Indian prime minister who was so far seemed to be implementing his party’s extremist agenda by giving impetus to Hindu chauvinism—not only against other minorities, but also against Pakistan, as under his direction, New Delhi has intensified unprovoked firing at the Line of Control in Kashmir and Working Boundary across Pak-Indian border. Now, these latest revelations clearly indicate that the Indian Prime Minister Modi follows the instructions of the RSS which is the main decision-making party and real controller of India.

In this respect, some reliable online sources have disclosed that a secret meeting of RSS took place under Mohan Bhagwat, Chief of RSS which was also attended by Suresh Bhaiyyaji Joshi, serving 3^rd term as General Secretary of RSS, Sureshi Sony (Secretary), Krishna Gopat, Majoj Biyani and Dr Subhash Bhambre (Minister of State for Defence). Important details reported about the meeting are—RSS wants BJP to be more aggressive towards Pakistan. Across Line of Control/Working Boundaries/International Boarder operation has been planned against Pakistan in the near future, most likely before UP election to favorably impact the outcome of elections.

These reports also revealed that RSS wants BJP to build Ayodhya Temple after forming government in UP. Prime Minister Modi has made important appointments recently including COAS, RAW and IB Chiefs. BJP/RSS now have their “own men” to lead these organizations.

Modi with ambitious newly appointed Chief’s and DGMO may resort to some limited action against Pakistan which can be used for political gains through inflated projection. Possibility of a “False Flag” act of violence followed by a limited cross LOC/WB/IB action by Special Forces or infantry will be high until the elections are over.

Indian new army chief has been portrayed as an expert of “Surgical Strikes” to domestic audience, as Corps had conducted “cross border strikes” against Naga rebels in Myanmar.

Para-drop practices have been conducted recently in Kishtwar in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK)—Samba, Jammu and Bhatinda. Practice of “Surgical Strikes” was conducted by D Force RRF in Batote (IOK). Possible objective of these exercises could be—make videos/ photographs which can be used to add credibility to a future fake activity.

New Delhi can use any pretext to obtain its sinister designs against Islamabad. In this connection, Kashmiri freedom fighters attacked on General Res Engineers Force (GREF) Camp in Batal (Akhnoor) on January 9, 2017. In this connection, Indian media reported that 3 x GREF employees were killed in an attack by terrorists on January 9, 2017 at GREF camp, located 2 km from LOC in Batal village. Indian media also stated that the attackers came from across the LOC. The exact number of attackers is still not confirmed contrary to that, actual facts are GREF is a subordinate organization of border Roads Organization (BRO).

The Indian authorities have been quick to link them to Pakistan. Indian media is not giving it due coverage, as has been done in previous incidents. Because, Indian Army might be making the groups for launching another surgical strikes—Indian designs to use such fake incidents to malign Pakistan and to use them as a justification for any surgical strikes may be exposed.

Nonetheless, the Modi government and its new army chief who are acting upon RSS agenda by considering surgical strikes in Azad Kashmir or limited war in Kashmir in wake of intermittent firing across the LoC by targeting the villages of Azad Kashmir are badly mistaken, if they overestimate India’s power and underestimates Pakistan’s power. Pakistan’s Armed Forces are fully prepared to give a matching response to any such an attack by Indian forces. So, our forces are ready to conduct a real strike on an opportune moment.

HOT TAKES: PAKISTAN’S TEST OF BABUR-3

By: Saima Sial

Last week, Pakistan successfully test-fired an indigenously-developed submarine launched cruise missile called Babur-3, with a range of 450 km, providing Pakistan, which thus far relied only on land/air-based nuclear capabilities, a credible second-strike capability. Although the platform on which the system would be deployed hasn’t been publicly announced, conjecture is it would most likely be the Agosta-90 B diesel electric submarines in Pakistan’s naval fleet. The submarines, though conventional, have greater undersea endurance owing to their Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology. For Pakistan’s undersea deterrent to be operational, it would require the submarine’s tube, currently designed for Exocet SM39 anti-ship missiles, to be retrofitted for Babur-3. Having already demonstrated its capability to miniaturize nuclear warheads, by testing the Nasr missile, the Babur cruise missile system reliably serves the purpose of completing Pakistan’s nuclear triad.

This nuclear deterrent at sea, patterned along the likes of Israel’s Dolphin class diesel-electric submarine, is not a complete surprise as Pakistan had already established the headquarters of the Naval Strategic Forces Command (NSFC) in May 2012. Owing to its lower acoustic signature, improved battery performance and longer submersion times, the Agosta submarine would have great deterrence value for Pakistan. Armed with Babur, the submarine would be able to target critical counter-value and other strategic targets along India’s coastline as well as make the deployment of an Indian aircraft carrier hazardous.

