Slew of Missile firings?

In the next week or so, a slew of missile test-firings will take place. The submarine-launched K-4, which other than its publicized launches has been test-fired a number of times without public notice, will be triggered again. The most important design characteristic of the K-4 are the rocket motors around the nose-cone that literally pull the missile up out of the water. This can be seen in a video — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_feco6vn7E&feature=youtu.be. In it one can clearly see the water being forcefully ejected after the K-4 has cleared the water surface. Those who know say this is a uniquely Russian SLBM design feature to get the missile out of the water and to increase its boost velocity.

But, more important still is the Agni-5 — the most significant advanced missile in the inventory, which was supposed to have been fired last Fall, and will finally be tested with another launch. The Kasturirangan metric for induction of a missile after a minimum of three successive and successful test firings means, this missile — absent a snafu — will be ready to enter service as well, firming up the strategic triad.

The question is why this sudden spate of missile tests — assuming, of course, the firings actually obtain? The reason for the A-5 not being fired around October 2015, I had speculated then, was to avoid riling Washington. But with the Obama Admin pushing the F-16 sale to Pakistan and generally not sharing the sense of urgency in stifling the Pakistan Army-sponsored terrorist gangs, such as LeT, et al, Modi has apparently decided to flex Indian muscle. The Indian govt’s declining to join Japan and the US navies in exercises in the seas around the Philippines meant to send a clear message to China to rein in its ambitions in the South China Sea followed quickly by the missile launches, is to signal the US not to take Delhi for granted.

Whether this is a one-off thing rather than a sustained policy of standing up for the national interest, remains to be seen. After all, Modi is headed for the so-called “nuclear security summit” in Washington — Obama’s diplomatic swansong this month end and what he says there will, in fact, reveal the country’s formal stance. If, as is expected, he’ll join in the nonproliferation chorus then it’ll become obvious he is less keen to preserve the country’s options than in pleasing the West. To show Delhi means business, Modi should green signal preparations for the test-firing of the Agni-6 ICBM able to carry a three-ton payload of MIRVs, the development of which to-date has been, at best, leisurely, at worst, criminal. For too long the impression has been given by successive Indian govts of a pliant India that’s easy to manipulate and, hence, to disregard. Modi should rethink the policy of intimacy with the US and the West, especially if it ends up losing the country its freedom of action.

Posted in Asian geopolitics, China, China military, Culture, disarmament, domestic politics, DRDO, Europe, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's Pakistan Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Navy, Indian Ocean, Japan, Missiles, nonproliferation, Nuclear Policy & Strategy, Nuclear Weapons, Relations with Russia, Russia, russian assistance, society, South Asia, South East Asia, Strategic Relations with South East Asia & Far East, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Terrorism, United States, US., Weapons | 12 Comments

Review in ‘American Diplomacy’

Featured Review of my book –‘Why India is Not a Great Power (Yet)’ in ‘American Diplomacy’, February 2016, by Jon Dorschner, former US diplomat and currently Professor in International Relations and South Asian Studies, School of Government & Public Policy, University of Arizona, Tucson; at http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2016/0106/rv/book02_dorschner.html
———-
Bharat Karnad is a substantive Indian intellectual with a strong pedigree. He is a professional analyst with the prestigious Indian think tank the Centre for Policy Research, who specializes in military/security affairs, particularly nuclear weapons policy. The Indian government and military frequently rely on Karnad to provide lucid policy recommendations. His two previous books concentrated on nuclear arms policy. His current work goes a step further.

In Why India is not a Great Power (Yet), Karnad presents a specific research thesis. He first makes the case that while India has for some time possessed the potential to become a great power, it has to date failed to do so. He then provides a number of reasons for this failure, and concludes with a list of specific policy recommendations to end this impasse.

Karnad is an unabashed and self-proclaimed conservative, who is proud to assert his right wing credentials. As such, he is a strong believer in traditional International Relations principles and has little patience for left of center IR scholars trying to break out of the traditional matrix and devise a new paradigm. This well-written and well-documented work resembles the classic IR books of Henry Kissinger and Karnad shares Kissinger’s ideological orientation. For Karnad, 19th Century realism has lost none of its ideological and explanatory power, and remains the only viable international relations system. The book is valuable because Karnad systematically applies these principles to his thesis, opening up a serious topic for debate.

Karnad is a committed Indian nationalist. As such, he is suspicious of the United States. He does not want to see India allied with the U.S., which he characterizes as a duplicitous and self-interested power that is inherently unreliable. Instead, India should assert its independence and become one of the poles in an emerging multipolar world. He asserts that India “cannot afford to be detached from the international system which is tending towards bipolarity—after the short interregnum of U.S. dominance—with China the other pole. To make sure the international system trends towards multipolarity instead and India is not swamped by China in Asia, New Delhi will have to utilize its hard power more strenuously.”1

As a doctrinaire realist, Karnad sees no reason why liberal concerns such as the environment and human rights should play a role in Indian policy formulation. Therefore, while quick to reject close ties between India and the U.S., he advocates that India work closely with Iran and Russia to achieve mutual ends, despite the fact that these two countries have ties to terrorism, human rights abuse, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

As a classical realist in the Kissinger mode, Karnad rank orders the world’s nation states, with the “great powers” at the top. In this worldview, every state should maximize its potential and strive to reach the highest rank. To such realists, every state seeks power, and the two principal determinants of power are economic success and a strong military. For Karnad the purpose of prosperity is not merely to raise living standards, but to fund the powerful military that is the prerequisite for national success.

Karnad contends that India failed to harness its economic and military potential because Indian governmental and military elites lack assertiveness. To achieve great power status, he argues, India must embrace aggression. “India will have to discard its tendency to please Washington and Beijing, and become more disruptive in Asia and globally because that’s what great powers and would-be great powers do—they break eggs to make the great power omelette.”2 Karnad attributes India’s failure of will to its colonial legacy and the subsequent domination by the left wing Congress Party and its leader Jawaharlal Nehru.

As an unabashed right wing ideologue, Karnad wears his views on his sleeve. He lays India’s failures on the doorstep of the Congress Party and its leftist allies and supporters. He firmly rejects the underlying principals of Congress foreign, security, and economic policy, and sees the ascent of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as a breath of fresh air that could potentially reverse decades of wrong policies.

Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh epitomizes everything wrong with the Congress Party in Karnad’s eyes. Karnad criticizes Singh and his government for their inherent unwillingness to meet the threat posed by a resurgent China, reluctance to embrace nuclear weapons as a foreign policy and military tool, strong belief in the efficacy of “soft power,” and willingness to be a “free rider,” accepting the tacit protection of an American nuclear umbrella, while skirting the need to develop sufficient military force for self protection. He also derides India’s Nehruvian legacy and heaps contempt on Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi, who he believes emasculated India with his fuzzy headed promulgation of non-violence and rejection of industrial capitalism.

This work is not a nuanced exposition that tries to look at issues from all sides. There are no shades of gray. The world is black and white. To become a great power, India must embrace military power. It must reject its current obsession with Pakistan and realize that a military confrontation with China is all but inevitable. If India is not strong, Karnad asserts, it is inviting Chinese domination. Karnad contends that China is pursuing a clever policy of continually asserting its power, while reassuring India of its good intentions. “Indian foreign policy is also handicapped by a beguiling naiveté of seeing the world in terms of friendly powers and states such as China that are geostrategic adversaries but who can be won over by the soft touch.”34

Economically, Karnad has overwhelming faith in capitalism and the power of the markets. Like so many policy analysts and much of the world’s policy elite, he believes that economic liberalization will unleash unlimited economic growth. “Once the reverse thrusters are taken off, as promised by Modi, a surging Indian economy will increase government revenues, making more funds available for education, skilling and social welfare programs, and for discriminate expenditures to gain a consequential military.”4 He asserts that once India totally rejects its Nehruvian socialist inheritance, (strong labor unions, planned economy, regulation, public sector) and gives free rein to capitalism, it will set off a prolonged period of unprecedented economic growth that will provide sufficient resources to not only eliminate Indian poverty once and for all, but pay for a totally restructured and powerful military equipped with state of the art military technology.

