Blog Update II: The Return

Fine, so its a dodgy title. Sue me.

Here are updates for the blog following 24th April, 2005.

- For some unexplainable reason, my blog has experienced severe downtime lately. It should now function normally, unless another unexplainable new reason comes along, in which case I shall be unable to do anything.

- I have fixed some malapropisms and grammatical errors in my previous posts. There are probably still some around, but I have neither the time nor inclination to go through all my (several hundred) word posts at the moment.

- As a reminder, please do visit some of the blogs I've mentioned in the links section. They are good for a laugh and certainly warrant a visit.

- Also, anyone interested in discussing some of these topics further (as some have been), please email me.

- My next addition to the blog should occur in the next 3 days or so, so check back then.

Thanks.

- Mrinal Sharma.

India and the Middle East: Strategic Rethink.

I am aware that this is a very controversial topic amongst most people. Yet, it is my hope that people will not reach a conclusion without reading the entire post. Also, I'm sure some of my views expressed here will also stir up debate, especially the gunboat diplomacy idea, but keep in mind that I want nothing except what is good for the nation.

On a purely historical basis, India has always had good relations with the Arab world. Trade was the primary basis of this relationship. After independence, India needed to keep a soft side to the Islamic world, to show that it would take care of its primarily muslim minorities (which it has done admirably, a few unfortunate, yet heinous incidents notwithstanding). The Muslim population, also barring a small fraction, responded favourably to secularism and have become a valuable part of Indian society.

So it would come as no surprise when India decided to oppose the creation of the Jewish homeland: Israel. Many Indian leaders (including Nehru and Gandhi) saw this as another act of British imperialism in the dying days of the empire. Realpolitik of the era played a significant role in this respect. India would need allies in its fight against Pakistan, and it would do well to remove much of Islamic support available to Pakistan. In short, supporting a small Jewish homeland (which, lets be honest, not many thought could survive an Arab assault. Its a testament to Israeli character that they have punched above their weight in over 5 wars against Arab nations.) and in return incur the wrath of the Middle East was not an exciting proposition at the time.

But how the times have changed. Not only did Israel survive, it flourished as the sole democracy and fastest growing economy in the ME and, with US support, provided to strong counter-weight to Soviet influence in the region. It has a flawless combat record ('played five, won five') and has produced some of the finest scientific minds in the world today. Israeli agricultural science is amongst the most admired in the world, paralleling that of much larger agrarian nations, such as India, China and the US. Its military technology is highly prized, and has shown its worth time and again.

So why didnt India develop an adaptive foreign policy with respect to Israel? I can but speculate. However, it seems logical to suggest that it would not have gone down well with the burgeoning Muslim populace, nor would it have made for strong foreign policy - how can you suddenly reverse a foreign policy stance cemented over decades? To do so would not go down well politically, as opposition parties would jump at the chance to screw the current government over. Yet ideally, the good of the nation should come before the good of the party. It was clear after 1967 who the dominant power in the Middle east would be - and it wasnt any of the Arab nations. Had the Congress party seized the oppurtunity to begin relations with Israel then, rather than seek its own politcal ends, we would have reaped significant rewards both militarily and scientifically.

However, hindsight is 20/20. The real question is, why are we not cooperating with Israel now?

The Israeli nation has also showed a certain character throughout its short history.
When faced with a grave threat to national security, it has eliminated it, ruthlessly and without hesitation. Morally reprehensible? Certainly. Could they have acheived the same by other means? Probably not. Israel has many enemies in the west and in the east. France, Germany and the UK all have strong anti-Israeli policies. In fact, the only western nations to provide significant support to Israel are the US and the Netherlands (forgive me if the Belgians feel they should be on this list). Only Japan in the east has supported Israel, albeit half-heartedly. With allies in short supply and a population of 6 million, a country needs to grasp any oppurtunity to survive. Im not an Israeli apologist - some of their actions were and are still wrong, regardless of what they acheived. However, I refuse to sympathise with those who claim dismantling Israel is the only solution to peace in the Middle East. They should probably brush up on history. Has it not been the Arab world that has threatened to "wipe Israel of the face of the Earth" and repeatedly called for death to the "Zionist entity", while Israel has repeatedly asked for peace? Just who is the real aggressor here? Ideally, a dialogue is the best way to solve disputes (as the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel has shown). One cannot expect the Israeli nation to make concessions while calls for its extermination are being made by the highest political figures in the Arab World.

But I digress.

India is not a bastion of morality in the world. Nor should it be. The strength of ones nation isnt developed by morality, but rather by pragmatism. India will not acheive the status it deserves by siding with the moral high ground (and even that is in question). The realpolitk displayed so wonderfully after independence should be shown once again. Who is the stronger party in the Middle East? Israel. Should we not side with the winner, rather than consistent losers?

Fine, so that might be a ruthless train of thought. Lets follow a different one, shall we?