After India launched its first nuclear-powered submarine Arihant, armed with ballistic missiles, back in 2009, Pakistan’s apprehensions of a possible disarming first strike by India increased, owing to its distrust in India’s declared no-first-use (NFU) doctrine. Policy makers in Pakistan advocated that a ready arsenal aboard nuclear submarines armed with canisterized missiles and aided with ballistic missile defense (BMD) capability would encourage a pre-emptive strike tendency in India and “impact the delicate strategic balance of the region.” Therefore, Pakistan believes that the development of Babur will restore the nuclear balance in the Arabian Sea. This development needs to be seen strictly in the regional context, not the broader context of the Indian Ocean.

With the fruition of the recent deal with China to purchase eight attack submarines, (first four stated to be delivered by 2023), Pakistan would have a fully operational ‘sea-based, nuclear, second-strike triad.’ Not only would this development add another dimension to Pakistan’s maritime deterrence, it would also affect the freedom of Indian naval deterrent operations. History has been witness that in times of war, India has kept its aircraft carrier in bay with significant forces assigned for its defense. Pakistan’s recently-acquired capability would further complicate Indian naval deployment of the aircraft carrier.

Furthermore, the nuclearization of the Indian Ocean highlights the challenges of command and control (C2) as well as communication, which are equally applicable to both India and Pakistan. To mitigate these challenges, Pakistan has reportedly established a very low frequency (VLF) submarine communication facility in November last year, to facilitate secure communication with its submarine force. Needless to say, problems of C2 structure have troubled all nuclear powers that have established the naval leg of the nuclear triad.

The Indian nuclear submarine, armed with K-15 Sagarika submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), is a deterrent currently poised against Pakistan. Hence, a naval nuclear deterrent force, though limited, would still add to enhancing the stability of the deterrence equation between India and Pakistan. Babur-3 is the first step in moving towards developing a nuclear triad by Pakistan. In the long run, Pakistan may well move in the direction of acquiring an assured second-strike capability.

The Empire Strikes Back

By Zamir Akram

On December 15 last year the outgoing Obama administration issued a notification sanctioning seven Pakistani entities for allegedly acting “contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the US”. Without specifying how these entities, related to Pakistani space and missile programme, endanger US interests, Washington has once again resorted to its worn-out policy of using the blunt instrument of sanctions to punish Pakistan. Since Pakistan’s missile programme is indigenous and because these are only national US and not international sanctions by the UN Security Council, their impact on Pakistan would be zero. The question, therefore, arises as to why the Obama administration has resorted to this tactic on the eve of its departure from office? The obvious answer is that this out of pique for Pakistan’s steadfast refusal to succumb to Washington’s pressure on our strategic programme driven by our security compulsions. The added motivation could also be to queer the pitch for Pakistan’s engagement on strategic issues with the incoming Trump administration.

The Foreign Office spokesperson termed this US decision as “intriguing” while another senior official said “this means nothing for us”. While this is true, the fact remains that this step is in line with the Obama administration’s policy towards Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programme. At every opportunity, the Americans have called for “restraint” and a “cap” by Pakistan on development of our nuclear weapons and missile delivery capabilities while failing to make any such demand for restraint by India. In view of American indifference to Pakistan’s security compulsions in response to the Indian nuclear, missile and conventional military buildup, their demands for unilateral restraint by Pakistan have naturally been rebuffed.

Such American discrimination against Pakistan is not new but goes back decades since the first Indian nuclear test in 1974 when India virtually got away unscathed but a slew of laws were adopted to prevent Pakistan from responding to this strategic threat to its security. There laws, the Glenn and Symington amendments, were then supplemented by the Pakistan specific Pressler amendment which was enforced in 1990 even though Pakistan had not acquired nuclear weapons at the time. Subsequently when India conducted its second set of nuclear tests in 1998, Pakistan was forced to respond to demonstrate the credibility of its deterrence. Still both the culprit and its victim were treated at par with sanctions that were waived only when the US needed Pakistan’s cooperation in its “war on terror” after September 11, 2001. Even so, when India was given a country specific exemption from nuclear safeguards so that it could engage in civilian nuclear commerce in 2008, in violation of the international non-proliferation regime as well as domestic US laws, the same treatment was denied to Pakistan. Even now, the Obama administration has expended vast political capital to enforce India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) while denying the same privilege for Pakistan. It is only due to the principled position taken by China, Turkey and several other States parties to the NSG that such nefarious designs have failed. In the context of missile development, the area in which Pakistan has now been targeted, the US has ensured a free pass for India by enabling its membership of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) despite New Delhi’s expanding and de-stabilizing missile developments such as the latest long-range Agni-V ballistic missile with a range of 5500 km.