Having laid out his basic thesis, Karnad provides a plethora of specific policy recommendations. This makes the book particularly valuable. I found some recommendations to be dangerous if not ludicrous. These include, immediately testing thermonuclear weapons, planting nuclear mines in the Himalayas, and providing state of the art military technology to Asian states as part of a China containment policy. Particularly disturbing is Karnad’s casual rejection of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and his chilling descriptions of the tactical use of nuclear weapons. He seems to see no inherent danger in the continuing spread of nuclear weapons to more and more countries. He sees no reasons why India should embrace nonproliferation or try to work to stem the spread of nuclear weapons. Karnad also casually recommends that India reject participation in worldwide efforts to stem climate change, and that India abandon environmental regulations if they in any way impede India’s untrammeled economic development.

I applaud Karnad’s willingness to present a long list of policy recommendations, even when some appear outlandish. This shows a great mind at work and is a principal task of policy analysts.

I also find some of his recommendations refreshing and worthy of serious consideration by policy makers. For example, Karnad’s analysis of the failings of India’s military procurement policy is spot on. Karnad wonders why India spends huge sums purchasing military hardware from other countries, when it is perfectly capable of self-sufficiency. He points out that India has successfully produced sophisticated satellites, missiles, and aircraft, and asks why it continues to buy tanks, airplanes, and artillery at great expense from other countries. He rightfully asserts that not only does this make India dependent on other countries for spare parts, ammunition and maintenance; it hobbles the Indian economy and wastes valuable resources that could better be spent elsewhere. Karnad is correct. India should be self-sufficient in military research and production. It should integrate its public and private sectors and harness its talent and resources to create almost everything required by its armed forces. It is also true that India’s defense sector could then produce military hardware much cheaper than that produced by other countries that would be very attractive to militaries of other developing countries.

Karnad also calls for India to once and for all end its military obsession with Pakistan, dismantling two of the three “strike corps” deployed along the Pakistan border and reorienting them into mountain forces that could defend India against Chinese incursions along the contested Himalayan border. Karnad is correct in asserting that this could reassure Pakistan that India has no designs on its national integrity and perhaps inaugurate a much-needed era of bilateral cooperation between these two contending states.

Karnad also calls for the creation of three adjoining “Monroe doctrines” designed to hedge in China and defend the rest of Asia against Chinese territorial expansion. India would be responsible for policing the Indian Ocean, while ASEAN and Japan would look after East Asia. As part of this concept, Karnad wants India to formally ally with Japan and the countries of Southeast Asia (most particularly Vietnam) to include basing rights for the Indian navy, training, joint exercises, and the provision of Indian manufactured military hardware to these friendly states on bargain terms. This would certainly end India’s “free rider” status and would amount to India stepping up to the plate and assuming its fair share in the construction of an indigenous Asian defense system not reliant solely on American military power and the American nuclear umbrella. This is a concept with some merit and deserves serious discussion and consideration.

One aspect of Karnad’s ideological orientation that I find refreshing is his refutation of the BJP’s Hindu nationalism. Karnad is an Indian nationalist. He does not differentiate between Indians of differing ethnicities and religious orientations. He looks at all Indians the same. He has no patience for the Hindu nationalists’ pejorative characterization of Muslims, Christians and other non-Hindu minorities as second-class citizens or not real Indians. This is fully consistent with Karnad’s realist orientation, which sees no role for religion in the formulation of foreign policy and views religious nationalism as antithetical to the national interest.

This book is a valuable addition to the literature on modern India and sketches out in great detail a possible foreign policy approach. It is certainly intriguing to see what foreign policy decisions India would take if its policy elites were classical realists. It provides real food for thought.

While the book is well written and well documented, it did not need to be this long. There is considerable repetition of basic points and American readers could find it overly wordy. The Indian drafting style does not emphasize conciseness to the same extent as the American. An American editor would have cut the book by up to several hundred pages. I suspect that the book’s length and repetition is at least partially due to the fact that Karnad mined his many published articles and did some cutting and pasting while preparing the manuscript.

Notes
1. Page 518
2. page 520
3. page 516
4. page 517

American Diplomacy is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to American Diplomacy.

A native of Tucson, Arizona, Jon P. Dorschner earned a PhD. in South Asian studies from the University of Arizona. He currently teaches South Asian Studies and International Relations at his alma mater, and publishes articles and books on South Asian subjects. From 1983 until 2011, he was a career Foreign Service Officer. A Political Officer, Dr. Dorschner’s career specialties were internal politics and political/military affairs. He served in Germany, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, the United States Military Academy at West Point and Washington. From 2003-2007 he headed the Internal Politics Unit at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, India. In 2007-2008 Dr. Dorschner completed a one-year assignment on an Italian Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Tallil, Iraq. From 2009-2011 he served as an Economic Officer, in Berlin, Germany.

Posted in Asian geopolitics, China, China military, civil-military relations, Culture, Cyber & Space, Defence Industry, disarmament, domestic politics, DRDO, Europe, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's Pakistan Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian democracy, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Politics, Internal Security, Iran and West Asia, Japan, Military Acquisitions, Missiles, nonproliferation, Northeast Asia, nuclear industry, Nuclear Policy & Strategy, Nuclear Weapons, Pakistan, Pakistan military, Relations with Russia, Russia, russian military, SAARC, society, South Asia, South East Asia, Strategic Forces Command, Strategic Relations with South East Asia & Far East, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Technology transfer, United States, US., Vietnam, Weapons, West Asia | 4 Comments

Force 18 Multi-nation Military Drill: Will Indian Army Host Well?

‘Force 18’, initially labelled ‘FTX-2016’, is an ambitious military training exercise involving army units from eighteen countries – ten members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN,) plus eight observer states – India, Japan, Korea, China, Russia, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. It is scheduled to be held from 2-8 March, in Pune, headquarters of the Indian Army’s Southern Command.

It is interesting that India was readily accepted as the host, planner and manager of the first such war game. May be because India is crucial to maintaining the geopolitical balance in the extended region, and serve as a bridge between China and the United States. It is, moreover, the preferred strategic partner for the littoral states on the South China Sea, as it riles Beijing less to see these countries concert with India than with the US.

It is curious that so many otherwise adversarial armies agreed to be a part of this drill. Perhaps, none of the major military powers – China, US and Russia – wanted to be left out of a group, which could emerge as the lynchpin in a stable Asian order.

Preparations for Force 18 began in September last year with an Indian team, led by Brigadier Ashok Narula. It involved articulating the tasks, defining the tactical manoeuvres, and laying down the benchmarks. Twenty-five foreign army personnel were brought in for training, acquainted with the exercise plan and the separate, distinct roles assigned to various country units in detail. Trainees were taught to recognise and how to go about realizing the planned action parameters. These trainees returned to prepare and train their units for ‘Force 18’.

Achieving a modicum of interoperability between these disparate armies in bilateral/multilateral peacekeeping and mine clearance operations under the aegis of the United Nations in conflict zones is the ostensible aim of this massive exercise. But it will be more a test of the Indian army’s logistics management.

A Unique Military Drill

It is curious that so many otherwise adversarial armies agreed to be a part of a multinational drill.
None of the major military powers – China, US and Russia – wanted to be left out of a group, which could emerge as the focal point of geopolitics.