As I mentioned earlier, India sided with the Arabs so as to prevent their intervention on the side of Pakistan in event of a war. That policy failed from 1965, when Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen provided assistance to the Pakistanis. This wasnt a one off - they did it again in 1971, 1984 and to a lesser extent in 1999. Many Pakistani troops get trained in Saudi Arabia (ironic, since they are much better trained than the KSA's own troops.) With the exception of the UAE, Oman and Egypt, the Middle Eastern nations (this includes the Palestinians) have always chosen Pakistan over us. And so we should still suppport them? Forgive me if I dont subscribe to that idea.

Nor should we worried what the Arab nations think. A little gunboat diplomacy isnt such a bad idea. Next time they support Pakistan over us, we should remind them who can send an aircraft carrier to their shores, or whose missiles can go farther. Am I starting to sound like a cowboy whose initials go GWB? Probably (and I resent that). Yet is it good for India? Undoubtedly. The UAE, Egypt and Oman have already seen the benefits of non-interference in the subcontinent - their trade with India has made them rich (as it has done for us). Perhaps the other Arab nations will see this benefit. UAE and Oman have also established relations with Israel, as have Kuwait and Bahrain.

Finally, coming back to Israel. In 1992, India and Israel established diplomatic relations. Since then, ties have improved rapidly. Trade has crossed $2Bn and is expected to cross $5Bn by 2007. Military ties have also strenghened between the two nations to a large extent. Hopefully, this trend will continue.

- Mrinal Sharma.

Blog Update

This is to inform you of the changes to the blog as of 18th April.

I have edited the profile, so anyone who might be interested (and i cant think why) should have a bit of extra material to see.

Secondly, and more importantly, I have edited the links section, to include the blogs of three good friends. Now, rather obviously, they are not as good as my blog, yet are definitely worth checking out should one have the inclination. (Apart from the lambuel thing. Why on earth would anyone even mention that?)

Thats al for now; my next addition to the blog will appear either tomorrow or in 2 days, so check back then.

Thanks.

- Mrinal Sharma

The Birds, Bees and F-16's

The F-16 Block 52 is a formidable aircraft. With its AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) Radar, BVR capability and advanced ECM package, it can track and destroy an aircraft at 40+ kilometres. Until now, Pakistan never had these aircraft, instead flying the older Block 10/15 versions.

The Bush Administration has decided to supply Pakistan these aircraft so that they can combat terrorism. Total codswallop, of course. These aircraft cant be used against small groups of people hiding in the mountains. They can be used to successfully intrude the airspace of a much larger neighbour in the East. This risk was always present, however, since Pakistan received their first F-16's in the 1980's.

How does this sale change anything?
Does it change the strategic balance? No.
Does it give Pakistan a decisive edge against India in Air-to-Air operations? No. The Indian Mirage-2000's, Su-30 ML/MKI's, MiG-29's and MiG-21 UPG's are more then enough to nullify this little addition. Not to mention the fact that India retains a 3:1 ratio in terms if sheer numbers. Thus, we can both outfly and outperform the PAF in any scenario.

So why complain? Thats easy. It gives Pakistan 24 more hard points from which to launch a nuclear strike. It also makes them a more credible threat in any future combat scenario. The number-crunchers at the IAF thinks that this will increase the PAF's combat capability by 300%.

But we already knew that. The real question is why not complain?
This is more complicated, and will require a re-structuring of the Indian mindset. Many can see only one side of the equation - the supply of aircraft to the PAF. The other half is harder to clarify. The US has also offered to give India these aircraft. This means nothing, of course. Logistics and political issues apart, you just dont fly an aircraft your enemy has over 20 years experience with. Instead, we must try and look past the stick and see the carrot.
To Pakistan, the US offered the F-16, an outdated aircraft that, though formidable, has seen its time. It offered India the same aircraft, along with nuclear (or newkyular, for those who appreciate Bushisms) technology, trade agreements and Space cooperation. In short, the US wants to take the relationship between it and India to a new plane, one transcending the India-Pakistan equation, and one that transcends the NSSP (Next Steps Strategic Partnership) agreements.

Many in India are suspicious. How can the US try and mollify us after just selling combat aircraft to our arch enemy? Remember that restructuring we spoke about? Many Indians still seem tied to our Cold War past, seeing Russia as the eternal friend and the US as the hegemonistic enemy. This must change. The world isnt the same as it was 3 decades ago, and the Indian people need to realise that. Through trade and economic cooperation, India will grow to super-power status sooner rather than later. Working with the world's largest economy will help us do just that. What India has been offered here, is to let its strategic competitor feel safe, and as a counter-balance to grow into a powerhouse that rival all but China, Russia and the US.

Though I dislike the current Indian government, the UPA, I must admire the way they have given a mature politcal response by accepting the sale and by continuing to cooperate at higher levels with the US. This is the path India needs to follow to achieve the superpower postition it so dearly covets, and so rightly deserves.

So let us not forget the intricacies of politics. The world does not end just because of 24 F-16's. It can however, get a lot more dangerous if one fails to fully appreciate the delicacies of international relations and starts to view a potential ally as a sworn enemy.

-Mrinal Sharma