The selective US approach to the Indian and Pakistani missile programmes also requires close scrutiny. Washington has strongly opposed Pakistan’s development of the short range Nasr missile and the long range Shaheen missile even though India has also acquired short range missiles such as the Prahaar and Pragati and developed an array of long range ballistic missiles in the Agni series. India is also working on sea-based platform launched long range missiles that can be deployed on surface ships and more dangerously on nuclear powered submarines that can be positioned deep into the Ocean and out of Pakistan’s range. Acquisition of such a second strike capability by India can drastically under-mine strategic stability in South Asia. Moreover, the Indian missile programme involves development of Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence System (BMDs) and Multiple Independently – Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs) that will qualitatively and quantitatively change the requirements for maintaining a credible deterrence by Pakistan. To make matters worse, the US itself is aiding this Indian missile development programme by its acts of omission and commission. For this reason, the US is directly or indirectly responsible for propelling a new round of the arms race between Pakistan and India.

For the US helping to enhance Indian strategic capabilities is part of its effort to use India as a counter-weight to contain China. But Indian capability can also be used against Pakistan. No wonder that the new Indian Army Chief has been boasting about developing India’s capability to fight on two fronts simultaneously – against China and Pakistan. While this may be more wishful thinking on India’s part since it is really a minor irritant for a world power like China, such Indian capabilities pose a real existential threat to Pakistan.

Pakistan’s efforts to make its case in Washington have so far fallen on deaf ears. American hubris cannot countenance Pakistan’s temerity to reject US demands for unilateral “restraint” or “cap”. Hence the resort to pressure through sanctions. The notification of our missile programme related entities is the latest example. This has been preceded by the virtual back tracking on sale of F-16 aircraft and the withholding of Coalition Support Funds (CSF) which is money that Pakistan has already spent on supporting American counter-terrorism efforts.

Whether the incoming Trump administration will continue this trend to sanction Pakistan further remains to be seen. But one thing is clear based on past experience – unilateral US sanctions lack teeth and as President Clinton famously said are “a blunt instrument”. Since the present global strategic environment does not favour international action against Pakistan, these and possible new US sanctions against Pakistan are unlikely to be effective. If anything, judging by past record, they may even have the unintended effect of actually helping Pakistan develop its own capabilities even further. The test on January 9 of Babur III, the nuclear capable submarine launched cruise missile which gives Pakistan a second – strike capability is, therefore, a befitting riposte to both India and its mentor the US.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 16^th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