The Objective

Interoperability, after all, is a function of familiarity with each other’s best practices and standard operating procedures (SOPs). The first such exercise, in the event, will have the very basic goal of not getting in each other’s way. Many more such military exercises will be needed before the relevant capabilities of the ‘Force 18’ constituents can be meshed.

Observing, interacting and working with each other at close quarters on common military tasks will enable the more advanced, technologically savvy, organisationally flexible, integrated and network-centred militaries to emerge as models to emulate. All this is theory, but will the exercise proceed smoothly in practice?

Adversaries Come Together

There are intriguing aspects of this massive multi-nation military exercise. First, how will these militaries, vastly differing from each other in military culture, ethos and way of doing things, dovetail their attitudes, operating systems and SOPs?

And secondly, how will they perform their assigned collective tasks while remaining careful not to reveal too much of their own specialised weapons, weapons handling skills and modes of command and control and communications in the field, lest this information be used against them during possible tussles in the future?

It is hardly a secret that India and China are at odds, or that ASEAN, backed by the US, are on a collision course with China in the South China Sea. And, that America is at loggerheads with Russia in Syria, and in a revived confrontation redolent of the Cold War, in Europe. Or that Japan is in a condition of near-permanent hostility over the Senkaku/Diayou Islands with China, and more passively with Russia over the Kurile Islands that Stalin ordered to be occupied at the fag end of World War II.

Strong animosities even in peacetime military exercises can, however, translate into rumbles. Violent incidents can be sparked by young, charged-up soldiers over imagined slights, and the situation can quickly get out of hand if the host Indian Army managers fail, for whatever reasons, to maintain control, and the participating troops lose their sense of equanimity. It could well be that – rather than the 18 disparate land force units together honing their respective peacekeeping skills, the Indian side will be kept busy with maintaining peace between them!
——-
Published in ‘The Quint’ March 2, 2016; at http://www.thequint.com/opinion/2016/03/02/force-18-multi-nation-military-drill-will-indian-army-host-well

Posted in Asian geopolitics, Australia, China, China military, Culture, Cyber & Space, Great Power imperatives, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Army, Japan, Northeast Asia, Russia, russian military, society, South Asia, South East Asia, Strategic Relations with the US & West, United States, US., Vietnam, Western militaries | 4 Comments

IAF’s trainer medley

Defmin Parrikar’s decisive push for the indigenous HTT-40 as basic trainer — MOD ordering over 70 of this aircraft before a prototype is up and flying, is a good thing alright, but also demolishes IAF’s plan for a two (foreign) aircraft training regime — the norm of most modern air forces the world over. This plan involved the Swiss Pilatus PC-7 as basic trainer-cum-its upgraded variants Mk-II/PC-21 for the intermediate stage (where pilots are trained to pull out of a spin, etc) and the ex-British, HAL assembled, Hawk as the jet trainer before transitioning the entrant-level pilots to advance training in specific aircraft (MiG-21 bis, MiG-29, Jaguar, Su-30, Mirage 2000) at the squadron level. This would have made sense if IAF, at the time of securing Pilatus, had chosen the more sophisticated Mk-II/PC-21 version that’d have done duty in both the basic and intermediate trainer flying stages. Instead IAF, as is its wont, thinking short-term (to get MOD’s approval for the Pilatus buy) plonked (in “Charlie” Browne’s time as CAS) for some 70-odd of the cheaper PC-7 turboprops, in the expectation that MOD would be stampeded in time into OKing the purchase of an additional 100, higher priced, Mk-IIs/PC-21s. The Parrikar decision apparently nixes this latter option. The question then is can IAF do with just HTT-40 and Hawk as the two trainer aircraft — one turbo-prop, the other jet?

HAL/ADA should have long ago gotten into the business of designing, developing, and producing a successor to the HPT-32 Deepak and HJT-16 Kiran 1, 1A, and Mk-II jet trainers, with over 118, 72, and 61 respectively in service. The question is why did this NOT happen? Well, we know the answer, because IAF preferred Western aircraft for all stages of pilot training. Hence, the Deepak HPT-32 and Kiran Mk-II with a Bristol-Siddely Orpheus jet engine that originally powered the license-produced Gnat never had follow-on Indian aircraft, with IAF actively discouraging the development of indigenous turboprop and jet successors, leaving GOI with no alternative other than to import first the Hawk and later the Pilatus.

This is an old, tested, and proven IAF tactic of preempting development and production of indigenously designed aircraft, shouting and screaming publicly about “voids” and otherwise scaring the govt of the day into permitting buys from abroad. Politicians have been complicit in this game to make the IAF and the military generally dependent on external suppliers. Parrikar has sought change. He is trying to temper IAF’s antipathy by insisting that IAF make-do with HTT-40/Pilatus PC-7 and the Hawk, and that there aren’t enough resources for Mk-II/PC-21 in this scheme of things. And to make HTT-40 financially viable, is driving a weaponised version of it for use in COIN ops and for export.

A whole generation of IAF pilots, in the Russian mode, trained in HPT-32s and Kirans before joining squadron service and becoming familiar with combat aircraft.

Posted in arms exports, Asian geopolitics, civil-military relations, Culture, Defence Industry, DRDO, Europe, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Politics, Russia, russian military, society, South Asia, Weapons, Western militaries | 7 Comments

Need for Punitive laws & measures

The breakdown in law and order in Haryana reflected in the indiscriminate but deliberate destruction of public and private property by agitating Jats should trigger thinking about whether or not a reversion to British-era methods is necessary. Political protests in India inevitably lead to buses and public facilities being torched, roads and rail tracks dug up and “mindless” violence perpetrated by some socially enraged group or the other. It is ironic that the wealthy kulak, land-owning, classes in various states (like the middle caste Jats, Patidars in Gujarat, Kapus in Andhra, etc) are seeking quotas in government jobs, when job reservation originally was designed to right social inequities of long standing in a caste-fragmented society. Except with the original injunction in the Constitution restricting quotas to only 10 years being indefinitely extended guaranteeing certain aggrieved sections employment in a time-wise open-ended fashion, and with the job market bleak, and GOI unable to rev up the manufacturing sector, more people are looking to the state for work rather than trusting in private enterprise, individual talent and toil to make something of themselves.

This quelling of personal initiative is the insidious effect of rooting Nehruvian socialism in a milieu the British had for the purpose of legitimating their alien rule prepared the ground for — the cultivation of government as ‘mai-baap sarkar’. CR Rajagopalachari (Rajaji) and his small cohort of right-of-centre ideologues, who formed the Swatantra Party, had warned this would happen and advised Nehru in the Fifties to refrain from invariably plonking for statist solutions for all social and economic problems. Piloo Mody, Rajaji’s more effervescent colleague, in the Seventies pilloried Indira Gandhi for further extending the reach of the state.

The point about Nehru’s socialism is that it introduced the notion of strikes before there was a properly installed and functioning manufacturing sector, leave alone an organized labour movement. It gave rise to the labour aristocracy of the relatively few in the workforce periodically holding the state to ransom. But the strikes were never peaceful — possibility of violence and destruction of public property was always imminent. It was but a short step before such organized sector shenanigans were emulated by socio-political empowerment movements seeking quotas, etc., except the threat of hooliganism is accepted as par for the course for any agitation, and has now become part of the woof and weave of confrontational politics as mainstream politics and politicking. This trend is an internal security threat because adversaries can sponsor and nurse agitations to keep the State and its agencies preoccupied and off-balance.