Hubbub against Pakistan’s defence initiatives

Reema Shaukat

Conspiracies against Pakistan are not new. Often its adversaries are found creating hype about its certain capabilities. A recent such flimflam came about few days ago when USA again showed concerns about Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons. The State Department in a statement said that US is concerned about the security of tactical nuclear weapons, and it’s been a common refrain in their discussions with Pakistan. Interestingly this announcement comes at the time when USA shows willingness on selling F-16s to Pakistan particularly for combating war on terror. India as expected created fuss over the matter and tried to spoil the broth by same old nitty gritty objections. A recent joint study by the Carnegie and Stimson research organizations estimates that Pakistan has the capability to produce twenty nuclear warheads annually while India appears to be producing about five warheads. Pakistan repeatedly has denied such reports and always stand firm to its announcement that it goes only for credible minimum deterrence. Its nuclear deterrence is for self defence and is not at all status driven while giving NSG waiver to India will disturb strategic stability and surge arms race in South Asia. In post 9/11 scenario, since the US intervention in Afghanistan, accusing Pakistan for its ‘criminality’ of speedily developing nuclear systems against a real threat from India has remained a preferred matter of nuclear experts. Present charter of a severe argument particularly against Pakistan’s tactical nuclear weapons and for taking a logical line of defense against discriminatory Conference on Disarmament (CD) on FMCT, is not beyond understanding. During the late forties and the early fifties, the US entered and stretched out its presence in the Asia-Pacific, in addition to many other regions of the world, to establish itself as the predominant global power in the name of institutionalizing the effect of the World War-II. At present, US strategy to disengage itself from unwinnable conflict particularly in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan and yearning to rebalance its position in the Asia-Pacific region was announced by President Obama, well before its drawdown policy in Afghanistan. Under this rebalance strategy the significance of Asia-pacific region, particularly China, as a fast growing and speedily rising region, is emphasized to underline the US engagement with the region. India having a large population and future consumer market, because of its potential and perceived economic growth and strategic position in the Indian Ocean and the Malacca Strait areas, supplemented with ever growing divergent interests with China, Russia, Pakistan and other smaller but important neighboring countries like Sri Lanka and Nepal, is hence seen as a new vital unit in this stratagem. India on the other hand looks favorably towards this approach owing to its own apprehension about an assertive and militarily powerful China as well as its desire to undermine Pakistan economic initiative linked to CPEC. The US following the Cold Start Doctrine, is playing its cards of economic, technological, security and strategic interests while capitalizing on democracy and the perpetually repeated threat of terrorism, to drag Indian partnership in the region. India on the other hand especially under PM Modi and his team have been made to believe that country’s economy, democratic values, military capabilities and technological expertise makes it an indispensable ally of the US now and in the future. As Vice President of US, Joe Biden puts it, “My dream is that in 2020, the two closest nations in the world will be India and the United States. If that occurs, the world will be safer.” Historically, the prospects of arms control in South Asia have been severely delayed by the biased limitations forced against Pakistan by the US and Western powers, even as they tolerated and often encouraged Indian nuclear and conventional arms proliferation. Canada’s supply of a heavy water reactor namely CIRRUS to India outside international safeguards and US transfer of missile technology, in the pretext of helping India’s space programme, are most alarming examples in addition to encouraging Australia selling nuclear technology while drastically altering and manipulating IAEA and NSG protocols. US discrimination against Pakistan was revived and established in 2007 when the then US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, declared Washington’s decision not to keep in line, the US policies towards India and Pakistan. This decision followed US resolve to build India as a wall against China’s rising power that believed to empower Pakistan in many ways. Washington entered into a formal defense pact and a civil nuclear cooperation agreement with India. Since then, external nuclear fuel supplies have opened the way for the expansion of India’s nuclear programme, resulting into a $100 billion in advanced weapons have flowed annually into India from the US, Israel, France and others. Another report published by “Institute for Science & International Security” states that India has one of largest nuclear programs among developing nations. So after these facts suggesting Pakistan alone responsible for development of tactical arms is a mumbo jumbo, not reality. Similarly Indian suspecting supply of F-16s to Pakistan by US and making hue and cry of the matter is time worn. Pakistan never indulged itself for arms race in region nor does it support such initiatives. It is only to shield its existence in the region and to curb menace of terrorism that it needs to enhance its defense capabilities, be it through buying arsenals or signing defense agreements. Pakistan must capitalize on the new prospects of development and advancement as the country is successfully trouncing terrorism and moving towards desired level of internal stability while also providing an opportunity to Indian as well as global powers to become partners in resolution of the geopolitical issues.

Fata Still Remain Security Risk

Tariq Rizwan

Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) region is a narrow strip comprising the seven Agencies; Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Orakzai, Kurram, North Waziristan and South Waziristan, besides the Frontier Regions of Peshawar, Kohat, Bannu, Lakki Marwat, Tank and D.I.Khan Districts. There is a highest rate of endemic poverty and lowest development indicators, with its people facing huge deficit of human rights. Investment is fleeing under the prevailing security environment in the area. Having negligible democratic rights, population of FATA is much higher than the earlier estimates of seven to eight million according to 1998 census. The recent few political reforms of adult franchise and extension of political act to FATA are considered the achievements of former PPP governments. Being an open field without any writ of government, FATA remained a hub of militants during last one decade.

 Taliban mostly Afghan and Uzbeks escaped from Afghanistan and entered our tribal region without any check in the wake of 9/11. It became a source of terrorism for the country itself and the world in large. The locals have been suffering the heat and remain stuck up between the devil and deep sea till today.

After the successful military operation ‘Zarb-e-Azb’, a strong need was felt to stabilize the military gains in the region and replace FCR with a new law. FCR is the so called black law, introduced by the Britishers in the past to punish the unruly tribes of the area. FATA reforms are also considered vital in the light of CPEC. Therefore, bringing reforms in FATA was made part of National Action Plan (NAP), to see CPEC plan implemented in letter and spirit. A Reforms Committee was formed to prepare a new law for the region according to the wishes of the peopled of the area. The Committee is being headed by Advisor to Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs, Sartaj Aziz while its members were Minister for SAFRON Abdul Qadir Baloch, Minister for Law & Justice Zahid Hamid, National Security Adviser, Lt. Gen (retd) Nasser Khan Janjua, Governor Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), and also Secretary SAFRON. Committee members toured almost all the major parts of FATA, discussed pros and cons and prepared a comprehensive report and putting it in the Parliament. The report was thoroughly debated in the Senate and National Assembly. Suggestions and recommendations were included in the report to make it more effective. Later, it was sent to the Prime Minister Office and was discussed in a meeting of National Action Plan where it was agreed to make its finding public to elicit further debate and develop national consensus.

Out of the four options of transformation of FATA into the mainstream including maintaining of status-quo with minor changes, granting special status to FATA like Gilgit-Baltistan, creating a separate province and merger with KPK province. Keeping in view the close horizontal linkages of agencies and FRs with adjacent KPK districts coupled by cultural and economic linkages with the adjoining settled areas of KP province, the option of merger with KP was declared as the most feasible and viable option. Most of the Committee members favoured repealing the existing Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) with new Tribal Areas ‘Rewaj Act’ and the Jirga system.

The subsequent discussion and consultations with all stakeholders of the area supported the ‘Rewaj Act’, terming it part of their age-old tradition. The Jirga system will remain prevalent in criminal and civil disputes, while it was also proposed to codify the “Rewaj” in each agency.
The Committee held meetings with parliamentarians from FATA, tribal elders, religious leaders, leaders of major political parties in FATA, the business community, civil society representatives and youth organizations.

The provisions relating to collective responsibility in the FCR will be omitted in the new Act, thereby making an individual responsible for his own acts. The Committee has also proposed to carry out land settlement in FATA so that this land asset can be capitalized to release locked up funds with ten years investment formula to bring the area at par with rest of the settled areas, covering all the sectors. There is a proposal of holding local bodies’ elections in 2017 to execute the proposed 30 per cent of the FATA 10-Year Development Plan.

The Committee report was presented in the cabinet on Dec 15, 2016 for final approval and onward voting in the Parliament. Federal Minister for SAFRON Lt Gen (retd) Abdul Qadir Baloch and Minister of State for Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage Marriyum Aurangzeb explained the report in detail. To the bad luck of our tribal brethrens, Federal Minister for Housing Akram Durranifrom JUI F and PKMAP opposed the move on the plea that their recommendations should also be included in the report. Their recommendations include holding of a referendum and option of separate province. Akram Durrani informed the cabinet that his party would be holding a Jirga in coming few days to finalize their recommendations.

It is unfortunate and absolutely ridiculous that despite lapse of some eight months JUI F and PKMAP were not able to consult their people. It is an open secret that religious clerics were thoroughly consulted in the Committee during the long tour of Committee members to FATA. More than a dozen Jirgas were held having representation of the notables of the FATA, religious clerics, media persons, students, business community, lawyers and political parties and overwhelming majority supported the idea of integration of the FATA. All the FATA members of the parliament including eleven MNAs and eight senators (including JUI F MNA and Senator from South Waziristan, Mehsud area) had given written approval for merger with KPK.

JUI F insistence on referendum is beyond comprehension. Moreover, FATA is a narrow strip bordering Afghanistan which is not feasible to be declared a separate province.

Earlier, a jirga was held by these two self interested leaders with some FATA Maliks. These Maliks, mostly from North Waziristan, were reportedly launched and financed by the corrupt Political Administration in FATA. Consequently, both the leaders were brainwashed and launched by the self interested few tribal Maliks and played their cards well to leave the people of FATA in darkness for another few decades.

There are also reports that as usual Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman had sent a ‘Perchi’ of demands including more share in ministries, projects and employment for his men which had been turned down by the Prime Minister. Their move is considered an effort to let the ‘Haves’in FATA enjoy the status quo. Haves include the Maulvis and Taliban leaders who are mostly government teachers but not attending schools, Maliks and corrupt mafia of Political Administration backed by the mafia in Governor House at Peshawar.

PKMAP has no presence in FATA in any shape. It is an irony that Mehmood Khan has played a very negative role at this crucial stage. Analysts are not ruling out an involvement of some foreign hand; India or Afghanistan. JUI F has at least some vote bank which is likely to be lost in the wake of this move. Hence there is a chance for the ruling party to ensure strong presence in FATA by bringing the area into the mainstream.

Ultimately, the Cabinet has deferred the final decision on the proposal as the Prime Minister had said that he wanted to take all allies along and hoped that JUI F and Pakhunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PKMAP) would support the proposal. FATA is likely to remain a security risk in future. If the Reforms get delayed, people of FATA will never forgive the two so called Pashtun leaders who are using ‘Pashtun Card’ for their vested interests. People of FATA would not see the light of the day in near future they have been waiting for since ages. Moreover, the move will deprive the people of FATA from the benefits of Zarb-e-Azb operation as if the areas taken back from militants were not stabilized, the effort would prove fruitless.