It is the sort of hooliganism, unique to South Asia, that needs to be put an end to by appropriately punitive laws. Here the British-era measures recommend themselves. Often in riot-affected areas where the local people indulged in mindless destruction of public and private property, the colonial administration would extract financial compensation from the leaders of the agitation that went haywire by, for instance, expropriating their land and property and then auctioning these off, imposing special taxes, to finance restoration of law and order and as restitution for damage and destruction of public and private property. It is time laws were enacted to once again make this possible.

Of course, this won’t happen because usually there is a political hand behind all such public acts of sustained violence. In Haryana, the previous chief minister, Hooda and his henchmen, are supposed to have prompted and overseen this agitation in order to embarrass and weaken the newly elected BJP govt. and, in any case, all political parties want to keep this option in reserve to call up when in opposition.

The Courts in Kerala had some years back charged the political party that had led the an agitation which resulted in destruction of public amenities, and imposed financial cost on it. Not sure what happened to that case, or how things have since panned out in that state. But north India where violence is resorted to at the slightest provocation is deserving of more stringent laws that will not only punish agitators with heavy-handed police treatment but make leaders, social groups, such as caste panchayats, political parties, and movements responsible for any violent and destructive actions. Imposing costs on big social groups will have a salutary effect that no amount of pleading for peaceful protest can.

Posted in Culture, Indian democracy, Indian Politics, Internal Security, SAARC, society, South Asia | 10 Comments

Reasons Why the Modi govt stuck on Rafale

Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar in a TV interview (to Karan Thapar) yesterday evening sounded very determined that 36 Rafales would be brought from Dassault Avions, France, and that Paris would have to meet Delhi’s stated price (not exceeding $7 billion, which figure, of course, he didn’t mention). In this context, queried about the significance of the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) signed when Hollande was here for the Republic Day parade, he stated that this document is “meaningful only to the extent that the procedure [for advancing the deal] is laid out.” The only relief for India, ironically, would be if the French too stick to their negotiating figure of $11+ billion.

The trouble with making price the decisive factor — “Price, he said, “is the only issue…is the problem”, and implied India would walk away from the deal unless India “gets the right price” — is that all the other negatives attending on this horrendous buy are sought to be ignored. While the Indian position is now firmed up, Parrikar’s support for the Rafale suggests that despite his instinct telling him to go in for many more Su-30MKIs obtainable for the same investment, the BJP regime feels bound to honour PM Narendra Modi’s word to Hollande, and is doing its mostest to get the deal done, whatever the other costs (such as complicating operations, logistics, infrastructure, etc) that the IAF and country will have to bear for decades to come.

This raises the question — what exactly is Paris’ quid for the Indian quo? Some well connected persons believe it is Hollande’s promise of supporting India’s candidature for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, whenever that issue formally comes up for consideration. Realistically speaking, and short of the UN imploding as did the League of Nations in the 1930s when that body proved incapable of stopping Mussolini from occupying Ethiopia, Imperial Japan from absorbing Manchuria, and Hitler from taking over the Sudentanland region of Czechoslovakia, and a new world body is erected in its place, that is never. The provincial politician in Modi, however, seems to be acting as per the Gujarati trader’s credo of honouring a verbal commitment. Except the Rafale deal is in the external realm where “the word” counts for less than nothing, a fact-of-life the PM either does not understand and, if he does, does not quite appreciate. And India ends up paying the price. Any argument therefore about the uneconomical aspects of the Rafale deal is for the birds!

But why’s the IAF so dumb as to disregard the operational aspects and push so vehemently for the Rafale? In a previous piece, I had stated that for the unit cost of $270 million per Rafale, India could buy three LCAs @ $90 million or 2 Su-MKIs @ $130 million. Vice Admiral AK Singh, former FOC-in-C, Eastern Naval Command, and a stalwart of the military procurement process, called to say that my figures were, perhaps, for fully weaponised Tejas and Su-30 and, by way of more “correct” figures, mentioned that the cost of a clean Tejas (as released by HAL) is $30 million, and $50 million for a Su-30MKI. By the AK Singh calculus then the country can have NINE LCAs or FIVE Su-30s. Fully armed and equipped, the cost figures for these three aircraft get even more skewed. A basic weapons load (of A2A missiles & A2G rockets/bombs) will up the price of a Rafale to $400 million per aircraft, $50 million/Tejas, and $90 million/Su-30. Thus, all-up cost ($400 million) of a Rafale will actually fetch IAF EIGHT fully-armed Tejas and 4.5 Su-30s.

In my books and writings have stressed the importance of quantity over quality, and how an exorbitantly-priced Rafale, assuming it is fielded in war considering the Indian military’s inclination to not deploy its most prized platforms during hostilities (recall Vikrant confined to Vizag harbour during the 1965 War! Mirage 2000 was featured in Kargil because of Vajpayee govt’s order to IAF not to cross LoC) would be swarmed and killed by the more numerous Pakistan-assembled, ex-Russian, Chinese rejigged MiG-21 design — JF-17s, each costing Islamabad no more than $22 million. (The $22 million price tag for the JF-17 being disclosed to VADM Singh by retd PAF AVM Shehzad Chaudhury at a recent 2nd-track meet.)

Indian armed services are known for stodginess, not strategic imagination and operational verve. And the civilian bureaucrats running the show in MOD are entirely innocent of any specialized knowledge. So one can pretty much know the quality of advice provided the national security-wise unlettered politicians. Even so, one expected Parrikar to be a bit more on the ball, use his common sense and publicly available information to +try and convince Modi about the sheer wastefulness of the Rafale deal, and decide on more reasonable, money-saving, options (including purchasing Mirage 2000s from UAE and Qatar, as proposed in an earlier blog).

Then again, just may be, IIT grads are not all they are cracked up to be.

Posted in Africa, arms exports, China, China military, civil-military relations, Culture, Defence Industry, DRDO, Europe, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Navy, Indian Ocean, Japan, Military Acquisitions, Missiles, Pakistan, Pakistan military, Russia, russian military, South Asia, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Weapons | 35 Comments

Taking Off

For an indigenous light combat aircraft (LCA) disparaged by the Indian Air Force brass as “overweight”, “underpowered”, “obsolete”, “a three-legged cheetah” and, in technical terms, as a plane that “cannot fly without telemetry, pull more than 6G or an angle-of-attack (AoA) greater than 20 degrees” and “with an air intake that starves the engine”, is supposedly afflicted with “53 identified shortfalls”, and fails to meet the “minimum air staff requirements (ASRs)”, the Tejas, entirely unreported by the Indian media, performed phenomenally well at the recent Bahrain International Air Show. It has silenced the naysayers. The minimum that this success ought to do is get the government to reconsider the deal with France, because the fact is Tejas’ future will be inversely affected by the Rafale deal. If one is up, the other is out.

The LCA’s composites-built airframe and small size enhance its stealth features, translating into a small radar signature and the greatest difficulty for enemy aircraft to detect it. Bahrain proved that fighting quality. There can be no complaints.

Price-wise, India is willing to pay only $7 billion, France expects $11 bn. To put these figures in perspective, the Rafale programme was originally pegged at $10 bn for 126 aircraft, including transfer of technology (ToT). So how come, after reducing the demand for Rafales by two-thirds and deducting 18 per cent of the cost as value of ToT, the new price tag exceeds the original cost by a billion dollars? Worse, Paris is disinclined to offer sovereign guarantee regarding the delivery timeline and spares supply but is prepared to provide a letter from President Francois Hollande, which is worth nothing. Yet, the defence ministry is reconciled to forking out Rs 63,000 crore for 36 Rafales. This works out to Rs 1,750 crore or nearly $270 million per aircraft — a sum that could fetch three Tejas or two Sukhoi-30 MKIs, rated the best combat aircraft in the world.