Pak-India Water Dispute Accelerates

Sajjad Shaukat

Pakistan is a grave victim of water scarcity, because of being on lower riparian in relation to the rivers emanating from the Indian-Held Kashmir (IHK). India has never missed an opportunity to harm Pakistan since its inception; it is creating deliberate water shortages for Pakistan with the aim to impair Pakistan agriculturally. Historically, India has been trying to establish her hegemony in the region by controlling water sources and damaging agricultural economies of her neighbouring states. India has water disputes with Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh. Indian extremist Prime Minister Narendra Modi who has given the concerned departments to continue construction of dams has ordered diverting water of Chenab River to Beas, which is a serious violation of the Indus Water Treaty of 1960. Therefore Pak-India water dispute has accelerated.

In this regard, an article By: Zofeen T. Ebrahim, Joydeep Gupta (Co-Authors) under the caption, “India resists World Bank move to resolve Indus Water Treaty dispute”, published in The Third Pole and reproduced-updated by a Pakistan’s renowned daily on January 6, 2017 is notable.

Zofeen T. Ebrahim and Joydeep Gupta wrote, “India has asked the World Bank not to rush in to resolve a dispute with Pakistan over the Kishanganga and Ratle hydropower projects. Indian officials told a World Bank representative in New Delhi on January 5 that any differences over the projects can be resolved bilaterally or through a neutral expert. Pakistan has objected to the projects–being built by India in Jammu and Kashmir–on the grounds that they violate the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) between the two countries. After India rejected the charge, Pakistan has gone to the World Bank–the designated IWT mediator.”

They indicated, “Islamabad has also asked the United States (US) government to intervene, and has added the component of water security to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) agreement. Of the rivers in the Indus basin, the Indus and the Sutlej start in China and flow through India before reaching Pakistan. The other four rivers–Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi and Beas – start in India and flow to Pakistan”.

The writers pointed out, “The Kishanganga project is on a tributary of the Jhelum, while the Ratle project is on the Chenab. The State Department in Washington has already said it wants India and Pakistan to resolve all outstanding issues bilaterally, a route favoured by India.”

Zofeen T. Ebrahim and Joydeep Gupta elaborated, “As the dispute flared up, the World Bank had recently suspended all proceedings–the setting up of a court of arbitration or the appointment of a neutral expert. On January 5, World Bank representative Ian H Solomon met officials of India’s External Affairs and Water Resources ministries in New Delhi in an effort to break the deadlock.The Indian delegation, led by Gopal Baglay, Joint secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, made a detailed a presentation on the two projects to support their argument that neither project violated the IWT. After the meeting, a government official told journalists that the Indian side had described the objections raised by Pakistan as “technical”, and therefore they would be best resolved by a neutral expert.”

They wrote, “Pakistan has dismissed this suggestion earlier, and is seeking a full court of arbitration. The World Bank had agreed to a court of arbitration and then to the appointment of a neutral expert, leading to objections by both countries. That was when both processes were suspended. Explore: World Bank pauses dam arbitration to ‘protect Indus Waters Treaty.’ At the January 5 meeting, Solomon did not raise any question on the designs of the two projects, according to the Press Trust of India news agency. Instead, he explored ways to resolve the dispute. With nothing decided, the World Bank official is going from New Delhi to Islamabad to continue this effort. The official added that India is fully conscious of its international obligations and is ready to engage in further consultations to resolve the differences regarding the two projects. Under the IWT, India is allowed only non-consumptive use of water from the three western rivers in the Indus basin–Indus, Jhelum and Chenab.”

The co-authors mentioned, “The Kishanganga and Ratle projects are on the western rivers. They are run-of-the-river hydropower projects that do not hold back any water, though Pakistan’s objection is about the height of the gates in the dams from which water is allowed to flow downstream. The three eastern rivers–Ravi, Beas and Sutlej–are reserved for the use of India. Meanwhile, in Pakistan. The Pakistani government approached the World Bank last September, saying the design of the Kishanganga project was not in line with the criteria laid down under IWT, and sought the appointment of a court of arbitration. Since the Kishanganga project has been going on for years, the “inordinate” delay by Islamabad to approach the World Bank would give India more time to complete its projects, Jamait Ali Shah, former Indus Water Commissioner on behalf of the Pakistani government, told thethirdpole.net”.

Their article pointed out, “However, Pakistan’s Finance Minister Ishaq Dar wrote to the World Bank on December 23, stressing that it was not withdrawing its request to set up a court of arbitration. This was followed by a call from the outgoing US Secretary of State John Kerry to Dar, saying that the US would like to see an amicable solution to the transboundary water row. Karachi-based newspaper…quoted diplomatic observers in Washington to say, “seriousness of this dispute, particularly the fear that it may harm the treaty, forced Mr. Kerry to make this call.”

The writers explained, “For a while now Pakistan has also wanted to bring China into the picture. At the sixth meeting of the Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC) of the CPEC which was held in Beijing on December 29, a special group on water storage was formed to pre-empt any “severe water crisis” impacting economic and food security of Pakistan, an official statement said. After a Chinese delegation visits Pakistan later this month, the JCC – the highest policy-making forum of the CPEC – may consider including the Diamer-Bhasha dam into the CPEC agreement. Planned at an estimated cost of around USD 15 billion, if Pakistan succeeds in getting the dam financed under CPEC, planning and development minister Ahsan Iqbal would consider it a “landmark achievement”. Both the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have refused to lend money to Pakistan for this hydropower project. Pakistani experts react leading lawyer and former federal law minister, Ahmer Bilal Soofi termed the inclusion of water security into CPEC essentially a |political choice for Pakistan and China” though the issue does not “squarely fall within the otherwise commercial mandate of CPEC”.

Zofeen T. Ebrahim and Joydeep Gupta wrote, “Speaking to thethirdpole.net, Soofi said Pakistan and China need to exchange notes on a “contradicting state practice of India as an upper riparian to Pakistan and a lower riparian to China, that will help both the states to confront India.” He further added that Pakistan should raise its voice at an international level that “India’s building of reservoir and fully utilising the water storage capacity under the treaty poses a serious threat to Pakistan in particular backdrop of India’s present posturing as it improves India’s capability to manipulate water flows into Pakistan.” This was echoed by former commissioner Shah who said the international community should be duly briefed about the “dilution of the violation of the provisions of the treaty” by India. At the same time, he said both countries should continue to work closely and quietly to resolve the grievances and find a middle ground”.

They added, “The recent stance by India where it “lobbied aggressively and influenced” the World Bank, he feared, had further undermined the already “fragile” treaty. “The WB needs to take the right action–which is to act as arbitrator in this matter, as it has done before,” pointed out water expert Simi Kamal.The reason why the IWT, 74 pages long with 12 articles and 8 annexures and has no expiry date, has worked so far, she said was partly because the Bank acted as a third party. “The Bank needs to maintain this role and not back off now, when its arbitration role is most required in the face of a belligerent Indian government.”

According to the writers, “Kamal further said the solution lay not in the pause by the Bank “or for hawks to call for dismantling the treaty”, but for both governments to act responsibly and for the Bank to play its role in "containing adventurism by either government–in this matter the Indian government”. Shah also felt when Pakistan plans to proceed with such cases, it never does its homework thoroughly and therefore always appears the weaker party. The same was endorsed by noted economist Kaiser Bengali when he told thethirdpole.net that he found “the intellectually deficient and politically inane manner in which Pakistan has been pursuing the matter”, criminal. Bengali had little confidence in the Pakistan IWT team. He said, “It has no strategy on dealing with water issues with India. Pakistan’s chief negotiator for more than a decade and a half had limited intellectual capacity to lead on such a strategically life and death issue,” he said”.

They indicated, “He said Pakistan keeps harping on the "spirit" of the agreement. “Four decades after a treaty is signed, what matters is the letter of the print, not the spirit of the time when the document was signed.” Bengali believed India was not violating the letter of the agreement. “India has been building power plants on western rivers, but not diverting any water”. Nor, he said, were Pakistan’s contentions on the design "substantive enough to warrant a full scale confrontation”. He also observed, like Shah, that differences can and should be resolved in a more “low key” manner. He feared that since India was not violating the treaty per se, if Pakistan does take the latter to court, it will meet the same fate as the Baglihar Dam case of 2007”.

Zofeen T. Ebrahim and Joydeep Gupta maintained, “While Indian officials maintain that they are sticking to the IWT, the government has hardened its stand in recent months after attacks on Indian Army camps in Kashmir by suspected militants. (Read: South Kashmir's role in anti-India struggle) New Delhi had earlier said it was setting up a task force to examine what projects it could undertake in the three western rivers of the Indus basin under the ambit of the IWT. In the last week of 2016, the government announced that the task force would be headed by Nripendra Mishra, principal secretary to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.”

Nevertheless in light of the above article, it is mentionable that since the 9/11 tragedy, international community has been taking war against terrorism seriously, while there are also other forms of bloodless wars, being waged in the world and the same are like terrorism. Political experts opine that modern terrorism has many meanings like violent acts, economic terrorism etc., but its main aim is to achieve political, economic and social ends. Judging in these terms, Pak-India water dispute which has become serious needs special attention of the US and other major powers, as India remains stern on her illegitimate stand in this respect.