Tejas, a 4.5 generation aircraft like Rafale, has always been underfunded by government and undermined by the IAF with periodic rewriting of ASRs. Three years ago, for instance, a mid-air refuelling probe was included, necessitating aircraft redesign that cost time, money and delays in the certification and induction cycles.

Scarcity of money is the real problem and requires making hard choices. Should the Indian government commit Rs. 63,000 crore to the Tejas and Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) programmes rather than sustaining the French aviation industry, it will signal serious intent, bring the streamlined Defence Production Policy-2016 guidelines into play, permitting the DRDO to transfer source codes and flight control laws to Indian private-sector companies, incentivise small- and medium-scale technology innovation companies comprising an Indian mittelstand to take root, motivate foreign suppliers of components and assemblies that currently comprise 70 per cent of Tejas to manufacture these in India and, conjoined to a policy pushing its export, germinate a viable, comprehensively capable, aerospace sector-led Indian defence industrial growth. This infusion of funds will fast-track the synergistic development of follow-on versions of Tejas, its navalised variant, along with the AMCA, and the fifth generation fighter project in partnership with Russia. It will be the cutting-edge of a “Made in India” policy showcasing indigenous capability.

With Rafale facing production problems — only eight aircraft were outputted in 2014 — all the contracted Rafales won’t be in IAF service before 2030. It is not the answer to India’s immediate need. A more economical solution that will also satisfy the IAF’s apparent craving for French aircraft is to procure the 30-plus upgraded Mirage 2000-9s the United Arab Emirates want to be rid of, and a third Mirage squadron (with 80 per cent of its life intact) available from Qatar. Infrastructure already exists to service and operate the Mirages. It will not complicate the logistics nightmare created by the diversity of combat aircraft in the IAF’s inventory, which Rafale’s entry will do.
———
Published in the Indian Express, February 15, 2016, at: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/light-combat-aircraft-tejas-iaf-rafale-deal-taking-off/#sthash.ukVxV71C.dpuf

Posted in arms exports, Asian geopolitics, civil-military relations, Culture, Defence Industry, DRDO, Europe, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Navy, Iran and West Asia, society, South Asia, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Technology transfer, Weapons, West Asia | 12 Comments

Tejas, Hawk and HAL

The decision of the Government to have HAL produce a combat version of the British Hawk originally procured from BAe as primary jet trainer for the air force (and navy) makes sense but only in a limited sense. HAL expects, according to news reports, to produce the entire complement of 123 aircraft on order before beginning the assembly of a slightly redesigned Hawk enabled for ground attack missions, especially in counter-insurgency (COIN) operations. But the IAF head ACM SP Tyagi in 2004 had, in fact, promoted this plane as a dual-use trainer-cum-COIN aircraft. It is another thing altogether that the latter mission never was the remit of the Hawk in IAF. If the Hawk was capable then of low altitude, low-level ground attack missions, where’s the requirement for redesign or even for the wholesale reconfiguration of the FCS to integrate more role-appropriate weapons, except as a way for BAe to wringe unwarranted profit out of the Hawk project in India?

The newly combat-enabled, India-sourced, Hawk is also being touted as an ideal export product and, may be, there’s a niche in the international arms bazaar it can fill. But this last is a development that no doubt follows upon the spectacular and, apparently unexpected (by HAL), success of the Tejas LCA at the Bahrain International Air Show, which has emboldened the HAL’s leadership ranks. This is all to the good, except for the fact that this Hawk will still only be a Meccano type-assembled product for an HAL which, burdened by its longtime, self-imposed, and cultivated disability to ingest and innovate imported technology, will have little or nothing to do with redoing the aircraft for world-wide sale. One can see why BAe is keen. Hawk, in its supposedly new avatar, will keep the British aircraft designers and manufacturers of components, assemblies and sub-assemblies busy and extend its life besides, of course, keeping the money till turning over for the UK defence industry.

Considering the central role of DPSUs, armed services, and other state agencies in scuttling Indian military R&D programmes in the past, the Hawk development leads one to wonder if this isn’t an artful means thought up by HAL and the dominant import lobby in IAF to blindside the Tejas, given the fact that the combat version of Hawk in its air-to-ground mission will overlap the role of the multi-role Tejas with superb handling characteristics at low alt, low speed and in flap-down mode (demonstrated in Bahrain).

Moreover, there’s the huge problem with HAL’s capacity. The cobbling together of the combat-capable Hawk will crowd out the production floor for the Tejas, whose production will need ramping up. And, as between Hawk and Tejas, HAL will, as always, likely make the wrong decision and favour the former at the expense of the indigenous warplane. Further, how can its limited capacity, in the event, also accommodate the production of the FGFA from Russia — which project is on the cards? This will compel the Modi Govt — assuming it means what it says about widening the country’s defence manufacturing base — to trust in the aircraft manufacturing potential of the private sector. There’s no other way because HAL simply cannot enlarge its skilled workforce and install new production lines in the short to medium term in the relevant time frame any faster than the Indian private sector can.

In fact, Tejas is the right product for onpassing, as argued in this blog, of aircraft design and technologies created by ADA and DRDO to a select Combine of Indian Companies, headed by L&T or Tata, for its production to meet the requirements of IAF and a possibly huge export market in Africa, Asia, and Latin America where, again, the Hawk and Tejas will clash for customers. One hopes the Modi regime will show some imagination and prompt precisely such a competition pitting the HAL-assembled combat Hawk against the locally designed, private sector manufactured, multi-role, immensely more capable, Tejas. May the better aircraft win! This is the way to give wings to a revenue-generating and competitive Indian aerospace sector.

But, so far, the BJP regime hasn’t displayed the political will to do things differently than in the past — a fact that remains the biggest single barrier to productive systemic reform and change.

Posted in Africa, arms exports, Asian geopolitics, Central Asia, civil-military relations, Culture, Defence Industry, DRDO, Europe, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, guerilla warfare, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian Army, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Navy, Internal Security, Latin America, Military Acquisitions, SAARC, society, South Asia, South East Asia, Strategic Relations with South East Asia & Far East, Technology transfer, Vietnam, Weapons, West Asia | 8 Comments

A “Trident Strategy” to tackle the ‘Islamic State’

This is, perhaps, a slightly over-long blog on the subject of tackling the threat from the ‘Islamic State’. It’s my piece titled “A Trident Strategy for Pre-empting Daesh from South Asia” just published in ‘Aakrosh: Asian Journal on Terrorism and Internal Conflicts’, Volume 19, Number 70, January 2016, and is reproduced below (but minus the footnotes available in the original).
——–
It is best to know the kind of beast the Islamic State (IS), also known variously as the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq (ISIS)/Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)/Daesh, is before alighting on prophylactic solutions. Why prophylactic? Because the problem for India is more immanent than imminent, reflecting the fact that the attraction Daesh holds for Muslims in India (and the rest of the subcontinent) is attenuated, its cause not immediately resonating with them at the socio-cultural and religious levels (except insofar as it offers means of employment, howsoever dangerous, in the Gulf – more on which later).

The IS, it will be contended, is in dire straits and unlikely to survive the combined military onslaughts over time of a disparate but powerful coalition of countries determined to zero out the threat it poses and otherwise physically to eliminate it. But it is destined to die a slow death simply because all the countries and forces arrayed against it have conflicting regional interests and are yet to determine how to resolve them. This process is affording it a lease on life. So, if present trends are guide, the Daesh is unlikely ever to emerge as a danger to India. However, its “business model” of making the existing extremist Islamic terrorist/insurgency outfits in the subcontinent franchisees of the IS ideology, should cause alarm. These local groups, it will be argued, ride on Daesh’s notoriety, its ideology of battling the kafir West and secular governments, which is endowing their fight with a jihadist mission which, in turn, attracts more malcontents to their cause and extends their influence to South Asia.