Does Pakistan pose a bigger threat to India after Babur-III launch?

By Naveed Ahmad

Pakistan’s recent launch of Babur-III missile signifies a massive change in strategic calculus vis-a-vis India. The country’s strategic community has long been hoping that Pakistan completes its nuclear triad sooner, which in simple English means possessing capability to launch nuclear weapons from land, air and sea.

The Babur-III test proved that Pakistan not only possess the ability to modify its existing land-based Babur-II cruise missile with unwater-controlled propulsion and terrain hugging and sea skimming flight characteristics but also to upgrade its existing diesel-electric Agosta submarines to deliver the vital capability discreetly and effectively.

Pakistan fires ‘first submarine-launched nuclear-capable missile’

The news was anything but amusing for Pakistan’s eastern neighbour and arch rival. Typically, Indian ‘experts’ and “Pakistan watchers” congratulated China for the successful test in North Arabian Sea. But the frustration and anger over Islamabad achieving nuclear second-strike capability is natural and was expected. The second-strike capability refers to a nuclear power’s ability to attack the enemy after its existing land and air-based nuclear delivery systems are destroyed. This can only be ensured through arming its submarines with ability to launch the nuclear-tipped missiles while sitting in depths of the sea away from the enemy’s preying eyes.

The data gathered after the first test will lead to further improvements and more tests of the Babur III cruise missile in the future. Pakistan declared that the sophisticated projectile has a range of 450 kilometres with precise targeting characteristics of a cruise missile. Of course, Pakistan will work on extending its range and payload significantly for it’s the missile for the day after.

Since setting set up its Naval Strategic Force Command in 2012, Pakistan actively worked on acquiring quieter air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarines while modifying its existing cruise missile arsenal to serve its second-strike requisites. Submarines are more vulnerable to detection when they surface to recharge their air supply and refuel. The Agosta class submarines of French origin, which were co-produced in Pakistan Navy’s Karachi dockyard in the 1990s, are being supplemented with eight “Hangor Class SSK” equipped with advanced AIP systems, which will enable them to stay underwater for longer durations.

Pakistan test-fires Babur cruise missile

India’s naval prowess

India has already leased a second nuclear-powered Russian submarine while simultaneously carrying on its joint venture programs with Moscow. The state-of-the-art, with built-in reactors, modern nuclear submarines never have to surface to refuel and replenish air supply. They enter service with the required nuclear fuel for its projected lifetime of up to three decades. The miniaturised reactor results in an underwater entity that is self-sufficient while being stealthy and lethal.

Alongside India’s Russia-supplied nuclear submarines and Russian conventional-yet-upgraded underwater vessels, it has also demonstrated the capability to use them to launch naval version of the Agni III in March 2014. It later tested it from leased Russian submarine Arihant in 2016. India is working with Russia to develop a naval version of their BrahMos cruise missile besides extending its range.

Last year, India deferred its plan to go ahead with a proposed order for three new French submarines alongside the six it is already building in the country after leak of crucial secret data on the Internet. It may slow down India’s own capability enhancing program but without compromising its edge over Pakistan and compatibility against China.

Submarine advances

New level of deterrence

With both the countries capable of second-strike capability, deterrence has reached another level of parity. Like India, Pakistan too reportedly is in negotiations to lease a Chinese nuclear-powered submarine. Does Beijing have the flexibility to lend one of its vital strategic assets to a closer ally? Either side may not answer the question. Given the significance of Gwadar port for Chinese maritime interests, the possibility can’t be ruled out. That’s another matter as to which of the two rival submarine fairs better in qualitative terms.

For now, India has superior submarines. Pakistan, for that matter, has an edge in anti-submarine detection systems. The navy has remained neglected in terms of weapon system upgrade. However, it can’t be deferred any further anymore. Though Pakistan’s engagement with Russia is slow but steady; both may open a chapter of naval cooperation for leasing submarines. Moscow has become increasingly more liberal than it used to be in selling military hardware to any country able and willing to purchase. Thus, the India factor may not hamper Pakistan’s deal if it can financially afford any weapon system available. Meanwhile, the Pakistan Navy must be working on fine-tuning operational protocols at the recently created strategic command on which effective use of submarine-based deterrents depends largely.

Naveed Ahmad is a Pakistani investigative journalist and academic with extensive reporting experience in the Middle East and North Africa. He is based in Doha and Istanbul and tweets @naveed360