Because this threat poses a complex challenge for a social faultline-riven subcontinent in general, and India in particular, it will have to be dealt with strongly and at various levels. A “Trident strategy” is articulated here, designed to shrink, preempt and eradicate this threat, with tailored foreign and defence policy measures, and a distinct internal security approach as the three prongs.

But first, let’s be clear about what the IS is not. It is not an Islamic movement with religious sanction, nor does it enjoy wide support in the Islamic world despite its leadership striving from the beginning to legitimate it as the vehicle to revive the 7th Century “Caliphate” of Abu Bakr. That was a time when the converts to the newly founded Islam faced persecution, and they had to be at their fighting best simply to survive and propagate their new faith in the Arabian Peninsula. The use of the “sword” then was both warranted and correct under Koranic law. Apparently, the IS leadership believes Islam and Muslims are once again under siege and that it is the duty of the faithful everywhere to rally to its standard. Except, the (late?) IS leader Ibrahim Awwad al-Badri, under his nom de guerre – “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi” in his attempt to mainstream the excesses of his outfit did the impermissible thing — he compounded the verses from the Koran and the Hadith to justify the use of unrestrained violence and the vilest methods to spread terror (beheadings, burning people alive, etc.). This has been denounced as entirely unIslamic under Koranic law and convention by reputed Islamic scholars, who are also unconvinced that the difficult situation the IS finds itself in with more and more nations joining in the effort to eraze it can, in any sense, be elevated as a war against Islam. This has undermined Daesh’s religious pretensions and the legitimacy of its appeals to the Muslim world (distinguished by innovative use of the social media) to help in its quixotic enterprise of creating a medievalist Caliphate in the 21st Century.

IS’ prospects

The Islamic State is the fallout of US President George W Bush’s criminally reckless policies circa 2001 – kneejerk reaction to the destruction of the Trade Towers in New York, for regime change in Iraq and Libya. West Asia was rid of the long entrenched dictators, Saddam Hussein and Moamar Gaddafi, true, but the US military interventions in these countries also fissured them along ethnic, sub-nationalist, and sectarian lines which the deposed strongmen had with rough and ready methods kept from fragmenting, resulting in many decades of stability in West Asia and the Maghreb. Besides the disaffected Syrian and Iraqi sunnis and Saddam’s soldiers who form the core, Daesh has attracted the floating population of religious mercenaries who bounce around from one trouble spot to the next, fighting for the Islamic cause of the day, and motivated first-timers from some 80 nations. This lot will not be easily weaned from the path of violence they have chosen.

Such “support” as IS has mustered in the sunni areas of Iraq and Syria, is due as much to empathy as fear inspired by the casual cruelty and brutality in implementing the shari’a and enforcing the Islamic way of life, with the slightest opposition or major infraction meriting summary execution. People considered “ahl-e-kitab” — but following the wrong “Book” (Christian Yazidis), or belonging to the “apostate” sect – shi’ite, or having different goals (Kurds seeking an independent state) are not spared.

IS has so far managed economically to prop up its rule in the region it controls through various means – oil, dope and gun running, and the clandestine sale of Mesopotamian antiquities which it has made a public show of disfiguring and destroying. But it is the capture intact of Syrian and Iraqi oil fields and refineries that has provided it with a rich source of revenue. Daesh extracts oil, refines it, and sells it clandestinely to buyers in Turkey and eastern Syria. Further, its take-over of parts of the Syrian and Iraqi banking systems has permitted it to move money it earns, including through extortion, to launder it, and thus sustain the movement, keep the Daesh “government” functioning, public services running, and for paying the foreign fighters. Soon, however, the store of antiquities will empty out, the refineries and oil fields will be bombed, the oil convoys struck, the oil trafficking and other revenue sources ended, and the banking channels shut down. These are actions the anti-Daesh coalition of some 60 countries is belatedly taking. Once shorn of finances, IS will be unable to fend for itself, let alone grow and extend its influence.

The record of this so-called “caliphate” isn’t helped by its sorry record of incompetent administration and bad treatment of the people it lords over. There is a breakdown of civic amenities and public utilities. Mass discontent has increased owing to unreasonable and frequent hikes in the zakat tax extracted from the people. And, in the critical oil sector, technicians are not getting paid the promised higher emoluments. And, worst of all, the people are prevented from escaping the “caliphate”. Thus internal unrest is brewing. The al-Baghdadi cohort is finding that it is not easy, as a former US Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East Martin Indyk put it, “to fight the infidel [and] feed the people.”

Daesh is not faring much better on the battlefield either. The Kurdish peshmerga forces, in particular, are proving a difficult adversary, who have successfully wrenched areas from IS’ grasp. Further, the Daesh leadership is being systematically decimated with precision attacks by drones and special operations forces with the US, for instance, deploying 3,500 Special Forces to harass, hound, and hunt down IS fighters, and Russian long range Kaliber cruise missiles, and spetznaz taking out selected targets, and even China gearing up for seaborne anti-Daesh strikes. To this formidable list of adverse actions is added the devastating sea and land-based air campaigns separately mounted by several countries – Russia, France, and the US to augment the bombing sorties launched on IS concentrations and command hubs by the resident Iraqi and Syrian air forces. Facing offensives on multiple fronts Daesh is in an impossible situation. And but for the clashing interests of the big powers in the mix – Russia supporting the President Basher al-Assad regime, US and France backing the opposition sunni “Syrian Arab Coalition”, Saudi Arabia (propped up by the West) – the source of IS’ militant salafi-Wahhabi ideology, torn between distancing itself from Daesh and fighting the Shia, including Iran and the Houthis in Yemen, and Iran supporting the regimes of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and the Iraqi President Fuad Masum, and all the shia elements across the board, with the backing of Russia and confronting the US, Saudi Arabia, and the coalition of 34-sunni Muslim nations Riyadh has cobbled together, the Islamic State’s economic and territorial base would long ago have been reduced to ruin, and its apex leadership eliminated.

Even so, the attrition of the Daesh forces is proceeding apace, demoralization has set in leading to the more non-serious, thrill junkies, and other amateurs abandoning the cause and deserting/defecting in droves. One thing is certain: IS’ days are numbered. But as the US intelligence agencies have warned President Barack Obama, unless the Daesh-is divested of the territory it holds the threat from it will persist. Alas, contesting the Daesh on the ground is what most external actors are unwilling to do. A land war, in some form, even if only with increased Special Forces, is therefore unavoidable, also because IS’ “moneymaking” potential is tied directly to the territory it controls.

The ‘Trident’ Strategy

The Daesh may or may not survive the coming onslaught, but the threat posed by extra-territorial Islamic movements generally and their nested ability to exploit a tense communal situation in India is not in doubt. Nor is their ability to offer different inducements to impressionable, middleclass, and educated Muslim youth, on the one hand, and unemployed/unemployable Indians from the lowers sections of society, on the other hand. Eroding Hindu-Muslim tensions will take some doing in a democracy where religious polarization is seen to fetch electoral dividend. But rules, procedures and laws will have to be amended and augmented, intrusive policing and monitoring measures introduced, and “surveillance blinders” taken off. This is what most liberal democracies — and India is no exception, are being compelled to do in the face of extremist Islamic movements, and their proven skills in mobilizing support through cyber and advanced telecommunications means. It is no surprise to find that an Indian, Sanaul Haq, aka Maulana Asim Umar, was chosen by the al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri to head the group in the subcontinent, spread its radical message, and recruit and motivate Muslims from Cuttack to Karnataka, a task he has apparently been successful in. According to Intelligence sources, some 150 men have to-date been persuaded to join al-Qaeda. Haq travelled freely in and out of the country, to Iran, for training in handling arms and explosives in Pakistan, without once being apprehended by Indian authorities. Haq was caught because of good intelligence, of course, but also because of hard local policing. The village police post in the event becomes as consequential as the beat constable in urban areas to sense something is amiss, follow up on the smallest rumour and the slightest hint of trouble, thereby nipping the problem in the bud. The importance of information bubbling up from the grassroots level and follow-up preemptive-preventive action cannot be overstated. Some state police have been in the forefront, taking initiatives as in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, where retired District Superintendents of Police have been “roped in” to profile potential Islamist operatives and sympathizers that has even netted Pakistani agents.

The police in the countryside are crucial as well to end the production of small arms produced by blacksmiths who have honed their expertise to an extent where, for the right money, they can replicate almost any rifle, carbine, machine pistol, and even the fast-firing Kalashnikov. The traditional artisans using backyard foundries have to be diverted to more legal activity. Foreign-origin small arms are also easily available for a price. At the heart of this illicit trade is an entrenched system of middlemen and arms traffickers, which uses the internet brazenly to peddle their wares, which is not presently prohibited by law! Unless this underground arms market is wiped out by stringent laws and policing, IS won’t have to worry about arming its cadres. It can just dial up the requirements!

The Haq episode, however, testifies to the need to seal the country’s permeable borders and tighten lax systems of passport applicant verification and of monitoring the travel of potential suspects, and of communications between the local/provincial police intelligence outfits and police agencies. Systemic reforms become imperative considering Daesh, which is attracting persons and groups previously pledged to al-Qaeda, has marked out India, along with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, as part of the “Greater Khorasan” province it intends to secure. IS’ newest manifesto – ‘Black Flags from the Islamic State’ makes plain its aim, for instance, to take down Narendra Modi — “a rightwing Hindu nationalist” leading a “movement of Hindus…who kill Muslims who eat beef.”

The three prongs of the Trident policy have to address the problem from the outside in, beginning with a proactive policy to ensure, firstly, that the returnees from the Gulf and expatriate workers on holiday do not insert extremist Islamist ideological virus into the Indian society. Secondly, that the flow especially of funds emanating from the so-called Islamic charities based in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, and even remittances from that region, be strictly examined as regards their use. Permitting well-off expats to construct residences is one thing; allowing them to build new mosques and madrassas to propagate Wahhabist values and thought is another thing altogether, and should be legally barred. Indeed, contributions by all Arab Charities and Foundations without exception and even by wealthy Gulf-residing individuals – citizens and non-citizens alike, should be legally required to be routed through official Indian channels. If feasible, this should be negotiated within the ambit of the 2013 Indo-Saudi security cooperation accord. Riyadh is under considerable pressure to stifle its salafi-sunni terrorist funding and would be amenable to an understanding for sharing sensitive information with New Delhi.

Expeditiously promulgated laws are needed to facilitate this, and bring all beneficiaries — individuals and organizations — of these Gulf monies and other Islamist sources anywhere in the country, under comprehensive surveillance, and to hold them responsible/accountable for proscribed use of these funds. This will require specialist cells in the Financial Intelligence Unit in the Union Finance Ministry and the Enforcement Directorate in the Revenue Department to focus on Islamist and Gulf money flows into the country, red-flag sources and recipients of these funds, and to concert in real time basis with a central organization set up as the repository for all incoming information and data from any and all sources.

Two factors are central to the spreading popularity of Daesh in the Islamic world. First is that Saudi Arabia and Saudi monies are primarily responsible for the proliferating madrassas propagating Wahhabi norms and salafi values of ‘desert Islam’ that IS expounds. Indicative of this connection is the extraordinary similarity, for instance, in the punishments the IS so ruthlessly carries out and what the Saudi law and order system follows. Secondly, the “soft power” pull of IS’ ethos and ideology has to be effectively countered. The cultural aspect of the jihadist milieu replete with “music, rituals, [and] customs” is not widely known. Thomas Hegghammer, a Norwegian terrorism expert, observes that this “may be as important to jihadi recruitment as theological treatises and political arguments” as it offers, he says, “its adherents a rich cultural universe in which they can immerse themselves.”

Presently there are no Indian laws and regulations to temper and contain the Wahhabist impulses of newly Gulf-returned residents and workers by extensive and intensive surveillance. Many states in Southeast Asia, for example, are finding that such returnees bring with them Islamist baggage such as “allegiance to ISIS and the mission to form an Islamic Caliphate” and constitute, as Singapore defence minister Ng Eng Hen said, “clear and present danger”. The larger issue Hen’s statement hints at is Daesh’s business model. Regional militant groups seeking a grander role for themselves and Islamic legitimization, and thus affiliate themselves with IS and its goals of achieving a Caliphate becoming, in the process, its franchisees. Daesh has created affiliates in southern and Central Asia by pulling many armed groups indulging in terrorism to its side by liberally dispensing cash and sophisticated arms, and in return has been pledged their loyalty. While Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan has formally repudiated the IS and questioned al-Baghdadi’s claim to being the “khalifa”, some sections of TTP and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) in Pakistan, splinter Afghan Taliban groups, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), and the Uighur freedom movement – the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) operating in Chinese Xinjiang are very much part of IS. The Pakistani and Afghan affiliates have trumpeted their presence in South Asia with characteristic acts of brutality — a beheading in Zabul and the Safoora bus attack in May 2015. According to a Pentagon report Daesh is already “operationally emergent” in eastern Afghanistan. Unless serious remedial measures are instituted at the earliest, it is only a matter of time before militant Indian groups morph into IS affiliates.

As priority India, therefore, needs to fill a conspicuous void by designing legal and procedural instruments to ensure that (1) remittances and charitable funds from the Gulf region don’t end up germinating centres of Islamic extremism and jihadis, that end-use certification of these monies is made mandatory, (2) all madrassas in the country be brought under a licensing regime requiring prior due diligence by government with their secular curricula (including mathematics and science subjects “important for functioning in a modern society”) approved by the Human Resources Ministry, so that madrassas don’t turn into dens “deliberately educat[ing] students to become foot soldiers and elite operatives in extremist movements around the world” as has happened in Pakistan, After the Islamist attack on Rawalpindi school children in December 2014, Islamabad configured “a 20-point action plan” that includes the “registration and regulation of madrassas” of which there are some 25,000, even though only 2-3 percent of them are known to impart radical training. (3) Islamic seminaries too should be made answerable to the authorities and encouraged to join in a self-policing scheme to report persons, such as the al-Qaeda recruiter Haq (who, reportedly, has two doctorates from the Dar ul-Uloom), (4) detailed local police vetting should precede the issuing of passports and thereafter strict watch ought to be kept on who goes out of the country or comes back in, when, and for what purpose, to enable discernment of suspicious travel patterns.

To avoid the usual confusion about overlapping official jurisdictions of state and central agencies and the ensuing bureaucratic turf wars, a national anti-terrorism organization needs to be established. All information, intelligence, and relevant data, however collected and by whomsoever, will have to be forwarded to this particular entity in unprocessed form, and the processing and the eventual analyses by separate agencies at all levels be periodically compared and contrasted to pinpoint what works or doesn’t, and which reading of what information mattered, and how and why dealing with this or that terrorist outfit went wrong. This central organization should also be responsible for strategizing, coordinating, overseeing all counter-terrorist and anti-terrorist activities, for mounting covert counter-actions, and for tasking surveillance and policing moves, besides exercising oversight. The National Technology Research Organization (NTRO) should have the additional brief, if it is not so tasked already, with scrutinizing the internet traffic to detect tell-tale signs of radicalization and underway brain-washing of individuals, who can then be sequestered and “de-radicalized”. Existing programmes of psychological counseling have met with some success, and the IS cyber motivators and radicalizers involved have been apprehended. NTRO should also be technically enabled to monitor encrypted data in telecommunications and internet traffic, and to work with “meta-data” banks. Likewise, the local and state police should be armed with “roving wire-tap authority” with the proviso that all information so collected is immediately onpassed to the central organization. The central organization mooted here has far more to do than what was envisaged for the Anti-Terrorism Cell proposed by the Manmohan Singh government. Such a central unit will, as earlier mentioned, need to be on real time communications link with all intelligence, surveillance, policing agencies, and financial monitoring units at every level – municipal/panchayat level up.

Unless there is integrated functioning of the innumerable departments of state and central governments and coordinated use of of all government manpower and material resources of the state at all levels, the threat posed by Islamic State will be hard to neutralize. Already, there is evidence of Islamist organizations, such as SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India) financed by expat-sourced/Arab monies putting down roots in previously communally harmonious surroundings in Kerala and coastal Karnataka. That SIMI members cut off a professor’s hand as “Islamic” punishment illustrates the extent to which the Indian state has failed to deter, preempt, and prevent IS-type culture from seeping in.

But intrusive/interventionist policing, surveillance, and monitoring programmes and methods in a democratic India will, per force, require overarching parliamentary oversight, be permissible under a system of laws and, in order to gain currency among Indian Muslims involve inputs from civil society groups and representative Muslim organizations in shaping them. This is a prudent thing to do because, as a finding from a recent study reveals, “terrorists are more likely to spring from countries that lack civil rights.” This brings us to the consideration of the sorts of people drawn to IS. According to an interviews-based investigation by the Washington-based National Center for the Study of Terrorism and the Response to Terrorism, seekers after status, identity, revenge, redemption, responsibility, thrill, ideology, justice, and death (which last category involves persons who have “suffered from a significant trauma/loss in their lives and consider death as the only way out with a reputation of martyr instead of someone who has committed suicide”) are drawn to extremist Islamic groups extolling violence and martyrdom.

However, Indian Muslim community leaders rule out all reasons why the youth are attracted to radical Islamic causes except the quotidian one of seeking “livelihood”. This is not unrelated to the employment opportunities IS ostensibly offers. In 2014, Daesh’s English language magazine, Dabiq, advertised the movement’s “need more than ever before for experts, professionals and specialists who can help contribute to strengthening its structure and fending for the needs of their Muslim brothers.” It is not hard to understand why such job offers attract educated Indian Muslims. They promise a kind of “political engagement”, joining notions of religious “duty” with earning one’s keep that, as the record shows, motivates many Indian Muslim professionals. “More educated people from privileged backgrounds are more likely to participate in politics, probably in part because”, as a study by two Western scholars concludes, “political involvement requires some minimum level of interest, expertise, commitment to issues and effort, all of which are more likely if people have enough education and income to concern themselves with more than minimum economic subsistence.” But educated or illiterate, Indians who reach Iraq find they are considered not martial enough, are discriminated against by the dominant Arab clique in Daesh, and end up doing menial tasks. Disillusionment sets in as does the yearning to return home. After all, grappling with the kafir may be alluring, cleaning toilets is not. But these returnees should be treated as valuable sources of knowledge about the command structure of IS, how it operates in war and manages the areas it occupies. Information and intelligence so collected and collated will then have to be injected into police and military plans to counter Daesh, with the arrangement for continuous updating of this information.

The foreign policy and military prongs are equally important considering that IS has entered the subcontinent in a significant way and will be subdued only by forceful means. Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar has voiced the BJP government’s readiness to get involved against IS even in a “peace enforcement” mission as long it is under the United Nations aegis with proper sanction from a UN Security Council resolution. This is an advance because while UN “peace keeping” missions were always acceptable to New Delhi, the “peace enforcement” role was anathema to it. Islamabad has been more cautious. The Pakistan Defence Minister Khwaja Asif has made an argument that applies to India too. “We will not take part in any [anti-IS] conflict”, he has said, “that could result in differences in the Muslim world, causing faultlines present in Pakistan to be disturbed, the aggravation of which will have to be borne by Pakistan.” But Islamabad’s serious apprehensions about entering the lists against Daesh is coupled with the resolve, according to Pakistan Army Chief, General Raheel Sharif, that “even a shadow of IS would not be allowed” to fall on his country. While it will be wise to be guided by Khwaja Asif’s reasons for desisting from a distant military deployment, New Delhi will have to show Gen Raheel’s fortitude as well and define the tipping point when armed intervention becomes necessary. Such a tripwire should logically be the degree of the physical proximity of the IS threat to the homeland. The complication here is the likelihood of Daesh exploiting a somewhat fraught communal situation in the country, which is a daunting prospect. China has defined the participation of ETIM Uighur fighters in IS as provocation for it to send a missile cruiser to the Levantine coast to jointly strike Daesh targets with Russia.

But what can India reasonably do? In the wake of their Bangkok meeting and the forging of a personal relationship between the National Security Advisers of India and Pakistan, Ajit Doval and Lt. Gen. Naseer Janjua (Retd) respectively, it may be no bad thing for New Delhi to begin talking about contingencies featuring IS in South Asia where collective action may be contemplated. Even if nothing substantive transpires, the fact that the BJP government embarked on an initiative to jointly deal with a common menace will be a confidence and security-building measure (CSBM). As part of such CSBM, involving the Kabul regime of President Ashraf Ghani is a natural next step because the IS threat, unless stopped, will first gather momentum in Afghanistan.
\
In this context, an all arms expeditionary Brigade-sized force will have to be readied for instant action, including air transport and sea-lift with offensive and defensive protective air and naval cover, able to operate independently under sovereign command but with contingent cooperation with the US, Russian, and local country forces active in the war theatre. As national security threats are best addressed far from home, India better be prepared.

Posted in Afghanistan, Africa, Asian geopolitics, Bangladesh, Central Asia, China, China military, civil-military relations, Culture, Cyber & Space, domestic politics, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, guerilla warfare, India's Pakistan Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian Army, Indian democracy, Indian Navy, Indian para-military forces, indian policy -- Israel, Iran and West Asia, Indian Politics, Internal Security, Iran and West Asia, Pakistan, Relations with Russia, Russia, SAARC, society, South Asia, South East Asia, Special Forces, Strategic Relations with South East Asia & Far East, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Terrorism, United States, US., West Asia, Western militaries | 4 Comments

Arihant to fire K-15 very soon

As part of its weapons firing tests, the Arihant SSBN will go out to sea and very soon fire, submerged, the 750km range,solid fuel, K-15 SLBM, some two years after the last (from 20 meters) underwater pontoon launch off Vizag. Since the first test firing in 2008, 4-5 missiles have been launched from the underwater pontoon pad. Hopefully, DRDO will follow up the forthcoming one by firing other longer-range SLBMs in quick order. There’s just too long an interval between missile test-firings and hence delays in their induction. For instance, an Agni-5 test launch was slated for sometime in Oct-Nov 2015 but hasn’t taken place yet. In any case, the triggering of K-15 from the Indian SSBN will be a nice end-event, in a manner of speaking, to the IFR, though to make a much bigger strategic splash a China, for example, would have gone in for a more “in your face” timing of this launch to just around the time the fleet review got underway.

Posted in Asian geopolitics, DRDO, Geopolitics, Great Power imperatives, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Army, Indian Navy, Military Acquisitions, Missiles, society, South Asia, Weapons | 6 Comments